A question for H?
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=5704
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A question for H?
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Subject: A question for H?
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 02:39
|
A question to help me formulate an opinion. Did every war you parcticipated in before the current one, did it end by the other side surrendering? Also i applaud you for your record keeping, but currently i treat this more as a game and fun than as work requiring records ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Replies:
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 02:51
|
We treat this as a game too but there is responsibility that goes with leadership, it entails keeping records to prevent wholesale slaughter of foes and since we set limits, we kept records; we were true to our word. How cavalier that you don't feel responsible for destroying years of work and the money players have invested in "their" game. I wonder if you will have the same attitude when the roles are reversed, remember you helped to change the precedent in this game. :) ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:09
|
There is no reason to assume keeping records makes the game less fun and more work like. I personally hold all H? leadership in high regard because they don't rely on hearsay or faulty memories when making plans or accessing situations; rather, they are well organized and highly structured with recorded accounts of events so that years down the road they can re-familiarize themselves with the details of a specific situation. IMO, their records are some of the most accurate; spanning back to the very first war that ever took place in Illyriad. At least this was the case when I was in H?. -------------
|
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:13
|
As a practicioner of ISO9001 International Standards Organisation accreditation for Quality Assurance i can assure that at work i am a meticulous record keeper and auditor. Again leadership comes in various styles, and to chastise someone for differing in opinion seems to be a touch wrong. If we were all identical to H? we would truly be farmville. But back to the original question, has every opponent in every war surrender to H? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:21
|
How condescending of you. ------------- |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:30
|
I apologize for derailing the question over a point of disagreement. There is no reason for either side to condescend. I am unable to answer the question, but perhaps another can if they feel so inclined. -------------
|
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:34
|
Guys the first step forward is to accept other people do things differently. No-one playing this game is intrinsicly evil. We have different languages, upbringings, cultures, education, families, work, political persuaisions, no-one needs a dispensation for doing things differently ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 04:56
|
That's not what your NSGA Alliance said about NC... ------------- "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: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 05:19
|
uhm the questions guys? Can anyone answer it? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 05:42
|
What H? conveniently neglects to mention in their record keeping is that in the previous wars that I remember, we never got to this stage - their major opponents had surrendered or left the game long before. Whatever the reasons for this, why their opponents surrendered and H? hasn't - that is open to interpretation. The fact remains that H? still chooses to continue in the fight. Remember, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Whatever path you have chosen, you must deal with the consequences. P.S. Did H? continue to attack those opponents from the last war who continued to fight against them even when the rest of their alliance had made peace? E.g. invictusa...
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:05
|
Sphen - better to ask how many players we took a couple of cities from during the war and then stopped attacking to move on to other targets - I'll give you a hint - many. Re: Invictusa - my recollection is that he quit after the first 2 cities and then we cleaned up the rest. Aside from a bunch of sabre rattling from Eval - no one's presented any evidence to show otherwise. Lets pretend it's true though and you found one example where our policy failed, I can find many more where it did not fail and on the flip side how many people have the NSGA Alliance resettled to the noob ring? ------------- "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: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:09
|
uhm.. the topic...the question....is there an answer? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:18
|
It is more important to understand the why of the question :) Why would you like to know and what benefit does it provide to give an answer? ------------- "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: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:23
But I have been racking my brain to see where this line of questioning is going...and how it will help you formulate an opinion. Is the purpose of the question to imply that Harmless has gone undefeated, or that every alliance has either been met with the option of surrender or annihilation? Because I can recall a couple names which deny the latter...names of accounts which Harmless (following their attacks) neutralized the military threat but allowed to remain in the game even though they would never officially "surrender." (Opps, just saw H? reply as well with the same thought in mind...wanting to know the why of the question) -------------
|
HATHALDIR wrote:Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 07:40
Invictusa left his alliance, created his own codenamed RED (iirc) and kept attacking in a Kamekaze fashion till he left ... will you ever write something accurate for once .?.  Edit: There you go for some proof : http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/external/player_history.asp?PlayerID=123214 The alliance was named "Betrayed" because he disagreed with the peace negotiations and the codename was indeed "Red" /edit
Last time I checked H? is not your encyclopedia to query at will ... the reasons why you ask the question and what your follow-up argument is, are so transparent and so many times discussed, addressed and resolved that it is getting ludicrous for your side to create a new topic every time the last one does not go as you'd wish it to go ... By now you should have realized that regardless of how many similar topics you create in a vain attempt to "bury" the previous once, the outcome will remain the same. -------------   Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 10:07
|
Actually it was a pretty simple question that i wanted to make sure that i was not wrong, and what better way than to go to the source! I will take it that every other alliance has surrendered to H? due to the amount of gerrymandering. And i will start as many topics as i like regarding what ever issue i like as long as it is in the terms and conditions of the game. If you do not like what i am posting either ignore it or argue your point, but please do not denigrate me as i have done nothing wrong ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 10:13
Good, let us say I believe you. In which case the answer is that the question has already been answered many times in these very same fora. 
I never told you to not make any more topics, please read carefully ... I just said that the tactic of opening a new topic every time the last one doesn't go as you imagined/wished/planned, is just not working. By all means keep making new ones, you know I like them ...  ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 10:27
|
... For the record... VIC had accepted peace terms, after long considerations, to end the war. We wanted the war to end, because we were nor are a fighters alliance, and had no chance to win it. Many players left because fighting a war is far more time consuming than living at peace and building cities. So, e.g. Jasche indead might have been a victim to the war, but not to H? - important difference! And Invictusas one player alliance was suicide from the start... (nor more nor less). H? is right when claiming there was no imminent threat of annihilation, it just wasn't enough fun anymore to carry on...  For me it took some time to notice, that no honourfull goal can make up loosing the fun playing this game. Thus - and this goes to both sides of the war: Do you have still fun fighting the war? Then keep on fighting and quit talking. Else quit fighting, simple as that  |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 19:06
| Its amazing how no one from H? has been able to answer such a simple question. Of course we all know the answer and we all know the reason this war is still happening is because H? is too full of themselves to admit defeat. Yes I said defeat. You lost. It happens. Get over it. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 20:11
Well, I bet that many people can answer it pretty well ... the problem is that Hathaldir will have to make a new topic and ask again just like the other times we did address the same question ... As far as I am concerned I do prefer to see him interject and ask the same thing again and again in this topic, instead of going to another one and filling the forum with similar topics ... I will only say that I find quite funny two logical issues with his motive behind the question : 1) The logic that since something worked once ergo it will work in the future, forever and unchanged, without adapting to the new situations, is quite obviously wrong. Surrendering only works on people that are willing to surrender and that is all it takes to stop that tactic from working. Just adapt instead of still trying to use out of seer frustration the same tactic which worked on yourself. I understand his need for vengeance and of course he wants a surrender just to feel nice about it, but it ain't happening. Move on. 2) After your side tilted the table and changed all the informal "rules of engagement" that existed in this game, it is quite a logical leap that you ask for the informal "standard way of ending a war" to still apply. If you wanted a surrender you should never have crossed lines which your opponents can never accept (massive destruction of multiple accounts). Then again, knowing Hathaldir's "quest for revenge" my guess is that this is exactly why he crossed those lines in the first place in order to create the current mayhem. I think that only those two are enough for him to make a new topic ! ahaahahh ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 20:34
This sounds like the topic for a new post entitled "Question for hath" ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 21:19
There is really nothing to adapt to since "no surrender" is not a real strategy. All we have to do is keep razing your towns. But at least we have an understanding as far as I can see. You're not willing to surrender so we will keep fighting. So there is no point in whining about losing towns or how "evil" we are. You said yourself you will not surrender, so you will have to deal with losing everything.
Massive destruction of multiple accounts during war is nothing new and we both know that. But in this war there will naturally be a lot more of that since in the past alliances have surrendered before things escalated that far. We are just adapting as you suggested
. I really don't care if you don't surrender, I just don't understand why you guys are confused as to why we are still attacking you. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 21:45
Nope - please provide any evidence you have to support this claim.
One data point does not make a trend or support a theory. I content the opposite. The wholesale destruction of accounts is down to only one thing - the policy of the WLTWPO Alliance.
Who said we're confused? I think we know exactly why you are still attacking and have said so many times. ------------- "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: 30 Jun 2014 at 21:46
How so .?. Because you say it isn't .?. Multiple RL examples depict otherwise ... referring to controversial historical events might be frowned upon so I will use non-controversial one's from our own history: Spartans and Leonidas in Thermopyles. No surrender. Valid tactic. Mesollogi siege defense in 1825-1826. No surrender. Valid tactic. They won the first siege and almost won the second one btw. They eventually exodused (they charged the besieging forces - est. 1500 survived) Constantinopole siege defenses. No surrender in quite a numbers of cases (list here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sieges_of_Constantinople ). They won most of them. You want more examples .?.
Well, if you find that solution easier or more reasonable, hey, who am I to tell you otherwise ... I do have to note that I find such a solution quite unacceptable and I would have never been part of it ...
I will tell you an ancient true story. Diogenis the cynic was known to have been exiled from his home city o Corinth, so someone once tried to make fun of him by saying "So, Diogenes, how does it feel to have been condemned to never return to your home city" ... Diogenes without missing a beat gave the historical answer : "They condemned me to never return and I condemned them to stay were they are" Got it .?.
Nope ... in this case I know for a fact that it is quite the opposite and you keep saying what you think in order to convince others of your claim ... Make a list of the active accounts destroyed during previous wars and this one and prove your point, if you can.
You are adapting in the least creative and most destructive of ways ... if you think that this is something to be happy enough to wink about, hey, be my guest ...
Did anyone express such a confusion .?. When did such a weird occurrence happened .?. Please link/quote. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Canesrule
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 22:43
| I'm curious. What does WLTWPO stand for? |
Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 00:37
Which Ladybug Took Walter's Pink Oatcakes? WLTWPO ------------- �I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 03:44
|
We Like To Wipe People Out. ------------- "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: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 04:11
|
Typo KP, i am sure it is We Love To Wipe People Out ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 04:22
|
We agree on something! OMG! - looking for four horsemen now. ------------- "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: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 05:17
New recruits for the Eagles are
------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |