Print Page | Close Window

Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5765
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 13:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)
Posted By: Kumomoto
Subject: Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 06:55
The Grand Alliance and The Coalition, per our peace terms, have created a new alliance, The Peaceful Illy Group, (PIG for short!) ;)  that will try to create a series of Illy's version of the Geneva Convention...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Replies:
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 07:16
Its not the first attempt I've seen at this but if RL history teaches us anything its that from great wars come great change. I'll sign onto this as I believe there should be somewhere, call it a United Nations if you want, for alliance to sort their problems in game with ambassadors from other places and away from the trolling of GC.

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

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


-------------
Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either!

"Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude


Posted By: Wolfgangvondi
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 11:13
I was under the impression that the main goal of the "Peace" alliance was to have an exchange program between members of the alliances that were in the conflict. An this was to try to close the gap between the to blocks of power (being the blocks made of a lot of ppl).   Not to have an "representative" of the Max two ppl from each alliance, to dictate the new rules for all of us, till the next big war.

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

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

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

That is my reading of it.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/21645" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 14:31
We're just trying to come up with a "Geneva Convention" of sorts for Illy. Maybe we won't be able to, but at least we're giving it the "college try"... Try to avoid some of the worst abuses of the last war...


Posted By: STAR
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2014 at 22:52
I agree with wolfgang, war is war no matter what way you look at it.  Hostile intentions from both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

Heres a scenerio:

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

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




Posted By: Wolfgangvondi
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 00:11
Hi Star,

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

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

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

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

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


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/21645" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 02:22
[PIG] is for anyone who wants to join whether you were in the war or not. we are limiting membership to one or two members from each alliance to get the broadest representation as possible. Ideas can then be taken back to your alliance for discussion and your alliance view then put forward in Terms of Reference of whatever you want to call it. It is not an elitist group


-------------
There's worse blokes than me!!


Posted By: STAR
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 11:49
Hi Wolfgang, what PIG are "suppose" to be and what they will be are 2 different things and what PIG are hoping to achieve is not a "short term" venture. I just dont like the term "rules of engagement/war" or what ever you want to call it.

War have no rules thats why its called a war. 

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

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

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





Posted By: Ryklaw
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2014 at 16:30
Here is the vCrow stance regarding agreed upon rules of engagement:

Every alliance can have a chance to decide to abide by those rules or not.  These are not rules that will be imposed on illy, just rules that certain alliances agree they would abide by if ever at war with one another again.  


-------------
Finishing the Race!
II Tim 4:7,8


Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2014 at 03:18
STAR if we get 100 people i will be blown away, and my ALT is not exactly of world beating material, and i have be at war for about 18 months out of the last 24, and frankly have no desire to go back to it.
We are to to set a Code of Conduct that you can sign up to or not, no-one will force anyone to do it. And this will never be a policing unit, this is more about understanding one another.


-------------
There's worse blokes than me!!


Posted By: Flavius Aetius
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2014 at 08:47
Originally posted by HATHALDIR HATHALDIR wrote:

[PIG] is for anyone who wants to join whether you were in the war or not. we are limiting membership to one or two members from each alliance to get the broadest representation as possible. Ideas can then be taken back to your alliance for discussion and your alliance view then put forward in Terms of Reference of whatever you want to call it. It is not an elitist group

The Peaceful Illy Group is a very interesting idea. I am disappointed that there is currently only H?'s and EE's representatives. I hope that others will join your two alliances on the treacherous road of peace.
Beer


-------------
Cry havoc and let slip the eagles of freedom - The Raven King


Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2014 at 05:23
Early days, most of us are drinking in the peace


-------------
There's worse blokes than me!!


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 05:57
Btw, the PIG Alliance is started. We have commitments from most major and medium size alliances that they will join and have invitations out to them. Vcrow, Ecrow, Mcrow, nCrow, EE, H?, Calcrow, Hoth, Siege, STA, LAW, NS, TVM, WoT and others are involved... Why aren't you?

We have also started our dialogue in our own permanent chat room about what Illy's "Geneva Convention" should look like. Having a spirited conversation. Generally off to a good start!

If your alliance isn't represented, then you aren't part of arguably the most important conversation that is happening in this game! Join up! Limit 2 members/ alliance.

We want everyone represented here...


Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 16:56
Tis  a pity H? didn't come forth with any such idea at the start of the Consone war or better still after the war...ah, but then they probably wouldn't of got away with half of their demands as they did.
 
But then why come forth with an idea that prevents profit...unless your on the conceding side, that is!


-------------
NO..I dont do the Fandango!


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 18:02
Originally posted by scaramouche scaramouche wrote:

Tis  a pity H? didn't come forth with any such idea at the start of the Consone war or better still after the war...ah, but then they probably wouldn't of got away with half of their demands as they did.
 
But then why come forth with an idea that prevents profit...unless your on the conceding side, that is!


Thank you for airing more of your bitterness in what is trying to be a constructive thread... Typical.


Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 19:29
I don't see the point in joining an alliance in order to talk. Could someone please explain in what way sending a member of your alliance to another alliance will facilitate agreeing about anything?


-------------
Nesse(Dwarven Druids) and Odd (Fairy Road Authority)


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 19:33
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


Thank you for airing more of your bitterness in what is trying to be a constructive thread... Typical.

He has a pretty legitimate point, Kumo.  And it's not like you and your friends haven't been negative about your former opponents around here.  


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 20:53
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


Thank you for airing more of your bitterness in what is trying to be a constructive thread... Typical.

He has a pretty legitimate point, Kumo.  And it's not like you and your friends haven't been negative about your former opponents around here.  


Wow... the amount of bile you all are capable of never ceases to amaze me. You won the war. So try to be a gracious winner and stop your puerile jabs. Go find someone else to annoy.  Kindergarten is over here. We've graduated to trying to be constructive and making the best of the peace. If you can't be a part of that, then please just shut up and let the adults try to make the server better.


Posted By: BBC
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 21:11

Please don't argue and be polite to each other

How silly would it be to  start fights because of a post about peace.
 
Stay civil, stay cool


-------------
BlackBloodedChampion
"Will Work for War"


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 21:30
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:



Wow... the amount of bile you all are capable of never ceases to amaze me. You won the war. So try to be a gracious winner and stop your puerile jabs. Go find someone else to annoy.  Kindergarten is over here. We've graduated to trying to be constructive and making the best of the peace. If you can't be a part of that, then please just shut up and let the adults try to make the server better.

Bile?  I'm not sure you're properly reading my comment.  I'm keeping it pretty toned down here.  You're the one who felt the need to get insulting.  


Posted By: Consul Zynot
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 23:46
Ignore the negative comments  Kumomoto,  RE  will join these PIG alliance  and think it is  a wonderful idea by both parties. Clap


Posted By: Ammianus
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 14:49
Is there any kind of update except what was leaked in GC this morning?


-------------
Qui secundos optat eventus, dimicet arte, non causa.
[Vegetius]


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 15:35
We're getting close to coming to a draft of an article... Not the easiest thing when you have 35 members from over 20 alliances, but we're making really good progress!



Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 10:27
I think this is a great idea, and I am mainly a proponent of it because I've always hoped that the dimension of war in the game could become less personal and more strategic. The former leads to much vitriol and people getting feelings hurt, thus leaving the game in a huff. The latter would be more like the mindset of those who play the board game Risk. Obviously, there is no possible endgame in Illyriad where you "win the whole game" in world conquest as in Risk, but the spirit of the game could involve more conflict over strategic maneuvering and less over personal squabbles.

I'm hoping that PIG could be a vehicle for some "cognitive remapping" of Illyriad when it comes to the motives and perceptions of the war dimension in the game.  


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: M6 Redneck
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2014 at 08:09
Winnie Churchill, "No Ministery of defence ever won a war" or similar.
 
I doubt any in game "UN" will ever regulate war. However i am interested to see how this goes and look forward to enjoying the inevitable bickering come the next war over the finer points of the Articles.
 
Now without any perimissions I wish to make a prediction, might will make right!
 
Anyhow this is a great example of what makes this game stand out from the crowd. But i do take exemption from asking the development team to implement tools/features that assimilate the said Articles into the game.
 
Do not seek to implement your will as not all present or indeed future players will agree with the way you wish the game to be played.
Let those who wish to play your way play your way. As for the rest, let them play their way.
Sounds fair to me.
 
And what is war without risk - glorified tournement?
 
Just my humble opinion,
Love and hugs,
M6
 
PS. Can any of you PIG guys place you hand over you heart and say you are not upgrading your towns/armies/commaders/res stocks/weapon stocks/etc in preparation to either defender yourself or impose your will on others as the future may dictate?
 
PSS. If you answer yes and your alliance does likewise I doubt a memorial to your inevitable demise will appear on the map.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 10:07
I was reading the thread about PIG requesting a new city/population tool for determining these data from specific dates, as well as some concerns being expressed about the Convention in general, and it led me to these questions:

1. Has PIG discussed and/or voted on a rules or a resolution on how to enforce its new rules of engagement? For example, if one of the new resolutions is that no player can lose more than 3 cities in a conflict, and an alliance attempts to raze every player's cities, will PIG enforce repercussions on that alliance? In other words, will PIG enforce its resolutions with force?

2. Will alliances that do not sign on to PIG be considered "rogue alliances" and thus be marginalized?

These aren't skeptical questions -- again, I really like the idea of this. But these are questions that I think need to be answered sooner rather than later so that players and alliances understand the gravity of PIG; whether it will be a set of non-binding guidelines, or a new world order in the game.

Thanks!


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 16:20
PIG has no intentions of creating any sort of enforcement mechanism to force people to comply with its Convention. Signatories to the convention will police their own behavior. And if you are a signatory and don't follow your own agreed upon rules, then hopefully others will think less of you. Likewise people who refuse to sign. This is loosely modeled after the Geneva Convention and relies on people to regulate their own behavior. Will people cheat? Of course. But, just like the Geneva Convention, most will likely be honorable and that in and of itself would be a titanic shift for the better, imo, to Illy. I don't think anyone wants another war of account extermination like this last one and this is an honest attempt at codifying some standards to try to prevent that. It won't be perfect. Probably not even close to perfect. But if it means we move the standard for most alliance's behavior away from account extermination, then we have been very successful.

Also, regarding our question to the Devs, we were just wondering if that information could be easily made available. If so, it would make this Convention possible without complicated involvement of third parties. It seems there might be a third party tool that does this based upon posts. Not sure.




Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 18:02
Just thinking out loud (or as loud as my keyboard rattles anyway)....

If Alliance A and Alliance B go to war (with Alliance A being a convention signatory - Alliance B may or may not be), both start with 100 players each with 10 cities.  If Alliance A are the superior tacticians, and eventually get to a stage that they have lost no cities, but Alliance B has lost 3 cities per player; then (assuming the much talked about 3 city per account limit is in the convention), does that mean that Alliance A must stop all sieges against Alliance B, whereas Alliance B can continue to throw cats at Alliance A?

I ask this because, although I did not see any account extermination in the last war, I certainly saw some accounts come close to the brink - but in my opinion this was down to stubbornness/valour (delete as you wish) where the losing players just would not concede, and continued hostilities against the winning Alliance.

For me, the "3 city/account" mechanism should simply be a requirement for the "winning" side to offer terms (either unconditional, or conditions within agreed limits) to each "losing" player that qualifies under this agreement.  If the "losing" player then refuses to concede and withdraw from the war, then the requirements of the convention are removed from the "winning" alliance for that particular player (either for the duration of the war, or until the "losing" player subsequently accepts the terms).

So, my thoughts in summary;
  • If a player wishes to fight to the death (after being given an opportunity to exit), then it is their right to do so - but not with impunity,
  • If an alliance continues to be attacked by a player who has lost more than the "x" cities - then that player loses their protection under any convention.




-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2014 at 09:26
Originally posted by Cilcain Cilcain wrote:

If Alliance A and Alliance B go to war...

I think your scenario is a valid one, Cilcain, but from what Kumomoto said above, I don't think that the PIG effort is about micromanaging smaller alliance-versus-alliance wars, but rather ensuring that when the large geopolitical power blocks in the game go to war again and start a world war (which they will, eventually), that those large forces don't destroy the game or greatly degrade player engagement.

Illyriad is a strange game in that war actually makes people leave the game, rather than engaging with it more. I'm not sure why -- maybe the predominant gamer demographic here is the kid who "took his ball and went home," or said when choosing game pieces in Monopoly, "if I can't be the car, I'm not playing." Who knows?

In any case, my guess is that PIG has a wider, more macrocosmic goal of making sure that the BIG wars don't cause the game to shed engagement -- a phenomenon that has happened after every war of latw.


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2014 at 17:19
I agree with what you say Jejune - but the challenge then becomes knowing what the tipping point is between micro and macro.  And also, is a collection of seemingly discrete micro-wars actually a macro-war?

Hats off to anyone who can legislate around all of these (and other) variables!!


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 01:04
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Illyriad is a strange game in that war actually makes people leave the game, rather than engaging with it more.
what i have observed is that it is the peace after the war that causes players to leave, because they have lost so much they do not have the interest to rebuild, because they are exhausted from the sustained effort an illy war demands, or because they cannot live with the new balance of power. most players who leave during war leave for rl reasons, and that is mostly a reflection of how very long an illy war takes to play out.

edited to clean up quote tags.


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 01:55
I agree with Angrim's observations. There seemed to be very few rage quits among the combatants. Additionally, it seems that several players jettisoned primary, alt, and permasat accounts that had been badly battle damaged, but they did not leave the game as a player.

Illyriad has an exhausting battle system that takes months to enact wars. War here is much slower than all other MMORTS games I have played, by an order of magnitude or more. It is not surprising that a few people grew weary and left for a game with reduced time demands.


Posted By: Arctic55
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 08:33
For example, one other game I started playing after this war, has such a quick battle system that wars can be declared and finished withing a few hours or a few days. I mean, I was part of a battle/war where in a few hours, almost 6 million troops were lost. Then peace reigned again. My side won for those of you wondering.

-------------
I'm pressed but not crushed.
Persecuted but not abandoned.
Struck down but not destroyed.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 09:42
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

... it is the peace after the war that causes players to leave, because they have lost so much they do not have the interest to rebuild, because they are exhausted from the sustained effort an illy war demands, or because they cannot live with the new balance of power. most players who leave during war leave for rl reasons, and that is mostly a reflection of how very long an illy war takes to play out.

Maybe so. My time away from the game was more for RL reasons, i.e. working 12-hour days (which I'm still doing, but merrily finding cracks in the day to play here with you all!). There is another dimension, though: for me, the Coalition/Consone war was incredibly satisfying. I played the game for 9 months prior to that war and never had a chance to try out military, diplo, or magic in relation to full-out combat. After that protracted war, where I had the chance to experience all of those other gaming elements, there was a kind of closure. In many ways, wars around here are a catharsis; people are playing and biding their time for when they can play the war-end of Illyriad. After that happens, maybe going back to peacetime feels a bit empty from a gaming perspective?


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 14:59
Maybe someone should start an alliance dedicated to constant war tournaments? I have often argued that Illy wars start out of boredom, fueled by all the big armies with nothing else to do. The dev-run tournaments are a little dry; King-of-the-hill isn't very sophisticated relative to the complexity of their battle system.


Posted By: Ficho
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 19:16
Allow people to work. I sincerely hope they will be out of job.

Assumption is mother of all frauds.

-------------
   
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must live.”
Charles Bukowski


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 03:36
All--

While we received an overwhelming response from the alliances in Illy in joining PIG and expressing an interest in the initiative, it seems that Illy, as a community, does not have an appetite for formalizing the means to protect accounts in times of war... We have had a number of extremely helpful folks and incredibly good efforts from a few, and for that, Thank you, thank you, thank you! Your efforts weren't in vain, I hope! Hopefully we have raised the awareness to this issue...

But the majority of the alliances seemed to view this as an exercise in trying to find faults in the effort instead of contributing to it. I also suspect that my involvement couldn't be gotten over by some of the alliances involved. So, I'm leaving PIG. I'll still follow their forums and leave the effort in my fellow founder, Hath's, capable hands.

We set out to do, what, in my opinion, is the most noble effort ever tried in Illy (after Starry founded the first Training alliance) and we tried hard. But the bottom line is that a server wide convention needs enthusiasm from all the alliances and we received mostly objections.

To those whose supported this effort, THANK YOU!!!

To those who made huge efforts to thwart it, I can only hope that you are never on the receiving end of a war where you would have been able to take "Parole" and leave.  And if you are, you will probably second guess your resistance to this effort. But as of today, no alliances have formally stated and agreed upon terms where they will not exterminate accounts and so we are still at status quo ante bellum.

On a side note, I really appreciate all the kind words of support from all of you and active support some of you gave. Truly appreciated. This type of effort was a long shot even in the wake of such an obviously destructive war. But, unfortunately, too many of the victims are gone to obviously influence a server consensus. Maybe after we go through another round, or two, or more, we will wake up. Or maybe not. I guess it's just human nature to tear down and not build.

Kumo


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 04:20
I have held my tongue thus far, but I will not stand by and see Kumomoto playing the victim here without responding.

In my experience of PIG, Kumomoto spent most of his time complaining about horribly he was treated in the last war -- in spite of the fact that he and his alt both emerged with 10 cities intact.

If he had focused a bit more on the actual proceedings of the group rather than on harping on how horrible half of the other people in the group had been, then they might have been more willing to work with him.

As for me, I was willing to be patient and overlook his behavior in the interest of getting things done.  But Kumomoto kicked me out of the group for a simple copy and paste error in global chat, an error for which I immediately apologized.

I now wonder whether participation in the group was for some folks a cynical effort to "pretend" for the future that certain folks attempted to do something that would have created a graceful way out of war.  Perhaps the fact that occurred to me indicates that some residual bitterness remained for me as well.  Maybe the whole thing was undertaken too soon.  (Perhaps it should have been done soon(tm) instead?)

For the record, the proposal developed by the group was very similar to the actual policy implemented during the war, which allowed people who were sick of war to make peace and exit the war, whether for personal or game reasons.  I continue to support this as a policy.  People who don't want to be part of a war should have the opportunity for peace with honor.  What this should look like exactly was what PIG was struggling to define while I was a participant.

This game is supposed to be fun, and even when we are at war, we are still all part of this community.

Perhaps at some point in the future after wounds have healed a little more, additional progress can be made.

Anyway, I want to express my appreciation to the members of the group for trying.  Best wishes to Hath and those still there.  I look forward to seeing your proposals.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 04:24
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Maybe someone should start an alliance dedicated to constant war tournaments? I have often argued that Illy wars start out of boredom, fueled by all the big armies with nothing else to do. The dev-run tournaments are a little dry; King-of-the-hill isn't very sophisticated relative to the complexity of their battle system.

I really like this idea!  Some people have tried it from time to time -- it would be interesting to hear (perhaps on another thread) what people perceive as some of the barriers to this would be.  I think a lot of it has to do with the time it takes to coordinate such efforts.

One of my favorite experiences in Illy was the Christmas challenge that Kurdruk sponsored in the fall of 2011.  Our armies were small, we were inexperienced, but it was loads of fun!


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 05:16
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have held my tongue thus far, but I will not stand by and see Kumomoto playing the victim here without responding.

In my experience of PIG, Kumomoto spent most of his time complaining about horribly he was treated in the last war -- in spite of the fact that he and his alt both emerged with 10 cities intact.

If he had focused a bit more on the actual proceedings of the group rather than on harping on how horrible half of the other people in the group had been, then they might have been more willing to work with him.

As for me, I was willing to be patient and overlook his behavior in the interest of getting things done.  But Kumomoto kicked me out of the group for a simple copy and paste error in global chat, an error for which I immediately apologized.

I now wonder whether participation in the group was for some folks a cynical effort to "pretend" for the future that certain folks attempted to do something that would have created a graceful way out of war.  Perhaps the fact that occurred to me indicates that some residual bitterness remained for me as well.  Maybe the whole thing was undertaken too soon.  (Perhaps it should have been done soon(tm) instead?)

For the record, the proposal developed by the group was very similar to the actual policy implemented during the war, which allowed people who were sick of war to make peace and exit the war, whether for personal or game reasons.  I continue to support this as a policy.  People who don't want to be part of a war should have the opportunity for peace with honor.  What this should look like exactly was what PIG was struggling to define while I was a participant.

This game is supposed to be fun, and even when we are at war, we are still all part of this community.

Perhaps at some point in the future after wounds have healed a little more, additional progress can be made.

Anyway, I want to express my appreciation to the members of the group for trying.  Best wishes to Hath and those still there.  I look forward to seeing your proposals.

"Victim"??? I've never claimed to be a victim? I'm just trying to be someone who tried to do something good for Illy... But really, really nice try at disparaging me...

And Rill's true colours come flying out.

She purposefully "leaked" the initial draft of our convention on purpose to GC and she was consistently against the entire effort. Thank you, though, Rill for showing your true colours!

Very helpful in letting everyone know that you purposefully tanked this noble initiative out of personal hatred for me. This should show how "altruistic", "in it for the server and not herself", and "noble" Rill truly is...

I truly hope that Rill will get behind this initiative now that I've left and she herself can get over her personal animosity. If she actually were half as interested in peace (despite her alliance being one of the main perpetrators of the genocide), she would throw her full weight behind this initiative now that I'm gone. Please, please make it happen, Rill! I will gladly bite through my tongue and join you if you decide to be positive towards this instead of negative and try to make it happen...

You seem more interested in bad mouthing our noble efforts. Telling.


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 05:20
If people can't see the vindictiveness of an individual who feels the need to kick the guy who lost the war and then tried the noble effort and failed, then I really don't know what to say...


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 05:22
Kumo, I assure you, you are not important enough in my life for me to hate you.  

If there is any animosity between us that got in the way of the PIG proceedings, then perhaps they will fare better without us.  Sometimes it is better to know when to get out of the way.




Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 05:30
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Kumo, I assure you, you are not important enough in my life for me to hate you.  

If there is any animosity between us that got in the way of the PIG proceedings, then perhaps they will fare better without us.  Sometimes it is better to know when to get out of the way.




Sometimes it is better to know, especially when you espouse the best interests of the server on a daily basis, to do what is best for the server, instead of your own desires.

Your prose defies your statement.

You have played an aggrieved party so long that you have forgotten (if you ever knew) how to be a gracious winner.

What were the names of the ladies who sat at the bottom of the guillotine and wove souvenirs out of the deceased members' hair in the French Revolution, cackling the entire time?




Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 08:20
Thank you it failed!!!
I've tried and tried to see the point in formalizing some course of action that are actually already done in game. I mean, in both side of the war we've let player ran off the war if they wanted to. So what's the point? Ad work to alliance leaders???? 

If anyone feel that the war goes too far for him, he just can mail the leaders of the alliance attacking and most of the time, the att will stop. The olny one who where wipped off the map still wanted to fight... So they were fighted ;)

I fail to see what's wrong with it.




Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 18:46
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

If anyone feel that the war goes too far for him, he just can mail the leaders of the alliance attacking and most of the time, the att will stop. The olny one who where wipped off the map still wanted to fight... So they were fighted ;)
since i have conscientiously avoided finding out who was behind it, i can say with malice toward none that this plan did not work for Beecks or any number of players who were in warring alliances and for one reason or another were not online at the start of the war and whose accounts were systematically destroyed by their wartime rivals even after deflagging, because "they might come back". it also did not work for the handful of combatants who contacted me during the war and shared (risking reprisal) the astonishing conditions required of them to be let out of the war. i suspect there are survivors of the Consone war that might have appreciated a defined way to exit the war without required city-razings beyond those they had already lost.

victors always feel their terms are fair. it is axiomatic. you can make anyone "want to fight" if you make the alternative sufficiently unpalatable.





Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 19:21
+1000. Someone who speaks the truth.


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


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 19:40
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

If anyone feel that the war goes too far for him, he just can mail the leaders of the alliance attacking and most of the time, the att will stop. The olny one who where wipped off the map still wanted to fight... So they were fighted ;)
since i have conscientiously avoided finding out who was behind it, i can say with malice toward none that this plan did not work for Beecks or any number of players who were in warring alliances and for one reason or another were not online at the start of the war and whose accounts were systematically destroyed by their wartime rivals even after deflagging, because "they might come back". it also did not work for the handful of combatants who contacted me during the war and shared (risking reprisal) the astonishing conditions required of them to be let out of the war. i suspect there are survivors of the Consone war that might have appreciated a defined way to exit the war without required city-razings beyond those they had already lost.

victors always feel their terms are fair. it is axiomatic. you can make anyone "want to fight" if you make the alternative sufficiently unpalatable.




Hey Angrim! I'm sure there's no malice behind it. No need to say. We all see this by our own point of view for sure ;)

That said; ouch! Now we still have to worry about "what if the one I att isn't online"? Really? I'm sure you know the time a siege take to land. Here's an hint: dayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys :) So in one isn't online when the war starts, ye have days to log in. If not, when it land all the alliance have a system alert about it in ac. At this point, I think the leader have to take action to protect his members. Active or not. 
During the war, my alt was in the leadership of an alliance with some inactive members who may returns. 3 were attacked. I chose to defend 2 and kick the 3rd cause I knew that's what he would want. For the 2 others, we defended them (whithout a lot of success I admit). 1 of those return with 2 cities less, the other was almost destroyed but I chose to kept him in the alliance as an human shield. The last one hasn't returned, the 2 other yes and they aggree with my choices. I mean that at any point, leaders have option to protect their members or not. Kicking them out is an option.

Anyway, I thought the point was that we wanted to find a way to not hurnting too much players (I still don't really understand the concept during war time). So If a player do not log during a time long enough to see a war emerging, expanding to other alliances and see siege landing on his cities the question is, is he a player???????????? And if not, why should I care? We all complaint about inactive cities lying around the map and permasat acc. So what's the problem? 

Ok I know, it's a bit tricky but it's somehow how I feel it.

For the exit terms, based of those that I saw it seemed pretty light. But again, I may be missinformed or having my jugement altered by the fact that I was on the "winning" side...


Friendly,
Cap.


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 20:00
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


For the record, the proposal developed by the group was very similar to the actual policy implemented during the war, which allowed people who were sick of war to make peace and exit the war, whether for personal or game reasons.


Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Thank you it failed!!!
I've tried and tried to see the point in formalizing some course of action that are actually already done in game. I mean, in both side of the war we've let player ran off the war if they wanted to. So what's the point? Ad work to alliance leaders???? 

If anyone feel that the war goes too far for him, he just can mail the leaders of the alliance attacking and most of the time, the att will stop. The olny one who where wipped off the map still wanted to fight... So they were fighted ;)

I fail to see what's wrong with it.


Some sample peace terms from those folk who were "allowed to make peace and exit the war"
  • 1billion+ gold  (for a single player).
  • Dismantle all sov.
  • No more than 5K troops per city.
  • Move cities that were within 50 squares of opponents.
  • Threats of resumption of hostilities for participating in a tourney.
I see no evidence of Rill's "similar policy" in those terms and it also shows the ridiculousness of the "Just surrender and everything will be fine" argument advanced by the folk like Capricorn (of which there were many in PIG) who seemingly have no interest in changing the new standard for warfare and look forward to wiping people out again.



-------------
"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: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 20:14
The vast majority of players who exited the war did so under the simple term of leaving.  No other conditions were placed.  Entire alliances left the war under those conditions, for example Trivium and Dwarven Lords.  Individual players did so as well.

I advocated at the time and continue to advocate for just letting folks leave a war when they are done fighting.  In some cases during the war when payment was requested (by my side) I put up the gold myself to allow players to exit.

KP, if you think that imposing harsh terms to exit a war is not a good practice, I agree with you.  Both Harmless? and my side in the past war have done so in the past.  Hopefully we can move beyond that in the future.

War is a part of Illy.  It's not a part that everyone enjoys.  I have two hopes: 1) that those who prefer to avoid war will be able to do so and 2) those who wish to participate in war will have a way to exit with dignity.

Perhaps PIG was not able to accomplish these goals, but just as the League of Nations was not successful in preventing future wars but perhaps laid the groundwork for later international cooperation, PIG will have laid the ground work or at least set a precedent.

It does seem that we've seen in this thread leaders of major alliances expressing support for the idea that people should be able to exit a war without onerous terms being exacted upon them, other than a commitment not to re-enter the conflict.  Even if this is not formally codified, hopefully it will be something that people will consider in the future.


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 20:15
Cap, there were numerous examples of kicked accounts being hunted to annihilation. An absent player cannot surrender. Many warring alliances use online tools to identify and target accounts where the population hasn't changed, because they know that less active accounts are easier to attack. We have repeatedly heard the justification that "Kicking accounts is not enough, it is the player's responsibility to contact our alliance and personally surrender to us," but that's a slimy statement when the aggressors are specifically targeting inactives. They already know the player cannot surrender if they are away, which is why the surrender terms specifically exclude kicked accounts.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 20:19
Brand, there were other examples of accounts that "left" a warring alliance, rearmed and subsequently re-entered the war.  I don't think it's unreasonable to require that people make contact with the other warring party and arrange for an exit to the war.  If that is not possible, then perhaps their alliance leadership could do it on their behalf.  What do you think of that idea?


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 20:58
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

(...) that's a slimy statement when the aggressors are specifically targeting inactives. (...)

I thought that hunting inactives would be somehow an act of public health...

And sorry about that, I'm certainly too naive and under informed to ad something really significant to this topic.


Cap.


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 22:55
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

The vast majority of players who exited the war did so under the simple term of leaving. 

No other conditions were placed.  Entire alliances left the war under those conditions, for example Trivium and Dwarven Lords.  Individual players did so as well.

The vast majority of the players you are referring to were only allowed to leave with no consequences after they had had their accounts ripped to pieces.

Both TVM and DLords had terms offered earlier in the war while they were still mostly intact which were draconian to say the least.

Quote
I advocated at the time and continue to advocate for just letting folks leave a war when they are done fighting.

Unfortunately, as we've discussed in many places, your advocacy was completely lacking in impact with those running the war on your side. It was merely a publicity stunt to keep your public image up.

Quote
KP, if you think that imposing harsh terms to exit a war is not a good practice, I agree with you.  Both Harmless? and my side in the past war have done so in the past.  Hopefully we can move beyond that in the future.

The terms offered in the most recent war were on a completely different scale compared to previous conflicts - especially when you consider the number of cities already lost before the massive demands required of people wishing to surrender.  To try to draw a comparison between H? and your alliance in that regard is simply dishonest.

The rest of your post is fluff, again an attempt to say one thing while your actions speak otherwise.


-------------
"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: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2014 at 23:36
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Brand, there were other examples of accounts that "left" a warring alliance, rearmed and subsequently re-entered the war.  I don't think it's unreasonable to require that people make contact with the other warring party and arrange for an exit to the war.  If that is not possible, then perhaps their alliance leadership could do it on their behalf.  What do you think of that idea?

How many players snuck out the back door to re-arm, compared to overall inactive accounts devastated? While striking your colors to re-arm is a little sleazy, I don't know that the occasional cowardly exception really justifies smashing up 5x as many inactive accounts, based some vague notion that they are a potential risk. It also ignores that after the first siege of a particular account, it should be very obvious that the player isn't actively defending. Checking their population growth should immediately reveal if they are entirely or mostly inactive. Telling that apart from someone sneaking out the back door to build more troops should be easy to distinguish.

The notion of the alliance leaders negotiating is a noble one. Here's how I would imagine it in practice:

A: "Hey, we need to kick Z for inactivity, and we'd like you to spare the account."
B: "We want a million jillion beer, or no deal."
A: "What?! We can't afford that. Especially not for a player who only logs in once a month."
B: "Well you had an option, and didn't take it. Now you have only yourselves to blame. Go ahead, kick Z. We will still torch the entire account. It's a potential threat, har har! Thanks for letting us know that Z can't effectively defend himself! Thieves and catapults away!"

Telling an enemy leader that an account is inactive takes a great deal of trust. The possibility of severe damage is high. It would have been a lot easier if you PIG guys had settled on a code of chivalry that allowed such conventions.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 02:26
Just to clarify, TRIVIUM was offered early terms. I call them extreme, perhaps others wouldn't. Feel free to ask in game for what they were. By the time we were routed, retreating from our hub, minus several major members, we asked to be released from the certain death awaiting us and were given terms. The terms we took were indeed lighter than those originally offered but at that point we had little left to give.

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


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 03:11
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

leaders have option to protect their members or not. Kicking them out is an option.
i was advised when i inquired about Beecks' departure from NC that she had been kicked in a bid to save the account, but that the attackers were persisting in spite of it. as a member of leadership in one of the opposing alliances, you would know more about how that happens than i.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to require that people make contact with the other warring party and arrange for an exit to the war.  If that is not possible, then perhaps their alliance leadership could do it on their behalf.
was done, in the above instance, or so i was assured. this is not an issue of attackers not realising that an account is exhausted.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

there were other examples of accounts that "left" a warring alliance, rearmed and subsequently re-entered the war.
i'm sure you could supply an example of this...or i would hope you could, if you're going to use it to undermine your otherwise generous "leave whenever you like" policy...which, one notes, you were apparently unable to convince even nCrow to employ with any consistency. (it's all very good to have an ethical stance, but even better to be actually occupying it.) this is, to bring us back to the topic, where PIG might be/might have been helpful.


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 03:25
Maybe I'm missing something here but why does it matter if an innactive account gets decimated?
Its INNACTIVE - obviously doesn't have a sitter or it wouldn't be innactive. The only reason any leader would care is because the loss of that account will reduce the perceived size/power of the alliance its in. Its militarily not going to be participating, in point of fact an attack on it is tying up enemy forces on an account which doesn't much matter, and as someone else has stated there are loads of innactives cluttering the map - if someone can't log on and notice they are in a war then they aren't playing in the first place. 

I can't see any charter which allowed an alliance leader to request non combatant status for an account - without any participation by the player himself/herself  - holding much chance of being agreed to. That account holder if they did (by some chance) return can, with some justification, state that they never agreed to be non combatant in the first place, then what happens?

And as for all the tit for tatting personal attacks on folks in this thread (both the obvious and the more subtle) ...together with the endless reruns of war time stories and rehashing of history and emotionally loaded statements (genocide Kumo!! really? Who has actually been killed and dumped in a mass grave around here?)... well forgive me - but I thought this thread was supposed to be looking forwards not backwards. 

Argue about something sensible for goodness sake......less emotive wording, less recrimination and maybe we'd all get somewhere.


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


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 13:07
Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here but why does it matter if an innactive account gets decimated?
Its INNACTIVE - obviously doesn't have a sitter or it wouldn't be innactive.
the account had a sitter. i'm not sure what difference that makes to your other point, as the only way anyone knows a sitter is by self-identification. the game makes the sitter more or less indistinguishable from the account owner while in place, so i'm somewhat curious how you would go about determining that there was "participation by the player himself/herself". imo, the account has to be considered the account, regardless of who is controlling it.

Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

I thought this thread was supposed to be looking forwards not backwards.
possible protests from other parties aside, PIG is very much oriented toward the experience of the defeated forces of the last two wars, and very much based on the adage "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 13:18
Folks discussing what happened constructively is one thing, this thread however has degenerated well past that point. Being more an excuse to "have a go" about past grievances.

You seem to be referring to one specific account Angrim. I was making more a more general comment, an account which has nothing happening on it, no troop movements etc, thats the type of innactive I was referring to. One which has no sitter and thus no one has any way of doing anything with it.

A sat account isn't inactive as the account is still a viable entity. A sitter can use the resources, send the troops out on attacks etc. Given the way the game is set up a sat account can't be considered inactive.

And for the purposes of agreements I take the same view as Illyriads devs, what your sitter does to your account is the responsibility of the account holder so an agreement made by a sitter is binding on an account holder for the purposes of taking it out of combatant status...but therein lies the problem...what happens if the account holder comes back and insists that it was nothing to do with him/her and promptly sends attacks out?




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


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 15:43
Mahaut, while I think a few people are tossing about personal bitterness, there are more people on this thread who are having a mostly constructive dialogue. Every thread on the topic of war is going to draw out some vitriol. Since there is no way to filter threads, we just have to carry on and attempt to ignore the distractions and discuss the ideas of merit.

Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

And for the purposes of agreements I take the same view as Illyriads devs, what your sitter does to your account is the responsibility of the account holder so an agreement made by a sitter is binding on an account holder for the purposes of taking it out of combatant status...but therein lies the problem...what happens if the account holder comes back and insists that it was nothing to do with him/her and promptly sends attacks out?

Those are exactly the sorts of details that PiG's representatives were meant to sort out and formally record.

I would point out that Illyriad is a long-running game. There are many players who were active in past years, with fully built accounts. Perhaps their lives are busier now. Many such players only return for tournaments, where they are a valued part of their alliance team. I don't feel that they have lesser rights than currently super-active players, just because they only find time to log in twice a month and say hello.


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 16:01
Been here for 3 years myself. Just don't chat much on here or GC.  
An account which is logged into once or twice a month isn't inactive, that player would have noticed their alliance was at war (well hopefully they would anyway lol). That wasn't what I was talking about - more the 40+ day absentees etc

But you are talking as if PIG no longer exists, it does and has 22 alliance reps in there. I assume they are still discussing this sort of stuff.


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


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2014 at 17:32
Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

You seem to be referring to one specific account Angrim.
yes, i was discussing Beecks specifically because that is an account i know attempted to withdraw from the war and was denied the privilege in contraversion of what Capricorne gave as the more general situation. it therefore makes a good example of the sort of situation in which the PIG experiment might/might've had an impact.

Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

what happens if the account holder comes back and insists that it was nothing to do with him/her and promptly sends attacks out?
the same thing, i should think, as would happen if the original account holder breached the agreement. no agreement can keep a player from forswearing him/herself, and PIG last i attended was aware of that.




Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2014 at 06:39
Well I'm shocked, shocked I say, that this entirely sincere effort has suffered such a setback, especially based around as open and conciliatory a figure as Kumo.  

I do have a couple questions though.  First, you really kicked someone for accidentally leaking a draft?  Who the heck cares?  Anyone remotely interested in anything PIG is up to can or has just sent a delegate.  Once you've let what, twenty-two different alliances in on it, it is officially no longer secret.  

Second, as a member of NC, who had not desired to participate in the latest war, wasn't your easy window to exit before NC joined that war?  You would certainly have known it was coming, or your sitter would have, which amounts to the same thing.  It was what, like a month in before any NC accounts where being remotely threatened?  


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2014 at 04:57
Aurordan has obviously taken on NC's public speaking... Since NC were hounded out of the game and the VAST majority of them lost most of their (meaning 9 out of 10 for you less minded folks), cities, then let's see how it is fun and cool to make fun of their being wiped out...




Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2014 at 05:13
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Aurordan has obviously taken on NC's public speaking... Since NC were hounded out of the game and the VAST majority of them lost most of their (meaning 9 out of 10 for you less minded folks), cities, then let's see how it is fun and cool to make fun of their being wiped out...



I don't think you read what I wrote?  Granted, I'm only understanding vague impressions of ideas from this, but I'm neither speaking for NC nor making fun of them.  


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2014 at 06:01
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Aurordan has obviously taken on NC's public speaking... Since NC were hounded out of the game and the VAST majority of them lost most of their (meaning 9 out of 10 for you less minded folks), cities, then let's see how it is fun and cool to make fun of their being wiped out...



I don't think you read what I wrote?  Granted, I'm only understanding vague impressions of ideas from this, but I'm neither speaking for NC nor making fun of them.  


My apologies. I misread it...


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2014 at 11:17
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

...as a member of NC, who had not desired to participate in the latest war, wasn't your easy window to exit before NC joined that war?

I kinda misread that the first time, too. I got it now. (Not that it really matters that I get it or not. But anyway...)


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2014 at 21:20
Being absent I have missed many episodes around here, but in my brief spare time I think that I should adress this :

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

In my experience of PIG, Kumomoto spent most of his time complaining about horribly he was treated in the last war -- in spite of the fact that he and his alt both emerged with 10 cities intact.


So what .?. Being able to successfully defend what is yours is suddenly a sin or failing to reduce someone to dust suddenly erazes the said effort .?. LOL

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As for me, I was willing to be patient and overlook his behavior in the interest of getting things done.  But Kumomoto kicked me out of the group for a simple copy and paste error in global chat, an error for which I immediately apologized.


Another "so what" is forthcoming here ... in which part of this planet an error is rectified with an immediate apology and then de facto has no other repercussions .?.

Hmmm ... let me check my list ... oh ... none.

For such a huge breach of trust, it was quite a suitable repercussion by anyone's standards. Suppose that you had an important RL job in some new project and copy-pasted part of your RL work documents by mistake ... would your colleagues be satisfied with just an "immediate apology" .?. LOL

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I now wonder whether participation in the group was for some folks a cynical effort to "pretend" for the future


Well, what a funny thing to say ... I was thinking the same thing ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

For the record, the proposal developed by the group was very similar to the actual policy implemented during the war, which allowed people who were sick of war to make peace and exit the war, whether for personal or game reasons.  I continue to support this as a policy.  People who don't want to be part of a war should have the opportunity for peace with honor.  What this should look like exactly was what PIG was struggling to define while I was a participant.


Well, considering that we all remember "the actual policy implemented during the war", that doesn't sound like a nice prospect to me, despite your usual attemp for beautification and rozy words.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps at some point in the future after wounds have healed a little more, additional progress can be made.


Define that, please Smile


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



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


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2014 at 22:59
PIG is a waste of time. Those with power will do as they please. It's always been that way and it will always be so.

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


Posted By: Merlinus
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2014 at 00:03
Are you a part of PIG, abstract? Just wonderin'.



-------------
In Peace we reign. In War we RULE!

Long live the Royal House of Merlinus!


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2014 at 02:41
Deranzin, I would say that each person involved would be in the best position to judge when he/she can move on without bitterness, or at least without letting it unduly influence decisions and attitudes.  I hope that the time will come for everyone.  I know I'm still going through the process myself.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2014 at 08:41
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Deranzin, I would say that each person involved would be in the best position to judge when he/she can move on without bitterness, or at least without letting it unduly influence decisions and attitudes.  I hope that the time will come for everyone.  I know I'm still going through the process myself.


Hmm ... I see ... well considering that you lost nothing in the previous war one could say that you are taking your time with the whole process ... speaking of which, since you are admitting that your "decisions and attitudes" are still being influenced by past occurances, then wouldn't that mean that you should have excluded yourself from a process that demanded people that had already "healed" (by your definition) and were at that moment in time more level-headed .?.

Considering that you were more of a behind-the-scenes participant in the previous war than a frontline fighter, I would have guessed that you would have continued the same way and let the people that actually dealt with the fighting, set the rules of future fighting amongst themselves with whatever mutual respect and practical experience was won via the battlegrounds to guide their way and "stem" any influence of the past, using a vision for the future.




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



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


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2014 at 18:25
Well... considering that you ad nothing in this topic but a personal fight with Rill, I wonder why you still bother writing. (and me reading...)

Cheers,
Cap.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2014 at 21:38
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Well... considering that you ad nothing in this topic but a personal fight with Rill, I wonder why you still bother writing. (and me reading...)

Cheers,
Cap.


Just because you cannot comprehend the addition, that doesn't mean that there is none. Wink




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



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


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2014 at 02:35
I am not sure what your point is, Deranzin.  I was asked to join PIG and did so in good faith.  As I said above, it is possible that the effort, however lofty its goals, was premature.  Or its possible that some of the folks involved, myself included, were not the right ones to pursue the process.

As I have said previously, I wish the PIG members the best in their endeavor.  I look forward to seeing their proposals.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2014 at 02:38
As for my "behind the scenes" participation in the last war, I did what many people did, which was support my alliance in both offense and defense, once I returned to Illy in late December 2013.  I was not active in Illy in the time leading up to the war or for the first few months of the war.  I find it curious that people exaggerate my influence and contributions, whether they see them positively or negatively.

Personally, I think people should focus on the folks on both sides who planned and carried out the war; give credit where it is due.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2014 at 10:17
I find it funny how some PIG's members are precisely some well know war-mongers...ppl who used the pretext of previous wars to wipe parts of the map clean and now put the "peace" hood on and expect to be taken as a "international" authority?

Yea..right..


Posted By: Luthien
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2014 at 10:54
I can't believe I'm actually writing something here....

Kumo - Rill there is obviously bad blood still between the two of you.  This is a game for heavens sake.  

Everyone likes to only point out the bad things that happened during the war - and there were many, on both sides!  But we tend to forget about some of the lights that shone through.  I know of some, and I am sure there are others.  Players leaving alliances at war to go on their merry ways without harsh penalties, "winning" alliances pulling back on the offensive when their opponents were tapped out.   Really, how many accounts are we talking about that were not allowed to leave an alliance due to harsh penalties?  How many "active" accounts were hunted down after they left an alliance (I know there were a few)?

Yes some wonderful players left the game after the war.  And I am very sad that they left.  Why not focus on keeping the players that are here active?  We don't need some big convention to tell us how to play nice with one another.  Illy is a hugely personal game, there is a wonderful community here and no matter how hard we try there is no way to separate the personal part of the game.  The best thing to do when we are in the heat of battle is remember that our opponents are real people just like us, and not just a little pixilated picture on the screen.  If we can all do that, then there is no need for some long confusing document to keep things civil.  

Illy is just a game, it should be fun, smile and enjoy what part you play in the game and lets all move on.


(Edit to correct grammer)


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2014 at 18:07
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

well considering that you lost nothing in the previous war one could say that you are taking your time with the whole process
a moment ago not having had a loss in the war didn't mean one didn't have an investment in it. now it does? because now the subject was on the other side of the conflict?

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I find it curious that people exaggerate my influence and contributions, whether they see them positively or negatively.
i find it curious that, after all the work you did within the confederation to build a like-minded power bloc, you would insist that your influence ended with your active presence in the game.

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

I find it funny how some PIG's members are precisely some well know war-mongers...ppl who used the pretext of previous wars to wipe parts of the map clean and now put the "peace" hood on and expect to be taken as a "international" authority?
is that more reprehensible than having used the pretext of the most recent war to do the same? i hear the justification "they did it first" a lot from the vCrow side of the war; however eloquently the point is made, it doesn't convince. and...if you are under the impression that PIG expected to be an international authority, you are badly misinformed.

Originally posted by Luthien Luthien wrote:

The best thing to do when we are in the heat of battle is remember that our opponents are real people just like us, and not just a little pixilated picture on the screen.  If we can all do that, then there is no need for some long confusing document to keep things civil.
and have we proven repeatedly that we can, or that we cannot?


PIG was a long shot from the start, and even if Rill and Kumomoto had become fast friends there were many reasons to expect the venture would fail. if you were there, you know this; if you were not, i wonder why you feel entitled to assign blame.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2014 at 13:26
@ Angrim (cause the reply function seems to be acting a little weird for me)...

I was refering especially to the last war, which was the one i participated in (having dropped out in the middle). The Great Alliance accused the others to do wiping in previous wars, and then did exactly the same. It was one of the many reasons that made me quit the war, even if i was on the winning side.
I saw ppl completely destroying an entire region jut because they could, or as a form of "attack is the best defense. I destroy them now, they can't come to bite me later".. What's worse, i even saw ppl destroying other accounts cause they had previous rifts, and just found a justification to throw in the big guns.. a pretext, if u want put it that way.

Now, if PIG isn't some sort of "Illy UN", a sort of "international authority", so to speak, then what PIG is? Cause it seems i completely lost the meaning then...

EDITED for grammar mistakes..


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2014 at 16:24
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Now, if PIG isn't some sort of "Illy UN", a sort of "international authority", so to speak, then what PIG is? Cause it seems i completely lost the meaning then...
the convention that PIG was to create (and may still be creating) was not intended to be enforced at all. the experiment was to see whether or not the population of the server could agree on which actions were "fair" in a war, and which were beyond the pale. i would compare it to the code of chivalry. the hope was that having a written standard of conduct would curb the worst excesses of illy war...hence the interest of the warmongers you mention, whose objective is to make pvp more common/less final.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2014 at 17:30
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

...hence the interest of the warmongers you mention, whose objective is to make pvp more common/less final.


Brilliantly said.

It is frustrating at how many people miss the above point. PvP ends when everyone is dead. I am pretty damn confident that nearly all the PvPers (or if you prefer the pejorative Warmongers) know this all too well.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 09:30
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I am not sure what your point is, Deranzin.  I was asked to join PIG and did so in good faith.  As I said above, it is possible that the effort, however lofty its goals, was premature.  Or its possible that some of the folks involved, myself included, were not the right ones to pursue the process.


Well, since you put it that way, my point is that maybe we can all learn a little something here and become better ... and the message of that endeavor is "we do not accept every invitation that comes along the way" .... Tongue

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As for my "behind the scenes" participation in the last war, I did what many people did, which was support my alliance in both offense and defense, once I returned to Illy in late December 2013.


Oh, you did much much more than that ... Wink

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Personally, I think people should focus on the folks on both sides who planned and carried out the war; give credit where it is due.


I am doing exactly that and I am giving you some credit for being one of those people ... I do not understand why you don't like it ...

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

well considering that you lost nothing in the previous war one could say that you are taking your time with the whole process
a moment ago not having had a loss in the war didn't mean one didn't have an investment in it. now it does? because now the subject was on the other side of the conflict?


I call this "turning the table on someone's erroneous logic" ... I just used her own argument/line of thought, but I applied it on her ... nothing more, nothing less ... Smile

Btw, on a side note, there are vast differences between "being safe behind the lines and not losing something" and "getting constantly attacked and successfully managing to defend again and again to keep what is yours intact", so on that account Rill and Kumomoto are not in the same position ... the end result (no town losses) was the same for both of them, but the facts in between (millions of troops dead to defend Kumomoto's cities on the one hand, not nearly a scratch on Rills walls on the other hand ) are different.

One risks everything and can be said to invest everything and the other is cozy in the knowledge that no harm will even come to their precious towns ...

In any case, Rill's measuring investment by the end result was an erroneous logic to begin with, else me and other destroyed people should have been "major investors", which is obviously quite far from the truth ... LOL


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



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


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 17:13
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:


Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Personally, I think people should focus on the folks on both sides who planned and carried out the war; give credit where it is due.


I am doing exactly that and I am giving you some credit for being one of those people ... I do not understand why you don't like it ...


I don't like it because it's simply untrue.  While I did not agree with Harmless? policies and said so publicly, I was at best ambivalent about whether war was the way to solve them.  And I was not nearly as confident as some that such a war could be won.  For that reason, I told those who asked me that I was not sure whether war was the right way to go or not.

It seems like you are falling into the trap of trying to find a scapegoat rather than facing the truth:  A lot of people did not like the way Harmless? was acting.  So many people, in fact, that a lot of them got together and decided to go to war against you.

While I was one of the people who did not like the way Harmless? was acting, I had neither the courage to act nor the conviction that war would solve anything, and for that reason cannot take credit for planning what ended up being a successful war.

So please, give credit where it is due.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 18:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I don't like it because it's simply untrue.  While I did not agree with Harmless? policies and said so publicly, I was at best ambivalent about whether war was the way to solve them.  And I was not nearly as confident as some that such a war could be won.  For that reason, I told those who asked me that I was not sure whether war was the right way to go or not.


Well, I remember you jumping up and down in GC day and night with the mayhem, so this paragraph sounds a bit funny to me ...

Whether you believed in war or not is irrelevant to me ... you were in here, day and night, overseeing it (not merely watching it) and that is more than many others did ... again I say that this determination is to your credit...

so...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


It seems like you are falling into the trap of trying to find a scapegoat rather than facing the truth:


... I do not see why you think that I am trying to find a scapegoat or whatnot ... I didn't blame you for anything, did I .?. On the contrary I am giving you credit for a war well fought ... I do not see what your problem is with that ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

A lot of people did not like the way Harmless? was acting.  So many people, in fact, that a lot of them got together and decided to go to war against you.


Quite true, else indeed they would have banded up together ... and also true is that one of those people was you, else indeed you would have banded up with them in the war effort ... why are you so uncomfortable with that fact, I wonder, and why do you think that such a thing is placing any blame on you .?.

As far as I am concerned I take pride for my minor role in the Consone war ... why can't you do the same with your part in this war and you think that when someone mentions your participation in it, is somehow blaming you or casting a negative light on your account .?. I fail to see the problem.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


While I was one of the people who did not like the way Harmless? was acting, I had neither the courage to act nor the conviction that war would solve anything, and for that reason cannot take credit for planning what ended up being a successful war.

So please, give credit where it is due.


As usual, you are a slippery client Rill ... in your last post you wrote : 

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Personally, I think people should focus on the folks on both sides who planned and carried out the war; give credit where it is due.


... and indeed I gave you credit for the "carrying out" part ... and immediately in the next post you ommit it ... "credit where it is due" indeed so I will say it again : I have no idea whether you helped in the planning or not - I can take your word for that - but as far as the carrying out part, noone was more active in GC from either side in terms of the war effort and its minutiae of keeping it smooth and mainting the "political front" of the war ... Smile

You do not like my credit .?. You think it is undue .?. Maybe you are shy of people congratulating your contribution .?. Well, be that as it may, the fact that as far as I am concerned credit went where it is due ... I like to be fair with such things and not belittle other people's victories and achievements ... Smile


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



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


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 20:01
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.  If you remember me jumping up and down in gc day and night, then you are remembering incorrectly.  I was gone from the game from July through November 2013, when the war was beginning.  A large part of the reason for my absence was my ambivalence about the emerging political situation in Illy.

As for my participation in the war, I think I acquitted myself reasonably well, given that I have a fairly limited number of troops.  I am particularly proud of my participation in the defense of nCrow cities of Ely and Over.  However, to suggest that I played a key role in those actions would be to understate the contributions of other players in my alliance and our allies.

Again, thanks for your plaudits, but they are undeserved.


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 20:14
Most people involved in the war know exactly who was involved in orchestrating it, not just in seeing it through, irrespective of what is said in these forums.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 21:24
Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:

Most people involved in the war know exactly who was involved in orchestrating it, not just in seeing it through, irrespective of what is said in these forums.
i would surprised if that were true.


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2014 at 21:37
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:

Most people involved in the war know exactly who was involved in orchestrating it, not just in seeing it through, irrespective of what is said in these forums.
i would surprised if that were true.

Well, speaking for myself at least, it was very clear to me, both who & why.  I would like to think most people involved knew why they were fighting too.


Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2014 at 16:00
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.  If you remember me jumping up and down in gc day and night, then you are remembering incorrectly.  I was gone from the game from July through November 2013, when the war was beginning.  A large part of the reason for my absence was my ambivalence about the emerging political situation in Illy.

I am obviously reffering to the timeframe when you were active and not before ... and on that timeframe I am definitely not remembering incorrectly since, at some point, me and Rathgore had quite the fun chain skirmishes, so we were both on the lookout for at least 3/4ths of the day and while on that boring job, I did lurk in GC quite a bit ... I know not your timezone (many people keep it secret since it is an important war factor Star), but rare was the time of the day when you were not there and not in some appeasing talk concerning the war or in a "let us derail GC and get them not to notice the fighting" attempt ...

Again I make clear that I say that in a positive way (it was a job well done and I am not keen on idle praise) so ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Again, thanks for your plaudits, but they are undeserved.


... it is deserved and you are welcome ... Smile


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



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


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2014 at 00:43
So what you are saying is, when i came back, I was in global chat a lot and deliberately trying to avoid talking about the war.  This supposedly demonstrates my key role in it.  (Rather than, for example, my lack of interest in war talk in general.)


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 18:25
the posturing and unprovable attributions are very thick here.

ftr, i am unaware of any direct role that Rill played in planning the war, full stop. she did on more than one occasion state that H? had lost her respect and, effectively, that they deserved whatever they got, but the most one might say about that is that she contributed, even nurtured, a public mood hostile toward H?, and that her return served as a morale boost during nCrow's participation in the war. it would be quite disingenuous to suggest that any flames she fanned were not begun by H?'s own heavy-handed diplomacy, and any assertion that she engineered the war itself is, afaik, completely unsupportable from the facts as i understand them.

it is ever so much more helpful for us to dislike one other for the things we have actually done. hyperbole and supposition only serve to obscure the real offences.


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 18:33
When it comes to the Dominion's involvement in the war, at least, Rill was fairly irrelevant. There were a couple of incidents months and years beforehand that she was heavily involved in, but when it came down to conflict I did not see any actions from Rill providing the initial spark.

I can't speak with such authority on things on the Harmless/NC front, however when I saw a very large number and variety of mails between the GA and Harmless leaders I do not recall any from Rill.


Posted By: Consul Zynot
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 20:31
Wow cant believe this convo is still going lol


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2014 at 15:25
Myself being one of the players responsible for this war, I can say that Rill was not part of the talks and negotiations which led to the war's outbreak.

Peace.


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 05:26
Maybe we need to bring back this mob to sort out the Pylon war.


Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 10:26
Its better to close this thread and create a new thread for this new war. 

-------------
Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day.

jcx in H? | orcboy in H?


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 21:13
I agree, this is an year old thread.


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2015 at 04:17
New war, same processes.



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