NC

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Angrim wrote:

 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.

I took the time to read this believe it or not. I repeat my support for this guy as mediator, but also propose he be nominated for King of Illyriad and we get rid of the other King who is never around.