H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?
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=3531
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 04:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?
Posted By: Taelin
Subject: H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?
Date Posted: 08 May 2012 at 23:41
Another twist in the tale of relations between those noble houses Harmless? and VALAR
For people who only read the first paragraph:
H?'s Malpherion laid siege to a VALAR member 4 or 5 days after he became suspended, VALAR protested and sent troops to remove the siege. H? say their member was justified in removing the city because it was placed too close to their member. (that placement was the best part of a year ago when Malpherion was in Invictus). VALAR's troops did not remove the siege because we sent too few and the city has now been razed by Malpherion. H? demanded compensation for Malpherion's lost troops. VALAR declined to pay. H? say they will take that compensation by force plus punitive damages and "Hostilities against the aggressors and any who support them shall cease when Harmless is satisfied that Valar and any witnesses fully understand the folly of expecting to walk away from an attack on Harmless without consequence".
So if you are reading this I suppose that makes you a witness ...guess you had better get on with understanding before my cities are reduced to a heap of smouldering rubble.
Synopsis of problem:
A long time ago Horratan [VALAR] settled in Perrigor
From Illytools: 05.08.2012
horratan (Suspended)'s cities City Name Population Founded New Sewer 7,563, 581 days ago Sewer 001 5,203, 488 days ago Sewer 002 3,487, 384 days ago Sewer 003 963, 280 days ago Sewer 004 836, 169 days ago Total Pop: 18,052,
294 days ago Malpherion [then Invitus now H?] also settled Undercity[379,-252] nearby:
Malpherion's cities City Name Population Founded Silvermoon 11,705, 346 days ago Thunder Bluff 26,999, 323 days ago Orgrimmar 27,938, 304 days ago Undercity 27,317, 291 days ago Stormwind 28,208, 273 days ago Ironforge 26,761, 253 days ago Shattrath 13,772, 219 days ago Dalaran 11,542, 210 days ago Exodar 28,226, 195 days ago Darnassus 26,900, 108 days ago Total Pop: 229,368
Horratan was in the general area first, Malpherion settled Undercity at 9 squares from Horratan's capital. Horratan then, 283 days ago, settled Sewer003 [376,-253] 3*1 squares away from Undercity. This was plainly very close but Invictus and VALAR were on good terms then and now.
It appears that neither Horratan nor Malpherion discussed the situation with their alliances. (Although H? assert that Malpherion did with his own alliance - this is refuted by Invictus who say categorically that he never raised it)
Approximately 27.04.12 Horratan became suspended - reason unknown but he was active immediately prior to that.
At 01.23 am 01.05.12 Malpherion laid siege to Sewer 003 without any prior notice to VALAR.
At 11.42 am 01.05.12 VALAR protested this at H?'s embassy giving notice that we intended to remove the siege.
At 02.24 pm 01.05.12 H? replied to the effect that the city was too close to Malpherion, there had been disputes between the players and Malpherion wished to remove the city, they apologised for acting without consultation but warned against attempting to remove the siege.
Forces were sent by Taelin [VALAR] - 200 T1 Cav and Dunedain [VALAR] 2000 T2 Cav.
At 7.26pm 01.05.12 VALAR confirmed that forces were in motion against the siege and further advised that the last would hit by about 10 am on 02.05.12 - advising that if Malpherion withdrew temporarily then no further forces would be sent on the assumption that we could reach an agreement. At the same time VALAR made an offer to H? that the city could be bought for 1.5 million gold (it was then about 1500 pop).
The 2 'relief forces' hit and it transpired that Malpherion had in fact sent about 75k T2 Cav (mental note - always scout first...).
H? demand compensation for the loss of 4500 T2 Cav and 1000T2 Archers at 29 million plus build time.
VALAR have declined to pay this and now stand to have it taken by force and be punished if we resist.
VALAR's Argument
VALAR's position is that this is unjustifiable: VALAR acted in reasonable defence of its lands, gave notice of our actions and there was time for Malpherion to withdraw if he wished - although the size of the force he sent suggests he had no intention of doing so.
There may or may not have been an ancient wrong by Horratan against Malpherion but H?'s assertion that Malpherion is entitled to remove the city because he says it was wrongly sited is misconceived: it is the epitome of 'Might makes Right'.
VALAR's use of force - on notice - was proportionate self defence - no less than any alliance is entitled to if it's cities are attacked.
For the diehard analysts out there: the full dialogue between VALAR and H? follows below. |
Replies:
Posted By: Taelin
Date Posted: 08 May 2012 at 23:42
|
[DIGG] Alliance
The Embassy => Valar => Topic started by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 11:42:30 AM
Title: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 11:42:30 AM Hallo again Harmless,
At 01.23 this morning 01.05.12 Malpherion sieged Horratan's Sewer 3.
(Dunedain has already written to Malpherion)
Horratan became suspended approximately 3 or 4 days ago, he was active immediately prior to that.
I understand that Sewer 3 is close to Malpherion but there doesn't seem to have been any trouble about that that I am aware of.
If I have understood H?'s position on suspended players who are in alliances correctly then at the very least I would have expected an inquiry to have been made of us before action was undertaken.
VALAR views the city as ours until we choose to dispose of it.
I will authorise clearing of the siege as this is a clear cut case of jumping the gun by Malpherion.
Should Malpherion want to discuss the options in respect of the city I would be grateful if he would recall his army immediately and open a dialogue.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: HonoredMule on May 01, 2012, 02:24:11 PM This is apparently not an attempt to capture the city (Malpherion already has 10) but to remove it. Horratan and Malpherion have had considerable disputes in the past which were apparently never brought before our respective leaderships. As I understand it, we have no interest in disputing your claim to any of the cities but this one is an issue of proximity being rectified. Placing a city only 3.16 squares away is beyond unacceptable even when there isn't a pattern of hostility and personal conflict.
I apologize for this action having been taken without consultation. In that regard we have handled this poorly. If you attempt to remove the siege, however, you risk substantially escalating the situation.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 07:26:22 PM As far as I can see from illytools - Undercity was founded 287 days ago at which point New Sewer and Sewer 1 had already been there for nearly 200 and 100 days respectively. Horratan then placed Sewer 3 277 days ago presumably in an attempt to hold territory against Undercity. You may well be right that placing it that close was wrong... but that was 277 days ago - relying on it now is a reaction which is slow even by VALAR's recent standards!
Arguing the rights and wrongs of the placement and goodness knows how many skirmishes since is plainly hopeless this long after and with one party absent.
But - assuming there has been a festering issue which neither party has told it's leaders about it was plainly inadvisable for Malpherion to act militarily once Horratan became suspended and he ceased to have an interest in his cities but rather the residual interest is by convention that of the alliance - thus escalating a personal conflict to an alliance one.
I am happy to propose a solution which I think I would have sought had a diplomatic resolution been sought: Malpherion can raze that city Sewer 3 (only) but pay a reasonable price for it - say 1.5million gold - reflecting 1500 pop.
There are siege relief forces incoming - the last one at about 10.00 server time tomorrow - so Malpherion may wish to temporarily pull his forces back - nothing more will be sent on the assumption that we can reach an agreement.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Llawn Dart on May 01, 2012, 08:01:48 PM Quote from: Taelin on May 01, 2012, 07:26:22 PM As far as I can see from illytools - Undercity was founded 287 days ago at which point New Sewer and Sewer 1 had already been there for nearly 200 and 100 days respectively. Horratan then placed Sewer 3 277 days ago presumably in an attempt to hold territory against Undercity. You may well be right that placing it that close was wrong... but that was 277 days ago - relying on it now is a reaction which is slow even by VALAR's recent standards!
Arguing the rights and wrongs of the placement and goodness knows how many skirmishes since is plainly hopeless this long after and with one party absent.
But - assuming there has been a festering issue which neither party has told it's leaders about it was plainly inadvisable for Malpherion to act militarily once Horratan became suspended and he ceased to have an interest in his cities but rather the residual interest is by convention that of the alliance - thus escalating a personal conflict to an alliance one.
I am happy to propose a solution which I think I would have sought had a diplomatic resolution been sought: Malpherion can raze that city Sewer 3 (only) but pay a reasonable price for it - say 1.5million gold - reflecting 1500 pop.
There are siege relief forces incoming - the last one at about 10.00 server time tomorrow - so Malpherion may wish to temporarily pull his forces back - nothing more will be sent on the assumption that we can reach an agreement.
Taelin, all due respect requesting the aggrieved party to pay compensation to an alliance for being on the receiving end of inappropriate behavior by a now suspended and departed player is absurd.
Settling absurdly close to another player is by rational judegment provocative and confrontational. Mal was within rights to remove the offending city well before the player was suspended. And wouldve had our backing had he wished to do so. Instead he has waited for the players departure before acting.
Taking affront at a suspended players cities removal considering its location is ridiculous. To request compensation even more so. Mal's one fault was to not inform leadership parties beforehand. For this we have and will do so again, apologise on his behalf. We have half a mind to request a likewise apology on your behalf as it appears we are not the only ones guilty of acting prior to dialogue? Regards to this (your ordering the siege's removal) we will be attempting to contact Mal in time for a withdrawal. Otherwise we will be the ones requesting compensation.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Llawn Dart on May 02, 2012, 09:57:51 PM Taelin, following your guidance of seeking compensation for damages and based upon your lead of diplomacy prior to action we are requesting the following:
Quote Compensation Sent By: Malpherion [H?] Received By: You Date: 5/2/2012 2:25:00 PM
Hi Starry,
Ive done some calculations based on the troops I lost from the 2 attacks on my seige from Taelin and Dunedain.
Total losses were: 4500 T2 Cavalry and 1000 T2 Archers
Material costs alone were approx 28.8 million (29 million)
Let alone build time compensation??
Thanks
Malph
I look forward to your response concerning valuation of additional build time and an acceptable overall figure.
Llyorn.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 08:21:44 PM Dear Llyorn,
Thank you for bringing your further reply to my attention;
surely you are having a giraffe?
Yours cordially as ever,
Taelin
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Llawn Dart on May 04, 2012, 08:54:17 PM Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 08:21:44 PM Dear Llyorn,
Thank you for bringing your further reply to my attention;
surely you are having a giraffe?
Yours cordially as ever,
Taelin
Sadly not.
Mal wishes compensation and is supported by management.
To recap: A city was provocatively built within an irrational distance. Mal waited upon the players suspension before removing. You blindly attack causing substantial damage.
Personally I though your claim for compensation at removal of a suspended players city, located inappropriately, was much funnier.
We await a reasonable figure for compensation.
Cheers.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM Dear Llyorn,
You refer to Malpherion as the aggrieved player: as set out above, the act of aggravation, if it was such, was the settlement of a city 'inappropriately close' the best part of a year ago, further the cities were settled within 10 days of each other, had either player engaged in meaningful dialogue and/or contacted their leaders it might have been possible to resolve the matter before the cities were invested in. There comes a point when making no complaint about a state of affairs amounts to acquiescence. Plainly in this case that point had been reached many times over.
You have already accepted that there was a failure by Malpherion to consult before acting, that is the root of the present as opposed to historical difficulties.
The reality is that your player has laid siege to the city of another alliance - with whom it is well known that there have at times been difficult relations - without consulting anyone,
I pause here to quote HM's recent remarks on the matter in the thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/suspended-players_topic3259_page1.html
Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 09:12 "A week isn't much time in this game. Someone planning to siege a suspended city may not even be able to get their siege engine there in that much time. I think a month is safer.
...or you could just ask an alliance representative."
There is no way that you can properly describe Malpherion as the aggrieved player, he has undertaken an irresponsible and inflammatory action.
VALAR reacted by opening a dialogue with you here and we then told you that forces were dispatched to clear the siege giving Malpherion the option to temporarily pull back his siege - an act which would have delayed achieving his objective by a very short time given the proximity of the cities - further I made it clear that there would not be further forces sent on the assumption that we could work something out - in the event our forces were a pin-prick to forces Malpherion had elected to deploy - of the order of 75k or so - which to my mind is clear evidence that he knew that what he was doing was likely to be highly contentious.
It was not unreasonable for us to take very limited action to deter hostile action against an alliance city - what would H? do in the event of a siege by VALAR against a member of H? who was suspended for a matter of days?
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Llawn Dart on May 04, 2012, 10:33:31 PM I see we have a fair way to go.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM There comes a point when making no complaint about a state of affairs amounts to acquiescence. Plainly in this case that point had been reached many times over.
That Mal waited upon the players suspension before removal is a reflection of his patience and maturity. This in no way assuages the original infraction and Mal's right to remove the city. That he chose to do so after the players departure is a credit to him not a justification or acceptance of your players actions.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM You have already accepted that there was a failure by Malpherion to consult before acting, that is the root of the present as opposed to historical difficulties.
The 'root of the present .....difficulties' lies, in your words, of a 'failure .....to consult before acting'. Setting rules does not exclude you from accountability. In fact, the opposite. Im quite perplexed that you call foul then repeat the exact same 'offense'.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM The reality is that your player has laid siege to the city of another alliance - with whom it is well known that there have at times been difficult relations - without consulting anyone,
The reality is your player transgressed against ours and we do not accept a statue of limitations on this action. Awaiting his suspension was, on our part, a courtesy.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM I pause here to quote HM's recent remarks on the matter in the thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/suspended-players_topic3259_page1.html
Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 09:12 "A week isn't much time in this game. Someone planning to siege a suspended city may not even be able to get their siege engine there in that much time. I think a month is safer.
...or you could just ask an alliance representative."
Completely used out of context. The above is referring to claiming an abandoned city. Not a responsive action to remove a settlement deliberately and provocatively placed inappropriately close.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM VALAR reacted by opening a dialogue with you here
Kidding? To inform us troops we enroute? And you're pissy with Mal not 'opening up a dialogue'. Mate, you need to check out the definition of hypocrisy.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM which to my mind is clear evidence that he knew that what he was doing was likely to be highly contentious.
And thats the problem here. You're under the misunderstanding its your call on whether he was aggrieved. You can have your own opinion on things, but not your own facts. Mal is factually the aggrieved party and its his call whether to feel so inclined. It's not your call to say 'get over it, it was a year ago'. If he wants to remove that city. Its his right.Calling for dialogue whilst sending troops is hypocritical, requesting compensation from the factually aggrieved, opportunistic.
Quote from: Taelin on May 04, 2012, 09:48:49 PM It was not unreasonable for us to take very limited action to deter hostile action against an alliance city - what would H? do in the event of a siege by VALAR against a member of H? who was suspended for a matter of days?
You have my word if a Harmless player without dialogue settles ridiculously close to another player, then gets suspended, you can proceed to remove that city at whim.
Harmless requests compensation for costs and build time on behalf of Malpherion. I hope in the above light our reasonable request is honored and an offer is made.
Sincerely Llyorn.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: HonoredMule on May 04, 2012, 10:49:48 PM A dialogue that takes place alongside pre-emptive actions taken well before any agreement could be met is hardly a negotiation in good faith. You should be thankful that a little gold is all we're asking, when our normal approach is to ensure the aggressor experiences an equal or greater sense of loss.
And you stretch our fault too far. Nowhere did we imply that Malpherion failed to make his displeasure clear to the person who actually settled inappropriately. Furthermore, the timing of his actions do not diminish the importance of the offense against him, but rather a depth of respect for Valar as an alliance that far exceeds our relative strengths.
This could have been the conclusion of and issue affecting a single and now dead account, but Valar values empty husks so much it has bared the neck of accounts yet thriving. How, with so many abandoned cities at your disposal, can you stake so much over so little? Perhaps we shall take a page from your book and extract our own price--beyond guaranteeing destruction of the offending city--while still debating costs and values.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: Taelin on May 06, 2012, 07:56:15 PM It appears we disagree significantly. I have to say that I was not making any claim that Malpherion did not feel aggrieved, anyone can feel aggrieved but was rather making my comment on whether I thought he was objectively entitled to be treated as aggrieved.
Llyorn is quite wrong to refer to 'our' player transgressing against 'yours': as I keep having to point out the original 'offending act' (if it was offending and in the absence of Horratan to give his version we can only ever reach a one-sided view about that) was 282 days ago - that is about 6 months before Malpherion was ever in Harmless? - he was in Invictus an alliance with whom VALAR enjoyed good relations and there are no complaints then or now from them on Malpherion's behalf.
However, we wish to bring matters to a conclusion and in the interests of maintaining relations with Harmless? we will withdraw our request for compensation for the loss of the city - recently fallen - Dunedain and I will bear our own losses, incurred in our view while acting in proper defense of Alliance property.
We have no intention of paying compensation to Malpherion for all the reasons I have set out.
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: HonoredMule on May 07, 2012, 01:37:50 PM You are correct in one thing: Malpherion took no military action when the city was first settled. This is because when he complained to his own leadership in Invictus, they not only did nothing but instructed him to do nothing as well.
It is by protecting fragile diplomatic ties rather than the fair treatment of its own members that Invictus loses players like Malpherion to alliances like Harmless, and you may rest assured we will not be making the same mistake.
This is our final summary and response:
We assert that Malpherion had every right to remove that city at any time, and that any interference was unjustified as well as premature. Regardless of any misunderstanding at the time (which could have been easily rectified without bloodshed), he was attacked without any true provocation and deserves compensation for his losses.
Unless you wish to change Valar's stance no further response will be required from you. Malpherion, backed by Harmless to whatever degree may be necessary, shall be taking his compensation by force plus punitive damages. Hostilities against the aggressors and any who support them shall cease when Harmless is satisfied that Valar and any witnesses fully understand the folly of expecting to walk away from an attack on Harmless without consequence.
|
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 08 May 2012 at 23:45
|
I'm going to be honest here, even in a conversation that I probably don't belong in. I read the first paragraph, I read the second but when I saw this wall of text I just gave up. Sounds to me that it's not your fault though from what I read.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 00:04
Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 00:36
|
It would seem to me, that attacking the siege was a poor choice to make. The distance I agree is way too close for comfort between the locations. I would have thought a siege of the city would have taken place sooner, but I understand how the previous alliance had said not to.
Waiting for them to be suspended, I think was a decent move, however the city could have been exodused possibly as well. In the end though, since the city is now razed, most of the conflict seems to be over compensation now, and over what type of etiquette should have been followed during the siege/conflict.
It is my opinion that paying for the lost troops seems to be a fair method to compromise and way to end this issue.
-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 00:59
|
The troops were lost when they were attacking a member of another alliance. Going to war and then demanding compensation for your losses seems a little over the top.
H? could have chosen to resolve this through diplomatic channels -- or at least to attempt to. Instead, they proceeded directly to war. Moaning about the consequences of that decision seems sort of ... well ...
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 02:15
This conversation was concluded when we reached an impasse in private negotiations. Now it is in public, which isn't a surprising result. I'm not going to re-read that unformatted mess to ensure there's been no tampering with the statements or selective exclusion of details, but a quick scan does appear to suggest it's a faithful copy. Assuming that, I'm quite content with how Harmless is represented and consider no further explanation necessary.
I wish to thank Taelin for sharing with Illyriad how reasonably we deal with even disliked alliances behind closed doors in both attitude and expectations, and also how far we are willing to go to enforce justice and fair dealing on behalf of our membership.
-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 02:19
|
I think VALAR had every right to attack the siege encampment. If this player was suspended, any sov he had claimed could be disputed, so the city was destroyed for no good reason. H? should have mailed and asked VALAR to capture the city if they wanted to and then exodus it to somewhere else, instead, they moved in and sieged it without even speaking to VALAR first? Poor taste. If anything, H? should be paying compensation for a perfectly good city being destroyed without any notice to the alliance that it was in, not the other way around.
 HonoredMule wrote:
I wish to thank Taelin for sharing with Illyriad how reasonably we deal with even disliked alliances behind closed doors in both attitude and expectations, and also how far we are willing to go to enforce justice and fair dealing on behalf of our membership.
|
I'd be careful about using words like "justice" HM. Especially in a matter like this.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 02:19
|
Interesting HM ... and why do you dislike Valar? Clearly you had problems with them previously, but they have new leadership and seem to have been comporting themselves admirably for some time now. Are you planning to hold a grudge forever against people who were in no way involved in any actions against you?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 02:48
Rill, the reports we've received about Valars comportment with other
alliances does not reflect the same revival of character you testify.
As for why we personally wouldn't like them we have simply to cite the
continued presence of many of the accounts with whom we had problems in
the first place and the very conversation Taelin posted, demonstrating
how they've handled this conflict. There are also other recent
issues--in particular they've been quite greedy with abandoned city
claims, holding far more than they have the ability to act on in a
remotely
reasonable time frame--but what is here for all to see is beyond
sufficient to justify saying we "don't like" an alliance. It's not
exactly a declaration of blood feud.
Nevertheless we dealt with Valar on this issue as fairly as we
would deal with any other alliance. It is they who chose to act before
talking, and if you take a look at
the timestamps of our conversation you'll see that even after this we "tried diplomatic
channels" for over a week before both reaching a clear impasse. As
far as I'm concerned, we were as patient and considerate as could be
reasonably expected of any alliance.
At the end of the day, we serve our own membership and not Valar's
interests. They reacted entirely out of proportion (we were removing an
offending city of a Suspended account while they have more such
cities than they can use, they attacked an active player--and their
"warning" fell far short of enough time to ensure a fair chance of
recalling even if we would). We
restrained our reaction for a reasonable duration. Even now hostilities
are far more limited than open warfare, so long as they do not give us
cause to escalate further.
Brids, if my sense of justice were half as perverted as you so frequently claim, you would have fallen victim to it long ago. I remain quite content with how I have applied the term, if not with how it protects your freedom of irrationally biased expression.
-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:04
|
I'm not commenting or taking sides on this situation, other than to throw in my two cents about current VALAR leadership, as I recently experienced in a potentially sticky pickle. Without getting too much into the exact details, as they are irrelevant IMO, I
made a mistake re: city placement that put me in a tough position
relative to needing to ask a VALAR player to accommodate me. He (and his diplo representative) were swift, understanding, polite and incisive in their communication and action. The matter has been resolved, I have wiped the egg off my face, and I now have respect for the two players who acted so clearly and responsibly. Kudos!
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:12
|
You were laying siege to a city of a player in their alliance. They first contacted you, then took steps to remove the siege. They did not whine, kvetch or attack you. They sought resolution through diplomatic means -- which is more than you did -- and took a reasonable step to defend their interests.
As you noted, the player was suspended -- there was no rush for you to siege the city, it wasn't going to do anything to hurt you. People make mistakes, and I think in this instance your player made one. Perhaps it could have been handled better on Valar's side as well, but this is the sort of situation where reasonable people back down and agree to put a minor incident behind them -- not to escalate it as you are doing with unreasonable demands for compensation.
You sieged a city in their alliance. You don't get to act all wounded that they dared to fight back. Or does H? have some special right to not have anyone even resist attempts to take whatever it wants, without regard for proper diplomatic process?
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. This behavior is beneath you.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:15
HonoredMule wrote:
Brids, if my sense of justice were half as perverted as you so frequently claim, you would have fallen victim to it long ago. I remain quite content with how I have applied the term, if not with how it protects your freedom of irrationally biased expression.
|
I so frequently claim? The last time I disputed something about H? was back when some alliance was claiming some square of land and I mentioned H?'s land thing, which I later admitted I misunderstood as a land claim when it really wasn't. That was months ago now. I wasn't aware you thought I held some kind of grudge against H? but that's certainly not the case. I don't agree with everything H? does but should be a given. In regards to my comment, I just feel self imposed justice is rarely well received, especially in a sandbox game. Take that as you will.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:31
|
News Flash, H?: People are not saying you're wrong because you're the big kahuna. We're saying you're wrong because you're ... well ... wrong.
I'm the first to give H? credit where you do something right and to defend if you are unjustly blamed, but that doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye when you fail to live up to your ideals and your reputation.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:48
Rill wrote:
You were laying siege to a city of a player in their alliance. They first contacted you, then took steps to remove the siege. They did not whine, kvetch or attack you. They sought resolution through diplomatic means -- which is more than you did -- and took a reasonable step to defend their interests.
As you noted, the player was suspended -- there was no rush for you to siege the city, it wasn't going to do anything to hurt you. People make mistakes, and I think in this instance your player made one. Perhaps it could have been handled better on Valar's side as well, but this is the sort of situation where reasonable people back down and agree to put a minor incident behind them -- not to escalate it as you are doing with unreasonable demands for compensation.
You sieged a city in their alliance. You don't get to act all wounded that they dared to fight back. Or does H? have some special right to not have anyone even resist attempts to take whatever it wants, without regard for proper diplomatic process?
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. This behavior is beneath you. |
I realize I'm posting in vain, since most of you including the last poster haven't read the topic:
The suspended player had disputes with Malpherion going way back to when he was in Invictus: Invictus leadership neglected to support one of their members when this guy deliberately moved 3 squares from Malph's city. Malph did nothing at that time, he waited until the player left the game. He showed far more patience than I would have in the same situation. Moving three squares from any player without permission is unacceptable to most alliances in this game.
You are incorrect Rill, while we admit Malph should have contacted Valar about his plan to raze the city before he sent his siege, Valar jumped the gun and sent armies to destroy the siege BEFORE they discussed the matter with the leadership at H?. In fact, as soon as Malph received a message from Valar and forwarded it to me, I contacted the leadership at Valar. Their actions have not reflected the desire to resolve this issue through diplomatic means; very similar to past dealings we've had with this alliance.
H? will never apologize for supporting a player defending his sovereign area and given the posts you've made in this forum, you've defended your right to do the same for your members.
-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 03:55
|
Starry, I'm with you right up until you demand compensation for loss of troops from army your player sent to attack a town in another alliance. That's where you overstep. If your player had waited and worked out a diplomatic solution, he would not have gotten attacked and lost troops. If Valar had waited on the diplomatic solution instead of sending troops to break the siege, the Valar player would not have lost troops.
Both sides erred. Both could have improved how they handled the situation. Both sides suffered losses and hopefully will have learned something for next time.
The gracious and mature thing to do in this situation would be to mutually apologize and move on. The petty and vindictive thing to do is the course of action H? has taken. It's not too late to change it though.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:01
Your blood money is on the way. How much is your self respect worth?
| Count | To | Timing | Carrying | View |
|---|
 | 1 | KillerPoodle's [H?]
Town: NE-Poodleville | 1hr 39m 33s |  | | 29000000 |
| http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/811/571" rel="nofollow -
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:11
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:11
|
y'all know that this whole ruckus was about 1 city of a SUSPENDED account, right?
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:14
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:16
|
Oh... and that city is gone now.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:16
Rill wrote:
Your blood money is on the way. How much is your self respect worth?
| Count | To | Timing | Carrying | View |
|---|
| 1 | KillerPoodle's [H?]
Town: NE-Poodleville | 1hr 39m 33s | | | 29000000 |
| http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/811/571" rel="nofollow - -HonoredMule
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:18
|
Starry, I understand that this is not a debate. TD
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:22
|
Starry, you are the one who is trying to make this about me, because I am the one who is speaking against Harmless?'s unfair demands. You seek to discredit my ideas by suggesting this is about me creating drama. I believe my ideas as expressed here stand that test.
I just thought it would be a good idea to put my money where my mouth is.
H? was not shy in going to the forum when it had a dispute with Valar that led to war. I seem to recall that there were no complaints from H? when I spoke in support of your actions on that occasion. So I should only be allowed to speak when I agree with you?
This matter is not just about Valar and H?. It's about justice, and it's about whether the dominant force on the server can act as a responsible custodian of that power, or whether it will act in a corrupt manner, taking advantage of its power to bully and exploit those who are weaker.
It is about me because if this is the standard H? is going to set for its behavior, given that I cannot reasonably resist your power, my only choice will be to leave.
This is about the fact that this is a game that we share, and a community that I care about, a community that has been fostered by the values of H? and many other veterans. A community whose culture is worth respect, is worth preserving.
This is about all of us.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 04:24
The_Dude wrote:
Oh... and that city is gone now. |
Precisely, TD. H? got what they wanted. But it's not enough. They have to demand a final "screw you" from someone who was impudent enough to suggest that they should have used diplomatic channels to accomplish their goal.
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:08
Taelin wrote:
H? demand compensation for the loss of 4500 T2 Cav and 1000T2 Archers at 29 million plus build time.
VALAR have declined to pay this and now stand to have it taken by force and be punished if we resist. |
Well, I was going to post something along the lines of:
H? would quite reasonably want to clear a suspended city that is close enough to impinge on their Sov, even though their behaviour here is excessively imperious. However, for H? to demand compensation for losses they suffered when attacking another Alliance's town, is simply extortion. Taelin: you are right, but H? are more powerful - pay the money they are extorting from you, and save yourself a world of pain - you've already experienced how obnoxious H? can be if they feel so inclined, and 29 million is a small price to pay to avoid that misery.
But now, I don't have to:
Rill wrote:
Your blood money is on the way. How much is your self respect worth?
| Count | To | Timing | Carrying | View |
|---|
| 1 | KillerPoodle's [H?]
Town: NE-Poodleville | 1hr 39m 33s | | | 29000000 |
| http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/811/571" rel="nofollow -
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:21
Rill - you're a lovely person but I wish you would engage brain before accessing keyboard.
Attacking an active player (before sending any messages) because they are removing the city of a suspended player which was settled 3 squares away is utterly ridiculous.
We would have been well within rights to just declare war. As it is we tried diplomacy (after their unreasonable attacks) and only after VALAR refused to budge a single inch (and had the temerity to ask for compensation for their own attack) did we resort to a heavily limited engagement.
If you want to complain about lack of diplomacy - go moan at the VALAR fools.
Thanks for the cash - I'll use it to buy Malph some items to help his cause.
LOTS - you fail reading comprehension try again.
-------------
"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: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:26
Last but not least. The next time someone decides to disrespect our embassy by posting private comms like Taelin did - I'll just organize to siege their capital...
-------------
"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: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:32
|
KillerPoodle, those who know me can assure you that I use what little brain I have left to the best of my ability. Although my brain damage limits me in a number of respects, I am usually able to articulate a logical argument.
Sieging the city of _any_ player in another alliance -- even a suspended one -- without so much as sending a message to the alliance leadership describing your intentions and seeking a diplomatic solution is utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and by your statement it sounds as though you've already attacked Valar. In which case, I think I'm due a refund of some of my gold.  |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:38
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift.
It seems as though by your last statement you really haven't read what's been posted - I'll let HM spell it out for you in only the way he can:
This is our final summary and response:
We
assert that Malpherion had every right to remove that city at any time,
and that any interference was unjustified as well as premature.
Regardless of any misunderstanding at the time (which could have been
easily rectified without bloodshed), he was attacked without any true
provocation and deserves compensation for his losses.
Unless
you wish to change Valar's stance no further response will be required
from you. Malpherion, backed by Harmless to whatever degree may be
necessary, shall be taking his compensation by force plus punitive
damages. Hostilities against the aggressors and any who support them
shall cease when Harmless is satisfied that Valar and any witnesses
fully understand the folly of expecting to walk away from an attack on
Harmless without consequence.
|
-------------
"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: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 05:49
|
Oh, so now it's not about getting fair compensation -- it's about getting your pound of flesh any way you can?
Was it ever your intention to accept compensation? Or was it just a ploy to give cover for your intention to beat up on weaker players?
I beg you to come to your senses and be the people I have known and respected for so long.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:03
KillerPoodle wrote:
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift. |
Wow KP... Someone offers to pay for compensation for Valar and you ignore it but keep the gold? Extremely petty.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:12
Brids17 wrote:
KillerPoodle wrote:
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift. |
Wow KP... Someone offers to pay for compensation for Valar and you ignore it but keep the gold? Extremely petty. |
This is an important lesson for Rill - not everything requires her involvement.
-------------
"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: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:18
KillerPoodle wrote:
This is an important lesson for Rill - not everything requires her involvement.
|
I don't really care what you think of Rill, that's completely irrelevant. When someone offers to play the middle man in a diplomatic situation, you don't take the compensation and say "I don't like you so I'm keeping the money and continuing the war". You thank them for helping out and resolving a problem that couldn't otherwise be resolved that way and move on. I stand by what I said, extremely petty.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:18
Rill wrote:
Oh, so now it's not about getting fair compensation -- it's about getting your pound of flesh any way you can?
Was it ever your intention to accept compensation? Or was it just a ploy to give cover for your intention to beat up on weaker players?
I beg you to come to your senses and be the people I have known and respected for so long.
|
Being a nice person doesn't mean you have to let someone walk all over you just because they feel like it.
Had we seen any good faith attempt to negotiate a fair settlement we would have accepted it - no attempt was made so we are where we are. We made it really clear what could be done to avoid conflict and VALAR chose to stick to their guns - their choices ended up with this result.
Why should we accept unreasonable behavior?
-------------
"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: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:21
Brids17 wrote:
KillerPoodle wrote:
This is an important lesson for Rill - not everything requires her involvement.
|
I don't really care what you think of Rill, that's completely irrelevant. When someone offers to play the middle man in a diplomatic situation, you don't take the compensation and say "I don't like you so I'm keeping the money and continuing the war". You thank them for helping out and resolving a problem that couldn't otherwise be resolved that way and move on. I stand by what I said, extremely petty. |
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Rill didn't "offer" anything. She decided to insert herself into this issue with no warning and no agreement from any involved party.
If Rill wants to force herself upon us without consultation she can accept the consequences.
-------------
"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: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:30
KillerPoodle wrote:
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Rill didn't "offer" anything. She decided to insert herself into this issue with no warning and no agreement from any involved party.
If Rill wants to force herself upon us without consultation she can accept the consequences.
|
What do you think she sent the money for? If it were a simple matter of "we didn't have an agreement" a respectful player would return the money and say sorry not interested. It's fine if you don't want Rill to be a part of it, just send the money back. But that's not it, it's your chance to prove a point about some issue you have with Rill, which yet again is petty.
|
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:33
Yeah, Rill has trouble staying quiet when she sees something she feels is unjust. I admire that, personally.
As for the rest of this matter, I tend to respect and even admire H? and their ability to be a gracious power-block; *this* just doesn't pass the smell test, though. Certainly, a lot of your assertions here are reasonable enough, especially on their own. When taken as a totality, though... I recognize you are looking out for your own, and upholding what you consider to be a standard. What I would suggest though is that you're not looking at it from the other side, and applying your own standards from that perspective!
It comes across as careless and forgivably presumptuous at best, and smugly self-righteous (not to mention heavy-handed) at worst.
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:34
KillerPoodle wrote:
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift.
|
It seems H? has http://www.cafepress.com/illyriad.619835017" rel="nofollow - found one of the new discoveries before anyone else even realized it was in game. I salute your diligence. Seriously , it is impossible to read that without imagining you twirling a long black mustache.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:35
As it happens, I WAS contacted by Valar, who asked for my advice on the issue. I contacted some of my fellow Crow Rooks to express my concerns and ask for input, so they can verify that I was asked to involve myself in the issue. I also sent KillerPoodle a mail prior to engaging on the forum.
Rather than acknowledging this, it appears that KillerPoodle is trying to shore up an increasingly untenable position by casting aspersions on my character.
Yes, I am an interfering so-and-so, and when I see something that is wrong, I try to make it right. Even if it costs me dearly. Even if it doesn't work.
Guilty as charged.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:38
Aurordan wrote:
KillerPoodle wrote:
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift.
|
It seems H? has http://www.cafepress.com/illyriad.619835017" rel="nofollow - found one of the new discoveries before anyone else even realized it was in game. I salute your diligence. Seriously , it is impossible to read that without imagining you twirling a long black mustache. |
lol dan, touche!
And thanks for injecting a note of humor and perspective.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:46
KillerPoodle wrote:
Being a nice person doesn't mean you have to let someone walk all over you just because they feel like it.
Why should we accept unreasonable behavior?
|
I completely agree, but I think you lack perspective on what exactly it is to have someone walk all over you. Someone attacked a siege army sent without any attempt at negotiation ON THEIR ALLIANCE MATE'S CITY, did not even break the siege, did not send further attacks, you razed the city, you received a large gold payment for the "inconvenience." In what part of that is someone walking all over you?
In terms of unreasonable behavior, I ask you again to reconsider who is being unreasonable.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:52
Rill wrote:
As it happens, I WAS contacted by Valar, who asked for my advice on the issue. |
Nice that you only declare that now. I wonder why you didn't say so sooner. Maybe so people wouldn't realize your posts were somewhat less than objective.
FYI - when someone asks you to negotiate for them and you contact the other party - its probably worth mentioning that fact in your communications.
As stated in my reply - I don't accept you as an objective party in this and will not negotiate with you. If VALAR want to really negotiate in good faith this time they can contact me direct.
KP
-------------
"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: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 06:55
Rill wrote:
ON THEIR ALLIANCE MATE'S CITY
|
Wrong. On someone who didn't care enough about their alliance or his mates to even stay in the game's city. The player is gone, never to return on that account.
They aren't defending a player. They are defending real-estate which is 3 squares from an actual real-life, still involved player and should never have been where it was in the first place.
-------------
"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: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:10
|
Aarrrr! What be all this ruckus!
Is it just me? What is going on?  My head is spinning over all this.
I can see the validity of both sides, but hasn't this whole thing gone too far? Actually, shouldn't this whole thing have gone differently?
e.g. One = Malpherion to Harmless: "I see that X player is now suspended. Since his town is rather close and there have been some issues in the past, would you mind terribly if I sent a siege to prevent others from claiming it and staying in the neighborhood?"
(Oh wait, it seems as though Harmless has apologized for this already. Ok, moving on.)
e.g. Two = Valor to Malpherion: "I see that you have sent a siege to suspended player X. Since he was in our alliance, would you mind terribly if one of our members claimed it and then swiftly exodus out of there? After all, there is no reason to destroy a perfectly good town."
(It seems from all the reading that this was not done or even thought about. Rather an outright attack was sent. Poor form really, for both the initial siege and the following knee-jerk attack.)
e.g. Three = Rill to Harmless: "I see that this whole issue has gotten out of hand and I would like to offer compensation for your players losses. Would you allow me to pay the debt you feel is owed?"
(This is probably the most unusual action of them all. I respect Rill for attempting to help in this way, but the firm stance taken by Valor that they will not repay Harmless for their aggression against an active player who was attacking an inactive player seems like both sides are standing on principle. To pay off either side is like a slap in the face when they are standing firm for what they believe in. What if someone paid Rill to just shut up on the whole matter? My guess is that it would be like a slap in the face. Why? Because she feels she is standing on principle.)
Aaarrrrr! I know not what's been bringin' about this strange weather, but I best be sailin' before a siege be sent me own way an' me poop deck needs cleaning as well as me trousers! Fair thee well ta ye both and may tha' wind be e'er at yer back!
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:10
|
KP, I was contacted by Valar. I also heard about the issue from some H? players. As I said, I was consulting with my fellow Rooks on how best to handle the situation.
But I want to ask that you cease making this issue about me. Let's focus on principles, not personalities.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:13
|
PirateKing, attacking an army sieging one of your alliance mates, active or inactive, is not an aggressive act. It is a defensive one.
|
Posted By: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:15
Rill wrote:
PirateKing, attacking an army sieging one of your alliance mates, active or inactive, is not an aggressive act. It is a defensive one. |
Defensive? I feel as thought i am misunderstanding. was this player planning on coming back?
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:17
Malph was reckless even before he got to H? but his mentality of action first diplomacy never suits H? perfectly. No surprise here. Power makes right is H?'s bread and butter.
-------------
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.
|
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:17
"Someone who didn't care enough about their alliance or his mates to even stay in the game"....?
Wow. Sounds like you really know the guy and the circumstances for him leaving, as well as his feelings. Please share.
|
Posted By: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:22
Southern Dwarf wrote:
action first diplomacy never
Power makes right is H?'s bread and butter. |
It seems to me this has been raging for a few weeks. Though I am just reading it now (never been to the H forum) I am surprised you can claim action above diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy already been exhausted over these last few weeks?
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:23
PirateKing wrote:
Rill wrote:
PirateKing, attacking an army sieging one of your alliance mates, active or inactive, is not an aggressive act. It is a defensive one. |
Defensive? I feel as thought i am misunderstanding. was this player planning on coming back? |
Alliances have the right to defend the cities of all their players, regardless of their level of inactivity. If Suspended players were not considered to be part of an alliance, then they would be removed upon being Suspended. If you think this is the way the game should work, then I suggest you mention it on the Suggestions forum.
Until that point I think it is most reasonable to treat all players in an alliance the same, without regard to whether one believes or knows them to be inactive. It's an issue of respect for the alliance. The question of sieging suspended or inactive players has come up before, and I have said the same thing elsewhere. I don't think there should be special rules for Valar.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:25
PirateKing wrote:
Southern Dwarf wrote:
action first diplomacy never
Power makes right is H?'s bread and butter. |
It seems to me this has been raging for a few weeks. Though I am just reading it now (never been to the H forum) I am surprised you can claim action above diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy already been exhausted over these last few weeks? |
No, and that's the problem. H? did not make any attempt to contact Valar to discuss the situation. Valar launched an army before they contacted H? (or simultaneously with the contact). Both sides acted hastily without sufficient regard for resolving the situation by diplomatic means. Both sides share the fault.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:30
PirateKing wrote:
Defensive? I feel as thought i am misunderstanding. was this player planning on coming back? |
If I started sieiging inactives in your alliances (assuming you have any) you're telling me you wouldn't say something along the lines of "Yo! Get off our cities bro!" and then move in to clear the sieges? It may not be defending a player but it is defending something that most people would consider still theirs.
|
Posted By: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:34
|
I apologize, I just realized I was calling them valor (spell check). Valar is the name.
So you see the Valar alliance as the victim in this matter? They lost a player then lost a city. They were disrespected by not being contacted first. Valid. Very valid.
But what of their action against an active member of another alliance? surely this is also frowned upon. So Harmless feels their player was wrongfully attacked. Valid. Very valid.
What has come of this? Harmless seems to have openly admitted their wrong doing but stand firm that the city was over-due for removal. I remember reading a public apology regarding that. They are now seeking recompense for the attack which was made and which they have been publicly smeared and ridiculed for demanding. It seems to be a matter of principle for them that another alliance would openly attack an active players siege to defend an inactive players city.
I am still confused and not sure I am fully understanding.
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:37
Brids17 wrote:
PirateKing wrote:
Defensive? I feel as thought i am misunderstanding. was this player planning on coming back? |
If I started sieiging inactives in your alliances (assuming you have any) you're telling me you wouldn't say something along the lines of "Yo! Get off our cities bro!" and then move in to clear the sieges? It may not be defending a player but it is defending something that most people would consider still theirs. |
I bury my dead at sea, that's all they deserve. I would not risk active players accounts to defend the dead. though I would ask the attacker to allow me to first claim it if I felt so inclined.
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:48
PirateKing wrote:
What has come of this? Harmless seems to have openly admitted their wrong doing but stand firm that the city was over-due for removal. I remember reading a public apology regarding that. They are now seeking recompense for the attack which was made and which they have been publicly smeared and ridiculed for demanding. It seems to be a matter of principle for them that another alliance would openly attack an active players siege to defend an inactive players city. |
And what about Valar's demand for compensation for the lost city? (which was pitifully low considering it's size) Why does H? deserve due to a mistake Valar made but Valar does not deserve compensation due to a mistake H? made? Seems like they're holding Valar at higher standards than they hold themselves at.
PirateKing wrote:
I bury my dead at sea, that's all they deserve. I would not risk active players accounts to defend the dead. though I would ask the attacker to allow me to first claim it if I felt so inclined. |
And if I refused? I imagine with 75k defending troops Malph had no intention of letting Valar take over the city.
|
Posted By: PirateKing
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 07:53
Brids17 wrote:
And what about Valar's demand for compensation for the lost city? (which was pitifully low considering it's size) Why does H? deserve due to a mistake Valar made but Valar does not deserve compensation due to a mistake H? made? Seems like they're holding Valar at higher standards than they hold themselves at. |
Valid. Very valid.
I suppose your refusal to honor my request would not take away the fact that I had asked.
-------------
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/alliance.asp?AllianceID=401" rel="nofollow - ~SouthSeasPirates~
|
Posted By: LordBliss
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:04
|
interesting thread
i don't believe it.
who sends a couple thousand knights to remove a H? siege on a suspended account city without scouting? H? has never sieged one of my cities, but i am pretty sure that i won't be able to remove it if and when they do with 2K knights.
looks to me like they (Valar) wanted to fail, and then drag H? over the coals with it.
and, finally, it's bad form to accept an invitation to discuss something with someone in a private forum and then copy/paste the results in another forum without the consent of the other party.
|
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:15
I just know if Kies would end up suspended and I sieged his city, WoT would have my head. Just because the player is close, inactive, 1k pop or 20k pop does not make it right to siege if it is in an alliance.
H? Should have said something along the lines of.. Sorry we cannot reach an agreement, since said player is in our players way, we are giving you one month to relocate the city. If it is not relocated, we will raze the city so our player can expand his sov.
Could even add in; if in one month you do not relocate the city, we will raze the city and give you 2m compensation. (Or how ever much H? felt it was worth.)
Wouldn't something along them lines have been better?
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:18
LordBliss wrote:
interesting thread
i don't believe it.
who sends a couple thousand knights to remove a H? siege on a suspended account city without scouting? H? has never sieged one of my cities, but i am pretty sure that i won't be able to remove it if and when they do with 2K knights.
looks to me like they (Valar) wanted to fail, and then drag H? over the coals with it.
and, finally, it's bad form to accept an invitation to discuss something with someone in a private forum and then copy/paste the results in another forum without the consent of the other party.
|
Occam's razor probably applies to this situation. Do you really think Valar would knowingly send vastly fewer troops at a siege encampment, let them die, bank on H? demanding compensation and then refuse, all to do some damage to H? reputation while taking more damage to themselves? Now THAT I don't believe.
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:23
PirateKing wrote:
Southern Dwarf wrote:
action first diplomacy never
Power makes right is H?'s bread and butter. |
It seems to me this has been raging for a few weeks. Though I am just reading it now (never been to the H forum) I am surprised you can claim action above diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy already been exhausted over these last few weeks? |
Since H? once threatened my Alliance with agression since I have helped every player in need and they did not like one of them I don't think they even know what diplomacy is. I just cancelled all my help including a dozen gift spells to their newbie-wing T? after that and will not help people there anymore.
I wonder why I even tried to help those warmongers in the first place.
-------------
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.
|
Posted By: Taelin
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:24
|
First may I say that by and large the quality of the discussion has been high and largely more positive in tone than I anticipated.
I will apologise firstly for the formatting of the text from the embassy I did not do a good job there.
I will also sort of apologise if H? are really upset that I posted our dialogue from the embassy here: I did not appreciate that it was intended to be restricted, we did not discuss that aspect, if it is then it is frankly its not a style of negotiating which has many attractions when the other party is plainly much stronger and can, if they choose, impose their will by force: 'we can talk in private, we can do what we want and then you can't disclose the material to appeal to the public'
Thirdly, I would like to thank Rill for her contributions; both written and shiny - there was no need for her to send the gold but I welcome it as a genuine effort to end a difficult situation. I did seek her advice because I thought she was a sensible person to ask, I have not asked her to take sides she has come to her own independent conclusion which includes criticism of me for acting as soon as I did militarily.
Finally, in the hope of taking this forward and assuaging some (but not all) of the upset, I will accept that I could have waited longer before sending troops myself, that said they were sent after H?'s first reply on their forum and it was clear to me that an immediate lifting of the siege was unlikely occur voluntarily. I still believe that this was a justifiable position to take and do not think I ought to pay compensation for it but I accept it might have been more diplomatic had I waited, but I feared that had I done so the city would have been razed and then the status quo would have prevailed.
Malpherion has removed the city, lots of people think H? are wrong here, I have even sort of said sorry, can we agree to move on?
|
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:43
LordBliss wrote:
...who sends a couple thousand knights to remove a H? siege on a suspended account city without scouting? H? has never sieged one of my cities, but i am pretty sure that i won't be able to remove it if and when they do with 2K knights.
looks to me like they (Valar) wanted to fail, and then drag H? over the coals with it. |
What I wonder is just when --and why!!!-- those 75K troops were sent. Sounds like a baiting move to me. As in, "I know this siege might tick them off, and just in case they want to attack and sweep it, I [have 75K troops reinforcing]/[have 75K cav ready to speed off to reinforce the siege], (really, defending a siege with cav?) and if they kill some of my troops, well then we have the high ground because they attacked me!"
Why else would you have 75K troops on a siege that is supposedly entirely reasonable and you are claiming is non-controversial? Their very presence is an admission (read: acknowledgement) of contentiousness.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 08:45
KillerPoodle wrote:
Brids17 wrote:
KillerPoodle wrote:
You decided to butt in and send unsolicited gold - thanks for the gift. |
Wow KP... Someone offers to pay for compensation for Valar and you ignore it but keep the gold? Extremely petty. |
This is an important lesson for Rill - not everything requires her involvement.
|
What, I don't get my gold back? I was saving up to buy a pony! 
I guess that shows me! |
Posted By: LordBliss
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:09
Brids17 wrote:
LordBliss wrote:
interesting thread
i don't believe it.
who sends a couple thousand knights to remove a H? siege on a suspended account city without scouting? H? has never sieged one of my cities, but i am pretty sure that i won't be able to remove it if and when they do with 2K knights.
looks to me like they (Valar) wanted to fail, and then drag H? over the coals with it.
and, finally, it's bad form to accept an invitation to discuss something with someone in a private forum and then copy/paste the results in another forum without the consent of the other party.
|
Occam's razor probably applies to this situation. Do you really think Valar would knowingly send vastly fewer troops at a siege encampment, let them die, bank on H? demanding compensation and then refuse, all to do some damage to H? reputation while taking more damage to themselves? Now THAT I don't believe. |
Occam's razor may indeed apply to this situation, but your post is not a good example of how to apply it. the razor requires one to make the FEWEST assumptions about a situation. your post violates this rule several times.
beginning here: "bank on H? demanding compensation and then refuse, all to do some damage to H? reputation while taking more damage to themselves?
i count three assumptions you make. 1. that H? would demand compensation. 2. H? would refuse 3. the calculus of harm to reputations.
i see it differently. they launch, without scouting, a pretty small force. they engage in some "diplomatic" talks. they figure if the siege is recalled, they win. they figure if the small force wipes the siege, they win. if they lose (they run to the forums) (which is what happened).
that's what it looks like to me. it may look differently to others. fwiw, i think occam's razor is kinda silly, especially when attempting to apply it to human behavior, but if you are going to attempt to use it, it would probably be best to not turn it upside down.
(edited to improve accuracy. thanks rill)
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:25
Stuff goes wrong. VALAR denies all responsibility and rushes to the public forum. Haven't we seen this before?
@LB: try reading what Brids actually wrote again.
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:29
KillerPoodle wrote:
LOTS - you fail reading comprehension try again.
|
Ok, I'll re-read...
Yup, it's the same this time, too. You besieged another alliance's city, and when they tried to break the siege you used that as an excuse to strut your macho stuff by trying to extort money out of them.
I also read the bit where when someone thinks they're getting shafted by the game's most powerful alliance and brings it to the forum, you respond by saying next time someone does that you'll besiege their capital.
And I got the bit where you demanded cash, and when it was given (by Rill) you said it wasn't good enough and said you'd expect more.
So far my comprehension is working well. I'm picking up that you think you can act as imperiously as you want, demand money on flimsy pretexts, threaten to besiege the capital of those who dare bring your actions in front of the community (a community which you have happily exploited in the past when it served your own ends), and then slap Rill in the face (to the tune of 29 million gold) for trying to defuse the situation (though I assume that you actually just felt embarrassed that she showed you up - which, by the way, she did.)
My comprehension on this is fine.
I also, by the way, comprehend that it would have been perfectly reasonable to say to Valar, for example, "guys, this city's impinging on us, and it's a suspended player. We're going to have to clear it - do you want to loot it first, or shall we?" And if Valar had been stroppy I would have though that it would be quite reasonable to say "sorry you feel that way, but we're going to raze it anyway."
What is not reasonable is stomping in without discussion, and what is very far from reasonable is trying to extort money out of someone for protecting a city in their alliance which they had not agreed to let anyone raze it.
You had a reasonable cause. You went about it in an obnoxiously imperious manner. And now you're making H? look like an even more obnoxious bunch than you actually are (and I've had to deal with H? being pretty obnoxious - so I'm not expecting you to be saints to start with.)
-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:29
|
I think everyone is at fault! Seriously, remember its a game. Both sides made mistakes. Now H? HUGS Valar and Valar HUGS H? and we can get back to our regularly scheduled programming of Trollllllllssss in the Chat!
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:38
LordBliss wrote:
who sends a couple thousand knights to remove a H? siege on a suspended account city without scouting?
|
As I recall correctly (and this is going back a while) the current leadership of Valar have not had to face the fully power of an H? siege camp. And I doubt (though I don't know) that they have been in the habit of collecting Scout reports to get a sense of how the uber-alliances work sieges.
So I doubt they had any idea what "H? siege" actually means.
I'd guess they thought H? would be operating much as they would be if they were removing a suspended city. And to most players in this game, a couple of thousand knights is a force to be proud of - just because the likes of H? laugh at such forces doesn't change that.
-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:42
|
And who sends 75000 troops to siege a suspended player anyways?
why does random code always appear in my posts < id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
help its following me! Even when i go back and edit my post to delete it!
< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 09:51
I'm not sure Fluff... I certainly wouldn't.
I'm unsure on the details tbh I haven't looked at this at all closely but my guess is that Mal greatly boosted his force there when he heard VALAR might try and take a pot-shot at it.
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:04
fluffy wrote:
And who sends 75000 troops to siege a suspended player anyways? |
It's what I'd expect from H? - and I mean that in a factual, neutral way, without any negative connotations.
H?'s power derives from their superior organisation as much as from their size. I would be surprised if they ever fielded a half-hearted siege.
-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:08
Createure wrote:
I'm not sure Fluff... I certainly wouldn't.
I'm unsure on the details tbh I haven't looked at this at all closely but my guess is that Mal greatly boosted his force there when he heard VALAR might try and take a pot-shot at it.
|
So rather than withdraw and wait for diplomacy to take its course, which would have been straightforward to do given the short marching times, Malpherion elected to reinforce heavily and then demand compensation for losses of troops that could have been withdrawn and re-sent when this was worked out.
I'm really having a hard time understanding what H? is so indignant about. Yes, it was unwise of Valar to send the relief force, which they informed H? they were doing -- they should have waited for diplomatic resolution, even if it seemed they were getting nowhere.
But there was also no reason for H? to add a whole bunch of high-cost troops with poor defensive values there other than to make a point or create an incident. Messengers travel faster than the swiftest cavalry. Losses on both sides were unnecessary and can be attributed more to hubris than to malice.
Situations like this can be escalated or de-escalated. Both parties in this case made choices that escalated the situation. Both own parts of the problem. There is no single "wrong" and no single "right" party, just something that we can all learn from, if we are willing.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:15
So VALAR is allowed to respond with military action first, and then attempt diplomacy...
...but Malpherion is not allowed to protect his own siege engines when clearing a SUSPENDED city that was built too close to his own city because someone decides to take a pot-shot at him and call it "self-defence"?
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:19
|
My understanding of the timeline is that they made posts in the H? embassy first and were rebuffed, then sent a relief force.
But in any case, I have already said that I think that was wrong of them. Both parties made mistakes. Malpherion's choice to reinforce rather than withdraw and let the wheels of diplomacy work was unwise. Taelin's choice to send the relief force rather than wait for diplomacy to work was also unwise.
There is fault on both sides. Rather than go on a vendetta, it would be great if all could learn from the situation.
|
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:25
|
This seems to be one of those situations where alliance members operated outside the ideals of their alliance and leaders. So long as everyone can learn from it, and alliances brief their members on whatever policy they hold ideal, then the situation should be contained; nothing further needs to leak from the parties involved.
(Disclosure: I've only read the first dozen or so posts, with decreasing attention as I went) Thankfully, I didn't mention the word "sandbox"!
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:25
I don't disagree with anything you posted.
Also check your igm tbh Rill. 
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:28
Createure wrote:
Malpherion is not allowed to protect his own siege engines when clearing a SUSPENDED city that was built too close to his own city because someone decides to take a pot-shot at him and call it "self-defence"?
|
IMHO...
I think Malpherion acted reasonably in clearing a suspended city 3 squares from his own city. He probably could have waited until the city's Alliance had responded, just out of politeness, but he had good cause. And while he could (as Rill has said) have pulled back when it was obvious that this was causing an incident (3 squares is not a long march to send the engines back again!) it isn't outrageous that he chose to flex his muscles and stand his ground. A tad arrogant, perhaps, but no great crime.
I also think Valar were quite right (if rather foolish) to defend a city in their alliance which was under siege.
What is mildly obnoxious is H? extorting money over this. (And I say only "mildly" because I assume that it wasn't a serious demand - I assume it was a bargaining position.) What is remarkable is some of H?'s subsequent pronouncements - e.g. that after the money being demanded was paid (by Rill) they just said "not good enough" and demanded more, that people who "disrespect" them by bringing H?'s questionable actions to the community might find their capitals under siege....
The initial disagreement is no big issue. H? were arrogant, Valar were foolish, and there was no great damage done.
H?'s subsequent behaviour, however, is... how do I put this... "remarkable".
-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 11:23
I'm not sure where it says: 'people who "disrespect" us by bringing H?'s questionable actions
to the community might find their capitals under siege....' could you point me to the post? I'm not saying your wrong, it might have been said... I just can't be bothered to trawl through the whole thread.
edit: 1,000 posts... oh gawd I need to do more revision and less forum 
|
Posted By: LTH
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 12:42
It has appeared my New Year resolution of wanting to play this game peacefully has come to an end.
My place in this game is to be the revolutionary.
What does this mean? I have more passion bringing down big alliances than playing a game peacefully. This game has had a long history of players and alliances abusive with their power over the weak. Just because an alliance has more power does not make them right on every turn. I feel I am just in this cause. My cause, like before, brings an added value and entertainment in the game.
I have never been a troll in this game. My stance has always been for protecting the weak since the beginning. The players in power have used that troll name as a way of discrediting me. While my stance is not popular with the players or alliances that may be in power, it should be popular with the alliances and players abused by these same alliances and players.
This thread was the last straw in my eyes. I have had enough watching peacefully living the farmers life in this game while H? and players like them feel they can do whatever they want.
H? was in the wrong in this thread. I am not being biased by any means. The alliance they bullied was on the wrong end of it again. Several players in this thread has already made great points like Rill for instance. This is a shock to me since she seemed to be an H? member hiding as a Crow member. Nonetheless, while she posts way too much on this forum, I do have to agree that she is spot on with this topic.
I will spy, cause havoc, and create hysteria to bring balance to this game.
I come for you H?, my passion in this game will be to bring you down.
LTH or Lionz Heartz
|
Posted By: Babbens
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:01
LTH wrote:
while H? and players like them feel they can do whatever they want. |
Who's "them"?
Just wondering...
|
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:10
|
This thread is pure boredom
|
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:11
|
I seem to be late to the party, but isn't it against the forum rules to post private conversations between players?
|
Posted By: LTH
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:19
Myr wrote:
I seem to be late to the party, but isn't it against the forum rules to post private conversations between players? |
It is not. IGMs have been posted quite a bit on the forums. It is all about the meta game play. This is part of the game. This has been done in games like Darkfallonline and EVEonline. The devs tried to make a browser game like EVE. So if you make such a thing illegal in a forum, meta gaming becomes almost pointless...
|
Posted By: Gilthoniel
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:19
Having had a chance to read the entire thread (much of which is just ego
tripping) . I am amazed how the parties involved allowed the attempts
to divert from its original cause ie the action of Malpherion in razing
cities an account of a Valar member who had just become suspended.
The mail sent by HM to Taelin shown below gets to the heart of the issue:
Taelin wrote:
Title: Re: Malpherion's siege of Horratan's Sewer 3 Post by: HonoredMule on May 01, 2012, 02:24:11 PM This
is apparently not an attempt to capture the city (Malpherion already
has 10) but to remove it. Horratan and Malpherion have had considerable
disputes in the past which were apparently never brought before our
respective leaderships. As I understand it, we have no interest in
disputing your claim to any of the cities but this one is an issue of
proximity being rectified. Placing a city only 3.16 squares away is
beyond unacceptable even when there isn't a pattern of hostility and
personal conflict.
I apologize for this action
having been taken without consultation. In that regard we have handled
this poorly. If you attempt to remove the siege, however, you risk
substantially escalating the situation. |
Malpherion and his actions have been defended by H? when they should not
have been. In this thread Southern Dwarf has described Malpherion as
"reckless". I agree, in fact I was a victim of Malph's recklessness.
On 18 November 2011, when he was a member of VIC and I was just starting
out in the training alliance of VICX, Malpherion attacked, my then,
small town and sent me offensive and insulting emails all because he
didn't like something I said in GC. He didn't try warn or caution me
and he didn't contact the leaders of both alliances before hand. The
matter was investigated by Jasche of VIC and I was compensated but Malph
refused to apologise.
So it doesn't surprise me that Malph just decided to raze this
city because of past disputes and it doesn't surprise me that he
attacked the city without informing his leadership because he has done
this before.
H? really don't have right to demand compensation for the fact that his
siege was removed and the certainly don't gain any friends by
threatening Valar or demeaning other players like Rill who try to
mediate the dispute.
|
Posted By: LadyLuvs
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:45
Southern Dwarf wrote:
PirateKing wrote:
Southern Dwarf wrote:
action first diplomacy never
Power makes right is H?'s bread and butter. |
It seems to me this has been raging for a few weeks. Though I am just reading it now (never been to the H forum) I am surprised you can claim action above diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy already been exhausted over these last few weeks? |
Since H? once threatened my Alliance with agression since I have helped every player in need and they did not like one of them I don't think they even know what diplomacy is. I just cancelled all my help including a dozen gift spells to their newbie-wing T? after that and will not help people there anymore.
I wonder why I even tried to help those warmongers in the first place. |
I have no idea why T? was brought up in this, but I seem to remember that we have had players graduate to Valar. I have never spoken a bad word about Valar before or even now. We are completely impartial in this situation and I didn't even know it was going on because quite frankly in T?, H? business is H? business. One of my Officers brought this to my attention. Until the above comment was made, Valar has not done anything towards T? members to make me think badly of the alliance. I wonder what would cause a player to take things out on players that are not involved in the matter? That doesn't add up. We are in negotiations regarding spots with Valar. Does the above comment reflect all of Valar's feelings regarding T? now?
Could one of the Council Members of Valar please igm me regarding this? I do not know why an impartial alliance of newbies would be punished for this.
-------------
LadyLuvs
Raven, Murder of Crows Alliance
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:49
Rill wrote:
My understanding of the timeline is that they made posts in the H? embassy first and were rebuffed, then sent a relief force.
But in any case, I have already said that I think that was wrong of them. Both parties made mistakes. Malpherion's choice to reinforce rather than withdraw and let the wheels of diplomacy work was unwise. Taelin's choice to send the relief force rather than wait for diplomacy to work was also unwise.
There is fault on both sides. Rather than go on a vendetta, it would be great if all could learn from the situation. |
I believe I already corrected you on this issue, I suggest you go back through the forum posts and re-read my post. I have to agree with KP on all his posts......fail on reading comprehension and on interjecting yourself into a situation in which you do not belong (a recurring problem).
Btw, since you've never failed to contact H? with your views before I sincerely doubt you were contacted by Valar on this manner, in any case, you still do not have the right to interject yourself into every situation in this game. It really is becoming tedious and I wonder how you'd feel if we mirrored your actions. :D
As for Taelin reposting discussions from our private embassy, I don't buy the innocent act. Private talks are just that, private. If we wanted a public debate the discussion would have been made on this forum. Perhaps we need to close the Valar Embassy on our forums.
Have fun folks, this discussion (thanks to Rill) has gone off on another tangent.
-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 13:55
Lady, I am not a member of VALAR but of Victrix (formerly Invictus, changed back because of regional reorganisation of the confed family). Since I operate quite many geomancy spells on other players one of those had been cast on one of SJ's cities. Because H? in their bottomless tolerance decided to permanently drive members out of the game because they only have the right to decide which games people play in their freetime they were - of course rightly justified - enraged to hear about a geomancy spell on such scum of the earth.
Their natural reaction of course was threatening Invictus with war should I not cancel that one spell which certainly alone stood in their way to bully the player from the game. Since I did not wish to give H? an excuse to destroy yet another peaceful alliance I withdrew the spell. Along with those operating on the members of their training confed alliance Toothless.
-------------
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.
|
Posted By: LadyLuvs
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:10
Southern Dwarf wrote:
Lady, I am not a member of VALAR but of Victrix (formerly Invictus, changed back because of regional reorganisation of the confed family). Since I operate quite many geomancy spells on other players one of those had been cast on one of SJ's cities. Because H? in their bottomless tolerance decided to permanently drive members out of the game because they only have the right to decide which games people play in their freetime they were - of course rightly justified - enraged to hear about a geomancy spell on such scum of the earth.
Their natural reaction of course was threatening Invictus with war should I not cancel that one spell which certainly alone stood in their way to bully the player from the game. Since I did not wish to give H? an excuse to destroy yet another peaceful alliance I withdrew the spell. Along with those operating on the members of their training confed alliance Toothless. |
Interesting. Ok. Well, on behalf of those members you assisted with your geomancy spells for a time, thank you. I will make sure we list it on our spreadsheet for alliances we contact regarding graduates. You would punish new players because of an alliance that protects us actions. I guess you will have a lot of grievances with alliances because many protect us. We are not in Confed with anyone. It is against our rules. We are separate from H? because we nor they want us to be involved with their matters. It seems that you will lump us in anyway.
There are negotiations about one of your members wanting to move to a certain spot near one of my officers. Now I suggest Invictus leadership get in touch with me regarding this public display. Valar, no need to contact me, negotiations will continue as planned.
-------------
LadyLuvs
Raven, Murder of Crows Alliance
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:15
IMO Rills attempts to mediate earlier (if a
little rash - not checking with anyone in H? first) were done with good
intentions, not some political stunt, and certainly not deserving of
extra public bashings from any of us. Don't flog a dead horse etc.
LTH wrote:
I come for you H?, my passion in this game will be to bring you down. |
If
only that meant coming at us with large armies and many allies...
something that could present us with a genuine challenge and alleviate
some of my boredom...
Sadly we all know that your threat can be
very easily interpreted as "spouting endless vitriol and posting
threads/mails from in-game with your spies/multis"... essentially just a
pile of public forum garbage - the same as
you have always produced, the same stuff that has never had any affect
outside the public forum for the last 2 years.
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:15
LadyLuvs wrote:
Interesting. Ok. Well, on behalf of those members you assisted with your geomancy spells for a time, thank you. I will make sure we list it on our spreadsheet for alliances we contact regarding graduates. You would punish new players because of an alliance that protects us actions. I guess you will have a lot of grievances with alliances because many protect us. We are not in Confed with anyone. It is against our rules. We are separate from H? because we nor they want us to be involved with their matters. It seems that you will lump us in anyway.
There are negotiations about one of your members wanting to move to a certain spot near one of my officers. Now I suggest Invictus leadership get in touch with me regarding this public display. Valar, no need to contact me, negotiations will continue as planned.
|
One moment: I thought T? is H?'s newbie wing and made to train potential new members? Now you state that this is not the case. Why the similar names then?
-------------
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.
|
Posted By: LTH
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:17
T? has been in a confederation with H? for a long time. Starry (member or H?) and HM (a member of H?) created the T? training alliance. H? will always protect T? like it is their own. This has been stated many times in the past. I honestly do not trust a player that comes out of the T? alliance. They either leave the alliance a little brainwashed with the H? flair or will eventually go back to H? once they are bigger.
Even my little scuffle with you, told me all I needed to know about the T? alliance. They did not want anyone to know about their training guide for new players. I bit hypocritical of an alliance that is supposed to help new players. And it kind of shed light of what H? really stands for instead of this fake stature of them protecting the new player. More like protecting the T? player.
|
Posted By: Grimnis
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:24
|
I'm new to this game and so I have significantly less experience in the way diplomacy works here, but lets call a tyrant a tyrant no matter what the media, game or world. I get it, H? is extremely powerful and want to dominate by showing any who oppose them that they can punish them severely. So instead of using Malpherion's history while in a supposed unsupportive alliance, over a town which was absolutely no threat and of little consequence to Malpherion's expansion, with an argument I suspect you have absolutely zero proof in the form of saved communications, just man up and call it what it is. You guys are the dominant alliance and are going to do what you want to do. But then, that might stir up a hornets nest with a bunch of alliances who don't appreciate that kind of tyranny... The truth of the matter is that in your haste to support a member who truly does seem bent on stirring up trouble it seems to be overlooked that Sewer 3 could have been a valuable asset to a new player such as myself. Sure, there may yet be other "Sewers" I can take advantage of before our suspended player is fully removed from the world, but that's hardly your call to make, much as it wouldn't be our call to remove cities you might allow your younger players to utilize. I was severely disappointed recently when an inactive player's cities were removed from the world as I lost a nearly unlimited source of resources for my thieves to snatch. I have since been taking advantage of the cities of our recently suspended account. Unlike others, I have taken the time to read your entire chain of communications with my leadership. That is to say that I am not blind to the arguments your leadership have cited to support your side of this situation. Again, I'm new to diplomacy here, but since you so delicately deny the validity of the opinions of people whose participation you deem unnecessary I feel I have to weigh in to support my alliance in the only way I can. I have to use words because I'm an insignificant speck of dust compared to your many powerful players. Sadly, it ultimately comes down to force. And because you have the numbers and strength you think it's okay to impose your will on others. That's the definition of a tyrant. I was the victim of such an alliance when I played Evony, and I was hoping my transition to the world of Illyriad would be a bit more cordial. I'm disappointed to say the least. So do as you will, we're helpless to stop you, but at least have the courage to display your intelligence and have the respect to acknowledge ours. Before you exact revenge on us for defending what was ours, stand tall and shout for all to hear: "I am a tyrant, I take what I want!"
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:25
Southern Dwarf wrote:
One moment: I thought T? is H?'s newbie wing and made to train potential new members? Now you state that this is not the case. Why the similar names then? |
H? did set up T? - I believe it was because H? leadership felt like Illy as a whole could use a training alliance (I think there was no such thing before T?) - hence the similar names...
H? does not claim ownership over T? or it's members though. Our only obligation is to protect them against all hostilities (as many other alliances would do) - since T? is strictly a peaceful alliance. They have no obligations to us. Their members are free to join whichever alliance they chose and meet the requirements for. Some of them do join H? of course, but like I say there is no obligation.
Hence it seems a little... petty... to try and punish T? members for any wrongs someone might think H? has made. Doing so would have absolutely 0 negative effect on H? as an alliance but would quite likely make many other neutral alliances view that person in a worse light.
|
Posted By: Aldonis
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:26
|
On Behalf Of My Self and not the Alliance I'm in, I'd like to say, Yes Rills attempts at mediating this was a good idea. KillerPoodle was being a really Arrogant Douche in response to it. Yes Valar may be in the wrong for attempting to break a siege, but as had been said by many, who wouldn't protect their own if they had the chance? inactive or suspended as they are? H? is clearly in the wrong for not even being idealistic or moral as to the actions that have been taken. Malph is a member of H? therefore H? is responsible for his actions, authorised or not. On the same point, why siege someone that cannot defend themselves? whether there were previous aggressive actions or not, Consultation as to possible actions for inactive or suspended cities is always a good idea, i know for a fact some alliances use inactives/suspended accounts to train their players in How To and How Not To do things in this Game.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:32
Grimnis wrote:
stuff.... |
Forgive my skepticism but this would not be the first time LTH makes a sudden reappearance and then a succession of new forum accounts start expressing lengthy anti-H? opinions... coincidence?
|
Posted By: Aldonis
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:33
|
I am nothing to do with him. and i dislike the accusation as to me being Prejudice against anyone. There's Right and Wrong. that's all.
|
Posted By: LTH
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:39
Aldonis wrote:
I am nothing to do with him.and i dislike the accusation as to me being Prejudice against anyone. There's Right and Wrong. that's all. |
Yes, there is a right and a wrong. H? is in the wrong. I am not prejudice against anyone. I dislike bullies, and power makes right thinkers. H? over their history in this game have proven to be both.
|
Posted By: Grimnis
Date Posted: 09 May 2012 at 14:40
Createure wrote:
Grimnis wrote:
stuff.... |
Forgive my skepticism but this would not be the first time LTH makes a sudden reappearance and then a succession of new forum accounts start expressing lengthy anti-H? opinions... coincidence?
|
Nah, if you take the time to look me up in my alliance, VALAR, you'll see that I'm real.
|
|
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
|
| |
| | |
