How YOU define workers is irrelevant. We disagree. That does not make you right and us wrong. What it does create is a situation you will manipulate to your advantage.
It wasn't an opinion. It was a definition. What it does is show why I am right. This has always been our definition of a worker, and is the majority definition of a worker, therefore, should be what is considered a worker. You have provided no proof to suggest otherwise.
You (as leadership) share part of the responsibility for what your people do. All of them, ALL the time. You may not know what they are doing at every moment but hiding from the evidence does not absolve you of eventual responsibility. Having been informed of your man attacking a real worker you attempted deflection.
You just make no sense. How many times must we remind ourselves that it was a complaint about my man over attacking, and I had no idea it was going on? There was no evidence, there was no way of knowing, without checking the ever changing routine of every single member, which I of course don't do. The only time I knew about it was when Righ told me without negotiation that he would be attacking our workers. When I am informed I am responsible to arrange negotiations, which I did, and these were ignored by Righ.
You have not proven that workers are workers or pie is good or the sky is blue. All you are stating is your own opinions and those of your town. All you are doing is avoiding issues and saying you proved something.
I have proven everything, you have proven nothing.
Hypocrite
Claims of class amnesty are absurd. Even if a person can fight back against some he may not be able to against others. Those others will farm him. Is that fair? Is that 'honest' dueling? No. Extended amnesty clauses rejected, especially after you hit a worker worker. Not a worker non-worker or a non-worker non-worker or whatever other justification you come up with to behave any way you like.
That again makes no sense. If a player can fight back he can fight back. If he can't then he is outside the dueling level rules implemented into the game. This applies only for duelers, which this Righ is. If he is going to be a dueler and such an awfull one then it is his own fault. If it is that much of a problem I should have been contacted. There is no denying that. There is no telling me I did not try to negotiate. There is no point that I was awhare of what was going on, and could have ended it. There are, as I said, workers and non-workers. the player we hit was a worker, as was every worker of ours you hit first. If our members weren't workers, then the entire worker idea is meaningless, and therefore there are only players. I think we both know which way round it is.
Chiefy (your Sheriff) very clearly states in his bio that ANY attacks on Eagles are threatened with reprisals. Clear cut. With that in mind the situation you create is easily seen as Eagles can attack anyone they want but attacking them gets you zerged. So why would there be anything to talk about? With the rejection of our issues why should we even consider yours? All of your points are invalid as any examination shows it is a fabrication. Eagles hit us first, ignored a challenge and then attacked our worker workers before we hit theirs. All you are doing is trying to deny any iota of responsibility for anything so you can maintain credibility for fear of losing your townmembers.
What you have done here is repeat what you already said and therefore ignored everything I have said. Stop wasting my time. I have already said why your chief point is invalid. I didn't reject your issues, I've already shown that I did what I was supposed to, and you are completely ignoring it, you continue to argue I did nothing, when I did, and since you have no arguement for this, other than to repeat yourself, without admitting that you are wrong, because you are too arrogant to, too stubborn to accept that I am right, that I have proved I am right, you need to stop. Really, you are going nowhere.
Also, where has this fear of losing members come from? I posted to clarify a noticed action, to keep our respect in tact, to get a clearer picture of Bat Country, to see if there was any sense in them, and if necessary, then to argue why I am right.
Not that we need excuses to shoot anyone, mind you. But you shot us a bunch of times first, then you shot our worker worker first. Good enough for us.
I will simplify by painting a scenario for you.
I am Dick Cheney and you are my hunting buddy.
Ahh, here we go again with your worker idea. Plus, I already told you that its your own fault, and proved this. I proved that you shot first. Your whole arguement is now proved wrong. Will you make another post repeating all the points I've disproved or will you do yourself the favour of standing down?