Peace Terms

Even if this thread serves no other purpose it will highlight the hypocrisy of one side stating they wish to see their enemy at the table and when that enemy is in the room, thinking about which chair to sit in AT THE TABLE, the proverbial "one" throws up their hands and, jabbing as they go proceed to exit the room.

It appears to me that those interested in resolving this conflict would negotiate when their opponent comes with terms instead of dismissing them flat out (which was not very tactfully done, btw).

Boah, hey people, what's going on in your heads?!  

I do apologize, but this is just getting silly. I was involved with the war and I for one am getting sick and tired of the bickering back and forth. I have to admit that I was quite shocked to see H? even offer terms. All any of us saw was that they were going to go down fighting at any and all costs. It looks like they have "seen the light" and come up with terms that seem genuine (maybe not perfect but genuine at the very least) to me and I haven't really agreed with much of what H? have said so far in this war at all, but it seems honest and its the first action on their behalf to end this war. This topic was off to a good start until Gragnog had to spout off and call the "Grand Alliance" (sorry, never really liked that name ) vultures. That is exactly the type of things that can derail a good thread. I would like this war to be over as many of us do but it will never happen when both sides can't even go 2 posts without personal attacks. You are all acting like children and need to put on your darn (using nice words so I don't get banned ) big boy/girl pants on and set your pride aside and hash this out like the adults that I know you all can be. This will be my first and last comment on the matter. Good day. 

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.