One on ones

Keinutnai wrote:Btw, if one player challenges some other player on a 1v1, then he can reject the challenge. No one can force anyone to duel. Any player can be protected by his alliance from any unwanted duels.

I do not agree with you on that part.

Heck when i do 1 vs 1 i post on forum i send ingame message to leadership and the one in question and then i MASS.

The one i challenge has 2 options.

1: Surrender and therefore reject the challenge and offcourse if i set demands in the surrender do them.
2: Man up and fight.

As long the REASON for the 1 vs 1 is fair and just then as far i am concerned has the player no rights to be defended by their alliance they only has the option to Surrender or fight.

Thats only fair thats how Vikings fight.

But as i said if reason is just fair and just then the Viking rule is clear that player better apologize pay back with interest for the damage or be ready for a massing by everyone who wants as they are fair game then.

A 1vs 1 can be rejected by the player sure they can surrender and do the surrender terms thats it.

Nimras wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:Btw, if one player challenges some other player on a 1v1, then he can reject the challenge. No one can force anyone to duel. Any player can be protected by his alliance from any unwanted duels.

I do not agree with you on that part.

Heck when i do 1 vs 1 i post on forum i send ingame message to leadership and the one in question and then i MASS.

The one i challenge has 2 options.

1: Surrender and therefore reject the challenge and offcourse if i set demands in the surrender do them.
2: Man up and fight.

As long the REASON for the 1 vs 1 is fair and just then as far i am concerned has the player no rights to be defended by their alliance they only has the option to Surrender or fight.

Thats only fair thats how Vikings fight.

But as i said if reason is just fair and just then the Viking rule is clear that player better apologize pay back with interest for the damage or be ready for a massing by everyone who wants as they are fair game then.

A 1vs 1 can be rejected by the player sure they can surrender and do the surrender terms thats it.

If a player has not broken any policy, and doesn't want to fight, then you should leave him alone.
Those who ask for a 1 on 1 do so, because they are sure that they win. Usually because they are stronger. Either they have a more powerful economy, military, technology, more savings, or more sponsors.

In other words a 1 on 1, which is forced by one player on another player is usually a case of bullying!

There can of course be valid exceptions, where 1 on 1 should be allowed to be forced on a player, if for example one player brakes the farming policy and doesn't want to compensate, then it's fair if a player challenges him on a 1 on 1. Then again, anyone can mass the player who doesn't pay and it doesn't have to be a 1 on 1. The whole server can mass a player who doesn't compensate.

Mystake wrote:Nimras,


<3

Okay you start to scare me here it feels like your starting to fall in love with me

Keinutnai wrote:

Nimras wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:Btw, if one player challenges some other player on a 1v1, then he can reject the challenge. No one can force anyone to duel. Any player can be protected by his alliance from any unwanted duels.

I do not agree with you on that part.

Heck when i do 1 vs 1 i post on forum i send ingame message to leadership and the one in question and then i MASS.

The one i challenge has 2 options.

1: Surrender and therefore reject the challenge and offcourse if i set demands in the surrender do them.
2: Man up and fight.

As long the REASON for the 1 vs 1 is fair and just then as far i am concerned has the player no rights to be defended by their alliance they only has the option to Surrender or fight.

Thats only fair thats how Vikings fight.

But as i said if reason is just fair and just then the Viking rule is clear that player better apologize pay back with interest for the damage or be ready for a massing by everyone who wants as they are fair game then.

A 1vs 1 can be rejected by the player sure they can surrender and do the surrender terms thats it.

If a player has not broken any policy, and doesn't want to fight, then you should leave him alone.
Those who ask for a 1 on 1 do so, because they are sure that they win. Usually because they are stronger. Either they have a more powerful economy, military, technology, more savings, or more sponsors.

In other words a 1 on 1, which is forced by one player on another player is usually a case of bullying!

There can of course be valid exceptions, where 1 on 1 should be allowed to be forced on a player, if for example one player brakes the farming policy and doesn't want to compensate, then it's fair if a player challenges him on a 1 on 1. Then again, anyone can mass the player who doesn't pay and it doesn't have to be a 1 on 1. The whole server can mass a player who doesn't compensate.

M8 you show the same class as Castravete by not READING what i wrote.

Jesus.

If you care to READ i make some few rules VERY CLEAR let me show you:

Nimras wrote:As long the REASON for the 1 vs 1 is fair and just then as far i am concerned has the player no rights to be defended by their alliance they only has the option to Surrender or fight.

And then I follow it up with this:

Nimras wrote:But as i said if reason is just fair and just then the Viking rule is clear that player better apologize pay back with interest for the damage or be ready for a massing by everyone who wants as they are fair game then.

I even say this to tell how it can end fast if the player do not want the 1 vs 1:

Nimras wrote:A 1vs 1 can be rejected by the player sure they can surrender and do the surrender terms thats it.

The issue with Bullies and 1 vs 1 started like that falls under the Viking law that the player either pay back for damage done due to a wrong 1 vs 1 or they are open season for all Vikings there is. Sadly i am the only Viking but meh.

And btw a 1 vs 1 can start over other stuff than farming policies broken if you care to think.

I read what you wrote but it didnt seem like me and you share the same view. I read the 2nd post which you wrote and it seems that you say that your opinion is similar to mine, so just to make it clear.

What kind of reasons for a 1 on 1 do you consider fair/just?

I consider them fair only if a player broke some policy and doesn't want to make up for it.

And you?

Keinutnai wrote:I read what you wrote but it didnt seem like me and you share the same view. I read the 2nd post which you wrote and it seems that you say that your opinion is similar to mine, so just to make it clear.

What kind of reasons for a 1 on 1 do you consider fair/just?

I consider them fair only if a player broke some policy and doesn't want to make up for it.

And you?

Well I could spend a long time writing what i find fair and just but to here is a very short list:

1. Disrespectful behavior towards the player.
2. Sending bad messages.
3. Over farming a player even tho they are legit and do not cool down a little after being asked to do so.
4. Bullying the player and therefore make the player set a 1 vs 1 you know Void could start 1 vs 1 to Vaako for bullying.
5. Not paying back a unlegit hit.
6. Friendly 1 vs 1 do happens.

And i can continue but these are 6 fast.

Keinutnai wrote:

Smog wrote:@Kenzu: it was obvious to most of us that Ian was stalling. Stars said he needs more time, cause he is out of money, but his strike goes 5 billion up and he trains 100k spies. Ian says the 20 bill I stole from him were supposed to be my compensation, says he needs more time, but his strike goes 8(???) bill up. Steveanaya says he's gonna think if he wants to repay, after I did the math for him, and then he challenges Garffi, to whom he should have paid the compensation, to a 1v1. So maybe Ian can hide behind the blabbering, but that's not gonna save him from being smacked. But he's a funny guy. He's gonna release the dragon. Better take cover ))

1v1 or not, he has to pay compensation anyway, and you should have asked ian to compensate for all hits. I am sure he would have organised them. You could have also informed us that you have problems getting compensated.

Btw, if one player challenges some other player on a 1v1, then he can reject the challenge. No one can force anyone to duel. Any player can be protected by his alliance from any unwanted duels.

I will say this as official TM standing.
If a TM member puts up a 1 vs 1 and the other person declines then they better be ready for what ever demands the person puts out.
If the person still decides to follow through with the massing they are fully backed by the alliance.
So if the chllangee alliance steps in it will become an alliance war.

seaborgium wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:

Smog wrote:@Kenzu: it was obvious to most of us that Ian was stalling. Stars said he needs more time, cause he is out of money, but his strike goes 5 billion up and he trains 100k spies. Ian says the 20 bill I stole from him were supposed to be my compensation, says he needs more time, but his strike goes 8(???) bill up. Steveanaya says he's gonna think if he wants to repay, after I did the math for him, and then he challenges Garffi, to whom he should have paid the compensation, to a 1v1. So maybe Ian can hide behind the blabbering, but that's not gonna save him from being smacked. But he's a funny guy. He's gonna release the dragon. Better take cover ))

1v1 or not, he has to pay compensation anyway, and you should have asked ian to compensate for all hits. I am sure he would have organised them. You could have also informed us that you have problems getting compensated.

Btw, if one player challenges some other player on a 1v1, then he can reject the challenge. No one can force anyone to duel. Any player can be protected by his alliance from any unwanted duels.

I will say this as official TM standing.
If a TM member puts up a 1 vs 1 and the other person declines then they better be ready for what ever demands the person puts out.
If the person still decides to follow through with the massing they are fully backed by the alliance.
So if the chllangee alliance steps in it will become an alliance war.

Under what circumstances do TM allow their members to put up a 1 vs 1. (Or under which circumstanced they are not going to back up their member if he masses a player who declined a 1 on 1 and is then protected by his alliance)

And what would TM treat the following situation:
A player who has 30 million population challenges a member of TM who has 15 million population on a one on one.
With A) no justification
B) doesnt like the person
C) tells him that he can decline the one on one by paying the player 10 billion kuwal.

In all cases the TM member declines, and is subsequently massed by the player. What is TM going to do in each of the three cases.

And last question:
Under which circumstances will TM allow its member to be massed, who forced a 1 on 1 on a player who declined?

Could you move these talks to its own thread, no reason to have in Muj/TIE war thread. i will answer in the morning. Wife is calling, and you never keep a pregnant women waiting, man they get very cranky.