An Open letter to H? rank and file

Thank you for the well thought out post. (And for speaking on behalf of Chocolate!)

The only problem I see with your suggestion is that it appears that H? is not willing to do anything that involves a surrender (H? please correct me if I am wrong.) And it also appears that the DTCNBVVE-Alliance is not willing to do anything that does *not* involve a surrender (DTCNBVVE please correct me if I am wrong.)

I am afraid that no amount of negotiation could reconcile that difference.

If it is just an issue of H? not being able to afford terms, I would be more than willing to help with gold. (As a gift, not a loan)

IMO, the best possible path to peace is Hora's option 3. The DTCNBVVE could say "These are our terms if you agree to them and *these* are our terms if you don't agree." Perhaps a sliding scale could be built into the "don't agree" option so that any additional attacks from H? will incrementally raise the conditions.

This could give DTCNBVVE the definitive victory a surrender would bring, while H? does not need to agree to surrender terms, and there would be a definite point at which the war would end regardless of how it was reached.

~Vanerin

dantem wrote: I would say mistakes have been made on both sides and now there is not going to be an end to this war till H? is destroyed, which I think is sad.

This is where I blatantly disagree with what has been going around in the forums and in GC.  This is the black/white mentality that has been thrown around lately; whitewashed with words such as honor, noble, righteous, just, etc.  People have fallen into believing that either H? surrenders, or they are wiped out.  In reality, there are other options.  Options of declaring the limit of the destruction that will ensue (e.g. they will continue until each leader's accounts have been dropped by 20% of their total population at the start of the war...or something else along those lines).  Options that Hath and the GA have not bothered to present. 

With the ridiculous ultimatum in mind, H? is stuck between holding onto their dignity and pride as a truly great alliance (and there are few in here that would/could argue - even in spite of their shortcomings - against H? stature among the great alliances), or fighting for their lives against the mob that has formed who, by name alone, call themselves "The Grand Alliance."  A truly grand alliance (e.g. how Harmless has dealt with enemies in past wars) would never advocate such an ultimatum!  I have been friendly with Hath in the past and I wish him no ill, but if I still had my cities and troops, I would die alongside Harmless with such an ultimatum on the table. 

Now, the only person who can truly do anything about this situation is Hath and the GA.  Can they prove how grand they truly are.  A grandness that establishes limits and doesn't seek the utter annihilation of other players?  I would expect nothing less from a truly Grand Alliance.

After the US civil war, the US wanted reparations from the UK government for allowing confederate raiders and privateer ships to be built in the UK, most famously the CSS Alabama.

Initially the UK denied any involvement, knoweledge or responsabillity and it seemed that the US's claim and the UK's denial was "more of the same" in international relations at the time. But by then there had been a couple of cases of international cooperation and mediation in other parts of the world.

Thus it was agrred upon by the UK and US that a neutral comission be set up and hear the evidence and come with a verdict, including damages. Both parties agreed in advance to abide by the commissions ruling.

This commission was also the start of the first official and international maritime law.

The commission ruled in favour of the US, but reduced the amount of damages the UK should pay. The UK and US abided by the ruling, and their relations became better and closer instead of more strained.

It was one of the first examples of "great powers" settling their disputes based on international commisions and rulings, instead of via force or the threat of force, or just scaling up hostilities or "cold war" activities.

Something similar could be applied in this situation:
The disputing parties each appoint two non-alliance/allied persons to participate in a settlement hearing, and both parties aggree on a "chairman" who can only cast a vote in case of a tie.

The commission gets a deadline for comming with a resolution, and the commission sets its own deadline for recieving evidence, and both the disputing parties aggrees publicly to adhere to the commissions findings in advance.

Not only would this be able to stop hostilities immediately, it would allow everyone to be heard, it would allow for bad blood to be aired and hopefully to be resolved (Like Mandelas truth and reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid).

And just as importantly (in my opinion) it would set the precedence for a way to solve military conflicts that are spinning out of control, and, just like with the Alabama case mentioned previously, it could be the beginning of international law in Illyriad - a first in any mmo I believe.

Don't think of what you might loose, think of what you might be able to help create in this process.

This idea is no where near perfect, and it can be modified, so please troubleshoot it if you find problems, but don't say that there isn't something to be gained by it, not just for you, but for all of Illyriad.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc

Furthermore; even though the current system in the real world has loopholes and can be misused, it is far, far better than what existed before, where the greater powers dictated to the smaller, where you had no recourse but to cling your self to a great power and hope to get something out of it in return, whereas today you are more or less sure to get something out of it. 

And even though smaller powers are still dictated to, it is not in the same fashion, nor with the same aggression as before the international community was established.

Is the system perfect? no. Is it better than what existed previously? yes. Is there room for improvement and reform? yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be abandoned, just that it should be improved.

To answer your question in full - yes I would like some standards put into Illyriad - they are already here, they are unwritten, they are informal and they often contradict each other and are not always applied, and if broken, ppl have no recourse but to say "hey, unfair" and hope a great power listens and wants to act on it - like in the real worl, before international law and standardization. If they were put into system with rules of engagement, rules of arbitration and then they would apply to all.

But this is taking it a step to far from my current proposal, which, if used, could be a steppingstone to international law in Illyriad, but the purpose of which is not that, but to resolve the current conflict.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc

This wouldn't be to hard to set up and wouldn't need to be permanent could form or close as needed, And make up wouldn't even need to be the same each time it was needed ( if needed after this conflict ........) 

the simplest make to me would be ask leaders or officer's from the top 20 or 25 Alliance's to join who haven't been involved in the war to hear about side's and then come to an decision based term's for both side's. 

This would only work though if both sides want the war to end.