Conquer Club

The platinum medals are now fully implemented.

i look good in platinum

add all

i dont see the quickedit button on your list?

IcePack wrote:i dont see the quickedit button on your list?

That's because (thank God) they quickly realised that this useless, annoying button was not a good idea and they decided to get rid of it.

IcePack wrote:i dont see the quickedit button on your list?

add this.
I must say that many of this implementation are invisibile, that why i dont even notice this. Its quite minor implementations.

maxfaraday wrote:

IcePack wrote:i dont see the quickedit button on your list?

That's because (thank God) they quickly realised that this useless, annoying button was not a good idea and they decided to get rid of it.

lol, on so many levels

any new implementations?

I see a 'Rematch' button in game pages now. I'm not sure how it works yet.

ManBungalow wrote:I see a 'Rematch' button in game pages now. I'm not sure how it works yet.

go to your recently finished game and click rematch.. it will ask you to confirm this and then give you the option to invite the same players

i add this rematch,, but dont know if any new are implement to?

Time to close this up and start a new one.

Add qwert's username change to Qwert.

Qwert, I believe free speed games for freemiums was discontinued.

And we have a new fearless leader!

WTF! (wester task force ofcourse)
Are you want to say , that first revolution are so much talk,talk, minor implementation ,again talk, talk,talk, more minor implementation, and in end owner run away!
Now we have new owner, and he again talk,talk........................

I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

if its not a failure, and also not big achievement (how they announce this with big bells) then how can we call these middle ground?

Butters1919 wrote:I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

either they succeeded or they didn't.

a pass or fail poll is sufficient to judge the 'Revolution'.

I think el_jefe will not look at what he did for the site, but rather how much profit he made and will determine his success on that

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

either they succeeded or they didn't.

a pass or fail poll is sufficient to judge the 'Revolution'.

nah. it's not so black and white. good things happened under his watch, negative things happened under his watch. was it a resounding success? no. was it a resounding failure? no. therefore, a middle vote is required!

Butters1919 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

either they succeeded or they didn't.

a pass or fail poll is sufficient to judge the 'Revolution'.

nah. it's not so black and white. good things happened under his watch, negative things happened under his watch. was it a resounding success? no. was it a resounding failure? no. therefore, a middle vote is required!

who said 'Resounding'? did the Revolution succeed or fail.

i thought it was better than that when he took over but he didn't live up to the expectations he set, so a fail.

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

either they succeeded or they didn't.

a pass or fail poll is sufficient to judge the 'Revolution'.

nah. it's not so black and white. good things happened under his watch, negative things happened under his watch. was it a resounding success? no. was it a resounding failure? no. therefore, a middle vote is required!

who said 'Resounding'? did the Revolution succeed or fail.

i thought it was better than that when he took over but he didn't live up to the expectations he set, so a fail.

in your opinion, so vote so. my opinion is not represented in the voting options...

Butters1919 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Butters1919 wrote:I think you need a middle ground. It was not a failure, nor a big achievement.

either they succeeded or they didn't.

a pass or fail poll is sufficient to judge the 'Revolution'.

nah. it's not so black and white. good things happened under his watch, negative things happened under his watch. was it a resounding success? no. was it a resounding failure? no. therefore, a middle vote is required!

who said 'Resounding'? did the Revolution succeed or fail.

i thought it was better than that when he took over but he didn't live up to the expectations he set, so a fail.

in your opinion, so vote so. my opinion is not represented in the voting options...

that is because you are trying to answer a different question. the poll is not to rate el_jefe's reign (many shades of grey) but whether the revolution was successful (black or white).

greenoaks wrote:that is because you are trying to answer a different question. the poll is not to rate el_jefe's reign (many shades of grey) but whether the revolution was successful (black or white).

I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two. Elaborate!

Butters1919 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:that is because you are trying to answer a different question. the poll is not to rate el_jefe's reign (many shades of grey) but whether the revolution was successful (black or white).

I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two. Elaborate!

The question you are asking is like asking "Was Montgomery a good general?" The question greenoaks is asking is like "Did Montgomery capture Benghazi?"

We could spend hours debating whether Montgomery was a good general. He certainly did some smart things, even very smart things. He also did some really stupid things, even colossally stupid things like forcing Patton to halt at Argentan. After a long and tiresome debate, we would probably conclude something like "Montgomery was a pretty good general, but not as good as he thought he was, and certainly not as good as popular folklore has made him out to be."

On the other hand, the question of "Did Montgomery capture Benghazi?" can be answered in about 20 seconds of looking it up and with no debate whatsoever. It's a simple yes or no, and not a matter of opinion. Either he captured it or he didn't.

Not only are the two questions different in nature, they are also largely irrelevant to each other. Libya fell to the British because the German High Command was too stupid to assign a high priority to resupplying Rommel. Montgomery, being a pretty-good-but-not-great general, correctly exploited the situation. If he had been a brilliant general, the result probably would have been much the same. If he had been an atrociously bad general, the result still probably would have been about the same.