H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?

News Flash, H?:  People are not saying you're wrong because you're the big kahuna.  We're saying you're wrong because you're ... well ... wrong.

You were laying siege to a city of a player in their alliance.  They first contacted you, then took steps to remove the siege.  They did not whine, kvetch or attack you.  They sought resolution through diplomatic means -- which is more than you did -- and took a reasonable step to defend their interests.

Rill, the reports we've received about Valars comportment with other alliances does not reflect the same revival of character you testify.

As for why we personally wouldn't like them we have simply to cite the continued presence of many of the accounts with whom we had problems in the first place and the very conversation Taelin posted, demonstrating how they've handled this conflict.  There are also other recent issues--in particular they've been quite greedy with abandoned city claims, holding far more than they have the ability to act on in a remotely reasonable time frame--but what is here for all to see is beyond sufficient to justify saying we "don't like" an alliance.  It's not exactly a declaration of blood feud.

Nevertheless we dealt with Valar on this issue as fairly as we would deal with any other alliance.  It is they who chose to act before talking, and if you take a look at the timestamps of our conversation you'll see that even after this we "tried diplomatic channels" for over a week before both reaching a clear impasse.  As far as I'm concerned, we were as patient and considerate as could be reasonably expected of any alliance.

At the end of the day, we serve our own membership and not Valar's interests.  They reacted entirely out of proportion (we were removing an offending city of a Suspended account while they have more such cities than they can use, they attacked an active player--and their "warning" fell far short of enough time to ensure a fair chance of recalling even if we would).  We restrained our reaction for a reasonable duration.  Even now hostilities are far more limited than open warfare, so long as they do not give us cause to escalate further.

Brids, if my sense of justice were half as perverted as you so frequently claim, you would have fallen victim to it long ago.  I remain quite content with how I have applied the term, if not with how it protects your freedom of irrationally biased expression.

I think VALAR had every right to attack the siege encampment. If this player was suspended, any sov he had claimed could be disputed, so the city was destroyed for no good reason. H? should have mailed and asked VALAR to capture the city if they wanted to and then exodus it to somewhere else, instead, they moved in and sieged it without even speaking to VALAR first? Poor taste. If anything, H? should be paying compensation for a perfectly good city being destroyed without any notice to the alliance that it was in, not the other way around.

Edited by Brids17 - 09 May 2012 at 02:32

The troops were lost when they were attacking a member of another alliance.  Going to war and then demanding compensation for your losses seems a little over the top. 

Edited by Rill - 09 May 2012 at 02:06