|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:11 PM |
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=129557258
War Terms: http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=126955564
"No Autowin"
"For the past month, SF and IE have been at war. The war officially started at 1/3/14. Today we aim to end it. Although SF, especially myself wanted a clean ending to the war we have, unfortunately had to end it like this. IE have been acting exceedingly inconsiderate and unfair during the war. - For example, when SF implemented a rule (and informed ValiantCorsair and his HRs) to account for IE's low HR count and SF's high rank structure, Valiant, without contacting any SF HRs implemented a rule restricting SF to only raid if a Commodore+ is present. (Only 3 people commodore and above). Therefore, SF has reluctantly decided to end the war like this. - I'm sorry, but a war where only the owner of a clan can be requested to defend is rather useless."
I'm sorry, but your refusal to even consider my terms of having all of our high ranks able to defend and your choice to allow only Commanders+ to defend was the reasoning for this policy.
You could have reasoned with me, easily, but you didn't.
-
As for the rules I added, they are the same as SF's fort rules. I don't like IE's rules being restricted while SF can raid whenever, for however long, and without even having to contact an admin.
So I added the same exact rules to my fort.
Not an issue.
"This made is exceedingly more difficult for us to contact him. Valiant still updates Sylvanas and doesn't tell us what he's updating which is really concerning especially at this stage of the war. We told Valiant this several times, here is just one example of that he doesn't really care if IE defend or not: (insert offsite link here)"
First off, I am not obligated to tell you or show you what I'm updating at the base. However, every time you have asked, I did respond with a valid answer that was backed by the changes that you saw.
"IE's leader and HR's couldn't really get that through their heads and started saying we ignore raids. That wasn't the case."
I did provide multiple screenshots and videos of SF high ranks refusing to defend.
Names of which are: FallenSinister (Not an HR anymore), LoRdOfBliNg, and BEEZit.
Though I didn't necessarily care, other than the fact our score would have been much higher (tied or we would have won) if they had defended, I brushed it off.
As for my high ranks refusing to defend, the situation is dealt with my demotion, which all of them received during our less-than-a-day long reform.
Rolliply's situation that EmperorLexus complained about:
"he was ordered by Valiant not to defend"
"Rolliply was an administrator."
Marshals do not have shouting powers, and when you asked Rolliply to defend, he was a Marshal at the time considering he was inactive. Sorry, but it's immensely difficult to defend if you can't shout for a defense.
-
Refusing to defend was an issue for both sides, so please don't cry to single out IE when both sides played a role in the situation.
"Whenver we tried to resolve any issues during the war, ValiantCorsair (TheUltimation, IE leader) ignored our requests, and would not hear us out."
I told SF what I wanted, and that was for all high ranks to be able to defend. It isn't my fault if SF appoints high ranks who are too incompetent to host a proper defense.
"Especially the fact he implemented them not even half way through the war, but after SF reached the 10 win mark. SF are keeping to the war terms and trying to make this clean. Even after the Sublime+ rule, we still have 7 HR's that are active throughout the day, where several times IE has the chance to raid yet the ignore that opportunity."
IE reached 10 wins before SF, first.
Second, it's rather hard to raid (either side) considering the high ranks rally 20+ members before a defense so that the raiders have no chance of winning. We raid at night when SF is less active, while you raid during the school day when IE is less active.
No problems here, considering it's a war after all and there are no set times.
-
IE hasn't broken any war terms, so this "autowin" (against war terms btw) is absurd. SF's problem is that they refuse to acknowledge any of my concerns, so thus I ignored theirs.
Though I understand SF's desperation to win to the war when they're only 1 win away, this autowin you've claimed is not supported by any of the reasons you stated.
All of my rules could have been negotiated if you hadn't been so stubborn and let of your high ranks defend, like I had before you made that rule.
"- No admin abuse. Such acts will result in a raid victory for the raiding team, pending circumstances." - No problems here.
"- No autowins." - You just autowon the war???
"- No FBs." - Was reconsidered by SF turned it down.
"- No exploits. Exploited raids will end in a draw if the fort is deemed unraidable." - No problems here.
"- Defense wins don't count." No problems here."
"- Follow fort rules." No issues other than punishing individuals who did break rules. Reasonable but no problems.
"- Allies are allowed." No problems here.
"- First faction to 15 raid wins, win the war."
The war score is 14-12.
SF hasn't won.
SF will remain on IE's enemy list and the war score will stand until SF comes to their senses and ends their excessive desperation by declaring this autowin.
I'm still open to negotiation.
Just make it reasonable.
The war is not over, sorry to disappoint.
[IE] Sovereign ; Thomas Stormrage
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:12 PM |
war terms dont state we cant update our fort
lol there goes 1 section of emps' "auto win" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:12 PM |
they're literally one win away from winning and they claim an autowin
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:14 PM |
His entire autowin thread was nullified by my responses.
If he can somehow prove that IE broke war terms without notifying me earlier of this, then he should.
Other than that, I refuse to acknowledge their false victory and I'm not going to stoop as low as to counter with another false victory.
If they want to win, they can win the fair way.
It isn't hard to win at our base. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:14 PM |
| I don't mind. But make it easier and make it fair. If you are fair, we'll be fair. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:15 PM |
I tried to be fair, but SF's unreasonable claims, courtesy of Muffinman99, drove me to do the same.
They started playing a game with me that I was better at.
I'm not blaming EmperorLexus, as the entire situation is more of muffin's fault anyway.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cysira
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7459 |
|
| |
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:16 PM |
@keep
at least we dont blame on rigged things :^) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:17 PM |
"As for the rules I added, they are the same as SF's fort rules." >sublime+ (7) >commodore+ (3)
>commander+ (didn't actually implement.......) >sovereign+ (1)
say what |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:18 PM |
| Auto wins are childish. Why can't they just do a Final battle and get it over with. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:25 PM |
| I'm expecting, about....5 seconds before SF tries (and fails, again) to backup their side of the argument, which, as sir Val said, was completely countered with this forum. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:25 PM |
">commander+ (didn't actually implement.......)"
And you could have told me this?
">sovereign+ (1)"
The Admiral+ rule was my way of pausing the war so that I could further attempt to compromise reasonably and contemplate a better solution.
I hadn't anticipated SF declaring an autowin over the course of 12 hours. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:27 PM |
| I swear if we start this again. If it's that hard for both of us to raid and comprehend the rules, just do a Final Battle. Everyone get your Elite divisions ready! (Pro solution advice) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:28 PM |
"No Autowin"
Not an autowin, we are just ending this war right here for the reasons which you are not willing to comply.
"I'm sorry, but your refusal to even consider my terms of having all of our high ranks able to defend and your choice to allow only Commanders+ to defend was the reasoning for this policy.
You could have reasoned with me, easily, but you didn't."
How naive of you, we have never allowed Comamnders+ to defend even up to now, but you've changed your rule from Commodore to Sovereign. "easily" I've tried two times now, stop sugar coating it. Even intervalent was there when he spammed with "jihad", that silly little kid.
"As for the rules I added, they are the same as SF's fort rules. I don't like IE's rules being restricted while SF can raid whenever, for however long, and without even having to contact an admin.
So I added the same exact rules to my fort.
Not an issue."
You keep telling us that WE went to war with you when I always talk about the updates of the fort, now why are YOU complaining about the RULES that were set BEFORE the war? I thought you know how to READ?
"First off, I am not obligated to tell you or show you what I'm updating at the base. However, every time you have asked, I did respond with a valid answer that was backed by the changes that you saw."
We never knew you were going to update the base during the war period, I mean who does that? Unless if you are planning to play dirty right?
Names of which are: FallenSinister (Not an HR anymore) - self explained LoRdOfBliNg - was inactive most of the time, came back after winning the 12th raid. BEEZit - casual HR, focusing his time more on other group.
"I told SF what I wanted, and that was for all high ranks to be able to defend. It isn't my fault if SF appoints high ranks who are too incompetent to host a proper defense."
What was your reason for demoting your HR's? Oh inactivity and also causing you the "edge of the war/defeat"
"IE reached 10 wins before SF, first."
It's says "After SF reached the 10th win mark" not SF reached it FIRST. Learn to read carefully, please.
"IE hasn't broken any war terms, so this "autowin" (against war terms btw) is absurd. SF's problem is that they refuse to acknowledge any of my concerns, so thus I ignored theirs."
Again ignoring the fact that I was there to resolve any issues however you just went on spamming #progress
Not an autowin, ended the war right here, 14 > 12, clear winner Skilled Force.
"- No admin abuse. Such acts will result in a raid victory for the raiding team, pending circumstances."
I do have a video of you admin abusing, showing random messages which we revoked the raid sadly, however we could had shown it again :^)
"- No FBs." You've asked many times for this, thus you broke war terms many times, as well.
I'm open to negotiation as well.
The reason we added Sublime+ rule is that EVEN if we demote those HR's back to Experts, then you would still complain making it the same as before. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:29 PM |
| Final battles aren't that good in my opinion, |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:31 PM |
| Dead, I suggest not arguing. No offense, sir, but you're kind of making yourself look like a fool right now (Sorry). IE's bad communication and SF's quick-to-assume attitude isn't helping. Just do some diplomatic talk OUTSIDE of C&G and settle this like mature leaders. (Still no offense to you Dead). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:32 PM |
| @Dead, aw you made my last post false by 3 minutes :( |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:33 PM |
| The one about, "5 seconds until _______" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:33 PM |
| Rofl, really mature Emperor. Dropping out because you know we are brining back a comeback? Or was it because you are too bad and that you will get crushed in a FB:) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:34 PM |
@Gaten
No, I'm not making myself like a fool, this is a counter argument in which he presented, I threw it back to him, let's see what he has to say now. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:34 PM |
@deafeated
fb's are like the reason why you were born
to end one thing before it even began
:) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:36 PM |
| I vote for resuming the war and not acting like newbags. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:36 PM |
"Not an autowin, we are just ending this war right here for the reasons which you are not willing to comply."
Ending the war in your favor and putting us on your defeated list, not to mention the "Victory over IE" part, whilst at the same time not meeting up with the 15 wins requirement, constitutes as an autowin.
"How naive of you, we have never allowed Comamnders+ to defend even up to now, but you've changed your rule from Commodore to Sovereign. "easily" I've tried two times now, stop sugar coating it."
No, you tried once, and your attempt to negotiate was interjected by Emp and Muf's stubbornness.
I instilled the Sovereign+ rule to temporarily pause the war so I could resume negotiations at another time (was hoping today, but I don't think I can now???)
"As for the rules I added, they are the same as SF's fort rules. I don't like IE's rules being restricted while SF can raid whenever, for however long, and without even having to contact an admin.
So I added the same exact rules to my fort.
Not an issue."
"You keep telling us that WE went to war with you when I always talk about the updates of the fort, now why are YOU complaining about the RULES that were set BEFORE the war? I thought you know how to READ?"
I wasn't complaining. I added the new rules to match SF's rules so SF wouldn't have an upper hand when it came down to that. That's not an issue here.
"First off, I am not obligated to tell you or show you what I'm updating at the base. However, every time you have asked, I did respond with a valid answer that was backed by the changes that you saw."
"We never knew you were going to update the base during the war period, I mean who does that? Unless if you are planning to play dirty right?"
If you compare my current fort model to the one from the start of the war, you will indeed notice the immense difference in detail, fairness, etc.
"Names of which are: FallenSinister (Not an HR anymore) - self explained LoRdOfBliNg - was inactive most of the time, came back after winning the 12th raid. BEEZit - casual HR, focusing his time more on other group."
And what makes you think my high ranks don't have reasons to refuse to defend (specifically, rolliply considering he's inactive on ROBLOX and focuses more on VAK)
"What was your reason for demoting your HR's? Oh inactivity and also causing you the 'edge of the war/defeat'"
To reconsider their competence and decide whether they should or shouldn't still be HRs.
They were Marshals for less than a day, calm down.
"IE hasn't broken any war terms, so this "autowin" (against war terms btw) is absurd. SF's problem is that they refuse to acknowledge any of my concerns, so thus I ignored theirs."
"Again ignoring the fact that I was there to resolve any issues however you just went on spamming #progress"
I was reading what you had to say and I only replied to points I wanted to acknowledge. SF didn't keep the conversation to my interests.
"Not an autowin, ended the war right here, 14 > 12, clear winner Skilled Force."
War terms state 15 wins must reached for a victory.
You can't just end the war when you're in the lead and say that you've won before you hit the requirement.
"- No admin abuse. Such acts will result in a raid victory for the raiding team, pending circumstances."
"I do have a video of you admin abusing, showing random messages which we revoked the raid sadly, however we could had shown it again :^)"
I don't recall ever abusing. If you have pictures though, I'd love to see.
"You've asked many times for this, thus you broke war terms many times, as well."
Actually, no, BEEZit first suggested it and after I had pointed out that it was against the war terms, it had been reconsidered, but Muffin said no.
"The reason we added Sublime+ rule is that EVEN if we demote those HR's back to Experts, then you would still complain making it the same as before."
I would have been fine with an alternative to the rule.
But I guess that's not an option. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Apr 2014 03:37 PM |
@Dead
"Not an autowin, we are just ending this war right here"
Isn't that pretty much the meaning of auto-win? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|