Goodgame Studios forum archives ::

[-306070] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 20, 2016, 9:43 p.m.

The definition of a burning castle seems to have become a bone of contention between alliances. Anyone have any ideas as to how this matter can be resolved??

[4386921] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 21, 2016, 3:10 a.m.

makale (AU1) said:

The definition of a burning castle seems to have become a bone of contention between alliances. Anyone have any ideas as to how this matter can be resolved??

Makale,

As an alliance TB could stop crying foul 25/8 and manipulating the current rules and hiding behind a few fires here and there on the towers.

The defenition is pretty simple atm, what is pretty straight forward is people are using it to cry victim and also abusing it with what it was put in for, a chance to rebuild so the game doesnt become unplayable.

http://prnt.sc/autkhs

This is the message one of our members received this morning after an attack last night, I couldnt find more than 3 or 4 fires on this guys OP and our member asked for permission before attacking because of those 3-4 fires. He was given it because as far as the eye could see he was rebuilt, as to was he hit 3-4 days ago, probably, but why the fk has he rebuilt everything then to indicate he is open to attack? Now if he was attacked over the last 3-4 days and has already put fires out like that then he has voided his fire protection as well.

I put to jenny a way forward, the most important thing for us (Seperatists) is that the grey area with the current rules is removed so that the name calling stops, predominantly at us as well. Five fires = dont attack is the curent rule, it doesnt work, you know it, I know it the whole server knows it.

Has to be a way for burning players to SHOW they are repairing that is clear. GHas to be a measure for attackign players to look for to know when someone is hiding behind fires and not rebuilding so that they can go and attack into someomne that isnt using the rules in good faith to repair and get back into the game.

People use it to hide behind and play victim. As an attacker when you check the defender should do something OBVIOUS other than have 5 fires on towers around the wall up the back of the castle etc etc. If I am expecting somsone to look all around to find my piddly fires and then have a big sook because the attacker didnt find the fire hiding behind the llama hiding behing the goats left testicle that was under the kitchen sink. Gotta get real, we wont accept being called names anymore while this behaviour occurs.

Their is no incentive for people to repair all fires at present because they can leave 5 piddly fires that dont effect anything and then cry victim. We dont have an issue with this rule with Franks, dont have an issue with SC, dont have an issue with..... Well anyone other than TB and UT's who are determined to call us names and not look for a way to demonstrate that they are repairing as opposed to hiding behind fires.

The other thing I have to highlight here, we dont have any issues with name callign with most of the other big alliances on the server, that is a huge thing here. Their leaders will recognise a problem and sit down to solve it as opposed to contribute to the name calling themselves. The name callign and playing victim is what is getting to us the most TBH and it has to change.

JJ

[4387019] millwall97 (GB1) [GB1] :: April 21, 2016, 8:36 a.m.

JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:

makale (AU1) said:

The definition of a burning castle seems to have become a bone of contention between alliances. Anyone have any ideas as to how this matter can be resolved??

Makale,

As an alliance TB could stop crying foul 25/8 and manipulating the current rules and hiding behind a few fires here and there on the towers.

The defenition is pretty simple atm, what is pretty straight forward is people are using it to cry victim and also abusing it with what it was put in for, a chance to rebuild so the game doesnt become unplayable.

http://prnt.sc/autkhs

This is the message one of our members received this morning after an attack last night, I couldnt find more than 3 or 4 fires on this guys OP and our member asked for permission before attacking because of those 3-4 fires. He was given it because as far as the eye could see he was rebuilt, as to was he hit 3-4 days ago, probably, but why the fk has he rebuilt everything then to indicate he is open to attack? Now if he was attacked over the last 3-4 days and has already put fires out like that then he has voided his fire protection as well.

I put to jenny a way forward, the most important thing for us (Seperatists) is that the grey area with the current rules is removed so that the name calling stops, predominantly at us as well. Five fires = dont attack is the curent rule, it doesnt work, you know it, I know it the whole server knows it.

Has to be a way for burning players to SHOW they are repairing that is clear. GHas to be a measure for attackign players to look for to know when someone is hiding behind fires and not rebuilding so that they can go and attack into someomne that isnt using the rules in good faith to repair and get back into the game.

People use it to hide behind and play victim. As an attacker when you check the defender should do something OBVIOUS other than have 5 fires on towers around the wall up the back of the castle etc etc. If I am expecting somsone to look all around to find my piddly fires and then have a big sook because the attacker didnt find the fire hiding behind the llama hiding behing the goats left testicle that was under the kitchen sink. Gotta get real, we wont accept being called names anymore while this behaviour occurs.

Their is no incentive for people to repair all fires at present because they can leave 5 piddly fires that dont effect anything and then cry victim. We dont have an issue with this rule with Franks, dont have an issue with SC, dont have an issue with..... Well anyone other than TB and UT's who are determined to call us names and not look for a way to demonstrate that they are repairing as opposed to hiding behind fires.

The other thing I have to highlight here, we dont have any issues with name callign with most of the other big alliances on the server, that is a huge thing here. Their leaders will recognise a problem and sit down to solve it as opposed to contribute to the name calling themselves. The name callign and playing victim is what is getting to us the most TBH and it has to change.

JJ

change it to 6 fires then, simple. Why complain about something that could be easily fixed if you're not offering any solutions

[4387226] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 21, 2016, 1:58 p.m.

FORUM KING (AU1) said:

change it to 6 fires then, simple. Why complain about something that could be easily fixed if you're not offering any solutions

We offered solutions, we were flexible etc etc

None of them are acceptable. Our members being called all kinds of names via PM.

5 fires, 6 fires or even 7 fires etc. It doesnt matter as it doesnt change the fact that the rule is being abused with fires left up so they CAN cry about us attacking into fires.

Over it being cried about and us getting all kinds of accusations throw at us.

Fire rule is in place to rebuild and it is being used to play the victim. As I said, no problems with majority of other alliances, they act honorably and dont abuse the rules and dont abuse us when tryign to solve a problem.

JJ

[4387259] vampire empire (GB1) [None] :: April 21, 2016, 2:52 p.m.

FORUM KING (AU1) said:

JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:

makale (AU1) said:

The definition of a burning castle seems to have become a bone of contention between alliances. Anyone have any ideas as to how this matter can be resolved??

Makale,

As an alliance TB could stop crying foul 25/8 and manipulating the current rules and hiding behind a few fires here and there on the towers.

The defenition is pretty simple atm, what is pretty straight forward is people are using it to cry victim and also abusing it with what it was put in for, a chance to rebuild so the game doesnt become unplayable.

http://prnt.sc/autkhs

This is the message one of our members received this morning after an attack last night, I couldnt find more than 3 or 4 fires on this guys OP and our member asked for permission before attacking because of those 3-4 fires. He was given it because as far as the eye could see he was rebuilt, as to was he hit 3-4 days ago, probably, but why the fk has he rebuilt everything then to indicate he is open to attack? Now if he was attacked over the last 3-4 days and has already put fires out like that then he has voided his fire protection as well.

I put to jenny a way forward, the most important thing for us (Seperatists) is that the grey area with the current rules is removed so that the name calling stops, predominantly at us as well. Five fires = dont attack is the curent rule, it doesnt work, you know it, I know it the whole server knows it.

Has to be a way for burning players to SHOW they are repairing that is clear. GHas to be a measure for attackign players to look for to know when someone is hiding behind fires and not rebuilding so that they can go and attack into someomne that isnt using the rules in good faith to repair and get back into the game.

People use it to hide behind and play victim. As an attacker when you check the defender should do something OBVIOUS other than have 5 fires on towers around the wall up the back of the castle etc etc. If I am expecting somsone to look all around to find my piddly fires and then have a big sook because the attacker didnt find the fire hiding behind the llama hiding behing the goats left testicle that was under the kitchen sink. Gotta get real, we wont accept being called names anymore while this behaviour occurs.

Their is no incentive for people to repair all fires at present because they can leave 5 piddly fires that dont effect anything and then cry victim. We dont have an issue with this rule with Franks, dont have an issue with SC, dont have an issue with..... Well anyone other than TB and UT's who are determined to call us names and not look for a way to demonstrate that they are repairing as opposed to hiding behind fires.

The other thing I have to highlight here, we dont have any issues with name callign with most of the other big alliances on the server, that is a huge thing here. Their leaders will recognise a problem and sit down to solve it as opposed to contribute to the name calling themselves. The name callign and playing victim is what is getting to us the most TBH and it has to change.

JJ

change it to 6 fires then, simple. Why complain about something that could be easily fixed if you're not offering any solutions

it'll soon increase to even the whole castle is on fire, it's hiding behind fires

p/s: throw me a bucket of popcorns pls

[4387415] hge (US1) [None] :: April 21, 2016, 5:41 p.m.

JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:

makale (AU1) said:

The definition of a burning castle seems to have become a bone of contention between alliances. Anyone have any ideas as to how this matter can be resolved??

Makale,

As an alliance TB could stop crying foul 25/8 and manipulating the current rules and hiding behind a few fires here and there on the towers.

The defenition is pretty simple atm, what is pretty straight forward is people are using it to cry victim and also abusing it with what it was put in for, a chance to rebuild so the game doesnt become unplayable.

http://prnt.sc/autkhs

This is the message one of our members received this morning after an attack last night, I couldnt find more than 3 or 4 fires on this guys OP and our member asked for permission before attacking because of those 3-4 fires. He was given it because as far as the eye could see he was rebuilt, as to was he hit 3-4 days ago, probably, but why the fk has he rebuilt everything then to indicate he is open to attack? Now if he was attacked over the last 3-4 days and has already put fires out like that then he has voided his fire protection as well.

I put to jenny a way forward, the most important thing for us (Seperatists) is that the grey area with the current rules is removed so that the name calling stops, predominantly at us as well. Five fires = dont attack is the curent rule, it doesnt work, you know it, I know it the whole server knows it.

Has to be a way for burning players to SHOW they are repairing that is clear. GHas to be a measure for attackign players to look for to know when someone is hiding behind fires and not rebuilding so that they can go and attack into someomne that isnt using the rules in good faith to repair and get back into the game.

People use it to hide behind and play victim. As an attacker when you check the defender should do something OBVIOUS other than have 5 fires on towers around the wall up the back of the castle etc etc. If I am expecting somsone to look all around to find my piddly fires and then have a big sook because the attacker didnt find the fire hiding behind the llama hiding behing the goats left testicle that was under the kitchen sink. Gotta get real, we wont accept being called names anymore while this behaviour occurs.

Their is no incentive for people to repair all fires at present because they can leave 5 piddly fires that dont effect anything and then cry victim. We dont have an issue with this rule with Franks, dont have an issue with SC, dont have an issue with..... Well anyone other than TB and UT's who are determined to call us names and not look for a way to demonstrate that they are repairing as opposed to hiding behind fires.

The other thing I have to highlight here, we dont have any issues with name callign with most of the other big alliances on the server, that is a huge thing here. Their leaders will recognise a problem and sit down to solve it as opposed to contribute to the name calling themselves. The name callign and playing victim is what is getting to us the most TBH and it has to change.

JJ

Take it easy, message him back, give him the finger, and attack him again. Just a whiner.

[4387744] BedeGiles (AU1) [None] :: April 21, 2016, 11:30 p.m.

imspecial456 (AU1) said:

@hge (US1) its not a personal problem for just the people above, the whole server needs a new rule, before everyone starts fighting each other

i say, burning castle is still 4 fires, but if they cant have any fires at all when they launch an attack from that location, so they could have 4 fires and be safe from attacks, but if they attack from that castle then they arent allowed

imspecial, they are allowed to attack from a burning castle - they just void their fire protection, and can expect attacks on that castle in retalliation. The issue becomes - someone gets burnt all castles, and instead of making some defenders/attackers putting out fires then hitting back. They start hitting back straight away - get burnt again. The burning party who lashed out then says 'you are bullying me' - 'you guys are the scum of the server'. Now, considering they no longer have any defenders left- and really enjoy sending demons...they dont put their fires out at all - and at will use that bullying excuse while continueing to send attacks.

Its the height of hypocrisy, and weak as piss to be complaining about a pixel based war game where the aim is to destroy each others armies. If I have to starve out someones attack army because all they are doing is being offensive minded, then thats what needs to be done. lol

[4387888] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 2:50 a.m.

interesting reading the above. I reckon that 5 buildings burning (does not include towers) seems to be the go. As for attacking from burning castles i have this suggestion. If it can be proved that the attack came from a burning castle, then yes, any protection is automatically waived. The leader of the attacking alliance should be informed, they should either send no defence, or that person gets thrown out of the alliance. Might be a salutory lesson for all.

[4387889] vampire empire (GB1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 2:53 a.m.

BedeGiles (AU1) said:

imspecial456 (AU1) said:

@hge (US1) its not a personal problem for just the people above, the whole server needs a new rule, before everyone starts fighting each other

i say, burning castle is still 4 fires, but if they cant have any fires at all when they launch an attack from that location, so they could have 4 fires and be safe from attacks, but if they attack from that castle then they arent allowed

imspecial, they are allowed to attack from a burning castle - they just void their fire protection, and can expect attacks on that castle in retalliation. The issue becomes - someone gets burnt all castles, and instead of making some defenders/attackers putting out fires then hitting back. They start hitting back straight away - get burnt again. The burning party who lashed out then says 'you are bullying me' - 'you guys are the scum of the server'. Now, considering they no longer have any defenders left- and really enjoy sending demons...they dont put their fires out at all - and at will use that bullying excuse while continueing to send attacks.

Its the height of hypocrisy, and weak as piss to be complaining about a pixel based war game where the aim is to destroy each others armies. If I have to starve out someones attack army because all they are doing is being offensive minded, then thats what needs to be done. If that treatment is bullying, make a fire casta to reduce your burning? lol

good idea. my war target actually put on his fire cast when the war kicked off. so, I send the loot comm

[4387896] millwall97 (GB1) [GB1] :: April 22, 2016, 3:16 a.m.

JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:

FORUM KING (AU1) said:

change it to 6 fires then, simple. Why complain about something that could be easily fixed if you're not offering any solutions

We offered solutions, we were flexible etc etc

None of them are acceptable. Our members being called all kinds of names via PM.

5 fires, 6 fires or even 7 fires etc. It doesnt matter as it doesnt change the fact that the rule is being abused with fires left up so they CAN cry about us attacking into fires.

Over it being cried about and us getting all kinds of accusations throw at us.

Fire rule is in place to rebuild and it is being used to play the victim. As I said, no problems with majority of other alliances, they act honorably and dont abuse the rules and dont abuse us when tryign to solve a problem.

JJ

So basically none of this thread is relevant, people complaining about people complaining.

[4387911] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 3:58 a.m.

makale (AU1) said:

interesting reading the above. I reckon that 5 buildings burning (does not include towers) seems to be the go. As for attacking from burning castles i have this suggestion. If it can be proved that the attack came from a burning castle, then yes, any protection is automatically waived. The leader of the attacking alliance should be informed, they should either send no defence, or that person gets thrown out of the alliance. Might be a salutory lesson for all.

Just trying to be constructive here Forum King. Someplace to start discussions is better than no place at all !!

[4388093] BedeGiles (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 9:28 a.m.

^^ what makale said, shut up forum king. lol

[4388184] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 11:45 a.m.

Read this earlier " If I am expecting somsone to look all around to find my piddly fires and then have a big sook because the attacker didnt find the fire hiding behind the llama hiding behing the goats left testicle that was under the kitchen sink.
Just making the point that one of our members was hit no long ago, quite clearly had a number of fires still going (9 in fact), no towers alight, this would appear to indicate that there was an effort being made to put the fires out. Oh and yes, i DO have a screen shot of the castle

[4388204] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 12:14 p.m.

Well makale,

I put forward to Jenny multiple different things. She didn't like anything I put forward and then I got called a dictator. This is while I felt I was being flexible and trying to find a compromise. To be honest I felt like Jenny was dictating to me what we should do with controlling members and abiding by a wishy washy rule that doesnt work while still calling me names via PM and making false claims of attacking into fires (see other thread) on the forums....

Hence I got told by our leaders not to talk to her via PM, and here we are.

Predominantly our concenrn is with our players constantly being called names. That is the issue for us first and foremost.

Something I put forward was last buildings to be put out are food production so that you know they are rebuilding everything and they use that fire protection to get numbers back up before putting the last fires out. Not acceptable, so I put forward if someone was hit they could make a redcross sign with their graneries in the middle of the OP to be even more blatent so an attacker knew they had fire protection at that stage as they are rebuilding.

These things were not well received by jenny to say the least. I have yet to be offered a way forward.

As I said many times to Jenny, if we constantly break rules lets make them so they are crystal clear and its in your favour for them to be more strict and clearly defined. I got told the current 5 fires rules "works" and it has to be a simple thing that doesnt effect peoples food production we just have to enforce it in seps and its only us that break the rules blah blah blah.

I'm pretty much out of idea's here makale, I'm unsure of TB view on this however something jenny said to me multiple times is she had told her guys "no rules" because of what we (seps) have started, we are still enforcing fair play rules at Seps as they stand. I'm here looking for a solution and I cant see much input from TB oh a way forward that stops us constantly getting called names.

That is what we are looking for mostly, our guys to be able to play without constant name calling that has been occuring, if its the fires issue that is causing name calling lets address that.

JJ

[4388744] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 22, 2016, 10:25 p.m.

Hi jj,

The idea of forming a "red cross" in the middle of a castle is, well, to put it mildly, not a good idea. As you well know, playing tetris in a castle is a pain in the bum to make things fit !! then to take it all apart and put it all back together again,
well.........
A simple solution is that if the last 3 buildings (out of 5) burning are granaries (or farmhouses) and no towers are alight, then leave it alone. As previously stated, attacking from a burning building is a no-no (this has been reitereated to our alliance twice now bu Jenny, she will not stand for it. Not sure what the punishment will be on our side, but it will be draconian !!!

[4388859] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 23, 2016, 1:56 a.m.

imspecial,

Sounds good in theory, but GGS cant sort out the problems they have at the moment, let alone asking them to come up with something like that !! way, way beyond their capabilities i think !!

[4388986] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 23, 2016, 7:19 a.m.

makale (AU1) said:

Hi jj,

The idea of forming a "red cross" in the middle of a castle is, well, to put it mildly, not a good idea. As you well know, playing tetris in a castle is a pain in the bum to make things fit !! then to take it all apart and put it all back together again,
well.........
A simple solution is that if the last 3 buildings (out of 5) burning are granaries (or farmhouses) and no towers are alight, then leave it alone. As previously stated, attacking from a burning building is a no-no (this has been reitereated to our alliance twice now bu Jenny, she will not stand for it. Not sure what the punishment will be on our side, but it will be draconian !!!

Makale,

I'm all for that when people play above board, all for simple solutions. Reality it doesn't work when people abuse it. Ive said it before defense and offense two parts to the game, fires rule is for people to rebuild and be able to run defense again and have fires put out, hence your not attacking them....

http://prnt.sc/avqigh

Please see attached screen shots above with Robdog8 attacking FROM fires that he has had blazing for 6 weeks now. One of his attacks from Lanisport wasn't from fires but otherwise he still sends from fires in his main and probably expects fire protection while having another OP still ablaze and again, probably wanting protection. I didnt have time to get screenshots from all of his attacks in the outters as it was happening (no fires now Ill assume none then), but another example of how the rules are abused by people and those people want protection and to cry victim.

Now for all the world to see TB and UT have merged. Dont know what your view is however jenny thinks I am going to believe that they are just visiting, permenantly for like 3 weeks now or 4, close allies but not merged, thats the official line.... While bulk buying demons and sending at us. Don't think you would like us having allies visiting doing that but it is what it is, we are used to other alliances saying one thing and doing another.

Hence the rule has to be clear. If your serious about fire protection etc, lets make it a clear rule that is hard for someone to abuse and hide behind.

Something Jenny said was, while in our house they go by our rules, Rob was in your house last night. Those fires been a blazzing for 6+ weeks. So what do we do here, when Rob has fires we ignore them because he ignores fair play constantly, then you call us names again?

Jenny said the UT's war (I call it a scirmish still) was one of the dirtiest the server has ever seen etc etc. It started over UT's sending short range attacks like this in the first alliance tourney for to get cheap Glory. That started the resentment and at the end of it well, nothing more was to be gained, we thought we proved our point. Two sides to every story and If I could I would do it all again personally. We (I speak for the alliance here) wouldnt have ended it, obviously the message didnt get across. We would still be going and burning UT's constantly because this groupof individuals abuse these rules and do what suits themselves, they dont deserve any protection nor do they deserve any sympathy. If you give that sympathy then you enable the abuse to continue, suprise suprise, abuse of the rules is still going on we have sympathy.

Now TB are the shelter for this group of players.

Something we had with UT's was a minimum 30 click rule for hits, part of peace and something we put in mostly to stop Robs hits on Red. Well it starts again and attacking from fires. Whatever your rules are please enforce them before you start playing innocent, I'm sure you dont accept this either in TB, as I said, no issues with TB previously however you have a whole heap of new guests dragging your name down and for some reason there is this perception still that we should accept rules that enable the same behaviour and that same abuse. Just had one other issue and resolved pretty much straight away with jenny, we both agree on the issue and I trust her to sort it as it was with a TB member I know she will sort it.

Really starting to think the issue isnt TB the issue is those that abuse it who want to play victim, as I said a whole heap of new guests and I get the feeling your drinking that coolaid.

As to a fire rule that works, no matter what it is it will always be abused, this is a reality. It's making sure people abusing it cant play victim and throw names around calling us bullies etc and we have a way to say, this is the rule, here is the abuse, stop calling us all these different names and stop playing victim.

Sorry for the Essay however had to cover it all,

JJ

[4389084] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 23, 2016, 9:43 a.m.

imspecial456 (AU1) said:

@JJJJJJSK (AU1)

many a time now i have launched an attack and gone offline, to come back, find i have been sabotaged and have about a million messags from another alliance claiming i am attacking from a burning castle

it has happened 3 times this week!

i am not sure if it has been a random sab from another player or if the alliance them self did it to me, but the rules should be
1. 5 fires are ok, as long as they are small(type caused from sabs)
2. if there are more than 5 small fires, then you must be able to prove your castle wasnt on fire when you launched the attack

You will have sab reports and you can send a printscreen of those through and tell them to EAD. Not hard to prove really.... An alliance that does this is also the type of alliance that sabs their own guy then accuses you of attackign into fires.

Had it happen before. It will happen again, dude just bought $400 worth of demons and has an OP not on fire so he sends from that OP while keeping the rest of the demons in his main, we attack his main im sure he will cry foul as hasnt put fires out in main. Rules are really getting to be a joke with this continued bollocks with lets look for a solution while crying foul.

Are consequences for everythign, @makale (AU1) be honest, @jennyj (AU1) put a gag order on your alliance on the forums. Awful quite these days compared to how you guys used to be on here....

[4389121] makale (AU1) [None] :: April 23, 2016, 11:26 a.m.

Hi jjj,

Sorry to disappoint, no gag order, i would ignore if there was. I firmly believe in freedom of speech so does Jen. I was just confirming with her that a MM went out to all of our alliance members to say that attacking from a burning castle will be dealt with severely !!! (and she means it!!) As for the problem of hiding attack troops in burning castles, i will discuss that with her and see if we can nut out a solution. I suppose it is down the the honesty of the individual, i personally do not approve of that tactic, but difficult to police. With regard to sending a sab just to try and say that someone was attacking from a burning castle, or dropping out to sab a team mate. We will discus that and if it has happened will try and put a stop to it.
However, despite all of the above, discussions and actions are a two way street, and the best sort of compromise is one that neither side really likes, but can live with

[4389135] JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None] :: April 23, 2016, 11:47 a.m.

makale (AU1) said:

Hi jjj,

Sorry to disappoint, no gag order, i would ignore if there was. I firmly believe in freedom of speech so does Jen. I was just confirming with her that a MM went out to all of our alliance members to say that attacking from a burning castle will be dealt with severely !!! (and she means it!!) As for the problem of hiding attack troops in burning castles, i will discuss that with her and see if we can nut out a solution. I suppose it is down the the honesty of the individual, i personally do not approve of that tactic, but difficult to police. With regard to sending a sab just to try and say that someone was attacking from a burning castle, or dropping out to sab a team mate. We will discus that and if it has happened will try and put a stop to it.
However, despite all of the above, discussions and actions are a two way street, and the best sort of compromise is one that neither side really likes, but can live with

@makale (AU1)

Robdog sent from burning last night, I put screenshots up for you.

What is the punishment if any? Your house your rules were jenny's words to me and at the moment it seems like all her accusations at us of "one thing for you is aceptable and you want us to all do other stuff and dictate!!" is more like, your dictating that you will do wtf you want and damn the fair play rules but we cant do jack in return apart form say sorry for offending you?

See I'm fine with that if thats what you want, just say so, honesty is a good thing like that, but dont pretend.

@jennyj (AU1) also pretty absent in the other thread where she claims to be feeding a guy at -10k while his O/S's.

It seems that all of the things that UT accused us of and TB thought we were oh so dirty for not really doing..... Again baseless accusations on behalf of UT that everyone buys..... TB is now doing? People from Imperium drop over to send a few attacks at us, people form Second Sons and half of UT now based in TB....

No problems with it, were sort of used to that kind of bollocks, becomes the norm after a while but saying you will deal with something and actualy dealing with it and taking action is another thing. @makale (AU1) Where is this jenny to deal with this issue and explain her members behaviour?

Again, this isnt the TB myself or many other Sep's know. Lots of our members saying it never used to be like this with tumeke leading the ship, love him or hate him he had his problems but at the end of the day he wasnt Jenny. Starting to understand that a bit here.

JJ

Page 1 of 4. next last »