NC

KillerPoodle wrote: Halcyon wrote: I was refering to H? the alliance, not Anjire the player. You, Anjire, may not have been involved, but in my communications with KP he made it quite clear that H? will support NC. Only after you made it quite clear you intended to pile in on them with any and all support you could and only in that one incident.

abstractdream wrote: It isn't strange that these guys (mostly guys, maybe a few gals) are willing to go to war and all that entails to drive home the point that Harmless? should have "controlled" how one particular alliance plays the game?

is it?  "H? should have controlled NC", "vCrow should have controlled EE", "Consone should have policed itself better"...alliances don't control one another, but allies have influence and the results are often the same.  in each case, it is an accusation of support for an action the other side finds objectionable.  i note in each case that the answer is "we don't control", not "we don't support", and in each case the only useful information to be gleaned from the accusation is that the accuser feels the accused's actions were insufficient.

Badur Agamak wrote: Couldn't we just get the leaders of both alliances to sit down and talk through a trusted medium by both sides?

not at this stage.  one cannot mediate a warring side into wanting peace.  two sides that mistrust one another must both desire peace before mediation has any hope of success.

as to the why of "why we are fighting"...we are not, but here is my view:  there have been a series of misunderstandings and diplomatic miscalculations between H? and vCrow without which i think war on this scale could not have been justified to anyone.  it would be inappropriate to discuss these further in the forum; the result has been a critical loss of trust between them.  but the catalyst for the war is the conduct of NC, which stands on its own.  they have made war where and as they would.  some find that courageous, independent and admirable; others find it aggressive, malicious and reckless.  in NC is crystallised the question of the morality of war and its place in the sandbox.  thus NC, TVM, TCol and H? (militants, in this sense), see the conflict differently from vCrow et al., which typically build armies for tournament play.  every alliance (indeed, every player) will have a slightly different view of it, but i will oversimplify for the sake of explanation:  one side feels that war should be used only as a last resort (since it is taking something from a player who has worked for it), and the other feels that war is one more means of relating to other alliances (one tool among many for sorting out differences).  these are not easy views to reconcile, and they imply other effects, including the relative dynamism or stagnation of the game, the viability of the "many paths" that illyriad is supposed to offer, players' ability to experience the full scope of the game, and the ways in which new players enter and participate.  i am very much on the side of peace, but these are questions the community (and individual alliances) would do well to consider.  behind the war banter, there are philosophical differences being described.

edited to eliminate a stray "<.length;r++var>" from the post.


Edited by Angrim - 03 Nov 2013 at 01:57

Halcyon wrote: My conversations with you on August 26 and with Kumo on September 2, both in the thread NC-Bane War in the Dark section of your Embassy, say otherwise. In both cases I was warned not to join with Dark against NC because this will lead to a direct H? involvement. I will refrain from direct quotes, but it is all there. Go revisit that thread.

I did - several times. Let's recap (these are not direct quotes but a summary of posts):

August 4th:

Halcyon - Bane want peace but they won't surrender. NC are cheating because they added some players.

Anjire -  Bane added players too.

Halcyon - If NC don't accept peace then Dark will match every player they add.

KP - looks like a mess, btw I don't think "unconditional surrender" means what you think it means.

August 26th:

Halcyon - NC are recruiting more players. Dark is going to confed with Bane and NC have one last chance to accept peace.

KP - If you guys get involved that will be a definite escalation and I foresee a chain reaction which ends up pulling in most of the top 20 alliances including eventually H?

Halcyon - More complaints about NC recruiting people. Bane won't surrender and if we join neither will we. If NC don't want peace they will have more war.


Sept 2nd - illy forum:

Halycon: a bunch of stuff on the public forum trying to show the numbers justifying the complaints about NC recruiting which basically fails. Continuing posts about how if NC add people Dark will get involved.

KP: a rebuttal of your numbers spin - nothing about H? getting involved.

Starry: Stop trying to escalate and look for a solution.

Halcyon: This argument is academic - if NC don't accept peace, Dark will act.


Note - that at this time there is still nothing said by anyone in H? to Dark to say we will react directly to their involvement, there is only a concern expressed on the 26th that if things will escalate a whole bunch of folks will end up in it due to confeds etc.


Sept 2nd/3rd:

Halcyon - I see by your forum posts you're going to support NC.   (KP: interesting note - there is nothing on the illy forum posts which said this).

Kumo - The last thing we want is conflict with you guys but if you escalate we're going to be forced into it the same way we would defend Dark if the situation were reversed.

Halcyon - We're going to enter the war

KP -  If you're really interested in ending the war - persuade Bane to surrender since they are losing horribly - don't escalate or it will be met by a equal escalation.


So, in each case, our response is only *after* you have made it clear you are going to escalate the war.





Edited by KillerPoodle - 03 Nov 2013 at 03:08

You read intentions into my comment that were not there. You took that comment to mean we would directly oppose you when in fact it was meant exactly as it was said - "if you escalate it will end up with lots of top 20 alliances involved and *eventually* H?". 

Not because we wanted to directly oppose you but because if you entered the war NC had other allies who would get involved, which would drag more of Bane's allies into things, which would drag more NC allies in and at the end of it H? and Dark would end up on opposite side.

So I turn one of your own comments back to you - you were not listening to us - you were just reading hidden meanings into what we said based on your own thoughts instead of trusting that we were saying exactly what we meant.

With regard to your other comment - why would I want to throw NC under the bus - at the time you were both allies - why would I want to see allies fight each other?  I would rather that you accepted that the situation was not black and white as you claimed it was and come from a more objective view point.

Fundamentally we're arguing from different positions - your starting position is that NC had zero justification for their war on Bane and you have ignored all discourse which disagrees with your initial view.

My position is somewhat different and this is why we're on opposite sides right now.

I agree with you on that:

Edited by Halcyon - 04 Nov 2013 at 10:19