Today, chasing "war runners" is part the game, but only in some circumstances. Illy is contracting. It is smaller and less active then at any point before. But a big birth is right around the corner in the form of new updates. Currently we have Laga from mcrow chasing Josh and who knows who else. He has attacked Yarr!, Tcol and all AFTER wars were ended. Forced to end if you will. Mcrow itself has accepted the peace and much deservedly so, but not Laga. This player chases after players out of stubborness. There are not enough players, full alliances, active wars, or activity to justify this old strategy as Laga is using it. His alliance, mcrow is not chasing war runners, he is. mcrow wants peace. He does not. Why let a player split your alliance over being stubborn? 

Laga is turning into the exact same thing he himself hates. He is turning into a Stukahh time period SIN member. Yep. All his recent activity is nothing but what the war alliances used to do. The mcrow SIN war is over and it did not end like a typical War. It was forced to end. And that should have been the end of it, but nope. One player, out of an entire alliance is dragging them back into conflict and causing rifts in an alliance that only wanted peace. There is no talking with this player, there is no reasoning with him. His absolute blind rage and stubborness can not see that his approach to chasing war ruuners does not apply anymore to that war. It is over. Let it be. Move on and be happy. 

A conventional war, with lots of players could employ such tactics, but with the end of that war, today's Illy does not need it. Not blindly like is being done now. With updates coming and people coming back, maybe chasing will find a place again. I am sure it will, but not in this case. This case is something different. This case has a player not listening to his alliance, not listening to any reason, but acting on pure spite. Illy does not need this right now.  

Anyway, this is my opinion and not that of anyone else. but it has bothered me so much I had to speak up. What has happened to a player many looked up to and had much fun with? He has turned into the very thing he hated most. If you did not like that style of play then why are you using it? 

QB

eowan the short wrote: Seems pretty hypocritical to complain about this when QB was involved with threatening Ascn players with sieges just because Ascn were doing so well in the tournament.

No, it's difficult to make that charge stick.

Chasing players down after a war has ended and peace was declared =/= threatening players for their actions before and during and after a tournament.

If QB thinks the first one is low and wrong, but that the second was justified, then she is not being hypocritcal.

You can disagree with her reasoning, but she's not necessarily being a hypocrite.

mCrow is still at war with SIN. Players who left SIN are still at war with us until they make individual peace.  Some have made peace, many have not.  This exactly mirrors SIN's own policy.

Quoted below from SIN's alliance page (same applies to Ex TA2IN and for the same reason)

"Persistant Pursuit Notice

Beginning July 18, players in alliances engaging in hostile military operations against SIN are considered "enemy combatants" and cannot leave their alliance and avoid hostile action during war or other confrontations without first agreeing to individual surrender terms. If SIN has siege operations inbound to an enemy combatant who leaves an allaince at war with SIN, sieges will continue. Absent of formal surrender terms and a peace agreement between SIN and an opposing alliance, all members who attempt to leave the war will be pursued to the fullest extent of SIN's military until or unless individual surrender terms are reached, irrespective of remaining unaffiliated or joining another alliance."

bold added by me.

(Yes.  The misspelling of Persistent is how they posted it on their alliance page.  Get over it.)

(There is much more to all sides of these wars over the last year and a bit.  I have refrained from commenting much about them and think that is still a good policy as it just degenerates into we say/they say. Everyone can safely assume we have answers to the statements against us and do not agree with QBs view or even all her claims of "fact.")

illy has been in decline since...2012? the idea that any action Lagavulin might take at this late date should be blamed for negatively affecting the player base in a significant way seems difficult to sustain. the better argument would be whether or not this policy of chasing war runners is achieving its goals. if it's happening in every conflict in spite of years of standard practice, one might question its effectiveness as a deterrent...and one might conclude that it has been motivated by spite for most of its existence as a policy.

Angrim wrote: the better argument would be whether or not this policy of chasing war runners is achieving its goals. if it's happening in every conflict in spite of years of standard practice, one might question its effectiveness as a deterrent...and one might conclude that it has been motivated by spite for most of its existence as a policy.

Not necessarily.

I should add that I don't believe that the "effectiveness" of this policy should be measured by whether or not war-running is eliminated or even reduced.

I believe, rather, that the true goal of this policy was to project intimidation and ruthlesness and power. This in turn had a certain strategic value, and the various debates that arose about this policy became a useful and unintended means of propaganda: the projection was perpetuated and impacted the player base.

On the Pursuit Policy from Laga's post "This exactly mirrors SIN's own policy."

That is the part I find confusing -- on one hand Laga and friends complain about how terrible SIN is to have this policy. On the other they carry it out themselves.

If this becomes your policy, how does that make mCrow any different from the warmongering SIN alliance? SIN murderers babies so we are going to murder babies in retaliation until they individually surrender. It is baffling behavior.

However, if you intend to take SINs place in Illy as the warmongering types, then this totally makes sense. If you intend to be "peaceful" what benefit do you get by pursuing the exact same warmonger policy of an alliance with goals you reject?

It would make more sense to me to serve as an example of the ideals you claim to represent...

scottfitz wrote: We are not adopting SIN's policy, we are holding their former members to the policy they imposed against us.

The purpose of SIN's pursuit policy was to deal with people start hostilities then run away once things got rough only to continue the conflict at a more advantageous time.

That is the question you face. If you believe the people you intend to pursue are simply biding their time to attack you again, then by all means you should act to achieve your goals -- presumably to prevent their attack.

So I will let you in on a (not) secret. As an alliance SIN has reached its conclusion. The main reason SIN stopped fighting mCrow is because nobody really cared enough to continue. No real hatreds. No scores to settle. No techniques to try. Eventually SIN looked around the room, sighed, and said "screw it, why bother". This lead to more introspection and alliance leadership abdicated out of apathy. Nobody else wanted to take the reigns and poof! the alliance ended.

So right now is a decision point for you. Nobody in SIN really cared enough to continue the fight so you are not under threat. Nobody is waiting for a good time to strike (otherwise they would not have stopped in the first place).

You have your olive branch in hand; will you keep it or burn it?

blah blah blah