| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
KillerPoodle 
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
 Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 05:15 |
 HATHALDIR wrote:
And that you do not include the
rest of H? in your negotiations is worrisome as well, forget about
those you say you are confederated with. Surely their input should be
sought, as a council of equals perhaps.Or is H? merely an oligarchy, expousing wisdom to the masses?
Just because things have always been done this way, surely doesn't suggest the change is not possible?
|
Once again Hath what you post shows more about the way you think than the way we think and ably demonstrates your lack of connection to reality. Let me clarify this for you: H? is not a democracy but every member is allowed to speak their mind (within reasonable limits) and provide input. All officers and directors are involved in command decisions and gave their direct input to the peace process. All Full members were given info and an opportunity to comment about the basic terms we planned to discuss with the warring parties and the specific thorns in their sides during the war. With respect to the Coalition each leader decided, voluntarily, to allow H? to negotiate on their behalf. We demanded nothing. We politely asked how everyone would like to proceed and each and every leader said "We have faith in H? to negotiate terms on our behalf". We discussed and agreed the basis for terms and then advised Coalition leaders on how negotiations were proceeding and the end result.
Edited by KillerPoodle - 29 Mar 2013 at 05:16
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
HATHALDIR
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 06:01 |
|
KP thankyou for your reply and observations. I can only agree with you, that my posts try to elucidate upon how and what i am thinking. Anything else would be obtuse of me, so again i am happy we agree.
And thankyou for your showing us a brief outline of how H? internal working play out. And again i am glad we agree, H? is run by a system of older players making the decisions. Or collective wisdom, which is my reference.
And again, kudos to you for the trust placed in you by your confederates, and i am not being sarcastic, it means you are wielding even more power than the #1 ranked alliance already has!
But on to my final point, just because things have always been done this way doesn't mean they cannot change.
|
|
There's worse blokes than me!!
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 06:16 |
|
Actually no - we don't agree again let me elucidate:
"you do not include the
rest of H? in your negotiation"
Wrong
"forget about
those you say you are confederated with"
Wrong
"Surely their input should be
sought"
It is - so again - wrong.
"Or is H? merely an oligarchy"
There is nothing merely about it.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
AZADICAN
Greenhorn
Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Location: Holland
Status: Offline
Points: 93
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 10:00 |
Lets just stop with these politics and word games a second and
take a look to the facts:
Captain Ganoes Paran (Abandoned) [EE] = 9 towns
Arya Night (Abandoned) [EE]
= 5 towns
Johnarkas (Abandoned) [EE]
= 8 towns
SLoTeD (Abandoned) [EE] = 5 towns
Geldenbard (Abandoned) [EE] = 6 towns
In total 33 towns and I’m afraid this is only what we can
see. That CGP has left the game is a biggest
loose for this game ever. He has probably helped more noobs then all the H? and
EE players together.
So EE, you can continue with this (whatever it is, you are
trying to do) and loose all the great players you have or admit that we have
lost this war and take the consequences and begin with rebuilding for next
round.
And H?, if an alliance can bring 1,8mil troops into a siege
then can noone doubt its power. Because
being such a great power, you have to admit that EE was a paint in the ass during
the war and respect their proud and negotiate with them. Not because they are
in a position of negotiation, but because of sake and future of Illyriad.
Note to this forum scavengers: please keep your useless spam
for yourself and lets these two parties come to a solution. Feel free to spam
further afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 11:27 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
HATHALDIR wrote:
And that you do not include the
rest of H? in your negotiations is worrisome as well, forget about
those you say you are confederated with. Surely their input should be
sought, as a council of equals perhaps.Or is H? merely an oligarchy, expousing wisdom to the masses?
Just because things have always been done this way, surely doesn't suggest the change is not possible?
|
Once again Hath what you post shows more about the way you think than the way we think and ably demonstrates your lack of connection to reality. Let me clarify this for you:
H? is not a democracy but every member is allowed to speak their mind (within reasonable limits) and provide input. All officers and directors are involved in command decisions and gave their direct input to the peace process. All Full members were given info and an opportunity to comment about the basic terms we planned to discuss with the warring parties and the specific thorns in their sides during the war.
With respect to the Coalition each leader decided, voluntarily, to allow H? to negotiate on their behalf. We demanded nothing. We politely asked how everyone would like to proceed and each and every leader said "We have faith in H? to negotiate terms on our behalf". We discussed and agreed the basis for terms and then advised Coalition leaders on how negotiations were proceeding and the end result.
|
As a Coalition Member, we are asked about most actions undertaken, including the terms for peace. We also are engaged to help with actions to help bring an end to this ridiculous conflict. You don't get to see that... You have no way of confirming what I say is true...
Trust begins sometimes with accepting a statement at face value. Peace is unlikely unless some trust starts.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 11:29 |
i don't think we have a disagreement here, so some quick clarifications:
KillerPoodle wrote:
While technically true, in reality every peace we have agreed so far ended up with more favorable terms to the losers than the initial starting point.
|
KillerPoodle wrote:
EE are refusing to accept the consequences of their associations and actions.
|
clearly there is a wide gap between the consequences H? envisions and those EE has expected. there is not much to be done but close it or continue to fight. nor are all of those consequences inevitable, as you have noted.
KillerPoodle wrote:
Your parenthesis "(thus far)" contains the whole issue. The fact is that those cities could be taken and would be taken should war continue. So the comparison is not "where are we now" vs "where will we be after the surrender terms". The comparison is "Where will we be in X months if we continue to fight" vs "Where will we be in X months if we accept the terms now".
|
as a mathematical exercise, yes, if i am certain of obliteration should hostilities continue, i ought to take any offer short of obliteration to end them. but as a mathematical exercise i ought to go to very great lengths to avoid conflict at all, since the losses invariably outstrip the gains...and yet we have war. the point of my comment was not to accuse H? of being unreasonable or unfair, it was to note that the emotional component of any such bargain is very much in play, on both sides. i am confident that EE's lack of remorse, for example, is costing them dearly in the peace talks.
Edited by Angrim - 29 Mar 2013 at 11:29
|
|
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 12:21 |
As a member of the confederation I am allowing H? to negotiate on my behalf. I have seen the terms given to each alliance, seen adjustments asked for by surrendering alliances, and have agreed with everything thus far.
Early on EE was asking for "Peace" defined as a ceasing of hostilities with no penalties, this was denied. Currently I see complaints that the settlement amount is too much, but no counter offers. If you are still trying to get out of the war without penalty my vote is 'no'. I don't think it would be fair to the alliances that have already made agreements to let EE off with just a slap on the hand. They entered a war and lost and now must pay the price. If that price is too high in your opinion, then get off the forums and go through the offer line by line with your alliance and get back to H? on what you are willing to do and what you think is in excess.
EE leadership was strong enough to lead them into war, now it is time to seriously guide them out of one.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 12:23 |
|
Really sorry to hear that CGP has left the game, he was a player I very much enjoyed playing alongside. Always a kind word, rarely a harsh one. A class act all around. Players who join Illy in the future are the poorer for not having a chance to know him.
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 12:29 |
HATHALDIR wrote:
And thankyou for your showing us a brief outline of how H? internal working play out. And again i am glad we agree, H? is run by a system of older players making the decisions. Or collective wisdom, which is my reference. |
Every leadership system is actually working that way ... even the original Athenean democracy was in practice all about "collective wisdom" and some people making the decisions. It is exactly what created rhetorics (to influence the masses) so do not have any illusion of any equal distribution of power with the masses in any leadership system.
HATHALDIR wrote:
And again, kudos to you for the trust placed in you by your confederates, and i am not being sarcastic, it means you are wielding even more power than the #1 ranked alliance already has!
|
This is a nicely made sophistry ... it is like saying that if a company entrusts a person to negotiate a deal on a particular matter and within a particular setup, then it is like bestowing them the full leadership of the company along with all its assets. Diplomats and lawyers all over the world would have loved this to be so, but alas it is not ... 
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 13:22 |
Epidemic wrote:
Are you asking if the owners of a game would do whatever they could to keep the game playable and fair to all, if they cared about the game? I'd have to say 'most definitely!'. I've seen it done on other games, why should this be any different. |
It is truly sad that you want the GMs to protect you in war. Fight or surrender. Don't ask for the GMs to cheat for you.
When the GMs start intervening in the game between us players, then it is no longer a game. Instead, it is the GMs being puppetmasters over the players. Illy would lose most, if not all, vets.
Edited by The_Dude - 29 Mar 2013 at 13:23
|
|
Tweet
Just the facts Ma'am