Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
Author
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Kumomoto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)
    Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 06:55
The Grand Alliance and The Coalition, per our peace terms, have created a new alliance, The Peaceful Illy Group, (PIG for short!) ;)  that will try to create a series of Illy's version of the Geneva Convention...

We welcome a maximum of two (2) members from any single alliance. If an alliance is part of a closely held group (ie one is the alliance and one is the training alliance), then we encourage you to have one member from each.

We'll create the rules of how we vote on creating these conventions once PIG is a going concern, but it's a new, very interesting phenomenon in Illy.

It was an explicit part of the peace treaty between our coalitions and, while the name may seem frivolous (on purpose... we don't take anything seriously in Illy, do we?), our objective is to codify what our community feels are the minimum rules of civility that we should live by...

Please igm Kumomoto with what members from your alliances you would like to belong. They need not be your primary accounts. Most of us will be using your secondary accounts. Once Hath gets the alliance started, we'll send you invites.

We have also placed a sunset clause on the alliance of 6 months to make sure it doesn't drag on forever... (although the members can vote extensions if they so choose).

Hath and I are acting as the interim coordinators until the group comes up with its own rules...

Contact me if you are interested and here starteth our noble experiment... ;)





Edited by Kumomoto - 06 Aug 2014 at 06:56
Back to Top
Manannan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Location: Mystical Mists
Status: Offline
Points: 559
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Manannan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 07:16
Its not the first attempt I've seen at this but if RL history teaches us anything its that from great wars come great change. I'll sign onto this as I believe there should be somewhere, call it a United Nations if you want, for alliance to sort their problems in game with ambassadors from other places and away from the trolling of GC.

Just as a matter of interest seen as the UN is the child of LoN would PIGLET be the child of PIG? Confused  

EDIT: Removed random rubbish that seems to randomly add at the end of posting atm.


Edited by Manannan - 08 Aug 2014 at 11:57
Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either!

"Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude
Back to Top
Wolfgangvondi View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Location: Orc Grand Arena
Status: Offline
Points: 106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wolfgangvondi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 11:13
I was under the impression that the main goal of the "Peace" alliance was to have an exchange program between members of the alliances that were in the conflict. An this was to try to close the gap between the to blocks of power (being the blocks made of a lot of ppl).   Not to have an "representative" of the Max two ppl from each alliance, to dictate the new rules for all of us, till the next big war.

why is it that "PIG's" should be more of the same? (In my limited understanding of this things, Theres already power blocks whit councils/groups of leaders or such, restrited, that have the holy mission to lay out the rule kits for us grunts.) And why "Pig's" being more of the same should produce any different result?

Theres a big difference, at least i my Orc brain, between the two things described above. 
I am all in favor of an "mixed"  alliance whit ppl from both sides. But, Creating another restricted group that reproduces what was done before but in an biger scale... not at all.

Also, dont think that was that the original ideia since the peace aliance is point3. And The "All alliances from the war will help put together rules of conduct for war." was point 4. So diferents points, even it makes sence that the two mixes some what one whit the other. But keeping it in bases that are alliances (in the vast sence of the concept, all his leaders, and menbers that whis to do so) that contribute to the rules and not just some pointed Ones.

That is my reading of it.


Edited by Wolfgangvondi - 06 Aug 2014 at 11:22

Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Kumomoto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 14:31
We're just trying to come up with a "Geneva Convention" of sorts for Illy. Maybe we won't be able to, but at least we're giving it the "college try"... Try to avoid some of the worst abuses of the last war...
Back to Top
STAR View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote STAR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 22:52
I agree with wolfgang, war is war no matter what way you look at it.  Hostile intentions from both sides.

Rules of engagement may be laid out but does that mean that the ones choosing not to be apart of PIG have to follow them...

In that case scenerio, will "PIG" step in because the rules they have set for war are not being followed?

Why do you choose to lay "WAR RULES" out for the rest of illy and not just the alliances involved?  

If you want to do the "Geneva Convention" thing then why not do it for just you's.

Its just a guess but I would imagine that the set up of the PIG gathering (excuse the pun, no offense intended) would require an agreement for all involved.

Heres a scenerio:

If A alliance is part of PIG and B alliance is not and B alliance and A alliance are at war with each other, because B alliance is not apart of PIG does B alliance have to battle the entire PIG Coalition? and if B alliance chooses to battle A by their own rules, again does B alliance have to battle all of PIG?
And since A alliance chose to be a part of the rule setting for war, is there any guarantee that they will honor it is it ONLY if you are part of the PIG coalition, then the rules apply?

I am just curious as to how far the PIG coalition are willing to go to enforce their rules of war on others especially against those who choose not to be apart of it.


Back to Top
Wolfgangvondi View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Location: Orc Grand Arena
Status: Offline
Points: 106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wolfgangvondi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 00:11
Hi Star,

I don't think Pig is supposed to be an coalition. Its supposed to be Just an "short" live alliance that in the time that it "lives" reduces the war scar betten adversaries and trys to lay out some rules of engage. 

What i was trying to point out, is that it should be an gathering alliance for all memnbers that were in the war and whish to participate on it, and not something that is an restrited selected group of only 2 menbers of each alliance that was in the war. Cuz, Leaders may lead, is true, but an alliance is not only made by leaders, and old grieves live not only in the leaders. Also, theres been already establishments of "senates" / restricted groups that try to dictate and influence several alliances and even illy. This time would be nice, for a change to see an open forum. A gathering of "just" player's. Try a new thing to see if we get different results. 

CUz really, at least from the outside (of the leaders circles), looks like must big conflicts are from badly Healed wounds of the past. And personal believes of very influential players/leaders that some other group should be/ act/ think in some particular way. So any small conflict quickly escalates To major Wars.  Cuz simply theres just to many ppl waiting to pick the axe of war.

So, don't bet again in the same solutions, to get different results. Lets have the "larger player base" have room and chance to meet the "other side" and mix minds and way of thinking and put in that our hope to break the big war cycle. Is really getting boring. 

(I am wall for some health ass kick, but not for worlds wars, ever time an neighbor sneezes in others backyard ) 

Back to Top
HATHALDIR View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HATHALDIR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 02:22
[PIG] is for anyone who wants to join whether you were in the war or not. we are limiting membership to one or two members from each alliance to get the broadest representation as possible. Ideas can then be taken back to your alliance for discussion and your alliance view then put forward in Terms of Reference of whatever you want to call it. It is not an elitist group
There's worse blokes than me!!
Back to Top
STAR View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote STAR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 11:49
Hi Wolfgang, what PIG are "suppose" to be and what they will be are 2 different things and what PIG are hoping to achieve is not a "short term" venture. I just dont like the term "rules of engagement/war" or what ever you want to call it.

War have no rules thats why its called a war. 

I just called it a coalition cos it was a gathering of different ppl from different alliances

.........................

Hi Hath, a quick question, will it be a majority rule for your rules if there are many ppl who choose to join PIG?



Back to Top
Ryklaw View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ryklaw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 16:30
Here is the vCrow stance regarding agreed upon rules of engagement:

Every alliance can have a chance to decide to abide by those rules or not.  These are not rules that will be imposed on illy, just rules that certain alliances agree they would abide by if ever at war with one another again.  
Finishing the Race!
II Tim 4:7,8
Back to Top
HATHALDIR View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HATHALDIR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2014 at 03:18
STAR if we get 100 people i will be blown away, and my ALT is not exactly of world beating material, and i have be at war for about 18 months out of the last 24, and frankly have no desire to go back to it.
We are to to set a Code of Conduct that you can sign up to or not, no-one will force anyone to do it. And this will never be a policing unit, this is more about understanding one another.
There's worse blokes than me!!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.07
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.