Print Page | Close Window

DB in the Coalition War

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Histories
Forum Description: Official and Unofficial Histories of Alliances, Wars & Politics
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5483
Printed Date: 17 Jan 2021 at 00:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: DB in the Coalition War
Posted By: Nokigon
Subject: DB in the Coalition War
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 01:43
I'm putting this here because it's long and I feel like it deserves a separate entry rather than just being a small part of my history thread. I will link this thread to it there though.

For DB, the war began when we started fighting PLAN. I won't go into the details of that right now because it's not entirely relevant. However, I soon got a message from a prominent member of the Crow Federation, who was trying to ascertain whether a peaceful solution could be found. He had been asked to do so by other members of the Crowfed, and through some further enquiries I was told that vCrow were concerned that DB's war against PLAN was a war by proxy against what is now being styled as "the Grand Alliance". It was further revealed to me that for some time, there has been pressure in the Crowfed to come into opposition (militarily or otherwise) against the Dominion.

This was of little surprise to me. By the Dominion, the Crow leader was referring to TCol under Kale Weathers. TCol had not enjoyed cordial relations with the Crows, especially nCrow, for a very long time, ever since a settlement dispute with Ryelle brought the two alliances on the brink of conflict and ended any chance of good relations between the two alliances. And of course, it is well known that TCol's fight is, unless Kale wanted otherwise, DB's fight.

Around this time, NC was fighting a war against Celtic Knights, in order to intervene in the XckX conflict against Roman Empire. Quickly, uCrow and Altaira intervened against NC, leaving them outnumbered by a considerable margin. The Coalition assembled in Harmless' embassy, and discussed a course of action. Dittobite wanted Harmless to condemn NC's actions. Harmless refused. Soon, we received leaked information from EE's forum that they were planning on undertaking a war of revenge against Harmless, with a number of allies. With the exception of PLAN, all of the alliances mentioned went to war. We tried to talk to the alliances mentioned by Hathaldir, and they all assured us that they had no intention of fighting.

On the 15th of October, EE declared war on Trivium. At the same time, Kale inherited a settlement dispute (TCol had recently merged with BSH) concerning Robbrit. Robbrit settled within the ten square limit of an inactive and unaffiliated player, Timothy_. This player later became active once again and then joined uCrow, asking Robbrit to move. The response of the leader of BSH was that the town was in Mal Motsha; therefore, it did not have to move. Kale's first warning of this dispute was when Tamaeon messaged him warning that sieges had been sent to Robbrit's city. Since Kale didn't like that Tamaeon hadn't discussed it with him first, he told Tamaeon that any sieges which would land would be broken.

An important point to bear in mind here is that Kale was one of the few Coalition leaders who wanted a war. Harmless, NC, Dlords- the overall atmosphere for them was that they wanted to keep the peace. Kale was keen to get his own back on the Crows, and so he did not take any steps to avoid a war which was, in fairness, fairly inevitable by now.

T-O took this time to complete relationships which had been in the works for a long time, and joined the Dominion.

Three sieges were sent by Tamaeon. The first was broken. The second was a feint. But before the third siege landed, uCrow declared war on TCol on the 26th of October. Later that night, vCrow also declared war. The rest of the Dominion retaliated towards them, and we quickly planned our next operations.

On the 28th of October, H? declared war on EE over a technicality relating to EE continuing the Consone war. On the 30th, DARK, Soon, Shade and vCrow all declared war on Harmless. Different alliances over the course of the next few weeks and months followed suit, eventually leaving Shade, Soon, VICX, Dark, Bane, vCrow, CalCr, uCrow, nCrow, EE, Aesir, SM, XckX, ALT and NAAM to fight RES, H?, Dlords, NC, TCol, T-O, DB and TVM. Most of the RES conflicts were separate to the wider Coalition conflict, but this overall gave the Grand Alliance a 2.5x size advantage.

However, at the time Kale and I believed that we were fighting a group of alliances roughly equal, or perhaps slightly larger than us. As such, we were confident that we could beat them. We then made the same catastrophic tactical error- we chose targets that were close and large, whether they had good siegable terrain or not. DB lost the better part of a million troops at Sinde, Taelin's city, in a small forest. I don't know how many troops TCol lost, but it was a siege on plains where the Grand Alliance lost nearly a million troops. As such I estimate TCol losses to be about 1.5mil in number.... Although they did at least successfully capture their city, which DB were not able to do.

This left us an unfortunate situation- in one action, DB had lost about three quarters of our siege troops (although our cav and inf were still more or less intact). Luckily, volunteers joined us from SCH to boost our spearmen numbers. However, DB took very few siege actions in the war. We preferred from then on to use our RT tactic rather than take the risk of a siege.

The most significant siege was the siege of Stuebenus' Kingdom of the Dwarves. About 2mil, if memory serves me well, vCrow troops started a siege on the large mountain. DB planned to do nothing more than send small nuisance raids (prior to the war, an attack of 100 cav would always kill a catapult) but Kale sent in his cavalry, losing vast numbers of knights on unfavourable terrain. After this, he left the game, citing poor health as reasons. He left TCol in a state of turmoil which Zenorra and Tacardi managed to cope with extraordinarily well.

DB at this point was weakened but not beaten by a long way. Our next main opposition came in the form of attacks from Bane and local vCrow players such as 714. Together they killed large numbers of our men, and started up sets of direct catapult attacks on players like Endoria, Vertigo and Carl Zeis. Their work is, at the time of writing, still evident. We retaliated with attacks of our own and the occasional siege, such as the siege of g213 (which due to one of my people hitting siege instead of occupy only led to us damaging the town rather than destroying it) and the siege with TO of The Ridges, which cost us once again large numbers of troops. 

As 2014 came around, we entered a new phase of the war- an entirely defensive one. TVM were being annihilated in the north and Dlords' northern hub was under serious attack. TCol was being badly pressed in MM and any isolated players were under serious risk. Everyone expected alliances like EE or BANE to start focussing on DB in earnest. This happened eventually but much later than expected.

In early 2014, TCol announced their plan to surrender to vCrow. After a lot of discussion with Zenorra and Tacardi, who were personally against surrender but were voicing the opinion of some very vocal players in TCol, we persuaded them not to surrender. The vocal players soon left after that. As such I, as well as a Harmless and an NC player, moved our alts across to help with war time planning for TCol. However, there was little to do except to constantly defend.

I have already told the story of what happens next on these forums (look for the "Grandpa tell me a story" thread) so I'll rush through this. Two reversals of fortune made victory impossible- the defeat at Ely and the EE advance south, both of which took all of the troops the Dominion had left. We soon surrendered. Some day I will be at liberty to reveal those terms.



Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 02:02
I believe the settlement dispute you cite was with HUGcr rather than with nCrow, although nCrow in general was opposed to the attempt to exclusively claim Mal Motsha for a particular alliance or group of alliances -- as were Crow alliances in general, including HUGcr, mCrow and others.

The Dominion made a decision to drop longstanding NAPs with nCrow after that settlement dispute had been resolved in favor of the Dominion (after Ryelle graciously agreed to have her city razed, in spite of the fact that its placement was consistent with common practice at that time, being more than 10 squares from any other city).

In fact, as I recall it was you Nokigon who informed nCrow that the Dominion felt it could no longer maintain NAPs -- NAPs that had remained in place during the settlement discussions and which nCrow was committed to honoring.

I myself (personally rather than as a matter of nCrow policy) did not find the Dominion's exclusive claim to Mal Motsha to be acceptable, especially given history with regard to that particular territory, and I had long had concerns about TCol's actions with regard to new players and small, independent alliances in the area.  I was absent in the months leading up to the war, so I cannot say to what degree similar objections on the part of others might have affected the course of events.


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 02:26
I will be honest, I cannot speak with utter certainty on the affairs about the settlement dispute. My records on that affair have been wiped with my old laptop so I will defer to those who remember it better than I do.

The decision to drop NAP was something which we agreed on unanimously. I was the spokesperson for the Dominion because we felt it would be less confrontational coming from a mouth other than Kale's. We did it because the settlement dispute had scared the crap out of us... Months and months of good relations had been brushed away over one incident (and I seemed to recall that the city was just within the boundaries of ten squares).

The Dominion, with the possible exception of BSH under Rorgash, has never bullied new players in MM. That is not a stance I, Kale or Pellinell will EVER support. If you can give me examples, maybe I can do something about them. However, I would be amazed if examples are forthcoming- because they never are.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 02:34
You are wrong on the city placement -- it was outside the 10 squares, as was acknowledged by Kale and the Dominion at the time.

With regard to my concerns about actions against small players and alliances in Mal Motsha, I will also have to plead ignorance on the exact names, since much time has elapsed since they occurred.  It was a laptop ago for me as well -- perhaps a great statement about the longevity of relationships in Illy, in that they outlive our hardware. Wink    What is most important is that it is not happening now and hopefully will not happen in the future under the new leadership of TCol.


Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 09:31
An accurate and unbiased account of the events which led up to this current war, great job Noki!

btw rill TCol are not bullies.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:05
I'm enjoying this records of history very much. Even thou i think some minor (but important) details are missing, this thread just confirms something.
This war started because a handfull of ppl wanted it. Pure manipulation of some minds who wanted the war, then claimed "alliances interests" and dragged everybody in. Personal disputs and inanimosities (sp?).
Player X hated player Z and found a good excuse to make war, being backned by their alliances.
Imo, everything that happened, that was given as an excuse to start the war, could have been solved in diff ways, in non-belic way, if there was any intention to do it at all. Which there wasn't, for some ppl. Their intention was to orchestrate a war all along. And it was somewhat fun to see ppl doing exactly what we predicted, having that in mind.

As far an DB and TCol are involved, i must say i got off this war with more respect for them that i had when i got in in the first place. One of my alt cities (who didn't take part in the war) is located right in Tcol's and DB's beards. When he had to re-join nCrow to make an exodus (and stated that he didn't take part in war in profile) both Tcol and DB left him alone. Then ofc some other alliance didn't bother with it and went for it, but that's another story...

Kudos for you both for that.


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 14:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

after Ryelle graciously agreed to have her city razed, in spite of the fact that its placement was consistent with common practice at that time, being more than 10 squares from any other city).


Even though the TCol's preference for people to not settle in a particular area was known and had been discussed with various crow leadership without an issue being raised, Ryelle (you) deliberately moved a city into that zone to antagonize them, ended up almost causing a war (including threats of such from you).

Hardly "gracious" behavior. More like deliberately bullying someone who's policies you didn't like because you knew you had the crowfed backing you up.

Also - I believe Ryelle had the option to move the city instead of having it razed.




-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Zenorra
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 15:27
Greetings Illyriadians!

It's all Kale's fault! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Thanks for writing this, Noki. Very informative!


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 15:36
Bullying?  I think Ryelle intended it more as nonviolent resistance to what she saw as an unwise attempt to claim exclusivity in a region.  Peacefully settling a city a respectful distance from other cities is hardly bullying.

With regard to threats of war, what was stated was that the city would be defended, and that to attack it was an act of war.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 16:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Bullying?  I think Ryelle intended it more as nonviolent resistance to what she saw as an unwise attempt to claim exclusivity in a region.
"antagonising" is more correct than "bullying". as Rill has confirmed here, her settlement was intentionally provocative.


Posted By: Zenorra
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 16:54
As co-leader of TCol, I feel a responsibility to reply to this thread. We want Illy to know that Tacardi and I disagreed with robbrit's city placement and the reaction to it, however, we do not believe this was the sole reason for the war. This situation was just the last straw in a long history of disputes amongst alliances. 

As to Mal Motsha, yes, TCol considers it our home. Do we 'claim' it? No. We are aware of Kale's stance regarding this, and Tacardi and myself do not agree and have therefore changed the way we look at our neighbors. 

We would also like to recognize dittobite. He has been such a huge help to us and has extended the olive branch to the new and improved TCol. We thank him and look forward to a wonderful friendship.


Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 18:18
A common theme throughout many of these threads has been how previous wars have been fought with a degree of honour that the Coalition are purportedly not showing this time around.

So I would like to pick up on one thing from the OP and that is that information was leaked from EE's external forum. In the Consone War there were spies in EE's AC and now I am dismayed to hear that not only is that continuing but has extended to offsite forums. One could almost accept that an alliance member was being sat by someone from the other side. However to actually join our external forum with the sole intention of relaying information back to the opposition is repugnant and not worthy of this game and the vast majority of these players. Any credibility that Harmless? and her allies had has gone as far as I am concerned.

So my question is simply this: How can you demand that the we fight with honour when you cannot conduct yourselves in an honourable manner yourselves?




Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 19:24
Thanks Zenorra -- and I want to say that Zenorra and TCol have conducted themselves forthrightly since peace was made, and I look forward to being good neighbors with them in the future -- and with DarkBlight and T-O as well.


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 20:11
Caconafyx-  the information on EE's forum was visible to all, whether you had logged in to the forum or not.

Spies are nothing new. vCrow has, and still refuses to identify, spies in TCol. I was also told that I had spies in my own alliance during the war- whilst no proof has ever come of this, and I'm still not sure how true the claim is, it serves to illustrate very nicely that spies were perpetrated by both sides (by the Grand Alliance more so than the Coalition, incidentally). I don't defend the practice, but it is a reality of war that has always been present. I also don't see much difference in having a spy in an AC or looking on a public forum... I actually think that the AC spy is worse.

Rill- the problem is this. You attempted to deliberately antagonise TCol, and very nearly managed to incite war a year and a half ago. This worried us, quite frankly, because it showed us how thin our relations with the Crows truly were. Our actions in removing the NAPs were designed to give you pause for thought and be more careful about antagonisms in the future... It seemed to be successful.

Incidentally, the claim that TCol claimed Mal Motsha is a fallacy. They claimed a section of Mal Motsha- which they were already dominant in.



Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 20:30
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Thanks Zenorra -- and I want to say that Zenorra and TCol have conducted themselves forthrightly since peace was made, and I look forward to being good neighbors with them in the future -- and with DarkBlight and T-O as well.


I always wondered if a joke that noone is going to actually grasp, is indeed worth saying ... if a humorous proposition inherently funny or is it proportionately humorous if and only if told within a specific context of a particular target group ...

I think it is the latter, so instead of the full detailed joke (which is an actual true story), I'll generalize it to avoid the whole issue and keep only the didactic part ... so I'll simply say that this reminds me of the time when the new Archbishop of Greece was elected and the leader of the leftist party (a known atheist), released an official statement on how happy and elated he was to see that particular choice of Archbishop and how fit he thought that he was for the position.

Sadly for him, the reaction of most believers was "if he has reason to like him, then we do not think that we will" and effective immediately, without the poor fellow doing anything, the new Archbishop's veracity was damaged from day one ...

The epimyth of that tale is :
Showing some restrain on the public shows of affection of your former enemies might be a wiser choice than you think. Wink


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 20:47
Nokigon, I understand now that Ryelle's settlement was perceived as an attempt to antagonize people.  What it was INTENDED to do was demonstrate that living peacefully in Mal Motsha was possible, thus reassuring folks in the Dominion that coexistence would not be such a bad thing.  Obviously backfired.

I think there is a lesson there for both sides about not over-reading other people's intentions.  With regard to exclusive claims, TCol most certainly had an exclusive claim on their alliance page to a specific area for some time.  In fact Ryelle's city was not in Mal Motsha proper but in part of the "invisible square" claimed by TCol.  It was located at 651/-73, a location at which there is a TCol city -- which apparently is not "too close" to its neighbors.

The fact is that settling a city at that distance should NOT have been a provocation to anyone.  The fact that it was taken as such was the problem that I saw with Dominion policies.

And Deranzin, if people dislike me so much that they dislike people simply because I express something positive about them, then I think that really says a lot more about such people than it does about me.  Haters are gonna hate, as they say.


Posted By: Zenorra
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 20:52
Yep! We had, and probably still have spies in TCol. We've accepted that. I only hate the part where our AC chat was shared and our smack talk hurt some of our enemies feelings. We had nicknames for a couple of the enemy players, but they should really take it as a compliment! We only created nicknames because they were kicking our .... uh, 'behinds'! hehehe!


Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 21:07
I'm a TCol spy

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 21:29
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I think Ryelle intended it more as nonviolent resistance


Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Nokigon, I understand now that Ryelle's settlement was perceived as an attempt to antagonize people.


These two statements do not add up. 

If it was intended as "resistance" then you knew it would antagonize people when you did it - deliberately so.



-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 21:42
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

And Deranzin, if people dislike me so much that they dislike people simply because I express something positive about them, then I think that really says a lot more about such people than it does about me.  Haters are gonna hate, as they say.


If this is what you understood, then it sure was a wasted story, at least on you  Cry ... hopefully other people did read the post and the epimyth in the way it was actually written (which is : in general) and didn't specifically center it around them, like you did ...

Btw, in the story the believers didn't dislike the leftist leader at all (he is after all leading in the national polls atm), they just understood the simple logic of the matter : that atheists expressing elation over religious figures is just plain "fishy" ...

In the same manner, I have expressed many times that this sudden love and affection for the people you (plural) destroy is, indeed, something that I find perplexing, to use a soft word ... for example I have no added sympathy for people that think that sending a load of basic resources will make up for the loss of 98% of my account and I see that effort for what it is ... which is  something to make them feel better and altruistic and nothing more ... Wink

In my book I vastly prefer the people that destroyed me and send me nothing ... which accounts for the tale's epimyth as well ... Smile


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 21:44
Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:


So my question is simply this: How can you demand that the we fight with honour when you cannot conduct yourselves in an honourable manner yourselves?



Firstly, I know of at least three alliances on your side boasting about how they have spies in H? including Ditto.

Secondly, comparing having spies (which both sides have) to deliberately destroying entire alliances (which only one side is doing) is pretty out there.


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 02:15
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:


So my question is simply this: How can you demand that the we fight with honour when you cannot conduct yourselves in an honourable manner yourselves?



Firstly, I know of at least three alliances on your side boasting about how they have spies in H? including Ditto.

Secondly, comparing having spies (which both sides have) to deliberately destroying entire alliances (which only one side is doing) is pretty out there.
Being the leader of the head alliance in the coalition- You could change this circumstance if you so choose. 

-------------
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives."


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 05:02
So could you.

-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 05:30
I'd like  to add one thing about the infamous Hath post in our internal forums. We knew we had a spy from at least the beginning of the last war, and watching membership from that point on, we knew that the odds were highly probable that they remained.

We made some activities on our forum, and announced in AC and GC that they would be open to all. Permissions were changed. The Hath post is put up and leaked immediately. Events unfold, which oddly enough would not have had that post been not obtained. What would have occurred would have been a limited war with TVM. Instead others involved themselves, which again is odd if they believe they had scored an intelligence coup. as the post laid out fairly well what then came to pass.

Just something to think about...


-------------
"War is the father of all things..."


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 16:29
Addressing both Zenorra and Bellus- I suspect that war at that stage was inevitable.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 19:17
"spy" is like "bully", and has meaning only in an emotional context. the word says more about the player using it than the player to whom it's being applied.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Nokigon, I understand now that Ryelle's settlement was perceived as an attempt to antagonize people.  What it was INTENDED to do was demonstrate that living peacefully in Mal Motsha was possible, thus reassuring folks in the Dominion that coexistence would not be such a bad thing.  Obviously backfired.

I think there is a lesson there for both sides about not over-reading other people's intentions.
regarding Ryelle's settlement, i recall an igm from Rill/Ryelle circulating almost immediately among the rooks beating the drum for a show of (military) solidarity vs TCol aggression. to say that inciting a confrontation in this way could somehow lead to a better understanding with TCol shows either a dangerous naivete or something less forthright.

edited to remove an allusion to rl parallels in the conversation following the initial igm mentioned, which, upon reflection, i believe were not WW2-related, but rather something closer to present day.


Posted By: Praetor Nistiner
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 20:30
Well Fought  i have HUGE  respect for the Coalition, And thank u for posting these  history for people to read Nokigon, it was very intresting  altho on the settlement dispute, i remember that  a  friend told me that the Ucrow member was not bothered by the towns presence but then out of no where ucrow wished the town to be removed and sent sieges against the town  out of no where, since i dont completely know the whole story  i cant say its true but if it is  its clear Ucrow  planned these conflict for sometime and did it on purpose since he knew Kale would react  aggressively  and ucrow would have grounds to declare war,  RE Likes Dittobite he is  a good and straight forward  guy he managed to make peace with zynot within hours   which  tamaeon failed in months.

I wish the coalition the best of luck, and everyone else including tamaeon Beer


-------------
Tutela 111-Sir Bradly is surprisingly nice. SSH :D


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 20:42
The mail to which Angrim refers was a simple heads up to allies that there might be trouble in the wind.  Angrim's position regarding accommodation to the Dominion vs. my views on standing up against attempting to push players out of a specific region are well known and evidenced in map placement.  I respect Angrim's perspective although I do not now nor did I then agree with it.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 21:54
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

The mail to which Angrim refers was a simple heads up to allies that there might be trouble in the wind.  Angrim's position regarding accommodation to the Dominion vs. my views on standing up against attempting to push players out of a specific region are well known and evidenced in map placement.  I respect Angrim's perspective although I do not now nor did I then agree with it.
no, the one to which i refer was sent a few hours after. 19-JUN-2012. i'm sure you still have it; i suggest you reread it. if you can reconcile it to improving relations with TCol, i will be quite interested.

i've no desire to divert this thread further with a discussion of the merits of various ways of marking territory, so i will leave your implications unanswered. i am happy to argue them elsewhere; my purpose here is to keep this thread from standing as a revisionist history.


Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 22:44
Originally posted by Nokigon<span id=07844ffc-c9eb-4bd4-a536-eda304588b2b ginger_software_uiphraseguid=0da72aaf-7634-43d4-89d8-5511e71de468 =GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark> Nokigon wrote:

Addressing both Zenorra and Bellus- I suspect that war at that stage was inevitable.

I think that is a fair speculation, Noki...


-------------
"War is the father of all things..."


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 23:19
As I said Angrim, you and I had different ways of approaching the matter.  Personally I think if TCol had better friends that were more clear with them that the path they were on was a destructive one, it would have served them better.

Sometimes friends are the only people who will tell you what you don't want to hear.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 00:22
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Sometimes friends are the only people who will tell you what you don't want to hear.
ironic that you should say so. i may have said the same thing at the time.


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 04:42
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

regarding Ryelle's settlement, i recall an igm from Rill/Ryelle circulating almost immediately among the rooks beating the drum for a show of (military) solidarity vs TCol aggression. 

It may be something different, but it does seem like one rook using confidential information to discredit another rook. 

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

says more about the player using it than the player to whom it's being applied.

Wink


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 09:00
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As I said Angrim, you and I had different ways of approaching the matter.  Personally I think if TCol had better friends that were more clear with them that the path they were on was a destructive one, it would have served them better.

Sometimes friends are the only people who will tell you what you don't want to hear.
Clearly, you have never tried to change Kale's mind.

Incidentally, if we can dispose with the patronising rhetoric about how the Dominion have been bad and now they've been put on track...

I regret a lot of things I've done in this game. I regret going to war against PLAN. I regret any diplomacy I've made that was not to my best standard. I regret supporting Kale's land claim IF (and I still am yet to receive any proof or examples of this) it meant that new players were forced out of a region. I could go on.

What I do NOT regret is joining and fighting alongside the Dominion. If I could have to choice to join the war and again, I would do so. We were always aware of the risks we were taking, and Kale was no fool who thought that everything was going to be fine. We always knew that the way we played would either lead to victory or to defeat. And I personally didn't give a damn about that, because this is a game and I play it for my own enjoyment.

And I believe that DB, TCol and T-O are the best friends that I could have in this game. I appreciate them much more than a group of sycophants who would be terrified of any sort of action for fear of the consequences.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 10:59
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Sometimes friends are the only people who will tell you what you don't want to hear.


Indeed, but it rarely goes vice-versa ... Wink

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

It may be something different, but it does seem like one rook using confidential information to discredit another rook. 


I do not think discredit is the correct word here because it implies that the said "confidential information" is false or misrepresented, which is something that we cannot really know since it is confidential ... 


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 23:59
Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

 
It may be something different, but it does seem like one rook using confidential information to discredit another rook. 
there was nothing especially confidential about the igm. it may seem so because i will not post it here, but that is as much a reflection of the posting rules as it is respect for igm generally. afaik, it went to a wide audience and there is nothing in it but some ugly characterisations of TCol's policy that Rill/Ryelle would likely have been pleased to share publicly at the time, and i suspect still supports. i brought it up because, in an historical thread, whitewashing this aspect of crow/Dominion relations is intellectually dishonest, and i happen to be in a position to call--because the relationship has been of concern to me for some time, and because i listen. Ryelle settled the square to provoke a response from TCol, and followed up with inflammatory, polarising rhetoric. it was no peace plan gone awry.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Personally I think if TCol had better friends that were more clear with them that the path they were on was a destructive one, it would have served them better.
to be clear, the path was a destructive one because Rill/Ryelle made it so; it had not been previously. rather than avoid conflict, she deliberately provoked it and did so from within the previously friendly crow confederation, entering both parties into a zero-sum game which resulted in bad feelings and a diplomatic rift that ultimately put them on opposite sides of a war. that can be brilliant for some and reprehensible to others. i'm not in this thread to convince anyone to a ethical position, but rather to correct a mischaracterisation of events that is not supported by the facts as i know them.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 00:57
Angrim, it is handy to blame me, but in fact TCol's policies put them at odds with many other alliances as well.  If Kale had been more responsive to my gentler attempts at persuasion, then this destructive war might not have been necessary.  You disagree with my approach, and this is fine -- but it is a matter of opinion rather than of fact.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 08:48
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

  If Kale had been more responsive to my gentler attempts at persuasion, then this destructive war might not have been necessary.


Was war necessary then because he wouldn't be persuaded from your "gentler attempts" .?. Shocked

You are not making it sound much better, you know ...

 
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

  You disagree with my approach, and this is fine


Is it really though .?. Kale "disagreed with your approach" and you deemed "war necessary" ... LOL

 
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

  but it is a matter of opinion rather than of fact.


Considering the IGM Angrim has, his view is more fact and yours is more opinion, imho ...


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 11:22
Said it once, will say it again.
This war (and prolly many others b4), started because a handfull of players orchastrated it.
There was player X, who didn't like player Y, and player Z saw he could benefit from the conflict, and bam!
90% of the server got dragged into it.

Glad to be out of this dirty war.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 13:58
Deranzin, I think Nokigon has made it clear that Kale was the one who saw war as a solution.  I was on sabbatical from Illy when the war began (and for months beforehand), so persistent efforts to credit and/or blame me for the war don't really have much basis in reality.

I still haven't received a copy of the mail Angrim cited as proving his point; I remember sending all Crow rooks a mail alerting them to the situation, but I honestly don't recall what I said other than "heads up, there may be trouble."  As I have said, Angrim and I had a difference of opinion about how to approach TCol's exclusive claim -- he believed accommodation was the best answer, I thought open and frank opposition was a better approach.

I believed then and I believe now that it is possible to disagree with someone without desiring a war about it.

In some ways I think the disagreement between Kale and me reflects differing philosophies about how to maintain a successful defensive posture in Illyriad.

Kale's approach emphasized exclusive control of territory.  It is possible that this was merely intended as a demonstration of power or sort of ego-driven quest for dominance, but I prefer not to read it that way.  Rather, I think he perceived it as the best way to keep he and his alliance "safe" in a world that he perceived as dangerous.  I think he believed that not having potential adversaries within a core region (everyone who was not Dominion being considered a potential adversary) and maintaining and demonstrating significant military strength was the best way to maintain and strengthen his alliance's position.

I disagree with this approach.  I think that living peacefully with a mixture of people -- even those with whom one might eventually have conflict -- is the soundest approach.  The act of excluding folks with whom one might have conflict, in my view, tends to create more conflict than it avoids.  I also believe that creating an exclusive area of control is not more successful as a military strategy than maintaining a fairly concentrated BUT NON-EXCLUSIVE distribution of cities.

Personally I think that the results of the current conflict have if not vindicated at least tended to support my point of view.  It has been demonstrated that maintaining exclusive control of a region does not imbue one with magical protection.  Some might argue that this is merely because of the great odds, but those odds were significantly more even at the beginning of the war, and the result has been that those alliances that sought to maintain exclusive control of a region did not find that it provided them with a significant advantage over alliances with large concentrations of cities in neighboring regions that did NOT have exclusive control.

Some might argue that by settling a city in the area claimed exclusively by TCol, Ryelle was imposing her view on Kale as much as Kale was attempting to impose his view on others.  This concern was what ultimately made Ryelle choose to remove the city, even after Kale had agreed to let it stay.

A lot of times in Illy (and probably real life too), honest disagreements about what is most effective and/or what is most ethical get lost in ego battles and personality conflicts.  I am as subject to this rule as much as anyone, and I appreciate those who point out to me when I am falling victim to this problem.  I do struggle with whether there might have been a more effective way to express my disagreement in this issue -- perhaps standing back and letting time do its work would have been better.  And yet at the same time, if I passively waited for others to to act, would that necessarily produce a better result?

Interesting questions, and ones I struggle with.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 14:59
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Deranzin, I think Nokigon has made it clear that Kale was the one who saw war as a solution.


Maybe, but here we are talking about on how the problem was created in the first place and not the validity of any solution ... Wink

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


 I was on sabbatical from Illy when the war began (and for months beforehand), so persistent efforts to credit and/or blame me for the war don't really have much basis in reality.


Well Rill it is not me or anyone else who brought up Ryelle in this conversation, but you yourself, so I do not see your point ...  of what "persistent effort" are you talking about, when you run into this topic full speed to make many posts and bring the matter .?.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


I believed then and I believe now that it is possible to disagree with someone without desiring a war about it.


It certainly is possible, but this is not how this story seems to be unfolding ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


In some ways I think the disagreement between Kale and me reflects differing philosophies about how to maintain a successful defensive posture in Illyriad.


I happen to disagree with many people and on many matter(though this is not news LOL), but I do not poke them with settlements, nor provoke them to fights over things that are none of my business ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Kale's approach emphasized exclusive control of territory.  It is possible that this was merely intended as a demonstration of power or sort of ego-driven quest for dominance, but I prefer not to read it that way. 


Yeah, but anyone would note that if you really preferred to NOT read it this way, you wouldn't have mentioned it ... Tongue

In any case, regardless what Kale perceived, what would have been your problem in leaving him alone to his perceptions .?. What exactly was your issue and you had to provoke things with a deliberate settlement .?.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I disagree with this approach.  I think that living peacefully with a mixture of people -- even those with whom one might eventually have conflict -- is the soundest approach.


So what .?. Did Kale and anyone for that matter have any obligation to follow your approach .?.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Personally I think that the results of the current conflict have if not vindicated at least tended to support my point of view.


Quite the opposite ... the amount of destroyed cities and accounts outside centralized hubs bear witness on how wrong you were ... Tongue
 
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Some might argue that by settling a city in the area claimed exclusively by TCol, Ryelle was imposing her view on Kale as much as Kale was attempting to impose his view on others.  This concern was what ultimately made Ryelle choose to remove the city, even after Kale had agreed to let it stay.


Why are you speaking of Ryelle in the third person .?. it was your alt, not another person ...

 
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

A lot of times in Illy (and probably real life too), honest disagreements about what is most effective and/or what is most ethical get lost in ego battles and personality conflicts.  I am as subject to this rule as much as anyone, and I appreciate those who point out to me when I am falling victim to this problem.  I do struggle with whether there might have been a more effective way to express my disagreement in this issue -- perhaps standing back and letting time do its work would have been better.  And yet at the same time, if I passively waited for others to to act, would that necessarily produce a better result?

Interesting questions, and ones I struggle with.


Well, reading up this topic the answers to these questions are quite easy, but I'd rather not share them ... who needs "persistent effort" when you are doing such a fine job on your own .?. LOL


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: Praetor Nistiner
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 17:03
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Deranzin, I think Nokigon has made it clear that Kale was the one who saw war as a solution.  I was on sabbatical from Illy when the war began (and for months beforehand), so persistent efforts to credit and/or blame me for the war don't really have much basis in reality.

I still haven't received a copy of the mail Angrim cited as proving his point; I remember sending all Crow rooks a mail alerting them to the situation, but I honestly don't recall what I said other than "heads up, there may be trouble."  As I have said, Angrim and I had a difference of opinion about how to approach TCol's exclusive claim -- he believed accommodation was the best answer, I thought open and frank opposition was a better approach.

I believed then and I believe now that it is possible to disagree with someone without desiring a war about it.

In some ways I think the disagreement between Kale and me reflects differing philosophies about how to maintain a successful defensive posture in Illyriad.

Kale's approach emphasized exclusive control of territory.  It is possible that this was merely intended as a demonstration of power or sort of ego-driven quest for dominance, but I prefer not to read it that way.  Rather, I think he perceived it as the best way to keep he and his alliance "safe" in a world that he perceived as dangerous.  I think he believed that not having potential adversaries within a core region (everyone who was not Dominion being considered a potential adversary) and maintaining and demonstrating significant military strength was the best way to maintain and strengthen his alliance's position.

I disagree with this approach.  I think that living peacefully with a mixture of people -- even those with whom one might eventually have conflict -- is the soundest approach.  The act of excluding folks with whom one might have conflict, in my view, tends to create more conflict than it avoids.  I also believe that creating an exclusive area of control is not more successful as a military strategy than maintaining a fairly concentrated BUT NON-EXCLUSIVE distribution of cities.

Personally I think that the results of the current conflict have if not vindicated at least tended to support my point of view.  It has been demonstrated that maintaining exclusive control of a region does not imbue one with magical protection.  Some might argue that this is merely because of the great odds, but those odds were significantly more even at the beginning of the war, and the result has been that those alliances that sought to maintain exclusive control of a region did not find that it provided them with a significant advantage over alliances with large concentrations of cities in neighboring regions that did NOT have exclusive control.

Some might argue that by settling a city in the area claimed exclusively by TCol, Ryelle was imposing her view on Kale as much as Kale was attempting to impose his view on others.  This concern was what ultimately made Ryelle choose to remove the city, even after Kale had agreed to let it stay.

A lot of times in Illy (and probably real life too), honest disagreements about what is most effective and/or what is most ethical get lost in ego battles and personality conflicts.  I am as subject to this rule as much as anyone, and I appreciate those who point out to me when I am falling victim to this problem.  I do struggle with whether there might have been a more effective way to express my disagreement in this issue -- perhaps standing back and letting time do its work would have been better.  And yet at the same time, if I passively waited for others to to act, would that necessarily produce a better result?

Interesting questions, and ones I struggle with.
U had an advantage because it was numerous ammounts of alliances against Tcol, Its not like Ncrow fought  Tcol alone if that was the case im pretty sure Tcol Would have won, so your  OPINION  on being spread out is more advantageous is just funny.


-------------
Tutela 111-Sir Bradly is surprisingly nice. SSH :D


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 21:09
I think it's time for a secrets speech (and im not comparing the dominion to the USSR).

DB intended to implement a land claim some time ago. I even got to the level of mailing dittobite to tell him about my claim... But at thelast minute I chose to go about it in a different way. I just claimed the territory by covering it with DB cities. TCol intended to do something similar- their land claim was fairly irrelevant by the start of the war as they had covered the whole area in cities anyway.

The point of the above is to illustrate that the land claim no longer mattered especially to kale anymore. He had effectively fully implemented it by this point, so would have been fully prepared to give up the claim if offered something in return.

The dominion originally wanted the crowfed to be our allies, for no reason other than geography. We were prepared to give as well as take for this.

So essentially... The dominion wanted to be allies with the crowfed and would have given up the land claim for this. Your passive antagonisation, a contradiction in terms btw, eliminated this possibility.


Such is life.


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 21:11
And incidentally, dont twist my words- I said that kale wanted war and that he was a rarity on our side, although not unique. There were far more alliance leaders - again, nit all- who wanted war who were fighting with vcrow et al.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2014 at 22:09
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I still haven't received a copy of the mail Angrim cited as proving his point;
this is, quite possibly, because you have not asked me for it. it is, though, a good example of how a true statement can be used to leave a misleading impression.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I believed then and I believe now that it is possible to disagree with someone without desiring a war about it.
i am not sure if this was directed to me or not, but in case it was...to take a page from GM Stormcrow, there is a difference between war and conflict. i did not then and do not now believe that you desired war, only your own way. but war is rarely an end in itself.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

In some ways I think the disagreement between Kale and me reflects differing philosophies about how to maintain a successful defensive posture in Illyriad.
i disagree. i believe the disagreement reflects differing philosophies on what it means to allow players to pursue different paths in the game. you place a higher value on an individual player's right to settle a particular square than on a player's right to form a society with other players and to norm within that group. but that discussion is best pursued in another thread, if it is of interest at all.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I think that living peacefully with a mixture of people -- even those with whom one might eventually have conflict -- is the soundest approach. 
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Personally I think that the results of the current conflict have if not vindicated at least tended to support my point of view.
if you can't see the irony in this, you're too close. ;)


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 00:05
Angrim has now forwarded the mail to me.  It was a comment on Kale's poor taste in invoking the term "Manifest Destiny" in part of the TCol alliance banner.  For those who are not familiar with the slogan, it was used to justify the extermination of Native Americans and oppression of others during U.S. western settlement.

I am not sure how my objection to someone using what to me is a poor historical example came to be interpreted as a call to arms.  Angrim will have to clarify his thinking on that one.


Posted By: Niccolò Machiavelli
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 03:07
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Angrim has now forwarded the mail to me.  It was a comment on Kale's poor taste in invoking the term "Manifest Destiny" in part of the TCol alliance banner.  For those who are not familiar with the slogan, it was used to justify the extermination of Native Americans and oppression of others during U.S. western settlement.

I am not sure how my objection to someone using what to me is a poor historical example came to be interpreted as a call to arms.  Angrim will have to clarify his thinking on that one.


It seems to me that you two are interpreting the message in two different ways. The message was referenced on this thread as a means to illustrate the war involving The Colonists and Dark Blight, correct?
 
You two are still disagreeing about the message, but; the message is still being used to advance your agenda in this thread. So, maybe you could post a copy of that message so those of us that are curious can form an opinion?


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 03:11
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I am not sure how my objection to someone using what to me is a poor historical example came to be interpreted as a call to arms.  Angrim will have to clarify his thinking on that one.
of course i would defend that...if i had said it. but as your comment is strictly for public consumption and i've already made my comment on what can be done with the truth, there seems little point in my continuing. i said, several posts ago, what i had to say about it that relates to the topic.

Originally posted by <span id=userPro47 =msgSidePro title=View Drop Down>Niccolò Machiavelli</span> Niccolò Machiavelli wrote:

So, maybe you could post a copy of that message so those of us that are curious can form an opinion?
as i've noted, posting the igm is, for me, against ToS. i've no idea how the ToS feels about Rill posting her own igm.


Posted By: Niccolò Machiavelli
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 03:16
Angrim, would you be willing to forward a copy of that message to anyone that asked? I personally would be thrilled to be able to read the message that sparked this lengthy conversation.


-------------
Never was anything great achieved without danger. - Niccolo Machiavelli


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 03:25
Originally posted by Niccolò Machiavelli Niccolò Machiavelli wrote:

Angrim, would you be willing to forward a copy of that message to anyone that asked? I personally would be thrilled to be able to read the message that sparked this lengthy conversation.
no, it is for Rill to decide.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 03:33
FYI: all IGMs are off limits for posting in the Illyriad Forum.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 04:02
Angrim seems to be the one who is mostly interested in prolonging this discussion, so I will leave it up to him.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 09:25
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

FYI: all IGMs are off limits for posting in the Illyriad Forum.


I believe that holding a discussion over an IGM whose content is being commented upon, but is not presented is much worse in term of what that rule was meant to uphold and protect.

In the end of the day the content of the IGM belongs to Rill and she has every right to publish a content that she herself wrote.

So, if she really wants to clear any misunderstandings over the contents she should just post the text she wrote back then and shed light to the whole thing ... especially since she seems to be standing firm to the opinion she had back then I do not see how stating that opinion in a more clear way is "against the rules".

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Angrim seems to be the one who is mostly interested in prolonging this discussion, so I will leave it up to him.


Of the above it is obvious that only you can publish the IGM, since it is your opinion and your text and such an obligation/ability cannot be "bestowed" over to Angrim ...


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: Niccolò Machiavelli
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 12:27
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

FYI: all IGMs are off limits for posting in the Illyriad Forum.


I believe that holding a discussion over an IGM whose content is being commented upon, but is not presented is much worse in term of what that rule was meant to uphold and protect.

In the end of the day the content of the IGM belongs to Rill and she has every right to publish a content that she herself wrote.

So, if she really wants to clear any misunderstandings over the contents she should just post the text she wrote back then and shed light to the whole thing ... especially since she seems to be standing firm to the opinion she had back then I do not see how stating that opinion in a more clear way is "against the rules".

She could abide by the rules and refrain from posting the IGM to the forums. She could simply forward it to players that requested it, or; she could publish the message somewhere besides the forums. The rule just applies to sharing it within the forum.   
Originally posted by Illyriad Admin Illyriad Admin wrote:

 "Forum Specific: Public posting of private messages between fellow players or players and Illyriad staff is prohibited".


-------------
Never was anything great achieved without danger. - Niccolo Machiavelli


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 13:52
Originally posted by Niccolò Machiavelli Niccolò Machiavelli wrote:

She could abide by the rules and refrain from posting the IGM to the forums. She could simply forward it to players that requested it, or; she could publish the message somewhere besides the forums. The rule just applies to sharing it within the forum.   
Originally posted by Illyriad Admin Illyriad Admin wrote:

 "Forum Specific: Public posting of private messages between fellow players or players and Illyriad staff is prohibited".


The rules are quite clear ... noone is asking from her to post the dialogue (the "between" part), but the IGM she herself wrote and sent ... that ALONE is not part of any communication ...

Supposing that I sent you an IGM requesting or discussing something ... later on I claim that I did in fact send such an IGM and someone calls me to prove that I send it ... If I publish MY OWN IGM and not any of your possible replies, in which way are the rules broken .?. Wink


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 14:46
The rule is not up for debate. Please get back on topic or risk deletion or closing of the thread. I will re-state the rule for clarity:

"Public posting of private messages between fellow players or players and Illyriad staff is prohibited. This includes discussions of warnings and suspensions of both game and forum accounts."

Thanks all! Now let's have a good weekend of WAR! :)

EDIT: I want to clarify something. If a person posts their specific half of an in-game mail (example: "I went to the store") and does not tell anyone that she did so, there's no stopping her and no way to tell that she did that, unless I investigate it further.

Other than that, no posting of ANY part of an in-game mail is allowed because others can assume the other side of the conversation... something that might do more damage. So, no, don't do it. It's very easy to fake or change text as well, another reason not to do it.

GM Rikoo


-------------
Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 17:25
To be clear, what I am saying is that if Angrim wants to forward a mail he received to all and sundry, I do not intend to stand in his way.  That is acceptable under the Code of Conduct.

As for me, I consider this discussion over.  People who want to continue talking about it should apply to Angrim directly.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 18:09
Originally posted by GM Rikoo GM Rikoo wrote:


Thanks all! Now let's have a good weekend of WAR! :)

Whut .?.

Originally posted by GM Rikoo GM Rikoo wrote:

EDIT: I want to clarify something. If a person posts their specific half of an in-game mail (example: "I went to the store") and does not tell anyone that she did so, there's no stopping her and no way to tell that she did that, unless I investigate it further.

Other than that, no posting of ANY part of an in-game mail is allowed because others can assume the other side of the conversation... something that might do more damage. So, no, don't do it. It's very easy to fake or change text as well, another reason not to do it.

Anyway, I want to ask for a small clarification but I make the question in public in case someone else is interested in it ... what is the policy concerning the publishing of non-controversial IGMs, for example someone sending you a good in-game advice and you wish to share it in the forum or you want to share a discussion over the merits of particular settling spots and none of the participants have any problem in sharing their advice .?.

A real example that interests me is that defense guide I am slowly compiling ... I want to base it over a smaller guide I made and IGMed to some players and, of course, include some of the feedback I got ... but if I am reading your clarification correctly, if someone complains that the guide was part of an IGM it is immediately against the rules ! Unhappy


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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p


Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 18:16
It's simple. 

If someone sends you a private message -- giving advice for example -- and you later want to share that advice, put it in your words and without copying and pasting the email/message was sent to you.

Use common sense. We have gone over the reasons against allowing the posting of private messages, so you can refer to those posts if you need to. Feel free to email me directly. 

Let's get back to topic at hand, or I will close the thread.

PS: I meant "war" as in "go play the game!" ..it's a game that allows for war. ;)

GM Rikoo.


-------------
Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net