Peace Offer Rejected
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5372
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Peace Offer Rejected
Posted By: Arctic55
Subject: Peace Offer Rejected
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:02
|
People keep saying we haven't asked for peace. Well we did offer peace and H? scoffed in our face. Want proof? Send me an igm. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Replies:
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:06
|
Read it again - no actual offer of peace was made. ------------- "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: Arctic55
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:11
|
It was a step wasn't it? More than you did. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:17
|
Go back and read the other threads where we offered to have Angrim mediate. ------------- "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: Aurordan
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:24
| I would, but I'm pretty sure it would still be a desperate and ridiculous facade. You know who to talk to if you're serious about peace. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:25
|
And if you guys were serious about peace - that person would have IGM'd me instead of some lackey.
------------- "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: Arctic55
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:27
|
What do you call an offer of peace? Someone coming to you on their knees begging for peace and offering everything they have? Or asking, what can we do for peace, what should the terms be so both parties benifet? Duke just asked "What is the the means to an end for this war?" Isn't that a step towards peace? Your the ones losing city after city, so instead of coming to you demanding this and that, he is asking you, what can we do to get peace that would help both parties. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:29
| We're pretty sure it's impossible right now. Change our minds? |
Posted By: Arctic55
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 06:32
|
But no, you said there can't be peace KP. You said and I quote, "This thing will not end until retribution is found for all the damage done so far." Well, this was your doing. You had a chance to end the war at least with Shade and possibly with the other alliances, but you declare it will not end until we are essentally on our knees begging for it to end. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 14:46
that's been my understanding the whole time. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Arctic55 wrote:Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2013 at 23:27
|
At a negotiating table all parties need to start fresh and proceed from there. You cannot conduct diplomacy and hold battlefield cries against the other party.
------------- 
|
Posted By: st aug
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2013 at 00:54
| I don't understand the value of popular opinion in this game .I Don't get why people feel the need to explain themselves in here or in g.c. ' Why do you need to explain yourself to anybody on what you do and why you do it . They don't get it so be it .The only ones you should care about are the members in your group and your allies. And you only tell them so much either . Everyone else opinion should mean nothing . Does it really mean anything what someone says are thinks about you ? . Don't ever explain why and what you do in here to anybody . keep them guessing . The more they know about you the more they will use that against you . knowledge is power so don't tell them nothing . Remember actions speak loader then words . Spin all you want Spin is just that spin and they know it . |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2013 at 02:34
| I think the desire to understand and be understood is fundamental to human nature. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2013 at 03:00
| St Aug, this is like the tenth thread where you've barged in and told everybody that their opinion doesn't matter. I tried reading the rest of your post, but I couldn't focus through the deafening blare of my Irony Detector. Either it's malfunctioning, or you've created some kind of Interwebz Logic Vortex by authoring a post in the forums explaining why it's pointless to author explanations on the forums. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2013 at 04:05
|
every time I see SA post I think of this: http://i.imgur.com/w0mHNwf.jpg ------------- "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: jcx
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2013 at 09:03
 - /me excited for what will happen on 2014. :D
------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2013 at 23:05
|
i am so far from understanding the purpose of this thread, i'm not sure i could phrase a question about it. was there more in the OP previous to the edit to make this understandable? speaking for myself and my limited understanding of each warring side's internal dynamics, if peace were to be pursued, i would not expect Shade to take the lead in it. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 01:35
| Sometimes the impetus for peace comes from unlikely places. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 05:22
|
The OP contained IGM's between myself and The Duke. The purpose being that Shade can now try to claim that they offered peace and since it was rejected whatever fresh atrocities they choose to commit next are justified. It's clear that The Duke has shared every direct conversation we've ever had (via H? forum or IGM) with everyone in his alliance and all other Shade confeds in an effort to discredit H? and me personally (in a couple of cases that backfired - I'm glad to say). That plus the lies he's told directly to me are why I trust him not even as far as I could throw him and will not entertain a peace discussion with him under any circumstances since I simply cannot believe/trust a single word he says. ------------- "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: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 11:50
| KP, not that I want to discuss it in here but from my understanding, H will not enter peace via surrender correct? |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 22:00
--The purpose in the igm was to offer peace to a "region" of players we have depleted of troops, and H? has chose to leave out to dry rather than assist. We have confirmed mails of a couple of these accounts being sat. Rather than come to an agreement- you scoffed it off, thats what Arctic was referring to. ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 22:53
|
If you are offering terms to a specific player, why are you contacting leadership of an alliance? That makes no sense to me. Even in classic war terms could be offered to specific generals, knights and settlements; they could negotiate and were negotiated with on their own without having to contact some far away king for their immediate survival. Drawing a third party into an immediate and regional negotiation, even when he is an alliance leader or leader of a confed, seems meh.. you don't need to do that if you are only concerned about that player or region. - M. -------------
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 03:20
For that matter, why is the matter being taken to the forums? |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 07:59
It's a GAME...a little sense of scale or reality might be useful.
------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 13:53
| KP have you never shared an IGM with your alliance? |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 14:46
There's plenty of scale and reality present. It's acknowledged that it is in fact a game. Perhaps you also need to realize that newtonian law of physics do not apply - Not all reactions are opposite, nor are they equal or proportional. To expect otherwise is a fool's errand. Shade declared War, our members accepted that as fact and as the current state, with all ramifications that come with it. Honestly, it is not our first rodeo.  Shade may make overtures of some sort of peace, sure - part of the current state. However, Peace can only come through trust. And another part of the current state is - we cannot trust a word uttered. Maybe the scale and reality will set in that Peace is Cheap, War is Expensive. That's something Sir Bradley helped me realize almost 2 years past while still with Dark. It's a lesson that seems to have left with me however, and did not stay. It will be expensive in Time and in Resources. There is no need to continue this conversation. There is no need to further explain thoughts on the subject. There is no need to explain the current or future states. Now I can introduce you to a lasting idea... silence. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Arctic55
Date Posted: 02 Jan 2014 at 05:23
I'm sorry, I know this forum is full of serious conversation, but that last sentence made me laugh. Happy New Years everyone. Go get some ice cream and relax. Forget the war for a few hours. Cheers and may the um... never mind. Go relax. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 03:26
|
Sisren, that might be all well and good if it had anything at all to do with what I posted. I thought it was obvious enough, but now I will be specific. The use of the word "atrocities" is way over the top, and actually silly when talking about a game, even as hyperbole.
As for silence, I'm sure we will have quite a stretch of it while waiting for an account of the "atrocities" committed. ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Diomedes
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 06:32
|
While I regularly read forum posts, I'm much less inclined to respond to the topics under discussion, and especially when war is the theme being discussed. However, when KP starts talking about "atrocities" and someone else (I think it was Kumo) starts using the term "Axis" in relation to the current escalating war, it isn't hard to see why the war is being pursued with such vigour against H? and its allies. Some long-time players appear to have forgotten that this is a game, a pastime or distraction from RL. There is no axis, and how can there be atrocities in a game - unless we now consider pixels and coding to have a life of their own. Get a life ppl, and enjoy the game. If you're no longer enjoying it, then maybe it's time to find another outlet for your entertainment.
------------- "Walk in the way of the good, for the righteous will dwell in the land" |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 13:35
So what, this war is being fought because of over-dramatic language? As a conspiracy theory, this is my favourite ever.
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 17:05
Sisren introducing the idea of silence? Now pigs truly must have wings ! .. and maybe broken lands is right around the corner . . . ------------- 
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 20:15
|
i understand that Shade has offered peace to certain players, and that it has been rejected. i do not know the terms or the circumstances, but the particulars seem inappropriate to discuss in forum anyway. i must asssume that KillerPoodle means by "atrocities" some offence against the H? rules of engagement, but it seems well-established from prior conversations and prior wars that a player who declines to surrender remains in the conflict. in an attempt to turn this thread into a fruitful discussion...what should be the fate of an opponent who refuses surrender even after his/her army is destroyed? |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 20:46
|
Armies can be rebuilt, towns can be rebuilt.. I'm not sure the 'fate' is really a fruitful discussion at all. Either the player is completely destroyed or the aggressor decides he/she has bigger fish to fry and moves on to a juicier target. Even a player reduced to 0 pop can rebuild again, given time. I think it is probably wise to note the result of the last war though. If people believe themselves hit too hard, they will bear a grudge and hostilities will no doubt resume once they have rebuilt again. There is a lot of talk about peace but I am yet to see people who truly want it in good faith. There is no trust between the two sides and everyone seems to have lost all sense of proportion. The truth is, some people are having their pixels smushed, some people are doing the smushing but in the end, no matter how many pixels you lose, the game is not about what you have at the end of the journey (for Illyriad has no end) but about the fun you had during the journey itself. My top tips for surviving the war? Don't despair if you have lost cities or armies, respect those who have proven themselves to be great warriors regardless of which side they are on and above all, please try to have fun. I would quite happily remain at war permanently and lose everything in the process, providing certain people had an attitude adjustment and quit with the hate.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 20:46
quarantined. Like North Korea. Maybe even perma-blockaded. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 21:33
Destruction. Seriously, it's a video game, there are no real-life consequences to in-game actions*. If someone refuses surrender, then clean them off the map. They are telling you they would rather have their cities wiped than give you the satisfaction of breaking their spirit before you break their little digital cities. To me that seems like a completely valid choice in a video game. * The two exceptions being where: 1. the person is mentally unbalanced or unhealthy, or 2. where a player is engaged in lying to other players above the game (notably in chat), because that is spiritually unhealthy. |
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 22:05
|
* The two exceptions being where: 1. the person is mentally unbalanced or unhealthy, or 2. where a player is engaged in lying to other players above the game (notably in chat), because that is spiritually unhealthy.[/QUOTE]
Who could that be?
 |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 22:29
| Lego, I'm not sure what you mean. Judging by the discussion on the "spying" thread, I think there are unfortunately a LOT of people who think that kind of behavior is acceptable. I would say that it's nowhere near as toxic as people getting unbalanced and then screeching incoherently at each other in GC, with or without the influence of heavy drinking. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 22:39
That was my point. No actual peace offer was been made merely a bunch of questions asked - as per usual from The Duke. I replied that if he was serious about not wanting to destroy those accounts then he could demonstrate it by his actions since I do not trust his words. He chose to continue to destroy them and try to pass the blame onto me. ------------- "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: Epidemic
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 23:05
|
I don't understand how you can claim its just a game, get over it and have fun, and then claim spying is a bad thing. The way the game is played is mostly based on the way the player base choose to play it. If we were on a real war game with an end game then i'd say 'no rules and anything goes' is the only way to play. Spying, backstabbing, ruthlessness, hatemail is all part of the game and can be fun. Since this is a unique game that style of gameplay would ruin the player base and slowly, but surely, end the game. It takes a long time for slow games to die a slow death. 'How does the player base want to play the game?' is the question we should be asking. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 03 Jan 2014 at 23:52
I can answer that from my own perspective. I view Illyriad as a beer and peanuts soccer league. A little trash talking between teams is natural. You will have some huggy-huggy players, a few people who are a little over competitive for a casual league, and a majority of people who just enjoy socializing with their team and staying in shape. It would be very strange in such a context to convince one of your friends to join another team in your league for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence on them. That would just be weird. You're going to practice with them, play with them, socialize with them for weeks or months, for the rather perverse purpose of sabotaging their soccer team? It would be distasteful in a professional context, but for a beer and peanuts league? You would require some serious personal issues to do that. Alliance and global chat are the socializing part of the experience. Yes, they happen in the context of a game, but the interactions you have there are between real people, not through the proxy of digital bits. It's easy to de-humanize people through the Internet, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Lying can provide an advantage in many real life games, even when the lying happens around the game. That doesn't make lying and misrepresentation "part of the game", it just means that people are willing to engage in unsportsmanlike conduct to gain an advantage in a game, which itself is a rather sad commentary on the importance placed in winning over people. |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 00:20
Your unwillingness and inability to help the players in freemorn would lead me to blame you for lack of leadership and an uncaring attitude toward your fellow alliance mate. Those things I would say fit you- but never have I blamed you for anything you were not warranted. On another note- I still havent seen your examples of things backfiring that your so proud of. Your lies and misinformation catch up to you? ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 02:22
|
there's a strategical reason why most alliance prefer to lose cities outside the fortress/region rather than helping those player out. Not unless you have millions of troops to send abroad and fight. The best way a player can do is - exo his cities inside the fortress and rebuild. Thoughts from the sidelines. :| ------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 05:03
Our convo was 11 days ago and several sieges happened after it. Also Torden is currently under siege which started yesterday - now who's spinning?. From the siege page:
Why on earth would I give away intel? Especially seeing how you've used the info I've given you in the past. ------------- "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: Darkwords
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 14:20
|
Exactly what is the point of this thread? I have been reading though it and this is about all the insight I have gained; For some reason someone felt the need to clarify that H had been offered peace but rejected it. (I expect H were on GC making out they had not been given any path out of the war or something maybe? just hazarding a guess) With that clarified and agreed to by H, H then continue to make out their opponents are 'evil'. Really? for what? fighting a war? torturing chip-monks? slandering penguins? I don't get it. All I can gather from this is that H feel nobody has a right to fight against them, when previously they have practiced their right to fight against anyone they wish, no matter how big, how small, or how outnumbered. Aside from this Kumo then claims this evil is manifest in certain players on his side in certain areas loosing cities to sieges, but then states how it is the choice of those player's alliances to allow those cities to be lost??? So basically H's opponents are evil due to the fact they are doing exactly what Kumo and his ilk choose for them to do? Hypocritical? or just confusing? Lets just get on with fighting the H war shall we and stop debating with someone so nonsensical. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 15:22
| I'd like to clarify that neither I nor my alliance is now or has ever been involved in torturing monks, chip or otherwise. And we have nothing against penguins, no matter how smug they may look in their tuxedos. |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 16:23
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Aral
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 22:15
|
The way I see this thread, it appears that both sides are trying to spin an inconsequential event to their advantage. However, I don't really think at this point anyone cares. I'm fighting in this war, and I don't care. Some semblance of a temporary peace offer was chalked together, and it was rejected. Now, can we just forget about it and move on?
------------- Aral Llc is not responsible for any grievous bodily harm sustained while reading this signature. No rights reserved. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2014 at 22:27
Spies in Illyriad are a sad truth. The only goal they achieve is a big mistrust within alliances, leading to military actions only being discused within very small circles.
It would be nice to be able to send out an alliance mail, saying "Hey people, we plan to do this or that, what do you think about that?". But this only is possible in very small alliances with players knowing each other in RL. Any bigger alliances is fully aware, that there ARE spies around. It's definitly no good sportsmanship to do so, but as long as it gives any advantages, somebody will do it. Discovered spies will have to live with living a lie and facing deep distrust after discovery. Don't know, if that really adds to the fun of playing Illyriad  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 01:08
|
We send out that sort of mail in nCrow all the time. Usually we decide against doing whatever it is, or doing it in that way, or don't do it for another 2-3 months. Some would suggest that this is not because we are dreadfully disorganized, but rather is a canny plot to disrupt efforts to spy on us. Those people overestimate our concern about spies.
|
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 01:10
|
All I have to say: nobody really understand H?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 01:15
What are you saying??? The entire alliance is made up of 14yr old Emos? ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 01:16
| H? is the Rodney Dangerfield of Elgea. |
Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 02:47
I'm probably missing something but this is a very sad post..... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/37796" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 03:27
| Wow, the hatred and taunting is getting thick. And here I thought a bunch of alliances were put together to end such things and make Illy a nicer place, boy was I naive. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:02
|
Yeah the hatred is pretty bad, what with those posts eluding to a certain group of players being Nazis. Not to mention the BS claims of us 'exterminating accounts'. edit: I just wish a certain player had the common decency to respond when his claims were brought into question, rather than having his alliance friends post on the forum in an attempt to bury those questions. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:04
Facts are not your strong points apparently : http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Towns/96243 edit : from 220000+ to 70+ http://www.puzzleslogic.com/illy/history.html?pId=96243 so since when are facts "BS claims " .?. one has to wonder ... |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:07
As Kumo has admitted in this thread; it was his tactical choice to allow the cities to be destroyed rather than defending them. Try getting your facts straight. edit: not to mention the FACT that this happened after Kumo made that claim and threatened to exterminate accounts on our side, which as you should know has generally been accepted as approval for us to do the same to you. There was even a forum vote on it. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:14
So, you are extrerminating them and this is not a "BS claim" ... so did I say anything false or any lies .?. Nope. Just the fact.  |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:17
|
Read above
------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:31
| Casualties are a part of warfare. I have a lot of respect for people who continue to play despite having their accounts reduced to dust. Kudos to them! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 13:33
Your own side made the forum vote and that your "interpretation" of that post ... since when that is a fact .?. Simple fact : You have exterminated accounts (more than one) and whether those where well-defended or not is immaterial since it does not alter that fact in ANY way. You want to disprove my point .?. FIND PROOF of the contrary ... spins and excuses "like he said that" or "I understood this" are neither "proof" nor facts in any reasonable argument. Whether you had enough reasons and justification in doing what you did DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. So, you want to argue that what you did was somehow ok or needed .?. That is reasonable and I will gladly read your reasoning. But calling FACTS as "BS claims" then this is not a dialogue but a make belief sermon and it is unreasonable to begin with. That is my 5 cents. I have nothing else to add to this topic ... Edit:
Sure they are and indeed those people deserve at least some respect instead of that "hey we didn't do it" mentality that is presented here. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 16:23
The FACT is that we had not done it b4 your great leader sanctioned it in his forum post, anyone can go look for his thread titled 'rules' and see that for a fact. You know this yourself, so I do not see why you keep claiming to the contrary. [/QUOTE]
I never claimed we had not, merely that Kumo tried to put us in a bad light b4 we had done. that is the SIMPLE FACT so why are you trying to claim otherwise? If you consider us bad for destroying a few accounts so far (after such action was sanctioned by your own leader), how do you rate your own alliance for all the accounts that it has destroyed over the years? Or for the fact it was your leader who approved such action in this war (see Kumo's Rules post [again]) [/QUOTE]
Yes and anyone with half a brain cell can see it is you that is constantly spinning this issue. The facts do not change, they do not need to, because you will not address them
All that is unreasonable is your inability to address the simple fact that I raised in the first place, and your frankly childish dodging of the issue, that your leader stated we have exterminated accounts b4 we had done. Please explain how that make what I posted wrong in anyway??? Also will you actually address the main point in my post (that you decided to delete from your quotes) about the insults thrown at us by your leader and his inability to respond to any questions raised about his own posts here, this is what annoys me much more That is my 5 cents. I have nothing else to add to this topic ... Edit:
Sure they are and indeed those people deserve at least some respect instead of that "hey we didn't do it" mentality that is presented here. [/QUOTE] ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 16:34
Just thought I would put this back here after derenzin burying it.
------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 16:42
Sir, I respectfully disagree with your statement about a slow death in Illy. Let me quote if you don't mind a famous Roman stoïc philosopher, Seneca the Younger: Urbes constituit aetas, hora dissolvit Lifetime builds up cities, a single hour ruins them. The reason I am bringing this up is that I maintain there will be a pain threshold (like in any other war, whether fantasy or real) beyond which - and provided hopefully that players get some wise guidance from their leadership - it will no longer make any sense for the losers (as a community of players) to keep on fighting. This statement obviously takes nothing away from the hardcore few that still prefer to loose all what they built over the years in the very best "Alamo" style. Let me end with another quote that means a lot to me personally and to our alliance Invictus: "Salus populi suprema lex esto." Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law. Regards, Tatharion
------------- Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 23:00
|
Guys, can we maybe tone down the abuse of bold, italics, caps, underline, and large text? Also please use the quote tags properly, and preview your posts. Despite various Internet fables, making your text REALLY BiG does not actually make it more persuasive. I know the forums aren't exactly the Fortress of Grammer* (TM), but we are nearing the precipice of multicolored flashing text. Let's all just back away slowly and resume slinging mud in the usual neutral toned standard fonts. * Irony intended by egregiously misspelling grammar. |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 23:57
qft -------------
|
Posted By: Juswin
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2014 at 02:08
Then the alliance should encourage the player to exodus to their region or drop out of the war if he or she doesn't want to get caught in the outer fringes. ------------- It may be that you are right. Then again, you may be wrong. http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/57903" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2014 at 04:05
I think no one really understands any alliance. Or any player for that matter. It is kinda silly to claim that only one side is misunderstood. That being said, how do you feel that your side is misunderstood? How could I understand you better? (This could be answered by anyone and should perhaps belong in its own thread.) ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 12:14
Its optional since exoing with lots of troops inside will cost you a lot. Dropping out from the war is optional too - but if you do - prolly your leaders will kill if you. :D ------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 12:37
Not if you are on our side. All players should be free to surrender from the war if that is what they wish, I have heard some rumor of a certain alliance threatening its members to not surrender, however if someone is under such itinerant threats from some insane leader they should let the other side know, so as protection can be offered as part of the surrender terms. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 19:23
|
I note that the post that raised the point about leaders "killing" people who chose to leave comes from a neutral party, perhaps speculating based on his experience in past games rather than anything that has actually occurred in this war. Illyrians have traditionally stood against both "join or die" and "leave and die" as alliance philosophies. I doubt that either side would long tolerate an alliance that espoused either of these principles in their ranks.
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 19:35
|
That is what I would think, but I have heard rumour of an alliance telling its members if they leave they must exo all cites out of the alliance territory, or face retribution. However, this is little more than a rumour as I have said. I have not seen the alliance put such a threat into action. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:03
|
Darkwords, forcing someone to move their cities isn't the same thing as killing an account. It isn't even close. I'm not saying that kind of policy is justified, but I've exodused many cities. It takes a while to rebuild again, but the process is much faster with friendly players and $5 of prestige. I would also point out that alliance strongholds tend to be densely packed, and a departing player could block exodus into the alliance stronghold for people trying to retreat. Does that justify making them move away? I don't know. On one hand, it seems like a brutal penalty for desertion. On the other hand, if I were fighting to keep my cities alive, I would look very unfavorably on a deserter blocking my move to the alliance HQ, when it might be my only chance to save the city. There's a big difference between simply leaving, and actively screwing over your former comrades. If the deserter's cities weren't in the alliance HQ... that would be unbelievably petty by the standards of the Illyriad community. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:15
|
I never said it was the same thing BM, but then from what I have heard the ultimatum is you exo or we kill you. Something that I think is a pretty crazy thing to apply to your own members/ex-members, its the kind of thing I reserve for my enemies. Anyway it does not really matter does it, as I said it is a rumour, or do you know more about this than I perhaps? ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:44
| Brand, I still think your example is one of the alliance leadership putting its interests over the interests of members. Yes, ex-members cities' might be in a place that's inconvenient for their former alliance mates. But the idea that the existence of a neutral city is responsible for one's own city being sieged is a bit far-fetched. Perhaps retreating people won't get the exact plum spot they want -- so that's a reason people should be forced to Exo? THAT is what seems petty to me. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 22:37
|
Darkwords, I don't know any more about the situation than what you've just stated. Rill, a leader almost always put the good of the team over the good of individual members. That's the very definition of being on a team. I didn't say that former members were responsible for anyone getting sieged. I said they could be blocking key exodus moves. Why are the departing players in the middle of a stronghold? Presumably they were placed there as part of the team, to be tightly integrated with their comrades. Being in the alliance core is a privilege extended by your alliance because you are a trusted member. The favorable placement doesn't strike me as some kind of permanent individual right. Quit the team, leave our fortress, sounds like a reasonable demand to me. It's better if that policy is stated up front, but war catches people by surprise sometimes. City placement is like 40% of defense in this game. Alliance is another 40%. Why do alliances jealously hoard their abandoned cities? Why do they form cores in the first place? Why is map crowding such a polarizing issue? Why do alliances siege members at 45-60 days inactivity, or sometimes even raze at key locations to prevent capture or open up squares for exodus-in of current players? It's because map placement is so key. I wouldn't hesitate to make that demand in other games, and if it seems overly harsh, I think that's because people are underestimating the importance of good placement and overestimating the damage caused by exodus. I've seen enough placement disputes in eCrow to understand that placement is critical in ordinary circumstances, let alone when people are trying to destroy your cities. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 23:22
| This seems like a fairly in-depth conversation on the basis of what is rumour, hearsay and, to the best of my knowledge, untrue. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:05
|
Brand, I guess what I'm saying is that people going nuts over city location is just that -- nuts. It's possible to be successful in a variety of locations and threatening to siege people who just don't want to participate in a war anymore (perhaps because they have doubts about their alliance leadership) does not seem like a healthy policy. Certainly it would be very easy to use it as an excuse -- it is so easy to fool ourselves into believing that what is most convenient is the only possible way.
Hopefully those who seek to lead alliances would have the humility to consider other possibilities rather than engage in this sort of knee-jerk reaction. Noki, in my discussion of this matter I hope I do not imply that I believe this is actually happening. Rather, I am talking about why I think it would be unwise and unnecessary for the leadership of an alliance to take this path. At the same time I recognize that this topic has wandered rather far from that of the original post, so perhaps if further discussion is desired someone should start a new thread.
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:08
|
I have seen a certain alliance leadership specifically offer a way out of the war, but required leaving their territory as a price. While I don't personally agree with such behaviour, who am I to argue with their poilicy as long as they have the power to enforce it.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:26
|
Who are you? A person. This is a forum, which is a place for the exchange of ideas. Perhaps a majority (or even a minority, or even one person) may not agree with one's opinion, but that should not prevent you from expressing it.
What you may be saying is "I would not be willing to take active steps to impose this opinion on other people"; that stance I understand and agree with. There are very few ideas I would be willing to fight (even with bits and bytes of data, which is what our armies in this game are) in order to support.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:39
I think it's valid to have a discussion about a hypothetical policy, regardless of whether it's being used actively in the game. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 10:50
I opened another thread on the topic... please put everything related to exodus from hubs there, to not further derail the topic => means better organized forum and less work for GM Luna
|