Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Peace Terms
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Peace Terms

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Rupe View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: Ch
Status: Offline
Points: 39
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 22:50
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Rupe Rupe wrote:

Ooo and another thing.
When H win wars they demand the loss of leaders towns. They do not offer compensation to help rebuild


That's because by the time everything was settled no one had lost more than 3 towns.  In this war many have lost 5+ towns and in lots of cases people have lost everything.

So the combination of much smaller losses and much smaller compensation payments meant not much assistance was required to rebuild - as evidenced by the EE war machine in this war.

I have to say I expected some people would post this kind of pettiness and demonstrate their inability to consider the bigger picture - kinda sad to have that expectation fulfilled on this occasion though.


I don't wish to get into a slagging match here with you KP.
I accept your claims of what gold was paid. You negotiated the settlement I only have hearsay.
But paid loser to victor it was and not vice versa
and the fact so many people have lost so many towns is whose fault?
Who should ask for hostilities to cease?
I would say the people losing the cities
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:07
I'm confused by your post.

I am offering to pay gold to the GA.  Even if they give up some part of the previous payments they will still have received a lot of gold and H? and allies will still have paid a lot of gold. 

So it is exactly as you say - the victors will get gold, the losers will pay gold.  All we're doing is negotiating on how much (or trying to).

I am asking for hostilities to cease - why else would I be posting peace terms - I'm also offering to surrender as requested by GA.

What I'm also trying to do is make the loss of many players entire accounts mean something by turning the end of this war into something positive for the game as a whole.  What I'm getting from the folks like you and Ditto right now is that a personal vendetta is more important than any other consideration.

Is it really the case that you cannot get past the automatic reaction to go against anything I say without thought, even to the point of contradicting yourself and to the detriment of the whole game?

"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
lethargic0N3 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lethargic0N3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:18
What I don't understand is if it was a sincere offer why you would then start making comments about the other parties involved.  You must know that would provoke a further reaction.

A cynic might say that these terms were only posted with the intention of adding a little spin and getting  some good PR.  And if they weren't I'm sure you can see how some people might see them as that.

The sad thing is I thought point 4 had some legs.  Although I think it would need some work as players would need to surrender/dropout when they hit the 30% threshold.  Otherwise there's nothing to stop a player from continuing to fight knowing they can no longer really be sanctioned for it.  For example if a ten city account was to lose 3 cities they could still be viable threat, knowing they could no longer lose anything more.

And just so its clear these are my opinions and views


Edited by lethargic0N3 - 01 Jul 2014 at 23:19
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aurordan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:22
What you're asking for, among other things, is to let Harmless intervene in and alter agreements between other alliances, for your enemies to pay you money, and for them to join and commit resources to enforcing an organization you came up with that, as far as I've seen, none of them find nessesary or would otherwise care to support in any way. All to end a war you're decidedly losing. Does anyone really need an explanation of why that is never, ever, in a million years going to happen?

Edited by Aurordan - 01 Jul 2014 at 23:23
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:29
Originally posted by lethargic0N3 lethargic0N3 wrote:

What I don't understand is if it was a sincere offer why you would then start making comments about the other parties involved.  You must know that would provoke a further reaction.


I'm not sure what you're referring to - can you clarify please.

Quote
A cynic might say that these terms were only posted with the intention of adding a little spin and getting  some good PR.


Ditto is claiming exactly that in his rants - I expected him to. That behavior is unfortunately a continuation of what we've seen ever since the diplo incident between him and SB which sparked off his vendetta. It seems as though he expects everyone to kowtow and when they don't it's game over.

I can only assure everyone that the terms are genuine and hope that someone can get certain folk to see past their inward focus.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:35
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

What you're asking for, among other things, is to let Harmless intervene in and alter agreements between other alliances, for your enemies to pay you money, and for them to join and commit resources to enforcing an organization you came up with that, as far as I've seen, none of them find nessesary or would otherwise care to support in any way. All to end a war you're decidedly losing. Does anyone really need an explanation of why that is never, ever, in a million years going to happen?


I'm asking for someone to re-consider what is reasonable in the circumstances - we certainly did when crafting agreements at the end of the Consone war and are now requesting the same consideration.

Do you really think 20 billion gold plus many advanced resources from a single alliance is fair or equitable? It seems much more likely that it was simply vindictive and taking advantage of being in a superior position. Your responses and the ones I'm dealing with in IGM certainly support that supposition.

Should I not try to help my allies and those who have suffered greatly?  Should I be only selfish and save H? skin?  Anyone who really knows us, knows that that is not our way.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aurordan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:39
Well, if you want to restrict yourself to things that might actually work, you could walk away with the zero reparation offer on the table now and just help them rebuilt yourselves. Unless, you know, you where more concerned with Harmless pride than your allies who have suffered greatly.
Back to Top
nvp33 View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (4) Thanks(4)   Quote nvp33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:43
That people respond to KP's post with doubt, or criticism is to be expected but that people would respond to this thread with scorn is beyond me.

In the open letter to H? thread, H? was asked several times to surrender, or to state under which terms they would surrender - they refused to engage, and refused to surrender.
Now they are here, two days after, offering to surrender and taking a negotiating stance. Not ultimatums, not demands, but a starting point from which they will start negotiations, just like their opponents had a starting point for their cease fire terms.

None of KP's points are (as I read them) demands.

Engage with them, talk to them. If you truly seek an outcome of this war which doesn't involve further annihilation of entire accounts, then take his seriously and begin the negotiations.

You asked them to come to the table, now they are at the table, and you leave.

And just for the record, the idea of a treaty/accord on rules of war was (as far as I know) my idea, as can be seen on the last three pages of the Open Letter to H? thread. And I have no affiliation to H?. As a matter of fact I just re-entered the game about a week ago after a close to two year break.

And when I played last the only affiliation I had with H? was a war where my alliance was under threat of annihilation in which H? and all of the Crow alliances came to my aid - not because they owed me, not because I paid them, but because all of them would not tolerate destruction of accounts én masse.

If you don't like their stance of negotiation, then say so, but don't slap them in the face - at least engage with them - negotiate, as has been said several times was your wish - to have H? surrender instead of being destroyed.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc


Edited by nvp33 - 01 Jul 2014 at 23:44
Back to Top
lethargic0N3 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lethargic0N3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 23:54

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by lethargic0N3 lethargic0N3 wrote:

What I don't understand is if it was a sincere offer why you would then start making comments about the other parties involved.  You must know that would provoke a further reaction.


I'm not sure what you're referring to - can you clarify please.


Quote
A cynic might say that these terms were only posted with the intention of adding a little spin and getting  some good PR.


Ditto is claiming exactly that in his rants - I expected him to. That behavior is unfortunately a continuation of what we've seen ever since the diplo incident between him and SB which sparked off his vendetta. It seems as though he expects everyone to kowtow and when they don't it's game over.

I can only assure everyone that the terms are genuine and hope that someone can get certain folk to see past their inward focus.


Bringing Ditto up personally and using the inabilty to post IGM's as a way to paint him in a bad light and then in your reply to me continuing to do so.  I just don't see how that helps to come to any sort of agreement or to get people to see past their inward focus.

I may be wrong but the way I see it is H? are no longer in the driving seat and you/H? are having trouble dealing with that and unfortunately that seems to come across as arrogance.
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aurordan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2014 at 00:02
Originally posted by nvp33 nvp33 wrote:

That people respond to KP's post with doubt, or criticism is to be expected but that people would respond to this thread with scorn is beyond me.

In the open letter to H? thread, H? was asked several times to surrender, or to state under which terms they would surrender - they refused to engage, and refused to surrender.
Now they are here, two days after, offering to surrender and taking a negotiating stance. Not ultimatums, not demands, but a starting point from which they will start negotiations, just like their opponents had a starting point for their cease fire terms.

None of KP's points are (as I read them) demands.

Engage with them, talk to them. If you truly seek an outcome of this war which doesn't involve further annihilation of entire accounts, then take his seriously and begin the negotiations.

You asked them to come to the table, now they are at the table, and you leave.

And just for the record, the idea of a treaty/accord on rules of war was (as far as I know) my idea, as can be seen on the last three pages of the Open Letter to H? thread. And I have no affiliation to H?. As a matter of fact I just re-entered the game about a week ago after a close to two year break.

And when I played last the only affiliation I had with H? was a war where my alliance was under threat of annihilation in which H? and all of the Crow alliances came to my aid - not because they owed me, not because I paid them, but because all of them would not tolerate destruction of accounts én masse.

If you don't like their stance of negotiation, then say so, but don't slap them in the face - at least engage with them - negotiate, as has been said several times was your wish - to have H? surrender instead of being destroyed.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc



I think what you're missing here is that this doesn't, to anyone remotely in the loop to current Elgea politcs, look like any sort of honest attempt at a settlement, it looks like kind of an insult. It's inportant to remember that the forums are not, in any way, "the table". Actual settlements get hammered out behind the scenes, posting this sort of thing here gets nowhere. And KP, I would bet, knows that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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