|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:32 AM |
Postponing a war is one thing.
Declining is acknowledging that you will never fight a war with that clan for one reason or another.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dudeshark
|
  |
| Joined: 06 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12534 |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:33 AM |
No.
what would happen if you had like a big 'ol group the size of FEAR and had tons of small 100 member groups that couldn't rally anyone but the leader declaring war on you. Would you still go to war with all of them? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:35 AM |
| I didn't understand your question fully. Mind restating? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:36 AM |
| Never mind. Yes, you would still fight the war. You would easily crush them so it's a victory. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:36 AM |
He's saying, that what if you had a huge clan, and hundreds of small clans declared war, we're talking 10 members, a group like FEAR shouldn't go to war with them. And if they did, there'd still be more, would FEAR go to war with all of them?
Let's not get physical here. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dudeshark
|
  |
| Joined: 06 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12534 |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:36 AM |
So say you were sonic and owned FEAR. Everyday, he gets tons of small groups that can't rally a single member Would you accept all of their wars? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:37 AM |
I think the statement should only count in wars acknowledged as important by the C&G.
With small clans, who gives a crap, really. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:38 AM |
| So what? You might get a five man raid once in a while, but that's only beneficial to FEAR. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:38 AM |
guys i hate to break it to yous but ur all idiots op means like major wars from a powerclan or another superclan
CRACK A BOTTLE - add 3k to my post count |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:39 AM |
Yeah;
If you decline without legitimate and sufficient evidence, that's surrender. Group banning should only be a last resort if they're causing serious issues with the efficient functioning of your group. Most of the time it shouldn't be necessary, as such. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cornytime
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Feb 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3213 |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:39 AM |
Agree with dudshark.
Check it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:40 AM |
Honestly TSD declining Tza and RAA war should have been a surrender, same for RSF and TSD.
Also, commander, negotiations are always a good option for bases. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:40 AM |
Agreed with shark.
-iDesignful |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:42 AM |
"Yeah;
If you decline without legitimate and sufficient evidence, that's surrender. Group banning should only be a last resort if they're causing serious issues with the efficient functioning of your group. Most of the time it shouldn't be necessary, as such."
Sorry adpunk, I have to disagree entirely.
If you decline going to war that is not a surrender, it's declining. You haven't seen combat yet so it is not a surrender.
Group banning should be allowed whenever, if a clan is harassing you about anything (unauthorized war.)then you should be allowed to ban them all.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
tcman2000
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4115 |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:44 AM |
| Also group ban is usually because of empty server raiding but sometimes the leaders just say that to get out of war, if you got a anti server raiding script, there's no point in group banning. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:45 AM |
"If you decline going to war that is not a surrender, it's declining. You haven't seen combat yet so it is not a surrender.
Group banning should be allowed whenever, if a clan is harassing you about anything (unauthorized war.)then you should be allowed to ban them all."
This is the discussion going down here though, Twisted. If you decline outright, without supplying evidence for why you shouldn't rightly go to war with a clan, should we just judge it as surrender?
You don't need to see combat to surrender - Belgium, WW2?
And often, we see group banning just used to prove a point or annoy another clan, where a clan isn't actually harassing the one that banned them. That there, should that count as a surrender? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
tcman2000
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4115 |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:45 AM |
| Group banning leads to flaming on C&G if you don't got a good reason with proof. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:48 AM |
I'll say it again,
YOU CAN DECLINE ANYTHING YOU WANT ON AN ONLINE WEBSITE |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:48 AM |
@adpunk
"Following 18 days of fighting, the Belgian army surrendered to German forces beginning an occupation of the country that would endure until its liberation by Allied forces in late 1944."
Source: Wikipedia(I KNOW I SHOULDNT USE IT BUT I ALREADY KNEW THIS SO WHO CARES)
And group banning, obviously that's incorrect again, it's THEIR base, THEIR rules, and if you disobey them, raiders face the consequences not the defenders. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:49 AM |
"YOU CAN DECLINE ANYTHING YOU WANT ON AN ONLINE WEBSITE"
BUT IF YOU DO THAT YOU DISGRACE THE HONOUR OF YOUR CLAN AND YOUR SHOGUNATE FOLLOWERS AND MUST AS SUCH COMMIT VIRTUAL SEPPUKU
THUS IS THE LAW OF THE NOBLE CLAN MEN |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 09:51 AM |
"Following 18 days of fighting, the Belgian army surrendered to German forces beginning an occupation of the country that would endure until its liberation by Allied forces in late 1944."
The example was used because most Belgium forces surrendered when they just saw German panzers coming. There was fighting; but not throughout.
"And group banning, obviously that's incorrect again, it's THEIR base, THEIR rules, and if you disobey them, raiders face the consequences not the defenders."
But what about the countless cases in which the raiders didn't break the rules? In which groups are being group banned purely because the leader doesn't like them/wants to annoy them?
To give an example I know of - VS under Chibitobi/Mr Qweeba. He group banned VAK purely because he doesn't like them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Raven98
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 6684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 29 Dec 2013 10:00 AM |
"The example was used because most Belgium forces surrendered when they just saw German panzers coming. There was fighting; but not throughout."
But there was combat, and you need combat to make a surrender official.
"But what about the countless cases in which the raiders didn't break the rules? In which groups are being group banned purely because the leader doesn't like them/wants to annoy them?"
Well then, call it AA, and sanction them, but don't call it auto wins because that just hurts the integrity of your clan. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|