Feniks wrote:Bmw wrote:Xxtaylorxx wrote::D
@ Walks away laughing @
if you call that crying you should see Wolfie.
LOL
Well I can say she did not come to me to me about any of this. She has never solicited me about any response. I do not think she solicited anyone in TNP about any of this. We saw her lit and asked what was going on.
I understand both..... well actually all three sides in this conflict. What USA needs to understand is this. 40 mill for influence and 10 conspiracy is a HUGE amount of support to a nation from someone who has only been playing for 3 months. It probably represented close to 100% of her reserves. How does that compare to someone who has sailed the seas of Avonmora for 1 year....2 ..... or more. While those on the council may have invested 5 or even 10 times that amount in gc and voodoo, they are much more equipped to deal with that type of investment. Spending 100 mill-200 mill by someone that has sailed for 1-2 years compared to around 50 mill for someone that basically just started the game.
Most nations relish getting even a fraction of this type of support from a new player.
Same old story, equity v. equality.
Taylor overreacted, absolutely, but so did USA council.
First, US National Policy is to communicate with guild leaders on nation related issues concerning guild members. The US does not want to escalate an issue with a single player into a Guild War. It's called diplomacy, but if you want to call it crying, by all means.
Secondly, clicking the report abuse button, because you are spamming 15 new topics in the nation forums repeating the same, "Nation Is Dead, Leave", "Malachi Left Because of the Council, you should too" crap, is also not crying. But if you want to call it that, ok.
Thirdly, I would enjoy to hear how the USA Council overreacted? Spending mass amounts of turns, other voodoo besides conspiracy, and millions of GC were the contributing factors for the first payout. A second payout for those who weren't part of the first payout was discussed. Her contributions while appreciated by the council were considered not sufficient for the first payout. However, after she made a complaint and to address her issues, I made the concession that I would reimburse her from my payout and would not seek further payout on the issue. This wasn't enough for her. She than started accusing the council and then tried to pull Malachi who has been inactive for some time into it. There is more than sufficient conversation that I would dump here for everyone to see to show that we were well within being reasonable in accommodating her complaint, but I can't do that without consent of the other party.
Finally, I wouldn't use the she is a new player crap. She had more than 200 ships and they weren't just howkers. Yes she may have used all of her reserves, but that was here choice. There was no discussion of reimbursement until after the port was taken back. Her choice to use all of her gc and to use the excuse I used all my money is not the council's fault. If the council decided against restitution and no one got anything, it would still be her fault for not ensuring that some gc remained in reserve. However, the council did decide to provide levels of restitution. She just wasn't included in the first round, and sat in the same boat with other council members who contributed but not enough to be part of the first round of payout.
