Print Page | Close Window

TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy

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=3072
Printed Date: 06 Aug 2020 at 14:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy
Posted By: abstractdream
Subject: TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 18:37

To alleviate any undue concerns or other nonsense we have:

An updated ~TLR~ Plunder & Pillage Policy

The Long Road declares by public notice that ex-members of The Long Road remain under protection of ~TLR~ in regards to plundering or any other aggressive act. In the event the ex-member has gone inactive, ~TLR~ retains the right to regain lost investments due to that inactivity. Should an ex-member be involved in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason" rel="nofollow - treasonous behavior ~TLR~ will summarily punish the offender as it sees fit.

Protection ends for ex-members of ~TLR~ one month from the date of departure or when the ex-member has joined another alliance, whichever comes first.

Ex-member is defined as no longer on the ~TLR~ role call.

Sincerely,

Eternal Fire



-------------
Bonfyr Verboo



Replies:
Posted By: (EOM) Harry
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 18:55
Not sure i agree with that mate. Sounds like your forcing people to stay in the alliance and if they leave they will be attacked. Or if they have a disagreement with you and you choose that they are better off somewhere else. Then attack them, seems a little like your getting rid of the paper trail to me.

So if this does apply to anyone and you believe you have been unjustly targeted for a minor disagreement or you have chosen to leave and been attacked for it. Feel free to give nCrow the details of it and we may be able to offer you asylum if it is on innocent grounds.


-------------
Fool's watch the land when the problem is in the heart.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 18:58
Assume the worst?
Well, it's a free sand box.


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: (EOM) Harry
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 19:08
I'm just saying its all well and good to farm inn actives until deletion. Like do that until the cows come home! But to actively (essentially) farm those who YOU deem to be traitors is a little on the tyrannical side.
It would help if you list what is treason and what isn't. For all we know, treason is speaking out against you.  

-------------
Fool's watch the land when the problem is in the heart.


Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 22:41
For an alliance your size, you might have considered just keeping a low profile and not draw attention to yourselves.
Afterall, what are you going to do if others plunder your members as they see fit? Declare war? You lie scattered between southern Arran and northern Ursor and you think anyone will take your warning seriously?

Sounds like a classic cry for attention. Now which player from recent Illy history does this remind me of?

ATH


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 23:26
Originally posted by Tordenkaffen Tordenkaffen wrote:


For an alliance your size, you might have considered just keeping a low profile and not draw attention to yourselves.
Afterall, what are you going to do if others plunder your members as they see fit? Declare war? You lie scattered between southern Arran and northern Ursor and you think anyone will take your warning seriously?

Sounds like a classic cry for attention. Now which player from recent Illy history does this remind me of?

ATH





Let me guess... The player you are referring to must be Rill.

Haha, the black quote box revealed your answer...


Posted By: Silent/Steadfast
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 00:10
It's funny because I'm actually ATH.  EF is actually just a pretender.  

-------------
"Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM)
"SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM)


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 13:52
As far as I am concerned, any inactive is a fair game to loot - whatever alliance they might be in. How are you even going to find out who looted a town if the player is inactive?




Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 04:59
That's true Ander. We obviously couldn't.

For the level headed, clearly the idea is not attacking former TLR members willy nilly. The Equalizer can attest to that. We are simply claiming what is ours within a reasonable time frame. Who would just smile and nod if an inactive was looted under their nose? We are few and fresh. We certainly aren't of a sufficient size to stop even a lone vet from doing what they want in our territory. This is just a simple CYA claim. We claim our territory and we claim certain rights. We will stand as long as we can. That's it, pretty simple.

BTW: Isn't this whole "game" a drama (or a comedy sometimes)? Everything we do is for attention, in one way or another. People don't come into Illyriad with an expectation to be left alone, to have no interaction. We all do it differently. What's the harm in a little declarative now and then?



Corrected The Equalizer's name


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 05:20
One could argue that making a declaration that you don't intend to back up is basically an expression of an opinion.  Free speech is a good thing.


Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 15:31
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Hello,

 

I, as the current leader of The Long Road am publishing a public notice that all ex-members of The Long Road will be plundered solely by ~TLR~ to regain lost investments through member inactivity or treasonous behavior. Outside parties interfering with "retrieval" may face hostilities if ~TLR~ recieves jurisdiction from leadership to initiate said action.

Other players in the community may begin plundering ex-members of ~TLR~ one month after of the player being banished.

 

Sincerely,

Eternal Fire


Affirmative Action does not recognize your claim to un-allied cities. As set forth by the King of Illyriad, any holdings not part of an Alliance are not in anyway bound to an alliance. 

The Long Road is welcome to plunder any un-allied towns they wish, but they may not do so exclusively. 

Geofrey of Affirmative Action


Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 18:09
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Other players in the community may begin plundering ex-members of ~TLR~ one month after of the player being banished.

What do you mean with ex-members ?

1) Active player leaving your alliance?

2) Inactive players you kick ?

3) Suspended?




Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 19:28
Geofrey-- Does Affirmative Action have a mandatory percentage of Orcs, Dwarves, or Elves in its alliance makeup? ;)


Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 20:25
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Geofrey-- Does Affirmative Action have a mandatory percentage of Orcs, Dwarves, or Elves in its alliance makeup? ;)

Affirmative. 


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2014 at 02:20
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

To alleviate any undue concerns or other nonsense we have:

An updated ~TLR~ Plunder & Pillage Policy

The Long Road declares by public notice that ex-members of The Long Road remain under protection of ~TLR~ in regards to plundering or any other aggressive act. In the event the ex-member has gone inactive, ~TLR~ retains the right to regain lost investments due to that inactivity. Should an ex-member be involved in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason" rel="nofollow - treasonous behavior ~TLR~ will summarily punish the offender as it sees fit.

Protection ends for ex-members of ~TLR~ one month from the date of departure or when the ex-member has joined another alliance, whichever comes first.

Ex-member is defined as no longer on the ~TLR~ role call.

Sincerely,

Eternal Fire


Good job running a growing empire into the ground and straight into the fiery dephs of Hell, Bonfyr.

oh here, *hands over a handbasket*
You'll need this


-------------




Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2014 at 19:13
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

To alleviate any undue concerns or other nonsense we have:

An updated ~TLR~ Plunder & Pillage Policy

The Long Road declares by public notice that ex-members of The Long Road remain under protection of ~TLR~ in regards to plundering or any other aggressive act. In the event the ex-member has gone inactive, ~TLR~ retains the right to regain lost investments due to that inactivity. Should an ex-member be involved in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason" rel="nofollow - treasonous behavior ~TLR~ will summarily punish the offender as it sees fit.

Protection ends for ex-members of ~TLR~ one month from the date of departure or when the ex-member has joined another alliance, whichever comes first.

Ex-member is defined as no longer on the ~TLR~ role call.

Sincerely,

Eternal Fire


Good job running a growing empire into the ground and straight into the fiery dephs of Hell, Bonfyr.

oh here, *hands over a handbasket*
You'll need this

He honestly couldn't do it without your help Eternal Flame!
Keep up the good work of... well not running an alliance?


-------------
Illy is different from Physics-
Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect...


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2014 at 03:16
Well, EF is still bitter and petty. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who is actually surprised by that.

TVM has indeed been hit very hard but there are some key differences in the way TLR ended and the current state of TVM.

First off, TVM still exists. I'm sure you and your loving friends in the Crow wings would argue it's not much of an existence but one can still view our profile and role call page. We are broken and bloody after the pile on but we are still living and doing our best to exist.

Next, the war that may finally destroy TVM was not started because leadership ignored efforts to avoid it. It started because EE decided to declare and attack without warning. Whether revenge, a major conspiracy to shift the balance of power in Elgea or something in between, there was no avoiding it.

The final difference I'd like to highlight is the fact that many of the members of TVM remain members. It is true that many have left for various reasons (mostly city preservation) but those that stay are not being held hostage and have been offered the opportunity to get out of the war by multiple sources. They could leave, yet do not. I count that as a major if not the main difference between the alliance you ran into the ground and the alliance I consider myself honored and seriously lucky to be a part of.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2014 at 16:24
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

First off, TVM still exists. I'm sure you and your loving friends in the Crow wings would argue it's not much of an existence but one can still view our profile and role call page. We are broken and bloody after the pile on but we are still living and doing our best to exist.

Actually we admire your commitment and determination to fight for what you believe in. We acknowledge that there's a certain difference of opinion regarding what the war is about, but we've come to terms with it. uCrow wishes TVM nothing but the best in either peace or war.

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

the war that may finally destroy TVM was not started because leadership ignored efforts to avoid it. It started because EE decided to declare and attack without warning. Whether revenge, a major conspiracy to shift the balance of power in Elgea or something in between, there was no avoiding it.

We were very clear that supporting or even joining RE during the war would be viewed as an escalation; and as such would lead to further escalation. I personally pleaded repeatedly with Nistiner to avoid an expansion of the war, but my pleas were ignored. That said, we expected TVM to cave after EE declared, but you chose to fight regardless. Generous surrender terms were offered early on, but you refused them then... and continue to refuse them now. So your assertion that the war and even destruction couldn't (can't) be avoided is simply false.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Praetor Nistiner
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 00:07
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

First off, TVM still exists. I'm sure you and your loving friends in the Crow wings would argue it's not much of an existence but one can still view our profile and role call page. We are broken and bloody after the pile on but we are still living and doing our best to exist.

Actually we admire your commitment and determination to fight for what you believe in. We acknowledge that there's a certain difference of opinion regarding what the war is about, but we've come to terms with it. uCrow wishes TVM nothing but the best in either peace or war.

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

the war that may finally destroy TVM was not started because leadership ignored efforts to avoid it. It started because EE decided to declare and attack without warning. Whether revenge, a major conspiracy to shift the balance of power in Elgea or something in between, there was no avoiding it.

We were very clear that supporting or even joining RE during the war would be viewed as an escalation; and as such would lead to further escalation. I personally pleaded repeatedly with Nistiner to avoid an expansion of the war, but my pleas were ignored. That said, we expected TVM to cave after EE declared, but you chose to fight regardless. Generous surrender terms were offered early on, but you refused them then... and continue to refuse them now. So your assertion that the war and even destruction couldn't (can't) be avoided is simply false.

It was no plea it was a plain kick all tvm players out of  RE or things may escalate, U should know by now i dont take friedly to threats nor do i  bend over to them, I Made it clear TVM was in RE to defend against  the  3 Million Pop celtic knight alliance, I told u over and over they we`re just  in RE to defend and as long as iam concerned TVM members in RE did not attack CK or Ucrow players, And i dont personnaly like that EE is using  RE as an excuse for revenge  which is quite planely  noted in GC and so forth every time EE pops in all i hear is what did tvm and the coalition did in Consone?<Plain revenge had nothing to do with RE so seriously.


-------------
Tutela 111-Sir Bradly is surprisingly nice. SSH :D


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 00:38
Tamaeon, you did not communicate with TVM, ever. To my knowledge, when we joined RE you were not involved at all and your war declaration came after we began joining. You never once addressed your demands to TVM.

From the beginning our players made it understood to RE leadership that they had to refrain from all offensive action and I communicated regularly with Prares, who declared his belief that we were sincere.

I never understood why Prares cut off our talks, at least not until it became clear to me why the current war was started.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 00:41


[/QUOTE]Plain revenge had nothing to do with RE so seriously.
[/QUOTE]

Well... Seems like everyone agree.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 13:58
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Generous surrender terms were offered early on, but you refused them then... and continue to refuse them now. So your assertion that the war and even destruction couldn't (can't) be avoided is simply false.
clearly TVM disagrees with your characterisation of the terms or they would have agreed to them. has "generous" some specific meaning here beyond the advertising sense of "you won't see an offer this good again"? surrender terms are a market with one seller and one buyer; assessing the value of a particular opportunity is a black art indeed. in this case, it seems your use of the word is not related to the value of the opportunity at all, but only meant to shift responsibility for what comes after from the actors to the targets.

yes, i have heard the arguments about the relative value of surrender offers, first from H? and now from its opponents. they all run in the form of "if i hurt you badly enough for long enough, surrender will look like good value at any price". the trouble with this argument is that illyriad is a game, and there is a threshold beyond which players will simply quit because, as Sir Bradly noted in gc long before it applied to any of his allies, "losing is not fun". if you prolong losing for long enough, any player will quit. that can be part of the sandbox, but i should think leaders who do not condone the chasing of players from the game will want to consider the interaction in total.


Posted By: jtk310
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 14:12
Wow, this is a very old thread. EF's was the first post in 2 years in fact! I seriously doubt any discussion happening here has to do with the TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy. Why not make a new thread instead of resurrecting this dinosaur?


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 16:45
Hey Angrim (and others). 
Are you really blaming the alliances at war for the fact that players quit illy? You can't be serious cause if one don't want to be destroyed, one just have to exit the war. Lot of players have done if so far on both side with, for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it. 

So if players play the wargame until destruction and quit, it's their choice to play so. What the alliances at war should do with it? Let players alone to let them the time to rebuild and come back strike the opponent in the back? 

What's your solution?






Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 17:49
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

 for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it.


More PR spin.


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

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 18:47
Er, yes... As everyone seems to enjoy it I wanted to join the fun and tried it too Big smile


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:57
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Are you really blaming the alliances at war for the fact that players quit illy?
no. only the player can abandon his/her account. but i do think that making the game miserable for a player or an alliance can lead to that end, and when other players or alliances have contributed to that, they ought to own it.

Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Lot of players have done if so far on both side with, for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it.
i wouldn't know. alliances which have exited the war tell me the terms are secret, Tamaeon says they are not but does not volunteer any further information, and i do not ask. but i know some details that have come to me because eCrow had an interest here or there, and they are very far from "just walk away". i do not know if they are better or worse than the terms H? gave to various Consone alliances, but they are certainly reminiscent of them. if you believe your allies not to be punishing your opponents in retreat, you have been misled.

Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

So if players play the wargame until destruction and quit, it's their choice to play so. What the alliances at war should do with it? Let players alone to let them the time to rebuild and come back strike the opponent in the back?
yes, always their choice, and the choice of the victors to continue to strike them. but there is a point in the victory beyond which there is nothing more to be gained from further attacks. it is possible to win the war and not the peace.

regarding specific solutions, it's never been a good idea to make policy in the forum. i am available via igm.



Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 21:09
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

 but there is a point in the victory beyond which there is nothing more to be gained from further attacks. it is possible to win the war and not the peace.

Totally agree. 



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