Jump to content

James II

Members
  • Content Count

    1071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

James II last won the day on August 10 2018

James II had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1084 Upvote King

6 Followers

About James II

  • Rank
    Pontifex Atomicus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    Church of Atom
  • Leader Name
    James II
  • Nation Name
    TIEIXIAIS
  • Nation ID
    16302
  • Alliance Name
    Church Of Atom

Recent Profile Visitors

1992 profile views
  1. In regards to deletions in disbandment discussions within IQ vs other groups is, Roq, TheNG, Under, and a number of other coalition leaders, discussed deletions and disbandment as a pre-requisite for peace as opposed to people saying "I hope they delete." I don't think in any of the previous wars it was discussed as a pre-requisite to begin a peace process.
  2. Members of the church have already been instructed to enjoy their holidays. We don't need a ceasefire to spend time with our family and friends.
  3. @Alex quit ignoring your over reach and fix it. Edit: you can't fix it because you already revealed bank to bank transactions but you can at least delete the resources and bank from BK and give it to EM or the alliance bank of his choosing (without revealing it to the rest of orbis this time) even though the money was his and not an alliances bank(your rule says nothing about personal money). According to the new precedent anyone who goes into VM with money is hiding a bank. Better get to deleting and sending it all to BK if this is the new standard.
  4. At least you admit you threatened to roll him out of the game if he didn't agree.
  5. Because you were threatening to roll him out if the game if he didn't agree to it....
  6. This makes no sense. People did reply to arguments and gave good ones. If s person has 26 downvotes for making a toixc argument, and someone replies and has 26 upvotes, are you implying the 26 people who have the same argument should be replying at the same time? I don't understand why you're protecting toxcitiy so adamently.
  7. There are at least 18 people who wish they could downvote this post.
  8. It has everything to do with it. The second part would have never happened had you not went around the normal game mechanics the rest of us had, and benefited a group that has a gross advantage, by using your admin powers to help them, that would have otherwise not been available. The money returned to BK, was also not last in BK bank, it should be returned to the previous bank, if that bank is deleted then it should go to the current bank that member is in. You elected, again, to help them. In your rule you are extremely vague, and elected to return to someone that the money did not belong to at all. Even by your account, you circumvented two previous owners, in favor of one. The very same group you elected, unfairly, to help with your administrative powers before That's two times you chose a side, and bent your own rules to extremes for them. The consistency of abuse of the power is there. I understand you're the administrator and can do whatever the hell you want with your game, but surely you see you went far, and when way out of your way to give help to one particular group, on two occasions. That is unprecedented. EDIT: You should be deleting that money from the BK bank and putting it in EM's bank. Even if you could prove that money belong too BK, which you shouldn't because none of us have the same benefit, the bank was three times removed at the very least. You went wayyyy back. The bias is clear, and if you are certain you aren't being bias, then certainly you have the power to see how the perception looks, and that in retrospect, you were wrong to do so.
  9. @@Alex Why does BK ahve the benefit of you tracking bank transactions for them, You returned it to an alliance you helped track money down from in the first place. Your rule says nothing about sending it to someone you presume it came from. You used methods that general membership does not have access too, to track money, and then you took that money and gave it to a bank that never had it. Your bias is ever apparent. This is the toxicity you support Alex. EDIT: -Removing filter-evading image- Removed banned language from Keshav quote and reposted with out the words Keshav used.
  10. As presented in the OP and In the logs, coal b were intentionally trolling in the peace discussions and throughout the process with no intention of allowing anyone in coalition A to surrender. That is why the logs are here. Not for you to derail the thread, but so that you can see your leadership has no intention of allowing us to surrender until a number of alliances and nation's in coalition delete.
  11. As you can see in the OP, and a number of comments in this thread. Your claims, including OOC attacks, are categorically false. Gas lighting will get you no where. Please stay on topic. Coalition B admits they never intended for peace, and that deletions (as shown in the logs) are a prerequisite for peace. The representatives they sent, were sent to troll coalition B (as shown in the logs). Log dumping after the fact, cannot be causation for the initial peace attempts being undermined, as cause must come before effect. The argument is objectively contrary to logic.
  12. i know the thread has been hijacked and taken OOC with false OOC claims. Here is the OP and topic at hand. Coalition B feigned allowing peace. As you can see by their behavior, and admittdely by themselves. They intentionally stalled peace with a prerequisite that nation's and whole alliances from coalition A delete. We are told we cannot have peace because we delayed peace. This post was in response to the false claims, clearly disproven with the logs provided here where coalition B government admittedly, and in coalition channels were in fact intentionally delaying with no intention of peace, contrary to the claim The only other argument by coal b is they delayed peace because coal A posted logs, a retrospective argument, as you cannot have cause before effect.
  13. We are His Holiness Pontifex Atomicus, James II.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.