Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Great War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Great War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 23>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1169
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:56
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.
this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:02
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:42
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.
this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.
The expression "I disagree", implies opinion and is subjective by definition.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.
Moot argument, considering that subjectivity has already been established.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance. You also seem to have read over my first post in this thread, so I'll quote it below for the sake of clarity...

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I suggest drafting a list of questions, and sending them to the leaders of all the alliances involved in the war. You might not get many responses, but you'll undoubtedly see that every alliance had it's own reasons for being involved

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words. 

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim. You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence. By your own admission, you do not know the details of the surrender terms, so I would advise you to stop making arguments from a position of ignorance.

The war is long over, and those of us who did fight are moving on.

"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:48
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:13
As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus.  You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war.  nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game.  You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself.  I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal).  This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war.  However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice.  Either could have stopped the war at any time.  In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors.  In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost.  I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides.  Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.


Edited by Rill - 12 Jan 2015 at 21:14
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:14
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.

Not true you say? I have no interest whatsoever in any of the parties now.. why would i be lying?
I know what i saw there, and i saw entire REGIONS being cleansed just because someone could flex their muscles...
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:17
Interesting question, Tyrande.  I think that you are lying to yourself, to make your motivations seem more noble in your own mind than they actually were.  That is completely understandable, and I really don't think you have any agenda beyond that.
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:21
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Interesting question, Tyrande.  I think that you are lying to yourself, to make your motivations seem more noble in your own mind than they actually were.  That is completely understandable, and I really don't think you have any agenda beyond that.

I think you're reflecting yourself Rill... i left for 3 reasons.. 1 of them was some ppl, and you know who was, clearing the entire Ursor area... dizimating it.. and  i remember quite clearly asking that in AC.. "if we do that, how come we're better than they are?"

You denying it with that argument is just a frustated attempt to sound like i want, or need, any reason to justify why i left the Crow domain, other than not agreeing with stuff i saw there on war times.


Edited by Tyrande Whisperwinds - 12 Jan 2015 at 21:25
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus.  You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war.  nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game.  You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself.  I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal).  This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war.  However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice.  Either could have stopped the war at any time.  In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors.  In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost.  I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides.  Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.

How sweet of you.. Let's see:
I said i quit for 3 reasons, and 1 of them was indeed my alt being diplo'ed while only doing a exodus and having stated that was not taking part in war. That much is true, i give you that. I even recall ppl defending that alt when i was afk for 1 day. I was not angry at Ncrow for that, i was angry at the others alliances for saying they didn't attack ppl who were not taking part in war, and were doing exactly that.

I did got angry of being robbed, and then a Ncrow player taking the enemy city and didn't return the goods that were inside the city.

You got the nerve to accuse me of being happy to thive. That is so hypocrypctical of you. As one of the strongest diplo players in the alliance, YOU WERE THE ONES WHO ASSIGNED TARGETS FOR ME TO ROB, and assigned me missions to do so...

As for joining the alliance for tournament, you were the one who mailed me, asking me to return for toruney, to which i replied, for tourney purposes alone, that i didn't want to take any part in that dirty war.. Or shall i post that msg here? I don't care if i get banned anyway, this game is pretty much dead!

You didn't read what i wrote in chat multiple time, or choose to ignore it?
You are indeed pro and this lying political game Rill... 

EDITED for the sake of grammar and clarity..


Edited by Tyrande Whisperwinds - 12 Jan 2015 at 21:57
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 22:08
I did offer you the opportunity to return for the tourney.  I intended it as a gesture of friendship and reconciliation.  I had no idea at the time that you had continuing differences with nCrow, and you did not mention them at the time you rejoined, other than that you did not want to participate in the war.

During the war, players in nCrow who had diplomatic units were encouraged to use them.  However, at no time did anyone demand that a player attack a specific target either militarily or diplomatically.  (Voluntary participation was certainly enthusiastically solicited.)  Many players in nCrow, myself included, chose not to participate in that aspect of the war.  I don't condemn you for doing so -- thieving is a game mechanic that is useful in a conflict and fun for many.  However, suggesting that you were in any way coerced or ordered to do so is a misrepresentation.

I do recall you saying in chat and in mail that you were uncomfortable with the level of destruction in the war.  That is something that we shared, as it was something I also struggled with, although in the end I decided that advocating for restraint from within the structure of the alliance was the best way I could contribute.  At the time you left you did not express that it was your reason for leaving.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 23>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.