Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Albatross View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Albatross Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 13:25
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?
Back to Top
DeliciousJosh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 464 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeliciousJosh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 15:58
Oblivious.

PublicRelations
HumanResources
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Hora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 17:38
Originally posted by Albatross Albatross wrote:

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?

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 Tongue) 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 Wink.

Often, the original dispute is long solved, after 1 month or so, while the big alliances fight along.
Back to Top
Velociryx View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Location: Myrtle Beach, S
Status: Offline
Points: 45 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Velociryx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 17:41
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
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: TEXAS Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1865 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote abstractdream Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 23:04
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:


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.

Bullseye. If any of you read any of the threads about the current war, you may have noticed that every time a discussion came up about surrender terms, the posts from players on the side of the "GA" inevitably got back to the terms that H? imposed on them at the end of the Consone War. It's payback. It always has been. From the first armies launched in EE's war against TVM on through and up to whatever pound of flesh the new overlords will ultimately exact. Some of them have clearly stated it in this very forum. It's payback, plain and simple. Get used to it.
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
bansisdead View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bansisdead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 06:16
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

It's payback.


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...
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aurordan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 06:35
Originally posted by Albatross Albatross wrote:

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?

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.  
Back to Top
Glin View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 127 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:00
Ok, Whats GA?
Back to Top
Velociryx View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Location: Myrtle Beach, S
Status: Offline
Points: 45 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Velociryx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:08
The GA = The Grand Alliance.
Back to Top
Glin View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 127 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Glin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:28
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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.