Buorhann

Thank you, I try hard to look good.

Some people have different perspectives of a war in this game.

Since I'm now no longer suspended and I'm now able to read the forum rules clearly, I'd like to state there is no solid guideline on what is considered in-character/out-of-character. It is based off of expectations and the opinion of the individual reading the posts. My initial warning point yesterday started off with a brief (harmless) mentioning of "browser games" ( Which I was referring to P&W at that time, but was open to be interpreted for any browser game ). This is the rule I see on the forum rules: I'd honestly like the moderators, in their discussion of recent event(s), consider the reality of the situation. Is it really worthwhile to take such minor trivial infractions to the extremes? If so, I'd like to request a reworking of the In-Game/Out-of-Game rule so that people, who are not normally acquainted with "roleplay" ( As the administrator termed it as in our private discussions ), have a better idea as to what the moderators are warning them over. In other words, please expand this rule if so. If not, I'd like to see this stricken from the forum rule guidelines. As previously mentioned in the "calling out" thread of mine - I acknowledge all the warning infractions I've earned in my time of posting on these forums. Some are well deserved, some I still question, however - none of them pertain to this situation as it is unique ( Roleplay vs. insults and what is considered "spam" ). But with that post, I wonder why it is ok for moderators/admins to announce out a player and their history, but is unable to receive critique from the player base. Please reconsider this in future situations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sheepy and I have been going back and forth in discussing this privately. I'd like to think we met a common ground and hopefully he is presenting this to the moderation boards. For clarification on a earlier statement in the other thread: I never once asked for leniency on any of my posts, that was at the discretion of moderators and administrator(s). I do appreciate the leniency however, and receiving such warnings but no points - I quietly obeyed the warning and went on my way with no issue further issue at all. Please take that as an example of a precedent needing to be set. Although warning points are removed after 30 days, it can add up once a player is frustrated with a moderator's call ( As is my case here ). If I was warned over insults/spam/posting obscene stuff; understandable. Apologies if I deviated some what from the original topic here.

Interesting perspective that wasn't brought up at all this thread. Nicely done.

;ljkasdfopiubfn;kleroip asdl;kjasdpoibvn asdfljkaweopivbnkas ( That's me fat fingering like a Hippo considering we have a 'wizard' who likes to suspend messages from people over trivial stuff, gotta maintain a in-character persona here ) Translation: Don't bring Mensa in this. They have their own governing ways, and honestly - the fact that they're remaining loyal to one another and keeping on with the fight is honorable in itself. Granted the terms given by VE to Mensa were "ok", but they should at least remain in negotiation with Guardian/SK. Instead it's just going downhill and will just further heat up any future events between the alliances involved.

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6733-a-note-on-guardian-and-the-seven-kingdoms/?p=108076 The link directs to the apparent "offending" post. Is it really worthwhile to suspend someone for a trivial statement about a "browser game" over what a individual deems "out of character" and risk upsetting a paying player? Should I go and report every single post in that section of the boards for "out of character" posts to make sure everybody is held to the same standard? If this suspension was about a insult to a player or posting obscene pictures/texts or even spamming, I'd understand it.

Like I stated before, somebody has to play the villain to keep interest in browser games. Some people put too much value into pixel browser games and do not appreciate a good villainous moment to keep interest in said game. EDIT: In this situation, it would be best to keep the terms negotiable. You can't permanently keep Seven Kingdoms and Guardian down. It just won't be feasible, eventually. Learn from their mistake, there was a lot of bad blood still being harbored towards them from a past event. If this keeps up, sometime in the future they'll use this as a means of getting pay back, then it'll just go on back and forth.

I was willing to pay that price. We got a war that was frustratingly fun ( At least for me ). I wouldn't mind jumping in the fray with Seven Kingdoms and Guardian again. People put too much value into a browser based game that only requires you to check in once or twice a day.

Or perhaps they know they'll get to a point where there is no benefit to you guys to keep war on them. Your high scores will be left out of battles and have to rely on the smaller score guys. Slandering them as such isn't a good way to handle this.

Who said that?

Let's be honest though, there was no need for BoC to break the NAP and risk a potential bad PR hit. Mensa was already swamped with alliances.

Who is this guy? This isn't Partisan.

I was waiting! Once I saw all those ships you had, I had to organize some hits on you to reduce those numbers when we finally dropped low enough in score to do so. ----------------------------------- I see that Ashland is once again labeling an entire alliance based on one poster. GG Ashland

People spout off "karma" for this war here and there, so I'd like to think that the terms Mensa gave to SI earlier this year ( Flat out white peace ) gave us these good terms.

If you established dominance, why waste a missle on a inactive?

I'm glad that you enjoy generalizing statements onto a entire alliance. Thanks for proving my point on certain posters.

Seriously though, the investment into 1000 Planes is a lot, and the ever fluctuating costs of Fuel and Munitions to keep using them. I'm in the 400-500 Infra damage area after thinking about it. You need 56 improvement slots to build that many Airforce bases to field that many planes. Which is roughly 11 cities ( To be fair, we should be rounding up, so it'd be 12 cities ). 5,600,000 cash 560 Steel That's just the bases alone 3,000 Aluminum 4,000,000 cash To build the planes 250 Fuel and Munitions each to use them per strike. Granted if you ever get up to 12 cities, the costs of this wouldn't seem large.

Not that would matter considering some of the posters still lingering around as it is. Reputation doesn't seem to be of much value here other than when it's convenient for someone to pull out their dastardly deeds card.

I'll say it now, if it wasn't for UPN jumping us - we would've handled the others just fine. UPN is the only reason why we're losing. Just too many numbers against us.

Honestly, at first I thought the spy system was borked when Ashland organized multiple spy hits on Mensa HQ, but after Sheepy's change to the Spy Hits on Ships - I think that needs to be done to Spy-on-Spy hits too. Either that or a increased percentage of being caught when directing attacks on spies themselves. I'd like to see the increase of spies per day bumped up to 3 though.

Considering our first real war and the odds against us, I'd say our damage was pretty good. Granted some stuff needs to be fine tuned, but we've learned an awful lot.

Is that counting any losses from spy ops? Granted it's tough to pin point that from the battles, but was wondering how you pulled those numbers.

The amusing thing is that Shellhound could've maintained silence and it would be hard pressed for the admin team to punish him for fear of setting a bad precedent. He pretty much admitted to mult'ing but not to the ones he was being blamed for.

I think the missles he took from Arrgh! shows he doesn't care in the least about that.

FYP