KillerPoodle wrote: I'm doing the same - our members just have more balls than yours.

• So that they can look good and benevolent even after wiping out whole accounts. This topic has this exact point and no other.
• They want to finally make us surrender so that they can gloat afterwards and start various accusations like they did in my case for example.
• They want H? to stick around and use it like a "scarecrow" so that their "not so stable" alliance gathering does not crumble and fight amongst each other. Without another powerhouse in the game like H? such frictions are inevitable, especially after the "funny" events of the last tournament

This thread, like so many shows a complete lack of understanding of H? members  Since it was an open letter to H?  here is an H? member response.  

DeliciousJosh - and I assume you are also HumanResources who sent IGMs to all of our members.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are intervening because you want to see peace.  Hopefully this will help you to understand how we see things - this is not personally or solely to you as there are many others who presume to say what H? Should or should not do and what is "fair", or otherwise criticizing H? members for being crazy or masochistic, etc.

1. A peace offer is only as good as the integrity of those on both sides.  It must be based in trust that the terms will in fact be honored and it serves the interests of all parties.  This is both why it made sense to agree to terms when offered by H? and not when being offered currently.  Now many are going to say "What? how can he say that?  they are all just doing the same thing? fighting a war!?" 

Is H? more honorable? really?

Unfortunately it is not the same thing at all.  H? has been actively strong first diplomatically and has engaged in a principled way and honored agreements.  During the Prior war (C-war) H? was meticulous in applying aggression.  There were no attacks on players that were not actively involved in the war - e.g. through direct attacks on our troops.  As a rule, no more than 2 cities were taken from any player though there may have been an odd exception here or there.  Even in the current war, we have had enemy cities on our borders who were non-combatants and a few months into the war I sent some diplos to probe defenses.  Can you believe that some had absolutely no defenses to speak of at all?  The truth is that they knew that H? would act in honor and not attack a city that was essentially pacifist just because it belonged to an enemy alliance.  What we have seen in the current war from the aggressors - whatever they want to be known as - is completely different.  They have sieged entire player accounts out of existence.  In our reference of principles this is about the worst thing that could be done and displays a total lack of compassion, balance, restraint and honor.

These are completely different ways of making war.  The community at large can and does judge on the basis of what they see.  Actions speak the loudest (though I will include words this once).

2.  H? Leadership is not the issue.  It is implied that H? Leadership is the cause for continued conflict because they are too stubborn to agree to these really great terms!  I won’t speak of what transpires within the discussions within H? but anyone who thinks that H? leadership is keeping the rank and file from a peace that they all long for clearly does not understand what H? stands for.  If this were in fact the issue, there might be people posting here or in our alliance forums saying, wow! Generous deal!  I will just say that is not going to happen.  Nobody in H? thinks that our leaders have our blood on their hands.  (we know clearly who did that). That is just nonsense and trying to shift blame for wiping out accounts to the victims rather than those who chose that course of action.

3.  Let’s talk about wiping out accounts.  To us this is the ultimate "naughtiness" (I was thinking of a 4 letter word beginning with EV-- that got Starry censored). We have always lived and fought based on resisting this principle.  This has to be resisted at all costs.  We will not condone or justify this behavior in any manner.  Real Peace - not just words - will not come as long as this naughtiness is still rampant.  Spheniscidae compared this with "Driving" certain foes from the previous war from the game... really? I don’t know them personally but at the time they decided to leave the game they certainly had many cities still living - my guess would be probably 8 more than those who suffered the naughtiness of the current aggression (who had zero).

4.  This war has to end in a surrender/peace agreement because the last one did.  Actually it is never going to end in a surrender/peace agreement.  The reason is not because of stubbornness or personal hatred.  It is that H? has its core purpose in resisting the naughtiness of wanton power and annihilation.  It is beyond the point where agreements of words can be trusted - even assuming that the intent is to keep them for a meaningful period of time.  Agreements will not happen without trust.  For me and I would suspect a lot of other members, trust will not be won without apologies for wiping out accounts and pledges not to repeat those actions again, but primarily not without actions that back up the intent of peace.  It has already been demonstrated that there is another path to peace - it is called walking away from hostilities.  Some of our enemies have done that.  Some on our enemy’s side would have people to believe that H? not agreeing to a meaningless peace agreement is the same as asking to have all of our accounts annihilated.  That actually says more about the aggressors than it does about H? Refusal of peace agreements does not necessitate destroying all cities and accounts in H? - regardless of whether that is feasible/possible.  The decision to raze all H? players and cities is not H? decision to reject an agreement, it is the actions of continuing aggression from the alliance.  The fact that they are asking for terms that are so "reasonable" "fair" and insignificant just goes to show that the "crime" of destroying so many cities is seen as a just reward for not accepting "fair" terms or a direct consequence of being "stubborn"! 

5.  "It's just a game" - actually it is not, at least not in the traditional sense.  there is no real objective, score, defined rules of conduct or agreed state of winning.  It is an open ended simulation.  Everyone plays as they want to play and that is one of the things that has always made Illy great.  There were so many ways to play and interact with others.  There were good game mechanics, good alliances and opportunities for competition and cooperation.  Illy has been a place that was friendly towards new players and one in which you did not have to sleep with one eye open.  It was not a world dominated by a mob, but actually ran according to widely (but not universally agreed) norms of behavior.  Killing off complete accounts is just the sort of misbehavior that H? reacted against in so many other places and avoiding that in a more nuanced and balanced political and diplomatic environment was something that made the game rich.  That is something that has largely disappeared not only for H? but increasingly will be felt by other alliances.  I fear that Illy is passing into a dark time where despots will do as they see fit and might makes right and smaller folk will have to tread lightly.  What people mean when they say "It's just a game" is that they will play however they want and don’t care of consequences they bring upon others.  That is their right, but it is the sort of attitude that H? has been dedicated to resisting at least for the 3 years I have been involved.

How about just ceasing hostilities/attacks and agreeing to disagree. We clearly have entirely different principles we brought to this simulation.  We are playing it the way we see fit not because we are spiteful losers, stubborn-headed, or just crazy.  Many of us continue to play and even to pay our RL money in this game why? - just so that we can intentionally lose all we have invested in?  really?  I think not, but we will be true to our principles to the end.  We resist the naughty actions - none so naughty as razing all the cities of a person's account - we may or may not find the means to overcome and prevail but we will not condone the actions that have taken place and whether we live or die we fight for the right and in what remains of the war we will stand as we have and shine a light to expose naughty actions and intent that should not have a place in what used to be the civil society of Illy. 

So the choice really belongs to the aggressor alliance.  It is your actions, your razings, your persecution of players to the point of extinction that have marked you to date and that will continue to mark you if you continue on this course.  In the court of public opinion, we have taken our stand on principle.  What is your stand?  It is the all glorious alliance who are on trial here, not H? or H?'s leaders.  The ball is in your court.  You have the power, you make the decisions. What is your principle and the character that you bring to this new defacto position of leading Illy?  We are all waiting to see.  This is so not about a forum post, escrow account and a handful of cities.

Speaking as someone who was forced out of the war due to RL issues and as such am not an active H? member I will still voice my opinion.

If the so called Grand Alliance leaders (or should I say Hath at this stage) were really so willing to make peace and move on they would have done the same what Soon, Shade, and Dark have done. By showing they still want blood and blood money from an already crushed and severly depleted enemy shows they really want revenge and cannot rise above their past.

Their actions now are nothing more than a bully taking everything away from someone knowing that others will not say much against them out of fear of retribution. The voices of reason have been drowned out and have been replaced by the voices of vengence and revenge.

I say to you get over it, be humble in your victory, save what dignity your alliances have left (Reading the alliance page proclaiming to support peace is a total contradiction to what is going on), and try rebuild the bridges that have been so severly burned.

Gragnog

This is indeed a hot topic!