On behalf of the Rumlords of Avonmora, I respectfully declare a war of retaliation and restitution against the following individuals for their acts of piracy and hostility to the members of our guild:

On Skyhawk, a most respected and skilled pirate of Avonmora, for his attacks upon the trade ships of our members. In the past, he has respected our passiveness, but now states he will attack our members until we adequately defend ourselves, as we "have no teeth." As some have more teeth than others, we will see if ours are adequate.

Hostilities will cease within 24 hours, or until all battle vessels are gone, which ever comes first.

We also declare war for 24 hours upon Juicylettuce, who provided the voodoo to expose our trade fleets for Skyhawk, and has attacked various members of our guild over 50 times in the last week. We will cease hostilities in 24 hours or until all battle fleets are gone, which ever comes first.
I now move my gout riddled feet from under the tavern table and onto my flagship to join my fellow guild members, the Rumlords of Avonmora, in this effort.

Best of luck to all.

Respectfully,

Sir Henry Morgan
Rumlord of Barbados

The Rumlords of Avonmora have ceased hostilities against Skyhawk and juicylettuce, and consider restitution paid in full.

Sir Henry Morgan
Rumlord of Barbados

Is the law on my side when I say, any open fleet above 3 danger be allowed for attack however many times without war if cannot be proven affiliation? Voodoo attacks being act of war is war but attacks of plunder be not. Are these statements Ay or Nay?

I find your question confusing, but regardless, this be a pirate game. If a fleet be on the plunder screen, you have the choice to attack it or not. The consequences of such action, well, that be why they call it a pirate game.

Are these consequences like war or like plunder. If the attack is simple plunder then the consequence cannot be one of war but of plunder. Voodoo is an act of war and consequence of war, I agree. But plunder for fault of being on the plunder board is not. Assuming affiliation of the plunder to the voodoo is not protected by any rules of war. If Pirate A cast voodoo but then another, Pirate B attacks these open fleets, Pirate B cannot be punishable by consequences of war. Is this right or wrong?

I didn't know we had an international court of law, mate. It's over, and I will I have to live with the consequences of RUM's actions. I had absentee members who are gone for periods of time, for one reason or another. They like to come back to find most of their fleets in tact: I have one with a kid in intensive care, and I don't know when he'll be back.

Most of the time, when someone voodoo attacks our guild, we simply clear it away and leave it at that. This last week it was over the top with two active, fun-loving players doing what they do best - pirate. They were here to play.

To protect the absentee efforts here, did what I thought might slow the stem of attack, and give two of the most fun pirates in this game what they wanted - some action.

The results of our little exchange has yet to be determined.

Sir Henry Morgan

We won. Definitely.

It is fun as long as there are no levis

Seconded

And I'd add, even more fun if different ship types had different capabilities so that holding a fleet of five battleships (SotLs and the new Men'o'War) would not necessarily guarantee victory over anything on the seas, and a relatively new player could put together a craftily-designed fleet and cause mayhem if desired.

My vote went to option C http://www.piratesglory.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=406&p=3709#p3709

Roileon wrote:Is the law on my side when I say, any open fleet above 3 danger be allowed for attack however many times without war if cannot be proven affiliation? Voodoo attacks being act of war is war but attacks of plunder be not. Are these statements Ay or Nay?

I say that if a player puts his own fleets on the plunder board, he is fair game. If voodoo is used, unprovoked, to make them visible, the voodoo caster should be destroyed completely if possible with the exception of instances where inactive players are being allowed to remain members of a guild to provide dishonest bait for new players and to be used used as excuses to attack a player who sees them for what they are. Dead weight.

On a related note:
Any guild that doesn't kick their dead weight out and then plunder them for what they helped build, is not doing their part to police their members. If you retaliate for attacks on inactive players, you are lying to yourselves and to the rest of us.