First offer of peace from H? side...congrats!!

Dunno about the term, they are up for debate between you and GA, but good work. Atleast now everyone knows you are interested in terms.

Cheers

I am glad to see a positive contribution from H? and I very much hope this wont now degenerate into the usual "he said, she said" standard of debate seen on these threads.

Good luck finding an independent arbiter though, in my experience they are either not sufficiently trusted or they don't want the job.

Josiah

I have a question about the first term, just so there is no confusion later.  Do you mean that you will surrender on behalf of H?  Or that you will personally surrender?

I don't actually care if anyone ever "surrenders," -- I'm perfectly happy to see a statement that parties have agreed to peace terms -- but I think it is important that statements include Harmless? as a whole making peace rather than a single member of it.

Congratulations on this post, KillerPoodle, and I hope that the offer is considered in the spirit in which it was made.

I am more than happy to help anyone, from either side, rebuild.  Time to move on.

I now speak regarding the fourth and fifth terms:

The Roman Empire would be pleased to be part of such an organization! Much would still be needed, of course, to make an organization of this sort successful. Many questions race: 

What sort of structure would such an organization have?

How would decisions be made?

How would enforcement happen?

Obviously these questions shouldn't be answered in this thread, but should be decided while drafting the charter for such an organization.

If such a thing were to exist, specifics such as what enumerated powers it has and how votes are conducted among members would be important. Be careful, though, that you include a counsel on security with a real, built-in power to enforce decisions. Such an organization without the ability to back up their decisions could very well prove to be unsuccessful or ignored.

Point 4 is extremely intriguing, would it be possible to start another thread elsewhere to further explore that idea? 

Gragnog wrote: I applaud KP and the H? members.  It seems like a really good attempt at peace.  I especially like the bit about the vultures paying back some of that massive amount of gold to those alliances so they can rebuild.  It will show real charachter.  My money is on the fact that they will find some excuse to continue killing H? as they seem to be focused on it.  I really hope they prove me wrong.

In the open letter to H? thread, H? was asked several times to surrender, or to state under which terms they would surrender - they refused to engage, and refused to surrender.

Now they are here, two days after, offering to surrender and taking a negotiating stance. Not ultimatums, not demands, but a starting point from which they will start negotiations, just like their opponents had a starting point for their cease fire terms.

None of KP's points are (as I read them) demands.

Engage with them, talk to them. If you truly seek an outcome of this war which doesn't involve further annihilation of entire accounts, then take his seriously and begin the negotiations.

You asked them to come to the table, now they are at the table, and you leave.

And just for the record, the idea of a treaty/accord on rules of war was (as far as I know) my idea, as can be seen on the last three pages of the Open Letter to H? thread. And I have no affiliation to H?. As a matter of fact I just re-entered the game about a week ago after a close to two year break.

And when I played last the only affiliation I had with H? was a war where my alliance was under threat of annihilation in which H? and all of the Crow alliances came to my aid - not because they owed me, not because I paid them, but because all of them would not tolerate destruction of accounts én masse.

If you don't like their stance of negotiation, then say so, but don't slap them in the face - at least engage with them - negotiate, as has been said several times was your wish - to have H? surrender instead of being destroyed.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc

The only reason Hath posted in the forums was because of H? rejection of terms 2 times which we offered them, not that H? ever asked for terms.   If H? is now actually interested in terms for surrender, feel free to IGM Hath or me and we will give the terms for H? surrender.  I have told you this multiple times now and have yet to receive any IGM regarding those terms.   

In regards to being concerned for your allies, I recommend defending their cities next time you insist they stay in a war with you rather than letting their cities get razed left and right while building up to defend your own.  We already placed in our initial terms that H? help the Dominion (your former allies) rebuild.  Those terms were rejected.  I think your allies might appreciate their cities being defended rather than a odd terms of surrender post made by the surrendering side of the war placed on the forum.    

Really, I honestly applaud KPs move. And hey, some points may be up to DISCUSSION!

I think Hath posted his offers in here for members of H? to see the actual offers... maybe unusual, and a way H? blocked down in the past, but hey, not the worst way to create some transparency.

Now KP really posted IDEAS in the forum, and not even bad ones, why the hell is everyone shouting at him now ?!

If you don't agree, say "Maybe not this point...", after all you're still at the upper hand...  but this in here is definitly a bit harsh...

No one can really refund a war! And noone can calculate losses. I don't know how big each deal with the other surrending alliances was... but KP was (IMO) kindly asking to rethink the totals and maybe give some back... again it is up to DEBATE.

First victim in a war is the respect to each other. I guess I got back some respect to H? when debating sieged towns after Consone war, lost it for some time when reading their own propaganda (contraproductive actually...), now got some back when reading KPs counter offers.

~Vanerin

Such an act would show the entire server that this offer of peace is genuine and sincere. a humble act made by great players that would be observed by all.  

if that were to happen, personally, i think the grand alliance should accept peace without any terms whatsoever. imo, GA has had way more than its pound of flesh out of this war already. asking for terms at this juncture, is excessive to say the least in light of the sheer devastation caused to H? and its allies throughout this war.  

terms are trifles at this point guys.  and there is such a thing as being gracious in victory.   

The only reason Hath posted in the forums was because of H? rejection of terms 2 times which we offered them, not that H? ever asked for terms.   If H? is now actually interested in terms for surrender, feel free to IGM Hath or me and we will give the terms for H? surrender.  I have told you this multiple times now and have yet to receive any IGM regarding those terms.

I rejected two of your three terms 8 days ago - to which you did not respond until today - with vitriol I might add.

Since then a lot of posting (on both sides) and thinking (on my side at least - you may speak for your side) has happened which culminated in this thread that reversed that initial rejection. A thread which was posted before you responded to my IGM from 8 days ago.

I was the one who IGM'd you a link to this thread containing my proposed terms - if it is really necessary to copy and paste them into an IGM as well then I will do so now - it seems a little petty/silly though - I presume you can read them here and respond in IGM if you really are interested in finding a way to end the war.

In regards to being concerned for your allies, I recommend defending their cities next time you insist they stay in a war with you rather than letting their cities get razed left and right while building up to defend your own.  We already placed in our initial terms that H? help the Dominion (your former allies) rebuild.  Those terms were rejected.  I think your allies might appreciate their cities being defended rather than a odd terms of surrender post made by the surrendering side of the war placed on the forum.

Our allies can confirm that we did what we could to help them while you were doing your best to wipe them out. We achieved many city saves and nice take downs all through the war - facilitated mainly by poor tactics on your side.

I don't recall seeing those terms to which you refer - maybe you can remind me (through IGM if that is your preferred communication method).


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill

As for a mediator, I put up my hand if both sides are accepting of that. And as for rebuilding, we at Grey officially open our stores to aid anyone from any side in the rebuilding of their towns.

I have refrained from commenting in this thread and the ones akin to them before now, but by this point I have become so irritated that I feel obliged to speak out.

Firstly, addressing Dittobite and the overall Grand Alliance- please don't use the wearisome and boring argument about how Harmless should have helped the Dominion out of a tight spot over and over again.

Harmless were too far from the Dominion to be able to intervene effectively. In addition, many of our sieges were not on optimal terrain for cavalry (the only troops that COULD reach us) so hitting our sieges would have hurt everyone in the long run. Very very early on in the war, Kumomoto warned me that Harmless support would have been limited. NC, Dlords and Harmless supported our outlying members wherever possible, and they all supported us with resources freely and wherever needed. Besides that, Harmless couldn't have saved us from the enemy sieges. Saying that Harmless is in some way responsible for our surrender betrays ignorance, and possibly some way of trying to pass the blame for the loss of several cities.

As for how the terms are in some way an insult... KP has agreed to two of the original terms in your surrender treaty. His requests for the gold are not directed towards supplying his own alliance, but rather for the Dominion. Everyone appears to be interested in this Illy Code of Conduct- I myself am too, and whilst I can straight away see a few problems there are a few easily solutions to this. There doesn't however, seem much point in discussing them in more detail, because the Grand Alliance don't care about people having all of their cities razed.

DB are willing to provide cities from permasat accounts (we don't have many) to any Harmless players who have lost several cities in this war, priorities to players who have lost everything. At this point, I'm too hacked off to offer them to the Grand Alliance also.

I recall that a couple of years ago, Rill sent Harmless the compensation that they demanded from the Faenorians over some incident or another. (disclaimer- this is NOT about Rill- she has in fact commented very positively so far in this topic). I am extremely tempted to do the same- however, as peace reparations so far have cost my alliance nearly 10billion gold all in all, with our own terms and the assistance that we have given to our allies, I don't see the point of bankrupting myself even further when the Grand Alliance appear not to have any interest in a peace that does nothing other than satisfy their inflated egos.

Dittobite set a far higher standard for himself when he was negotiating peace between DB and the Grand Alliance, and this made me feel hopeful about future relations between us. For a moment, he had convinced that his reasons for fighting Harmless were true- that he was too worried about NC's actions to not intervene. If that were true, I feel certain that he would not have a problem with letting Harmless off lightly in the reparations, because they have been annihilated in the war. But no, he just wants to rub dirt in their face and to humiliate them.

Brilliant.

I should also clarify that nobody actually involved has called the terms an insult, I believe your referring to my comments.  While I would find such terms insulting, and would expect the Alliance do, I wouldn't actually know.  But I wouldn't try to force an agreement like the one proposed by KP, to commit to policing other people's behavior, on anyone for any reason, and to try to include it as part of your own surrender terms is extremely arrogant, to say the least. 

The terms included here refers to 2billion gold in reparations.

Anyway paying H? seemed perfectly reasonable to me back then.

As does the alliances who surrendered this time paying the G/Alliance.  

The idea that the alliances winning the fight should pay back the ones who have already surrendered is not in the slightest bit logical.

It also has nothing to do with H? any more as the alliances in question made their own arrangements with the G/A and if they wish to ask for, or if the GA wished to extend, some sort of helping hand they would have to do it as individual alliances in the same way they got their surrenders organised. Such things may be seen as a courtesy, politeness, ways to mend fences between 2 formerly at war alliances, BUT they do not belong on the discussion agenda with an entirely different alliance.

End the war first - which is a matter for peace terms and is pretty much the same as its always been in every previous war. It also does not require the calling of GA alliance leaders 'Vultures' or any other form of personal insult.

Then discuss some sort of helping hands/United Nations thing (pretty unworkable from first thoughts on it but maybe doable at some basic level though personally I've never been in favour of any sort of policing of the server by any alliance or group of alliances).

Don't confuse the two and think that because they are in KP's post together they are somehow related - they are not necessarily so.

(1) A statement of surrender

(2) Some type of reparation from the losing party (i.e. 2 Billion gold from H?) [History is replete with examples of this]

(3) Some type of mutual effort at rebuilding the war losses (towns) from BOTH sides, using resources from both the winners and losers (i.e. donated permasat towns, gold from reserves).  [Perhaps our own illy version of the Marshall Plan?]

(4) Some type of long-term, international convention / body aimed at preventing future wars of this severity (i.e. an agreed upon charter not to raze more than 3 towns per player in future wars, with neutral alliances promising to render aide if this charter is broken) [Parallels to the League of Nations after WWI, or the founding of the UN...]

Anyway, I think all 4 pillars of this initial proposal are reasonable, though certainly the exact nature of each (amount of reparations, etc) would be open to negotiating!

Just a random third party opinion :)

Janders_  WoT

KP, I greatly appreciate Harmless? making a post, instead of just commenting on others. Regardless of your intentions, this atleast shows your are attempting to do something. 

A very interesting idea, but one I do not think will pan out. 

Too much abuse can be allowed by creating such a convention. 

For example, the do not siege under 2,000 pop players, means that dummy accounts can be used to take up geographically significant areas, and enemies can't do anything about it because sieging the city would be breaking the War Conventions. 

It opens up a whole new era for harassment. I think the war conventions would only work if geographic areas were claimed by a system outside of the 10 square rule. 

We would have to be clear on what the consequence of breaking War conventions are. And who will enforce them. 

Step 5 sounds like force could be used. If an alliance doesn't agree to the terms of the war conventions, they get sieged, etc. 

All of that said, I like the idea of having some mutually agreed upon guidelines for engaging in war combat. 

I think it would go along way if you worked with a few other long term alliances and players and came up with a some verbage to describe the protocols you have in mind. Once agreed upon, simply post them on the forums, and say you follow them. 

No need to try and encourage other people to follow them. let public opinion do that for you. 

This whole war has been the most stupid war I have ever been a part of. I play Illy for the fun, and not so much for the tactics or the politics that is forced down my throat on a daily basis. I also hardly EVER read the forum because there are just too many childish people posting their idiotic opinions and trying to disguise them as 'debates'.

I would really like for EVERYONE to get back to playing the game now. Not talking about playing it. This war is STUPID and I want it to go away now. You people are making Illy more about drama and politics then it should be! Message to both sides of this: STAY ON THE PATH OF PEACE AND STOP SPITTING ON EACH OTHER IN THE PLAYGROUND!

I think the terms are quite good and worthy of consideration. I dont understand the *Throwing Dirt* attitude towards KP though. As KP mentioned the terms are by no means final and are negotiable. As requested H? are paying tribute and publicily going to surrender , the two major terms demanded by the victor side.

 

Surely as a gesture of goodwill , an amount of gold can be given to help rebuild the victims of war. Maybe not the whole amount KP suggested, but maybe some of it as a gesture of goodwill.  Illyriad is not just a war game, and not like Evony, LoU etc where lots of worlds were added after specific time. Plus it takes a lot of time to build up in Illyriad, people cant just leave for another world, so its better to resolve conflicts in a nicer manner and not let the hatred/anger prevail. 

 

Even in history Good Conquerors, rebuild and facilitate the people they won against. Some might argue that its *Just a Game* but its certainly different than other online games out there. I am afraid the *Conquer and Raze* attitude might bring harm to game and destroy its uniqueness.

 

A spark leads to fire we all know that, if we set some bad examples, then future newcomers will be following them as well, and in time it might make Illyriad slowly just like other war games. I personally dont want to see that happening

 

I am certainly hoping both sides come to a conclusion based on some mutual goodwill and trust and not illwill/hatred.

Anyways done with my speech

 

Cheers and hoping for peace!

Dani

 

 

You think yelling about the stupidity of this war helps in any way and does not make you look childish?

Oh the irony

rofl

Real interesting and relevant comment there gemley.  It sure is on topic and totally helps everyone a lot.  

I do not think another childish comment calling this war stupid really adds anything at all to the topic.

 

Also your comment implies that you do not want to derail from the topic, yet this is ironic since your comment adds to the derailment. Surely you would had known a comment like this would provoke a response causing more derailment?

I am still unsure of the point of your comment but it does make me laugh.

Well someone might as well lock this topic because I think that this topic is doomed to become even more derailed.

occasionally, 

maybe just ones in a while, 

rarely really, 

seldom? ... , 

but truelly almost never actually,  

the man seems to make sense...

It is worth thinking about surely for all parties, or if not, to at least build upon it?

Anyway, cudos when offers are made, both ways. 

Shadar Logoth

   It seems that item #3 is going to be a sticking point for GA in these terms KP has offered. So I speak for all The Dominion when I say we don't want The Dominion to be the cause of our friends in H? continuing the fight. While we greatly appreciate KP's efforts to recover a portion of the gold we had to pay we would rather see an end to the war. And so to that end we ask that our portion of that gold be removed from #3 in hopes that GA and H? can reach an agreement both are happy with that will end this war.

Pellinell

Now if we can just get the rest of the folks to agree ...