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  <1 23456 10>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: 05 Mar 2014 at 20:59
Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:


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 think this a pretty clever idea. As I've said, I think the time to be punitive is during a war, with some exceptions that don't really figure in at this point. I also think some sort of agreement as to the amount of military sov that can be used is a possible alternative term in future conflicts, although it might be more of a pain to monitor than it's worth...
"War is the father of all things..."
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 19:39
Originally posted by Sir A Sir A wrote:

 
Originally posted by Sir A Sir A wrote:

Either way once you start taking enough damage your members will start to leave and only the leadership and your most loyal/stubborn members will remain.  Believe it or not, not everyone in your alliance wants to lose all of their cities because they can't admit defeat. 


Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:


Which, at this moment, seems to be all of us ... Wink

Well, believe it or nor Sir A what you say is false because everyone that wants out of the war, is indeed allowed to do so, by both sides. 


Well, Deranzin I am not going to argue with you about whether or not what I said is true or false but you will see what I mean in the next few weeks ;)  


What else can happen excluding that bold part, I wonder ... as for the "next few weeks", I think you missed the "at this moment" Tongue



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
Sir A View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 121 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sir A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:38
Originally posted by bansisdead bansisdead wrote:

Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:

This would mean that Team A is "punished"


One of the reasons for this war is related to previous wars reparations.   Surely it would be far better to break this cycle and stop trying to punish and take revenge, as it will just be an endless cycle of wars based on previous wars.  Maybe the only way to move forward is draw a line and move on, without punishment or vengeance.

Those are my thoughts exactly.  
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 (1) Thanks(1)   Quote bansisdead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:33
Originally posted by Caconafyx Caconafyx wrote:

This would mean that Team A is "punished"


One of the reasons for this war is related to previous wars reparations.   Surely it would be far better to break this cycle and stop trying to punish and take revenge, as it will just be an endless cycle of wars based on previous wars.  Maybe the only way to move forward is draw a line and move on, without punishment or vengeance.
Back to Top
John Louis View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 99 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Louis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:21
Thanks for your thoughts Caconafyx, at least you are being constructive with your posts.

Also, I cannot believe I forgot to include this song in my previous post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM
Back to Top
Caconafyx View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Location: Stamford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 87 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Caconafyx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 15:48
John Louis, 

I think it was a noble attempt to encourage players and alliances to speak openly about how to best go about reaching an acceptable conclusion to the war.

As is the problem with internet forums, they tend to get hijacked by people more interested in the sound of their own voice than adding anything meaningful to the discussion.

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
Back to Top
John Louis View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 99 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Louis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 15:13
OK, my request for a ceasefire seems to be falling on deaf ears.

I apologize if this is not the correct place for music, but, as the saying goes:

“Music is to the soul what exercise is to the body and reading is to the mind”.

Can I ask that when people read this post they also listen to the following music (sorry if it is not to everybody’s taste, but Bob at least should be universal!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFDn94oZJ0

(Ok, the Illy war is not about race but it is still think this is a good song which can inspire peace among all Illy peoples).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrBmHf5XUG0

(The funky leaf in this song is not the important thing here, just the lyrics…unless you wanna smoke da peace pipe with me – we may need to visit Amsterdam for this so as to avoid breaking any laws).

Finally, this last one may not be to everyone’s taste but I still think it is relevant, though the names of the protagonists may need to be imaginatively changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs

Those who have ears let them hear!
Back to Top
Sir A View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 121 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sir A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 13:59
 
Originally posted by Sir A Sir A wrote:

Either way once you start taking enough damage your members will start to leave and only the leadership and your most loyal/stubborn members will remain.  Believe it or not, not everyone in your alliance wants to lose all of their cities because they can't admit defeat. 


Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:


Which, at this moment, seems to be all of us ... Wink

Well, believe it or nor Sir A what you say is false because everyone that wants out of the war, is indeed allowed to do so, by both sides. 


Well, Deranzin I am not going to argue with you about whether or not what I said is true or false but you will see what I mean in the next few weeks ;)  
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 13:47
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

The fact that you believe that Consone's surrender indicated that Harmless? was in the right was indeed very telling, Deranzin.  That is a case of the victor attempting to write history.


Had you actually read my points you'd know that I simply claimed that the Coalition (and not H? alone) proved what the most efficient way to organize was ... who said about anything about being "in the right" and all that stuff you attribute to me .?. Tongue

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

It is also true that there is not really one dominant alliance in the mix -- rather, it is guided by the consent of the participating alliances.  This is very DIFFERENT than the Coalition, which is predicated on the ability and interests of Harmless?


H? for the Coalition, vCrow for this association ... if you want to pretend otherwise that is fine by me ... Smile

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Where you are correct is that unlike the Coalition, the intention of the partners on the other side of this war is NOT to create an ongoing cabal that will dominate the server.  While we hope to remain friendly with those who are fighting with us, we also stand ready to befriend those we are fighting against. 


 Clap

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


It's difficult to predict what the future political landscape of Elgea will be. 


It is actually quite easy ... if you think it is difficult then please apply that thought only on yourself.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

  Personally I hope for a future in which no one is top dog, but rather multiple strong alliances provide checks and balances for each other, preventing exploitation of the weak by any party both out of concern that it may generate opposition from other large alliances and out of desire to appear fair to smaller, non-aligned groups.


Oh really ... and who will coordinate all those "benevolent" people .?.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


You speak of the various motives of those involved on the other side as a weakness, but I see it as a strength, for those of us who don't want to go through another few years of domination by a single alliance or group of alliances (even if said alliances are us).


In the case of the bolded part, I wonder what they'll do about that ... LOL

As for motives, I didn't talk about their war motives, but only took an educated guess over their motives specifically on the matter on wanting to force a surrender ... and this, if you want a simpler wording, is because of their inherent weaknesses and not a weakness unto itself ...

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

  And there are many folks on the other side that I think are interesting and capable of making positive contributions to the game


So, as I said, you want them here as scarecrows ... "positive contributions" LOL ... like what .?. future target practice maybe .?.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


 Many alliances and players have already done this and expressed their desire to be part of Elgea's future.  I hope that others will joined them.


This sounds like our prime minister ... "the sacrifices of the Greek people shall not go to waste" ... are you stealing his speeches .?. ahahahaahah LOL



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
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: 05 Mar 2014 at 12:50
The fact that you believe that Consone's surrender indicated that Harmless? was in the right was indeed very telling, Deranzin.  That is a case of the victor attempting to write history.

It IS true that the folks now assembled against Harmless? are both less idealistic and more militarily capable.  It is also true that there is not really one dominant alliance in the mix -- rather, it is guided by the consent of the participating alliances.  This is very DIFFERENT than the Coalition, which is predicated on the ability and interests of Harmless?

Where you are correct is that unlike the Coalition, the intention of the partners on the other side of this war is NOT to create an ongoing cabal that will dominate the server.  While we hope to remain friendly with those who are fighting with us, we also stand ready to befriend those we are fighting against.  

It's difficult to predict what the future political landscape of Elgea will be.  Up until now Elgean politics has been predicated on the idea that someone has to be top dog, and that someone might as well be Harmless?  Personally I hope for a future in which no one is top dog, but rather multiple strong alliances provide checks and balances for each other, preventing exploitation of the weak by any party both out of concern that it may generate opposition from other large alliances and out of desire to appear fair to smaller, non-aligned groups.

You speak of the various motives of those involved on the other side as a weakness, but I see it as a strength, for those of us who don't want to go through another few years of domination by a single alliance or group of alliances (even if said alliances are us).

As for why I personally would like to see folks surrender at some point, it is because I believe those who surrender and rebuild are more likely to stay in the game long term than those who fight to the last city for a dying cause.  And there are many folks on the other side that I think are interesting and capable of making positive contributions to the game -- if they are able to come to terms with the reality that there is now a different political landscape in Elgea than the one they created and perhaps preferred.  Many alliances and players have already done this and expressed their desire to be part of Elgea's future.  I hope that others will joined them.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 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.