[DIGG] Alliance
The Embassy => Valar => Topic started by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 11:42:30 AM
Title: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 11:42:30 AM
Hallo again Harmless,
At 01.23 this morning 01.05.12 Malpherion sieged Horratan's Sewer 3.
(Dunedain has already written to Malpherion)
Horratan became suspended approximately 3 or 4 days ago, he was active immediately prior to that.
I understand that Sewer 3 is close to Malpherion but there doesn't seem to have been any trouble about that that I am aware of.
If I have understood H?'s position on suspended players who are in alliances correctly then at the very least I would have expected an inquiry to have been made of us before action was undertaken.
VALAR views the city as ours until we choose to dispose of it.
I will authorise clearing of the siege as this is a clear cut case of jumping the gun by Malpherion.
Should Malpherion want to discuss the options in respect of the city I would be grateful if he would recall his army immediately and open a dialogue.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: HonoredMule on May 01, 2012, 02:24:11 PM
This is apparently not an attempt to capture the city (Malpherion already has 10) but to remove it. Horratan and Malpherion have had considerable disputes in the past which were apparently never brought before our respective leaderships. As I understand it, we have no interest in disputing your claim to any of the cities but this one is an issue of proximity being rectified. Placing a city only 3.16 squares away is beyond unacceptable even when there isn't a pattern of hostility and personal conflict.
I apologize for this action having been taken without consultation. In that regard we have handled this poorly. If you attempt to remove the siege, however, you risk substantially escalating the situation.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
As far as I can see from illytools - Undercity was founded 287 days ago at which point New Sewer and Sewer 1 had already been there for nearly 200 and 100 days respectively. Horratan then placed Sewer 3 277 days ago presumably in an attempt to hold territory against Undercity. You may well be right that placing it that close was wrong... but that was 277 days ago - relying on it now is a reaction which is slow even by VALAR's recent standards!
Arguing the rights and wrongs of the placement and goodness knows how many skirmishes since is plainly hopeless this long after and with one party absent.
But - assuming there has been a festering issue which neither party has told it's leaders about it was plainly inadvisable for Malpherion to act militarily once Horratan became suspended and he ceased to have an interest in his cities but rather the residual interest is by convention that of the alliance - thus escalating a personal conflict to an alliance one.
I am happy to propose a solution which I think I would have sought had a diplomatic resolution been sought: Malpherion can raze that city Sewer 3 (only) but pay a reasonable price for it - say 1.5million gold - reflecting 1500 pop.
There are siege relief forces incoming - the last one at about 10.00 server time tomorrow - so Malpherion may wish to temporarily pull his forces back - nothing more will be sent on the assumption that we can reach an agreement.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Llawn Dart on May 01, 2012, 08:01:48 PM
Quote from: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
As far as I can see from illytools - Undercity was founded 287 days ago at which point New Sewer and Sewer 1 had already been there for nearly 200 and 100 days respectively. Horratan then placed Sewer 3 277 days ago presumably in an attempt to hold territory against Undercity. You may well be right that placing it that close was wrong... but that was 277 days ago - relying on it now is a reaction which is slow even by VALAR's recent standards!
Arguing the rights and wrongs of the placement and goodness knows how many skirmishes since is plainly hopeless this long after and with one party absent.
But - assuming there has been a festering issue which neither party has told it's leaders about it was plainly inadvisable for Malpherion to act militarily once Horratan became suspended and he ceased to have an interest in his cities but rather the residual interest is by convention that of the alliance - thus escalating a personal conflict to an alliance one.
I am happy to propose a solution which I think I would have sought had a diplomatic resolution been sought: Malpherion can raze that city Sewer 3 (only) but pay a reasonable price for it - say 1.5million gold - reflecting 1500 pop.
There are siege relief forces incoming - the last one at about 10.00 server time tomorrow - so Malpherion may wish to temporarily pull his forces back - nothing more will be sent on the assumption that we can reach an agreement.
Taelin,
all due respect requesting the aggrieved party to pay compensation to an alliance for being on the receiving end of inappropriate behavior by a now suspended and departed player is absurd.
Settling absurdly close to another player is by rational judegment provocative and confrontational. Mal was within rights to remove the offending city well before the player was suspended. And wouldve had our backing had he wished to do so. Instead he has waited for the players departure before acting.
Taking affront at a suspended players cities removal considering its location is ridiculous. To request compensation even more so. Mal's one fault was to not inform leadership parties beforehand. For this we have and will do so again, apologise on his behalf. We have half a mind to request a likewise apology on your behalf as it appears we are not the only ones guilty of acting prior to dialogue?
Regards to this (your ordering the siege's removal) we will be attempting to contact Mal in time for a withdrawal. Otherwise we will be the ones requesting compensation.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Llawn Dart on May 02, 2012, 09:57:51 PM
Taelin,
following your guidance of seeking compensation for damages and based upon your lead of diplomacy prior to action we are requesting the following:
Quote
Compensation
Sent By: Malpherion [H?]
Received By: You
Date: 5/2/2012 2:25:00 PM
Hi Starry,
Ive done some calculations based on the troops I lost from the 2 attacks on my seige from Taelin and Dunedain.
Total losses were: 4500 T2 Cavalry and 1000 T2 Archers
Material costs alone were approx 28.8 million (29 million)
Let alone build time compensation??
Thanks
Malph
I look forward to your response concerning valuation of additional build time and an acceptable overall figure.
Llyorn.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 08:21:44 PM
Dear Llyorn,
Thank you for bringing your further reply to my attention;
surely you are having a giraffe?
Yours cordially as ever,
Taelin
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Llawn Dart on May 04, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 08:21:44 PM
Dear Llyorn,
Thank you for bringing your further reply to my attention;
surely you are having a giraffe?
Yours cordially as ever,
Taelin
Sadly not.
Mal wishes compensation and is supported by management.
To recap: A city was provocatively built within an irrational distance. Mal waited upon the players suspension before removing. You blindly attack causing substantial damage.
Personally I though your claim for compensation at removal of a suspended players city, located inappropriately, was much funnier.
We await a reasonable figure for compensation.
Cheers.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
Dear Llyorn,
You refer to Malpherion as the aggrieved player: as set out above, the act of aggravation, if it was such, was the settlement of a city 'inappropriately close' the best part of a year ago, further the cities were settled within 10 days of each other, had either player engaged in meaningful dialogue and/or contacted their leaders it might have been possible to resolve the matter before the cities were invested in. There comes a point when making no complaint about a state of affairs amounts to acquiescence. Plainly in this case that point had been reached many times over.
You have already accepted that there was a failure by Malpherion to consult before acting, that is the root of the present as opposed to historical difficulties.
The reality is that your player has laid siege to the city of another alliance - with whom it is well known that there have at times been difficult relations - without consulting anyone,
I pause here to quote HM's recent remarks on the matter in the thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/suspended-players_topic3259_page1.html
Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 09:12
"A week isn't much time in this game. Someone planning to siege a suspended city may not even be able to get their siege engine there in that much time. I think a month is safer.
...or you could just ask an alliance representative."
There is no way that you can properly describe Malpherion as the aggrieved player, he has undertaken an irresponsible and inflammatory action.
VALAR reacted by opening a dialogue with you here and we then told you that forces were dispatched to clear the siege giving Malpherion the option to temporarily pull back his siege - an act which would have delayed achieving his objective by a very short time given the proximity of the cities - further I made it clear that there would not be further forces sent on the assumption that we could work something out - in the event our forces were a pin-prick to forces Malpherion had elected to deploy - of the order of 75k or so - which to my mind is clear evidence that he knew that what he was doing was likely to be highly contentious.
It was not unreasonable for us to take very limited action to deter hostile action against an alliance city - what would H? do in the event of a siege by VALAR against a member of H? who was suspended for a matter of days?
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Llawn Dart on May 04, 2012, 10:33:31 PM
I see we have a fair way to go.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
There comes a point when making no complaint about a state of affairs amounts to acquiescence. Plainly in this case that point had been reached many times over.
That Mal waited upon the players suspension before removal is a reflection of his patience and maturity. This in no way assuages the original infraction and Mal's right to remove the city. That he chose to do so after the players departure is a credit to him not a justification or acceptance of your players actions.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
You have already accepted that there was a failure by Malpherion to consult before acting, that is the root of the present as opposed to historical difficulties.
The 'root of the present .....difficulties' lies, in your words, of a 'failure .....to consult before acting'. Setting rules does not exclude you from accountability. In fact, the opposite. Im quite perplexed that you call foul then repeat the exact same 'offense'.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
The reality is that your player has laid siege to the city of another alliance - with whom it is well known that there have at times been difficult relations - without consulting anyone,
The reality is your player transgressed against ours and we do not accept a statue of limitations on this action.
Awaiting his suspension was, on our part, a courtesy.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
I pause here to quote HM's recent remarks on the matter in the thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/suspended-players_topic3259_page1.html
Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 09:12
"A week isn't much time in this game. Someone planning to siege a suspended city may not even be able to get their siege engine there in that much time. I think a month is safer.
...or you could just ask an alliance representative."
Completely used out of context. The above is referring to claiming an abandoned city. Not a responsive action to remove a settlement deliberately and provocatively placed inappropriately close.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
VALAR reacted by opening a dialogue with you here
Kidding? To inform us troops we enroute? And you're pissy with Mal not 'opening up a dialogue'. Mate, you need to check out the definition of hypocrisy.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
which to my mind is clear evidence that he knew that what he was doing was likely to be highly contentious.
And thats the problem here. You're under the misunderstanding its your call on whether he was aggrieved. You can have your own opinion on things, but not your own facts. Mal is factually the aggrieved party and its his call whether to feel so inclined. It's not your call to say 'get over it, it was a year ago'. If he wants to remove that city. Its his right.Calling for dialogue whilst sending troops is hypocritical, requesting compensation from the factually aggrieved, opportunistic.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
It was not unreasonable for us to take very limited action to deter hostile action against an alliance city - what would H? do in the event of a siege by VALAR against a member of H? who was suspended for a matter of days?
You have my word if a Harmless player without dialogue settles ridiculously close to another player, then gets suspended, you can proceed to remove that city at whim.
Harmless requests compensation for costs and build time on behalf of Malpherion. I hope in the above light our reasonable request is honored and an offer is made.
Sincerely
Llyorn.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: HonoredMule on May 04, 2012, 10:49:48 PM
A dialogue that takes place alongside pre-emptive actions taken well before any agreement could be met is hardly a negotiation in good faith. You should be thankful that a little gold is all we're asking, when our normal approach is to ensure the aggressor experiences an equal or greater sense of loss.
And you stretch our fault too far. Nowhere did we imply that Malpherion failed to make his displeasure clear to the person who actually settled inappropriately. Furthermore, the timing of his actions do not diminish the importance of the offense against him, but rather a depth of respect for Valar as an alliance that far exceeds our relative strengths.
This could have been the conclusion of and issue affecting a single and now dead account, but Valar values empty husks so much it has bared the neck of accounts yet thriving. How, with so many abandoned cities at your disposal, can you stake so much over so little? Perhaps we shall take a page from your book and extract our own price--beyond guaranteeing destruction of the offending city--while still debating costs and values.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: Taelin on May 06, 2012, 07:56:15 PM
It appears we disagree significantly. I have to say that I was not making any claim that Malpherion did not feel aggrieved, anyone can feel aggrieved but was rather making my comment on whether I thought he was objectively entitled to be treated as aggrieved.
Llyorn is quite wrong to refer to 'our' player transgressing against 'yours': as I keep having to point out the original 'offending act' (if it was offending and in the absence of Horratan to give his version we can only ever reach a one-sided view about that) was 282 days ago - that is about 6 months before Malpherion was ever in Harmless? - he was in Invictus an alliance with whom VALAR enjoyed good relations and there are no complaints then or now from them on Malpherion's behalf.
However, we wish to bring matters to a conclusion and in the interests of maintaining relations with Harmless? we will withdraw our request for compensation for the loss of the city - recently fallen - Dunedain and I will bear our own losses, incurred in our view while acting in proper defense of Alliance property.
We have no intention of paying compensation to Malpherion for all the reasons I have set out.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3
Post by: HonoredMule on May 07, 2012, 01:37:50 PM
You are correct in one thing: Malpherion took no military action when the city was first settled. This is because when he complained to his own leadership in Invictus, they not only did nothing but instructed him to do nothing as well.
It is by protecting fragile diplomatic ties rather than the fair treatment of its own members that Invictus loses players like Malpherion to alliances like Harmless, and you may rest assured we will not be making the same mistake.
This is our final summary and response:
We assert that Malpherion had every right to remove that city at any time, and that any interference was unjustified as well as premature. Regardless of any misunderstanding at the time (which could have been easily rectified without bloodshed), he was attacked without any true provocation and deserves compensation for his losses.
Unless you wish to change Valar's stance no further response will be required from you. Malpherion, backed by Harmless to whatever degree may be necessary, shall be taking his compensation by force plus punitive damages. Hostilities against the aggressors and any who support them shall cease when Harmless is satisfied that Valar and any witnesses fully understand the folly of expecting to walk away from an attack on Harmless without consequence.
Tweet
H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?
Topic Options
HonoredMule wrote: