Squire & Knight negotiations

Twilight Shadow · April 30, 2011, 03:21:03 AM

And we agree on that:
3. Ponies are horrible for your hygiene
4. Bananas are great dancers
5. Knight is going to kill your children's children

wolf bite · April 30, 2011, 11:42:12 AM

The problem with it being a clause that sacks are ok if the attacker feels they need to do it, is not a restriction, easy to abuse, and will surely be considered a breach of the truce.

Wolf Bite

Sevah · April 30, 2011, 11:08:13 PM

FIRSTLY> BAHH.

Kick Firetooth out of our forum next time. What a waste of my time reading spam.

War-related
I don't care what happens. I'm ready for war. If I have to play dirty I can and Squire won't be in the lead for long.
Yeah We failed the Killrun on holby etc. If that went to plan we would of only need to kill WB and Squire would of been left at 10members on under 50m average net. (we'd go back to our thing)

At that point of time I felt retal from Knight is way over due so I take responsibility from the second our idea was to kill. You punks wouldn't stop landfarming us with the excuse you're levelling up the scores. I say you were tactfully preparing for this war before an event occurred.
You shouldn't go to war for no reason, create a reason. Now you have an enemy image all your actions are poetically justified.

Knights conditions.
No attacking below 20k.
No murders or poisons, minimal sacks and captures.
No standard attacks or leader suicides.

Anyone deliberately breaching the code are subject to being maimed or killed.

Briar · May 02, 2011, 05:39:50 PM

Do we have a truce or not.

wolf bite · May 02, 2011, 06:18:50 PM

I feel it would be a short term truce since either side can decide what "minimal sacks" mean. Not attacking below 20,000 could be more than someone else would have attacked if everyone else has 30,000 in game. But then I alone am not the clan. This has been posted in game for the members to decide.

Wolf Bite
Note: Only 8 people in the top 30 have less than 20,000 land.

Briar · May 02, 2011, 10:34:26 PM

Please also inform your clan to stop poisoning and murdering Knight while these talks are going on. I've asked my clan to do the same.

*note*

Wolf Bite/ Shadow please message me with evidence of a violation and I'll move accordingly

Kilkenne · May 02, 2011, 11:15:04 PM

leaders are for jerks stop using them forever

Briar · May 03, 2011, 03:09:11 AM

Indy's are weak to hold against a leader player, so we got to do what we got to do

Twilight Shadow · May 03, 2011, 08:43:50 AM

Briar if they decline this I am joining back up with Knight to finish this once and for all. Deal?! :D

Briar · May 03, 2011, 07:01:55 PM

Heel Boy! *lol*

I shall say yes, but I'm hoping WB will respond sooner than later

Twilight Shadow · May 03, 2011, 07:04:29 PM

Alright because I am ready for war!!!

wolf bite · May 03, 2011, 08:18:52 PM

I hope I respond soon also because the dead silence in our forum concerning the topic is deafening. I think it would be fair that for each sack you do we do one murder or poison? Then we will not need to decide what the word "minimal" means. Would seem fair as I would only be killing off the value of the resources you stole.

Wolf Bite

Shadow · May 04, 2011, 06:50:35 AM

OK, here is my take on this:

This war started because of two things:

1) Sacks

2) you guys tried to lock land (or at the very least defend land with a large army on someone. Whether or not you meant to lock is up for debate and is entirely unimportant).

So here is my suggestion.

1) No sacks, no offensive missions except attack, and then only if it takes land. No suicides.
2) Captures are allowed, but not on the top clan member at the time, and players must not be captured to below average land.
3) No land locking

If points 1 or 2 are broken, one for one retal in the form of any offensive missions/sack/low land captures are allowed. If point 3 is violated, it is grounds for a takedown.

I personally like battles, but since this topic is getting to silly, here are some perfectly reasonable terms to its resolution

Briar · May 04, 2011, 09:51:17 AM

Quote from: wolf bite on May 03, 2011, 08:18:52 PM
I hope I respond soon also because the dead silence in our forum concerning the topic is deafening. I think it would be fair that for each sack you do we do one murder or poison? Then we will not need to decide what the word "minimal" means. Would seem fair as I would only be killing off the value of the resources you stole.

Wolf Bite

Perfectly acceptable.

Quote2) Captures are allowed, but not on the top clan member at the time, and players must not be captured to below average land.

Limiting Captures? Really?

Shadow · May 04, 2011, 10:48:49 AM

That one can go if you really want, but the part about low land stays either way.