Print Page | Close Window

Open Letter to the bloated Alliances attacking SIN

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Broken Lands
Forum Description: For everything related to the Broken Lands Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10366
Printed Date: 17 Aug 2018 at 15:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Open Letter to the bloated Alliances attacking SIN
Posted By: Fiona
Subject: Open Letter to the bloated Alliances attacking SIN
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 03:41
      Over the years we have seen many labels applied to our actions -- Evil, Bully, Terrorist to name a few.

       This was always done by those seeking support from others to fight against us. We don't mind, pile on as much as you feel necessary. But when you do, keep in mind that SIN has never noob-ringed an honorable combatant. We have always provided generous terms for those who wished to end hostility and then kept our word on the topic. 

       However, I have noticed an interesting result. The same cannot be said for those who array themselves against us. We recently had one account noob-ringed, and the other barely survived with one city in exodus. The attacks were without provocation. We were not at war with this alliance and had settled our differences with them. 

       However, this is not what I find interesting. People are free to do as they wish, including breaking their word if they so choose. 

       The interesting part is that they noob-ringed both his accounts. So it is worth saying again -- SIN has never noob-ringed an honorable player. Now that he is noob-ringed they have followed up with further attacks on his reset city. 

       Their stated intention is to get him to leave the game..
...and yet they call us the bully?



Replies:
Posted By: Bill Cipher
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 04:25
That's Not a bully its called War heard of it? I thought you of all people would know such a thing. As far as i've heard he hasn't surrendered and is still in the SIN alliance. Which makes him completely eligible for attacks no matter what size the person is, with no exclusions. WAR DOES NOT EXCLUDE. 

-------------
d-a-r-o-r-w-o pb wlph kdv frph wr exuq. l lqyrnh wkh dqflhqw srzhu wkdw l pdb uhwxuq


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 05:46
Bill... you've had people on your own team call it a war crime. Give it up. Attacking someone who's been noobringed is bad.


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 05:49
Agreed


Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 07:23
Lets face it, those players totally wiping out accounts originate from the last big server war where they did the same thing. The fact that the community in Illy think its ok what they do reinforces the SINdicates moral high ground. True colours always come through and we SINdicate members accept the cowardly actions of sore losers. It also makes us more determined to eventually deal out justice to all those cowards. We totally crushed all of you in war while at the same time allowing you to continue playing while you resort to acts of cowardice. Its ok. Without vermin like you we would have noone to actually fight and that would be really sad.

-------------
Kaggen is my human half


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 09:25
True dat


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 12:17
First I want to state I'm not on anyones side in this conflict. People look at player history and  label you, but don't look at the timeframe or your role in an alliance, or where your alt has been. Think what you want. 

Originally posted by Fiona Fiona wrote:

    ... keep in mind that SIN has never noob-ringed an honorable combatant. 
...
        So it is worth saying again -- SIN has never noob-ringed an honorable player. 

Please help me understand: are you saying SIN has noob-ringed players who were not honorable? If so, then what is your definition of honorable? 
What makes your player that is being noobringed honorable?
Do you think honour really exists in an online game and if so, is it important to you?

I really hope you can honestly say you never noobringed any player, because for me, honor doesn't mean a thing in a world of code and pixels. 

That said, for me noobringing is a no go area no matter what. I've been ringed twice on my other account and was being attacked after that for some time. It's very annoying and in my opinion people who did/do that are very sad human beings. I hope SIN wipes them out, but I hope they do it without talking about honor. It reminds me of that very sad player Amroth and there's no need to sound like a jerk when you fight a good fight.



Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 12:34
Corwin, in some cases, there have been times when players have done things which well... mean that the majority of the community thinks that a player should be forced out due to their actions.

Biff is a good example of this and may be why fiona had to specify honourable players.  


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 13:49
I know "the majority of the community" thinks "they" can decide who should be forced out of the game. My point is, what determines what actions justify to be forced out? Why is biff a legal target and the sin player not? Why was I (my alt) a legal target? Majority of the community doesn't give a sh*t. Majority of the power in the game is with a small minority in number of players. Currently there are 2 major powers in the game. The sindicate at one side and their adversaries at the other side. Those 2 sides are definately the loudest in the game and probably majority of the players is linked to one side or the other, but the decisions being made about punishments is made by a very small minority. On both sides. 

In my opinion no one, no matter what they do, should be forced out of the game. Even the players who force others out of the game. In my experience SIN was more reasonable in their terms of surrender as the other side, but forcing anyone out of the game should not enforced by players.


Posted By: Dessembrae
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 13:55
The spirit of AJQTRZ is alive and well!!!! LOL



Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 15:00
Corwin, I don't know who your alt is so I don't know the specifics there and can't comment.

Biff is a legal target because he did things which caused players from both sides of the spectrum in illy to believe the game would be better without him. It was bad enough that his alliance kicked him rather than even try to defend him.
He plays now only to troll and I am amazed that he hasn't been banned yet.

Bellicose, by contrast, isn't publicly a troll. Forcing him out of the game just means there's one fewer serious player out there and tbh, the game needs players.



Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 15:08
So wait, Bellicose is still in an alliance at war with another alliance.  Bellicose has not left the warring alliance nor asked for surrender terms.  

On the other side, I have seen multiple players on his side come into GC and threaten to hunt people down for doing the same thing.  They have constantly stated that there will be no war runners, even going so far to saying that your user ID has been recorded and that they will hunt them down unless they accept terms of surrender.

By that logic, there is absolutely no difference here.  A player who wishes to be removed from war would need to ask for terms to leave, and actually leave the warring alliance if that is part of the terms.

You can't have it both ways, and I find it odd the outrage on one side when the hypocrisy is so blatant during the near daily GC rant and back patting sessions.


-------------


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 15:25
Quit your b!tching. You talk about honor when you have decimated the peaceful Fam alliance? I'm not anti sin or pro sin, but lately you all remind me of a group of Adrian shephards. Quit crying get back to building troops.


Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 15:42
Errm Fiona you were going ok with your OP until you used the "B" word in title. There are some players in those alliances who get very traumatised about language slips like that. For example:

The guy is very sensitive about this. I know from own experience when I called him "Super Meat Boy" which for some reason didn't go down to well. So Be Careful . You don't wanna be responsible for a server war? Do ya?


-------------
"The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone"~ J R R Tolkien


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 16:39
*smirks*


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 19:28
  1. "Bumping" forum posts by making a short response with the intent of moving the topic further up the list or adding to post count is prohibited.

Originally posted by Turgon of Rhavenia Turgon of Rhavenia wrote:

Agreed

Originally posted by Turgon of Rhavenia Turgon of Rhavenia wrote:

True dat

Originally posted by Turgon of Rhavenia Turgon of Rhavenia wrote:

*smirks*


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 19:54
What do you mean? I'm not bumping,


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 20:04
adding to post count.

Or do you want to say your replies were contributing to any discusion?


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2017 at 20:11
What's your game name? Let's not add to our post count if its such a big deal


Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2017 at 02:42
Hey Corwin, man up and tell us who you are so we can settle this on the battlefield. If you won't tell us who you are then perhaps staying away from this post is best.


Fiona


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2017 at 06:02
Originally posted by Fiona Fiona wrote:

Hey Corwin, man up and tell us who you are so we can settle this on the battlefield. If you won't tell us who you are then perhaps staying away from this post is best.

Maybe we can just skip to the part where you guys handle the Bellicose situation on the battlefield. Forum complaints rarely resolve anything. Smouldering piles of pixels are more decisive.

I would assume that Corwin is this https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Profile/18355" rel="nofollow - Corwin . He doesn't seem to be hiding anything, unless forum Corwin and game Corwin are different people.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2017 at 07:16
My bad, shoulda checked ingame.
Hi 10k


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2017 at 08:40
I don't see what we need to settle Fiona. I was just asking some question for clarification on your original post. I stated I'm not on any side in your conflict, and even stated that the sindicate treated me better then your adversaries, so I might slightly favour you. I'm not your enemy, it's just my humble opinion that nobody should be forced from the game by other players, but I guess you disagree with me on that subject. No big deal. 


Posted By: viperone
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 03:18
Fascinating how one side claims the high road yet through actions seek to deceive. Take for example the new recruit of LOKI...an establised account of Rashidi located by coincidence in Aindara..this account launches a dogpile siege in coordination with The Roman Empire....diplo attacks also from various LOKI members....this occurs on a new alliance with 9 members under 3 months of current Illyriad playing time... was IRON dishonorable? No, the truth is you will be driven out of the game if you are a perceived threat; or if you chose not to play by the rules they set forth for you. So please stop all the BS, only some will believe the nonsense, and they eventually will see the truth.

Viperone
I dedicate this to AJQ


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 17:40
SIN to my knowledge has only ever noob-ringed spy accounts, such as the SinisterStar account, which was a spy account run by Venita that was planning to use her very built-up account in the SIN land claim to sneak attack us. Scuttling her troops and extricating her from the SIN land claim was not only a price paid for her treachery, but also a necessary tactical move for us to ensure that we couldn't be sieged from close in.

This business with Biff and any role that SIN members has played/are playing in keeping him in an endless loop of respawn is completely foreign to me. SIN has played no official role in any ops against him. I cannot speak for individual SIN members; people in this alliance are big boys and girls, and if they want to use catapults, rams and troops to inflict harm on players that they don't like, then that's their business. For as long as I have led SIN -- and for as long as I continue to lead SIN -- we have never organized operations against a player because "we don't like his face" or he's a troll in gc, and will not. Honestly, I think it's a total waste of military resources, and those of you who do that belittle the strategic merits of siege warfare in Illyriad and reduce it to a social media website with fake catapults. But again, if that's your thing, have at it.

So, with the exception of spy accounts, we have not noob-ringed players. 

Bellicose and his alt were not offered surrender terms, nor to my knowledge did he solicit them during the Grand Alliance's campaign against him in Elgea. However, SIN had opportunity to noob-ring scores of players in the BL during our previous wars and voluntarily chose not to do so, irrespective of whether the players asked for terms or not.

I'm ambivalent on the noob-ringing issue in this case, but the contnued attacks on Bellicose's respawned settlement in the noob ring I think goes way beyond the pale of good sportsmanship in Illyriad.

In the famous western film Unforgiven, William Munny says, "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away everything he has, and everything he was ever gonna have." Now, we're not talking about real "killin'" here, but I think the GA effectively took everything that Bellicose had in this game. Continuously razing his respawn is akin to making sure that he loses "everything he was ever gonna have." 

I can't imagine how the noob-ringing doesn't suffice.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: spektor
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 23:35
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

... the SinisterStar account, which was a spy account run by Venita that was planning to use her very built-up account in the SIN land claim to sneak attack us.


False


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 23:52
Spektor, we saw the conversations firsthand, as they were happening. And we have SIN members who were a part of your group who have confirmed it. Maybe you weren't aware, but that doesn't mean that it's false. 

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 23:54
Originally posted by spektor spektor wrote:

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

... the SinisterStar account, which was a spy account run by Venita that was planning to use her very built-up account in the SIN land claim to sneak attack us.


False


Oh thank you so much for providing such a reasoned argument, well backed up with evidence as to why this is false. Glad to know there are people like you out there who take pride in thinking out their arguments and supporting them with evidence.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 02:10
In response to the opening post and for the record: Any player that has dropped out of the warring alliances on the Sindicate side and has stayed out of the war has been left alone. PPP is a SIN policy - not ours. Any player that has asked for terms has got them. The two players in question on the opening post entered directly as noobs to SIN in September (i.e. a returning SIN player) and did not seek terms.


Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 04:36
Spektor, you were caught spying too under the KingStag account.  

I caught you when I sat your account.

Lucky for you I was a benevolent ruler of the BL at the time and let you escape the wrath of SIN with merely an exodus away from us.

Stukahh


-------------
I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies.


Posted By: Dessembrae
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 07:43
Originally posted by Stukahh Stukahh wrote:

Spektor, you were caught spying too under the KingStag account.  

I caught you when I sat your account.

Lucky for you I was a benevolent ruler of the BL at the time and let you escape the wrath of SIN with merely an exodus away from us.

Stukahh

Was being the key words old man, there is a new ruler of the BL's now so go back to eating your jello it's nap time now.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 21:49
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

In response to the opening post and for the record: Any player that has dropped out of the warring alliances on the Sindicate side and has stayed out of the war has been left alone. PPP is a SIN policy - not ours. Any player that has asked for terms has got them. The two players in question on the opening post entered directly as noobs to SIN in September (i.e. a returning SIN player) and did not seek terms.



For all that has been said about SIN's PPP, no account -- with the exception of spy accounts -- has been persistently pursued to the noob ring and beyond in the way that Bellicose and his alt was. For those who have felt that SIN's PPP was draconian, the Grand Alliance's PPP is far more brutal than anything our group has ever enforced in the game. Once again, it is not the so-called war mongers, but the self-righteous crusaders who have overstepped good gaming and sportsmanship to force players out of Illyriad. To wit, that is their mission: to rid the setter of militaristic players. Careful, server: that's a slippery slope.

SIN has repeatedly pulled back from decimating enemies specifically to encourage those players to play and war again. Spektor and Agalloch can attest to this. We never extract gold or require city demolitions as peace terms. The game is fortunate that Bellicose is such a GOOD SPORT that he is continuing to play despite his treatment in the noob ring by the GA. He is one of the best military players in the game and one that neither side should want to see quit.

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 22:45
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

In response to the opening post and for the record: Any player that has dropped out of the warring alliances on the Sindicate side and has stayed out of the war has been left alone. PPP is a SIN policy - not ours. Any player that has asked for terms has got them. The two players in question on the opening post entered directly as noobs to SIN in September (i.e. a returning SIN player) and did not seek terms.



For all that has been said about SIN's PPP, no account -- with the exception of spy accounts -- has been persistently pursued to the noob ring and beyond in the way that Bellicose and his alt was. For those who have felt that SIN's PPP was draconian, the Grand Alliance's PPP is far more brutal than anything our group has ever enforced in the game. Once again, it is not the so-called war mongers, but the self-righteous crusaders who have overstepped good gaming and sportsmanship to force players out of Illyriad. To wit, that is their mission: to rid the setter of militaristic players. Careful, server: that's a slippery slope.

SIN has repeatedly pulled back from decimating enemies specifically to encourage those players to play and war again. Spektor and Agalloch can attest to this. We never extract gold or require city demolitions as peace terms. The game is fortunate that Bellicose is such a GOOD SPORT that he is continuing to play despite his treatment in the noob ring by the GA. He is one of the best military players in the game and one that neither side should want to see quit.

... and if he had asked for terms, he'd have got them. Many others did.


Posted By: spektor
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 23:34
Jejune, I choose to believe what my friend told me. I would stick up for her when she is not here to do so herself.

Stukahh, you think you caught me spying. You are wrong. And I would not call alienating a new player "benevolent".

Also, where's my jello?


Posted By: Malek
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 23:54
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

... and if he had asked for terms, he'd have got them. Many others did.

Lol at many.  You guys cant even siege in lucerna, right next door your your strongest hubs in Ragallon and Wolgast. Let alone the pathetic attempt in Pawa on Zenobia, I dont see why anyone would even bother going to you for terms when you can't even effectively siege. 

You even say you like to give out medals for outstanding achievements , even to enemies, yet you delete the outstanding achievement medal I gave to you. Those sieges you planned on Hobblez and simba, inspiring stuff. 

You are the best player that the sindicate has, keep it up. 


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2017 at 23:57
For the record: when certain Coalition warmongers refused to surrender, the GA sent them to the n00b ring. Even after those events, I still considered account annihilation to be unsportsmanlike conduct. Then several GA leaders expressed their continuing belief that zeroing was a valid and valuable tactic in Illyriad. From that point forward, I had no further qualms about zeroing players from those specific alliances. 300 gives players a chance to surrender gracefully. If they refuse that offer, quid pro quo. You'd zero us, so we will zero you. If that seems harsh, remember that your own leadership are the ones who pushed that philosophy.

That was further reinforced recently when EE tried to stall us under the guise of surrender negotiations, until we noticed their Elgean cavalry hurtling towards our Gremont sieges.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2017 at 00:55
Originally posted by spektor spektor wrote:

Jejune, I choose to believe what my friend told me. I would stick up for her when she is not here to do so herself.

Stukahh, you think you caught me spying. You are wrong. And I would not call alienating a new player "benevolent".

Also, where's my jello?


Let's try and apply some logic here. In SinisterStar, SIN had a robust, militarized dwarf account located in the SIN land claim with fully appointed siege armies. This account was run by Venita, who, although in SHARK with her main at the time, was to that point a deeply trusted SIN member. Given the amazing asset that she and her account represented for our small, outnumbered alliance, would it make any sense for us to have scuttled her troops and destroyed her city unless we were 100% certain beyond any reasonable doubt that she was in fact preparing to use that account against us? Can you imagine that decision being made capriciously by our group at that particular time? I can tell you that He-Man and Stukahh looked and hoped for any bit of evidence to cast doubt on the facts. We found none.

Our sheer resolve to take action on that account in light of these facts should speak volumes to the veracity of our evidence.

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Malek
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2017 at 01:11
Originally posted by spektor spektor wrote:

Jejune, I choose to believe what my friend told me. I would stick up for her when she is not here to do so herself.

Stukahh, you think you caught me spying. You are wrong. And I would not call alienating a new player "benevolent".

Also, where's my jello?

I had know Venita for an exceptionally long time before you ever did from II , Bane, GA, through to getting her to join your alliance. I talked her into joining sin and she abandoned her alt at the time mistress mayhem to make sin star. 
I tried to find another reason for what was going on, but couldn't, so I gave the order to fry the account of the person that I had been a friend with for a long time. It hurt, I did speak at length about it to venita in skype at a later date, and you know whose fault it was? Hers and mine. Am I sorry that I did it? Absolutely. Would a do it again? I would not hesitate. The sitter that did the demoing on the account is the one I feel sorry for. 


Posted By: spektor
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2017 at 15:28
Thank you for the info.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 02:27
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

For the record: when certain Coalition warmongers refused to surrender, the GA sent them to the n00b ring. Even after those events, I still considered account annihilation to be unsportsmanlike conduct. Then several GA leaders expressed their continuing belief that zeroing was a valid and valuable tactic in Illyriad. From that point forward, I had no further qualms about zeroing players from those specific alliances. 300 gives players a chance to surrender gracefully. If they refuse that offer, quid pro quo. You'd zero us, so we will zero you. If that seems harsh, remember that your own leadership are the ones who pushed that philosophy.

That was further reinforced recently when EE tried to stall us under the guise of surrender negotiations, until we noticed their Elgean cavalry hurtling towards our Gremont sieges.

If you're going to put things on the record, at least some facts should be provided. 'certain Coalition warmongers' and 'several GA leaders' are hardly specific terms. If you're disputing the idea that players that asked for terms got them, could you at least cite one example. It IS the 'GA's policy to allow persons who want to quit the war, do so without any punitive terms. About 20 players have left Loki during the course of the war. Only one suffered any further action - after they reentered the war from outside any alliance (Iapetus).  If you wish to contradict any of that, please cite an example.




Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 02:51
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

If you're disputing the idea that players that asked for terms got them, could you at least cite one example.

I wasn't. I don't know the details of that particular situation; I am not especially interested to learn them.

My post was a reaction to Jejune's statement about the SIN philosophy on n00b ringing enemy accounts (i.e. avoiding it). I believe annihilation is an appropriate measure, when 1. a defeated player refuses to surrender on equitable terms, and 2. the player or their alliance has a history of n00b ringing enemies.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net