Just another war : move along now...

[Most Lee Harmless]

Xpro is free to threaten and attack anyone he chooses for whatever reason he chooses : as are we. If you want rational you are in the wrong game.

Just because he now wishes to forget he previous 5 comrades and claims to be running solo dont change OUR view of who they may be : he flies the US flag : if he takes the port thats whose flag will fly above it : thats whose vault will recieve the income : they cant claim no interest in it ( deja vu Rothschilds attack on Spain and Mexico).

When I took on Vane and Pirat I chose to run solo : if Xpro wants to do the same thats his choice : but it doesnt bind me to do likewise : !he has threatened and attacked my guild and my nation whilst trying to extort a port which will benefit his. There are no disinterested parties in that, guild or nation.

If you feel you dont have a role in this war then disavow yourself of it as the UK did in the Vane affair. Otherwise we'll decide who is culpable... not you.

[Dmanwuzhere]

The round squirrel shot green circles airborne and case leafs began to scar as all squibbles shallow circled

[Stan Rogers]

A few days ago, Spain was attacked by UK under the guise of Luxembourg and the Texas Twosome along with Feniks. Now, it's UK attacking Bonaire under the guise of U.S.A.
Best place to hit is UK and skip the middleman.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Yeah sounds pretty toxic there buddy, pretty sure your meaning of toxic is if someone in VUDU does something we dont like its toxic.
However it is ok if its done by those defining toxic.
And just because Luxemburgh decided to not follow your advice and build up in IOM and hit you instead means nothing except they thought your actions were toxic as well

[PhoenixKnight]

I will give my 2 cents here. If a player messages a port holding nation to give up a port or he would take it, the natural assumption is that his nation is involved and backs that action. No reason to suspect that. Naturally there are exceptions to the rule.

What I don’t get is why can one player hold a nation or a guild accountable for the action of 1 but when a guild or a nation does it, it becomes wrong.

In all cases, I view this as port/ nation politics and diplomacy. If the nation Xprox is with does not back his statement or actions, then they just need say so. At which point, Xprox needs to make clear which nation he is working for.

Asking for a port or wanting a port is not wrong and definitely is not a foul play. As a port holding nation, we hope that doesn’t happen but it is part of the game.

[Stan Rogers]

And just because Luxemburgh decided to not follow your advice and build up in IOM and hit you instead means nothing except they thought your actions were toxic as well

I can see where they would consider losing 400M influence as toxic... Me... I's call it stupidity

[Dmanwuzhere]

They would have lost it in either scenario but in either nation, they could have made a serious headache last.
I think they were having nothing but fun.
Occasionally those things happen and its fun to see due to its rarity.
However to add extra antennas to your foil hat with every action is unneeded but I understand your compulsion

[Most Lee Harmless]

I will give my 2 cents here. If a player messages a port holding nation to give up a port or he would take it, the natural assumption is that his nation is involved and backs that action. No reason to suspect that. Naturally there are exceptions to the rule.

What I don’t get is why can one player hold a nation or a guild accountable for the action of 1 but when a guild or a nation does it, it becomes wrong.

In all cases, I view this as port/ nation politics and diplomacy. If the nation Xprox is with does not back his statement or actions, then they just need say so. At which point, Xprox needs to make clear which nation he is working for.

Asking for a port or wanting a port is not wrong and definitely is not a foul play. As a port holding nation, we hope that doesn’t happen but it is part of the game.

I speak as King of Bonaire : I also speak ss part of GRIM : Both have been atttacked by Xpro as part of his extortion : twas he that spoke of his group taking our port : !its fair to sssume he wishes to gly the US flag ovrr it : thats their culpability proved until they collectively state otherwise. His guild is culpable as, unless they stste otherwise, it can be taken as implicit they support his actions.

If they wish to disavow his actions they need but speak to thrm.

[xPROx]

It's simple u can ask around for the longest I have been looking for a port and even talked about maybe one day starting my own guild u can ask the people that even hate me and thay will tell u that's what I always wanted so I will say this no matter what know since u talked down to me the way u did I will hit y'all and keep hiting y'all if u need to more or want me to go into details msg me

[PhoenixKnight]

I will give my 2 cents here. If a player messages a port holding nation to give up a port or he would take it, the natural assumption is that his nation is involved and backs that action. No reason to suspect that. Naturally there are exceptions to the rule.

What I don’t get is why can one player hold a nation or a guild accountable for the action of 1 but when a guild or a nation does it, it becomes wrong.

In all cases, I view this as port/ nation politics and diplomacy. If the nation Xprox is with does not back his statement or actions, then they just need say so. At which point, Xprox needs to make clear which nation he is working for.

Asking for a port or wanting a port is not wrong and definitely is not a foul play. As a port holding nation, we hope that doesn’t happen but it is part of the game.

I speak as King of Bonaire : I also speak ss part of GRIM : Both have been atttacked by Xpro as part of his extortion : twas he that spoke of his group taking our port : !its fair to sssume he wishes to gly the US flag ovrr it : thats their culpability proved until they collectively state otherwise. His guild is culpable as, unless they stste otherwise, it can be taken as implicit they support his actions.

If they wish to disavow his actions they need but speak to thrm.

Yes, and as king of Bonaire you should ask the King of UK about this and determine if this is a different group or a UK official stance. In the end of the day, this is your country and your port, I can only suggest a course of action that I see fit but it is your nation to rule. It would be inappropriate for me to dictate how others rule their nations