DeletedUser11817
Guest
Wearingcomb smells.
Yea I like personal attacks over facts also
Yea I like personal attacks over facts also
while that technically works the better term would be ad hominem lmfaoThat's a great response, Persephone. Instead of standing on fact, you make ad personam attacks. Another simple logical fallacy, indicating someone scared and overwhelmed. Welcome to second place.
yall bad just accept itFirst off wearing combs u are irrelevant 2nd we were 8th and climbed not bc we piggybacked off u guys it was because we had a great team and fought... All the while u guys fought who exactly?.
We both made an impact on WD was not just 1. As far as the invitations go its in the past its a game play it.
As far as who broke the truce it was bawla who by the way every leader u got in mip said u would not take in... your own leader even admitted the outcast sieges were an accident. First bc a guy had no home at the time the other a hand off so f off and have the facts right next time.
There is more i should say about MIP but will leave at that.
I thought this would be a friendly war but hey Roo was only Simming right. Get off your horse combs.
No one wanted u they only chose u bc of an agreement of not to invite a certain player so they can rim him..
As for the last thing ghost67 i told openly i was inviting, there is another misconception in your position..
I do hope some truth can be told here but again asking too much.
First I have no idea how you keep messing up quotes, all you have to do is hit the reply button...
This excuse has so many holes. One is the idea that you needed all your defense for your sieges. I checked the cities you took. Like 5 internals and a bunch of cities from Chaotic Animals. If you needed all your defense for them you must not have any defense.
But no you didn't even need it, you say yourself they were stacked and uncontested. If none of them were contested why have so much support tied up to them? Are your conquest really that much more important to you than contested sieges?
Lastly you are a leader, your first and foremost job is to lead not grow fat and plump off the back of your alliance. There is no reason you should ever go 3 weeks without supporting your team. Even going after cities that often is a bit too much. One of the things a leaders needs to do is sacrifice some personal growth for the good of the team. Seems you were doing quite well. You didn't need more cities, go help your other members get to your size.
You made your alliance collapse and you're shaming others for making fellow players quit. That's rich.
What is the best you can do? Pick fights with your team and dismiss criticism seems to be it from reading this.
Here you go again on and on about how horrible others are. Maybe look in the mirror some time? The only one stirring problems is the guy pushing good players away and then later rage quitting on his team. That guy is you in case you haven't noticed.
There is no way around it. Teams just aren't for you. Hopefully you will come to realize that before you drag another alliance into the ground.
Its funny because this entire explanation was to a player who doesn't even play on the world lmao. So he doesn't even know his own alliance members.The only reason you are finding so many holes is cause you have been thinking and analyzing from the wrong hole. Let me help you out.
Lets start from the top.
I took 5 internals and 17 cities in the last 26 days. Yes most from CA. So?
23 cities in 26 days occupying most of my defense. Each siege last atleast 12 hours plus the tt for them to return. Too much math for you ah?
Further on. The only reason the sieges were not contested cause they were stacked, stacked from my own support. Will make it abit more simpler for you. If I did not stack them, they would have been attacked and the siege would have been unsuccessful. Get it. Again, I assume you haven't checked any of the mm's where I clearly ask support for my own siege where as most of mine was out to others. Now please don' assume that I might be having 2 sieges a day. If so, please don't read any further and get your head checked.
Moving on, you want me to pull support from my siege and send it out to a siege that is contested. Sure. Do you even consider the time it takes for troops to come back and be to where they need to be?
Further on, why is everyone talking about my support, what the fk were the rest of you all doing? Are you all saying that the only reason the sieges collapsed was cause of lack of support from me?
Another perspective, if I did not support and if none of my sieges were contested, where the fk did all that DBP come from? Do you need a link to see that or your dumb brain would be able to locate and analyze it?
Yeah I was growing fat by taking cities on the front. So you say I shouldn't have taken cities on the frontlines? Now please do not tell me that most of my cities were in the safe zone. They were not when I took them.
Moving on, yes I was the leader. That is exactly why I have been taking all the blame for everything that went wrong there. While people like you tagged along cause we were #1 alliance. When the alliance does well the credit goes to everyone, when something goes wrong its cause of the leader. I was blamed when Kill Switch quit. Did you ever find out what happened? I have a mail where she has mentioned that she will stir up problems. I did not fall for it. She quit the alliance assuming that I will give into her bullshit and go on war. Instead I chose to let her go. Again, there is a council where all is discussed and yet I am okay to take all the blame. This is just ONE of her episodes.
Where the fk were you when Andy ghosted cause Bawla spammed him? Probably having beer somewhere and saying " the leaders will deal with that shit". Im sure you never questioned when your TEAM PLAYER Bawla went inactive for almost a month. Proof, he came back with 15 empty slots. Ive never seen an active player having that many. Have you questioned WHY wasn't he around and then Why did he suddenly become active when added to the council chat? This team player was sent 7 mails requesting to colonize an anchor when the entire alliance had sacrificed one. I'm sure you wouldnt have mailed him even once, correct? The list of players who have and haven't colonized was under the tabs. No excuses that you did not know.
In short he has been stirring up things against me cause he wanted POWER and LEADERSHIP rights.
So you started seeing all the problems in me when I quit, but everything was great when we were #1? Why the hell did you not quit the alliance before knowing I was the leader?
Besides, please let me know your Ingame name and I will ellaborate on what kind of a team player you were?
OH btw, did I hit the reply button right this time?
I used x4 bp token and participated in a siege breaking using 10 LS nukes + 5 heavy flyers then in few days I went on VM. Use your brain, again your mouth ran faster than your brain.Proof, he came back with 15 empty slots. Ive never seen an active player having that many
The only reason you are finding so many holes is cause you have been thinking and analyzing from the wrong hole.
Lets start from the top.
I took 5 internals and 17 cities in the last 26 days. Yes most from CA. So?
23 cities in 26 days occupying most of my defense. Each siege last atleast 12 hours plus the tt for them to return. Too much math for you ah?
Further on. The only reason the sieges were not contested cause they were stacked, stacked from my own support. Will make it abit more simpler for you. If I did not stack them, they would have been attacked and the siege would have been unsuccessful. Get it. Again, I assume you haven't checked any of the mm's where I clearly ask support for my own siege where as most of mine was out to others. Now please don' assume that I might be having 2 sieges a day. If so, please don't read any further and get your head checked.
Moving on, you want me to pull support from my siege and send it out to a siege that is contested. Sure. Do you even consider the time it takes for troops to come back and be to where they need to be?
Further on, why is everyone talking about my support, what the fk were the rest of you all doing? Are you all saying that the only reason the sieges collapsed was cause of lack of support from me?
Another perspective, if I did not support and if none of my sieges were contested, where the fk did all that DBP come from? Do you need a link to see that or your dumb brain would be able to locate and analyze it?
Yeah I was growing fat by taking cities on the front. So you say I shouldn't have taken cities on the frontlines? Now please do not tell me that most of my cities were in the safe zone. They were not when I took them.
Moving on, yes I was the leader. That is exactly why I have been taking all the blame for everything that went wrong there. While people like you tagged along cause we were #1 alliance. When the alliance does well the credit goes to everyone, when something goes wrong its cause of the leader. I was blamed when Kill Switch quit. Did you ever find out what happened? I have a mail where she has mentioned that she will stir up problems. I did not fall for it. She quit the alliance assuming that I will give into her bullshit and go on war. Instead I chose to let her go. Again, there is a council where all is discussed and yet I am okay to take all the blame. This is just ONE of her episodes.
Where the fk were you when Andy ghosted cause Bawla spammed him? Probably having beer somewhere and saying " the leaders will deal with that shit".
So you started seeing all the problems in me when I quit, but everything was great when we were #1? Why the hell did you not quit the alliance before knowing I was the leader?
OH btw, did I hit the reply button right this time?
yeah roo got greedy and upset that we got players they wanted, dissolved the pact and then war happenedGood grief, still arguing?
And now drama between MIP and ROO? You all did not chat about what would happen if WD failed? Man this is one wacky server, lots of drama.
LOL not sure that is what happened but hey keep telling yourself that..