Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:45 PM |
they are at arguing.
Allasaphore: Defend against the official raid, Vaktus. Allasaphore: Now. Vaktus, Father of Vaktovia: We agreed to defend SMO and we are defending it, we never agreed to following your troops around. Vaktus, Father of Vaktovia: That is final. Vaktus, Father of Vaktovia: Goodnight, to both of you.
- War term #3: "Both sides must defend their bases as much as possible during the raiding timezones set below."
Defending is done against a raid, and the server VAK "supposedly" defended didn't have any raiders, however, the war terms specify that: "* A raid constitutes as an attack on an enemy base with 10 or more raiders, including a commanding officer (For UAF: Captains and above, for VAK: Captains and above)."
VAK, ya suck baboon bums.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
3eh
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3505 |
|
| |
|
squidboi2
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 52336 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:46 PM |
why does everyone ignore this rule that was explicitly made for this situation
" - Defenses cannot be ignored for over 15 minutes- once 15 minutes have passed, the win goes to the raiders. This rule applies as soon as 3 PMs are sent to an enemy with shouting powers ( For UAF, Majors and above, for VAK: Captains and above )."
"( If Vaktovia does not defend servers a meeting will be held discussing the necessity of implementing the rule.)" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:47 PM |
| why does everyone also ignore the fact that we were defending at the time the server shutdown |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:47 PM |
| I dont get it, why are yall still posting threads? I'm sure False and his hicommand are getting it solved, this is just reiterating the same things that have been said for the last 14 hours. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DieSoft
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 17635 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:47 PM |
"Allasaphore: Defend against the official raid, Vaktus. Allasaphore: Now."
Your mistake was trying to give Vaktus orders.
:^) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:47 PM |
"( If Vaktovia does not defend servers a meeting will be held discussing the necessity of implementing the rule.)"
Vaktus went offline the second we told him to defend, making a meeting quite hard to be held. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:48 PM |
| Lol, Vaktus can go back to sleep for all I care, he's not better than anybody else on this website. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:49 PM |
| i love how their only argument against us is that steam message that clearly says we are defending smo and we don't feel like following you server to server. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:49 PM |
"why does everyone also ignore the fact that we were defending at the time the server shutdown"
That wasn't the server we waited with 14 UAF in for roughly 40 minutes...lmfao... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
squidboi2
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 52336 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:49 PM |
@sencu
then follow the sentence literally stated before?
"This rule will not apply for the first four days of the war, however, if Vaktovia is incapable of defending in a timely manner, the rule will be in effect " |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
ShadowSTR
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 24465 |
|
| |
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:50 PM |
So if we don't feel like defending, refusal to do so is absolutely fine?
Screw the war terms then, our shutdown is justified as well then! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:50 PM |
@squidboi,
that sentence is literally negated by the brackets, stating that a meeting should be held before reimplementation. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:51 PM |
"Atleast he is mature lol"
Vaktus: Lol we won't defend lmfao lol you can't make us to it just because of war terms boo-hoo! Vaktus is now offline. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:51 PM |
"Allasaphore: Defend against the official raid, Vaktus." Funny thing is, this message makes it seem like VAK is defending Smo since they say defend the OFFICIAL raid VAKTUS.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
squidboi2
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 52336 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:52 PM |
"negated by the brackets"
"This rule will not apply for the first four days of the war, however, if Vaktovia is incapable of defending in a timely manner, the rule will be in effect "
then why the hell is it included at all if it's to be ignored by brackets right afterwards?
the meaning is the rule is implemented AND a meeting will take place afterwards. i can't sit here and argue grammatical intent if you refuse to recognize it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
trituse
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15618 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:53 PM |
"Vaktus: Lol we won't defend lmfao lol you can't make us to it just because of war terms boo-hoo! Vaktus is now offline."
fake
Squids roam all over the ocean... waiting to eat you! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:53 PM |
'Defend the official raid, Vaktus. Now.'
'official raid'
we are defending the official raid lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:54 PM |
Temporarily negated*
It's wasn't going to be reimplemented before a meeting was held, which Vaktus made impossible by going offline. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
ShadowSTR
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 24465 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:54 PM |
| Sencu: vak is better than uaf I admit it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
squidboi2
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 52336 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:55 PM |
"It's wasn't going to be reimplemented before a meeting was held, which Vaktus made impossible by going offline."
and where does it say that?
i'm going off what is verbatum said in the warterms |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:55 PM |
@TheStalinator,
"* A raid constitutes as an attack on an enemy base with 10 or more raiders, including a commanding officer (For UAF: Captains and above, for VAK: Captains and above)."
No you weren't. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:57 PM |
@squidboi,
in the brackets, right after what you're constantly copying everywhere.
And we don't want the autowins, we want to fight, that's fun, autowins aren't. The rule was supposed to serve as a deterrence so that you would defend, not so that we could claim autowins. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sencu
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11262 |
|
|
| 26 Jul 2015 12:58 PM |
Skill-wise, VAK probably is better than UAF.
But you sure as well aren't showing it now.
UAF is still a better clan than VAK, in my opinion. Perhaps not skill-wise or activity-wise, but in every other aspect, I believe that we defeat you. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|