[earcaraxe]

Greetings!

In a nutshell: I agreed with marverni about 10 turns ago on our borders. No NAP, no timetable on it, it was about a two-two sentences long discussion.

I would like to provide my view on this:

1) I think Yskonyn being out of town should not play a role here. I acted independently of it (actually I planned the attack a long time ago, and then he went gliding unexpectedly). Do u guys think if someone is replaced by a temporaly sub means that he has to be treated (for instance not attacked) differently? I'm open to a discussion about it.

2) I dont consider my attack a backstabbing nor dishonesty. I agreed with marverni on our borders about 10 turns ago. We didnt make a NAP. My opinion is that agreeing on borders is not binding, as it would mean that I would not be allowed to attack him anytime without being a "backstabber". I consider my message to marverni as a declaration of war. I even informed Marverni about my attack which I think was not an obligation in the moral sense.

3) In my view: I didnt intend to do anything you (Grudgebringer) should (could) take personal. I consider all my acts in this matter to be within the boundaries of the game. And because its it is a strategic game, (declaration of) wars happen.

Please feel free to give feedback as I would like to have your opinions.

thx

The Which Kings/earcaraxe