H? and The Crows
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=5324
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 18:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: H? and The Crows
Posted By: Kumomoto
Subject: H? and The Crows
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 05:15
|
I want all Crows to know that H? has historically had the very closest relations with the Crowalition. There are many, many new players here who may not know the history... We started about the same time. H? was forced into war by being attacked by a much larger alliance (White & Black). But we won. And we then had peace for a long time. During that time, we developed really strong relationships with all the Crow alliances. H? has always loved coexisting with the Crowalition. For the Record: This latest bout of warfare has nothing to do with H? wanting war with the Crowalition. We never wanted any Crow alliances to attack us. Quite the contrary. We have never wanted it. We were happy neighbors while we watched The Crowalition grow from being small to much larger than us. We were happy they were large! We have no issues with that. Quite to the contrary, we helped The Crows grow! If, as folks accuse us, of being jealous of their size, we would have had a war 3 years ago when they were threatening to surpass us in size! If we were jealous of supremacy, we had literally a couple of years to attack the Crowalition and knock it down to size when it couldn't possibly defend itself. But what happened? We helped! We encouraged all the Crows to thrive! In all sorts of ways, including collaborating in tournaments. We still love you all! I just want all the real Crows out there to know this, as no single member of H? or our allies hate the Crowalition. Just because a couple of your alliances have decided to merge with or assimilate enemies of ours and declare war on us (is that a surprise when we've beaten Valar now twice in wars?-- I'm sure they dislike us!), don't think that we, as a bloc have anything but continuing love for the Crowalition and what the "Crows" have always been... You all have always stood for a magnificent coalition of folks who wanted peace and for Illy to be peaceful. The fact that a couple of the alliances that used to belong to this marvelous Coalition have decided to take up vendetta war is beyond saddening. It's an absolute travesty. You all were the pinnacle of Peace. |
Replies:
Posted By: Aral
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 05:20
|
So why not offer peace?
------------- Aral Llc is not responsible for any grievous bodily harm sustained while reading this signature. No rights reserved. |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 05:30
|
I have always been a bit slow Kumo, please state by name who the real CROWS are? Not just general alliance is you could? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 06:22
You've been openly harassing them for months, nearly driven one of their Rooks from the game, and openly attacked their allies. Either you're lying or really bad at co-existence.
I'll just leave this here...
And yet you seem to have a constant misunderstanding of what the Crows have "always" been. I think we can let them decide among themselves what their group is about. Or groups, as the case may be.
Again, for someone who claims to be talking about history, you seem to have a limited understanding of it. I would also question how people you claim to have had no issue with would get involved in a "vendetta war". Maybe there is more to be understood about how we came to be here?
|
Kumomoto wrote:Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 07:28
|
Honestly, Aurordan... you joined an alliance, EE, that was at war, on 1 Nov. of this year, 2013 after we all were at war... Opportunistic, perhaps? (I'd argue it's fatalist...) After enjoying exactly the same protection that The Crowalition and H? has provided in SIX previous small alliances over the last two years, you are really going to claim that the environment that Crowalition and H? created (namely the one that enabled you to live and thrive in all those small alliances) should end? Really? |
Posted By: blazing arrow
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 07:42
That's true Kumo... we were close allies untill you guys got corrupted with power..... your threat perceptions have brought us to this stage... you forget some of your old allies have even turned on you ...for the simple reason that moment they become a challenge for you in tourneys you will start to plan their downfall... be it tourney II where Valar outclassed you guys in the tourney... how cowardly you guys took out Shadow[Soon] so that he came second best after leading the tourney till the last day if i remember correctly and now us who challenged you to the top spots in the last tourney Disclaimer. This is just me expressing my opinion  |
Posted By: deorasandeep
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 07:49
first never heard of valar loosing war it was confed as a whole which negotiated what do you mean real crows who merged with whom to support whom is better known to illy since last 2 years since i am playing. |
Posted By: merlynbc
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 07:49
|
Part of the problem is the misconception of the Crows as a single entity. There is NO central power structure. Each "wing" of the Crowfed acts alone and makes it's own decisions. As such, they are really no different than H? who have a confederation with many alliances. In fact, I suspect (without actually adding them up) that H? and their Confed combined have more population, military strength and overall power than Crowfed. So the Crows are really no threat to H? and their allies. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 07:52
Yes, it was my fate. My entire life has lead me to this moment. In all seriousness, if you want to say that standing up for my friends and beliefs against the foremost military bloc in the game is "opportunistic", I guess I can't stop you...
None of this is based on anything I've actually said. What I've told you before and will again is that the lessened aggression in the game has nothing to do with your alliance, and everything to do with Illyriad's mechanics. And in fact, even despite this, several of the alliances I've been in have been harassed and attacked by alliances currently fighting for you, so that argument kind of breaks down, doesn't it?
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 08:36
|
I have for the most part stayed out of this, but I think it is time for me to speak.
Kumomoto, you have not "stood by" and left us alone. I was your friend at one point. I thought we believed in the same things. I was wrong. I thought we believed in an Illyriad where people had the freedom to experiment with the world, to live in peace if they wanted to have peace, to make a try for war if they wanted to have war. I went to war at your side against Valar, at your side and that of ScottFitz and Lorre and Amroth -- and although I have never broadcast my role, worked along with you, with ScottFitz, with KillerPoodle, with Manannan and with other members of the Seven Friends and Valar to negotiate a peaceful resolution. I stood at your side against St. Jude's insults and stood up for what I believed was your honor. Remember all those chatzy conversations? I think I may still have some transcripts somewhere -- I'm sure you do as well. How did you repay my friendship and faith? By insulting me, threatening me and harassing me. By using your not inconsequential power to foster an Illyriad in which might makes right and where those who wish to focus on war can use any pretext -- whether it be trove or a trumped-up sovereignty issue -- to make war on those who only wish to live in peace. You claim that Crows somehow have changed. I say that is false -- it is you who have changed. When I joined Illyriad Harmless? claimed to stand for something. Now it stands only for its own power. When I joined Illyriad you had at least some vestige of humility and camaraderie. You were willing to listen when others gave opinions. Now you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters -- and will impose your will on others at your slightest whim. When I joined Illyriad Harmless? was powerful and chose to exercise that power by NOT imposing its will on the entire server, at least for the most part. You at least had the desire to preserve the appearance of a sandbox in which we were all free to play as we wished. It has been more than a year now since you abandoned any semblance of that. When I joined Illyriad it was a game that was fun to play, and Harmless? was a big part of that. Now it is a game that is not worth my time -- and Harmless? is a big part of that as well. It is true that there are others who have made choices along the way that have contributed to the current state of the server. I also bear some responsibility. I should have stood up to you more strongly long ago. Honestly I don't know how to repair my errors. If I thought there were hope of doing so, perhaps I would re-engage in the game. But power struggles have never interested me -- what I loved about Illyriad was the opportunity to cooperate to create something great, not grub around for some illusion of control. You will probably reply that I am not really a Crow, or that since I choose not to engage in Illyriad in its current state that I don't have a right to speak. I do not claim to speak for Crows here, only as one person who has been proud to wear black and say caw for a long time. I do agree that people should not act on what they perceive as my wishes in any way in determining the future of Illyriad. I have no more wishes for myself in Illy, just fond memories and lost dreams. I wish all the people of Illyriad the best, and I hope you all find your way. As for you and Harmless?, Kumomoto, I still hope that at some point you will be willing to take a look at what you have become, and choose to do better. You have in the past -- you can do it again. Or don't. Whatever. Just don't pretend that who you have become is someone else's fault. You have been the captain of your ship. You have made enemies of those who sought to be your friends -- and most of the "friends" you have now are not worth having. (The ever-faithful DLords being a sad exception. Perhaps if they came to their senses there would still be hope.) This world that you deplore is the one you created. If you want it to be other than it is, you will need to become something new. I still hold out hope for that possibility and wish you the best. I there will be many H? representatives who choose to post something condescending or demeaning in response to this -- thus in many ways demonstrating the truth of what I am saying. I forgive you in advance, and remind you that you used to be other than what you have become. I hope your future finds you in a better place.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 09:22
| Booyah!!! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 09:22
No, I do not think that many people would bother, sorry. I wouldn't have either, but I just wanted to embold some of your own words, just because I am weird like that ...
... And just point out that despite your efforts your actual thoughts shined through that post full of "calls to emotion". For you apparently everyone can "stand up to their friends" except OUR FRIENDS, whose "faithfulness" is, for you, a "sad exception". Not to mention that you consider many of us, with which you have never interacted with, as "friends" that are "not worth having". Bravo !  Insulting dozens of total strangers just because it suits you, is a totally novel way to prove your "good intentions" and "friendship and faith".  Next time, do try to write less. Be more Spartan ... People might be more inclined to believe you that way.  P.s. Which side is trying to make some calls for reason and moderation and which side is actively just being rude and condescending is imho starting to become patently obvious. |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 09:42
you mean the " REAL CROWS " as in the ones who believe this rubbish or the ones that don't? ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 10:19
|
Deranzin, I'm not sure whether you deliberately misunderstood me or not. I referred to DLords as an exception in the sense that I see them as friends who are worth having -- although honestly I think they are better friends than H? deserves at this point, since H? tends to draw them into conflicts.
Telling a friend -- and I still have friendly feelings for many in H? despite what I see as your shortcomings -- that you believe that they are making a mistake is not the act of an enemy. Rather, it is an act of true friendship. The fact that you try to twist it into something else -- well, I do take it as an indication of the paranoia that has you in its grip. There are other ways to be. I hope you find them.
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 10:42
Calling them a "SAD exception" and calling them to "come to their senses" (which is what, one must wonder .?. If they are "faithful" as you agree and you call them to "come to their senses" is it a misunderstanding to read this as a "stop being faithful to your word and friends, that is the wise course" proclamation/suggestion .?. What ELSE could you mean by all that .?. Be specific please about what you think is "sensible") is not much of a misunderstanding imho. And, come on, can't you write four lines without an insult .?.  ... "Better friends than we deserve" indeed ... I really find that phrase appalling in real life too ... who are you to demean their intelligence and judgement like that .?. Would YOU abandon your friends because you think you are better than them or would you renounce them when they make mistakes .?. Is that how you define friendship .?. How do you know what they think and feel .?. And who appointed you a judge on what "people deserve" anyway .?. one must wonder ...
Oh indeed ... I do that all the time myself ... but I stand by them pointing out mistakes and solutions while respecting their choices and the other advice they might receive and I am NOT badmouthing and demeaning the other friends of the persons I profess to care about. Doing that is far from an act of true friendship, but I will not stoop on that level and attach an epithet to that kind of behavior. And that concludes my participation in this topic ... |
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 11:35
Rill, I would caution against responding to Gragnog's and Deranzin's posts. Please read the following comment...
That said, I apologize for posting this from a closed thread, and will stick to the topic hence forth. ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 11:42
|
So according to H?, Rill is not a real Crow! Would any Crow member like to comment? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 12:17
|
I would just like to weigh in with a quick thought- many of the people that Rill so happily insults were, before this war, the subject of widespread public respect. Funny how quickly the scales turn... |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 12:54
|
I would just like to add my views to those put here, in regards to Kumo’s claims. I apologize for the length of this post.
As many will know I have had a long running history with H, mostly through warfare. However, I have not always stood in opposition to them as Kumo would most likely have you beleive.
I started playing this game just 2 months or so after it was launched, and after a few months I placed my secondary account (which is now my primary) in the Black alliance. Kumo claims that H were attacked by Black and White, that is not quite how I remember it, the war seemed to have been generated mutually on both sides, but the start of it from my memory was due to H decreeing that they would not allow mercenary alliances to develop in this game (and Black & White were such alliances).
This war was fought very fairly, although it soon became obvious who would win, simply down to the fact that H got all the siege techs researched before Black & White. I was just a tiny start up account at that point and H in all fairness stuck to their words and did not attack such accounts on the condition that we did not attack them. In previous years, there have been many times on this forum when I have stood up for H using this war as an example of their fairness.
In the months following this, H again showed honour; by protecting small accounts from bullies. I (like many) also played roles in many such actions, the anti bullying moral that exists in this game is not purely down to H, as Kumo makes out. However, as time has transpired and H’s dominance increased, the tables seem to have turned. Rarely are there cases of small accounts being bullied or farmed by large players, instead we now have a large confederation of alliances that feels it can bully all smaller alliances and confeds. That confederation is led by H.
H have already proven that not only can they bring the largest competitive alliance to their knees with ease, but they can also do this to entire confederations. First Valar fell victim to H’s domination, Valar was formed by a group of players including myself and existed for little more than rapidly building new accounts in the game, we recruited players with just 1 or 2 cities and within four months or so became the 2nd largest alliance (population-wise), it was at this point and after H’s loss of the second tourney (primarily due to the performance of myself and Boromir) that H turned on Valar.
In extreme contradiction to H’s previous fairness they had a number of alliances go to war against ours, once Valar had somehow resisted this war H stormed in and finished them off, with the knowledge that Valar had no troops left, whilst H’s armies were fully stacked. This war was not fought fairly, nor was it fought to protect morality in this game, it was merely engineered to secure H’s dominance.
As time has passed H have taken out Consone, for much the same reason and more recently they turned their attention to the Crows. H’s allies have repeatedly attacked allies of Crows and when Crows stood up for their allies, H claimed we have ‘no-right’ to protect our allies if they are being attacked by allies of H. This conflict has like those mentioned above, been generated by H themselves, perhaps they have calculated wisely and they will win this war against us, but I hope otherwise. I hope we can turn the tables in this game again and set the non-H-aligned alliances free from H’s control and absolute-global-dominance game-play.
We the real Crows (those fighting this war), stand for fairness and open game play as the Crows always have. It is not the Crows morals or ethics that have changed. H have gone from an alliance that governed to ensure such fairness, to one that simply governs to protect its own dominance.
Obviously the points raised above are just my personal views and experiences, I am not a Crow spokesperson. |
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 12:57
I think it´s hard to get more contradictory. Kumo´s starting post ammounts to "Thank the REAL Crows, that they betrayed their (corrupted) allies and not their values" and now you can´t understand how others (in this case even one of those, who betrayed their friends on your enemies side) can dare to even hope the same would have happend on your site of the conflict? It´s just because some have abbandoned their friends and not went with them headless into a silly conflict that the the war didn´t escalate into even more enemies for you. But when others hope, this would have happend on your side too to get an even smaller conflict, it´s bad? If you really think that, maybe you should ask Kumo to skip his exhortations on the real crows in his starting post, because obviously they were wrong in doing so and are bad friends...
|
Posted By: blazing arrow
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 13:14
|
+1 dark for the great insight to Illy's history....newb's like self are greatly indebted |
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 15:52
| I would have to disagree with the use of the phrase "real crow". There are simply those crows who agree with this current war and support it and those who do not agree with it and do not support it. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 16:12
|
Sorry for the use of "real" SF. It just feels like some are true to the original ideals and others I don't recognize. Dark-- you are completely wrong. Our war against white/black was because you you all were aggressively trying to turn this game into Travian. We've always been fine with mercs. And Rill-- I find it interesting that someone whose involvement for the last several months seems to be limited to talking about how horrible Illy is and the last couple years trying to discredit H? Feels that suddenly her opinion is relevant. Either play the game or don't. But have the guts for once to be honest, forthright and direct. And nice try on trying to get Dlords to not like us. The bottom line is we have NOT changed. This grudgalition against us is exactly the kind of force we have always resisted. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 16:15
This is so far from the truth that it's not even funny. The war started because H? refused to help Diablito in his plan to destroy his current alliance from the inside as a way to launch his mercenary alliance ambitions with a big bang. He also got pranked pretty badly by one of our directors which further bruised his immense ego. While we declined to join him in his mercenary adventures, we definitely did not make any decree's about how people should play the game. ------------- "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: The Duke
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 16:16
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 16:32
Honestly... me with my 2 city account that did not have even one level 20 building in it?
As you know very well yourself 'I' have always stepped up to stop this game turning into travian or evony, it is not my alliance that is out for global domination
RE Rill, are you honestly claiming such a player's views have no relevance to this game, merely because they are in contradiction to your power gaming? Exactly how big is your ego? This game is not designed around you Kumo, other players views are just as relevant as yours.
LOL.. so this is against you? Sorry but not sure how you ordering your allies to attack Crow allies and then using our defense of our allies as propaganda against us, surmounts to a 'grudgalition' against you? Just another example of how useless you are at spinning  |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 18:06
We have never ordered our allies to do anything. We have never even asked them to attack anyone - it is you who is making a poor attempt at spin - much like your attempt at revisionist history earlier in this thread. The difference between you and I is that I still have all the forum posts, IRC chat logs and IGM's from the actual alliance leader to alliance leader conversations at the time - while you just have baseless speculation. ------------- "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: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 18:36
And since when am I Gragnog, pray tell us .?. Gragnog has his own ways and reasons of posting and I have mine. Now, if you have a similar quote of mine to put or some proof that I am trolling or something, then put it up and PROVE YOUR POINT, else this is just slander. [Edit] : Plus you "forgot" to mention that this quote of Gragnog's was from a "light" thread he created for that reason and that does not mean that he behaves like that all the time. [/edit]
Well, it might have been contradictory if that quote you have there was ACTUALLY MADE ! You just made that up and put it in brackets and you want me to answer for something YOU created out of thin air .?.  If that is what you understood from that topic, fine, no problem, but why should I apologize for it .?. 
No, people making their own choices and standing by them is definitely not bad. If you noticed I do not judge ANY position on the war, neither those that fight nor those that do not. What IS "bad" however is what Rill did, judging all those people, calling them "sad exceptions" and calling them to "come to their senses" as if someone appointed her the sole judge of reason and happiness and all those players are somehow beneath her and should adhere to her as the "voice of reason". Did we have a vote as a community where we allowed Rill to insult and patronize everyone and I didn't notice .?. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 18:42
|
LOL it is hardly just me that is being revisionist KP, you and your alliance keep claiming they have all this 'evidence' to back up their claims, strange how you never publish any of it and how your take on matters differs to so many, including those that are neutral in this war. And my post was as I said from my personal experience and views. Do I claim anywhere that I am 100% correct?... no, and I never do, because I am human and I am knowledgeable enough to recognise that what I have seen or experienced is not necessarily the concrete reality for all involved. I would say this is the main division within our dialectics, that you and your allies seem to think that there can only be a single truth to a situation, when there are always many sides to every matter. Simply claiming someone is revisionist because you disagree with their views, or their take on it is very amateur and honestly I would expect better. People experience situations in very different ways, so in effect anyone's take on a past situation is revisionist according to another, as their views on the history of the situation will differ. Now can you explain why Kumo tried to claim that I in someway was aggresively trying to make this game like Travian? Or why he seems to think that other experienced players views are irrelevant to this game? Or any of the other matters that have been addressed? Rather than bouncing around words that you may think make you sound intellectual but infact have very little meaning or relevance at all. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 18:58
Yes, because you cut his sentence in half. This is what he wrote :
And this is what you quoted :
So he was obviously not talking about you in specific, but the whole alliance in general. One could say that had you not cut that quote, noone would have ever thought that misunderstanding ... |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:08
|
Actually if you read it in whole it has 2 'you's which alludes to the idea that I was in someway responsible. If it only had 'you all' then obviously it would only be directed at the alliance as a whole if we forgive the pedantics that 'you' relates to something in existence (which the alliance no longer is). But this merely exemplifies one way in which Kumo attempts to spin matters, by alluding to things in a way that allows him to stand back and say he meant something different when questioned. |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:09
Well...I'm glad you cleared that point up Deranzin, because I for one did actually think he solely meant Dark was the cause. so your wrong about "no one" would think like that. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:12
Actually it was pretty clear that 'you all' meant a group of people not an individual. In fact misquoting somebody is one of the most common forms of 'spin' that everybody here supposedly hates.
|
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:24
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:27
Yes and as I said, there were 2 'you's, try reading my entire post, rather than quoting half of it in a blatant attempt to avoid addressing the real matter. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:33
So instead of doing the reasonable thing of assuming that it was a typo, you just cut the quote in half and pulled the whole thing out of context. About the small fact that he was referring to the WHOLE ALLIANCE before that typo should have at least tipped you on ...
How does YOUR obvious misquoting exemplified that someone ELSE is spinning anything is beyond me.
Dude, a blatant case of deliberate misquoting is right in front of you and all you have to say is "H? this" and "H? that" .?. Edit:
Well, I said that "one could say", not that I was saying, just to cover for that possibility, but I do appreciate pointing that out.  Can I revise it then to "most people" .?.  |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 19:43
 ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 20:54
I never claimed that this is the first one that I have seen, nor the last one ... ... but it is certainly a rare occasion where people ignore the people that did the misquote and point fingers at the people that noticed the misquote.
No misleading in my posts, sorry. I just noted a misquote, which was a self-evident fact ... nothing more, nothing less.
You keep saying that, but aren't you rushing a bit .?. The war just started dude ... Peace is one thing that can happen at any point should you people in the leaderships find a magic formula for it, but the surrender point for either side is quite a looooooooong way away for both sides.
Those are all your sayings, not mine. I have said nothing of the like and even if you like to demean yourself by stooping to slander, I do not like seeing other players fall to that level. |
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 21:57
Then tell me, what exactly is the difference between the "real" crows Kumo tried so hard to befriend/exhortate and the ones being assimilated/corrupted by your enemies? Nothing else than the "real" ones not going into a senseless war with you, as I said in the brackets (after telling that it´s an shortening. Mind your own conflict here some weeks ago where you defended a fellow H? for putting brackets after saying that what would follow would be more or less what have been said and not an exact quote). It´s not made up of thin air, it´s just a shortenig of Kumos post as I understood it. If you or other members of your alliance seems to be mistaken, especially by ones not being your enemies ( I was in DLord and left mainly because I was very ill prepared for a conflict with towns being scattered around etc. ), you should have an interest in how your statements could be mistaken instead of finding it funny.
Exactly that is what Rill thinks too, so she laments the fact, that some allies (unlike the 'real' crows), at least seemingly as far as she can see, did less own consideration then her part in the conflict. A totally understandable stance ( and thus no insult ) as far as I am concerned, if some parts of your friends back out for deescalating the conflict, lamenting that others on the other side did it not is just being consequential. So she cannot but find it sad, probably as you find it sad that others declared on you. As she is on the side of no declaration, she of course has to find declarations bad. Of course you don´t have to share all her premises (I do neither), but you know them at least, so I don´t get it how you can think she intends what you are writing... Just mind that minds like her saved you from more declarations, attacking her for this stance seems suicidal for me here...
She never claimed that, and more often then not said, that it was just her personal opinion she was expressing in hope of changeing some things. Not that I am always of her opinion (she is too far on the "peace" side as far as I am concerned, mind that I had no problems with the EE/v side of your war, as Rill would prolly have had), but somehow I never read that much into her voiced opinion, and she herself made it clear often enough that she never intended her statements to be so harsh and encompassing, so I don´t really get it how you can think that they are... The funny thing is, that this comes from a H?player, whos alliance had actually brought such criticisms into harsh actions like the consone war. She is at least consequential in letting it all happen on a purly oral form, while your decisions in history and probaly in the future will very much and very 'real' hit other players happiness (not saying it was not justified, just saying your way much more touches upon others happiness then she mouthing her opinion about it. If you can´t bear her personal opinion concerning others happiness, how dare you to actually mess with it in a much more real way? (not saying that to imply that you shouldn´t mess with other people, but that you should at least be able to bear other people mess with you verbally while you messed with others much more than just verbally... And I don´t see where she is unbearably mean and evil, especially for someone of your alliance with it´s own opinionated members))
I was in DLords and will be again after the war, and I just can´t see how I should be offended by her statement, sorry. Of course she is opinionated, but it´s not like H? has not it´s share in opinionated people. Maybe being able to tolerate opinionated people seems to be the clue to stay outside this messy conflict^^
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 22:01
the term "real crows" is unfortunate. there is nothing unreal about having been a crow of any feather. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2013 at 22:56
The difference is not something that I can define or something that I feel that I have the right to define. Only crows can do that and as you can see, Scottfizz objected to that characterism and it was partly (or maybe fully, I cannot tell) withdrawn by Kumomoto, whereupon he explained what he meant by it. Which I think covers that question.
Indeed I did and that is why in this case I said that if this is how you understood the topic, then all is fine by me, BUT I think that you will agree that I cannot be called to apologize for something that I do not see in the original topic at all and I consider a misunderstanding. I can however explain where our difference lies. In the original topic (and imho the post by Kumomoto towards ScottFizz validates my original understanding of this thread) the war is not considered as the problem per se, but as a natural by-product of a change in policy/playstyle of some people. On that change is the topic emphasizing that DESPITE IT, noone in H? or our allies harbors any ill will towards the Crowalition as a whole and that we never wanted that war to happen. Nowhere in the topic does it say that the people that took up the war banners are somehow "misguided" or that they, as Rill put it, "should come to their senses". Nowhere. It just says that it is sad for us, as a whole, to see that some people chose to take some Crow Wings to war. It doesn't call them "sad exceptions", like Rill did, it doesn't demean them and it doesn't offer condescending comments on that choice they made ... Just our sadness on the whole issue. I wouldn't have bothered to comment much on this topic, but, you see, in the last war in many a Consone debate I pointed up and looked up to the way the Crowfed had organized its wings and how it worked and I, for one, still think that it was a good arrangement and that it worked very well for many years and thus I do not like the present situation in the server. But, like it or not, neither me nor the topic, as it clearly states, do not judge them or begrudge them for their choices and therein lies the difference with what Rill wrote and this is exactly what makes your brief summary of the topic inaccurate, imho.
I hope that now I have explained sufficiently why I didn't consider it as an accurate shortening of Kumomoto's post and that is why I couldn't reply to that. Btw, I find most interesting discussions funny/amusing, so do not be taken too much by the emoticons I place. Something can be extremely funny and serious at the same time for me ... I just weird like that ...
Maybe not, but she does act like it imho, but I will not insist on the matter ... I just pointed out what I didn't like in what she wrote and explained why ... Nothing more, nothing less.
I am not a mouthpiece for the alliance, Aristeas. .. I hold no position in H? other than a simple member ... I just happen to like interacting in fora more than the average person.
Well, I never said that everyone should miraculously agree with me on that ...
Ahaahha quite so ... they even put up with me ... But, you see, there is a fine difference between being opinionated and being accusative ... |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 00:28
|
I don't understand the point of this thread besides arguing semantics and assigning labels to warring sides. People will always label the enemy side unfavorably and those not engaging at war or on one's side favorably. Though seeing a good old Rill vs. Kumo throwdown does make me a bit nostalgic. Talk about rivalries of the ages! Those two have been going at in the forums for years. Nice to know Rill can still show up and deal some verbal blows despite repeatedly trashing the game and claiming to have better things to do than play Illy... *golf claps*
|
Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 02:34
You might want to get to know all the members of your coalition a bit better. Over the couple of years I've been in the Crowfed, there have been a litany of plots, encroachments, outright operations and general hostilities towards my alliance, other Crow alliances, the Crowfed as a whole or individual Crow players. Lo and behold, when I look on the (New) Coalition side of this war, I see more than one of those parties involved. This is not secret knowledge, some of it has been rather public, though perhaps unrecognized at face value. I don't think you'd have to go far within your coalition to get confirmation of anti-Crow (in one form or another) sentiments. You may or may not be aware of the sentiments of your allies; that doesn't mean those sentiments don't exist. *edited to remove redundancies
------------- Garthen |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 05:00
|
Lord, I do not know whether I am a "Real" Crow or not, but since day 3 of my Illy career I have been in one (or more) crow wings... and very true, I think that there are "real" crows on both sides of this conflict and in the middle. I have great respect for people on both sides, but one side clearly has more of those with whom I do feel bear me ill-will (and despite my feelings on the overall war, I honestly do not think many H? bear me Ill, for I have counted many of them as those who I have had the utmost respect, and I do not think I have done any great wrong to any) . The actions of late have indeed been polarizing.
I believe the war has indeed many, many root causes, no doubt the result of many not fully appreciating that some actions thought innocent could be perceived as a with a hint of ulterior motive, and that when many of these acts, when taken together could build to a level where conflict seems inevitible. Everyone joins Illy with a different perspective, and likely views events through their own rose or not so rose colored glasses. That two different groups could view the same series of events in very different light is hardly surprising, it is simply human nature. I know I have my own perspective on events... and I'd wager that not many across the aisle would agree with mine, nor I with theirs. Even within the former Crowfed, consensus was hard enough to achieve.... I must admit, I do clearly detect a change in tone in GC and in many a forum thread .. I do recall some quote that Vanerin noted in some other thread about looking into the abyss and something .. something .. something it may well be apropo... Vanerin is indeed wise beyond his years . . . I think it was: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." Nietzsche Sincerely. LeRoux / Mona Lisa P.S. Need examples of what might be viewed as inflammatory to some? H? review your more recent recruitments and how perhaps some moves could have been... misinterpreted
------------- 
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 05:25
|
Mona, you are as much a Crow as any of us, certainly as much a Crow as I! Last time I looked, there were only Crows on one side of this conflict. Some of us Crows are on one side, and some are on neither!
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 05:29
|
; ) there are indeed former crows on the other as well !! ; )
-------------
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 05:38
| I stand corrected. |
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 14:32
Good work Kumo! Now you just need to win this war and force losers to " rethink/restructure/shut down" and rebranding is done. "Real Crows" will be sustainably sized and much easier to handle. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-nature-of-the-crows_topic5268_page8.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-nature-of-the-crows_topic5268_page8.html |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 14:57
|
Nice idea Grego, in fact after we have won this I think I may open my own wing in honour of this post. Dont think we have an rCrow yet, obviously we do not have enough wings.... there are still standard European script characters left. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 17:11
|
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 17:15
Well, Kumo withdraw the 'real' and repeated the distinction/observation I thought he was making in his original post:
And it´s not that this is a bad distinction, from where he/you are staying, it a quite reasonable one... One part going into war with you, the other having it´s ideals...
That is so obvious, that I just can´t believe that this is the main aim of the post. Hey, but at least we agree that this is the case^^ What it did entail was stuff, I said it would entail, namly exhortation of the peacefulness of the crows, the bonds of friendship he sees between you and the ones not fighting you, and the, well, ungood decision of other crows against their values to go to war with you. To quote Kumo where he is just saying that:
So I don´t see where my shortenig was inaccurate. That H? dosn´t want the enmity of even more crows should go without asking I think...
That is not the case, to quote Kumo again:
and in his second post he used again a derogatory term like "grudgalition". So he uses even almost the same term like Rill (just harder, from sad to 'beyond saddening'), and making a travesty where before was "want" for peace isn´t flattery either. Sounds more like condescending in my ears... Of course rethorical it´s a great juxtaposition of travesty and pinnacle, hard do make your evaluation of both sides even more clear. Polemics is an art (I at least enjoy reading when it´s really good), but it´s own art, and shouldn´t be mixed up with neutral description or rational argumentation. My point was, that on the level of dialectics you can´t reasoably allow one person a thing you are not allowing another one... In this case, I see Kumo and Rill on quite the same level, just with Rill wanting even less conflict, so she is not happy about the ones going to war with you, as Kumo is not happy with the ones going to war against you...
Well, at least try to see it from her perspective: 1) She is not against you specifically, but against (almost) every armed conflict here. If she is sad some allies are going into war with you, it´s not because she is against you, but against this conflict as a whole (and she might have had even her part in the decision of her allaince to stay out of it!). Taking her personally instead of seeing the problem in the non-shared basic presime is missing her point in my eyes. 2) She has had her history with your alliance, obviously starting out good with (assumed) shared premises and values, ending up in harassment, probably from both sides. But as she claimed, and I find it reasonable (and partally in line with your (alliances) description of the motives of other parties in this conflict here), she tried to counsel you, as at least there was a common past and you could be seen as the more resoable part of the war. As we say in germany, the smarter one gives in, saying someone to give in is then maybe discrimination, but a positive one... 3) Of course she could get very stingy and itchy, but not only did members of your alliance too, but also you put your "critique" of consones playstile to a much harder and harsher level then Rill could ever do with her discourses. So I just don´t see how you can claim her behaviour to be intolerable. If she is intolerable due to her verbal critique, how much more intolerable is your alliance with such critique put into action? (implication here is not that you shouldn´t have messed with others, just that you should be able to have others mess with you verbaly)
Of course you are not a mouthpeace, but as long as your actions with and inside your alliance don´t suit your discourse here it might be hard to convince somebody. Because then it appears as if you are not convinced yourself or take your conviction not as that important as to affect your deeds... Of course that´s not bad in itself and quite common, I mean, I am for example convinced of the very bad effects of CO2 on the climate, but that conviction is not stopping me from going to holidays in planes. But then, I am not using this conviction in a rational argumentation. Not that this fact is invalidating an argument I would make in vavour of climate savtey measures, but it makes it very easy for adversaries not to pay any heed to what I say...
Of course her tone isn´t actually nice anymore, but given the history and escalation of things between you, I can´t blame her (or you), I can just hope that, well, you derive at a good understanding of your nonunderstandings^^ Her opinions and arguments were part of the formation of our, now maybe shattered, culture here, even though we almost all ended up not being of her opinion, but maybe only because and against her opinion.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 17:23
|
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2013 at 17:31
Mh, I meant 'mixed up' in the sense of confusing/confounding, not of mixing A with B. No one should claim his polemic to be a totally rational argumentation was what I intended to say. Mostly polemics is partly rational, though this part can get small here, indeed
|
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2013 at 03:10
|
|