Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 29

User avatar
Sandcastle Smasher
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2009 00:23
Reputation: 179
Guild: L: [USSV]
O: [DNA]
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Sandcastle Smasher » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 07:12

If the law has been circumvented by bad phrasing then yes the offending party is guilty but obviously the law is not properly written in the first place and should be amended so future events do not follow suit.


Add in an "opportunist clause" or "LF clause".
I.e, No guild may use another guilds current war situation to enforce stronghold claims over a distracted party.


Done, that would stop any claim being made in the future about this and keep the server more balanced and fair for a little while longer (until everyone gets bored and zergs like usual :P)

Sammael wrote:I wish I were allowed to just straight up ban people for no reason
Typhus wrote:So braver is moe?
BaNeth wrote:You silly vacation seldon ;)
TheVoice wrote:In Communist Lyra, Seldon blame you
User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19401
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Wlerin » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 08:08

Sandcastle Smasher wrote:If the law has been circumvented by bad phrasing then yes the offending party is guilty but obviously the law is not properly written in the first place and should be amended so future events do not follow suit.


Add in an "opportunist clause" or "LF clause".
I.e, No guild may use another guilds current war situation to enforce stronghold claims over a distracted party.


Done, that would stop any claim being made in the future about this and keep the server more balanced and fair for a little while longer (until everyone gets bored and zergs like usual :P)

Of course any such clause would not apply to guilds that aren't bound by the law.

Like, say, LF.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19401
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Wlerin » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:11

It has come to my attention that some of the "facts" put forward in this thread were intentionally misleading, and significant evidence was concealed. It is acknowledged that LF attacked Alien within 3 hours of the Vudu-Alien crash in which most Alien fleets were destroyed. It is also acknowledged that from the breakup of EE unto this action, LF made no serious attempt to claim ownership over 29, save in the SH thread. However, LF's motive for suddenly affirming their claim has been woefully, one might even say maliciously, misconstrued. It was not, in fact, an opportunistic grab for power, but rather a response to Alien's attempted abuse of Drako's Law to grab for power, namely their attempt to claim ownership of 29 while, they assumed, they were safe from reprisal due to the ongoing war.

Witness A:
08 Aug, 2015 00:12
Vudu officially declares on Alien. At this point the SH thread lists Alien as controlling 28, and only 28.

Witness B:
09 Aug, 2015 07:48
Alien first asserts their claim on 29, while actively engaged in a war with a third party.

Witness C:
10 Aug, 2015 21:04
LF responds to Alien's new claim on 29 by derbing their blob and farming their bases.

Witness D:
viewtopic.php?f=154&t=117540
The Active Drako SH Thread, which still, as it has for over a week, puts LF/NOM in control of 29.

And lest Hayley or anyone else whine once again that the Laws don't specifically condone attacking anyone in your stronghold: They don't say a lot of things, but apparently we're allowed to use "common sense" and/or the common meanings of terms, like e.g. "NAP" or "stronghold", to understand the Laws.


As such, I put to you once again that LF was entirely within their rights during this entire fiasco, that rather than an opportunistic grab for power it was instead a defense of 29 against a very recent counterclaim, and that in fact, it was Alien who waited until they were engaged in a war to lay claim to 29.

Hayley
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 15 Jun, 2009 10:26
Reputation: 56

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Hayley » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:33

Witness B:
09 Aug, 2015 07:48
Alien first asserts their claim on 29, while actively engaged in a war with a third party.

Witness C:
10 Aug, 2015 21:04
LF responds to Alien's new claim on 29 by derbing their blob and farming their bases.


So LF decided to wait 36 + Hours before challenging Alien claim on 29 and do so right after Alien blob gets smoked and they're NOT being opportunistic?

and it's Alien that's at fault because they decided to fight/challenge you for 29 right after all their fleet got smoked by a giant invading VuDu blob?

Are you guys competing to see who can come up with the most asinine and ridiculous excuse?

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19401
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Wlerin » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:37

Hayley wrote:So LF decided to wait 36 + Hours before challenging Alien claim on 29 and do so right after Alien blob gets smoked and they're NOT being opportunistic?

Have you forgotten how long it takes to move around at this stage? Especially when all your fleets are busy farming m--erm, I mean, doing stuff.

Hayley wrote:and it's Alien that's at fault because they decided to fight/challenge you for 29 right after all their fleet got smoked by a giant invading VuDu blob?

Yes. It's Alien's fault because the only reason they even risked challenging it was due to the ongoing war, and the presumed protections it would afford both during the war, and in the 15 day NAP which followed.

Hayley wrote:Are you guys competing to see who can come up with the most asinine and ridiculous excuse?

That... would be interesting, but no. This isn't an "excuse", it's what happened.

Hayley
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 15 Jun, 2009 10:26
Reputation: 56

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Hayley » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:46

1) It takes my heavy cruisers 10 hours to move from the very edge of the galaxy to the center of it. So I'm not sure why you think anyone will believe it will take LF 36 hours to move into position.

2) Alien has the most bases in 29. Alien did not claim 29 to challenge LF to a fight for 29 because they were about to gearing up to fight a huge VuDu blob engaging them in 28. Alien had almost all of its fleet in 28. The idea that Alien decided to claim 29 because they were challenging LF to a fight is completely retarded.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19401
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Wlerin » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:53

Hayley wrote:2) Alien has the most bases in 29. Alien did not claim 29 to challenge LF to a fight for 29 because they were about to gearing up to fight a huge VuDu blob engaging them in 28. Alien had almost all of its fleet in 28. The idea that Alien decided to claim 29 because they were challenging LF to a fight is completely retarded.

You're right, it is completely retarded. It's also the exact opposite of what I'm saying. They claimed 29 when they did because they believed they had the duration of the war + 15 days until they'd have to fight LF for it. Of course they didn't want to fight LF, else they'd have done it sooner.

Note that LF's war declaration also preceded Alien's claim.

TheRealTraveler
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat 04 Aug, 2012 13:54
Reputation: 12

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby TheRealTraveler » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:58

This is an interesting viewpoint and was well presented. Well done.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19401
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby Wlerin » Thu 13 Aug, 2015 10:20

TheRealTraveler wrote:This is an interesting viewpoint and was well presented. Well done.

If you're referring to my post above, thank you. However... there is a minor flaw with it. marti laid claim about 24 hours earlier. Still after both guilds were engaged in wars, but it makes LF's delay less explicable, unless ... well, they were both engaged, until fka was told his war with ORI was invalid... when that happened though, I'm not sure yet.

There's also one other relevant piece of information (marti mentioned it but of course only applied it to his own problems), but I'll wait until I can put everything together once more.

TheDressMan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:14
Reputation: 0

Re: Drako Law Alleged Violation #1: LF attack on Alien in 2

Postby TheDressMan » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 15:35

Everyone is a little sneaky, I blame poor planning.
Everyone is a little sneaky, should have out-sneaked the sneakers.

:D


Return to “Drako”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests