On Unjust War and Community Recourse

A serious question was poised in another thread that I would like to take up in this thread. This post is not intended for EE or H? to promote their position. It is for the communities discussion who like it or not will and do judge the actions of other members within the community.

opk wrote: This thread is initially a request for help, we should digest it seriously. If the community dont help in that case it can be seen as a failure to assist a person in danger. This person could die if it continues like this. But this person is an alliance. I think that when there's a risk of genocide, the civilised and democratic people we are in this community should be able to have a say and a do. What do you think?

If any group does something foul and unjust in game you have the option to intervene or (if you are unable) to make a statement of objection here on the forums. For myself, if I thought that H? or any group was conducting their play in a foul manner I would make an objection here.  Like most, that is all I could do since my alliance is not militarily geared. If enough agree or object in the same fashion perhaps another group can rise up or the offenders may be shamed into self-correction... Or the GM's may intervene in some fashion..

Now having said that, I do not think that the present situation with the H? and EE warrants an objection nor does it warrant action by a third party and here is why.

H? has not done something so terrible to warrant it. They have involved themselves in a reasonable war with willing opponents. While EE can say that they are trying to talk terms and cry foul that H? and co. are giving unreasonable demands; it appears to me that neither party is serious about terms for peace and both are willingly engaging in conflict.

Peace talks (in most games and in R/L) follow a fairly standard process. The first step is a temporary truce or ceasefire is entered while talks for terms are ongoing.  This could mean that no new military action is initiated (in Illy terms no new sieges or attacks) or all current military actions should stand down for a short time period (no military action for two days etc). There could be a provision that allows for a temporary withdrawl of troops or the completion of current sieges. Either way and however it is framed, real talks always begin with a first step like this.

It seems to me that this first step was never taken with EE and H?. As bystander's we've read plenty of back and forth and accusation of attacks during the talk of terms. Certainly no one has demonstrated this first step.

No where that I've seen has either party come here and said, 'they refuse to grant us any terms!'. They have only said that terms are unfair or that these are terms while continuing their attacks on both sides. One of the first things you learn on the play ground is that you can't be friends if you are hitting the other kid or taking away his toys... likewise, it is extremely difficult.. perhaps near impossible.. to work out peace while you're actively giving offense and conducting military operations against the other party.

So to sum up, before EE can ask for peace terms they need to halt military operations. If they do so then I'm sure that H? and co will respond in a reasonable manner as they are reasonable people... and if they don't then he should document it and share it with the community... but it all has to begin with step one - the halt of military operations otherwise it's all just empty posturing.

If it turns out that it becomes unjust and is shown to be so, then the community should object. Our objections may be noted, they maybe overlooked but many would be willing to give them. - M.

EDIT: I also want to draw one more distinction here. The war is not an all or nothing engagement. EE declared war on H? and H? could justly refuse terms from their aggressor. In their position I might be tempted to do this. However, afaik no one has accused either side of hunting down the former players on either alliance. H? and co are at war with the alliance, not the players. EE could simply completely surrender, disband and be done with it.


Edited by Meagh - 29 Mar 2013 at 03:34

Dude, did you even read Meagh's message?

The community can be helpful in bringing wars to an end. I was just saying in the other thread that if the hostile factions were active the devs could send out armies to end all hostilities. I'm sure most would be in favor of that.

I wouldn't be in favor of that. What meaning can a player's actions have if the mods simply Deus ex Machina an end to PvP conflicts? Factions need to be influenced by players. They shouldn't be a tool used by the devs to push outcomes; I think that was pretty clear from the interviews.

TD,

Meagh wrote: It seems to me that this first step was never taken with EE and H?. As bystander's we've read plenty of back and forth and accusation of attacks during the talk of terms. Certainly no one has demonstrated this first step.

Not true.  We halted ops on EE twice previously during discussions which came to nothing. This time around we are deliberately not halting ops so that EE finally get serious.