Arthur Wellington

Even your friend says 'However I will state this again, I do not approve of what gorge did, nor will i defend him on the stealing of cash or kicking of members' You were an appriciated member of BK that betrayed the trust given. AFTER that bk want to perma zi you. Why betray the trust instead of just leaving?

George, why wanna hurt bk so much? The forcing people out of the game as you call it started after your month long plan to leave, after you took 9 or 10bn (and gave it to oathbreaker bjorn cryside). Bk was fun with you in it! You werent being harassed, ignored or a low member who didnt get any info. so why? Is it really because of the permazi over the theft?

Let me try to imitate a teenager from the year 2000: OH MY FREAKIN GOD!!! Lying? Really? Leo was a victem, BK was a victem. Gorge wronged us thrice (4 times if you count his refusal to send me a city grant back when he was not being a jerk). On top of that, alot of people in Coal A knew (!!!!!) this and started to victim blame. Many people should (and you most of all, after gorge) tell Leo how sorry you are for blaming him knowing what you knew. To sum up: OH MY FREAKIN GAWD!!!

Learn to read. Alex determined no strange IP adress been used. Not the same mister backoutofadealthenshoutreallyloud

I still think coal a dragged out the war initially. When I joined pnw, 150 days ago, the war was already over. Coal a kept fighting and dragging it out which caused people going inactive, into VM and delete their nations on BOTH sides. A more reserved attitude 150 days ago would have brought peace a lot quicker. Since my joining alot happend, mainly to keep coal A down. Altough both sides leadership could have been more easy on the others, the boring chorus on these forums stating that BK-NPO-coal B is killing the game has at a certain point started to believe itself. A 150 days ago coal a dragged out the war, I bet if log leaking was a thing back then we can find coal a leadership stating something like: hang in there, lets sit this out, lets see test their patience. And thats fine, its proven succesful for coal a so far. BKnet being exploited to drop BK members however is just an ugly thing that understandibly coal a has no problems with. But dont act like its normal.

The point is no actual hacking was done. Warped logic to conclude that Leo thus did it himself. As for falsly accusing someone, every item brought before moderation and being denied should then be punished, for example if you claim alex is a mean and evil moderator that prefer goons, evidence shows the opposite is true and the whiner/claimer ignores that, he should/could be banned 4fa. I dont agree to that but if alex wills it so, who am I to disagree?

1. Agreed 2. It actually is. Forfeiting any game is part of the game. It doesnt occur often but both sides used it. 3. You agreed to something then backed out. And garge took moneyz from me too. How should I pull my head out when you are clearly full of it? 4. If you think alex is such a loser, not knowing a bunch of stuff, being a dipshit moderator (then ignore his arguments), why stick around? 5. No hacks were detected, doesnt mean leo did it. Learn some logic.

?? nice post

1. Point in question remains that BK got hurt during a big war without it being a regular ingame event. People leaving over loosing, however lame it is, is still a ingame event. This was not. 2. Whatever BK and or Leo has done during this war, it was with regular ingame events. This was not. 3. Bjorn and Gorge are clearly full of BK hate, so hardly to be taken seriously. Discussion about BKnet is all good and well but does bot negate point 1 and 2. 4. Gorge might not have done this, but several actions over the last few weeks/months certainly bot speak for him. Thats up to alex.

Dang. Weird posters. Messing up an entire alliance with not normal means is ok? Did you became so effective at forum wars you started to believe your own bs? Doesnt even smell funny anymore? Whatever you think of BK and or Leo, too harsh on war dodgers, too hard on bank stealers, or whatever, this was clearly not a regular tactic.

Say youre sorry? An old alliance playing this game was hurt in a bad way, and you made a mistake. So apologize to BK and Leo? Just because you had dealings with george, made an agreement, broke that, and have to suffer consequenses doesnt mean all of BK is bad. Say youre sorry? Later you can take it back ?

So is that a yes?

Could someone explain what the war was about before the sort of surrender post? From august until that moment?

Does coal A actually think they are white knights and coal B are black knights? Coal B is evil?*

I have a suggestion (point 5) 1. War starts. Coal a wins. 2. War continues. Coal B wins. 3. After 3 or so months of attrition war, I got several messages calling me to leave BK, a half baked attempt of a surrender post was made. 4. The owf turned out as front 2. Alot of blaming over and forth between coal a and b. Coal A is still losing on all ingame fronts exept spies (see stats). 5. Coal A stopts the blame game (even making perhaps valid points). Some time after peace talks happen in a better atmosphere, away from the OWF. It might have taken some time but finally prefonteen & co discover that shouting and flaming against people you want to deal with does not really get them to see things your way. * making point by point posts really stays awesome * everything coal a pointed out might be right. Where did it bring us thus?

Showing disagree in itself doesnt contribute anything really. Sure its a nice sensation but no more then that. It isnt real communication rather a popularity contest. I do think it will lead to more walls of text

Then why agree in the first place? Your story is not something that happend just now. So now. 1. theft by receiving stolen money 2. Breaking an agreement How are some people still surprised this brings out a strong reaction?

Did that work towards better communication in the OWF? Alex explained it as a too easy way to disagree and a source of toxicity. Was wrong there, you think?

Why do you want downvotes op? What do they add?

1. War starts. Coal A is winning do massive dmg. I mean dang Azaguls net dmg! 2. Coal B gets reinforcement and the initiative turns, B wins. 3. Coal A goes on after defeat as attrition, both side looses members on vm and deletetion. 4. Coal B, fighting an attrition war it did not started, is extremly careful of defectors, because that undermines the war. Hence owr, carth and tS. 5. Coal A drags its feet still, waiting until Nov to sort of surrender, which ofc keep bugging coal B. 6. Coal B has initiative, doesnt respond well to half baked surrenders and gets antagonized all the time on the OWF. Sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. Coal B plays the attrition game really well, utilizing a Coal A tactic, only better. 7. Coal A has hardly any options. Attrition is still happening, a new front has been reinforced, the OWF. 8. I agree with the op AND the guy who turned it around on coal B. 9. I get alot of downvotes.

Suppose the actual goal is to force coal a out of the game. Suppose coal A is losing badly. What isnl coal A gonna do next? There are 99 threads about it but what is coal A actually going to do?

Let me: 1. There is no need for anyone to leave. Stop it. 2. Bk good!

1. All above might be true but 2 -5 are certainly true 2. The war was pretty much over atleast a hundred days ago, when I joined BK. Coal A kept fighting. Thats called attrition? 3. Winners dictate terms and talks, 1st of each month for starting. Very 'eloquently' worded surrenders were posted on the 2nd of november. 4. There is a possibily for peace, terms one by one, you might not 'like' it but its there. Ball is in coal A court. 5. @George (James T Kirk) a few weeks ago I asked you for about 60m out of the bank from my own saved money. You refused and took 5bn yourself ??

Please do correct me if im wrong but isnt it so that terms will be given one by one? And you already have the titles of the terms?

I agree with this. Nice post!