Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elmindra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 01:36
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

How many cities have been sieged this war?

Quite a few, mainly due to your arrogance in thinking you couldn't lose, and the rest due to your ineptitude at geography and inability to realize you were losing before you lost everything.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:54
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

How many cities have been sieged this war?
i don't understand how that's relevant to the question of whether surrender is a reasonable demand. (it should certainly be relevant to the surrender terms, as John Louis has suggested.)
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: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:36
I dunno, I thought you where keeping score?
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:12
How many cities have been sieged this war?
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elmindra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 22:25
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


It is not the same place at all.  In that war 1-2 cities (and in some rare cases 3) were razed from a player and then we moved on to another target - completely different to this war.

What would we have done if we'd have run out of new targets? I'm not sure but I'm pretty certain it would not have ended up like the current state.


This again? We moved towns before you could raze more than 2-3 because we knew we couldn't defend them. But your igm's and embassy posts from both you and your allies stated complete destruction awaited if we did not accept terms. It was either a bluff or the route you were more than willing to take. Judging from your terms we gaged it to be a legitimate threat. After all, someone who demands almost 40 towns razed as terms for peace settlement is bound to be serious about further threats.
Back to Top
tansiraine View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Location: pensacola FL
Status: Offline
Points: 172 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tansiraine Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 22:01
Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:

 


Anyhow, a thought struck me. The idea of paying reparations for surrender is something that sticks in the throat of many players, especially those that have already lost so many troops and so much T2 resource. The idea of then saying to the other side "please, take all my gold, my precious resource and go gloat" only further encourages the war to continue.

So my suggestion is this: that each member of Team A agrees to NAP's with each member of Team B and puts up a significant amount of escrow. This could be arranged on a sliding scale based on the size of each member of Team A. For example, Harmless? pay 1 billion per escrow, BSH pay 1 million.

This would mean that Team A is "punished" and I know from my dealings during the Consone war that this was, in part, part of the justification for the scale of reparations imposed on EE. However under this proposal, Team B wouldn't actually benefit unless  the NAP was broken by a constituent member of Team B.

This is as close to a win-win scenario as I can see for both sides

I like this Idea the Nap in place.. yes you lose gold.. if you break it... My question is.. If team A and team B have a nap and Team A put up the gold... what happens if team B breaks it does Team A get the gold back cause they did not break the Nap.  

I think Team B had some valid points  I think Team A has valid points.... I think this war has caused much more damage to the game in general. 

Many on Team B are getting the same hated titles and perception of them that many in Team A have had for years.  

Right is right no one is perfect and this war has aired a lot of dirty laundry and the normal bad PR and spin that happens in GC is not working this time around.  

Oh and how do i know?? cause people talk to me... why cause i am not so stuck in tunnel vision and can admit that neither side is right and the egos and pride need to be put aside on both sides to make a compromise to end it.
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 21:00
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


This is precisely the same place the victors of the Consone war were in when they threatened the continued loss of cities until a surrender was made. in that sense, the victors in this war seem to be treating their opponents in just that same way (which may be a source of pride or shame depending on one's particular outlook and position).


Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


You are implying that H? was bluffing and would have unilaterally ceased to attack Consone members had they refused to surrender? that seems as unlikely as it is convenient.


It is not the same place at all.  In that war 1-2 cities (and in some rare cases 3) were razed from a player and then we moved on to another target - completely different to this war.

What would we have done if we'd have run out of new targets? I'm not sure but I'm pretty certain it would not have ended up like the current state.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 20:51
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:


Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

this is precisely the same place the victors of the Consone war were in when they threatened the continued loss of cities until a surrender was made. in that sense, the victors in this war seem to be treating their opponents in just that same way (which may be a source of pride or shame depending on one's particular outlook and position).


Not exactly ... unless you mean that words and actions are equal as "treatment" goes and so they can be compared ...
you are implying that H? was bluffing and would have unilaterally ceased to attack Consone members had they refused to surrender? that seems as unlikely as it is convenient.
Back to Top
BellusRex View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Location: Mountains
Status: Offline
Points: 156 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BellusRex Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 20:12
And, yet again....Clap
"War is the father of all things..."
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 19:21
Deranzin's responses remind me of this interesting news article

http://healthland.time.com/2014/03/04/nothing-not-even-hard-facts-can-make-anti-vaxxers-change-their-minds/

and

http://time.com/13297/vaccine-denial-can-kill/

Google "confirmation bias" for more information on why no amount of discussion is likely to change the positions some people take on certain issues.

Or as an alternative explanation, perhaps he does just like to argue.

Please note:  I am not suggesting that holding certain fixed beliefs in an online game is in any way as serious as the fixed beliefs held by some in the real-world that create effects in the real world.  What I AM suggesting is that fixed beliefs held about an online game may affect the way people play an online game.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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