An Announcement from the Emperor of the Roman Empire

[La Riquea]

Not moral indignation, practical indignation. I've said it before, but I'll say it with a

this time again. You are a threat to the people I serve to protect. The only difference between you and me Tibs is this. I would do anything to protect TPF, short of selling my friends out. You crossed that line and had no regrets, so now don't cry when you have to pay the price. I'm no saint, but the one thing no one can take away from me is this; I do what I say I'll do. That is the reason, I think, that people have trusted me, and not trusted you, for a long time now. At the end of the day everyone knows, if I say I'll do something I'll do it. Even if they are my enemy at the time, they know that I'll look the square in the eye, and if they get stabbed they'll get stabbed looking at my face. You stabbed people in the back, the cowards way.

Amazing that your arrogance actually allowed you to post this. People saw through you for rounds now, if the truth hurts deal with it.

Now... can we get back to the topic of beautiful blushing women?

I'm with Gabryal

[Gabryal]

ooooohhhhhhhhhhh, ok now it definitely makes sense, lol.... and I guess you'll find me extremely beautiful because I'm almost always blushing... (I just blushed again when I read your post) lol

I'm glad we got off topic too because me seriously thinks that some people need to lighten up cause it's just a game... but just saying

My wife blushes all the time as well, she does a really good one because she's a scots-irish redhead with freckles. It's beautiful. Also what you said earlier about men being obsessed with objectifying women annoys me as well. There is a difference that people never appreciate.

Aesthetic: appreciation of beauty for beauty's sake. i.e. That is a very Aesthetic painting.

This can apply to women too, I find La Riquea Aesthetically beautiful.

Objectify: appreciation of something for it's physically appealing nature

Pigs dressed as men think La Riquea is "hot"

I encourage everyone to learn to think and differentiate.

[Matthew Conrad]

<Folger> Change your AA

<Folger> Get the $%&@ out of the Roman Empire

<Tiberius12> are you !@#$@#$ kidding me?

<Tiberius12> you think you can get rid of me?

<Tiberius12> I built this alliance!

<Tiberius12> I made it!

<Tiberius12> I made you!

I guess I got here late but does anyone else think this reads like a classic student-betrays-teacher movie dialogue?

[Lysander]

I guess I got here late but does anyone else think this reads like a classic student-betrays-teacher movie dialogue?

It does actually, but its still more brutus-caesar than student-teacher

[Elric]

Bear in mind, I taught Folger everything he knows...the one lesson he never did learn is that morality is a tool. It's his greatest failing.

Or his greatest asset. It is all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Post reset they'll be destroyed? Really? Is that what TE has come to? Even I never crossed that limit.

If a group would possibly divide post-reset because of something that occurred in a previous round then why isn't it ok to attack people for what they did in a previous round? In theory it sounds sorta nice and decent to let what happens in Round X stay in Round X, but is TE supposed to be nice and decent? Most of the same people that would scream that this is about death and destruction would also agree that issues aren't supposed to leave a round. Seems like a contradiction to me, but I still understand the idea. However the problem is that alliances are allowed to evolve (like RE theoretically splitting), but must do so in a vacuum (one alliance is not allowed to "evolve" by developing a long-standing grudge)??? Why must folks insist on telling others what do do, how things must be done, etc?

Some people have to be told that things are ok before they realize that they really are ok, so here it goes:

It is ok to interact with people on Planet Steve in whatever manner you choose, just accept that actions may bring about reactions and consequences. It is ok to hold grudges that go from one round to the next. People do it all of the time really. Even the people that complain It is ok to form alliances. People were doing it long before WOLF. People are still going to do it in the future. Really. You can ignore the people that insist on telling others what "must" or "can't" be done. It fine. You don't have to drink the Kool Aid that anybody serves unless you just want to. Really

[La Riquea]

My wife blushes all the time as well, she does a really good one because she's a scots-irish redhead with freckles. It's beautiful. Also what you said earlier about men being obsessed with objectifying women annoys me as well. There is a difference that people never appreciate.

Aesthetic: appreciation of beauty for beauty's sake. i.e. That is a very Aesthetic painting.

This can apply to women too, I find La Riquea Aesthetically beautiful.

Objectify: appreciation of something for it's physically appealing nature

Pigs dressed as men think La Riquea is "hot"

I encourage everyone to learn to think and differentiate.

Wow, I totally agree... It amazes me how many men question why I get so angry when they call me sexy... I am so happy to have found someone who is a lot like my Lurunin and who knows how to treat a woman... btw, i love the Irish! tell your wife she's awesome because she's irish... (i'm not trying to be racist for those who look for every little reason to point out racism.)

I guess I got here late but does anyone else think this reads like a classic student-betrays-teacher movie dialogue?

You're so right... it's kinda hilarious actually

[Lurunin]

You're a good man Lur ( as I explained to La Riquea before I saw your post ) I can tell you that unlike Afghanistan, unfortunately, you can't go searching for HVT's. I served in Afghanistan from late 2002 till late 2004, and I can tell you the reason that at least my troop and the rest of INTJTF ( International Joint Task Force, a collection of various SF groups from around the world, most notably SFOD, USMC 1st RECON, SAS, ASAS, JTF2, and GROM ) that our intentions were to catch the guys before another 9/11 or similar terrorist attack happened. Now I won't compare what Tibs did to a terrorist attack, but sometimes overwhelming force is needed in TE to just make sure the bad guys get killed. Unfortunately we can't just send in SF troops to hunt them down, and unlike RL, collateral damage is acceptable in TE.

Your analogy is a good one, I wish it could apply here, but I think the major thing on a lot of people's minds is to destroy Tibs supporters before they can do anything really destructive, as Tibs planned to do. If the rest of RE has to suffer for it, that's the price that is paid. If there was some other way I'm sure we could take it. I've already said, anyone who is with Tibs, and Tibs himself, is my enemy till the day one of us leaves TE. I'm sure that as a member of the 3rd Bn you appreciate the sentiment.

After all we have our motto: Pro Causa Sanctus Libertas in the 3rd Bn and Tibs' plans could definitely be interpreted as an attack on our Sacred Liberty. Especially the way he wanted to play TPF into destruction.

I'm sure I can depend on the 3rd Bn to join me in never giving peace to Tibs and his allies. Also since I've never shown off our flag yet...

http://www.wolf-te.info/CNTEImages/3rdBatt...nBattleFlag.jpg

This is the Battle Flag for The Phoenix Federation, 3rd Battalion, who has already distinguished itself in every way conceivable and who I am proud and humbled to command.

PS: If anyone needs any of the acronyms for the SF groups listed above, or a translation of the 3rd Bn's motto. Just ask, I'll provide it.

well now Gabs, looks like i need to salute to you even more now than before..not only are you my Commander but also a hero to your country .

tbh i wouldn't call it impossible but more along the lines of incredibly time consuming and, since this is TE, generally considered a waste of time. i do understand why people would want to fire randomly into the crowd for those reasons, i just dont condone it really.

And as for the 3rd Battalion's war against Tibs, just give the order

[Lurunin]

Wow, I totally agree... It amazes me how many men question why I get so angry when they call me sexy... I am so happy to have found someone who is a lot like my Lurunin and who knows how to treat a woman... btw, i love the Irish! tell your wife she's awesome because she's irish... (i'm not trying to be racist for those who look for every little reason to point out racism.)

lmao i always have to watch you when anything irish is mentioned dont i

(though glad to see that chivalry is not dead yet in this world)

[Burning Glory]

It's not hard to tell that it's Thai, he's got a fairly distinctive style of writing. As for the "plot against RE" thanks for at least acknowledging that it existed.

Well I guess if you believe that then there is no convincing you otherwise And as far as acknowledging a plot against RE, I didn't do that....Nor do i see how

you can construed what i did say, or interpret it that way I simply said that Dog was the only one that said anything about a plot, didn't say TPF was plotting

This is beautiful.

Can't help but wonder, who is backing Tibs in RE? I know that there are plenty of RE nations that are.

lol, far as i can tell, maybe 2 or 3....But there may be other back stabbers, who knows

BG.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Burning Glory

[La Riquea]

lmao i always have to watch you when anything irish is mentioned dont i

(though glad to see that chivalry is not dead yet in this world)

No my darling, you don't have to watch me whenever Irish is mentioned -sways side to side innocently-

and of course chivalry isn't dead, it's just very hard to find because so few practice it these days

[Gabryal]

Or his greatest asset. It is all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

No one should be surprised by Folger's actions, I mentioned I was in the military, he is too humble to admit he was ( is? ) in the Army as well. If Tibs underestimated anything it's this: We were both trained to never accept betrayal as an acceptable battle practice. If Tibs had thought that through, Folger's reaction to Tibs betrayal would have been inevitable.

In the UCMJ ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) there are several laws in which it is not only legal, it is mandatory for any officer, commissioned or not ( meaning NCO or Officer Junior to) for that officer to shoot and kill the CO ( commanding officer ). One of those is falsifying or giving orders that will intentionally or maliciously harm friendly forces.

The punishment if convicted is death.

From that point of view it's easy to see why Folger was so appalled by what Tiberius had done, this is a War Game, not war, but in the military they strip away the weakness you brought with you and replace it with strength and the iron will to face the horrible face of War. Tiberius not only underestimated Folger's intelligence he completely didn't understand his moral compass. "Army Strong" isn't just a motto, it's a fact of life.

If a group would possibly divide post-reset because of something that occurred in a previous round then why isn't it ok to attack people for what they did in a previous round? In theory it sounds sorta nice and decent to let what happens in Round X stay in Round X, but is TE supposed to be nice and decent? Most of the same people that would scream that this is about death and destruction would also agree that issues aren't supposed to leave a round. Seems like a contradiction to me, but I still understand the idea. However the problem is that alliances are allowed to evolve (like RE theoretically splitting), but must do so in a vacuum (one alliance is not allowed to "evolve" by developing a long-standing grudge)??? Why must folks insist on telling others what do do, how things must be done, etc?

Some people have to be told that things are ok before they realize that they really are ok, so here it goes:

It is ok to interact with people on Planet Steve in whatever manner you choose, just accept that actions may bring about reactions and consequences. It is ok to hold grudges that go from one round to the next. People do it all of the time really. Even the people that complain It is ok to form alliances. People were doing it long before WOLF. People are still going to do it in the future. Really. You can ignore the people that insist on telling others what "must" or "can't" be done. It fine. You don't have to drink the Kool Aid that anybody serves unless you just want to. Really

Frostbite lost a good man when you went rogue BK, you are going to go far in TE with this sort of thinking.

Wow, I totally agree... It amazes me how many men question why I get so angry when they call me sexy... I am so happy to have found someone who is a lot like my Lurunin and who knows how to treat a woman... btw, i love the Irish! tell your wife she's awesome because she's irish... (i'm not trying to be racist for those who look for every little reason to point out racism.)

Anyone who thinks this statement is rascism needs to a proctologist immediately, they need to have something removed.

If you look at my picture on another thread it's obvious that I'm scots-irish myself, with a good blend of Cherokee Confederacy ( southern Cherokee ) mixed in.

well now Gabs, looks like i need to salute to you even more now than before..not only are you my Commander but also a hero to your country .

tbh i wouldn't call it impossible but more along the lines of incredibly time consuming and, since this is TE, generally considered a waste of time. i do understand why people would want to fire randomly into the crowd for those reasons, i just dont condone it really.

And as for the 3rd Battalion's war against Tibs, just give the order

I did my duty Lur, that's all. The hero's never made it back. I have a tatoo over my heart that has my SFOD Battle Emblem with the motto "de oppresso liber" ( Liberate the Oppressed ) across it in a banner, under that it has three purple hearts ( the only award I ever advertise ) and four crosses, for the four brothers who lost their lives in the search to destroy the enemies of liberty, just in my troop of 12. Thank you for you kind words however, and keep in your thoughts and prayers all those who are coming home now. No soldier ever leaves a war without being a casualty the mental and physical stress of war is incredibly hard to explain. They have estimated that in a fifteen minute firefight the average soldier exerts the same amount of energy as a prize fighter does in a 10 round bout. I hope America is proud of all of them, and that they can survive the savagery that existed on the earth, and still exists in their minds.

As for the 3rd Bn's orders. I'll run it by BG. I'll give the order when/if he allows it.

Gabe

[Panic King]

In the UCMJ ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) there are several laws in which it is not only legal, it is mandatory for any officer, commissioned or not ( meaning NCO or Officer Junior to) for that officer to shoot and kill the CO ( commanding officer ). One of those is falsifying or giving orders that will intentionally or maliciously harm friendly forces.

The punishment if convicted is death.

Hey brother.. I must of missed that lesson while serving my 20. The UCMJ in no shape or form condones fragging a CO. However, there are several sections of the UCMJ which will allow one to convince a jury in a Courts-Martial that you were correct in the defensive shooting of a CO, but only in the case that the CO's actions were to bring death and harm to non-combatants or those under his command. And this cannot be conjecture. There must be "sufficient evidence for proof" that his/her actions would of brought those results which one deemed needed to be recitified by a "defensive shooting."

In Tibs case maybe this will suffice... Folger could be brought up on this Section...

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(B) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Panic King

edit: missed a paragraph

Edited October 7, 2009 by Panic King

[Gabryal]

Hey brother.. I must of missed that lesson while serving my 20. The UCMJ in no shape or form condones fragging a CO. However, there are several sections of the UCMJ which will allow one to convince a jury in a Courts-Martial that you were correct in the defensive shooting of a CO, but only in the case that the CO's actions were to bring death and harm to non-combatants or those under his command. And this cannot be conjecture. There must be "sufficient evidence for proof" that his/her actions would of brought those results which one deemed needed to be recitified by a "defensive shooting."

In Tibs case maybe this will suffice... Folger could be brought up on this Section...

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(B) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Panic King

edit: missed a paragraph

This is all correct, however if I recall correctly there is a statute that also governs interaction with foreign forces that are serving in the same field. Your original statement about "not condoning fragging" is completely correct, as a stipulation however I present a situation under which an officer knowingly calls down blue on blue fire on friendly but not national soldiers. Say if a commander of a artillery unit ordered his gunners to fire upon British troops in the recent War in Iraq, then a junior officer or NCO could legally refuse such an order, if this is not sufficient to keep the order from being carried out, the NCO or Junior Officer can shoot the CO without it being sedition, as defined above, due to the necessity of immediate action to prevent the harm of innocent or friendly forces. It is also applicable that any officer, commissioned or not, can use deadly force on their CO if such force is necessary to prevent harm upon other innocent third parties or members of the CO's command. Say, ordering private to step on a land mine, or brandishing a weapon when it seems apparent that the CO of a unit is intent upon inflicting bodily harm upon a person under his command, or the command of friendly forces. In either case a Junior Officer or NCO may shoot the CO for in defense of others. I used the phrase "shoot and kill" as a phrase that perhaps shouldn't be put together, I just know that I was trained to shoot to kill, however many people think there is some way to learn to "shoot to wound" I merge them together, even though I know I shouldn't. If the CO in any of the above situations survived he would be subject to court-martial

Sedition or Mutiny is only applicable under the stipulation that the people committing the shooting are attempting to disobey a lawful order, or to directly take over a specified target ( say a ship ), through hostile means, for personal reasons.

Since Folger did not take over RE for personal reasons, but rather to avoid the slaughter of innocent allies, the ART 94 law doesn't apply in this case.

I was attempting to oversimplify and did a poor job of it, you are absolutely correct in all your statements, I just don't think Article 94 applies in the RE scenario, and it's been many years since I read through the UCMJ but shouldn't subsection 1 "to obey lawful orders"? instead of "to obey orders"

Also I think most people would be hard pressed to say that Folger didn't do his duty to RE, also a sticking point with subsection 1. He only removed Tibs from the CoC, and actually at a point where he was the governing body of RE ( Do not forget that Folger was Emperor of RE when he banned Tibs ) so if anyone would be guilty of subsection 2 it would be Tiberius. Section 3 could apply to anyone who currently backs Tiberius.

However all said and done, that's very well done. I'll have to look up some of the laws in the UCMJ it looks like if I'm going to keep pace. I didn't come close to 20 years though Panic King, three years, three months, and 13 days, was my entire service length, from boot till I was honorably discharged, for medical reasons.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Gabryal

[Gabryal]

This is all correct, however if I recall correctly there is a statute that also governs interaction with foreign forces that are serving in the same field. Your original statement about "not condoning fragging" is completely correct, as a stipulation however I present a situation under which an officer knowingly calls down blue on blue fire on friendly but not national soldiers. Say if a commander of a artillery unit ordered his gunners to fire upon British troops in the recent War in Iraq, then a junior officer or NCO could legally refuse such an order, if this is not sufficient to keep the order from being carried out, the NCO or Junior Officer can shoot the CO without it being sedition, as defined above, due to the necessity of immediate action to prevent the harm of innocent or friendly forces. It is also applicable that any officer, commissioned or not, can use deadly force on their CO if such force is necessary to prevent harm upon other innocent third parties or members of the CO's command. Say, ordering private to step on a land mine, or brandishing a weapon when it seems apparent that the CO of a unit is intent upon inflicting bodily harm upon a person under his command, or the command of friendly forces. In either case a Junior Officer or NCO may shoot the CO for in defense of others. I used the phrase "shoot and kill" as a phrase that perhaps shouldn't be put together, I just know that I was trained to shoot to kill, however many people think there is some way to learn to "shoot to wound" I merge them together, even though I know I shouldn't. If the CO in any of the above situations survived he would be subject to court-martial

Sedition or Mutiny is only applicable under the stipulation that the people committing the shooting are attempting to disobey a lawful order, are not engaging in self defense, defense of others in their command, defense of innocents, or defense of other friendly units, or to directly take over a specified target ( say a ship ), through hostile means, for personal reasons.

Since Folger did not take over RE for personal reasons, but rather to avoid the slaughter of innocent allies, the ART 94 law doesn't apply in this case.

I was attempting to oversimplify and did a poor job of it, you are absolutely correct in all your statements, I just don't think Article 94 applies in the RE scenario, and it's been many years since I read through the UCMJ but shouldn't subsection 1 "to obey lawful orders"? instead of "to obey orders"

Also I think most people would be hard pressed to say that Folger didn't do his duty to RE, also a sticking point with subsection 1. He only removed Tibs from the CoC, and actually at a point where he was the governing body of RE ( Do not forget that Folger was Emperor of RE when he banned Tibs ) so if anyone would be guilty of subsection 2 it would be Tiberius. Section 3 could apply to anyone who currently backs Tiberius.

However all said and done, that's very well done. I'll have to look up some of the laws in the UCMJ it looks like if I'm going to keep pace. I didn't come close to 20 years though Panic King, three years, three months, and 13 days, was my entire service length, from boot till I was honorably discharged, for medical reasons.

Edit: Ugh, damn Loratabs, I ment to hit edit instead of replying to my own post, the important difference is bolded.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Gabryal

[Dochartaigh]

Edit: Ugh, damn Loratabs, I ment to hit edit instead of replying to my own post, the important difference is bolded.

not sure if this was mentioned but the UCMJ also allows for any rank to disobey an unlawful order at any time without consequence (i.e. the movie A Few Good Men, those Marines on trial could have disobeyed the order for the Code Red and would not have been punished since it was an unlawful order). Also, in the Marines (maybe the other branches, unsure bout that), to question any order regardless of whether it sounds lawful or not, to ensure you do not actually carry out an unlawful order.

@BigKat- my feelings are, if an alliance wants to split at the end of the round due to internal issues (for example, RE if they split will most likely be due to internal versus external factors), then they should be allowed to do so. I do not feel external grudges (i.e. MHA not liking RE) should carry over from round to round simply because each round should be a fresh slate. if MHA goes to war with RE every round for the same reason, it gets stale and members in both alliances may not like that. i like the idea of a fresh slate versus the SE standard of holding grudges for years. Not everyone feels this and that is their choice.

[Panic King]

I was attempting to oversimplify and did a poor job of it, you are absolutely correct in all your statements, I just don't think Article 94 applies in the RE scenario, and it's been many years since I read through the UCMJ but shouldn't subsection 1 "to obey lawful orders"? instead of "to obey orders"

This a direct quote of the UCMJ. The "lawful order" clause is an interpetation of law and not written into the UCMJ. The UCMJ does not distinquish between a "lawful order" and an order. That is what a judge or jury in a courts-martial will determine. The UCMJ assumes all orders are lawful.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Panic King

[Panic King]

not sure if this was mentioned but the UCMJ also allows for any rank to disobey an unlawful order at any time without consequence (i.e. the movie A Few Good Men, those Marines on trial could have disobeyed the order for the Code Red and would not have been punished since it was an unlawful order). Also, in the Marines (maybe the other branches, unsure bout that), to question any order regardless of whether it sounds lawful or not, to ensure you do not actually carry out an unlawful order.

The UCMJ is not branch specific. Your duty is to disregard any obvert illegal order given, maybe question in your heart the validity of such an order. But if you refuse an order that you question and it is found to be a valid order, you will find yourself in a world of hurt and under Article 94 investigation for disobeying such an order. Thankfully, there are few leaders that will order their troops to violate a law. In my 20 years in, I have been involved in only two investigations and have seen only one instance in which it came to a trial. And in that trial, the leader was found innocent and the investigation then proceeded to the troop who refused that order. Enough said on this....

[Lysander]

this is oversimplification of the Tibs-Folger

Tibs gave a bad order. Folger shot him. Folger wins

[Varianz]

this is oversimplification of the Tibs-Folger

Tibs gave a bad order. Folger shot him. Folger wins

But Folger made the mistake of not shooting to kill.

[Lysander]

But Folger made the mistake of not shooting to kill.

Your dead Tibs, you just don't know it

[HisK Owns You]

But Folger made the mistake of not shooting to kill.

He killed you... Don't worry.

[Elric]

@BigKat- my feelings are, if an alliance wants to split at the end of the round due to internal issues (for example, RE if they split will most likely be due to internal versus external factors), then they should be allowed to do so. I do not feel external grudges (i.e. MHA not liking RE) should carry over from round to round simply because each round should be a fresh slate. if MHA goes to war with RE every round for the same reason, it gets stale and members in both alliances may not like that. i like the idea of a fresh slate versus the SE standard of holding grudges for years. Not everyone feels this and that is their choice.

Dochartaigh, I have complete respect for your opinion. Overall, my frustration is with folks trying to impose their viewpoints, many times with "force", upon others. I completely understand your point about things remaining the same and getting stale. The other extreme, which is ultimately what I perceive you to suggest, is that all action is completely random each round. I don't think that is possible in a practical sense. Some organizations have differing attitudes and prevailing sentiments that will draw them close to some, and will polarize them from others. A bit of continuity can be fun, too (but your point is well taken). If your alliance chooses to not hold grudges, and really can accomplish that, then I applaud you. Not all groups want to do that, and others simply are incapable of that. Your last sentence is a nice summation of your thoughts. I simply wish there could be more tolerance for different styles of play.

[lonewolfe2015]

Post reset they'll be destroyed? Really? Is that what TE has come to? Even I never crossed that limit.

Late reply, but I found this amusing.

Tiberius, you were like a shark in the water smelling blood every round with MHA. Had we not hit RE first this round, it would have been 3 straight rounds in a row you guys hit us first. So in essence, yes, you did cross that limit.

Don't act like your throne is above the cut of the rest and you won't create a divide between yourself and your members. When there is nothing between you and your people and you act superior to everyone else as well it makes couping and thus removing you from that throne all the more easier.

You lost, get over it. Go snivel in the corner and prepare your long list of attempts to direct alliances in your favor so that you may return to some means of power in which you can return to try and destroy MHA once again for all of the "betrayal" we've done to you and grief we've caused you, and probably monetary loss to psychiatrist bills you've had.

Caesar, Tiberius, what's next, Nero? Oh wait... Haha. Rome was burning under your rule and all you did was "step down" and hand the problem to someone else. Some emperor you are.

[lonewolfe2015]

I do not feel external grudges (i.e. MHA not liking RE) should carry over from round to round simply because each round should be a fresh slate. if MHA goes to war with RE every round for the same reason, it gets stale and members in both alliances may not like that. i like the idea of a fresh slate versus the SE standard of holding grudges for years. Not everyone feels this and that is their choice.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd point something out.

This "MHA not liking RE" began when Tiberius attacked us Round 4, then attacked us round 5 and continually seeked to destroy us. We finally got one offensive in at the end of round 5 while also defending LE, and RE was planning to hit us again Round 6 even if we didn't hit them.

MHA likes to play a clean slate every new round, we like to play without treaties. Some people respect that more than others...

[Varianz]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd point something out.

This "MHA not liking RE" began when Tiberius attacked us Round 4, then attacked us round 5 and continually seeked to destroy us. We finally got one offensive in at the end of round 5 while also defending LE, and RE was planning to hit us again Round 6 even if we didn't hit them.

MHA likes to play a clean slate every new round, we like to play without treaties. Some people respect that more than others...

We attacked you for one of the same reasons that you've been attacking us a few times now; you were a threat, and you were close to us in size. What, were we never supposed to attack you so your feelings didn't get hurt? And you didn't seem to mind treaties when they benefited you, but as soon as it became clear they were a liability you dumped them all (even the treaties with people who had been faithful to you, i.e., RE). One of the problems in this game is that alliance positions (in terms of strength) rarely shift, so it's usually the same alliances attacking each other over and over. Of course, that has the effect of creating tension and dramaz between alliances, which just accelerates the cycle. I have no idea how to fix that problem, I just recognize that it exists.