Yes, but they'd been killing the placeholders for hours. Now it's debatable if that gives them the right to solely claim the NM as theirs, however many would argue it's extremely rude and aggressive to move in on a NM people have been killing placeholders for and try to swoop in and voke it. I myself disagree, and think it's fair game.
However, the question seems to be if this party told the LS they specifically would NOT take ulli, at which point they instead did in fact take it.
There are questions that must be answered, that seem unclear.
1. Was there officially an agreement with the PT and the LS?
2. Did the alliance hold up their end of the deal? If not, how, and at the time of Ulli's pop, were they presently holding up their end of the deal.
3. Was pulling Ulli a mistake, if so, why wasn't it simply given back to the alliance?
This withstanding, would anyone care to argue that it's entirely unjustified if the party had lied purposely to the LS so they could swoop in for Ulli's claim to take it back at any means neccessary?
Or is the argument that in this specific case there are more factors I am unware of?
However, the question seems to be if this party told the LS they specifically would NOT take ulli, at which point they instead did in fact take it.
There are questions that must be answered, that seem unclear.
1. Was there officially an agreement with the PT and the LS?
2. Did the alliance hold up their end of the deal? If not, how, and at the time of Ulli's pop, were they presently holding up their end of the deal.
3. Was pulling Ulli a mistake, if so, why wasn't it simply given back to the alliance?
This withstanding, would anyone care to argue that it's entirely unjustified if the party had lied purposely to the LS so they could swoop in for Ulli's claim to take it back at any means neccessary?
Or is the argument that in this specific case there are more factors I am unware of?