![]() |
|
#33
|
||||
|
Are you a goldfish? What you say looks good when taken out of context, but let's add some context, shall we?
This is a quote lifted from the first long-form petitionquest injunction, submitted by AG/Freedom. Quote:
In the petition you're likely referencing, Riot was defending itself using Monrezz's (a leader of the AG/F alliance, if I'm not mistaken) words when filing their rebuttal (with regards to the duration of a DA): [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] aaaaand once again using Daewens's (a leader of the AG/F alliance, if I'm not mistaken) words when filing their rebuttal (with regards to "what constitutes a stall"): [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Riot was using AG/F's own words against them. Sure you'll start to argue that these "precedents" were not set by AG/F, as they predate Freedom's formation and the AG/F alliance, but they were "set" by leadership of both guilds. Do you expect precedent to not cut both ways? Does precedent only matter when it supports you? Please show me where in my post I "defended" Dica's train. I simply added context to the situation because the troll's "RIOT BULLIES ANNIHILATE AG/F WITH TRAIN!" narrative is, quite frankly, boring. I was merely highlighting the fact that the situation in Growth was a bit more complicated than your ghouls would like people to believe. Riot took the high road and conceded to avoid the headache of more petitions, a decision that I don't particularly agree with, given that Dica was just a small cog in the machine of what inevitably unfolded. | |||
|
|
||||
|
|