An Open letter to H? rank and file

Aurordan wrote: These are, in all honestly, pretty sweet terms.

"Pretty sweet terms" and "all honesty" as phrases are contradicting each other ... try "pretty sweet bait" and you might have a more believable sentence.

Nevertheless noone is biting.

Spheniscidae wrote: The whatever-you-want-to-call-us Alliance has requested for what amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist as a condition to end this war. If the leaders of H? want to rant on about dignity, evil and other metaphysical concerns, that is their choice but the blood of your fellow alliance members is on YOUR head.  Why these terms? Because we feel the leaders of H? who dragged them into this war and even now want to keep the war alive should show some solidarity with their members and former allies who have lost cities.  If you want to see how H? decides terms - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/just-the-facts-maam_topic4901_page9.html - KP shows that their "bruised ego" is what they use to decide how many cities should be lost as part of surrender terms.  Man up, H? leadership - and stop throwing your friends and allies in front of the bus to save your skin. On a side note - since we are rehashing the "driving people from the game" thing - where is Kurdruk? Cpt. Ganoes Paran? Jasche?

You go on sprouting offensive stuff like that which is only in the sphere of your imagination (unless you can cite even one H? member that is being "dragged into this war" or "thrown in front of the bus"  and for once PROVE your allegations, just for a change) and then you wonder why noone takes your "pretty sweet terms" seriously .?.

I do remember fondly the kind of rubbish your side sprouted in GC when I lost 8.9 out of my 10 cities that supposedly I was not moving my cities because I was a sat account (when your side knew I was spending prestige and till now noone can sit forum accounts ) and therefore you could destroy me and you would be doing the game a favor (those who remember Twilights GC campaign at the time about perma-sat accounts understand what I mean ) . When that ploy failed (I moved a city just for laughs ) , some people from your side started blabbering that H? left me alone, abandoned me and other such "nice" things, just to create an impression or "we didn't destroy him, their alliance abandoned him so no problem with taking everything he has, right ?!". Well, it was wrong and I made sure that I answered every GC stunt like that till you realized the amount of bad PR it was generating.

The funny thing is that all this nonsense-storm was not being performed by the ones doing the actual demolishing ... they had the warrior's dignity - and I totally respect them for that - to do what they believed was correct and not try to find silly PR excuses afterwards. On the other side, some people acting as cheerleaders (just a sideshow with no actual participation to the crux of the matter) where quite vocal and happy about the situation and got the respect they deserved, which is none at all.

Bottomline is :
Caw as much as you like, but this topic reeks of your desperation for some positive PR ... we didn't make it, YOU DID. You called H? members to reply and when noone "bit" on the bait you still ignore everything we said and sprout the same unfounded non-sense about "throwing people in front of buses" as if to convince yourselves.

Even if you ask a chocolate cake for our "surrender terms" in order to make them "pretty sweet", we will not agree to give it to you. And the "sweeter" you try to make the "deal" the more obvious it becomes to the neutral onlookers that it is a trap.

Noone in their right minds signs "pretty sweet terms" in RL without ever thinking that "hey this might be a hoax". And in this case, noone would really use the word "might" in that sentence, even for a second ...

EDIT:
Oh and something else. Since you asked "where is Jasche, here is the answer :

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/farewell-illyriad_topic4692.html

Thank God for people writting their own farewell threads explaining why they left the game ... this way other people cannot exploit their leaving and tossing around their nickname at their convenience like you did.


Edited by Deranzin - 29 Jun 2014 at 08:47

Speaking as someone who was forced out of the war due to RL issues and as such am not an active H? member I will still voice my opinion.

If the so called Grand Alliance leaders (or should I say Hath at this stage) were really so willing to make peace and move on they would have done the same what Soon, Shade, and Dark have done. By showing they still want blood and blood money from an already crushed and severly depleted enemy shows they really want revenge and cannot rise above their past.

Their actions now are nothing more than a bully taking everything away from someone knowing that others will not say much against them out of fear of retribution. The voices of reason have been drowned out and have been replaced by the voices of vengence and revenge.

I say to you get over it, be humble in your victory, save what dignity your alliances have left (Reading the alliance page proclaiming to support peace is a total contradiction to what is going on), and try rebuild the bridges that have been so severly burned.

Gragnog

He hacked a Harmless account and made you do it, did he?  Take some responsibility for your actions.  

Aurordan wrote: Well, it's comforting to see that even in these trying times, H? arrogance remains as strong as ever.  The more things change.   It seems that a lot of you are quick to forget that it was Harmless that acted the aggressor by declaring on Eagles Eyrie.  If you've forgotten why you're at war, that was what started it.   These are, in all honestly, pretty sweet terms.  If H? doesn't want to surrender, that's there prerogative, but there's no legs to the argument that anyone is being held at war against their will.

This is just more spin/rubbish. 

Hath was the self-confirmed instigator of a war for revenge which started with EE attacking TVM.

After Playing for 3 over years, this is my first time posting - so go easy on me for being long 'cause I don’t plan on posting again.  And of course this is all my personal opinion and not an H? negotiating stance.  I clearly have no political history and do not participate in forums or GC.

This thread, like so many shows a complete lack of understanding of H? members  Since it was an open letter to H?  here is an H? member response.  

DeliciousJosh - and I assume you are also HumanResources who sent IGMs to all of our members.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are intervening because you want to see peace.  Hopefully this will help you to understand how we see things - this is not personally or solely to you as there are many others who presume to say what H? Should or should not do and what is "fair", or otherwise criticizing H? members for being crazy or masochistic, etc.

1. A peace offer is only as good as the integrity of those on both sides.  It must be based in trust that the terms will in fact be honored and it serves the interests of all parties.  This is both why it made sense to agree to terms when offered by H? and not when being offered currently.  Now many are going to say "What? how can he say that?  they are all just doing the same thing? fighting a war!?" 

Is H? more honorable? really?

Unfortunately it is not the same thing at all.  H? has been actively strong first diplomatically and has engaged in a principled way and honored agreements.  During the Prior war (C-war) H? was meticulous in applying aggression.  There were no attacks on players that were not actively involved in the war - e.g. through direct attacks on our troops.  As a rule, no more than 2 cities were taken from any player though there may have been an odd exception here or there.  Even in the current war, we have had enemy cities on our borders who were non-combatants and a few months into the war I sent some diplos to probe defenses.  Can you believe that some had absolutely no defenses to speak of at all?  The truth is that they knew that H? would act in honor and not attack a city that was essentially pacifist just because it belonged to an enemy alliance.  What we have seen in the current war from the aggressors - whatever they want to be known as - is completely different.  They have sieged entire player accounts out of existence.  In our reference of principles this is about the worst thing that could be done and displays a total lack of compassion, balance, restraint and honor.

These are completely different ways of making war.  The community at large can and does judge on the basis of what they see.  Actions speak the loudest (though I will include words this once).

2.  H? Leadership is not the issue.  It is implied that H? Leadership is the cause for continued conflict because they are too stubborn to agree to these really great terms!  I won’t speak of what transpires within the discussions within H? but anyone who thinks that H? leadership is keeping the rank and file from a peace that they all long for clearly does not understand what H? stands for.  If this were in fact the issue, there might be people posting here or in our alliance forums saying, wow! Generous deal!  I will just say that is not going to happen.  Nobody in H? thinks that our leaders have our blood on their hands.  (we know clearly who did that). That is just nonsense and trying to shift blame for wiping out accounts to the victims rather than those who chose that course of action.

3.  Let’s talk about wiping out accounts.  To us this is the ultimate "naughtiness" (I was thinking of a 4 letter word beginning with EV-- that got Starry censored). We have always lived and fought based on resisting this principle.  This has to be resisted at all costs.  We will not condone or justify this behavior in any manner.  Real Peace - not just words - will not come as long as this naughtiness is still rampant.  Spheniscidae compared this with "Driving" certain foes from the previous war from the game... really? I don’t know them personally but at the time they decided to leave the game they certainly had many cities still living - my guess would be probably 8 more than those who suffered the naughtiness of the current aggression (who had zero).

4.  This war has to end in a surrender/peace agreement because the last one did.  Actually it is never going to end in a surrender/peace agreement.  The reason is not because of stubbornness or personal hatred.  It is that H? has its core purpose in resisting the naughtiness of wanton power and annihilation.  It is beyond the point where agreements of words can be trusted - even assuming that the intent is to keep them for a meaningful period of time.  Agreements will not happen without trust.  For me and I would suspect a lot of other members, trust will not be won without apologies for wiping out accounts and pledges not to repeat those actions again, but primarily not without actions that back up the intent of peace.  It has already been demonstrated that there is another path to peace - it is called walking away from hostilities.  Some of our enemies have done that.  Some on our enemy’s side would have people to believe that H? not agreeing to a meaningless peace agreement is the same as asking to have all of our accounts annihilated.  That actually says more about the aggressors than it does about H? Refusal of peace agreements does not necessitate destroying all cities and accounts in H? - regardless of whether that is feasible/possible.  The decision to raze all H? players and cities is not H? decision to reject an agreement, it is the actions of continuing aggression from the alliance.  The fact that they are asking for terms that are so "reasonable" "fair" and insignificant just goes to show that the "crime" of destroying so many cities is seen as a just reward for not accepting "fair" terms or a direct consequence of being "stubborn"! 

5.  "It's just a game" - actually it is not, at least not in the traditional sense.  there is no real objective, score, defined rules of conduct or agreed state of winning.  It is an open ended simulation.  Everyone plays as they want to play and that is one of the things that has always made Illy great.  There were so many ways to play and interact with others.  There were good game mechanics, good alliances and opportunities for competition and cooperation.  Illy has been a place that was friendly towards new players and one in which you did not have to sleep with one eye open.  It was not a world dominated by a mob, but actually ran according to widely (but not universally agreed) norms of behavior.  Killing off complete accounts is just the sort of misbehavior that H? reacted against in so many other places and avoiding that in a more nuanced and balanced political and diplomatic environment was something that made the game rich.  That is something that has largely disappeared not only for H? but increasingly will be felt by other alliances.  I fear that Illy is passing into a dark time where despots will do as they see fit and might makes right and smaller folk will have to tread lightly.  What people mean when they say "It's just a game" is that they will play however they want and don’t care of consequences they bring upon others.  That is their right, but it is the sort of attitude that H? has been dedicated to resisting at least for the 3 years I have been involved.

How about just ceasing hostilities/attacks and agreeing to disagree. We clearly have entirely different principles we brought to this simulation.  We are playing it the way we see fit not because we are spiteful losers, stubborn-headed, or just crazy.  Many of us continue to play and even to pay our RL money in this game why? - just so that we can intentionally lose all we have invested in?  really?  I think not, but we will be true to our principles to the end.  We resist the naughty actions - none so naughty as razing all the cities of a person's account - we may or may not find the means to overcome and prevail but we will not condone the actions that have taken place and whether we live or die we fight for the right and in what remains of the war we will stand as we have and shine a light to expose naughty actions and intent that should not have a place in what used to be the civil society of Illy. 

So the choice really belongs to the aggressor alliance.  It is your actions, your razings, your persecution of players to the point of extinction that have marked you to date and that will continue to mark you if you continue on this course.  In the court of public opinion, we have taken our stand on principle.  What is your stand?  It is the all glorious alliance who are on trial here, not H? or H?'s leaders.  The ball is in your court.  You have the power, you make the decisions. What is your principle and the character that you bring to this new defacto position of leading Illy?  We are all waiting to see.  This is so not about a forum post, escrow account and a handful of cities.