Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Chasing war runners the WRONG way
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Chasing war runners the WRONG way
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dessembrae View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 21 Sep 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 61 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dessembrae Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Chasing war runners the WRONG way
    Posted: 15 Sep 2018 at 06:49
I hate repeating myself but it seems I ll have to....
blah blah blah
AKA Agalloch The Rude
Back to Top
digiosox View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 11 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote digiosox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2018 at 20:38
Originally posted by scottfitz scottfitz wrote:

We are not adopting SIN's policy, we are holding their former members to the policy they imposed against us.


The purpose of SIN's pursuit policy was to deal with people start hostilities then run away once things got rough only to continue the conflict at a more advantageous time.

That is the question you face. If you believe the people you intend to pursue are simply biding their time to attack you again, then by all means you should act to achieve your goals -- presumably to prevent their attack.

So I will let you in on a (not) secret. As an alliance SIN has reached its conclusion. The main reason SIN stopped fighting mCrow is because nobody really cared enough to continue. No real hatreds. No scores to settle. No techniques to try. Eventually SIN looked around the room, sighed, and said "screw it, why bother". This lead to more introspection and alliance leadership abdicated out of apathy. Nobody else wanted to take the reigns and poof! the alliance ended.

So right now is a decision point for you. Nobody in SIN really cared enough to continue the fight so you are not under threat. Nobody is waiting for a good time to strike (otherwise they would not have stopped in the first place).

You have your olive branch in hand; will you keep it or burn it?
Back to Top
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gragnog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2018 at 18:43
So from this comment I take it your alliance will keep japping at Josh's heels then? If thats the case then I guess we will have to keep doing what we am doing then. We have reached out to Laga to end this but if you persist in this dead-end behavior we will be more than willing to continue. Its what we do. The olive branch has been extended to your alliance numerous times yet each time you guys just use it to fuel the fire. The ball is in your court. You can either end it or keep having incoming at your Newlands cities and watch your Elgean cities burn.

You say you want peace but then also know that until you end your hostilities we will not either. There is no way you guys can even dream of following SIN policy effectively unless we all go inactive, so why not just accept the peace and get on with your peaceful ways?

I for one will cease all hostilities against your alliance as soon as you guys want actual peace. Like Fiona, I have been at war for 4 years now and actually might enjoy the crafting and gathering aspect of the game for a change.
Kaggen is my human half
Back to Top
scottfitz View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote scottfitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2018 at 17:24
To be like SIN, we would have to attack otherwise peaceful alliances, we are not now nor will ever be that sort of alliance. Any issue we have is with specific individuals who have attacked us without warrant. We are not adopting SIN's policy, we are holding their former members to the policy they imposed against us.
Back to Top
digiosox View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 11 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote digiosox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2018 at 13:57

On the Pursuit Policy from Laga's post "This exactly mirrors SIN's own policy."

That is the part I find confusing -- on one hand Laga and friends complain about how terrible SIN is to have this policy. On the other they carry it out themselves.

If this becomes your policy, how does that make mCrow any different from the warmongering SIN alliance? SIN murderers babies so we are going to murder babies in retaliation until they individually surrender. It is baffling behavior.

However, if you intend to take SINs place in Illy as the warmongering types, then this totally makes sense. If you intend to be "peaceful" what benefit do you get by pursuing the exact same warmonger policy of an alliance with goals you reject?

It would make more sense to me to serve as an example of the ideals you claim to represent...
Back to Top
Lumelthien View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 38 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Lumelthien Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2018 at 16:32
I should add that I don't believe that the "effectiveness" of this policy should be measured by whether or not war-running is eliminated or even reduced.

I believe, rather, that the true goal of this policy was to project intimidation and ruthlesness and power. This in turn had a certain strategic value, and the various debates that arose about this policy became a useful and unintended means of propaganda: the projection was perpetuated and impacted the player base.




Edited by Lumelthien - 11 Sep 2018 at 16:32
Back to Top
Lumelthien View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 38 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lumelthien Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2018 at 16:19
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

the better argument would be whether or not this policy of chasing war runners is achieving its goals. if it's happening in every conflict in spite of years of standard practice, one might question its effectiveness as a deterrent...and one might conclude that it has been motivated by spite for most of its existence as a policy.


Not necessarily.

Policies like this one may not be sufficient to eliminate all instances of war-running, but yet they may still reduce those instances to a degree deemed acceptable by the policy enacters.

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: 10 Sep 2018 at 22:31
it really does seem like this thread should be entitled Chasing war runners the OTHER way. it feels like the "illy doesn't have enough players to..." argument has been used in every conflict, and it's never had any traction with anyone doing anything they'd already decided to do.

illy has been in decline since...2012? the idea that any action Lagavulin might take at this late date should be blamed for negatively affecting the player base in a significant way seems difficult to sustain. the better argument would be whether or not this policy of chasing war runners is achieving its goals. if it's happening in every conflict in spite of years of standard practice, one might question its effectiveness as a deterrent...and one might conclude that it has been motivated by spite for most of its existence as a policy.
Back to Top
Dessembrae View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 21 Sep 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 61 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Dessembrae Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2018 at 05:33
Blah blah blah 
AKA Agalloch The Rude
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 937 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2018 at 20:03
Originally posted by Lumelthien Lumelthien wrote:

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Seems pretty hypocritical to complain about this when QB was involved with threatening Ascn players with sieges just because Ascn were doing so well in the tournament.


No, it's difficult to make that charge stick.

Chasing players down after a war has ended and peace was declared =/= threatening players for their actions before and during and after a tournament.

If QB thinks the first one is low and wrong, but that the second was justified, then she is not being hypocritcal.

You can disagree with her reasoning, but she's not necessarily being a hypocrite.

There are not enough players, full alliances, active wars, or activity to justify this old strategy as Laga is using it
^^ From QB's post.

So, according to her, when her guys get attacked, there aren't enough players etc in the game to justify it so it should be stopped.

But this ignores the fact that just a few months ago, she thought there were just plenty of players when threatening to siege Ascn players because they did well in a tournament?

That seems hypocritical to me...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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