Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHarmless Wartime Policy Announcement

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 14>
Author
Sisren View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 01:52
Originally posted by Kompanion Kompanion wrote:

 
.
.
.
Then the thread should be closed.

I am of the opinion that it should remain open.  This isn't just for Dark, but all involved in this war.
We shouldn't close any and all threads because it is inconvenient for you, Dark is not the only stakeholder.

Unless of coarse you are now speaking for the opposition?  But I believe that is either Hath or ditto...


Back to Top
Kompanion View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 01:18
Originally posted by Sisren Sisren wrote:

Originally posted by Kompanion Kompanion wrote:



Back to the topic:

If h? is looking for a fair rules of warfare agreement, then my suggestion would be for them to try to reach terms agreeable to both parties. Perhaps, both sides could agree upon representatives and a document for fair rules of warfare could be created.

If however, this is a warning, then point taken. No need to continue this thread, we have been put on notice.


but to your point, yes.  back on topic.  Since it's likely terms won't be reached, let's face it anytime H? and EE's confeds are in GC together kind words arent used... the terms are as posted.  right?  take too much, expect more to be taken.  

Lex Talionis


Then the thread should be closed.
Back to Top
Sisren View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 00:00
Originally posted by Kompanion Kompanion wrote:

If h? had shown the same level of concern over how certain unmentioned alliances and their members have conducted warfare in more recent history as they did during the consone war, then maybe this war would not have happened.

Here is the most important fact that seems to be overlooked. h? has somehow managed to unite many alliances against them, including some former allies.

Back to the topic:

If h? is looking for a fair rules of warfare agreement, then my suggestion would be for them to try to reach terms agreeable to both parties. Perhaps, both sides could agree upon representatives and a document for fair rules of warfare could be created.

If however, this is a warning, then point taken. No need to continue this thread, we have been put on notice.


Except that it was not H? that you had a problem with... right?
You talk of former allies... from all appearances it's really only Dark that was the former ally... vCrow seems to mostly be valar these days.  allies they were not from what I understand.

but to your point, yes.  back on topic.  Since it's likely terms won't be reached, let's face it anytime H? and EE's confeds are in GC together kind words arent used... the terms are as posted.  right?  take too much, expect more to be taken.  

Lex Talionis
Back to Top
Sisren View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:52
Originally posted by twilights twilights wrote:

what a load of bs...shakes head at how low harm can act to spin and win a war...reminds me a lot of the stuff in the consome wars...oh well sop, its time for a change in the game...wheres my shovel...trying to play on halcyon...pretty low...especially since u were one of us and true form that u with harm now...shakes her head

You will be the first to get some IGMs then twi.
Like I said above, no spin just the truth from the time.
Back to Top
Kompanion View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:42
If h? had shown the same level of concern over how certain unmentioned alliances and their members have conducted warfare in more recent history as they did during the consone war, then maybe this war would not have happened.

Here is the most important fact that seems to be overlooked. h? has somehow managed to unite many alliances against them, including some former allies.

Back to the topic:

If h? is looking for a fair rules of warfare agreement, then my suggestion would be for them to try to reach terms agreeable to both parties. Perhaps, both sides could agree upon representatives and a document for fair rules of warfare could be created.

If however, this is a warning, then point taken. No need to continue this thread, we have been put on notice.

Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:37
what a load of bs...shakes head at how low harm can act to spin and win a war...reminds me a lot of the stuff in the consome wars...oh well sop, its time for a change in the game...wheres my shovel...trying to play on halcyon...pretty low...especially since u were one of us and true form that u with harm now...shakes her head
Back to Top
Sisren View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:29
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

There are some inaccuracies here:

1. There was no internal Dark vote. We thought that a Consone member who gave his word to stay out of the war went back on it and as a result of that we chased him out of WR, what he did not Exodus, we captured or razed.
There is truth in this.  During war Dark didn't vote on this per ce, it was an agreement between tactics, growth and diplomatic leads (at the time).
If memory serves me correct, it was more than 1 person that this was done to:
Alagos (EE)
ahaliel (VIC?)
Coraxi (VIC?)

Then there were some alliance-wide IGMs wanting to raze all of a person's cities to the ground that we had to restate what it meant to be in Dark, to ask if Dark: 'Are we evil and bullies, or honorable and good guys?  I for one have been treading the path of be an honorable and good guy.  Am I with the wrong group?'
This was the point when Dark was asked WTF about taking more than 1 town by the coalition..
Not trying for any spin here, just promoting the truth as I always do...

Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

2. Twilights is not Dark leadership. She is a very vocal member of Dark, but that does not mean that she gives word to the dominant stances in Dark, even if she does not bother stating "these views are my own and does not reflect Dark policy".
You may not think she is a barometer for your alliance, but here we are.  Not long ago she was egging SB on saying that there should be a war - there is war between Dark and NC.  Not long ago she was egging on H? saying there should be war - there is war between Dark and H?.
That likely could just be an appearing with a dose of coincidence.
However, there was some instances in the war where she contacted the opposition stating something as Dark policy that wasn't, of which you, Hiei and MisterDark were CC'd.
I can say that many times when I was with you guys Hal, she wasn't a real barometer for the alliance... how many times did I complain about it and yet resisted the temptation or kicking her??

If you want to revisit those IGM, I can send your way.  Just shoot me an IGM.
These were the things that may have led to this?  I don't know anymore...

/me shrugs and walks on

Sisren
Back to Top
Halcyon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

Had to wade through about 3 years of IGM's to track down the information and make sure my t's were crossed and i's dotted.  Yes, I still have a handful of contacts within DARK.  I was very active helping a number of their members expand in some areas to the point I even sacrificed my alt to make room for a number of their cities.  


Late November, early December of 2012, Killer Poodle posted in the war room H?'s policy about limiting damages to players to 1-2 towns at most unless there were extenuating circumstances and a request that coalition members abide by this as well.  This post by Killer Poodle was prompted because of DARK's actions against a member of Consone in Western Realms.  It resulted in an internal vote by DARK  to abide by Harmless?'s request or not.    I guess since Killer Poodle only had to approach DARK twice more during the war in regards to this policy the result of the vote can be assumed.  Not that there were some very vocal advocates pushing for wanton destruction of any/all Consone Accounts within Western Realms by prominent members of DARK leadership.  


At that time, it wasn't about sieging a player from the game that wasn't even a consideration at the time.  This war, due to IGM's that have been forwarded and the language being expressed, it is quite clear that one side initially had no qualms for pushing forth such a doctrine.  however, since this posting by Honored Mule the language has changed and a number of break throughs have been made.  We will continue to push from our end to abide by such a doctrine.  


~I don't listen to twilights for the setting of DARK policy, I listen to twilights to get a feel for the policy/stance set by DARK leadership.  She has been very accurate over the last year in foretelling positions and stances for DARK as a whole.  It lines up surprisingly well with all the forwarded IGM's that I have accumulated from various DARK members/leadership over the past year.  



There are some inaccuracies here:

1. There was no internal Dark vote. We thought that a Consone member who gave his word to stay out of the war went back on it and as a result of that we chased him out of WR, what he did not Exodus, we captured or razed.

2. Twilights is not Dark leadership. She is a very vocal member of Dark, but that does not mean that she gives word to the dominant stances in Dark, even if she does not bother stating "these views are my own and does not reflect Dark policy".

3. Recent months have seen a steady string of messages and posts from Dark leaders both in igms to you Anjire and in the H? embassy. In these messages, Dark leadership have made it very clear to H? directors how we feel about the continuous aggrssion by NC and their allies. H? chose either to ignore Dark's view, style it as influenced by spin, or made sure we understand that any action against it is unacceptable to H?
You should not have been surprised by our final decision to act. If anything, you may have been surprised by the support of so many others to our views and the joint opposition to the aggression you chose to disregard or even support.


Edited by Halcyon - 12 Nov 2013 at 18:49
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 17:48
psssst anjire, dark is going to have a rave party and we don't want harm to know about it...it be a good time to attack cause we all be too drunk and tired from all the dancing!
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 16:13

Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

If you must refer to allies of Harmless? during war time as jackals - Then I will point you to DARK and our interaction during the Consone war and how we reigned them in from their over focusing on individual players.    Twilights still rants about that in GC from time to time.  




That is a load of nonsense Anjire.

Dark did not siege anyone out of the game, ever.

During the Consone-Coalition war, 1 player alone was driven out of WR because he gave his word not to take part in attacks on Dark and went back on his promise. 2 or 3 of his cities were razed and I believe that 2 more were Exodused.

Harmless? did not reign Dark in. First because Dark always does what we believe is the right thing to do and second because H? never had that power over us.


Twilights rants. That is what she does. She never made Dark's policy or directed Dark's actions. She is our friend and we love to have her with us. I believe Twilights never razed a town.


I was just informed by the said player from my first paragraph that while Dark negotiated said agreement with his alliance leadership, he was not made aware at the time of this agreement and thus attacked us without breaking his word. I was not aware of this until now, but believe his words to be true. I will not edit my first paragraph in order to acknowledge that part of what I wrote there is most probably wrong.


Had to wade through about 3 years of IGM's to track down the information and make sure my t's were crossed and i's dotted.  Yes, I still have a handful of contacts within DARK.  I was very active helping a number of their members expand in some areas to the point I even sacrificed my alt to make room for a number of their cities.  


Late November, early December of 2012, Killer Poodle posted in the war room H?'s policy about limiting damages to players to 1-2 towns at most unless there were extenuating circumstances and a request that coalition members abide by this as well.  This post by Killer Poodle was prompted because of DARK's actions against a member of Consone in Western Realms.  It resulted in an internal vote by DARK  to abide by Harmless?'s request or not.    I guess since Killer Poodle only had to approach DARK twice more during the war in regards to this policy the result of the vote can be assumed.  Not that there were some very vocal advocates pushing for wanton destruction of any/all Consone Accounts within Western Realms by prominent members of DARK leadership.  


At that time, it wasn't about sieging a player from the game that wasn't even a consideration at the time.  This war, due to IGM's that have been forwarded and the language being expressed, it is quite clear that one side initially had no qualms for pushing forth such a doctrine.  however, since this posting by Honored Mule the language has changed and a number of break throughs have been made.  We will continue to push from our end to abide by such a doctrine.  


~I don't listen to twilights for the setting of DARK policy, I listen to twilights to get a feel for the policy/stance set by DARK leadership.  She has been very accurate over the last year in foretelling positions and stances for DARK as a whole.  It lines up surprisingly well with all the forwarded IGM's that I have accumulated from various DARK members/leadership over the past year.  



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 14>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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