Should Harmless get involved
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1291
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Should Harmless get involved
Posted By: HonoredMule
Subject: Should Harmless get involved
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 04:40
TMM have finally acted upon their threats to ethnically cleanse "their" territory, and they're starting with all the alliances that aren't Toothless--presumably because we (Harmless) back Toothless and would crush TMM when that happens.
Harmless finds TMM's actions despicable, including those against individuals and alliances we do not protect. At the same time, we do not want to police the server or ever be viewed as the server police. There is generally room in Illyriad for all play styles. But is this too much? For this situation alone, we are willing to stand in defense of all newbies in TMM territory.
Please vote on whether you think Harmless should declare war on TMM. This one time only, we will enforce the wishes of the community as a whole. TMM is attacking players NOW and time is very short. Because of this, we will begin launching attacks very soon and not stop until this poll sits stably at a clear "no."
Realize that we are giving the community as a whole voice over whether we get involved before Toothless comes under fire, not how or until what point. Once ratified, we will stop when we feel that newbies are safe and the aggressors will not (or cannot) repeat their mistakes or retaliate against us in the near future.
Note also that reactively defending cities under attack (especially at our distance) is beyond tactically infeasible. Cities would be razed to the ground by the time we arrived, and that's without considering non-aligned players and NAPing half the server.
Regards,
- HM, Harmless Director
|
Replies:
Posted By: Shuey707
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 04:53
Posted By: Shadar Logoth
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:00
|
Hi HM,
always love reading your posts.
So to answer you honestly.
If H? isn't going in, we will anyway.
I do have to be honest we are in a bind right now, so we can't respond just yet the way we would like to, but I hope to solve that problem at our earliest convenience :p
However, we totally agree with your grievances against TMM. We, that being Invictus and Victrix, would be honoured to join you. And if you decide not to make that step, we will still go along. TMM have something coming yet.
To be honest, there is just one outcome to this.
Nige, Butler, Juno, Yoshi-sumtin, and ava-sumtin positions die.
Their friends have a little time to still negotiate with us. But not to long, cause the wheel/sands of time is/are running out for them.
*Shadar Logoth scratches his bald head while picking some meat from between his teeth*
-------------
More Orc, less talking!
All that is said is my own opinion. I am not a leader nor voice for Invictus. I will always abide by Invictus's rules.
|
Posted By: Shuey707
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:02
 Shadar Logoth wrote:
Hi HM,
always love reading your posts.
So to answer you honestly.
If H? isn't going in, we will anyway.
I do have to be honest we are in a bind right now, so we can't respond just yet the way we would like to, but I hope to solve that problem at our earliest convenience :p
However, we totally agree with your grievances against TMM. We, that being Invictus and Victrix, would be honoured to join you. And if you decide not to make that step, we will still go along. TMM have something coming yet.
To be honest, there is just one outcome to this.
Nige, Butler, Juno, Yoshi-sumtin, and ava-sumtin positions die.
Their friends have a little time to still negotiate with us. But not to long, cause the wheel/sands of time is/are running out for them.
*Shadar Logoth scratches his bald head while picking some meat from between his teeth* |
The time for negotiations is over. To war, brothers, to war.
|
Posted By: rebel5360
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:07
i say yes! why sit around and wait while TMM goes around killing noob friendly alliances? i vote yes. i will use my Armys to defend ANY
T? member that gets attacked.
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:09
i think H? should get involved to make TMM humbled, but i doubt TMM is going to be humbled, so...they are probably going to have to be downsized. So H? seems like the best possible people to do this.
-------------
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin
|
Posted By: Taron
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:24
|
I say H? should do what they want just like in previous cases. If H? wants to join in a War join, if H? dosen't don't. I say H? should make its own choice.
I say do whats right, but do what you feel.
I'm not saying I've made the right decisions all the time and I'm not saying H? has made wrong decisions. I'm sayind theres always 2 paths and one has to be the one must take.
Aesir has made there choice and it will be shown later.
PS Theres always another rout like off road but that is chaotic.
-------------
I am Responsible for what I say.
I Am not responsible for what you understand.
|
Posted By: Kelis2
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:24
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:29
There isn't any negotiating with TMM, Kelis. Their stance with US, Toothless and any other player in their "so-called" territory is join us or we'll seige you out of our space. They never made a public announcement about their intentions for that area priior to activation of the spell to move. Toothelss and US members both settled there, along side of TMM. I shudder to think of the unaffiliated players they have already run out of this game because they claim they have rights to that territory.
They don't have rights to that area, period. We all moved there and we can live in peace, TMM's position is join or be destroyed. Again, call it like it is, bullying.
Voted!
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:30
@Kelis2:
negotiations have already failed after ongoing discussions between TMM and several affected alliances in the area. In every case TMM's position has been intractable and untenable for any who would remain independent (i.e. free).
The idea that conflicts should be solvable without violence is a noble but ultimately willfully naive position that elevates unwillingness to exert violence over any other value--including freedom and/or unwillingness to sacrifice ones self to received violence.
|
Posted By: nvp33
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:32
I hope you don't mean me Tellis.
I did all I could within reason to accomodate TMM but they wouldn't compromise in any way.
There was a singular incident where Nige said he would look at my arguments and get back to me, but when he did he didn't even reference them or discuss them, he just kept saying the same, that we should disband and merge with them.
|
Posted By: Shuey707
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:38
Kelis2 wrote:
I admit to not having followed the issue, but from what I can see (only our side), I want to keep the bullies off the street.
However, direct action should only be applied when negotiations have failed.
Whoever lead those negotiations should step down or be fired.
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< name="ProgId" ="Word.">< name="Generator" ="Microsoft Word 9">< name="Originator" ="Microsoft Word 9"> file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/John/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml -
|
Posted By: Shadar Logoth
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 05:42
|
The dice was cast, long before this current argument even started....
Shadar Logoth
-------------
More Orc, less talking!
All that is said is my own opinion. I am not a leader nor voice for Invictus. I will always abide by Invictus's rules.
|
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 06:35
Its not a matter of should... Stop being so indecisive.
Its a matter of... what do YOU and YOUR MEMBERS want? You are still players yourself in this part of the internets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One can argue this sets a bad future precedent. H? are the underpaid mall cops. Judge, jury and executioner... as it pleases.
Others can argue that this is a unique circumstance, "join or die" with no prior notice. Many unwitting players prancing into the maw of the predator.
Yea. Thats the jist of it.
|
Posted By: dilbert2234
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 06:36
Starry called it very accurately, I didn't know they were claiming a country to themselves when I started....
Definite self-interest in this, but I'd vote yes if I could find the vote button 
Dilbert2234
|
Posted By: tebout
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 07:03
|
he is a very unreasonable individual, NIGE, he did not seem to see the point, when i messaged him, that pushing players who are currently there and pushing new players from the region isn't bullying. It is, and unfortunately we have to result in going to war but it is truly a must to stop another "MK" from rising. apologys for my preaching but lets prepare the pitch forks ladies and gentleman.
tebout
|
Posted By: Kelis2
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 07:34
I can see that in this game, it would be absurd to try non-violence to resolve conflicts. I think a bit of "International" protocols should be put in place to protect the non-violent from the violent players. Diplomacy should be given a strongr hand.
In real life, it is never naive to believe that diplomacy can resolve conflicts. Ultimately, it is the only way to eventually stop unending world wars.
|
Posted By: Deathwolf
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 08:27
Well as a member of T? they had threatened and attacked one of our new players before he could even respond to his messages. That just shows that they are idiotic bullies. So yes H? should go in along with anyone else in the top 5 alliances as a combined force to show you don't ruin the game for new people because that kills the game.
|
Posted By: Metallicus
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 08:58
The time for diplomacy came and went with TMM insisting that US disband and join TMM or leave the land. DB and US have tried to accomodate TMM but to no avail. Open hostilities have now begun with troops and diplos marching on the TMM cities as i type.
United Orc Scourge are the brother guild to Dark Blight and we are honour bound to march to their aid but on a personal note we defend US in the memory of Grog/shrapnel.
nvp33 has 4 incoming attacks at the moment and i will get a fuller intel picture soon for anybody who is interested. Just mail me ingame
TMM must be shown that their actions are wrong and although it will be a hard fought and costly action we at Dark Blight are willing to pay the price.
Any help of any kind to halt the injustice falling on US would be gratefully appreciated and not forgotten.
Many thanks in advance
-------------
Proud Warboss of Dark Blight
|
Posted By: Grip
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 09:42
Posted By: Finnegas
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 10:19
|
You say you don't want to police the server but you do. You ask a question but at the same time you give the answer.
If you want blood, go and get it, you don't really need anybody else's moral backup.
You stole the sea from us.
|
Posted By: firinne
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:01
I have spoken with the TMM personally over this, and found their stance appalling. I find that the best part about being a new player is the freedom and ability to choose one's own destiny. TMM is taking that away from many, reducing them into thralls, or ash, the "choice" being theirs.
Finnegas does have a point in this being policing the server, as in requiring that there are some morale absolutes that should remain inviolate or else. So does
Honored_Mule; as TMM has been genociding all non-TMM in a huge blotch of
the map for quite some time already, it stands to reason that though
Harmless? may feel compelled to step up to the plate, it is not a role it looks forward to. To me this does not seem a first step down a slippery slope. It's stepping in when a gang is about to beat up a victim for walking on what they see as the wrong side of the road.
Thus, my vote is an unhesitant YES.
If the TMM feels they cannot live with others, it is "cannot live" that will have to give, rather than "with others".
|
Posted By: Gratch
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:07
The only thing I must ask is I hope any hostilities that are then aimed at TMM by harmless will be just against those who have wronged other alliances by being the aggressors and not against the few who joined out of fear of feeling the aggression from TMM?
|
Posted By: Fateful Ending
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:09
|
Harmless? have already said they are concentrating on the leadership, and that all other members do have a chance to redeem themselves ETC.
Unfortunately it comes down to whether or not the defence "I was under Orders" works. (which it shouldn't, free-will exists)
PS, just relised that came off a it harsh, What i meant was that no-one who attacks should use the excuse. Bullied Members should have no consequences thrust upon them, unless of course they join in.
|
Posted By: firinne
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:14
TMM though clearly does not seem to acknowledge the concept of free will. As a famous leader once said,
"You are with us, or..."
|
Posted By: Gratch
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:16
That was all I was wondering. In that case TMM do not have any excuse for their actioons and harmless has full right to stand up for those who are feeling the weight of TMM's discrimination.
To be honest I think only the few who had no part or no say in the actions that took place are the blameless ones.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:36
My spears have been getting rusty for a while now... 
Though it's not just out of boredom that I want to launch an attack... I do genuinely feel for those poor bullied noobies out there, I was one once under the strangle hold of several notorious White thugs, and H? ultimately rescued me. So now it's my turn to give something back to the peaceful, prosperous and noobie friendly community out there. 
|
Posted By: Finnegas
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:45
|
A few concerns:
1. What would H? involvement be? Destruction of TMM? it would be the second time they do it
2. Seems like the choice for TMM would be: quit or die; not that much different from their victims' claim
3. There's the risk that the conflict will become global if Harmless gets involved. Time ago there were some people criticizing H? and they may be waiting the chance. Maybe that's why H? is probing public opinion before they enter another annihilation war.
4. Can't there be a compromise? Making a nation whole seems like a romantic idea to me, not bad per se. Maybe US can join TMM into a confederation, include some reference to Malt Motsa in their name (Malt Motha's US?) and be an autonomous province within that region.
Not that I care a lot about all this because I don't associate with either of the contending alliances. I'm just bored and trying to see things from another perspective.
|
Posted By: Metallicus
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 12:54
Finnegas wrote:
A few concerns:
1. What would H? involvement be? Destruction of TMM? it would be the second time they do it
2. Seems like the choice for TMM would be: quit or die; not that much different from their victims' claim
3. There's the risk that the conflict will become global if Harmless gets involved. Time ago there were some people criticizing H? and they may be waiting the chance. Maybe that's why H? is probing public opinion before they enter another annihilation war.
4. Can't there be a compromise? Making a nation whole seems like a romantic idea to me, not bad per se. Maybe US can join TMM into a confederation, include some reference to Malt Motsa in their name (Malt Motha's US?) and be an autonomous province within that region.
Not that I care a lot about all this because I don't associate with either of the contending alliances. I'm just bored and trying to see things from another perspective. |
In answer mate,
1. Involvement of any kind from H? may tip the balance and force TMM to stand down (I would)
2. We dont seek their destruction,just a sharp lesson in how to be a good neighbour.
3. Understood and i wouldnt expect any other approach.
4. The compromise in the TMM camp is "Join or Die". Both US and DB have tried the diplomatic route
to abject failure. I also feel that we owe it to shrap to protect his work and allow US to grow
unhindered.
Just my thoughts :)
-------------
Proud Warboss of Dark Blight
|
Posted By: Finrod
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 14:04
|
By posting this, I know I am probably forfeiting any aid World's End would receive from H? in our own conflict, but I support H? intervention against The Mal Motshans. Even against our odds, we have a chance to defend ourselves, new players do not. This makes TMM's actions more grievous even than those that are being sent against us; therefore, TMM should receive H? attention.
Finrod
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 14:52
Hey maybe Harmless should ask TMM to merge with them or die!
-------------
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 15:03
|
lmao G0Ds, that's priceless.
|
Posted By: Metallicus
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 15:05
 nice one G0Ds
-------------
Proud Warboss of Dark Blight
|
Posted By: sityviper
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 15:21
lol GODs, i voted yes, and i hope the newbies are protected
-------------
.i...V.... 3
|
Posted By: Sgt..Shanks
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:19
Think H? should be on standby yes..
but also feel that this would be a great oppotunity for the other semi- larger alliances
to show what they are really made of!.... big stuff from what I have read in global...
Rather than just having small meaningless mini-wars between themselves!??
Good-Luck to all that stand up for justice:)
|
Posted By: Metallicus
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:29
Sgt..Shanks wrote:
Think H? should be on standby yes..
but also feel that this would be a great oppotunity for the other semi- larger alliances
to show what they are really made of!.... big stuff from what I have read in global...
Rather than just having small meaningless mini-wars between themselves!??
Good-Luck to all that stand up for justice:)
|
We are giving it a damn good try sarge
-------------
Proud Warboss of Dark Blight
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:46
|
For the record, H? does NOT police servers and that is why we are doing a poll here. If we were to get involved it would have to be from an overwhelming response from the other players in the game asking us to...
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:49
Finnegas wrote:
You say you don't want to police the server but you do. You ask a question but at the same time you give the answer.
If you want blood, go and get it, you don't really need anybody else's moral backup.
You stole the sea from us. |
Exactly what Sea did we "Steal" from you Finnegas?
We settled before you did at Port Tal, so if that is what you are referring to, how could we have "Stolen" it? And you have many cities on that sea...
|
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:54
Kumomoto wrote:
Finnegas wrote:
You say you don't want to police the server but you do. You ask a question but at the same time you give the answer.
If you want blood, go and get it, you don't really need anybody else's moral backup.
You stole the sea from us. |
Exactly what Sea did we "Steal" from you Finnegas?
We settled before you did at Port Tal, so if that is what you are referring to, how could we have "Stolen" it? And you have many cities on that sea... |
The Sea of Blood, Kumo.
-------------
I am not amused.
|
Posted By: lorre
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 16:55
-hugs- for all and i say the more people the more joy
-------------
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
Posted By: iluvpie3
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 17:51
|
If H? only attacks Nige and the leaders,I vote yes.
If its a complete ruthless annihalation of TMM,I will not be so supporting of Harmless.Harmless should knock out Nige,make the region free to anyone,and leave once TMM agree to never try something stupid like this again.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 17:52
Fateful Ending wrote:
Harmless? have already said they are concentrating on the leadership, and that all other members do have a chance to redeem themselves ETC.
Unfortunately it comes down to whether or not the defence "I was under Orders" works. (which it shouldn't, free-will exists)
PS, just relised that came off a it harsh, What i meant was that no-one who attacks should use the excuse. Bullied Members should have no consequences thrust upon them, unless of course they join in. |
I do not recall anyone asserting this with regard to war against TMM, but it certainly is our modus operandi and hold true here. We assign blame (and correction) proportional to a player's involvement in both military/diplomatic activity and leadership/coordination. To us, the most grievous actions in order from worst to least are:
- instructing aggressions
- coordinating aggressions
- performing aggressions
- supplying troops to combatants
- defending instructors or coordinators
- defending aggressors
- financially supporting any of the above
- politically supporting the aggressors through insincere (biased/ulterior motive) public advocacy.
- politically supporting their alliance through affiliation
- trading with the aggressors (selling them equipment)
Note that actively attacking is quite high on that list, and no, "I was only following orders" is definitely not a viable defense (so don't even waste your breath). You are always responsible for your own actions, and when they are this grievous, they cannot be absolved by good deeds alone. The last three items generally earn no consequence other than showing us a player's character for future reference which sways future political dealings, but there's no guarantees here. As is our general policy, we allow any non-participants to truly non-participate by leaving the alliance and all is forgotten (suppose we don't catch those players secretly providing financial support or troops). Players who only appear to be non-participants while remaining a member of the offending alliance tend to raise our suspicion and ultimately have no promise of safety.
Total destruction of TMM is not at all our goal, nor is there a lack of alternative outcomes. But we wouldn't be declaring war if the time for bloodless resolution weren't long past. TMM doesn't get to push and push to see how far they can go without consequence, then stop there when they finally meet true resistance and just say "no harm no foul." (As if plenty of harm hadn't been done already.) It's not just cowardly, it's a bad precedence that encourages potential enemies to constantly test us. If you try to test us, we will make sure failing that test hurts.
TMM have already shown that some significant portion of them need to be disabled because they would not restrain themselves for any other reason. It's too late to say "ok, we'll stop" now...but we'll listen again when we no longer have to simply accept the word of the primary culprits.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 17:59
Oh, and with 43 votes in about 12 hours and 79% yes, we think our direction is most clear. We are declaring war upon TMM immediately and shall conclude the war on our timing and discretion.
We appreciate the concerns of players who feel we might go overboard, but this vote was proposed alongside a clear statement that we would handle the war our way and to our satisfaction and still got a clear go-ahead. Harmless shall endeavor to be reasonable, but we cannot promise that everyone will consider our perspective reasonable.
What we can all hope is that a situation like this never arises again.
|
Posted By: Metallicus
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 18:18
HonoredMule,
I dont think we have met but i want to thank you personally for marching to the aid of US. Its a worthy cause and i think the balance will be restored in the region thanks to your gracious aid.
-------------
Proud Warboss of Dark Blight
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 18:35
|
I think entire Illyriad has spoken. I haven't been online much in the past few days but I felt the urge to take action again TMM to defend US after the mail I got on this matter. I never knew this much alliances would get involved, but I like it.
I know Nige is a big bully as I've only seen him attack smaller players from the first day I've seen him on Illyriad. Alot of people have issues with him (and all his alt's). The amount of votes H? got on this poll proves that once again.
I was planning to land a couple attacks on TMM but seeing that almost all alliances have commited tehmselfs to attack TMM, I guess we will just defend the US towns that have been targetted and distroy the sieges if any are even sent.
CranK
|
Posted By: theblackmofia
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 18:46
|
tmm sent me a message claiming this is after all a war game, the mods put in territorys for othes to claim. well as of right now i claim Mal Motsha as a tyranny free zone!
|
Posted By: Gratch
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 18:50
the thing is, it seems that TMM constantly hide behind the line "it's a war game" but they fail to realise it's also a diplomacy game. Otherwise there would not be the option.
And I think the diplomatically advanced anti-TMM force will no doubt show them this soon. :)
|
Posted By: tebout
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 19:11
|
and then some, great to see you guys aboard unfortunately, the matter couldn't of been dealt with in another way. I don't know Nige but I'm for certain in my heart that he is truly a bully with the messages i've recieved. again aplogys for my preaching.
tebout
|
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 20:10
|
im curious who are the 5 people that said no and why they choose that.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 20:12
TMM has 15 members. I'd rather expect at least 10 no votes from them alone. 
|
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 20:18
|
if thats the case, its funny they haven't spoken about their demise...you'd think they'd want to defend themselves...
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 20:21
|
Nah, it would be foolish to step into a loaded audience like this. It just provides fuel for your enemies.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 20:41
HonoredMule wrote:
TMM has 15 members. I'd rather expect at least 10 no votes from them alone.
|
Not if some of their members were coerced into joining.
|
Posted By: Faya
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 21:44
Deathwolf wrote:
Well as a member of T? they had threatened and attacked one of our new players before he could even respond to his messages. That just shows that they are idiotic bullies. So yes H? should go in along with anyone else in the top 5 alliances as a combined force to show you don't ruin the game for new people because that kills the game.
|
Good Day all,
We were also approached to assist in this war. As a top 5 alliance, I agree we need to get involved. Goonies are happy to to send bullies back to the depths they came from. We will come to the assistance of US if we are needed. We are happy to see Harmless involved in this and greatly respect the manner in which they approached getting involved.
Faya Goonies
|
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 21:54
hI voted no because hevery city H? razes is vone less hI can conquer. ^vvv^
But mostly because hI tink it vould be nice to see vot can be accomplished vitout dem.
hI don't really mind dem participatink, doh.
|
Posted By: Grunvagr
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:08
fluffy wrote:
im curious who are the 5 people that said no and why they choose that.
|
I voted no.
I don't like H? getting involved in this at all. It seems like any excuse is a good excuse to fight. And Harmless strengthens their position if they have an excuse to bully a top 10 alliance, especially when there is little to no risk to themselves, since it's not a 1v1 against TMM.
I think H? should mind it's own business instead of policing Illyriad. What I would MUCH prefer to see, is a lot of small/medium alliances banding together for a fair fight against TMM.
To me this is just a perfect excuse by bored members in H? with huge armies to go blow up a strong alliance in TMM, without the public opinion being against them. I for one don't approve.
If they do get involved, i'd like to see them just kill the TMM troops and not destroy any cities of theirs... but I have a feeling if they get invovled it's to catapult the crap out of a potential future threat in TMM.
my2cents - and im not saying I support TMM in the war, either.
|
Posted By: -hypocritical-
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:14
Grunvagr wrote:
If they do get involved, i'd like to see them just kill the TMM troops and not destroy any cities of theirs... but I have a feeling if they get invovled it's to catapult the crap out of a potential future threat in TMM.
|
I called this in the good/h? thread!! 
but in all seriousness they are removing known players who are activvely attacking and razing new players for no reason and so no remorse or will to stop
that said I would rather see a few mid sized factions join up and have a pop, rather than h? do all the work, but still I dont care if they help out or not, the result will be the same, only with h? it will be more efficent
(new conspiracy theory: h? looking to steal xp points from other alliances for their comanders? ) |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:17
Hyeah! H?, stop beink selfish. Let us hef some fun! ;)
Seriously doh, dey's bigs players are pretty big. And hI'm sure ve'll still find some fun to hef. :P
|
Posted By: Grunvagr
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:41
What don't I like?
I don't like that this top alliance feels it even has to ask for public opinion before it can attack someone. If you want to protect newbies then do it. Be strong and decisive and others will respect your strength and your decisiveness.
Polling is wrong. What does it matter what global chat thinks? It makes me think about future wars, any wars to come, in Illyriad. Will H? have a poll then? Either jump into a war because you have a strong sense of pride or purpose, or stay uninvolved because it doesn't concern you or your interests.
That is my point.
I don't want to be starting any trouble so I'll go ahead and shut up for now.
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:45
|
I did not vote. In as much as I am not a member of H?, my opinion on the decisions that H? makes is a bit irrelevant. Now I am going to go back to minding the affairs of MY alliance.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 22:58
Grunvagr wrote:
What don't I like?
I don't like that this top alliance feels it even has to ask for public opinion before it can attack someone. If you want to protect newbies then do it. Be strong and decisive and others will respect your strength and your decisiveness.
Polling is wrong. What does it matter what global chat thinks? It makes me think about future wars, any wars to come, in Illyriad. Will H? have a poll then? Either jump into a war because you have a strong sense of pride or purpose, or stay uninvolved because it doesn't concern you or your interests.
That is my point.
I don't want to be starting any trouble so I'll go ahead and shut up for now.
|
H does protect newbies, they were the first major alliance to support and protect the new players in Toothless, where have you been? Toothless is a sister alliance to Harmless. Honestly, they can't win, if they jumped in without discussing it, they would be criticized, now they are criticized because they asked the players. From the very beginning, Harmless has championed and helped new players, I know because I was in Harmless during those days.
This entire issue involved H? from the start, Toothless members have been threatened and attacked by TMM (see my topic in this same forum). I was also very concerned that any help we received from H would be perceived as H policing the server. Frankly, I think HM did a great job of going public with their dilemma and taking a stand on this.
You may want to read the other topics about TMM including the topic involving Toothless before you continue your comments against H, Grunvagr.
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2010 at 02:22
Starry wrote:
Grunvagr wrote:
What don't I like?
I don't like that this top alliance feels it even has to ask for public opinion before it can attack someone. If you want to protect newbies then do it. Be strong and decisive and others will respect your strength and your decisiveness.
Polling is wrong. What does it matter what global chat thinks? It makes me think about future wars, any wars to come, in Illyriad. Will H? have a poll then? Either jump into a war because you have a strong sense of pride or purpose, or stay uninvolved because it doesn't concern you or your interests.
That is my point.
I don't want to be starting any trouble so I'll go ahead and shut up for now.
|
H does protect newbies, they were the first major alliance to support and protect the new players in Toothless, where have you been? Toothless is a sister alliance to Harmless. Honestly, they can't win, if they jumped in without discussing it, they would be criticized, now they are criticized because they asked the players. From the very beginning, Harmless has championed and helped new players, I know because I was in Harmless during those days.
This entire issue involved H? from the start, Toothless members have been threatened and attacked by TMM (see my topic in this same forum). I was also very concerned that any help we received from H would be perceived as H policing the server. Frankly, I think HM did a great job of going public with their dilemma and taking a stand on this.
You may want to read the other topics about TMM including the topic involving Toothless before you continue your comments against H, Grunvagr.
|
I totally agree with Starry here. Yes, if H? has no buisness with this war, only gaining some good PR on this, I would be against it. But TMM has attacked T? members in the past and so it also involves H?
Acutally, TMM attacked so much new players that are now in all different alliances, I'm not even surprised that so much alliances band together against TMM as they are ALL involved in some way. TMM has called this upon themselfs. It was just a ticking timebomb to explode.. And that time has now come. They pissed off too much players in Illyriad, inculding me.
|
Posted By: Iduna
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2010 at 21:53
CranK wrote:
Acutally, TMM attacked so much new players that are now in all different alliances, I'm not even surprised that so much alliances band together against TMM as they are ALL involved in some way. TMM has called this upon themselfs. It was just a ticking timebomb to explode.. And that time has now come. They pissed off too much players in Illyriad, inculding me. |
I totally agree with CranK here, to go even go further into this, attacking new players as to the extend TMM has done and is still doing will affect the game.
This game is at all times depending on new players to have a future at all.
By making new players leave this game the future of this game is at stake.
More over the main reason why also WOTP has joined in this fight, it doesn't have to affect an alliance directly but also indirect far stretching consequences are a driving motive in this issue.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 00:49
Starry wrote:
This entire issue involved H? from the start, Toothless members have been threatened and attacked by TMM (see my topic in this same forum). I was also very concerned that any help we received from H would be perceived as H policing the server. Frankly, I think HM did a great job of going public with their dilemma and taking a stand on this. |
Then why would they be criticized for something that they were directly involved with? Everyone knows T? is under H?'s protection so why would anyone come under the impression that they were policing the server? They were simply protecting the alliance they've stated they will protect. I don't know why anyone would criticize them for that and even if someone did, I don't see why you guys would care.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 04:52
@Brids17: People might criticize us (and we do our best to avoid that criticism) because:
1) TMM haven't started hitting Toothless players yet, but are hitting other alliances with whom we have no affiliation. Attacking now would render our own motives unclear, to others if not to ourselves.
2) We have an opinion regarding the broader concerns surrounding TMM's behavior, and it is those concerns we are addressing by getting involved on behalf of the others under attack. Therefore we do need the community's blessing, else by acting unilaterally we are policing the server.
3) We could just pre-emptively attack anyway, and even break TMM sieges for our own benefit. If that were our choice, we'd execute it un-apologetically--some would accept that as a reasonable way to protect our sister alliance. But while we don't mind the inevitable cadre of haters that crop up no matter what we do anyway, we do particularly hate accusations of policing the server.
It's a tired and baseless political attack to be used by simpletons. Were there any validity to the premise, one could equivalently say that any action we take is wrong on the grounds that we're bigger than everyone else. It's like saying being #1 is the root crime. And if that's what you're saying, then just come out and say that you're jealous of our position and want it for yourself. Better yet, try to take it. Just spare us all the moral outrage and alternate justifications.
The server is still young and--believe it or not, I'm still on track with point #3--given a reasonable alternative, we will try to step lightly instead of steamrolling any detractors. We want our next big enemy to be competent and challenging, not an army of inexperienced dupes sacrificing themselves for all the wrong reasons and taskmasters. We don't want our success to be in conflict with the good of the game.
|
Posted By: some random guy
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 05:15
|
Actually, the Commonwealth has a Confederation with Love World Order, which has a NAP with Slaves To Armok, which has a NAP with Crow's Wing, which has a NAP with Invictus, which has a NAP with Harmless? The Commonwealth has dedicated a total of 590 troops to the cause. We're all in this together, although TMM probably has an indirect NAP with Harmless? too.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 06:24
We don't militarily support NAPs. We just don't attack them either. Some may treat it differently, but that's all a Non-Aggression Pact is.
Generally speaking, we prefer and promote ad-hoc diplomatic relationships that take into consideration the dangers of nth-degree relationships. If you want to get really technical, you can check out http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/UK1:Harmless/Treaties - this page .
|
Posted By: Grunvagr
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 06:38
I wasn't fully aware of the situation when I first posted. I more or less am, now.
I was needlessly critical towards H? That is a statement (not a question--blame their abbreviation!)
The one thing that worried me was the feeling I got that this could become commonplace. That if any war were to break out--top alliances would take polls and jump in. It seems the game would instantly suck if that were the case since nobody would dare start a war, even a justified one -- with even sides in the war -- for fear of top alliances jumping in and demolishing you.
It was just a vibe. So I just wanted to clear that up.
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 07:11
|
Part of me say's yes, but another part of me say's that it's kind of cool to have a hostile, player faction, limited to a certain area. Could we perhaps just really hurt their leadership as a message, say one major city each and petition the GM's to dis-allow newbie spawning in the area.
Oh and re-activate teleport for those already in the area.
|
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 09:08
col0005, I like your idea, but I think it involves too much dev participation.
-------------
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 11:09
col0005 wrote:
Part of me say's yes, but another part of me say's that it's kind of cool to have a hostile, player faction, limited to a certain area. Could we perhaps just really hurt their leadership as a message, say one major city each and petition the GM's to dis-allow newbie spawning in the area.
Oh and re-activate teleport for those already in the area. |
Col, why should we then just hand over a large area to an alliance that turns round and says this is our land, join us or die....whats to stop all alliances doing the same thing...i think the actions of the alliances involved are the right one, leave it up to players to decide whats right and wrong in the game.
|
Posted By: Mr Andersson
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 11:12
col0005 wrote:
Part of me say's yes, but another part of me say's that it's kind of cool to have a hostile, player faction, limited to a certain area. Could we perhaps just really hurt their leadership as a message, say one major city each and petition the GM's to dis-allow newbie spawning in the area.
Oh and re-activate teleport for those already in the area. |
I don't like this idea at all. Why should some areas be off limit for spawning of new players just because a few players which so? I don't mind the concept of claiming territory and I can see the possibility for a more protective stance within regions when the option to resettle come in to play.
Therefor I much prefer a longer beginner protection and the possibility to for new players to resettle to other location. That way they can choose if they which to stay and join, or settle else where. The possibility to stay and not join is always there I guess. But, that would only be theoretical as we could never have such long protection periods for new players as to build up a defense capable of holding off whole alliances and fight for their independence in a claimed territory.
TMM have choose and stance that is not really reasonable (my subjective opinion) based on the present game mechanisms. This has been acknowledged bye most people in the game, hence the development during the last month.
-------------
MrA
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 13:08
|
Look the truth is from a moral point of view I totally agree, but from a flavour of the game side i like it. Could we perhaps speak the GM's about it. Perhaps still kill off the leadership to discorage other alliances following suit, but allow the lesser members to continue as they are. If the GM's change the mechanics just for this area it would solve the problem of new players leaving the game as well as adda character to the area.
Obviously we'd only ask the GM's to step in once the war had been won.
By the way, I am in no way supporting TMM methods and behaviour i'm just trying to point out how we could use this situation to further improve the game, not just maintain what is already good
|
Posted By: Mr Andersson
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 13:38
|
The dev interest are off course also to get players to stay in the game, but a specific solution for a specific alliance is just too much for me. We as players pass judgement, the dev provide opportunities/possibilities. That is how I think it should work I'm quite convinced that if this was a real problem actually killing the game, some dev solutions would have been introduced already (which was not alliance/player specific). Yes a few players might have left the game because of harassment from TMM but I dont think it is significantly impacting the destiny of this game
I believe that it actually is the moral point that is causing the commotion we now see. People feel that all new players deserve a chance and they see that they can do something about it, so they do. The situation obviously provides many players with the opportunity for some action as well - regardless of their view of the situation the pick the winning side to get some of the cake. I think the whole situation that has developed attracts player to the game rather then drive them off (in general term speaking)
-------------
MrA
|
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 15:09
col0005 wrote:
Look the truth is from a moral point of view I totally agree, but from a flavour of the game side i like it. Could we perhaps speak the GM's about it. Perhaps still kill off the leadership to discorage other alliances following suit, but allow the lesser members to continue as they are. If the GM's change the mechanics just for this area it would solve the problem of new players leaving the game as well as adda character to the area.
Obviously we'd only ask the GM's to step in once the war had been won.
By the way, I am in no way supporting TMM methods and behaviour i'm just trying to point out how we could use this situation to further improve the game, not just maintain what is already good |
GMs have no place in this.
It is in the hands of the players.
They have to maintain neutrality... else people will accuse them of being biased curs. That is worse then doing nothing for the longevity of the game.
How can I trust the GMs to not step in whenever someone goes crying to them to intervene if they do so here?
If TMM exploited bugs. That is in the realm of GM interference, where other players would have no hand in it. TMM action is purely legal from a mechanics stand-point.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 16:12
Mr Andersson wrote:
The dev interest are off course also to get players to stay in the game, but a specific solution for a specific alliance is just too much for me. We as players pass judgement, the dev provide opportunities/possibilities. That is how I think it should work
|
This is exactly how it works, and is well put.
We build a framework of game mechanics, and players put these mechanics to use - for better or worse.
There are some instances (especially regarding the "new player experience") where we are particularly interested in trying to ensure that people have a fighting chance, but on the whole our philosophy is very much against the GM team becoming moral arbiters in the gameworld.
Regards,
GM Stormcrow
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 02:01
|
Ok I can see i'm not getting much support here so I won't post again. I wasn't suggesting that the gm's step in and do our work for us, rather I was suggesting that after TMM leadership falls to global armies, which they will, that if my idea to enhance the flavour of the game was well recieved they could then put an ingame framework around the remains of the alliance as TMM would likely be grateful for this option out and it would be everyone elso who'd asked for it.
Therefore not really dev intervention
As it hasn't been well recieved I change my vote from "other" to "yes" it's fine for harmless to get involved
Oh also when the GM's allow moving cities I hope that they make it so the cost is entirely in gold and resources so as to allow an alliance that wishes to re-instate a TMM style alliance can do so in a more player friendly manner, and foot the entire bill (plus extra) for moving players already in their area. (not that I believe TMM did, or even would do this)
|
Posted By: King EAM
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2010 at 20:24
|
I voted other. It really just depends on the situation. It is H?'s decision they can do whatever they want with their alliance, good or bad.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2010 at 04:17
|
Thank you. The poll is over now. H? has gotten involved in a limited capacity and the proverbial Alia is iactum...
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2010 at 13:06
|
I know the poll is over, but I'd just like to add my opinion. Harmless has the right to attack whoever they want, doubly so if their sister alliance has been threatened. My alliance, Dark Blight, are well known for being 'warmongorers' or however the hell you spell it, but we only attack unaffiliated players or those who have attacked us. What TMM is doing is different. I know this is only a game but it can be compared to what Hitler did- killed people because they don't fit in. TMM are being a little more benevolent, but they are still ruining the game for many players. I dont think that that is right, and even if Harmless had not joined in we still would've won this war, because we will always have more people joining our cause. There is no place for what TMM is doing in Illyriad, so... my soldiers ready.
|
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2010 at 17:38
One godwin point for you sir...
-------------
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2010 at 04:35
bartimeus wrote:
One godwin point for you sir... |
There are no points awarded for proving Godwins law.
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2010 at 06:05
i'll give you a G0dwin point then
-------------
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin
|
Posted By: Dronthor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2010 at 12:34
Nokigon wrote:
[...]. My alliance, Dark Blight, are well known for being 'warmongorers' or however the hell you spell it, but we only attack unaffiliated players or those who have attacked us. What TMM is doing is different. [...] |
It completely escapes me, how attacking unaffiliated players is morally superior to TMM's war. Although I do not condone TMM's behaviour, at least they can claim to be playing somewhat within the theme of a war simulation game where there are provinces and factions. All TMM really is doing is saying "If you're not with us you're against us". Not a very sustainable diplomatic stance, but IMO better at any rate than saying "If you're easy prey, we'll eat you" That is what only attacking unaffiliated players amounts to.
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2010 at 19:14
Dronthor wrote:
Nokigon wrote:
[...]. My alliance, Dark Blight, are well known for being 'warmongorers' or however the hell you spell it, but we only attack unaffiliated players or those who have attacked us. What TMM is doing is different. [...] |
It completely escapes me, how attacking unaffiliated players is morally superior to TMM's war. Although I do not condone TMM's behaviour, at least they can claim to be playing somewhat within the theme of a war simulation game where there are provinces and factions. All TMM really is doing is saying "If you're not with us you're against us". Not a very sustainable diplomatic stance, but IMO better at any rate than saying "If you're easy prey, we'll eat you" That is what only attacking unaffiliated players amounts to. |
Well, I'm sorry, but we need someone to attack. By hitting unaffiliated players, we offend one person and get experience and resources. We also only attack those who have refused an invitation, and been insulting about it.
|
Posted By: Kelis
Date Posted: 11 Dec 2010 at 21:54
I voted 'other' because I am too new to understand all the issues here.
However, I would vote 'yes' if I could be assured that ALL diplomatic resolutions were tried first.
Kelis
-------------
Kelis
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2010 at 01:29
|
Is it ok If I say "Voting is Closed"?
It seems like this topic is no longer current. Or am I missing something?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2010 at 05:04
|
Voting is indeed closed, as of a few pages ago at least. With the war half-over, "whether we start one" is a ship beyond the horizon.
|
Posted By: Tim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2010 at 14:58
|
I think that the whole alliance ranking system has made people over competitive , and also for the purpose of this conversation that I think no Harmless should stay out of this conflict as aren't they still fighting the black and white company's?
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2010 at 20:24
Tim wrote:
I think that the whole alliance ranking system has made people over competitive , and also for the purpose of this conversation that I think no Harmless should stay out of this conflict as aren't they still fighting the black and white company's? |
WHITE is dead. Any active members of white left the alliance and BLACK is dead as well though, Good has most of those remaining BLACK members in it. I'm not sure if H? is still attacking them though, I was under the impression they got their revenge and moved on.
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2010 at 20:58
Indeed.. Good company was never targetted by H? as we are a new alliances afterall, only the people in Good company that had some high roles in Black/White company (Gigi and Me) . No Good member has any issues with H? and the other way around.
White company is dead, active members moved on to other alliances. Same goes for Black company. The only reason that in H? alliance page still shows a war against White and Good company is that there are no active members left with the rights to remove the war against H? so for now its still impossible for H? to delete that 'war' status on their alliance page.
|
|
Print Page | Close Window
Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net
|
|