Sarah Morgan Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser2568

Guest
Sarah Morgan told me she would post more if she had her own thread to express her opinions about Zeta. I am trying to expedite her posting by creating the thread for her!!
 

DeletedUser2568

Guest
Sarah you have been extremely quiet? No opinions to share?
 

DeletedUser2568

Guest
Since Sarah isn't posting in here... lets all post for her!!! Post what you think she would say if she wrote in this thread. I will go first.


Sarah would say " I hate trav6612 for putting this stupid thread in the forums. I am not going to talk about how much I hate the eMo guys or whatever they are called now... they are still the same eMo kids. Don't even get me started on those brats in 65 that have taken cities I don't really care about anymore because I am so focused in 53/54 right now on killing those eMo kids.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
"Don't even get me started on those brats in 65 that have taken cities"

I'm not a brat :(((
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I apologize for not responding to such an honor as being given my very own thread. And props to trav for hitting some of my views so correct in my absence!!

I am wondering about what some people think about the way things are going in Zeta. I mean by all means, I will not sugar coat and try to say that TEE has not had quite the diverse set of issues in this world, nor will I sit back and make excuses for our circumstances. But this is what I am curious about from the masses:

This is a war game (although I believe there are a few to many that cannot make the distinction that this is not real). But that being said, I really question the morality of many players here in Zeta. I mean, if you are unable to take over an enemies cities in general (of active players that is) then apparently you are not as good as you are claiming. And while there are no rules in warfare I would think there would still be morality. I may be both blonde, and a female but I am not stupid or gullible. My objection and question concerns the morals of taking in defectors. Either you really are afraid that you cannot beat us, or you want to use them for information. I would simply have told people that if it is that bad where you are then you should weigh your options, but taking in enemies just to gain an upper hand would not be an option, oh wait that's right I have already been doing that silly me I guess I do have blonde moments!!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I apologize for not responding to such an honor as being given my very own thread. And props to trav for hitting some of my views so correct in my absence!!

I am wondering about what some people think about the way things are going in Zeta. I mean by all means, I will not sugar coat and try to say that TEE has not had quite the diverse set of issues in this world, nor will I sit back and make excuses for our circumstances. But this is what I am curious about from the masses:



This is a war game (although I believe there are a few to many that cannot make the distinction that this is not real). But that being said, I really question the morality of many players here in Zeta. I mean, if you are unable to take over an enemies cities in general (of active players that is) then apparently you are not as good as you are claiming. And while there are no rules in warfare I would think there would still be morality. I may be both blonde, and a female but I am not stupid or gullible. My objection and question concerns the morals of taking in defectors. Either you really are afraid that you cannot beat us, or you want to use them for information. I would simply have told people that if it is that bad where you are then you should weigh your options, but taking in enemies just to gain an upper hand would not be an option, oh wait that's right I have already been doing that silly me I guess I do have blonde moments!!

Am I to believe that TEE has never taken in a defector? And even though you would not believe me, we have not asked for or been given any inside intel.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I will not say that the alliance has never taken in a defector. But since "world war" my views are if you cannot handle where you are then what is the point in jumping ship. I mean really, if an alliance was good enough for you before then why leave just because it is getting hard? That is a cowardice way of dealing with things and I do not agree with an alliance condoning such actions. And since you stated that they came to you not the other way around, then you are to blame for the general action of allowing such events. Although again this is just a war game and there are no rules to war. Also, I have never accused you of taking them for information, and commend you for not doing it that way. But even if the info is not expressly communicated it is still used in a sense. I mean you now have people that will plan ops in your alliance based on their prior intel and the alliance will then learn from that.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I will not say that the alliance has never taken in a defector. But since "world war" my views are if you cannot handle where you are then what is the point in jumping ship. I mean really, if an alliance was good enough for you before then why leave just because it is getting hard? That is a cowardice way of dealing with things and I do not agree with an alliance condoning such actions. And since you stated that they came to you not the other way around, then you are to blame for the general action of allowing such events. Although again this is just a war game and there are no rules to war. Also, I have never accused you of taking them for information, and commend you for not doing it that way. But even if the info is not expressly communicated it is still used in a sense. I mean you now have people that will plan ops in your alliance based on their prior intel and the alliance will then learn from that.

In your message you said,"And since you stated that they came to you not the other way around, then you are to blame for the general action of allowing such events." I have to respond in saying that you(TEE) are more to blame for the members defection because there is no reason to come to us to and ask for membership if the alliance they are in are providing all the things that they should be(leadership,teamwork,support,communication). I am not saying that the leadership isnt quality in TEE because I would be absolutely wrong. I know the leaders there are top notch. I am saying however that recently they have been neglectful. Maybe they are pre-occupied or maybe they are bored or just maybe they are so confident in victory that they believe that there is no point in being present to accomodate what some of their forgotten members here in Zeta need. I only know what I have been told and the rest is speculation.
 

DeletedUser2568

Guest
There will always be defectors, thisisgrepolis. Whether you think it is moral or not Sarah its going to happen. The question is how do you respond when it happens.

I was very excited to see that Sarah Morgan Finally broke her vow of silence on the forums and posted here. I can't wait to hear what she comes up with next.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I will not say that the alliance has never taken in a defector. But since "world war" my views are if you cannot handle where you are then what is the point in jumping ship. I mean really, if an alliance was good enough for you before then why leave just because it is getting hard? That is a cowardice way of dealing with things and I do not agree with an alliance condoning such actions. And since you stated that they came to you not the other way around, then you are to blame for the general action of allowing such events. Although again this is just a war game and there are no rules to war.

The top reason I have heard from players (TEE or otherwise) for wanting to join us is:
Lack of Teamwork.

I'm not saying we're the best at teamwork, but we are active, leaders take an active interest in the well being of each member and we are a close-knit bunch.


Also, I have never accused you of taking them for information, and commend you for not doing it that way. But even if the info is not expressly communicated it is still used in a sense. I mean you now have people that will plan ops in your alliance based on their prior intel and the alliance will then learn from that.

I do take offense to this, mainly because we state up front that we do not expect (nor do we encourage) them to provide tactical or strategic info. I assure you, we already have a lot of info on TEE that doesn't need to be provided by any new members and our ops have already been fairly effective without their planning. A simple comparison of conquests between TEE vs. ECH is ample evidence of that.
 

DeletedUser2568

Guest
Farewell SarahMorgan, i guess this means this thread can be closed. Sarah has had to leave Zeta, I am sure it is for her RL issues and I wish her and her family the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top