ANNIHILATE THE HEATHENS! For the Republic!

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Damix2

EVERY battle I have been in (note: I'm one of eldest GK players (and 2k1 players for that matter)) has been known by both leaders.

This isn't an explanation, it's circular logic. It's obvious that every battle you'd say you'd been in would have been known beforehand by both leaders because you don't recognize it as a battle otherwise.

Originally Posted by Damix2

Its just widly accepted as proper roleplaying. Who are you to change it?

I'm not advocating the changing of any definitions. I can see how what you are saying could represent a case that Zormite's fighting were improper and/or otherwise ethicly dubious, but they don't make that case that the fight at the castle wasn't a battle. It fits the dictionary definition of a battle, but what you're saying is that this definition does not apply on Graal, but given that dictionary definitions seem to apply for all other terms, why is the term "battle" somehow exclusively exempt?

Originally Posted by GryffonDurime

Why can't we stop this unsavory fight, and just agree that in the absence of a semi-nuetral third party acting with appropriate knowledge and power of Roleplaying and its graalian precepts, war quickly degrades into a Player-killing uberspar thinnly veiled attempts to lolrp?

I doubt a third party would necessarily stop that, but of course I acknowledge that there were a lot of technical infractions at the two battles, but that doesn't mean that either or both of them didn't happen.

[Raeiphon]

FOR THE REPUBLIC!

Sadly, you bastards lagged me out, so I was unable to watch.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Googi

What kind of RP principle are you deriving this rule from?

It's something called common sense: if you're gonna launch a surprise attack on Samurai, the chances somebody is there are very slim. You go to the island, then what? Are you gonna claim you won a war and the island is yours now?

Then I'm King Of Graal.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Matthew White

Googi has summed this up wonderfully.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Googi

oh man we got owned.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

It's something called common sense: if you're gonna launch a surprise attack on Samurai, the chances somebody is there are very slim. You go to the island, then what? Are you gonna claim you won a war and the island is yours now?

Then I'm King Of Graal.

This is a pretty bad characterization of what happened. There was a battle fought at the Samurai castle and Zormite won it. Nowhere did I say that this somehow entitles Zormite to the castle, the island, or anything at all.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Googi

This is a pretty bad characterization of what happened.

It wasn't even supposed to be one. Read -> Think -> Post.

[ApothiX]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

It wasn't even supposed to be one. Read -> Think -> Post.

Hmm, in your case: Read -> Look up words you don't understand -> Think -> Post.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by ApothiX

Hmm, in your case: Read -> Look up words you don't understand -> Think -> Post.

Are you retarded or didn't you read the thread?

It wasn't ment to be a characterisation of what happened, it was an explaination why RP battles must be prearranged.

Think -> Post, you're only making a fool out of yourself with your attempts at wittiness. And heck, even if you were right, you're still a flaming idiot - atleast I put the reason why Googi should reread.

[Brad]

whys dustari gotta stay neutral im bored

[Googi]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

It wasn't even supposed to be one. Read -> Think -> Post.

Oh okay. It was just an irrelevant post then. I know it's not a battle if there are no enemies there. That's not what happened in this case.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Googi

That's not what happened in this case.

We weren't talking about this case. We were talking about RP in general; how are you supposed to RP when no one's there?

[Googi]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

We weren't talking about this case. We were talking about RP in general; how are you supposed to RP when no one's there?

You can't. What point are you making?

[Cubes]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

We weren't talking about this case. We were talking about RP in general; how are you supposed to RP when no one's there?

Then why bring it up? This thread isn't about noone being there, There was about 10 people there. We got stomped on the west shore so obviously there was people there. Read->Think->Stay on Subject?

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Googi

You can't. What point are you making?

Damix said:

Originally Posted by Damix

If a war is to be properly roleplayed then all battles will be known about in advance and both leaders will agree on it.

You replied:

Originally Posted by Googi

What kind of RP principle are you deriving this rule from?

To which I replied that you can hardly RP when no one's there, i.e. it's common sense. Now you said I was correct with that, so you could've thought a bit more before you posted that.

Originally Posted by Cubes

Then why bring it up?

Read.The.Thread.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

To which I replied that you can hardly RP when no one's there, i.e. it's common sense. Now you said I was correct with that, so you could've thought a bit more before you posted that.

This doesn't require battles to be pre-arranged. It requires that there be somebody else there. Seeing as I'm advocating we follow the dictionary definition of "battle" (like we do for all other words) which requires fighting to occur (i.e. somebody else must be there), your statement is redundant.