A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0 |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | |
Albatross
Postmaster General Joined: 11 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1118 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Just throwing a bone in here... Settlement terms are more likely to work if they are not materialistic, but are instead behavioural, especially if hostilities broke out as a result of dispute. So rather than "You will pay X and lose X" (which seems like punishment), why not instead agree terms for future behaviour? As well as prohibitive terms, you could include enabling terms, such as time-limited trade/supply agreements on contested resources. Get the idea?
|
|
|
|
DeliciousJosh
Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Jun 2012 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 464 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Oblivious.
|
|
PublicRelations HumanResources |
|
Hora
Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
That is a cool idea, but how is the trade/supply agreement less punishment then "pay X"? I agree with the town capture stuff, this clearly is a punitive action. Sadly, those behavioural agreememts would be much harder to negotiate than the simple "pay X" terms. And the e.g. mining dispute (don't know how I thought about that example ) is never the reason! It simply is the cause to start the war, the reason in a game always is a mixture of "I'm bored!", and "I don't like your face...". E.g. the Consone war wouldn't have ended with the one alliance (ahh, who was involved in it... was it RHY?) to have the right for mining the one small Trove mine somewhere in nowhere . Often, the original dispute is long solved, after 1 month or so, while the big alliances fight along.
|
|
Velociryx
Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Right...I think the final shape of any conjectural agreement would be more of an agreement in principle rather than a tightly codified "code."
For instance - there's no rule outright prohibiting it (in fact, there's a mechanic that specifically allows for it), but we have, as a community, kind of adopted a code that says, "don't settle within ten tiles without permission." We've also adopted the, "don't attack newbies" community rule, and "don't mess with training alliances" rule. None of these are official RULES, and yet - the community at large seems quite content to abide by them. (and in GC, we've adopted the "hug frequently" rule) Edited by Velociryx - 18 Jul 2014 at 17:42 |
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: TEXAS Republic Status: Offline Points: 1865 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
|
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster Joined: 08 Jan 2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Exactly my thoughts, as you say the language coming from the GA certainly points to that. Sadly the war won't stop until the alleged vengeance has been quenched. Though the GA should bare in mind they could be next... |
|
Aurordan
Postmaster Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yes, because if there's one thing people love more than surrendering, it's surrendering and having indefinite constraints placed on their future behavior. /sarcasm This would seem, at least to me, a lot more egregious than losing four cites and and an escrow, and then being able to go do whatever you want. And it continues to not address the point that it isn't the specific terms it's a pride thing.
|
|
Glin
Wordsmith Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Location: US Status: Offline Points: 127 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ok, Whats GA?
|
|
Velociryx
Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The GA = The Grand Alliance.
|
|
Glin
Wordsmith Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Location: US Status: Offline Points: 127 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Oh I see. I have not heard anyone call themselves the Grand Alliance.
I do have one question though. If people so badly think that taking a city from EO/Kumo/Starry/KP each; would be a fair end to hostilities- then why not just do so- rather than argue on the base of that being a terms of surrender? Is this a type of posturing? If one really thinks ending a city from each of those players will teach the alliance to surrender then why does opposing alliances just not take it by force? Therefore, if one wanted to end hostilities for two sides who are not ready to- what makes a person think that their personal loss of monies or towns would aid in this surrender? I think I may know the answer ... This is just posturing. And for the sake of the argument here in this thread, why is anyone who is not a leader of the opposing alliance offering posturing or grand standing before the community? Does this really heal a rift? Bull dozing and infilling a rift between alliances must not be so casually and cheaply made with individual offerings of sacrifices. Rather, the healing will begin only when concessions are heartfelt between the opponents. I approve this message as the future overseer of BL and thank you for taking the time to read my post.
|
|
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 |