| Author |
|
Salararius 
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
 Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 03:30 |
Every "right" one possesses in the context of any endeavor is predicated on the desire to be part of the endeavor. That is the context for any "right". In the case of this game, the only "right" you have is to the "existence" of one city as well as the rules of the game (what buildings do, what troops do, etc...). Everything else can be taken from you and no appreciable force is pledged to prevent that in a universal Illy manner. So, any supposed "right" to express something is only there if someone does not take offense and send 500,000 (or 1M, 1G, pick a number) knights to destroy your cities. If those cities have no value or if one crippled city is sufficient for you then I do not understand your desire to "participate" in this game and thus do not understand the context of the rights in question?
When you say "no one owes or has any duty to respond, read, or even care what is said about what they do" that is only correct if the person who is "demanding" the response can't convince, conspire, cajole, or otherwise influence the movement of that hypothetical overwhelming force. Everything done here is only in the context of participation in a game that we all do only at the whim of the "masses". In many respects, there are no rules, no laws, no structure. You can see that when the tide turned against TLR because of the post regarding the TLR/TRO peace terms and you can see that again as the "tide turns" against Æsir in this thread. You see it over and over.
In that context, to be noted in Illyriad is dangerous. I can't speak for every "non-aligned" person asking questions, but when I ask questions and seek to probe and understand these disputes I do so to understand the dynamics behind the struggle. I know that no one owes me a response, but I also know that the stakes are raised for those in the spotlight. Sometimes I feel a certain wording has a greater chance of getting the information I seek. I desire to know who made what mistake and at what cost? In my opinion, being unable to express yourself in Illy is extremely fatal. The questions I ask are generally to determine if that is the fatal flaw or if it's a basic mis-understanding of the Illy "mob" think. In other words, does Æsir have a rational that would resonates with the Illy mob if they could express it properly or does Æsir simply not have a resonating rational or etc...?
|
 |
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: TEXAS Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1865
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 03:47 |
 Salararius wrote:
In that context, to be noted in Illyriad is dangerous. I can't speak for every "non-aligned" person asking questions, but when I ask questions and seek to probe and understand these disputes I do so to understand the dynamics behind the struggle.
The questions I ask are generally to determine if that is the fatal flaw or if it's a basic mis-understanding of the Illy "mob" think. In other words, does Æsir have a rational that would resonate with the Illy mob if they could express it properly or does Æsir simply not have a resonating rational or etc...?
|
Here we have the reason for third parties to become involved.
In the first degree, asking questions brings light to issues that should be avoided in the future.
In the second degree, expressing opinion not only declares ones intentions and etc. but goes a long way to influence events as they unfold.
In the third degree, making demands (with the power to back them up) steers events in a direction to benefit the player or alliance making them.
These are all legitimate reasons to involve oneself in the conversation,
irrespective of ones proximity to the events at hand.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 04:14 |
Aquennomi, Quackers, BellusRex, Salararius and The Duke make excellent points. Hereward the Wake has an excellent name. Interesting observations from glorfindel.
Daufer wrote:
No, I didn't care about that war either. Is this really that much different though, because I don't remember people lining up to help VALAR to kick H?'s butt. Quite the opposite in fact... I Just don't understand the mentality. Maybe hanging out in global chat all the time really is good for you. |
That is probably the best point made so far.
Rill wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, GD. I support your belief that TLR's demand for what amounted to a prestige payment for peace are despicable. I am ambivalent about whether war is the right response, but I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in. |
Rill, would you be so keen to praise someone for starting a war over this if their name wasn't GD? What if someone called EF, or (dare I say it) _duQ? I fear this response is clouded by personal sentiment.
I considered the peace terms "interesting". The geographical restrictions were harsh. I'd call the Medals part of it "ill considered", and "an unfortunate precedent". But I'm with T_D on this - not liking peace terms between other parties, which both have already agreed to, is it's a sorry excuse to launch a crusade.
Mona Lisa wrote:
I at one point considered splitting off of nCrow to form a mini 2 account alliance with my alt to deal with EF's GC statements below |
Seriously?! Those comments can be described as rhetoric, or perhaps bluster. I'd suggest that a bit more RP-ish bluster in GC would make the place way more interesting. But you thought they warranted military action?! Were you really so keen to find an excuse to start a war?
As a general point...
Ander wrote:
Robber barons masquerading as white knights - ever so common sight in Illy. Always eager to teach justice and code of conduct to players smaller than them. |
Exactly so. Players want to a fight they can win, so they pick someone who has a bad rep, and poor standing in "the community", who is smaller than them, and they start. Their friends in "the community" back them. Seen that before.
In this case, at least, "the community" hasn't swallowed it. At least, not everyone has. Unfortunately, people seem determined to escalate things - e.g. besieging Aesir's cities.
So, suggestions...
1)
LostEros wrote:
Having started this thread, I would like to submit that both (all) sides call a cease-fire and negotiate a simple peace treaty. |
 That is the most constructive post so far. So, "What he said!"
2)
If people wanted to encourage peace talks, people could, for example, offer to break siege camps - from both sides. That would have the effect of reducing the level of threat to players' cities, rather than making the conflict worse. It's what Createure and others did when someone called _duQ was being obnoxious a while ago. It was an excellent strategy then, and could work on a larger scale. |
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:02 |
|
I must be a harsh critic indeed if saying I am ambivalent about an action is taken for high praise.
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:26 |
Rill wrote:
I must be a harsh critic indeed if saying I am ambivalent about an action is taken for high praise. |
That's disingenuous.
Rill wrote:
I am ambivalent about whether war is the right response, but I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in |
You can't applaud someone for "standing up", hedge around whether or not you like the manner of their standing, and then claim you aren't applauding them.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:31 |
|
Why can't I in fact be ambivalent? I'm ambivalent a lot, actually. Things often aren't black and white. Certainly the longer I've participated in Illy, the more nuanced my views on such situations have become.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:33 |
|
Glad to see you can't resist grinding your old favorite Valar axe Kurdruk. (although this is nothing like that conflict).
I'm sorry H? Hasn't obliged you by jumping into this one... You must be terribly disappointed. It doesn't make your community "mob" theories as easy to defend...
|
|
Abraxox
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Location: San Antonio, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 73
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:39 |
Although I played no part in the dealings with TRO, I would like to try to clear something up which EF didn't want to address in GC, but spoke of with me in AC. These are my sentiments, and do not reflect an official position of the TLR leadership, but are based upon my personal understanding(s). The condition of proximity to TLR settlements took into account all current locations of TRO members and indicated that new settlements should encroach no closer than the boundaries which TRO has already established. The medal agreement as part of TRO's ToS was retracted shortly after the agreement was reached. Negative consequences occurred as a result of TLR's unyielding belief that the negotiation of the ToS was a private matter between TLR and TRO. It should be noted that there was never a realistic expectation that such terms would ever be accepted "as is" by TRO. These terms were presented as only an initial stage of negotiation, but Thordor didn't choose to negotiate, it seems. I guess some people consider EF to be intimidating; I know he scares some people. As I understand it, the ToS negotiation was approached with the mindset of haggling. When haggling on the seller's side, you always start high, then let the other person work the offer/terms downward, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Inexperience was the culprit, I'd imagine. I think that a lot of what EF presents in GC is more tongue-in-cheek than a lot of people realize, but that is just my opinion. (I could be wrong.) I did try to get EF to make clear in GC that the terms were being rehashed back when the issue first came up in GC, but he didn't want to do that, believing that none of it was truly anyone else's business. I may get chewed out for expressing my opinions/observations here, but so be it. As a final thought concerning EF, I ask the following: Have you ever heard of being the devil's advocate? 
|
|
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:56 |
Kumomoto wrote:
It doesn't make your community "mob" theories as easy to defend... |
those are more than just mere theories, and you know that to. do not insult our intelligence.
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 05:56 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Glad to see you can't resist grinding your old favorite Valar axe Kurdruk. (although this is nothing like that conflict).
|
I think a quick search of the forums for my posts would illustrate how very rarely I mention the "Valar war" (Or Valar lynching. Or lynching of Azreil. Or great-running-away-of Azreil. Or whatever it was.) I think the last time I mentioned it was to observe that it has become mythologised - that it is now changed every time it is discussed, and exists as a notional event rather than a historical event. My view is that when people talk about that episode now they generally either try to use it to show how evil H? are, or to show how lovely the community were for so readily facing down the great evil of Valar, both propositions being equally ludicrous.
Kumomoto wrote:
I'm sorry H? Hasn't obliged you by jumping into this one... You must be terribly disappointed. It doesn't make your community "mob" theories as easy to defend... |
Why would I suggest that H? were part of a mob. I'm not aware that I have ever suggested it before.
Plenty of people act exactly as Ander suggested. I recall someone in Champs threatening to destroy an entire alliance because of one thieving incident. The community's eagerness to attack Valar is another example (that's "the community's", distinct from "H?'s").
Ander is right to say that's how Illy often works.
I'm not sure how you get from that to the notion that H? is being criticised.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Tweet
Æsir's Crusade vs. TLR
Topic Options