Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - nCrow Ursor Directive
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosednCrow Ursor Directive

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
Author
Daufer View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 00:05
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

...and just how do you suppose you will you oppose?

.

I think I've already been pretty clear about this in a previous post:


If we see sieges on active players, we will break those sieges.  If we receive reports of diplo, magickal or other harassment of active players, we will reinforce and assist the victims and return the same to the perpetrators.  If we hear reports of players and alliances who are threatened with cleansing, we will assist those players and alliances in becoming stronger so they can stand for themselves.

Those are the things we will do to assist our neighbors.

Should an alliance object to our intervention and threaten our members, our leaders or our allies, that will be dealt with in another manner.  As to the details of that response, I leave them to your imagination, except to say that I think you will find that we are creative, resourceful and have a devilish sense of humour.


Too many words and too much ambiguity just confuses people.  Why not just say what you mean in simple language?

"nCrow claims a protectorate over Ursor.  No one may attack anyone else in Ursor against our wishes. If you disobey us you will be punished severely."

You can flower it up, but honestly that is what you are saying.  I don't disagree in principle.  Small players need and deserve protection.  Joining an alliance with some military muscle and fighting back would be an ideal choice.  Appealing to the 'Peacekeepers' to step in with threats and intimidation should not be, but in fact it tends to be the default method.  It is perfectly possible to build an army strong enough to deter attack while playing as a crafter, a trader or a social butterfly.  In fact it is possible to do all four at the same time.  Instead we seem to be indoctrinating newcomers with the notion that having defenses is unnecessary and that "military" style play is an unwanted aberration that must be rooted out.  Our thieves are only for harvesting abandoned goods, our legions of cavalry merely control rats and other vermin, our traders deal in costume weapons and armor, strictly for show...

Meanwhile we all sit around grinding our axes in the breathless hope that someone medium-sized will do something mean to someone small-sized so we Big-Folk can mercilessly crush them into the dirt in the name of fairness and freedom to play.  It seems like a righteous cause but, do we honestly feel protective of the newbs or are we really just looking to justify giving someone a good stomping without fear of reprisals?  A few days ago unaffiliated player Airborne attacked a smaller player who had some cities nearby, apparently because he wanted to, and not for the first time.  Clearly he doesn't know how the system operates here.  One person immediately negotiated for hostilities to cease, and that is laudable.  A dozen or so other people immediately mobilized the cavalry to start destroying siege camps... well, gunboat diplomacy is crude but effective, and the fight ended before it began.  Then folks started talking about how to divide up Airborne's cities for capture or destruction since obviously we don't want people like him, who siege the weak and defenseless, playing our game.

A Latin American dictator once told a reporter "I am a great friend of democracy and anyone who is against that, I will jail them.  I will crush them."  I'm looking for a word, but it's not irony.  Maybe someone with a better vocabulary can help me out.
Back to Top
Grainne View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 00:45
I do believe Airborne was messaged to cease his hostilities and his answer was:  No.  (Maybe another of the 11 who were on can affirm?)  As well, this was not the first player he had targeted--it was the third.  His cities still stand--I have no knowledge of anyone planning to treat him as he has treated others (3 sieges at one go, 12+ blockades, etc.).  Myself and another player from my alliance decided to act upon learning Airborne had attacked, without provocation, two other players, twice before.  The gun-boating was glorious; I ended up killing a ratling (one) on a blockade tile.  Airborne's cities still stand, days later--pretty sure if we didn't want "people like him" playing he'd be gone by now as quickly as everyone responded.  
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: 06 Feb 2013 at 02:08
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

 I believe you feel others must play this game in a certain way or you will force that play style. This very thread is the direct result of that philosophy.

This is interesting, because I perceive the same as you do -- that you are trying to force a particular playstyle on others, and that we are acting to oppose it.  So we are in agreement that this thread is indeed a direct result of that philosophy.

And in this...the terrorists won!  because guess what- now you are drawn into the conflict!  :)
Congrats!

Also, the same could very well be said of your style...  /me shrugs
The whole thing where you intervene I mean, not the other parts.

This is an amusement for moi...  when can we change the channel back to farmville?  /me yawns...
Back to Top
Pellinell View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 02:09
Originally posted by Grainne Grainne wrote:

I do believe Airborne was messaged to cease his hostilities and his answer was:  No.  (Maybe another of the 11 who were on can affirm?)  As well, this was not the first player he had targeted--it was the third.  His cities still stand--I have no knowledge of anyone planning to treat him as he has treated others (3 sieges at one go, 12+ blockades, etc.).  Myself and another player from my alliance decided to act upon learning Airborne had attacked, without provocation, two other players, twice before.  The gun-boating was glorious; I ended up killing a ratling (one) on a blockade tile.  Airborne's cities still stand, days later--pretty sure if we didn't want "people like him" playing he'd be gone by now as quickly as everyone responded.  


Actually I sent 2 sizable attacks (cleaering armies) at AIRBORNE and a siege. Though I will be recalling the siege Wink
Back to Top
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 03:25
Originally posted by Daufer Daufer wrote:

Appealing to the 'Peacekeepers' to step in with threats and intimidation should not be, but in fact it tends to be the default method.  It is perfectly possible to build an army strong enough to deter attack while playing as a crafter, a trader or a social butterfly.  In fact it is possible to do all four at the same time.  Instead we seem to be indoctrinating newcomers with the notion that having defenses is unnecessary and that "military" style play is an unwanted aberration that must be rooted out.  Our thieves are only for harvesting abandoned goods, our legions of cavalry merely control rats and other vermin, our traders deal in costume weapons and armor, strictly for show...


Except this isn't what is happening. Even as this thread continues on we see many or most of the social crafting butterflies embroiled in or recovering from the consone conflict. Many groups no one considered militarily active have been swept away in the conflict (Who would have thought alliances like the Druids would have been caught in it? I know that I sure didn't.) So in the end all of the accusatory and inflammatory remarks directed at the protectionist "Peacekeepers" about Illyriad lacking in military conflict aren't taking into consideration the recent military actions by those same protectionist "Peacekeeping" gc socialites.

Also, have you created an alt account recently? Despite all the community effort, the newbie ring is a very very hostile place. Newbies are, in general, very quick to attack other newbies. No one who stays in that ring for very long can think of Elgea as warm and fuzzy.

Finally and most importantly I think, the social and diplomatic aspect to military conflict is part of the pvp aspect. Campaigns in Illyriad must consider this social aspect. Players cannot successfully just rush after another player because Illyriad is a multifaceted game. A successful military action must be multidimensional in this respect imho. Reactions to that one alliances aggression or that particular players are all just part of that multifaceted gameplay. - M.


Edited by Meagh - 06 Feb 2013 at 03:44
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6819
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 03:43
/me sighs

Edited by Rill - 06 Feb 2013 at 03:59
Back to Top
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 03:49
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Originally posted by Daufer Daufer wrote:

"nCrow claims a protectorate over Ursor.  No one may attack anyone else in Ursor against our wishes. If you disobey us you will be punished severely."

You can flower it up, but honestly that is what you are saying. 

Please re-read what I said.  Because this is most decidedly not what I said.  I don't think I said anything about punishing anyone for attacking people in Ursor.  In fact, the only reference I made to reprisals of any kind were in reference to people who act directly against nCrow.  I was extremely specific about that.


I dunno.. he seems pretty spot on in that regard. nCrow *is*acting as a protector state for unaligned players in Ursor... However I don't think that (EOM) Harry's post was ambiguous at all. He was pretty clear from his first post onward. - M.

EDIT not really spot... maybe too hyperbolic but still...


Edited by Meagh - 06 Feb 2013 at 04:42
Back to Top
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: 06 Feb 2013 at 04:02
Originally posted by Auraya Auraya wrote:

 

That it is a game was exactly the point I was making. The only thing you own here are your actions and your words. It is by those and not your account that you will be judged. Being underhanded, trying to bully others.. these things do not instil long time friendships nor earn anyone's respect. Why throw away the things you can keep for a few pixels which you can't?

Yes, everyone realizes it's a game.  Some people are trying to play it.  There's no need to barge in to diplomacy threads and remind everyone.  People's in game actions in no way determine who they are in real life.  
Back to Top
Chaos Armor View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 04:29
I'm going to go ahead and place a Ward of Canon. Hopefully, this will keep Godwin's Law from proving true.




Back to Top
Sliveen View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 07 Dec 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 04:36
I am saddened to see these types of threads. I cannot possibly know all the nuances of other's comments in relationships with player v. player or alliance v. alliance, as I have only been in the game for less than half a year. 

My hesitation in understanding this situation at hand; is the historical perspective which has not included any glimpse of diplomacy between any over reaching alliances with protectorship alliances. In other words, before this thread came about, was any attempt made by ncrow to resolve this diplomatically in IGM before bringing this to the Illy community?

I worry for the idea that diplomacy is the true victim in this announcement and any repercussions that are perceived or felt by any members of Illy. I also wonder to the possible far-reaching effects such a role as this will create in that region for confed  alliances of all involved in each action that takes place. This could embroil that region in a bitter and long enduring set of battles. 

On another note I would like to address a comparison that Auraya wrote. She compared a person entering a bar and picking on a little guy and cop stopping the action. That is not really a realistic comparison of the proposed actions that could take place. 
I think it would be more like John Wayne walking into the bar and getting into a fisticuffs with the perceived bully instead of a law man.

Otherwise, what we are doing is allowing one alliance to become a self-described sheriff in town without election. Now that may be, as the crow confed is quite large and may have the army power to take on such a job, but how does that change for better or worse, the landscape of Illy as a community? Notwithstanding, the obvious advantage to a regional manipulation of markets if a resource is primary to that area, then one must ask if it really makes any sense to land baron certain areas, anyway. 

Finally, in the truest sense of the definition of sovereignty, the individual is in fact his own sovereign state. To arbitrarily believe that might or moral is justifications for forcing anyone to move when they have not broken the overall Illy standards of 10 square seems rather short sighted in the long term affects of alliances and memories of players.

This last thought is perhaps my first and foremost reason in believing that all alliance must eventually take to diplomacy regardless of how dark or military they be. 

That's all I have on this.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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