"Honour"

[Vengerak]

 "If you could defeat Stormy, and do better than him, why didn't you?"

Where did I say that?

"If you want to play a game like this where it restarts monthly, go to QMT. "

But I don't want to play the game like that, I never said I did. MY point was that Stormclaw's honour (Which is debatable, to say the least.) wasn't what put him in the number one slot, not that I thought there was anything wrong with how he came to be there.

"Actually, you answered this one yourself."

There wasn't a question.

"I had discussed things ahead of time with Retto and agreed to LET HIM pass then try to kill me."

Unless I am very much mistaken, you were still in the lead when the conflict broke out. & you attacked first.

"To be totally precise"-

The statement which followed was NOT totally precise.

"Read some history"

Believe you me, I have. I DARE you to try to take me on in medieval history.

"the policies I tried to use weren't fully European; more of a wild mix between Roman and Chivalric policies."

Hate to nitpick (Actually I don't, or I just wouldn't.), but I fail to see anything that isn't European in the mix you just cited.  :P  

&, finally:

"but can you prove conclusively that I would not have obtained and held first if I'd joined later? "

Let's make this simple: Do YOU think that's you'd've been first, had you joined, say at around #50? Please don't answer that you ''don't know''; no doubt you at least have some sort of supposition.

[Slynder Talderhash]

 Alrighty here, Vengerak. You seem to be misenterpreting me from what I read on that personally-tailored poll. Though I chose "Just shut up, Raine", the obvious answer would be the second last, meaning that it would be second only to the last. I don't suggest that you kill yourself. Sure, you have to attack people that you can take advantage of to some point, but the big thing is not to attack them way too much than is necessary. There would also be a difference between people you know you can beat and people you're just plain being mean to by attacking when you don't have to. If you can attack someone closer to you with relatively few losses, you should do that rather than attacking someone veeery far below you. Are you kind of starting to understand now? Maybe just a little bit? <_<  

[Vengerak]

 "but the big thing is not to attack them way too much than is necessary. "

This goes without saying, almost. So beating people up in moderation is honourable? What? You're just rambling. You have neither any real point, it would seem, nor any sort of argument AGAINST my statements. You're preachings seem to hold little relevance to anything.

Besides which, just killing people for as long as its profitable & then ditching them & attacking some other sucker seems even MORE callous & aggressive to me than really going for the throat of someone you're feuding with. At least that has a defined purpose behind it.

I disagree with you on one point though, you do not attack ONLY when you absolutley have to. That was you are not GROWING or DEVELOPING. You need surplus.

Of course, I don't know what skewed interperation of ''have'' you are going by, yet.

[Orcrist]

 Slynder- why didn't you post this on the poll topich?

Vengerak- You seem to have misinterpretted my post. I was talking about inference. Forget it. About Stormy not earning #1, I joined as #59, and I'm #1 now. He was a WAY better player than I am, and he easily would've been able to be #1.

[Vengerak]

 HIGHLY[/u][/i] debatable, that.

& I did not mean to imply that I was better than him. If you got that out of my post then I'm sorry if my wording confused you, but any implications of my being superior to him were totally imagined.

[Slynder Talderhash]

 *exasperated sigh*

I didn't post under the other thread because I didn't feel like getting another freakin' e-mail when someone posted there in reply. Besides that, it makes it look like Raine is talking to himself, and I enjoy taunting him.

I also don't believe that I've said anything about honour besides my little definition quote bit. If you really want me to come up with some code of ethics thing, then here it is:

Pool Rules (1st Edition):

1. Raine always loses. If he wins, that moment in time is declared a reversal moment. Based on the theory that reality is only the conception one has of it, then if the rest of us believe it a reversal moment, Raine's fate will be altered in the space-time continuum, and reality will restore itself to the only logical conclusion of any conflict -- Raine losing. Because of this alteration in reality, the events leading up to its happening will not have happened in the same way. Instead, things will be arranged so that Raine loses. Therefore, Raine never won in the first place, and we don't even have to worry about changing the fabric of space-time in order to prevent his winning. This proves that, disregarding the first sentence, the rest of rule one is uneeded.

2. The first rule also applies in any case, even if Raine is not involved in the conflict. That way everyone else is happy.

3. Only Raine must follow any rules, unless the following of pool rules by another person fulfills the first rule to a further extent.

4. Just shut up, Raine.

Happy? If not, here's what I have to say. Yes, the concept of honour is a little dumb in many cases here, an obvious exception being the above-stated code of ethics. If I have to put what I'm trying to get across in the barest form possible, then here it is for you:

Pool Rules (2nd Edition):

1. Play nicely.
2. Refer to Pool Rules, 1st Edition.

I think that you'll find that in both cases, I am clearly the victor of this lengthy debate. You have been cleverly out-witted due to my unwillingness to discuss this seriously any further. Oh yes, and if the alteration of reality requires everyone to change their perception of it, then we'll rely on peer-pressure to force Raine into thinking he loses. If that doesn't work, then it doesn't matter anyway. Why should the rest of us care about Raine's little world? Should Raine take offense at this post... Well, I'm not sure, but the result could be funny.

[Krull of the Kaptors]

 All is not fair in the brutal game of war. If a Warlord believes he should exploit weaker hordes, why not? If it can get him a higher networth, more land, a more promising future, why not?

Yet, this can come with some reprocussions: Animosity. You can attack someone, beat them to a pulp, and there is a good chance you will develop a bad rep. In much the same way a Player Killer in RPing develops a bad rep from killing people. (Raine knows.) Chances are, that  cruel person will be crushed in return. But it's always a gamble, and that's what this game is, it's a gamble. It's all choice, luck, and a degree of skill. You don't know what your opponent is thinking or preparing to do. And blimey, you have ALOT of opponents in this game. One can only hope for the best and use a few select strategies to help him along.

 I say, to each his own. But I personally feel you need to have a balance between being brutal and showing some compassion, if you want to succeed. Network to get allies, sack others for gain.

 We don't Role-Play either, and the only RP I see is about dairy products.  <_<  I say we should start actually RPing. Like.. the commanders of some clans having a conference. Mayhap deals, assassinations of leaders and diplomats, and RPing out how it happens. Only an idea, back on topic....

Even though this is warlords, you cannot force the masses to be evil vermin. If this were an actual vermin, we'd all have to be stupid, drunken idiots. Remember what most /real/ Redwall vermin are like? It'd be fun to actually give our Warlords personas.. which I believe we can achieve through an RPG. But anyway.

 I say again: To each his own.

[Germania]

 Well said Krull.

[Germania]

Honour? No honour?  The thing that makes me angry is stupidity.
People will attack one person over 50 times until they get next to 0 land... I only attack people that have alot of land, enabling me to grow quickly..I don't try to make enemies, or attack someone's account to the point of no return.

I agree, unless your in for revenge, it's a waste of time. Depending on rank, once you start gaining less than 500 (usually for me now 1000) the target is no longer worth the effort and its time to start looking for another one.

So even if your an "evil warlord without honor(our)" your still a fool for wasting valuable turns on a iniefficent attack on a not so apatizing target.

[Krull of the Kaptors]

 Thank you Germania. Killing warlords for the sake of killing would result in a huge military loss over something so un-influencial. Waste of time, aye.

[Germania]

 Well even before that, if they are still in your attack range but you get little land, definently under 500 acres. Or when your at war. You can either be a smart evil warlord or a not so smart evil warlod. Those who chose the latter don't last too long in the top, if they even get there in the first place.

[Vengerak]

 You sound clever & such in your post, Kewima, but the only thing you've been able to clearly illustrate is that for all your clever words you've got no handle on the argument.

You've got nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it.

[Slynder Talderhash]

 Fact is, Vengerak, you've been asking me to defend something that I never really wanted to, nor have stood for. I don't care for calling things in this game honour. You have probably read my Pansy vs. Weakling post, though I forget if you responded or not. That is something that I don't really like to see happening in the game, but I have no illusions that in a game where you're competing tooth and claw, that everything is going to be fair. Like Krull said, there should be a balance between vermin brutality and human compassion. These are people playing the game, after all. I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't enjoy having the products of endless hours' toil crushed in minutes any more than you would.

[General Austin]

 Ooh. NOW I'm glad I stay out of these things. It's getting realy confusing now.

[Vengerak]

 Dragging this up. Missed Slynder's reply last time 'round.

Never asked you to defend it. Never asked anyone to. In making this topic, I was just going off on one of my irrelevant tangents, not challenging anyone. You stood up to defend ''Honour'', or, at the very least, to attempt to disprove me. Its only natural that I should debate the point with you. In the end, with you resorting to an intelligently put together yet ultimatley pointless list of rules, you appeared to lose.

*Shrug.* That's the way I see it, at any rate.