RA2Leader Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Can you get a sreenshot of this? btw, Contuine's username on our forums is Mr. raccoon Edited August 14, 2009 by RA2Leader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Hendrix Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 His response better be good. Even if the leader of this alliance is a/an [insert a word that would get me warned here], you still had no right to troll like that. When I left some of my alliances that I disagreed with, I left quietly every time. I'll be more than happy though to reverse my decision of your character if you can justify it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) His response better be good. Even if the leader of this alliance is a/an [insert a word that would get me warned here], you still had no right to troll like that. When I left some of my alliances that I disagreed with, I left quietly every time. I'll be more than happy though to reverse my decision of your character if you can justify it though. It's not worth attacking your alliance mate for. I am disappointed but not surprised judging by what kind of alliance we're talking about here. Edited August 15, 2009 by Tom Litler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tillistan Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 It's not worth attacking your alliance mate for.I am disappointed but not surprised judging by what kind of alliance we're talking about here. The thing you fail to understand is the aggressor was NOT part of that alliance. The aggressor resigned, stopped playing the game, and decided to quit by attacking someone he wasn't very fond of. There was no condoned or coordinate aggression by the alliance in question. So I'm not sure how your "this kind of alliance" statement is relevant to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 The thing you fail to understand is the aggressor was NOT part of that alliance. The aggressor resigned, stopped playing the game, and decided to quit by attacking someone he wasn't very fond of. There was no condoned or coordinate aggression by the alliance in question. So I'm not sure how your "this kind of alliance" statement is relevant to anything. Then perhaps Contuine should have been defended or given monetary compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 after insulting several members of the alliance by flaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riyzar Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Heh, I thought something didn't quite add up in the beginning. Makes sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Hendrix Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 It's not worth attacking your alliance mate for.I am disappointed but not surprised judging by what kind of alliance we're talking about here. Was that towards me? Because nobody in the NpO has posted in this thread (I think). Also, people (and the almighty mods o/) read that and think I'm being harsh when in fact I don't mean it that way. It was one of those stupid posts that was interpreted wrong. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Hendrix Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 and that post has really bad grammar, but I'm too lazy to fix, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tillistan Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Then perhaps Contuine should have been defended or given monetary compensation. I don't think either was needed considering he resigned. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Yeah seems pretty childish to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich333 Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) nah they said peace and funds to build your nation. I didnt get neither. Goes with a whole bunch of alliances. Especially the ones where you got to put your nation affiliation as an applicant of something. That means its too big for them to even notice that your attacked or need money Actually it confirms your control of the nation listed in your application, and helps to ward off tech raiders. As for peace, most alliances promise nothing of the sort, they only promise protection, because that's all they can honestly promise. And when it comes to money, if you have to be bribed to join, you probably aren't worth it; quality alliances aid those who actually prove themselves a worthwhile investment. EDIT: Mods, sorry, didn't notice the date. Didn't mean to gravedig. Edited August 27, 2009 by Rich333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamant Mod Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Gravedig, closing thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts