Quote:
Originally Posted by Storebo
It is imply'ed. My point was alliance D acted on alliance X's orders and u argued that alliance D could have done it for their own reasons. Which is kinda like admitting guilt. Also that Alliance D's attacks on alliance B's increased by 400% can't simply be explained by the fact that alliance B was fat. Cause logic dictates otherwise. 400% increase is a bit to much of a coincidence.
|
You are missing the point completely. You're talking about guilt. If a word like guilt is at all in order here (which I dont think it is), then surely it applies to the alliance that threw the first stone? And if this alliance is alliance B (a scenario that is perfectly plausible, because as you said, newbie bashing makes people's epenis grow), then is alliance D not completely justified (another word which I believe is not in order, but alas) in hitting alliance D back?
In fact, I could completely reverse your scenario to fit my own propagandistic purposes, simply by swapping alliance X and Y, as well as B and D. However, this does not make it any more true than the original scenario.
As far as I can oversee it, xVx (B) hit rock (D) in a time they knew D was more vulnerable. Neither X nor Y are involved here, although they might very well be fighting a war of their own. D gets pissed off and decides to strike back. Since D wasn't in the run for the win anyway, it doesn't have much to lose. However, constant attacks might very well stagnate B's growth in such a way that they also won't win; a scenario which indeed seemed to have played out, signified by B going from #1 to #3.