Worst Leader Ever 2012

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1328987397' post='2918496']
This is the difference between us. Had Ramlins pulled that crap while we were still allied to them, we'd have dropped them. (We'd have never signed an eternal treaty, either...ever.) Having a treaty doesn't mean you put up with things that go beyond reason. You were an enabler, allowing him to run rampant because you would back up every moronic, imbecilic thing he tried.

Had it just been MHA planning to defend, we'd have probably hit them anyway. IRON was going to win eventually anyway, but taking down Ram's stats that much faster would have been a joy.
[/quote]

Yeah well hindsight from four years ago is a !@#$%*, amirite?

I bet Crymson would love to have back that call about nose diving his alliance into concrete too. Yet we're not talking about that here and it really begs the question, why don't we talk about that? I think that was a fascinating decision, despite how much credit Grub is given Polaris was actually not allied at all and there were a lot of other "culprits," that would lead me to believe this was a serious strategic blunder instead of some sort of betrayal and not the result of being on the opposite side of the treaty web, which is decidedly a considerably weaker reason to be considered the WLE...evar.. Weird.

I have a few decisions I would make that I didn't, but generally everything I did while in power I'd do again, harder.

Cards-held, cards-played.

Not pulling a fast one like most of ex-heg (self included!) was a step in the right direction, even if I would agree with your position overall. Still best decision we could've made for us.

Edited February 12, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Sephiroth]

Even after declaring on all of CnG and the beating TOP took, they were able to recover from that a lot easier than NpO can recover from what Grub did. So I don't think what Crymson did was nearly as bad as Grub, TOP gained respect from some for taking on an entire bloc on their own, NpO lost respect from everyone for fighting on both sides of that war and the betrayal under Grubs command. Ramirus might present some competition for Grub, but I think Gremlins have done a better job of recovering after having Ramirus lead them than NpO has recovered after letting Grub lead them. IYIyTh despite his campaigning I doubt will be able to beat Grub or Ramirus if people don't let bad posting cloud their judgement when voting.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Methrage

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329011356' post='2918713']
Even after declaring on all of CnG and the beating TOP took, they were able to recover from that a lot easier than NpO can recover from what Grub did. So I don't think what Crymson did was nearly as bad as Grub, TOP gained respect from some for taking on an entire bloc on their own, NpO lost respect from everyone for fighting on both sides of that war and the betrayal under Grubs command. Ramirus might present some competition for Grub, but I think Gremlins have done a better job of recovering after having Ramirus lead them than NpO has recovered after letting Grub lead them. IYIyTh despite his campaigning I doubt will be able to beat Grub or Ramirus if people don't let bad posting cloud their judgement when voting.
[/quote]

"Bad posting," is actually (OR AS SOME LIKE TO SAY, "LITERALLY,") the premise for my entire involvement in this particular contest, and I'd wager to say quite a few more named to this great list o' lists. That said, "Bad posting," turns out to actually be completely subjective and debateable! But I digress on to more important matters

I really don't see UPN becoming anything more than a small vassal state for NG in the future if that, so I don't think Robster can be considered Best Leader Ever, and he really didn't even have a choice or hand in the matter when his alliance got slammed into oblivion.

I am really interested in the view that pile driving ones own alliance into the depths of burning hell into a position of self-imposed loss through one's selves own actions can really be construed as beneficial or "good," for an alliance. Surely there are better ways!? The "respect," they earned is completely debateable at best, and at worst just puffery to explain their brave new role in allying with the alliance that they were fighting against and historically have no reason to do anything with each other for other than getting back at Polaris. That's like pretending people actually respect the Legion or that people won't say anything to get someone to do something that benefits them.

Although arguing for the clever flipping of alignment from decidedly Anti-CnG to de-facto allied to CnG could be a debate, it really beats p much almost every other argument for WLE with the amount of unnecessary shellacking they took to do it. Actually I changed my mind, Crymson was great because he also systematically weakened his most loyal allies by also leading them into a shotgun shells. That's the recipe I'm sure of it.

To each their own!

Also, campaigning for a contest like this would just be immature I don't know how you could suggest someone would stoop so low how dare you.

I don't have a vote, but if I did, I'd vote for beer, bacon and boobies being the best meme to ever get on people's nerves. Then Crymson. Then I'd write in Rush Sykes and Jerdge. Well, just kidding about Jerdge.

Post one one one one

Edited February 12, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329012054' post='2918719']
"Bad posting," is actually (OR AS SOME LIKE TO SAY, "LITERALLY,") the premise for my entire involvement in this particular contest, and I'd wager to say quite a few more named to this great list o' lists. That said, "Bad posting," turns out to actually be completely subjective and debateable! But I digress on to more important matters

I really don't see UPN becoming anything more than a small vassal state for NG in the future if that, so I don't think Robster can be considered Best Leader Ever, and he really didn't even have a choice or hand in the matter when his alliance got slammed into oblivion.

I am really interested in the view that pile driving ones own alliance into the depths of burning hell into a position of self-imposed loss through one's selves own actions can really be construed as beneficial or "good," for an alliance. Surely there are better ways!? The "respect," they earned is completely debateable at best, and at worst just puffery to explain their brave new role in allying with the alliance that they were fighting against and historically have no reason to do anything with each other for other than getting back at Polaris. That's like pretending people actually respect the Legion or that people won't say anything to get someone to do something that benefits them.

Although arguing for the clever flipping of alignment from decidedly Anti-CnG to de-facto allied to CnG could be a debate, it really beats p much almost every other argument for WLE with the amount of unnecessary shellacking they took to do it. Actually I changed my mind, Crymson was great because he also systematically weakened his most loyal allies by also leading them into a shotgun shells. That's the recipe I'm sure of it.

To each their own!

Also, campaigning for a contest like this would just be immature I don't know how you could suggest someone would stoop so low how dare you.

I don't have a vote, but if I did, I'd vote for beer, bacon and boobies being the best meme to ever get on people's nerves. Then Crymson. Then I'd write in Rush Sykes and Jerdge. Well, just kidding about Jerdge.

Post one one one one
[/quote]
I was in NSO when Grub screwed over his side in the BiPolar and the manner in which TOP was able to fight off all the allliances attacking them and give out aid to others on their side at the same time to keep them in the fight was impressive. NpO just ruined everyone's opinion of them completely by screwing over their own side that war. Who was NpO supposedly helping by betraying TOP's trust? MK, but now MK is allied to TOP and were more than happy to help TOP get their revenge against NpO afterward.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329011356' post='2918713']
...TOP gained respect from some for taking on an entire bloc on their own...
[/quote]
Let's be clear: TOP's military prowess was already very well respected before the war. It was out of respect of that ability that I (and many others ranked higher than me at the time, I don't want to take any credit here) promoted conflict with them: if they didn't get taken down a peg soon, they'd be unbeatable. So they didn't gain respect so much as they lived up to expectations.

Side note, IRON surpassed expectations that war.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1329015287' post='2918768']
Let's be clear: TOP's military prowess was already very well respected before the war. It was out of respect of that ability that I (and many others ranked higher than me at the time, I don't want to take any credit here) promoted conflict with them: if they didn't get taken down a peg soon, they'd be unbeatable. So they didn't gain respect so much as they lived up to expectations.

Side note, IRON surpassed expectations that war.
[/quote]
Yes, but Crymson's main slip up was he thought he could trust NpO. While a blunder, I don't consider it something to label him WLE for. He was right to see MK as a threat, but just made a blunder in how he had TOP enter that war.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Methrage

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329015629' post='2918771']
Yes, but Crymson's main slip up was he thought he could trust NpO. While a blunder, I don't consider it something to label him WLE for. He was right to see MK as a threat, but just made a blunder in how he had TOP enter that war.
[/quote]

That's a pretty significant blunder, hinging your entire war efforts and position on the word of a non-ally [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img].


But what do I know.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329012054' post='2918719']
I really don't see UPN becoming anything more than a small vassal state for NG in the future if that
[/quote]
Well !@#$, vassal state would be p. cool.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329015870' post='2918774']
That's a pretty significant blunder, hinging your entire war efforts and position on the word of a non-ally [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img].


But what do I know.
[/quote]
Crymson has served as Grandmaster for TOP many times before that incident as well without anything going wrong previous terms. Should he of expected Grub to be willing to permanently ruin NpO's reputation by backstabbing them when they were trying to help? Looking back he should of, but he didn't know how bad of a leader Grub was he made a mistake in thinking Grub wouldn't do that.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Methrage

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329016054' post='2918780']
Crymson has served as Grandmaster for TOP many times before that incident as well without anything going wrong previous terms. Should he of expected Grub to be willing to permanently ruin NpO's reputation by backstabbing them when they were trying to help? Looking back he should of, but he didn't know how bad of a leader Grub was he made a mistake in thinking Grub wouldn't do that.
[/quote]

In the grand scheme of "mistakes," again, that's a pretty huge !@#$@#$ mistake, lol.

It wasn't just Grub, either. Was doomed 2 fail from the start because Crymson couldn't carry much of the necessary coalition (hint : this has to do with his ability to lead, too,) and as a result TOP and their allies took a ton of unnecessary damage for 0 gain.

Edited February 12, 2012 by IYIyTh

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1329015923' post='2918776']
Well !@#$, vassal state would be p. cool.
[/quote]

It makes me cringe to think about it, you colonizing imperialists, you.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329016205' post='2918784']
In the grand scheme of "mistakes," again, that's a pretty huge !@#$@#$ mistake, lol.

It wasn't just Grub, either. Was doomed 2 fail from the start because Crymson couldn't carry much of the necessary coalition (hint : this has to do with his ability to lead, too,) and as a result TOP and their allies took a ton of unnecessary damage for 0 gain.
[/quote]
There were already 2 sides fighting, with TOP joining on the side of NpO, it would of given NpO's side a clear advantage and probably win the war. Most people wouldn't expect the leader of an alliance leading a side in a coalition war to screw over their side just because they want to screw over an alliance who wants to join their side more than they want to beat the other side. NpO screwed over more than just TOP/IRON/DAWN with their side switching, NSO and some others fighting Superfriends at the time also got screwed over.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329011356' post='2918713']
Even after declaring on all of CnG and the beating TOP took, they were able to recover from that a lot easier than NpO can recover from what Grub did. So I don't think what Crymson did was nearly as bad as Grub, TOP gained respect from some for taking on an entire bloc on their own, NpO lost respect from everyone for fighting on both sides of that war and the betrayal under Grubs command. [b]Ramirus might present some competition for Grub, but I think Gremlins have done a better job of recovering after having Ramirus lead them than NpO has recovered after letting Grub lead them.[/b] IYIyTh despite his campaigning I doubt will be able to beat Grub or Ramirus if people don't let bad posting cloud their judgement when voting.
[/quote]
Which Grämlins? In fact, Gre1 (the alliance that Ram led) never recovered, and was never going to recover. New Grämlins is a forcible takeover of the AA with a different forum, leadership, charter, etc etc. In literal terms, they're different alliances (though obviously they share the same history).

Edited February 12, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1329016554' post='2918788']
Which Grämlins? In fact, Gre1 (the alliance that Ram led) never recovered, and was never going to recover. New Grämlins is a forcible takeover of the AA with a different forum, leadership, charter, etc etc. In literal terms, they're different alliances (though obviously they share the same history).
[/quote]
Considering the forced take over consisted of mostly former leaders of Gremlins who held power before Ramirus drove everyone away, I would consider the current Gremlins more similiar to the original Gremlins than the one Ramirus lead was similiar to the Gremlins who used to be a respected Citadel alliance.

[enderland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329016787' post='2918790']
Considering the forced take over consisted of mostly former leaders of Gremlins who held power before Ramirus drove everyone away, I would consider the current Gremlins more similiar to the original Gremlins than the one Ramirus lead was similiar to the Gremlins who used to be a respected Citadel alliance.
[/quote]

Either way, Grämlins took a reformation to recover from the combined effects of Ramirus.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329015629' post='2918771']
Yes, but Crymson's main slip up was he thought he could trust NpO. While a blunder, I don't consider it something to label him WLE for. He was right to see MK as a threat, but just made a blunder in how he had TOP enter that war.
[/quote]
Crymson's great failing was that he got too invested in the game and his naturally proactive nature became insufferably abrasive to [i]many[/i] people, including TOP's allies. That undermined a lot of the support that TOP had in foreign affairs and gave room for others to chip away at their position. We'd been making progress until Polaris went off the handle. Any votes he gets in WLE will be as a result of that.

Crymson's decision to trust NpO in that context was, arguably, wise. He was working into a war that would, if it played out as planned, would result in the total destruction of the anti-TOP crowd. Nobody, save maybe Grub himself, had any idea that NpO was going to pull the double-betrayal. That's what made it such a titanic turn of events.

All that said, this is really more appropriate conversation for the MK boards.

[Kzoppistan]

I don't think either of those actions, neither Crymson's nor Grub's, were qualifiers for "worst ever leaders". Strategic blunders, definitely, but there is more time put in in regards to leadership with both that smooth those bumps out.

[quote]That's a pretty significant blunder, hinging your entire war efforts and position on the word of a non-ally[/quote] That is pretty much exactly what I said, but while it's certainly not the best move to put all your eggs in one basket, they had some nominal assurance that the basket would hold. I wouldn't have taken anything less than an agreement written in blood, but often people read more into things when what they're reading is what they want.

Grub saw a perfect opportunity to let an alliance he despised throw themselves on the sword. And while that may have been morally questionable to some, it was no less so than TOP's DoW reason as merely "they are a threat to us" but without any particular justification cited.

TOP's outrage is humorous when one considers that had their plan of having NpO not respond to TOP's aggression gone through they would have colluded with betrayers of exponential magnitude. So TOP are were mad about Grub's so-called deception when it was more of a legitimate move strategically than backstabbing treaty partners.

*Edit:
Had TOP's move worked, it would have been a brilliant sweep against all of their enemies in one crushing pass.

Had NpO's gambit worked out, it would have been one of the most nimble orchestrations ever.

Both were calculated gambles, neither or which proved to be the best move. Out one (or two) wars. Both Crymson and Grub have had a number of success outside of that theater.

Terrible leaders are worse than that.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329017451' post='2918804']
I don't think either of those actions, neither Crymson's nor Grub's, were qualifiers for "worst ever leaders". Strategic blunders, definitely, but there is more time put in in regards to leadership with both that smooth those bumps out.

That is pretty much exactly what I said, but while it's certainly not the best move to put all your eggs in one basket, they had some nominal assurance that the basket would hold. I wouldn't have taken anything less than an agreement written in blood, but often people read more into things when what they're reading is what they want.

Grub saw a perfect opportunity to let an alliance he despised throw themselves on the sword. And while that may have been morally questionable to some, it was no less so than TOP's DoW reason as merely "they are a threat to us" but without any particular justification cited.

TOP's outrage is humorous when one considers that had their plan of having NpO not respond to TOP's aggression gone through they would have colluded with betrayers of exponential magnitude. So TOP are were mad about Grub's so-called deception when it was more of a legitimate move strategically than backstabbing treaty partners.

*Edit:
Had TOP's move worked, it would have been a brilliant sweep against all of their enemies in one crushing pass.

Had NpO's gambit worked out, it would have been one of the most nimble orchestrations ever.

Both were calculated gambles, neither or which proved to be the best move. Out one (or two) wars. Both Crymson and Grub have had a number of success outside of that theater.

Terrible leaders are worse than that.
[/quote]
It wasn't just Grub's willingness to screw over TOP that makes him a horrible leader, but willingness to screw over his side in coalition war who entered because they trusted NpO and Grub. I don't think NpO can ever lead a coalition in a war again after that, they burned up all their credibility. If Grub had any common sense he would of told TOP not to attack their treaty partners, rather than trick TOP into declaring on their allies who didn't look like they would be on NpO's side that war and then cause a cluster$%&@ of betrayal that came after TOP declared on CnG. I doubt NSO will ever trust NpO again, and they shouldn't, neither should any other alliance after seeing what NpO was willing to do. NpO could of stopped CnG from getting declared on by TOP, instead they tricked TOP into attacking their treaty partner by telling them lies.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1329017162' post='2918797']
Crymson's great failing was that he got too invested in the game and his naturally proactive nature became insufferably abrasive to [i]many[/i] people, including TOP's allies. That undermined a lot of the support that TOP had in foreign affairs and gave room for others to chip away at their position. We'd been making progress until Polaris went off the handle. Any votes he gets in WLE will be as a result of that.

Crymson's decision to trust NpO in that context was, arguably, wise. He was working into a war that would, if it played out as planned, would result in the total destruction of the anti-TOP crowd. Nobody, save maybe Grub himself, had any idea that NpO was going to pull the double-betrayal. That's what made it such a titanic turn of events.

All that said, this is really more appropriate conversation for the MK boards.
[/quote]

I can't!?

Edited February 12, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329018437' post='2918816']
It wasn't just Grub's willingness to screw over TOP that makes him a horrible leader, but willingness to screw over his side in coalition war who entered because they trusted NpO and Grub.[/quote] In that respect, I think things fell out in ways rather unpredictable- as war has a way of doing that. When you drop a ball like that, all you can do is give it some spin at the release and hope it careens in the direction you want. I find it highly doubtful that Grub was "willing to screw over his allies" but more likely did not foresee the events coming to pass the way they did.

It's easy to put the things that have happened and now understood retrospectively in a category of higher probability at the time the decision was made than what was actually seen as probable then. I'd say both factions were flying blind past a few steps of their own maneuvers.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329019133' post='2918822']
In that respect, I think things fell out in ways rather unpredictable- as war has a way of doing that. When you drop a ball like that, all you can do is give it some spin at the release and hope it careens in the direction you want. I find it highly doubtful that Grub was "willing to screw over his allies" but more likely did not foresee the events coming to pass the way they did.

It's easy to put the things that have happened and now understood retrospectively in a category of higher probability at the time the decision was made than what was probable. I'd say both factions were flying blind.
[/quote]
It was Grub's fault both factions were flying blind, but at least one faction entered to assist NpO and shouldn't of been flying blind if it wasn't for Grub's poor leadership. He had a chance to win that war, but instead showed horrible leadership causing those who rallied around him to be divided and stuck in war with no direction.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329019361' post='2918824']
It was Grub's fault both factions were flying blind, but at least one faction entered to assist NpO and shouldn't of been flying blind if it wasn't for Grub's poor leadership. He had a chance to win that war, but instead showed horrible leadership causing those who rallied around him to be divided and stuck in war with no direction.
[/quote]

No, it was the fault of the each party individually. And I stated this right at the time it happened, the reason they were flying blind is because both parties were convinced of the effectiveness of their own Machiavellian cleverness and driven by their desire for victory, they were not viewing the situation objectively. The most prominent and fatal mistake of any strategist.

Why in Admin's name would you place your trust in someone who, when colluding with them, involved betraying the trust of their friend?

If I said, hey, Meth, let's rob your best friend and handed you a gun, why should I be surprised when you robbed me instead?

That was remarkably flawed logic on TOP's behalf, but understandable because 1. like most people, they only think about what they want, not what others want, and 2. there was some smokescreen of communication.

NpO's flaw, or perhaps Grub's primarily, as I'm not sure the rest of the alliance knew what transpired, was not considering the fallout of the action. For the same reasons listed above.

That said, while it was a cluster $%&@ of awesome proportions, I have to give partial credit on both sides for pursuing risky gambits. Had either worked, they would have paid off immensely.

At least these two scenarios made some semblance of sense compared to Ram's bat !@#$ insanity.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329020182' post='2918831']
No, it was the fault of the each party individually. And I stated this right at the time it happened, the reason they were flying blind is because both parties were convinced of the effectiveness of their own Machiavellian cleverness and driven by their desire for victory, they were not viewing the situation objectively. The most prominent and fatal mistake of any strategist.

Why in Admin's name would you place your trust in someone who, when colluding with them, involves betraying the trust of their friend?

If I said, hey, Meth, let's rob your best friend and handed you a gun, why should I be surprised when you robbed me instead?

That was remarkably flawed logic on TOP's behalf, but understandable because 1. like most people, they only think about what they want, not what others want, and 2. there was some smokescreen of communication.

NpO's flaw, or perhaps Grub's primarily, as I'm not sure the rest of the alliance knew what transpired, was not considering the fallout of the action. For the same reasons listed above.

That said, while it was a cluster $%&@ of awesome proportions, I have to give partial credit on both sides for perusing risky gambits. Had either worked, they would have paid off immensely.

At least these two scenarios made some semblance of sense compared to Ram's bat !@#$ insanity.
[/quote]
If you consider that MK was likely to enter the war on the opposite side of NpO, it didn't seem MK had any intention to help NpO in their war and TOP was willing to help, considering what Grub chose to do and gave the go ahead to hit MK, obviously it did seem like something Grub would do. Had Grub told TOP no, then TOP wouldn't of got involved. Grub didn't give his allies who were fighting any advance warning to pull out now that he had tricked TOP to declare on CnG, he instead acted in a way to make sure his side doesn't win the war his allies were still fighting when he had NpO peace out. It showed horrible leadership that he would peace out leaving others fighting to help NpO still fighting in a war he just insured they would lose, when TOP's help would of otherwise helped his side win, but he chose to instead put them in a losing war since TOP wanted to help.

Ramirus might of screwed over his own alliance with his bad decision to stay at war with IRON/DAWN longer than needed, but Grub screwed over his entire war coalition, allies and his own alliance, which I think is a bigger screw-up.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Methrage

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329020882' post='2918838']
If you consider that MK was likely to enter the war on the opposite side of NpO, it didn't seem MK had any intention to help NpO in their war and TOP was willing to help, considering what Grub chose to do and gave the go ahead to hit MK, [b]obviously it did seem like something Grub would do[/b].[/quote]
Assumptions are fickle things. There is a pretty wide gap between allies coming in on the opposite side of a conflict, and throwing them to the wolves. By letting TOP declare, not only did he ensure that he and his allies would be on the same side, perhaps, it would also let them take a little punishment for wavering. Now that's only speculation on my part, but from a alliance-centric view point, a not entirely bad move to make, to keep ones allies in need of them. I doubt he thought that far into it, though.

[quote] Had Grub told TOP no, then TOP wouldn't of got involved.[/quote]
Then. I'm pretty certain TOP prempted because they thought it would wind up arrayed against CnG eventually anyways.

[quote]Grub didn't give his allies who were fighting any advance warning to pull out now that he had tricked TOP to declare on CnG...[/quote] I'm not sure there was time, but I agree, communication is important.


[quote]...he instead acted in a way to make sure his side doesn't win the war his allies were still fighting when he had NpO peace out. It showed horrible leadership that he would peace out leaving others fighting to help NpO still fighting in a war he just insured they would lose, when TOP's help would of otherwise helped his side win, but he chose to instead put them in a losing war since TOP wanted to help.
[/quote]

Peacing out of the original conflict to focus on the new one seems reasonable. That the rest dragged into a quagmire of WTF is going on seems obvious now but likely not viewed so clearly then. Like I said, I think both parties made decisions by the seat of their pants.

Strategic military failures are definitely bad marks on one as a leader, but when compared to the systematic and over all crappiness of some of the other nominees, neither of these are close to finishing.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329020882' post='2918838']

Ramirus might of screwed over his own alliance with his bad decision to stay at war with IRON/DAWN longer than needed, but Grub screwed over his entire war coalition, allies and his own alliance, which I think is a bigger screw-up.
[/quote]

I don't think he "screwed over" his war coalition, I think he fumbled an unexpected opportunity. Ram destroyed his alliance. Polar is still here. Grub may not have performed the best in those wars, but his leadership before and after ensured their survival.

/shrug. Anyway, interesting debate. Time for bed, though.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Ryuzaki]

Polls are open for the first half of round one.