TIVIUM and EAGLES
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=4693
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: TIVIUM and EAGLES
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Subject: TIVIUM and EAGLES
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 07:22
|
Tivium have constantly attacked seiges that we are performing and refuse to declare war, we will do so to make sure everyone knows what the stakes are. This is merely a simple announcement, try not to run away with yourselves! ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Replies:
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 07:24
|
TRIVIUM, sorry for that, was trying to avoid the word Trivial
------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Abraxox
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 07:49
|
That is pretty hypocritical when Haller sent 2 large forces against a siege we were involved in well before Fromfrak ever asked us for assistance. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/125415" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Abraxox
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 07:59
Victorious defense by XENA PRINCESS's forces at Square 490|720 under attack by Haller's forces from Coldwater Bend
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/125415" rel="nofollow">
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 09:41
|
Shouldn't seige a confederated alliance, you seige we broke it, now we declared war so you can attack with impunity! No guarantess on the retaliation thing though!
------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 11:32
Overflowing with eagerness for war or is it just my impression .?.
 |
HATHALDIR wrote:Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 11:38
|
yes...Deranzin...just your impression ..as usual :) ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 11:44
Well, I don't know ... were are the "public diplomatic efforts for peace" and all that jazz we are listening about in other similar threads ? EDIT: Not to mention the taunting and the "jokes" with the word "trivial" |
Posted By: Beecks
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 11:51
It does make the 'all we want is peace' bit seem hollow. EE is welcome to declare war war on whomever they choose but I hope this shatters the mythology that Consone is made up of reluctant warriors. |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 11:56
------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:00
There are REASONS for TAUNTING .?. Since when .?.  Why didn't he simply edit the original thread and chose to make that louzy joke with the word "trivial" .?. Going to war might be a very legitimate decision and I do not judge that, but at least try to maintain the facade of "peaceful hippies" when dealing with people smaller than you instead of reverting immediately to "we are coming to get you" behaviour. Consistency dudes, consistency ...
|
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:03
|
I wasn't referring to the trivial reference Denzarin..but their siege on a confed alliance without declaring...even you seem to focus on the small detail without seeing the bigger picture. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:05
| Oh come on...with all the drama this actually *is* a little funny =) |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:07
|
heheheh...+1 ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:14
| mmmmmmm. the war grows larger...more bloodshed..............remember even small accounts can take down the mighty with the proper strategy.......may all give good account of themselves, may we weep for those that will fall, and uncle hath remember to behave yourself |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:16
Do you even read what we are writting .?. I already said that I do not judge the reasons for going to war (and I am obviously in no position to do so), but I cannot notice and laugh at the hypocricy of people that on the big war pretend to be peaceloving hippies that chant "give peace a chance" on every occasion and on smaller wars suddenly go trigger-happy and make silly doupleposting "mistakes" (as if there isn't an edit button). I respect yout opinion, but if this is not the "bigger picture" for you, then this is not my problem.
What drama ? I am having grand fun with all that ...  |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:25
Besides, claiming to be " peace loving hippies " doesnt mean to say that people can walk all over you without some come back. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 12:54
|
let me do it in small sentences, and no references, we declared war because TRIVIUM had attacked us, when asked if they were going to declare war, they said they had no intentions of telling us future diplomacy, so we took the situation out of their hands and declared, i cannot see too much coming of this, but it will let them know our intentions if they attack us and our confederates. And i edit spelling mistakes. As i probably won't read the forums for another week, enjoy the endless to-ing and fro-ing !!! Love you all! ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 14:44
|
I know you can't be bothered to follow up on your own thread in any sort of timely manner but I'm gonna post this anyway. You DID NOT edit the spelling mistake but instead chose to make a "trivial" joke out of our name. There is an edit button but you didn't use it. Whatever, but don't deny what is clear to everyone paying the slightest bit of attention. Without declaring war on us you attacked our siege on a VALAR city, one of your Confederates. In my opinion, doing that without a declaration was fine. Siege breaking is a time honored tradition here in Illyriad. It was annoying to loose thirty thousand plus troops AFTER the city fell but we don't feel ONLY attacking armies in the field is an act of war. Guess we were wrong. We attacked your siege on a former TLR member (for those not in the know, TVM basically used to be TLR.) We answered a call. I see no difference in the two situations other than we are only in a NAP with Dlords. I guess we were wrong again. I don't particularly care about your declaration, since you made your intentions to leave it at that publicly clear here. What I care about is your attempt to smear my family. "Tivium have constantly attacked seiges that we are performing and refuse to declare war, we will do so to make sure everyone knows what the stakes are." You constantly (the use of that word is a bit much but since you guys killed so much more of ours than we did of yours, I figured I could use it as well) attacked our siege and refused to declare war. I don't see a difference. The truth is you and your alliance's actions are hypocritical. You have never approached me with anything other than a palpable disdain. When you sent one of your general membership to insist I answer a rude and demanding message, I replied and made it clear we would not be answering such requests again. You may feel you have some authority in the northern region but I assure you, we do not agree. ------------- |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:21
Are you kidding? If someone punched you, that's assault. If you punch them back, that's self defense. Two entirely different things. You can't send a siege against someone and then when they retaliate and criticize you for it, call them hypocrites. And for the record, I think they're letting you guys off pretty easy, even if their hands are tied due to the war. If you tried the same stunt with mCrow you'd have a lot more to worry about than a war declaration and a forum post. -------------  |
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:28
Trivium is at war with Valar and had a siege up. EE attacked that siege. EE is at war with Dlords and had a siege up. Trivium attacked that siege. Why is the second one so much worse than the first one? They look pretty similar to me. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:34
Indeed, you have to expect alliances of a same side in a war to help each others.
I thought exactly the same, but H? declared war against VIC and Absa because they broke a siege; they were "ONLY attacking armies in the field". Apparently we both are wrong, Abstractdream. If you're neutral and want to respect this tradition, you should send units towards any siege, not regarding who owns the siege. If you focus your attacks against only one side you naturally will be considered as an ennemy by this side. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:35
| remember this is a silly game |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:36
I suppose everything is a blur for Myr, but I have marked the worst part (and the first part) in bold. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 15:49
I see that the GregoRokin school of "insult someone in your posts while pretending to make sense" is expanding. Nice manners guys, the "jolly yet trigger happy hippy" act is really amusing.  |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 16:04
I was replying to Myr. I thought she was deliberately ignoring the real reason that led to the war declaration. My remark was about that. Grego is nowhere in this thread, and yet you drag his name only to insult him. I need not elaborate whose school is "insult someone in your posts while pretending to make sense". And you teach manners. Not at all amusing. |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 16:04
|
I would add to this as well if possible. The player reference whom is a friend is Fromfrak, who was in TLR. I have defended many a siege on fellow Druids members in the north, and every single siege was reinforced by members of TLR who now comprise Trivium. Don't pretend that you only had a dog in this fight because of a loss of troops on a siege on Valar. You have been in this fight before Trivium was even formed, so what exactly do you expect to happen.
|
Posted By: Abraxox
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 16:27
To be accurate, let's deal with facts. TRIVIUM is a new, fairly small alliance, comprised mostly of smaller players. A couple of TRIVIUM members (mock and trivialize all you wish if it makes you feel better about yourself) attempted to assist Fromfrak, a former alliance member from TLR who asked for help against blockades. This was after EE member Haller wiped out thousands of our troops, an action that Hathaldir didn't even know about until I brought it to his attention. And now, it is from this situation that Trivium has constantly attacked sieges (liberties taken to correct spelling). I have a different understanding of what the word "constantly" actually implies. Yesterday, I had a neighbor to neighbor communication with a member of EE regarding an unrelated matter, and Trivium's minor assistance of Fromfrak was mentioned. As a result, I forwarded the Battle Reports showing major interference against us by Haller (in an operation which we were involved in due to a blood-debt to one who saved our players during TLR's final conflict.) I also forwarded copies of these communications to Hathaldir. I thought the issue had been settled. Rather than attempting to communicate with civility, which I attempted to do yesterday by politely bringing Haller's actions to the attention of Hathaldir through IGMs, today Hathaldir has decided to "send a message" via a Declaration of War. He later decided to back-rationalize that he did so because of confederation. I'm sure that EE could probably murder Trivium, given the size difference and player levels, but I certainly cannot quietly abide the casual manner in which war has been declared upon TVM under false pretenses, attempting to malign our reputation through inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know whether anyone will actually care about the truth of this situation, but I feel the need to make sure that it is at least an option. This type of behavior is too reminiscent of the reasons for which the members of Trivium recently broke away from TLR. Trivium has not constantly attacked EE sieges, and I guarantee that no one can produce Battle Reports which indicate otherwise. Trivium has been content to live peacefully next to our EE neighbors, and it saddens me that Hathaldir has decided to declare an unjustifiable war. I have to deal with enough real-life violence through my work, and I dread unnecessary conflicts within Illyriad. I can only speak for myself on the following, but I have no intention of committing acts of aggression against my EE neighbors, despite what their leader is trying to instigate. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/125415" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 16:41
|
No and No Abraxox. Number 1, you sieged a confed so expect for that siege to be attacked. Anything different would be idiotic and I refuse to believe you are that dumb. Number 2, Trivium itself may be a new alliance but you have been assisting in offensive sieges to "help" your friend Fromfrak since the beginning of the war. Your members in Trivium helped raze a number of Druids towns in Ursor while they were still in TLR. If you were truly content to live in peace alongside EE you would not be involved in military action. You come on these forums crying foul when you have been the aggressor. Don't cry pity me when you are declared upon.
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 16:52
No, I am just stating a fact. Since when stating FACTS is an insult in your dictionary .?. Also, making fun of a FACT is not an insult, last time I checked a dictionary ...
Yes, in fact you need to elaborate because unlike your leader's case where I can find a heap of posts where he insults me (in the same off-hand manner you copied), you will be hard pressed to find even one of my posts where I insulted anyone.  Just a small matter of FACTS you see, so maybe it is nothing for you to be really worried about ...
I think many people playing the game do care about what is going on within it, so worry not, despite some funny bickering (sorry about my part in that btw, but it is so funny ! ) people are reading this topic and they are forming their opinions.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 17:02
Last I checked Trivium and Dlords don't have a confederation, let alone a long standing relationship with them. It's pretty different for a confederation to help each other than it is for a month and a half old NAP alliance to jump into a war just because they can. ------------- |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 17:28
| seems this might be more of a strategy move, very interesting. beware of who ur big neighbor is, someday they might value your land....this game is getting more and more territorial, it would be horrible if other alliances that have members spread across the map get involved. watch what path your leadership takes alliance members, u might end up paying for the ticket, always remember u can sit out this war by going to neutral alliances! |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 17:31
|
This thread is a bit amusing I suppose. A huge war is going on, a minor alliance is used as a pawn in the war and eventually gets war declared on them for it... is there anything else to this? Seems like 4 pages of going over the obvious? So what about other things... is there going to be a tourney soon? In honor of Illy's 3rd anniversary coming up? If so.... will everyone participate ? ... anyone ?
------------- 
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 19:34
Just to be clear: TVM did not send a siege against EE. Also, you are saying mCrow policy is to declare war on the alliance they send siege breakers against? Because that is what EE did NOT do when they attempted to break our siege on a VALAR city, who by the way has not posted a thread in the Illy Forum to smear us. ------------- |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 19:37
You are correct, we are not neutral. I do not begrudge the declaration, only the theatrics attempted by EE's leader to make TVM look "trivial." ------------- |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 19:42
Again, the point of this was to paint TVM with a certain color while keeping EE as it's "pure" original color. EE did exactly what we did but expects us to live up to a higher standard. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite" rel="nofollow - Hypocritical. ------------- |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 19:53
What? That very siege you mention was (one of) our "dogs in the fight." We (some of us anyway) have indeed been in this since before TRIVIUM was formed. What has that got to do with EE accusing us of "constantly attacked seiges that we are performing and refuse to declare war"? What I expect to happen is we defend ourselves against hatchet job statements. EE's leader made a misrepresentational statement, we are defending ourselves. ------------- |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:00
|
Let's note here that Bonfyr Verboo of TVM and Wilberforce of N are alts. There is nothing secret about this. Wilberforce was involved in the war through N. Bonfyr Verboo and Abraxox, who are friends in real life, dragged their former alliance, TLR, into a war on behalf of an alt. (Through for example sieges on Dwarven Druids.) The Duke of Shade objected to this behavior, and their alliance leader, Eternal Fire, did not support it. In response, Bonfyr Verboo and Abraxox took a group of their followers from TLR to form Trivium, leaving their former TLR alliance mates to face the consequences of their actions. Which, to his credit, Eternal Fire did, and has earned my respect in so doing. Trivium has been at war with Consone since before it was even formed. They have reinforced sieges on Consone members and launched their own sieges at times. EE has decided to recognize these actions with a declaration of war. In describing the flow of history as I understand it, I am not making judgments (except for my increased respect for Eternal Fire, as noted). But let's call a spade a spade. Re-edited: It is apparently now possible to edit the titles of forum posts. I had tried to do this a while back and failed. Good to know.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:00
Number 1.1 We had made ZERO statements to ANYONE about Haller's attempt to break our siege before EE's silly post. Number 2.2 We have been the aggressor against two Ursor based Druid members and when the player who was in our sights came on here and "cried pity me" we did not argue that fact. We are not declaring our "peaceful" intentions here, we are defending our name against the OP. ------------- |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:02
| If you have been in this since before Trivium was formed then that has everything to do with the fact that you were helping siege our allies, attacking our sieges, and then when asked in IGM about your intentions you refused to declare. By acknowledging this Hath made no misrepresentation of your intentions. Attacking our allies and our sieges is not defending yourselves. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:07
All true except: Eternal Fire declared War on Shade. Shade simply launched feints and blockades assuming EF would contact them and they could talk (EF had ignored The Duke's messages, thus an escallation ensued.) EF acted on impulse and "dragged" TLR into a war in which it was clearly outmatched. I had no idea The Duke was trying to talk to and being ignored by EF. THAT was the last in a long line of poor decisions that forced me out. The members followed me. They did not remain behind to "face the consequences." EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I did not launch without authorization while in TLR, ever. ------------- |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:20
Very well. I admit (and have never denied) that we were attacking your allies and one of your sieges. Why the declaration now? When one of EE's general membership contacted me in a rude and demanding way, insisting I explain TVM's intentions with respect to Druids, why not declare then? After all, it was clear then that we were sieging a Druid member. Was this Druid member not worth the effort? It is only VALAR that matters enough to declare and post? Again, I have no qualms about the declaration. This IS a war. I am arguing the blatant hypocracy demonstrated by the OP and illustrated again by waiting until it is "important" enough to act and then using all previous action to retroactively reinforce that action. ------------- |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:26
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:31
It is not impossible: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/edited-to-show-it-can-be-dOne_topic4555.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/edited-to-show-it-can-be-dOne_topic4555.html EDIT: After the usefulness of changing its name waned, the title of the thread referred to above has been restored. ------------- |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:57
|
So now you admit to being the aggressors the entire time, and instead criticize not the fact that we finally declared but that we didn't do it sooner. It is apparent that you wanted to pile on but were too cowardly to declare yourself. Just a suggestion, don't cry about losing troops when you are razing a town. You will notice that EE didn't cry about you attacking our allies and camps, we simply declared and did something about it. I get tired of people trying to get some sort of pity and thinking that they are the victims after they are called out on their actions. At least you had the wherewithal to admit you were really in the war since the beginning. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 21:56
So now? I have never denied any of the military action. I didn't think declaring against Druids was necessary just because we were after a player who happened to be Druid. We had no intention of going after other Druids and I believe that was expressed in NOT declaring. I take it you think that has never been done before. I did notice that the leader of EE came on and cried as you put it. How can you even say "EE didn't cry about you attacking our allies and camps" with a straight face? Oh, internet. No faces necessary. And you didn't "simply" declare you came on on here and tried to get a PR campaign rolling. As for my wherewithal, since no one ever asked, I didn't say anything. You will not find a single instance of denial. I suppose I should have taken your leader's tack and started a thread to "declare" my intentions but I didn't. I don't want pity, I want clarity. ------------- |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 22:14
|
Hath made a statement as to why we declared upon Trivium. Your alliance responded with a "Haller attacked us first!" we are the victim statement. If that is not a denial perhaps I don't understand the definition. When pressed you finally admitted that you were involved in attacks from the beginning. I also did not question whether or not you declared on Druids, but criticized us for not declaring on you sooner because of your aggression on Druids. In my time in Illy, almost every war declaration has followed with a forum post explaining the reasons. I don't see a 2 sentence declaration as starting a PR campaign. And yes I asked that you admit that you started attacks against our allies long before your current siege was hit by EE simply because your alliance spent 2 pages attempting to state that they didn't do anything of the sort. As for clarity, judging by the comments from outside factions you have done a good job of providing it.
|
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 22:45
Come on Brids, the alliance has only been around for a couple months, how can they possibly have long standing relationships on their diplomacy page? Besides that, different alliances assign different importance to NAPs and Confeds. Some alliances put little weight on NAPs, others only set up NAPs with people they are willing to fight for and with. For example when ~N~ was small and got a NAP with Crow we had to pay an escrow, the reason for the escrow was to help cover expenses if they had to come to our aid militarily. So to say that one siege break was ok, and the other wasn't based on NAP vs Confed or length of time of a relationship really doesn't fly.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 23:04
|
My replies are in bold type. Elmindra said: Hath made a statement as to why we declared upon Trivium. And included misleading statements and a joke. Your alliance responded with a "Haller attacked us first!" we are the victim statement. Abraxox's post clarified the hypocrisy. If that is not a denial perhaps I don't understand the definition. Denial: an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false. No one ever denied we had been involved in attacks on the siege in question or against two Druid players. I am denying that we "constantly" attacked your siege(s.) I am denying that we sent a siege or sieges against EE. Nothing else has ever been denied. What exactly have you read to show otherwise? When pressed you finally admitted that you were involved in attacks from the beginning. Pressed? I guess that's a decent spin on someone finally asking. I have never denied -that word again- sieging the Druid players, the VALAR player or attacking your camps around a city owned by Fromfrak. I also did not question whether or not you declared on Druids, but criticized us for not declaring on you sooner because of your aggression on Druids. I am criticizing the fact that the same sort of actions we took previously did not warrant a declaration. Only when your troops died in the field in an attack from us did you do that. In my time in Illy, almost every war declaration has followed with a forum post explaining the reasons. Really? I've read a dozen, maybe...just a guess but closer to reality than "almost every." How many wars are declared just at this moment, not to mention all the previous ones? I don't see a 2 sentence declaration as starting a PR campaign. Well, of course you don't. And yes I asked that you admit that you started attacks against our allies long before your current siege was hit by EE simply because your alliance spent 2 pages attempting to state that they didn't do anything of the sort. Again, show it. Simply stating it does not make it fact. As for clarity, judging by the comments from outside factions you have done a good job of providing it. That we can agree on. "Outside factions" would not be squawking as they were if a nerve had not been exposed... ------------- |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 23:16
|
During our last siege there was a constant stream of Trivium attacks. That would tend to be defined as constantly. We never stated that you sent sieges against EE. I fail to understand when the first Trivium members posted that they had never done anything to deserve an attack on their seige can not be understood as a denial of hostility. I will state that you finally did clarify this hypocrisy. Also, how can you state that our troops never died in the field before this declaration. We lost many troops defending sieges against Druid members who you have admitted to reinforcing. And once again, I made a clear statement such as "In my time in Illy" when noticing that people tend to post explanation behind their declarations. Ever declaration in this war has one, TLR stated their intents during their last fights, as well as the few wars I have witnessed prior. I have not played long, therefore have not observed as many "under the radar" declarations.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 00:20
|
Constant? About 48 hours worth. Anything like the constant stream of attacks without declaration that you mention in your second paragraph? I guess we just have to agree that the definition of constant is not a constant. Someone else said we sent a siege at you in their post. I want everyone to understand that that did not happen. No one in TVM has ever said we "had never done anything to deserve an attack on (our) seige." Show me where we said that and I will accept the truth of it. Saying it, don't make it so. I never stated your troops did not die in the field before this declaration. You are obviously seeing what you want to see, not actually reading my statements. Here is what I said: "I am criticizing the fact that the same sort of actions we took previously did not warrant a declaration. Only WHEN YOUR TROOPS DIED IN THE FIELD IN AN ATTACK FROM US did you do that." (Caps for highlight) How is a declaration of war, publicly posted on Global Chat by the System (every one of them is) "under the radar?" ------------- |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 00:46
| oh yeah, well i hear eagles poop in the air, its prob u that did on my windshield and tmv means too much verbage! oh wait thats pigeon poop and ur alliance is tvm....nevermind..may the fight continue on the playing field...good luck to both of yas! |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 02:08
To leave this as short as possible I state these facts not because I side with one or the other- but because I can attest to the fact even in a state of war and with catapults outside his alliance mates cities Bonfyr has remained honest. This is something I can admire especially with all the mud-slinging going around with this war. I told him from the beginning when he contacted me I would be honest with him even if we were enemies and he treated me with the same respect. This being said stating he is contradicting and a liar is a farce. Best of Luck to the Eagles and Trivium ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 02:54
| that a declaration of war, serving only to formalise a state of hostility already plainly known by both sides, can provoke this amount of spin...who is it that the respective sides think they're influencing at this late date, i wonder. |
Posted By: Sajreth
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 05:40
|
So basically in six pages I get this.... the thread started as a war declaration from one alliance whos confed was being militarily harassed by another alliance. in defense I see the following paraphrased of course: "We were in an alliance that was at war, didn't like how it was handled and quit to start up an alliance to avoid hostilities" "We do not deny being militarily involved in hostilities against an alliance that is confed with the alliance that declared war" "We feel that we could attack one individual member of an alliance, but since we did not intend to attack other members, we would expect a well established alliance to turn a blind eye on our actions" What I get out of this as a whole is it's quite a miracle it took this long for someone to declare! -------------  
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 09:50
Well, no. Not according to Hathaldir's original post. In his original post he stated the reason was that we attacked their siege. Later he added the Confed loyalty stuff. Later.
We didn't leave to avoid hostilities, we left to avoided certain death (or as you put it, because we didn't like how it was handled.) Have you seen the size of Shade? Our former leader did not seem to care about us, so we left.
Right. Not denying it now. Never have denied it. Thanks for understanding.
Actually, no. I expected Druids to do much more than they did. They did enough, though. We couldn't get the job done on our own. However, they never did declare war against us. Go figure.
I agree. Based on Hathaldir's statements they should have done so as soon as TVM was founded. We were attacking their Confederate then. It's just that they did not have a vested interest in our actions at the time, whatever that interest is. I can think of no other reason, as all the criteria existing over the last few days existed then. ------------- |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 17:06
|
[QUOTE=abstractdream] We didn't leave to avoid hostilities, we left to avoided certain death (or as you put it, because we didn't like how it was handled.) Have you seen the size of Shade? Our former leader did not seem to care about us, so we left. well this makes complete sense to me..you were worried about getting involved in a war with shade cos of their size..yet you attack an alliance thats even bigger...huhuh!
more like you thought you could get away with it cos EE were tied up fighting other alliances...but you knew shade could devote all their attention on you...thats why you panicked. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 17:38
While this thread has been amusing to be read through for some time, I'll step in right here. A word of note to all, delivering propaganda was one of the first things you learned in TLR for leadership purposes, using it to defend the executive branch whenever possible and blame some other party IE "Fromfrak's crusade on Gemleys mine". So in actuality, the war with Duke would never have been avoided, This fellow right here kept pressuring me to declare war on druids "This will be TLR's way to advance itself in the community", Bonfyr bypassed my military functions by telling my military squad leaders to inform him and not the military leader on their todo's, he was in contact with Nightbringers themselves debating on a coup on TLR ( we had sitting rights on each other and the others alts). Sure enough a NC player wipes TLR sieges on shade, N refuses to help the ex ally TLR and the glorious messiah Bonfyr and his disciples escape through the red sea of digital blood to the promised land in Trivum all the while promising all TLR members at that time that I would send chariots after them in revenge. I'm sure that will be dissected fully, but thats more or less the case. TVM meant to continue hostilities that originated in TLR. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: deorasandeep
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 18:20
without declaring a war you went to sieze a valar city and expect others to declare war first Just wanted to know why sieze a VALAR city in between war under what circumstances did you think that fit. and the after that you deemed fit to declare war on VALAR YOU DID ALL THAT SEEMED RIGHT TO YOU and now what EE thinks and did is wrong You are great  DEORA |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 20:52
No. We declared war on VALAR before the siege. You are another of the uninformed, seeing what you wish, asking no real questions, judging from afar. If you don't care to look at the whole picture, you are blind to the truth. ------------- |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 21:17
Everything I know I learned from you...lol
Bypass, right. Just so everyone knows...at that time and for months preceding these events I was a sitter on EF, as he admits below...Why bother with all the subterfuge when I could take TLR away from it's glorious leader whenever I pleased?
I did indeed ask for council from my friend. No surprise, right? To me, TLR was family and I did not want to loose her. Looking back, I should have logged onto EF, had him quit TLR (many, many opportunities to do just that) and be done with it but I didn't. My mistake.
Quite true. That NC member had a personal vendetta. Guess who that vendetta was against. You only get one guess.
That, or rage quit. I must admit, your continued presence in Illy (in the EF account) surprised me.
True. Have never denied it. Why is it so hard for so many players in a game which is focused on confrontation (military and otherwise) to understand that war is why we are here? ------------- |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 21:40
My answers are in a pretty pink. Now at the end of the day I don't really care who's leading what digital band of soldiers that have no value in the real world, I do care when someone is mudding the water. I'm also done talking, I'm aware this can be dragged on and on, I'm happier in Ancient Air ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 22:33
|
Since name-calling is discouraged on the forum, I will not say what I think about Bonfyr's behavior. Instead, I will simply thank him for showing himself for what he is. Nice to have you lay it out for all to see.
If anyone from Harmless? is reading this, I would point out the echoes of diablito right here. And yet this person is your ally. Who have you become?
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 22:39
|
EDIT: This is in reply to EF's post, not Ryelle's. Her post is just silly. Who would or wouldn't follow me is up for debate. The ones big enough to make a difference, have their heads in the right place. You know who they are. Your allies turned their backs. You seem to understand that my allies clearly did not do that. I guess my attempt to seek counsel, my trying to make sense of the turmoil brought down on our heads by Capt. Bligh would look like mutiny to said Capt. In your fevered mind, I somehow led and successfully carried out a massive conspiracy between myself, Shade and The Night Confed. You give me too much credit. I didn't pressure anyone, except for you and that didn't work out, now did it? And now for a message from your sponsors: "From what I've been able to decipher you seem to deny responsibility for the attacks, that such attacks are not calling for return attacks by EE?" That quote comes directly after this quote: "True. Have never denied it." I think that pretty much illustrates my point. ------------- |
Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 23:12
A moment of sanity in a ever more crazy thread :)
|
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2013 at 23:14
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 00:06
In a like vein, I will not say what I think of your continued insistence to tie any and all actions of everyone's brother, sister, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt up to and including perfect strangers back to Harmless? My dealings with Bonfyr have all been both mature and rationale and from them I can bank that there will be an honest exchange of information in our discussions unlike with some obsessed individuals that frequent the forums. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 00:12
|
Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 00:18
|
this is nonsense... comment removed :) (though rill is great :) |
Posted By: Juswin
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 08:08
|
+1000
|
Posted By: Juswin
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 08:20
+1000 I seem to recall Bonfyr and friends giving me a welcome treatment by trying to siege me while they were still in TLR as well when they were already in TVM. That was done without declaring war on Druids or even giving a plausible explanation.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 17:27
I'm sure you appreciate her unwavering and persistent support of Soup in GC and the Forums. |
Posted By: Koth
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 02:25
|
I am still relatively new. I was in TLR for a week before leaving to head to TVM. I didn't leave because of politics. I left TLR because I wasn't happy with our leader. In his comments in AC and in IGMs, Bonfyr Verboo has always been seen by me to be forthright and level headed. I have never seen him spout off about or besmirch anyone in GC. Nor does he appear to be an egomaniac. I think these are good qualities for a leader to have. I am happy in TVM. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/210400" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 05:12
| Absolutely Kumo, everyone is entitled to their opinion and we don't always agree, hence the war. |
Posted By: Ossian
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 10:06
|
I suppose it's too much too ask for some resolution to this dispute between EE and Trivum is it? All the posts that are relevant to this thread ( less then 50%) seem to focus on denying responsibilty, shifting blame onto the other side. The remaining posts involve the character assasination of third parties that have nothing to do with the issue.
Here we have a real challenge for alliance leaders in this "Sandbox "game of ours. You have had your fun prosecuting war now test your diplomatic skills and maturity in negotiating peace.
|