A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0 |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author | |
Velociryx 
Greenhorn 
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:58 |
|
For the record, I don't disagree. The analogy is as tasteless as the current situation. That's why it was chosen, why it is apt, and why the situation should be ended immediately. ;)
And yes, it's just a game. And in that game, Illy is our big, extended family. Edited by Velociryx - 18 Jul 2014 at 13:06 |
|
 |
|
|
Hora
Postmaster 
Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:32 |
|
Oh, and Aurordan is right... sorry Vel, but comparing actions in a war game with violance against real people is quite bad taste IMO (hey, little secret: This is a game!)
|
|
|
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:26 |
|
Sorry Vel, but how humilating to H? it would be to first have to surrender, and then taking towns of a player being nice enough to offer his town?
It never is about the money! I had been on the loosing side in the war before this one. The debate, whether surrendering or not NEVER was about the reparations. We felt we were on the right side, we felt we were the ones being attacked, we were sure the reasons of the war were orchestrated, and we thought we would give up this cause when surrendering. All crap, when looking back at it now: We lost the war, learned that some actions of ourselves hadn't been that great, BUT STILL are sure we have been fighting on the right side  . The reparation had been paid within 3 month or so (due to sieging times) and now we're back again anyway.The only thing that still stands in the way to peace are EGOs... BIG egos of leaders of HUGE alliances.  Taking four towns, which they could take by force anyway, is definitly symbolic, and no so kind offer from you or Arctic would change anything to this...
Edited by Hora - 18 Jul 2014 at 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General 
Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:24 |
This actually made me laugh out loud. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that taking four cities will hurt Harmless physically and morally? Since the start of the war, they have lost 7mil pop (maybe more, my memory is hazy). I kinda doubt that taking four cities can send any message that isn't already been driven into their chest. The taking of the four cities is a symbol, a further kick in the guts for Harmless to remind them that this time, THEY lost. It's more of a statement from the GA than a lesson for Harmless.
Edited by Nokigon - 18 Jul 2014 at 11:24 |
|
|
|
|
Garth
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 10 May 2012 Location: Somewhere, USA Status: Offline Points: 249 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:13 |
|
Simply put, it's not just about cities or currency; those are merely symbols. As symbols, it's what they represent that's essential; and what they represent is dictated by more than just their presence. IOW, the bat signal doesn't mean a thing, unless Commissioner Gordon is flashing it and Batman sees it.
|
|
|
Garthen
|
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:07 |
|
It seems to me that the main problem with this approach is that neither side is involved with or committed to it. Speaking as someone who made the offer of giving up cities in the Consone war, it's usually pretty futile -- the two sides need to talk to each other directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 07:56 |
|
Well, I'm not really "arguing" with you, as much as just telling you why I think this won't ever happen. Maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but maybe. It certainly didn't help that you stuck this up on the forum and took cracks at the people you're trying to negotiate with rather than, say igming ditto.
|
|
|
|
|
Velociryx
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 07:23 |
|
And for the record, I understand the context very well. Take your own advice and consult a map. ;) We live right next door and have ringside seats.
Your "argument" such as it is, is that my offer of everything they asked for is unacceptable. And if I forward the money to H? and agree to let each of the four named H? members take one of my cities after the fact, allowing the "Grand Alliance" to have their much sought after pound of flesh, well...somehow that makes it all..."better." Except it's the same money and still four cities. ZERO difference from a practical POV. The offer stands. If they reject the terms of their own peace offer (plus the bonus equipment offered), that's on them. Yes? I'm willing to give up my personal fortune and fully 40% of the account I've worked on for a couple years now, in order to secure peace. That's my level of commitment to seeing it done. |
|
|
|
|
Velociryx
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 06:13 |
|
The analogy was apt, and I stand by it.
You don't have to agree. That's fine. And all the terms have still been met by the amended offer above. |
|
|
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 06:11 |
|
Respectfully, if you apply some reading comprehension, you would see that the point of Hath's terms isn't that they want stuff. You're just ignore the point of the terms and wondering why you aren't facilitating peace. And even if you could convince them, you're still faced with the underlying problem that Harmless still won't accept, because that's not their issue either.
Not respectfully, your comparing this to domestic violence is unworthy and complete crap. Please cut that out.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Gemley wrote: