Squire & Knight negotiations

Briar · April 28, 2011, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: wolf bite on April 28, 2011, 09:27:40 PM
You probably are not attacking them either.

Wolf Bite

Do you really consider 4-5 sacks a "sack run"?

wolf bite · April 28, 2011, 09:41:08 PM

Briar, Which of the sack runs are you talking about? since they were on all are top players every 2 or 3 days I don't know how many each was, some were as small as 4, granted.

The one you keep talking about was the 4 I received from your leader in response to negotiation on not doing sack runs, those 4 where his answer. I think I opened this topic to discuss not being attacked by you and me not attacking you back. seemed fair.

Shadow, hehe. Depends on the chosen direction of the negotiations. Behind closed doors there was little agreement. Seems they want us to stop all attacks and they offer no guarantees to anything. Needs to be a little more both sided than that. I will fine with something even. Frankly since for all we have already won and a full surrender would not be outlandish to ask.

Wolf Bite

Briar · April 28, 2011, 09:53:06 PM

You would like guarantees? Fine, here are guarantees....

Knight's biggest beef is with you, wolf bite, thus most of our attacks will be focused at you. We will continue playing how we play. We see no need to change that. We will, however, not bother the rest of your clan, (well, minus Shadow and Holby) because in our minds they are just cannon fodder that you are using.

We will continue to sack you. Period. Just don't think you're special. We sack various players.
We will allow anyone who wishes to work with us the chance to work with us. This includes Sevz.

So really, this is not a war between Squire and Knight, it is a battle between Squire and WB, Shadow, and Holby.

wolf bite · April 28, 2011, 09:59:22 PM

This is my point. I felt my offer of BOTH clans will not murder, poison, sack or take the other to low land was even. The me not defend myself against your attacks just seemed, ah ... kind of strange.

You are missing 2 things.

A) Shadow, Holby and wolf bite could hold off your clan without help.
B) Our young players are loyal for the time we has pent with them and they are delighted we took the strict rules off them during war.

Wolf Bite

Briar · April 28, 2011, 10:07:18 PM

And I'm fine with all of that except the no sacking, as I told you before.

wolf bite · April 28, 2011, 10:21:40 PM

You see, that is where we have a problem, Your strategy is not harmed by being sacked. So you think we should both have it. That would be like me saying that everything is fine by I and only I am allowed to murder you. Would that deal be fair?

Wolf Bite

Edit: Could someone else try to explain this to her, I am not getting very far?

Briar · April 29, 2011, 11:24:48 AM

This is what has been worked out in the clan:

No poisons or sacks. If either of our clans has substantial amounts of unprotected cash the opposition may steal but not be greedy.

If we hit them or they hit us below 20k land the member is subject to being maimed or killed in retaliation by any means necessary.
No onlining either. (campers exempt)

Firetooth · April 29, 2011, 11:26:26 AM

Quote from: Briar on April 29, 2011, 11:24:48 AM
This is what has been worked out in the clan:

No poisons or sacks. If either of our clans has substantial amounts of unprotected cash the opposition may steal but not be greedy.

If we hit them or they hit us below 20k land the member is subject to being maimed or killed in retaliation by any means necessary.
No onlining either. (campers exempt)

Lol, murders not mentioned at all.

Briar · April 29, 2011, 11:29:00 AM

By maimed or killed we include murder...

Firetooth · April 29, 2011, 11:35:24 AM

Quote from: Briar on April 29, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
By maimed or killed we include murder...

QuoteIf we hit them or they hit us below 20k land the member is subject to being maimed or killed in retaliation by any means necessary.

That is referring to murders in retaliation for being hit to low land.

There is nothing said about retals to murder.

Briar · April 29, 2011, 11:49:28 AM

What would you consider an appropriate response to murders?

Ruddertail · April 29, 2011, 01:15:24 PM

Firetooth's saying that the agreement doesn't preemptively ban murders, just poisons and sacks.

Firetooth · April 29, 2011, 01:29:12 PM

Quote from: Ruddertail on April 29, 2011, 01:15:24 PM
Firetooth's saying that the agreement doesn't preemptively ban murders, just poisons and sacks.

"I like this human, he understands!"

/ends shameless mass effect reference

RevelationX · April 29, 2011, 03:43:10 PM

Im fine with Peace with squire and wolf bite I joined late in the set. Im not okay with peace with firetooth, all he does is murder and blow away food. He has done this to me ever since I started. Im new to this server but im a master of promisance and dont need firetooth replying in this topic since hes not in either clan. So Dude Butt out.

Firetooth · April 29, 2011, 03:54:06 PM

Quote from: RevelationX on April 29, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
Im fine with Peace with squire and wolf bite I joined late in the set. Im not okay with peace with firetooth, all he does is murder and blow away food. He has done this to me ever since I started. Im new to this server but im a master of promisance and dont need firetooth replying in this topic since hes not in either clan. So Dude Butt out.

You smashed me down today. I wondered if you were just scraping, but it's malicous.

I've left you alone since the war ended, but if you want a fight, you can have one.