Jump to content

Ethics in Tournament


Recommended Posts

In about 80% of all wars in tournament edition, there is always a "cry foul" dose of responses that attach with it. The "gentleman's agreement" violated time-and-time again by the receiving alliance. The reason for this out-cry is nothing more than some wording followed by interpretation. Also known as the "e-lawyer" effect.
 
It is also why Roman Empire has held steadfast against this dance, and as it is unfolding right now- has been quite fun with alliances participating in their own free will and beliefs.
 
The challenges unfolding before us show many gaps in these 'agreements'. For example, in the only 100 million dollar round- is it not unethical to skip to day 21 of TE and purchase nukes? Some say 'yes' and others say 'no'.
Is there a time frame for hitting an alliance day 10 as opposed to before their 14 day happiness bonus? Some say 'yes' and others say 'no'.
 
Now this is a little off topic, however I was in a thread a couple of months ago arguing against capitalism and socialism. And the best response I think I have ever seen was this:
 
"The issue with topic x is that it would require just as much oppression implementing it as it would to simply let topic z occur". Another basic way to word it is that warring because of not following gentleman's agreements is as wide spread as is if you just let alliances do what they want.
 
Now now, I know the first response to this thread- "all of the veteran alliances have followed such agreement and we are all in favor of it"... well, that's because the alliances (ex nightmare movement) are not here anymore. They were persecuted for 'playing'... perhaps a couple cheeky down declares- but none-the-less stripped of their values and persecuted among the pixel huggers (yes, you read that right, pixel huggers in TE). In fact, the very same "rules" that have flooded TE and allowed for 'excuse hitting' have basically crippled our planet. I have seen comments time-and-time again from nations spelling out "since when does TE have politics??" (and they are no longer here)... and I have also seen nations end the round with full war chests, what a shame!
 
Tournament Edition should be a mass genocide pool- kill off alliances until the very end until only one AA stands. If you think getting your name on an awards board and following "alliance x is the same size as alliance z... we will war a neutral GB fight hold hands and move on"... no one cares. It's rather boring. There isn't any drama, there isn't any spice- and lastly- it isn't any fun!. Even being on the receiving end of a down declare, which involves multiple parties this early in the round has shown that there may indeed be some hope for Planet Steve. With threads created where nations outside of our activity are peaking in and saying "hey, that looks pretty fun- look at the heat and dramaz" as opposed to the "hold hands, let's knit together, good luck with your build".
 
The best part. It resets! You get to have your nation in ruins by your enemy one round and then turn around and get sweet revenge the next round! Recruit your buddies in another planet to get back at that bastard Cazaric (ex). And for those of you afraid of 'TDO' who simply sit up high because they grow like weeds- if they went on a genocide spree, then next round they get the 'ol tournament wide coalition dog pile- simply to knock off the 'flag runner'. A nation in alliance x one round may not be in alliance z next round. High emotions (as we've seen) make for more drama and fun in tournament... the piddle-paddle sit around the camp fire have been dull, boring rounds.
 
If gentleman's agreements were thrown out the door- then there wouldn't be any "down declaring" crying in every single thread- and what would be talked about is the actual events taking place.
 
And for those of you who make this a "practice war for your noobs on bob"... that's not what this place is. It's a modified war version- with full ops and admin rights to do whatever the hell spy op you want, with no admin penalty. The anger a nation gets being rolled and dog piled one round would only reset their warchest for the next round with a chance to get back at whoever hit them- or at the very least hardened them up (which we need less pixel huggers in tournament).
 
Tournament edition should be a dog-eat dog world with only one alliance standing at the end. And judging by past rounds- the challenge hasn't been accepted by the community. And this should be the very basis of 'winning' TE. it levels the playing field (no compounding time for TDO to get too out of range), all nations crippled, and no cry-foul TE discussions. And it's the easiest fix there is, simply use what the admin Gods gave ya.
 
Edit: I use TDO as an example in this thread, simply based on their current moral policing. In fact, I am sure they are probably sick (and bored) of playing that character. The purpose is to create an even playing field for both old veteran alliances and our future new comers (who will find the spice and freedoms here, simply delicious).

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just gonna say, first up, that TDO doesn't flag run. We actively kick out flag runners who don't fight, because good fighters are the thing we care about most.

 

But moving on from that.

 

This is an interesting topic, and one that I do think needed to be raised. We have been championing the gentleman's agreement out of fairness, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't make things routine and bland. Round 37, where it was largely followed, was the most boring one I've played since I got here. Contrast that to 36 and 38, which have been full of active forums, political discourse, and theoretical discussions on ethics backed up by military action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emotions = activity = fun

Gentlemans agreements = restrictions = boring.

As veterans of planet Steve we are both a victim of this ideology (entering Steve with this mindset) and it is also partially our fault for implementing it.

The only "gentlmens agreement" among the community should be the understanding that the round should bare only one surviving alliance (the winners). And the back door pacts, dog piling, back stabs, whatever-it-takes to get there (and 'win')- would bring more activity, and challenge, out of our planet than any other rounds before it.

Then there's the 'you have no honor' rhetoric.

And that's what our 'gentlemens agreement' should be: The understanding that it's okay to do whatever it takes to 'win' the round.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaties wouldn't last- as they would need to be severed to 'win'.

Nor would they be able to carry over from round to round because many nations change Alliances every round

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaties wouldn't last- as they would need to be severed to 'win'.

Nor would they be able to carry over from round to round because many nations change Alliances every round

 

Exactly. Any AA which admits treaties and carries them over would be shooting itself in the foot. Eventually you will fight. 

Maintaining a friendly approach with AAs is fine, provided you know that sooner or later if the stats are fight one of you will get rolled. 

 

I like what you're saying here though, but I also think it makes things interesting in the sense that the differing ideologies we are encountering amounst the different AAs has lead to a change / growth of activity and passion. Take this last war, TDO had disagreed with the actions of RE and declared (which was a down-declare), and then D1 disagreed with the actions of TDO and declared (which may have been a downdeclare (i literally dont' know cause I haven't looked at stats but some people have said it was)), and then Krabz built up and declared on D1, and Citadel because they disagreed with both of those wars, and we've ended up with one of the more interesting wars we've seen in a while. 

 

The different opinions of morals are always going to be applicable to each party and flaws will always be found and people will disagree. It is a more comple form of us jossling for position, and realistically despite people going for "fair wars" stats wise, most AAs will make an effort to ensure that they have a slight advantage; if only in the form of the initial blitz. 

 

In terms of the dirty spy ops I personally advocate against their usage because it makes wars slightly more boring later on if AAs are cripplied economically; however if people choose to use them while I call out against their use I fully respect the autonomy of each AA that does chose to use them, and will simply respond in kind. Again it is that difference of ideology that makes this game a little bit more interesting.

 

Just my 2 cents on the matter :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, this round has been more interesting and fun than many recent others. Activity is up which is good for everyone.

 

Most know and some will disagree with my stance, but I prefer to use every option available in the game mechanics.

 

In our recent Krabz war we chose to be flexible and agreed to not nuke Krabz - well what good did that do for us in RE? Was it a PR win? Perhaps but we still seem to be despised so perhaps it wasn't worth the PR effort. In hindsight I should never of agreed to that and we should have burned them down.

 

It got them off easy, and allowed them to build further with XP. They should have thanked us lol! Now they're on the world stage still in what seems to be one of the biggest world wars we've had in TE - this early on at least. Good for Krabz and more power too them, but strategically it would have made more sense for RE to have taken them down when the opportunity was there - but we decided to play nice.

 

See we're not so bad and evil are we?

 

My point is, CNSE is the place for treaties and niceties etc. Here is war, war, war and what ever other dirty trick you can muster behind the scenes to win and overthrow your opponents. Doing "the right thing" in the eyes of some in reality did a disservice to RE. Krabz came out stronger than they otherwise would have been, simply because we let it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, this round has been more interesting and fun than many recent others. Activity is up which is good for everyone.

 

Most know and some will disagree with my stance, but I prefer to use every option available in the game mechanics.

 

In our recent Krabz war we chose to be flexible and agreed to not nuke Krabz - well what good did that do for us in RE? Was it a PR win? Perhaps but we still seem to be despised so perhaps it wasn't worth the PR effort. In hindsight I should never of agreed to that and we should have burned them down.

 

It got them off easy, and allowed them to build further with XP. They should have thanked us lol! Now they're on the world stage still in what seems to be one of the biggest world wars we've had in TE - this early on at least. Good for Krabz and more power too them, but strategically it would have made more sense for RE to have taken them down when the opportunity was there - but we decided to play nice.

 

See we're not so bad and evil are we?

 

My point is, CNSE is the place for treaties and niceties etc. Here is war, war, war and what ever other dirty trick you can muster behind the scenes to win and overthrow your opponents. Doing "the right thing" in the eyes of some in reality did a disservice to RE. Krabz came out stronger than they otherwise would have been, simply because we let it happen.

You didn't agree to not nuke us. We peaced out before you could. 

 

As to the topic, I don't know if there will be as much drama, if we don't have any gentlemans agreement. If we don't, what do people complain about? You might be removing the very thing that causes drama.

 

Also, let' just play through a round like that: Day 7. As there are limits to how much better you can be as a nation compared to others on day 7, the biggest alliances would surely have the advantage and would start off by killing off small alliances for easy XP and then fight it out against the other big alliances later. In that case, of course treaties would happen. Anyone in a small alliance with half a brain would get themselves some support. Since the nature of the game changed, those wouldn't last, so you couldn't be a small alliance in this game for long, so those would slowly die out, leaving you with 2 or 3 big alliances all players would go to. I don't know if that makes things more or less interesting. My guess is on less. 

 

I agree that the breaking of the gentlemens agreement led to a lot of activity and that is surely fun. If we had more of that (although, we had an awful lot of it now), that would be great. Maybe some middle ground could be found, where we avoid killing small alliances but still get the benefit of the added drama. Who doesn't like some of that?

Edited by Virgin Mary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of these gentlemens' agreements were made to reduce the back-room dealing.  Back when that was the primary way of flag-running, everyone was angry about it.  Looks now like maybe the pendulum's swung too far the other way.  Now the complaints are split between "this is boring" from the more adventurous and ambitious types, and the oft-repeated refrain of "this is unfair" from those scared to lose their pixels.  The gentlemens' agreements were always ethical in spirit, that was never the problem.  The problem is that most people simply don't follow them.  The gentlemen's agreements are used as cover for activity that directly contradicts them.

 

Let's look at a little case study here.  Alliance Y declares an "unethical" war against Alliance X; Alliance Z declares on Alliance Y using "violating the gentlemens' agreements" as a CB even while the war they declared violates the gentlemens' agreements - but somehow Alliance Z thinks they can claim to be ethically sound and Alliance Y are the bad guys despite the fact that they are behaving in the exact same manner.  Let's take another gander at a different case study: Alliance W and Alliance X go to war with a big "no dirty spyops and no blockades" on the DoW.  Before update even hits, one nation from Alliance W fucks up someone's tax rate in Alliance X; word travels through Alliance X and before the nukes even fall it's weapons-free on the spyops and blockades and the "no fighting dirty" ends up having been all for show (which, it typically is).  If the rules are going to get tossed out so much, why bother having them at all?

 

I propose a more alliance-centric system of ethics, where the actions of individual alliances are undertaken with the primary motive of what is best for the individual AA coming first and foremost.  The gentlemens' agreements were never enforceable.  There were a few alliances last round that did take concrete action against a certain kind of unethical play (wars without DoW's) but the instant people realized they weren't going to get away with it, they shaped up.  Alliance-centric thinking allows for downdeclares - with the built-in possibility that such a downdeclare may have consequences.  So now, all the "ethical" pretense is taken out of the picture in both of those examples above.  Alliance Y downdeclares Alliance X and anarchies them in the blitz; Alliance Z hits alliance Y because they have lots of open defensive slots.  Is it "fair?"  Nope.  It also isn't fair that only a few players each round take home a flag and there's no participation trophy, and that's the point.

 

This is a competitive game, and the "gentlemens' contracts" are only a social construct with zero reflection in actual game mechanics.  The mechanics allow for association by alliance fellowship - and that's where the social atmosphere should be based.  War Doves should serve the interests of War Doves; NLON the interest of NLON, NDO the interest of NDO, Ordo Paradoxia the interest of Ordo Paradoxia, and so on and so forth.  It forces you to face this reality: if you team up with someone early round to eliminate one threat, that same alliance you were all buddy-buddy with could just as easily put your alliance next on the chopping block so that they can win.

 

So what should be kept?  On an individual basis, I think the moratoriums on dirty spyops/blockades should be allowed to stay, with their acceptability determined by the alliances at war with one another.  Communication between AA leaders in the immediate time after DoW would allow opposing leaders to determine whether or not they want the gloves on or off.  Ideally, the grace-period after wars would still be around.  Not for fairness' sake, but to keep the game interesting.  A bunch of turtled nations at or near ZI with fully depleted warchests aren't going to be much fun; hitting people to drive them into such a state may eliminate a rival but you've also made the round that much less entertaining.  There are still backroom deals made, but my thought is that we keep this backroom deals in the back rather than move towards open treatying.  Having public treaties eventually leads to more treaties.  This leads to a treaty web like what exists on SE, and strangles the possibility of new wars except when done between emergent blocs.  It's boring, and worst of all (especially for a time limited round) it's predictable.  Even protectorates toe the line here; my thinking is that any alliance large enough to organize a full trade circle (6+ members) be considered able to fend for itself.

 

The spontaneity and risk are part of what make TE fun.  This game, despite similar mechanics, bears a stark contrast to the Standard Edition it is derived from and that's a big part of why people play it.  It's an escape from the tedium of alliance treaty webs and power blocs.  It's a place where game mechanics that can take years to unlock in SE are available almost immediately.  Instead of one or two wars a year, it's one or two wars per month.  Players who will never even be close to top-ranked in SE can reach the #1 NS spot; players in the #1 NS slot aren't permanent fixtures like what happens in SE.  Instead of alliances having weeks or even months of notice to prepare for war due to treaty-web cascading, a war can appear completely out of nowhere leaving you only minutes to respond.  It's dynamic.  It's fast-paced.  TE has, also, been a place where admin has tested new features before porting them to SE.  XP/Generals, the revamped in-game AA management system, and adjustable nuclear targetting were ALL in TE before SE.  You can start around of TE and realize that the old rules and old strategies that worked last round, are obsolete this round.

 

This is not a game for diplomatically-focused, pixel-hugging war-dodgers.  If that's your style, play SE.  It's a good game.  If you choose to play TE though, don't expect to be coddled because you won't be.  If you want special considerations (early peace, no blockades) from an aggressor during a war, you take it up with them, not the community at large.  Because the community at large, doesn't have the ethical track record we all like to think we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eradication of the gentlemen agreement and making the alliances "fend for them selves" will only make TE a very comfortable environment to host trolls and bullies.

 

I give as an example a game you might have heard off called DayZ, that games idea is that you are found in apocalyptic world full of zombies, you only have one life, and you have to survive, so it was exactly as you described, "fend for your self". the human players could have worked together shared resources, killed off all the god damn zombies, but given that humans are natural !@#$%^&, chaos broke in the DayZ planet, that created alliances who rob and steal stuff from new players, in conclusion, as a player trying out a new game, you really didn't need to be afraid of zombies, you need to be afraid of gaming for weeks, then having some group of !@#$%^& steal all what you have worked for, kill you and you will start from 0.

 

TE is not a lawless planet where alliances devour each other to the death, pick on the weak, steal their resources and give absolutely no chance for new players. I have started playing CN TE(mid round 34) before I started really exploring the pile of boring crap that is planet bob, right in the start, I got bullied by some !@#$%^&...but over the rounds, I have come to learn about the unwritten rules of the gentlemen agreement, and that the community has agreed, to basically no trolling and no down declaring...etc

Every round there was some rule breakers,and those rule breakers themselves would defend the rules they just broke when others broke them, that is not because the gentlemen agreement sucks or failed to prevent people from breaking the rules, that is because the gentlemen agreement is also the "unwritten gentlemen agreement". As long as we have unwritten rules, we will always have people trying to manipulate those rules in their favor.

 

When I left TDO to create Krabz with blacklight, our Idea was an alliance that would welcome newbies(like me and most of my friends who played then), teach them how to play, and have lots and lots of wars.

Right off day 7 we got down declared upon by D1 and RE, reason you ask? we were simply TDO members in round 35, this of course did not abide by any unwritten rules, and it was not gentle at all, Krabz lost about half it's members, some of my friends (IRL) complained "why the $%&@ would I play such a game where I'm not even given a chance", and it wasn't only Krabz, If you remember a small micro called Fat Freddy, that was lead by another former TDO  member, also got completely destroyed for the round.

put your self in that place, and ask your self, "where is the fun in that?"

 

The two alliances broke the rules because they wanted revenge of something that had happened in the round before, but those two alliances would lead the round defending the agreement they just broke because another new alliance (Eurasia) has just violated the same agreement they did.

What I'm trying to do is not complain about something that happened in the past rounds, I'm just trying to show, that as long as that agreement remain unwritten, it will be open to interpretation by whoever wants to manipulate it to further their own goals, removing it, will create a universe like DayZ where the strong and experienced pick on the new noobs.

 

Granted, the drama of round 36 was fun, but there wont be any drama if there is no body left to play TE, whatever we do, somebody will find a way to create drama, removing the rules will only create chaos not drama.

 

A middle ground is to have a Written Gentlemen agreement, that will be the only TE official treaty. we can make it as flexible as possible by discussing it here on the OWF, when we are done, we will have something signed by the major alliances of TE, that would stop anybody from crying "gentlemen agreement" when it suits them, and ignoring its rule when it suits them.

 

In conclusion I think of TE as a fighting arena, where alliances pick challenges according to numbers and stats not friends and allies,I have never won an award, I always tried to end the round with less infra and money than what I started with.

It keeps the game challenging it keeps the wars fun, and even though fair wars are less dramatic, fighting is fun when you have a challenging opponent, not when it's like killing insects. I had fun in round 37 I don't know what you guys are talking about it being boring.

 

Currently, this round has been more interesting and fun than many recent others. Activity is up which is good for everyone.

 

Most know and some will disagree with my stance, but I prefer to use every option available in the game mechanics.

 

In our recent Krabz war we chose to be flexible and agreed to not nuke Krabz - well what good did that do for us in RE? Was it a PR win? Perhaps but we still seem to be despised so perhaps it wasn't worth the PR effort. In hindsight I should never of agreed to that and we should have burned them down.

 

It got them off easy, and allowed them to build further with XP. They should have thanked us lol! Now they're on the world stage still in what seems to be one of the biggest world wars we've had in TE - this early on at least. Good for Krabz and more power too them, but strategically it would have made more sense for RE to have taken them down when the opportunity was there - but we decided to play nice.

 

See we're not so bad and evil are we?

 

My point is, CNSE is the place for treaties and niceties etc. Here is war, war, war and what ever other dirty trick you can muster behind the scenes to win and overthrow your opponents. Doing "the right thing" in the eyes of some in reality did a disservice to RE. Krabz came out stronger than they otherwise would have been, simply because we let it happen.

 

What PR mate? if you wanted some PR, you could have wedged a fair war, and not keep mocking us afterwards for only making the most logical decision to benefit our alliance.

 

As we said, we had no problem with a clean war, we understood that the inactivity of our members isn't your responsibility and even though your assumption of us "laying low to avoid war" was wrong, it was still valid and understandable.

We surrendered because you insisted on Nuking us and using dirty spy ops, something this early in the round would have ended up burning us as you said, and it is this kind of attitude that Krabz doesn't like. I do not want to burn anybody here, and us "taking the stage"  in a world war, have done nothing strategically for RE, we stayed well away from hitting you guys, and tbh, I don't even want to fight you.

 

You could have had your fight if you agreed to no dirty spy ops, and if you haven't agreed to anything and went on hitting us without accepting peace, then I would have pleaded for help on the OWF like NDO did in round 36, so even strategically none of what you did made sense or would have benefited RE in anyway, in fact, when I made the target list and we hit the counters, most of you guys had no navy, so blockades wouldn't have benefited RE as well.

 

TE is a place for war war war, you are right about that, and if both parties agreed to dirty spy op the crap out of each other then fine.

But using every dirty trick in the book and trolling people is something better left for SE, when you say war war war, I hope you mean actual war where both parties have a chance of winning, not where one AA is simply burning the other without even giving them a chance, because this is called bullying bullying bullying then.

 

BTW, I still didn't buy generals, most of us didn't get much xp off of you guys, you got more than we did, because if you remember, we don't raid (and we boot the Krabz who do). I'd rather go without generals for half the round than raid someone(another thing I disagree with most of TE on).

Edited by Robert Baratheon I
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eradication of the gentlemen agreement and making the alliances "fend for them selves" will only make TE a very comfortable environment to host trolls and bullies.
 
I give as an example a game you might have heard off called DayZ, that games idea is that you are found in apocalyptic world full of zombies, you only have one life, and you have to survive, so it was exactly as you described, "fend for your self". the human players could have worked together shared resources, killed off all the god damn zombies, but given that humans are natural !@#$%^&, chaos broke in the DayZ planet, that created alliances who rob and steal stuff from new players, in conclusion, as a player trying out a new game, you really didn't need to be afraid of zombies, you need to be afraid of gaming for weeks, then having some group of !@#$%^& steal all what you have worked for, kill you and you will start from 0.
 
TE is not a lawless planet where alliances devour each other to the death, pick on the weak, steal their resources and give absolutely no chance for new players. I have started playing CN TE(mid round 34) before I started really exploring the pile of boring crap that is planet bob, right in the start, I got bullied by some !@#$%^&...but over the rounds, I have come to learn about the unwritten rules of the gentlemen agreement, and that the community has agreed, to basically no trolling and no down declaring...etc
Every round there was some rule breakers,and those rule breakers themselves would defend the rules they just broke when others broke them, that is not because the gentlemen agreement sucks or failed to prevent people from breaking the rules, that is because the gentlemen agreement is also the "unwritten gentlemen agreement". As long as we have unwritten rules, we will always have people trying to manipulate those rules in their favor.
 
When I left TDO to create Krabz with blacklight, our Idea was an alliance that would welcome newbies(like me and most of my friends who played then), teach them how to play, and have lots and lots of wars.
Right off day 7 we got down declared upon by D1 and RE, reason you ask? we were simply TDO members in round 35, this of course did not abide by any unwritten rules, and it was not gentle at all, Krabz lost about half it's members, some of my friends (IRL) complained "why the $%&@ would I play such a game where I'm not even given a chance", and it wasn't only Krabz, If you remember a small micro called Fat Freddy, that was lead by another former TDO  member, also got completely destroyed for the round.
put your self in that place, and ask your self, "where is the fun in that?"
 
The two alliances broke the rules because they wanted revenge of something that had happened in the round before, but those two alliances would lead the round defending the agreement they just broke because another new alliance (Eurasia) has just violated the same agreement they did.
What I'm trying to do is not complain about something that happened in the past rounds, I'm just trying to show, that as long as that agreement remain unwritten, it will be open to interpretation by whoever wants to manipulate it to further their own goals, removing it, will create a universe like DayZ where the strong and experienced pick on the new noobs.
 
Granted, the drama of round 36 was fun, but there wont be any drama if there is no body left to play TE, whatever we do, somebody will find a way to create drama, removing the rules will only create chaos not drama.
 
A middle ground is to have a Written Gentlemen agreement, that will be the only TE official treaty. we can make it as flexible as possible by discussing it here on the OWF, when we are done, we will have something signed by the major alliances of TE, that would stop anybody from crying "gentlemen agreement" when it suits them, and ignoring its rule when it suits them.
 
In conclusion I think of TE as a fighting arena, where alliances pick challenges according to numbers and stats not friends and allies,I have never won an award, I always tried to end the round with less infra and money than what I started with.
It keeps the game challenging it keeps the wars fun, and even though fair wars are less dramatic, fighting is fun when you have a challenging opponent, not when it's like killing insects. I had fun in round 37 I don't know what you guys are talking about it being boring.
 

 
What PR mate? if you wanted some PR, you could have wedged a fair war, and not keep mocking us afterwards for only making the most logical decision to benefit our alliance.
 
As we said, we had no problem with a clean war, we understood that the inactivity of our members isn't your responsibility and even though your assumption of us "laying low to avoid war" was wrong, it was still valid and understandable.
We surrendered because you insisted on Nuking us and using dirty spy ops, something this early in the round would have ended up burning us as you said, and it is this kind of attitude that Krabz doesn't like. I do not want to burn anybody here, and us "taking the stage"  in a world war, have done nothing strategically for RE, we stayed well away from hitting you guys, and tbh, I don't even want to fight you.
 
You could have had your fight if you agreed to no dirty spy ops, and if you haven't agreed to anything and went on hitting us without accepting peace, then I would have pleaded for help on the OWF like NDO did in round 36, so even strategically none of what you did made sense or would have benefited RE in anyway, in fact, when I made the target list and we hit the counters, most of you guys had no navy, so blockades wouldn't have benefited RE as well.
 
TE is a place for war war war, you are right about that, and if both parties agreed to dirty spy op the crap out of each other then fine.
But using every dirty trick in the book and trolling people is something better left for SE, when you say war war war, I hope you mean actual war where both parties have a chance of winning, not where one AA is simply burning the other without even giving them a chance, because this is called bullying bullying bullying then.
 
BTW, I still didn't buy generals, most of us didn't get much xp off of you guys, you got more than we did, because if you remember, we don't raid (and we boot the Krabz who do). I'd rather go without generals for half the round than raid someone(another thing I disagree with most of TE on).

So by your standards, all RE has to do is tell our nation's to never buy MPs- so that in return, they don't get nuked.

You have a delusional case of entitlement.

Rather than e-lawyer your way out of being 'hurt' you just buy some MPs earlier and quit complaining about warring in a war enviroment Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by your standards, all RE has to do is tell our nation's to never buy MPs- so that in return, they don't get nuked.

You have a delusional case of entitlement.

Rather than e-lawyer your way out of being 'hurt' you just buy some MPs earlier and quit complaining about warring in a war enviroment

Nope, by my standards you have to tell your nations not to do dirty spy ops, those were my big problems, not the nukes, I could have agreed to yes nukes, no dirty spy ops, not the other way around.

And we are not money wasting idiots to buy MPs that early in the round. plus I like the fun of a non nuclear war, where it makes sense to spend a bit on air planes.

 

Funny how you ignored all that bulk of text I wrote, and just replied crying about the part that concerns you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

tell that to pixel huggin krabz

 

Technically they are not pixels, they are values on a database, pixels will imply a picture is involved.

 

I'd rather spend my time embracing the absurdities than post threads complaining about them.

 

*a word

love you Horatio

 

 

 

well we did war them, but they complained so hard it caused a thread

Yes, we were the ones complaining in every thread, should we turn this one about Krabz as well, or continue discussing the removal of the agreement that will allow you to make your lame coalitions against TDO?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...