Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Making a stand
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMaking a stand
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 18:55
Originally posted by BlindScribe BlindScribe wrote:

The context is "why did we attack" yes?  

The rest of the post goes on to cite some examples of the "annoyance," but the REASON for going to war is crisply and cleanly stated.

No, it was given as part of a multi-paragraph post, and elaborated on in further posts.  Of course you can pull out a single, simplified statement from there to make your opponents look bad (See, you are participating in the war :) ) but if you ignore all that context, you are ultimately pedaling a falsehood.  
Back to Top
BlindScribe View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 18:59
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.  The thread still exists, and can be viewed freely by all, so there'd be no real reason for me to try to twist or spin the text...it's all there in black and white (and I provided a link to it, which indicates that I'm not afraid of the full post being read).

I'm comfortable and confident that the majority will agree with my assessment.

You don't, but there's always the occasional exception that proves the rule, right? :)

edit:  I will say that some time AFTER public opinion turned sour on the reasons for war, additional reasons were cited, but that's not really something you can "walk back," is it?  I mean...when you lead with "we attacked because the guy annoys us," then anything you amend that with after only makes it look even more like you are trying to walk it back, yes?


Edited by BlindScribe - 24 Sep 2012 at 19:01
Back to Top
Faenix View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 283 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 19:12
BlindScribe, I think what you're missing here is that there is no requirement that an alliance go to the forums and post their justification or reasoning for anything that they do.  NC decided to share some insight into what was going on, for better or worse.  

The post that you keep referring to did not accommodate our declaration of war, it was merely a "yes, we have been diplo'ing STEEL, and they never caught us so we gave ourselves up voluntarily.".  

The later post by Electro on the subject which clearly outlined the specific grievances was the post that was made at the same time as the war declaration.  Since we were declaring war, so we felt that we would outline specific complaints.  Whether or not you choose to believe those complaints, or whether or not your feel they are satisfactory for going to war doesn't really concern me.

If someone doesn't feel that our reasons for going to war are sufficient, then they may choose to take their armies and stop our armies.  But, then they should not be surprised if somebody else doesn't like their reasons for going to war either.  

This sort of strange stalemate where nobody can do anything for fear of "the community"'s reaction isn't healthy for the game and I for one don't plan to be cowed by the vocal minority's soap boxing.
Back to Top
BlindScribe View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 19:17
No, I understand, and I appreciate that you took the time to engage the community publicly.


But there's no denying that the stated reason for your war was "Gim annoys us."

You can try to spin your way around of it, but it was clearly...crisply stated as THE reason, with some specific examples given later of the "annoyance."

And that's all I'll say about it.  Cos I don't want to risk "annoying" you.  I've seen what that can lead to.  ;)

I'm not sure I understand this statement tho:

Quote This sort of strange stalemate where nobody can do anything for fear of "the community"'s reaction isn't healthy for the game and I for one don't plan to be cowed by the vocal minority's soap boxing.

This is a social game.

Actions in a social game do not occur in a vacuum.

That is to say, when you do something in a social game, the society naturally responds and reacts to it.

That's woven into the fabric of EVERY game of this kind, is it not?


Edited by BlindScribe - 24 Sep 2012 at 19:25
Back to Top
Faenix View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 283 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 19:33
Quote And that's all I'll say about it.

Apparently not.
Back to Top
BlindScribe View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 19:38
no...good to my word...you won't hear anything more about the war from me.  I said my piece.

*I will respond to direct questions asked of me tho... ;)



Edited by BlindScribe - 24 Sep 2012 at 19:39
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 20:07
I think Gim believes that NC is intending to siege him out of Illy.  I think NC says that is not their goal.

So...What is NC's goal?  Just to smash up some troops and maybe destroy a town or 2?

The stated reason for NC's war is that Gim annoys them.  How does smashing troops and a town or 2 prevent Gim from continuing to annoy other people?

I fail to see how NC can eliminate Gim's annoying them without perma-sieging Gim from Illy.  And if that is the goal then Gim controls victory entirely by his willingness to remain in Illy and continue annoying NC (a la StJude).  Which means that NC has started a war that offers NC no strategic gain.


Edited by The_Dude - 24 Sep 2012 at 20:11
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 20:14
Originally posted by Faenix Faenix wrote:

...there is no requirement that an alliance go to the forums and post their justification or reasoning for anything that they do.  NC decided to share some insight into what was going on, for better or worse.
Faenix, I couldn't agree more.  Additionally, I have seen nothing to imply NC will be eliminating Gim.  Gim has Confederates (one more with Manannan).

Everyone else: just let them have their war in peace. 

"Alea iacta est"

EDIT:
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

...Which means that NC has started a war that offers NC no strategic gain.
LoL - this makes me smile....

Edited by SunStorm - 24 Sep 2012 at 20:16
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
Back to Top
Faenix View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 283 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 20:27
Quote So...What is NC's goal?  Just to smash up some troops and maybe destroy a town or 2?

Sounds like a good goal.  To diverge more specifics at the current moment would be tactically unsound with siege engines moving and who knows which of them are real and which of them are feints or if they're all real or all feints.  We are not in this to siege Gim out of the game though, and our actions will not exceed your stake in the ground estimate.

Quote The stated reason for NC's war is that Gim annoys them.  How does smashing troops and a town or 2 prevent Gim from continuing to annoy other people?

It doesn't.  But maybe he'll realize that actions have consequences.  Or maybe he won't, in which case this will all have been for nothing, but at least we tried.

Quote Which means that NC has started a war that offers NC no strategic gain.

Agreed, there's no strategic gain.  In fact it's just a huge cost.  But some things are worth it not because of what you gain, but because of what your actions say.  And in this case, we are saying that actions have consequences.  We are also saying that we feel people should be allowed to handle their grievances on their terms.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2012 at 20:29
Originally posted by Sir Bradly Sir Bradly wrote:

How brave of you Rill.  

Manannan's cities are not under attack by NC.  What else is new, Rill is grandstanding.  Again.

Does this mean you won't be attacking Mana?  Because if that's the case, I'm sure my armies can be better used elsewhere.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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