Jump to content

Khai Jäger

Members
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Khai Jäger last won the day on June 9

Khai Jäger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

1 Follower

About Khai Jäger

  • Rank
    His Blitziness

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    The Jungles of Afrika
  • Alliance Pip
    Afrika Korps
  • Leader Name
    Khai Jager
  • Nation Name
    Aviencloud
  • Nation ID
    104506
  • Alliance Name
    Afrika Korps

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Khai Jäger#4133

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good riddance to the cheaters. I've talked to Alex, AK has had nothing to do with this. Our bank has been returned to us and the member who was accidentally banned has been voided of implication to this issue.
  2. Sounds like a date. Just one, which Shiho leaked to you from Panth. I would have liked that too, as Pantheon could have been a very different AA.
  3. Rejects? Not at all. I left with my buddies to create AK. Same as how you left to create tGH. In a way, we're very similar alliances. I'm not the salty one here. I've simply laid out my thoughts, just as Buorhann did. (And it's not the first time he's mentioned us the way he did) If you have no logical response, then there's no need to take pot shots. Why don't you address what I've laid out? @Elijah Mikaelson I will apologize for Lycus. He was a bit out of hand in how he said what he said.
  4. I'm quite the sugar daddy, tyvm.
  5. Meanwhile... be hunting Looks like your your horde could use some work. You should purge some of those utterly useless members of yours. I also recommend you change your membership requirements. "The Golden Horde only accepts those who are active and able to coordinate and engage with their fellow warriors. If you cannot login regularly, and communicate with your fellow warriors, don't apply." Clearly almost half don't meet it. Keep Ame tho, she bae.
  6. For @Cooper_ @Akuryo @Mad Max @Sir Scarfalot How about it. This is fundamentally wrong. You do not need trust to talk to someone you have differences with. Let's take a simple example. Grumpy despises and has no trust for Guardian. Assume Grumpy hit Guardian in a 1v1 war. Guardian ends up completely wiping the floor with Grumpy to the point that they can't even fight back, You are staying that at that point it's a matter of trust to come to the table and discuss peace. This is wrong. If one side is unwilling to come to the other for talks it would be a matter of pride, not trust. You do not need to trust them to have civil discussion. Another example. Let's say my girlfriend does something to completely lose my trust. If she wants to make amends, is that going to stop her from coming to me for a civil discussion? If I want to make it right, is that going to stop me from "hashing out my terms." Trust actually has nothing to do with having civil discussion when you are required to have it. You actively work with someone at work and you don't trust him. Are you just not going to talk to him despite having to? As players of this game we have to talk, whether each side likes each other or not. Not having trust is a mere excuse to avoid the reality in-front of you in this case. Yes, this is merely a false perception. Where has it stemmed from in the first place? I personally would like to know. Trust has nothing to do with a difference of beliefs, as those are mere opinions. What is clear to everyone is that it's the difference of opinions that has postponed peace talks until now. Just as Scarf said, Memesphere has their beliefs as KERCHTOGG has their own. What's even more funny is that something commonly and openly implied is this, "One side will give in eventually." Now when that is openly implied or said, it becomes a competition to see who will outlast who. That in itself extends the conflict by a lot, not to mention discourages talks because it gives a semblance of weakness at that point/in that mentality. I'm not calling conversations between alliances naive. What I'm calling naive is blaming the lack of communication on trust. It's like saying you won't talk to your mother because you don't trust her, but you need to talk to her because she's the one who has been and still is taking care of you. There is nothing that has declared one side or the other can't be trusted for the fulfillment of peace. All the precedents of the past clearly say that if peace was achieved and discussed it would be upheld in a proper manner.
  7. Technically speaking, peace talks aren't lovey dovey discussions in which everyone is happy. Someone takes a hit when they lose, and it doesn't feel good to lose a war. Someone typically gives in unless it's a clean white peace for both sides. This has nothing to do with trust issues between sides. If one side/alliance decides to turn someone into an enemy then that is their issue. I agree treating people harshly isn't the best way to have good relations. However, you don't need good relations to have peace talks. Do explain what trust issues you may have with negotiating peace with us. I'm curious.
  8. Well the point they are trying to make is that neither side is able to trust each other to peace out which is completely wrong. All sides have a history of upholding their peace terms. I am not addressing the peace/terms itself, but the supposed "lack of trust" which is brought up here. Above^
  9. This entire notion is naive. This is a game, and saying that anyone is going to not abide by peace terms as they have done time and time again is ridiculous. TKR has surrendered to BK, just as KT has surrendered to TKR. This is normal game play. Rid your mind of such implausible notions. Not to mention, it doesn't benefit the community but rather intends to divide.
  10. Minimize dat possibility mate. Good luck to you all.
  11. >tries to farm upvotes and it backfires
  12. Perceive? lmao Maybe you should read the rules.
  13. Let's see the logs of Alex approving slot filling to protect the grumpy bank. Deposits bank in the safety of a slot fill. Not to mention the entire double buy timeframe was protected by the slot filling. Do say. So we can break the rules of the game now?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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