Your classic "pld" thread (at FAnG)

[Colt]

Originally Posted by virogenesis

Please quote me where I said he was otherwise STFU ok?

Originally Posted by virogenesis

You might not be xanadu but your still a alliance like any other alliance you woudn't want your top planets leaving surely you can see that as a example or does your arrogance get the better of you?

[Colt]

Originally Posted by virogenesis

You might not be xanadu but your still a alliance like any other alliance you woudn't want your top planets leaving surely you can see that as a example or does your arrogance get the better of you?
That was just a example so don't try & come out with "We're not Xanadu" cos i was being general & comparing you to another alliance not any alliance in particular so please go back to your drawing board & think of something else to say
M'kay?

And where in that post was i being arrogant? pray tell....

Well, unless you know what FAnG's top planets are doing, then you are in no position to say that they are treated different to the smaller ones....as from what i can tell, they are treated just the same, and im sure i know more bout this matter than you do heh...

Originally Posted by Anaram

I had stated to Phraktos HC that I was seriously contemplating departing from FAnG for the reasons that it was becoming impossible for me to participate in their attacks.

Why was it impossible to participate in our attacks? You might have mentioned this, if so, then apologies, but i havent seen you say it so....

[virogenesis]

Originally Posted by Colt

And where in that post was i being arrogant? pray tell....

Well, unless you know what FAnG's top planets are doing, then you are in no position to say that they are treated different to the smaller ones....as from what i can tell, they are treated just the same, and im sure i know more bout this matter than you do heh...

You were being arrogant by clearly looking at my example & trying to twist around what I said to me this seems a bit foolish as you have tried to put me out of context but ain't gonna happen (this ain't a irc log your dealing with).
Colt all big planets do the same......they attack to get roid fat cos they don't want to be left behind i have seen it done many times before so please don't lecture me about knowing about FAnG all i need to know is it contains alliance members & members don't always listen to what they are told & carry out orders.

[Jackal2112]

this lame discussion kinda bled to death.. thank god..

[Mad Matte]

Originally Posted by Rumad

no you made that choice and you didn't - but you cannot expect to leave and not have any consequences. You show me one alliance that WOULD do that...

I can tell you Elysium has done exactly that alot of rounds, or need I tell you of the amount of ex-Ely going to Legion in rnd4-5?

Not read the whole thread yet, so if this question has been answered already, I appologize (but can not wait as I might forget it).

Why were his WP galaxy mates not allowed to defend him, if as you (as in FaNG) and your allies have claimed in other threads, you have no deals with WP?

[Colt]

Originally Posted by virogenesis

Colt all big planets do the same......they attack to get roid fat cos they don't want to be left behind i have seen it done many times before so please don't lecture me about knowing about FAnG all i need to know is it contains alliance members & members don't always listen to what they are told & carry out orders.

ermm, everyone attacks to get roid fat, that is the primary aim of attacking (usually) heh, no-one wants to be left behind if you are playing "hardcore"..oh, and i never tried to lecture you, i just stated that you can't stereotype FAnG's top players just because other top players have done it before, not everyone is the same...oh, and back to the point, the top planets are still treated the same, in my eyes atleast...

[Mad Matte]

By the way, I am curious as to why FaNG seem to try to justify their actions with different reasons. No doubt it is clear to anyne on the outside that it is greed that is behind it all. Too few good targets remain, so in an effort to keep their members happy they attack...

I do hope that Rumad and the others atleast were not complaining when Fury/Legion did their "retals" in previous rounds...

[Forest]

I dont see why we are justifying it at all.

My reasons is private and that it will remain until i decide diierently.

Arrogant? Yes.

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Forest

I dont see why we are justifying it at all.

My reasons is private and that it will remain until i decide diierently.

Arrogant? Yes.

To the best of my understanding, you were attempting to justify it in order to attempt to avoid bad reputation. I might be wrong there. A major reason of this thread was, of course, to attempt to dent FAnG's reputation.

If the price I have to pay for leaving FAnG is for yout to decide, surely the price you'll have to pay for it is whatever little, insignificant dent this might leave in your reputation. You explain your point of view, I explain mine, in the end it's all just a jingle of words. I whine about yours roiding me, you whine about mine whining about yours roidinig me. It's a merry go round.

Still, I must admit that I find it curious that not a single fang officer replying to my posts in this thread has managed to stand by their arguments that I would have mispresented information or blatantly lied. Alch tried the traditional "you shouldn't have quote a private conversation" trick to get the discussion off-topic with little success. Heartless went for the "please specify all lies". On the other hand, I've caught several FAnG'ers with with specific disinformation (also known as lies). Rumad even refused to specify what it is he meant, so I shall now digress and attempt to decrypt what he's said.

[Forest]

The reputation of FaNG is fine,

And my personal reputation? Its well known everyone wants to cnut me and i dont spose for 1 second that i will end the round with any sort of roid count. So no, not a problem

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Rumad

the first part is so much of a lie that you stated that we were hitting our allies. Go figure.

I have not changed my view on anything - but if its lies why did you not state that 400 replies ago?

Seriously half the time I can't follow what you are attempting say. What you are saying is, is something to the effect:

"The first part [of what?] is so much a lie that you [effectively?] stated that we were hitting our allies[when??]"

I never claimed anything to the effect that FAnG would be attacking their allies.

What views are you referring to? The only one that comes to mind is your claim that I had already arranged for an alliance after my departure from FAnG. This is essentially true, except I had arranged for an alliance IF I left fang, not for WHEN I left fang. The time elapsed between mine talking to Phraktos HCs and FAnG HCs on this matter was roughly 3 minutes (give or take). With alch I spoke for 30 minutes, until arguments started going in circles.

Seriously, if someone is aware and can put in simple terms to me what Rumad is trying to say, I would be glad to know. In any matter, this discussion too has been going in circles for a while, I guess we'll just have to wait for Forest to come out with his revelation.

EDIT: Probably the most interesting tidbit in this entire thread has been the declarations that WP would indeed be allied to FAnG.

[Jackal2112]

Originally Posted by Forest

The reputation of FaNG is fine,

hah (hahahahahahahahaahhaahahahaha)

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Mad Matte

By the way, I am curious as to why FaNG seem to try to justify their actions with different reasons. No doubt it is clear to anyne on the outside that it is greed that is behind it all. Too few good targets remain, so in an effort to keep their members happy they attack...

I do hope that Rumad and the others atleast were not complaining when Fury/Legion did their "retals" in previous rounds...

/me yawns

[LB|away]

So much bs

About totally notthing.... I made this decision cos I felt it was needed.

I'd do excactly the same if I could turn back time and decide about it again.


Since Anaram was FAnG, it was my decision and my good right to do what thought was needed.
No need to think why, or guess why.

cos it has notthing to do with anyone else except FAnG.

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by LB|away

cos it has notthing to do with anyone else except FAnG.

The reaction to such action, however, is everyone's right. When the information is available, everyone will formulate their own opinions. Some agree with FAnG action, some disagree. Nobody will probably take extreme action, but the points will be discussed and debated, and yet, somehow, Planetarion lives yet another day

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Anaram

The reaction to such action, however, is everyone's right. When the information is available, everyone will formulate their own opinions. Some agree with FAnG action, some disagree. Nobody will probably take extreme action, but the points will be discussed and debated, and yet, somehow, Planetarion lives yet another day

Yes but this isnt something that needs to be discussed... by others then FAnG ppl
cos noone knows all the reasons. And its noones business either...
it happened.. pity..
move on all of you..

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by LB|away

Yes but this isnt something that needs to be discussed... by others then FAnG ppl
cos noone knows all the reasons. And its noones business either...
it happened.. pity..
move on all of you..

Like how fury actions and policies should never have been discussed by people not in fury... My business is what I make my business.

[Ice]

you win some you loose some, in this case he lost.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Anaram

The reaction to such action, however, is everyone's right. When the information is available, everyone will formulate their own opinions. Some agree with FAnG action, some disagree. Nobody will probably take extreme action, but the points will be discussed and debated, and yet, somehow, Planetarion lives yet another day

true, but then there are complete morons and twats, who just enter the discussion with the sole puprose to insult either you or FAnG. Typical AD though.

Hence why I told you in pm, that none of this should have been brought to AD, as it'll end in flames and nothing else.

rgds Kj

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

hah (hahahahahahahahaahhaahahahaha)

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

true, but then there are complete morons and twats, who just enter the discussion with the sole puprose to insult either you or FAnG. Typical AD though.

Hence why I told you in pm, that none of this should have been brought to AD, as it'll end in flames and nothing else.

rgds Kj

I don't mind flames that much. If I did mind flames, I probably would rip off my Internet connection. If flames are the price for the few pieces of actual content, then it's still better than no content. Sad but true.

[Stress]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Well Focht, we both know that with those people jumping between WEET or earlier FLTV nobody ever played a false game. Anaram did. In WEET or FLTV people didn't seek for an excuse to leave, they just told their HC's they would like to join Fury for example. Anaram went and didn't tell anyone he'd join Phraktos. We went to Phraktos and Mistu informing them about our action to roid a defector. Phraktos then told us Anaram is a Phraktos recruit.
So you see it is a different situation.

Actually in a situation like these. the command staff usually aksed the ally that the member wanted to leave. it was more a formality then annything. But still it was done as openly as possible due to trust.

I dont know the situation here, and im sure it is a lot less one sided then the 2 sides we can read about here. I would however newer had let annyone attack a member of my ally, given that the resons for leaving where the ones stated. I am glad that is not my call in this situation.

There is only one thing i see that i would like to comment on. that he left in game in the alliance. is not the same as not having an ally. we all know that alliances work outside the game mechanism. IF phrank(whatever) is a serious alliance, It does strike me as odd that they allow this to happen. But its allso strange that this "move" was not cleared on command level. Making this a non issue.

As i see it this is not only a FAnG desishion, but allso one of phrank(whatever).
why everyone is blaming FanG and not them is beyond me.

Even tho, I would have setteled it in another way, making a point out of it within the command group of the block. Improving relations on this type of thing, perhaps making a few guidelines on the matter.

but im just an old has been annyhows.

[Waku]

if I was defending I would have said **** FAnG im not recalling

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Mad Matte

I can tell you Elysium has done exactly that alot of rounds, or need I tell you of the amount of ex-Ely going to Legion in rnd4-5?

Not read the whole thread yet, so if this question has been answered already, I appologize (but can not wait as I might forget it).

Why were his WP galaxy mates not allowed to defend him, if as you (as in FaNG) and your allies have claimed in other threads, you have no deals with WP?

and ely suffered for allowing that. I actually have sympathy with ely at that time because of having many friends there, but you can hardly say anything regarding that because at that point ely began to hate legion and as such its ex members. Locked in a war with fury it was hard to actually do anything except sever ties which is what happened. However Ely never forgot and round 6 joined Xeta if memory serves me correct.

FAnG has never appreciated desserters and round 7 we dealt with dessertion in a similar manner. WP I guess took a decision not to get involved. Its a tough call but why put your members on the line for a non member soaking up defence and such? I would say it was the correct move but thats just my opinion. BTW hi mad matte hope ou are well old round 5 para member

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Mad Matte

I do hope that Rumad and the others atleast were not complaining when Fury/Legion did their "retals" in previous rounds...

Retals are different altogether. Retals are something I have never agreed with and I never will. Attacking a non member is all well and fine.

Too many ppl are associating this with the person in question being an ally. Simply he isnt. He left FAnG and a decision was made. Thats a NON member who arranged to join another alliance before he left. Its easy to see from the wording to alch that he had arranged his departure to Phraktos before he left FAnG. This isnt unusual and as you pointed out many did it leaving ely round 5. However if you expect us to accept him and love him for what he did your sadly mistaken. We did what we felt was right. Not personal, not moralistic, just one decision on one tick of a whole round.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Retals are different altogether. Retals are something I have never agreed with and I never will. Attacking a non member is all well and fine.

Too many ppl are associating this with the person in question being an ally. Simply he isnt. He left FAnG and a decision was made. Thats a NON member who arranged to join another alliance before he left. Its easy to see from the wording to alch that he had arranged his departure to Phraktos before he left FAnG. This isnt unusual and as you pointed out many did it leaving ely round 5. However if you expect us to accept him and love him for what he did your sadly mistaken. We did what we felt was right. Not personal, not moralistic, just one decision on one tick of a whole round.

Actually Rumad, if he had joined Phraktos before leaving FAnG and then left he DOES class as an "allied" planet. So by attacking him you broke your your agreement in not attacking allied planets.

Unless you got permission from Phraktos beforehand, your alliance just conducted an illegal attack upon an allied planet and Phraktos would be fully within their rights to defend and all you could do is either accept that or go to war (which would be a silly thing to go to war over, since it was you breaking the rules in the first place.)

Now, Im not getting into the moralistic side of it - because oddly enough I can see why you attacked him, but the way it was done was not conductive with that of an alliance trying to keep to its agreements. You would never have got away with such a thing in earlier rounds with alliances like Fury or Titans.

Now if you have proof that he intended to spy on FAnG for Phraktos, then thats a different matter - otherwise you really have no leg to stand upon (except the morality and what you believe was 'right') - from the way I see it, FAnG have acted wrong.

It's all moot anyway, as it seems Phraktos are quite content to let you break the agreements you have with them anyway. So gg you

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Actually Rumad, if he had joined Phraktos before leaving FAnG and then left he DOES class as an "allied" planet. So by attacking him you broke your your agreement in not attacking allied planets.

Unless you got permission from Phraktos beforehand, your alliance just conducted an illegal attack upon an allied planet and Phraktos would be fully within their rights to defend and all you could do is either accept that or go to war (which would be a silly thing to go to war over, since it was you breaking the rules in the first place.)

Now, Im not getting into the moralistic side of it - because oddly enough I can see why you attacked him, but the way it was done was not conductive with that of an alliance trying to keep to its agreements. You would never have got away with such a thing in earlier rounds with alliances like Fury or Titans.

Now if you have proof that he intended to spy on FAnG for Phraktos, then thats a different matter - otherwise you really have no leg to stand upon (except the morality and what you believe was 'right') - from the way I see it, FAnG have acted wrong.

It's all moot anyway, as it seems Phraktos are quite content to let you break the agreements you have with them anyway. So gg you

your right except he cannt sign up ingame for phraktos for 72 hours. So your right by rond 9 standards, but not from PaX Standards.

And I have 2 legs to stand on ta

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Rumad

your right except he cannt sign up ingame for phraktos for 72 hours. So your right by rond 9 standards, but not from PaX Standards.

And I have 2 legs to stand on ta

Since when did ingame dictate members?

It wouldnt really matter, you knew he was a member of Phraktos yet still attacked. I'm still right, you're just trying to be technical. (none of them work - the classic "not in our arbiter" didnt work for Legion with new Wrath members)

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

your right except he cannt sign up ingame for phraktos for 72 hours. So your right by rond 9 standards, but not from PaX Standards.

And I have 2 legs to stand on ta

by your logic Fang would have no ingame ties and no alliances with any other alliance, nor would it be part of any block, since those features are ingame impossible. (OFC thats vice versa for your current allies aswell)

Or are you telling us now there is a doublestandard ?

:gollum: :gollum:

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Since when did ingame dictate members?

It wouldnt really matter, you knew he was a member of Phraktos yet still attacked. I'm still right, you're just trying to be technical. (none of them work - the classic "not in our arbiter" didnt work for Legion with new Wrath members)

it is a techncal thing i don't deny and that in round 9 or 9.5 you would have been right, but i think i am right in what i say.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Rumad

it is a techncal thing i don't deny and that in round 9 or 9.5 you would have been right, but i think i am right in what i say.

Unless alliance agreements are ingame nowadays, I dont see where you get this from. Do arbiters work from alliance lists suppled from the Planetarion database or something?

If not, how do they work? Must be something outside the game, exactly like earlier rounds thus just because there are inbuilt alliances doesnt mean anything in context of what I say.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

by your logic Fang would have no ingame ties and no alliances with any other alliance, nor would it be part of any block, since those features are ingame impossible. (OFC thats vice versa for your current allies aswell)

Or are you telling us now there is a doublestandard ?

:gollum: :gollum:

not at all - but we do not consider him a member till he has joined phraktos in game and then he becomes an ally.

We decided to take action after he left and phraktos agreed - i dont see where teh double standard comes in tbh

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

not at all - but we do not consider him a member till he has joined phraktos in game and then he becomes an ally.

We decided to take action after he left and phraktos agreed - i dont see where teh double standard comes in tbh

simple, you claim he is no member aslong as he isnt ingame in the alliance but you admit you have "allies" ingame who are in no technical form allied to you. I.e. members of other alliances, who have no eta advantage etc.

So no matter how you turn it, once he admitted joining another, allied alliance, he was technically an ally no matter if or if not the 72h period was over. Since those 72h mean nothing for his status apart from the fact he suffers ingame penalties.
In addition to your scenario you are telling us that you would be fine with your allies roiding new possible members before they can join Fang, after you signaled them this dude is to be exspected in fang ?
(I.e. a high ranked/roidfat mistu member, with allowance of mistu hc would want to join Fang and you are ok with it, so in all technical details it would be fine with you that phra roids him for 72h before he finally gets onboard ?)

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

simple, you claim he is no member aslong as he isnt ingame in the alliance but you admit you have "allies" ingame who are in no technical form allied to you. I.e. members of other alliances, who have no eta advantage etc.

So no matter how you turn it, once he admitted joining another, allied alliance, he was technically an ally no matter if or if not the 72h period was over. Since those 72h mean nothing for his status apart from the fact he suffers ingame penalties.
In addition to your scenario you are telling us that you would be fine with your allies roiding new possible members before they can join Fang, after you signaled them this dude is to be exspected in fang ?

your right in what ou say - except you have already previously stated you talked before accepting ppl.

We talked, we sorted, and althogh he can join it was agreed 3 ticks of waves to attack him.

SO you are right in a sorta way, but i am also right also right.

everything else is hypothetical. There was no betrayal of allies as allies agreed the way forward and we are within our rights to deal with ex members as we see fit.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

by your logic Fang would have no ingame ties and no alliances with any other alliance, nor would it be part of any block, since those features are ingame impossible. (OFC thats vice versa for your current allies aswell)

Or are you telling us now there is a doublestandard ?

:gollum: :gollum:

heh, I think whether we roided anaram or not, it stays none of your business. What standards we, as FAnG, use are also none of your business and quite honnestly, he knew the risks, he made a deal beforehand, he went behind our backs and phraktos did recruit a member who was AT THAT TIME STILL FAnG. So yes, according to how we see this, we had all rights to perform the attack which we still not regret and never will either.

rgds Kj

[Razorback]

Ah so phra told you beforehand you can roid a future member for 3 ticks ?
What a crap alliance

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

simple, you claim he is no member aslong as he isnt ingame in the alliance but you admit you have "allies" ingame who are in no technical form allied to you. I.e. members of other alliances, who have no eta advantage etc.

So no matter how you turn it, once he admitted joining another, allied alliance, he was technically an ally no matter if or if not the 72h period was over. Since those 72h mean nothing for his status apart from the fact he suffers ingame penalties.
In addition to your scenario you are telling us that you would be fine with your allies roiding new possible members before they can join Fang, after you signaled them this dude is to be exspected in fang ?
(I.e. a high ranked/roidfat mistu member, with allowance of mistu hc would want to join Fang and you are ok with it, so in all technical details it would be fine with you that phra roids him for 72h before he finally gets onboard ?)

FAnG wouldn't just accept another member WITHOUT talking to the other ally. We wouldn't ALLOW HIM IN FAnG when he's still in his other alliance and we certainly wouldn't support his leaving as that's considered poaching.

How convenient that it was a planet with lotsa roids and score, there probably would be alot less fuss about this when it was a small planet.

rgds Kj

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

heh, I think whether we roided anaram or not, it stays none of your business. What standards we, as FAnG, use are also none of your business and quite honnestly, he knew the risks, he made a deal beforehand, he went behind our backs and phraktos did recruit a member who was AT THAT TIME STILL FAnG. So yes, according to how we see this, we had all rights to perform the attack which we still not regret and never will either.

rgds Kj

I don't know what all this behind your backs business is. I made a deal and told it right out to FAnG people. You weren't let in on the deal because it was arranged in PM, but I did immediately let you know (the delay was 3 minutes, including the time it took for LB|away to redirect me to alch).

It's a fine line you guys seem to be treading here. It isn't as if I couldn't easily have left and then 3 minutes later spoken with some other alliance HCs instead of the other way round. So what if I wanted to scout the terrain? It would be more acceptable with you to leave FAnG because of poor attacks for no alliance whatsoever than to leave FAnG with poor attacks for some other alliance (which I perceived as doing better in this respect). Phraktos HCs never did recruit me when I was in FAnG. If I made an agreement to join another alliance for the next round of Planetarion, what would your claim be?

Frankly I can't see how the order in which things occurred is of any significance, but the amount of blatant misinformation told to my FAnG representatives is baffling. Some tell me that Phraktos would have approached to recruit me, this is not true. I've also gotten told something along the lines that Phraktos would have been very keen on recruiting me before the round. Yet, interestingly enough, the only proposal for alliance or BG before the round was by Xsploit (for a BG whose name was never mentioned) which I turned down seeing as that point I wasn't even planning on playing.

Anyway, gotta run again.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Anaram

I don't know what all this behind your backs business is. I made a deal and told it right out to FAnG people. You weren't let in on the deal because it was arranged in PM, but I did immediately let you know (the delay was 3 minutes, including the time it took for LB|away to redirect me to alch).

It's a fine line you guys seem to be treading here. It isn't as if I couldn't easily have left and then 3 minutes later spoken with some other alliance HCs instead of the other way round. So what if I wanted to scout the terrain? It would be more acceptable with you to leave FAnG because of poor attacks for no alliance whatsoever than to leave FAnG with poor attacks for some other alliance (which I perceived as doing better in this respect). Phraktos HCs never did recruit me when I was in FAnG. If I made an agreement to join another alliance for the next round of Planetarion, what would your claim be?

Frankly I can't see how the order in which things occurred is of any significance, but the amount of blatant misinformation told to my FAnG representatives is baffling. Some tell me that Phraktos would have approached to recruit me, this is not true. I've also gotten told something along the lines that Phraktos would have been very keen on recruiting me before the round. Yet, interestingly enough, the only proposal for alliance or BG before the round was by Xsploit (for a BG whose name was never mentioned) which I turned down seeing as that point I wasn't even planning on playing.

Anyway, gotta run again.

my point is, you made a deal with phraktos before you left FAnG. You talked to them, you knew they would take you in. Then again, that's not your fault but Phraktos'. They shouldn't recruit pple what are still in FAnG (cause making a deal etc is the same in this situation).

rgds Kj

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

FAnG wouldn't just accept another member WITHOUT talking to the other ally. We wouldn't ALLOW HIM IN FAnG when he's still in his other alliance and we certainly wouldn't support his leaving as that's considered poaching.

How convenient that it was a planet with lotsa roids and score, there probably would be alot less fuss about this when it was a small planet.

rgds Kj

So do i get this right, Fang has never ever in its whole history recruited someone (or even poached or tried to poach) from another alliance without their permission ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So do i get this right, Fang has never ever in its whole history recruited someone (or even poached or tried to poach) from another alliance without their permission ?

no you're not getting this right, that happens when you base your opinion on half truths and infact refuse to know the full situation. I'm sure we probably poached members before, but then I just LAUGH at that alliance by allowing it. Not my problem, never will be.

FAnG on the other hand won't tollerate poaching, if it happens we will simply act accordingly.

rgds Kj

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

my point is, you made a deal with phraktos before you left FAnG. You talked to them, you knew they would take you in. Then again, that's not your fault but Phraktos'. They shouldn't recruit pple what are still in FAnG (cause making a deal etc is the same in this situation).

rgds Kj

maybe you missunderstand anaram was unhappy in the great fang and wanted to leave it.
They didnt steal him, he was fed up, tired, had enough, wanted to leave.
Its hard to understand for you, i can understand that but yet he wasnt happy

Regardless why try and hide your intentions, "we were greedy didnt want our roids to go to an ally who might overtake us in score and roids" not like anyone would missunderstand the whole "technically he is still our jurisdication" anyways.
Atleast Forest had to guts to admit it was about roids, greed and rocknroll and not some gimpish excuses to coverup a "hands in the cookiejar" skandal which became public.

Will be interesting how all sites act upon this now, will there be a war, how will mistu react and the other block ? R6 Deus scenario ? R7 "devide and concquer" ? or do we go for a hidden war scenario like in r5 ?

Lots and lots to be excited about in the next few weeks, well excited as in "damn im bored at work lets check forums" as its the last round of pa anways

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

heh, I think whether we roided anaram or not, it stays none of your business.

I bet 190 posts in this thread that you are wrong

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

maybe you missunderstand anaram was unhappy in the great fang and wanted to leave it.
They didnt steal him, he was fed up, tired, had enough, wanted to leave.
Its hard to understand for you, i can understand that but yet he wasnt happy

Regardless why try and hide your intentions, "we were greedy didnt want our roids to go to an ally who might overtake us in score and roids" not like anyone would missunderstand the whole "technically he is still our jurisdication" anyways.
Atleast Forest had to guts to admit it was about roids, greed and rocknroll and not some gimpish excuses to coverup a "hands in the cookiejar" skandal which became public.

Will be interesting how all sites act upon this now, will there be a war, how will mistu react and the other block ? R6 Deus scenario ? R7 "devide and concquer" ? or do we go for a hidden war scenario like in r5 ?

Lots and lots to be excited about in the next few weeks, well excited as in "damn im bored at work lets check forums" as its the last round of pa anways

lol, you really love to stick with half-truths ....

suits you

We know anaram was unhappy, nonetheless he HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH PHRAKTOS before he left FAnG. I mean, those are the most basic stats, it's the truth and you can't really ignore that as you're doin atm Focht.

And yes ofc this is about roids. Why do you think phraktos wants him in? idd, to overtake us in score. It works both way ...

and tbh, we will and probably already have settled this like hours ago, sorry to not give you the sensation you're looking for.

rgds Kj

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

no you're not getting this right, that happens when you base your opinion on half truths and infact refuse to know the full situation. I'm sure we probably poached members before, but then I just LAUGH at that alliance by allowing it. Not my problem, never will be.

FAnG on the other hand won't tollerate poaching, if it happens we will simply act accordingly.

rgds Kj

So what you are saying is that FAnG would no longer ever do this, regardless of if the other alliance had 5 or 95 members? You would always first find out if the person you are talking to was, in fact, a member of some other alliance and systematicly refuse any negotiations with him until he broke off with his alliance.

Somehow, this sounds unlikely to me.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

no you're not getting this right, that happens when you base your opinion on half truths and infact refuse to know the full situation. I'm sure we probably poached members before, but then I just LAUGH at that alliance by allowing it. Not my problem, never will be.

FAnG on the other hand won't tollerate poaching, if it happens we will simply act accordingly.

rgds Kj

hard to keep up with all the truth about the many fang scandals
your colorfull past made it quiet easy.
But i must admit those hard words from you about "laughing in the face of all allies" seems kinda funny from an alliance who has so far - not achieved any victory or any segnificant ranking.
Tho i admit youre this round high in the gamble, not hard with only 2 serious enemies and a huge playerbase , but thats just my personal view

[Anaram]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

We know anaram was unhappy, nonetheless he HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH PHRAKTOS before he left FAnG.

Pray, tell me, what has this got to do with anything?

[TheACE]

it is good to c that so many ppl think that it is a good thing that ppl get roided when they r going to join an allie.

Why dont attack all members of your allie??? u got there coords, so it should be a lot easyer, doesnt it???

Attacking some1 who is going to your allie: isnt that the same as attacking an allie??? (at least ALMOST the same???)

[TheACE]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

We know anaram was unhappy, nonetheless he HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH PHRAKTOS before he left FAnG.

So u were DAMN sure he was going to stay allied to you and that he wouldnt attack you, right???

so..... u attacked an allie, what is the peneltie for that in FAnG???

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

lol, you really love to stick with half-truths ....

suits you

We know anaram was unhappy, nonetheless he HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH PHRAKTOS before he left FAnG. I mean, those are the most basic stats, it's the truth and you can't really ignore that as you're doin atm Focht.

And yes ofc this is about roids. Why do you think phraktos wants him in? idd, to overtake us in score. It works both way ...

and tbh, we will and probably already have settled this like hours ago, sorry to not give you the sensation you're looking for.

rgds Kj

you must learn my lil friend that youre not the well of wisdom in this universe. There are other opinions and other views and you dont know "the truth" either, as there is only one, everything else is tainted by opinions and believes.
You believe Anaram had an agreement with phar,,, that might be true or not, its simply unimportant for the discussion. He wanted to leave fang and had no bad track. Your only purpose was to hold the roids, regardless of his prior loyalty or dedication to fang, this should tell your members something about your true intentions.