Essentially it would mean that people could start aggressive war with little concern for serious consequences.  That would in my opinion make people MORE likely to start wars, and alliances that wish to be peaceful would be the ones that suffer.  Whereas the warlike alliances would not have to worry too much because they would never face significant losses.

I do want peace, but please think through the consequences of the specific proposal before you endorse it.

Perhaps the peace terms should include a commitment to working toward such a code?

Edited:  I do want to say that I'm a bit ambivalent about the idea of any code.  My main problem with it is that any such code will tend to emphasize the interests and expectations of the large alliances that will provide the muscle behind the code.  As such, it can be just another means of perpetuating that hegemony.

I am of course a member of one of those larger alliances, so what I'm saying is advocating against giving myself and my alliances mates -- as well as my peers in other large alliances -- too much power.

I am not convinced that having a formal code would prevent some of what I see as harmful practices by people who have invoked Illy's informal codes in the past.  That is, that "violations" of the code by those with power will tend to be overlooked, while those same powerful folks would exploit the provisions of the code to enforce their own agenda.

Ideally the code would provide important protections for independent players, small alliances and peaceful players, but I guess I am not confident that it would not just become one more way for people who are already large and powerful to maintain that power.

As I observed previously, I empathize with you 100% because I tried something similar in the Consone war.  But a war cannot be ended by people outside the war -- it needs to be resolved between the warring parties.

I also disagree with your interpretation about the new sheriff in town.  Personally I think Illy has moved beyond either the possibility or desirability of one alliance or a set of alliances being a sheriff, peace officer or superpower.  I think we are in a world where people will have to think for themselves, a much more dynamic environment with multiple large alliances counterbalancing each other, without any having the power to dictate play.

Is that a good thing?  I don't know.  And of course my assessment of the situation may be incorrect.

But I think it is interesting to watch.

All the latest wars worth talking about were BIG ones between two huge groups of alliances. Each one had it's set point of view, each one was to become leading confed after winning the war.

What would a code change there? Either the winning alliance abides to that code => cool, war is over as soon as a limit in razed towns is reached and the looser stops being annoying (important point IMO).

Or they don't...  hell, there will be mean times to arrive, but who's gonna stop them? You could wave with any code, but they don't need to care about... 

Each alliance must discuss intern, whether they want to have a limit in destruction of enemies.

There's only one scenario, where there might be a use to this code: A big alliance/confed/etc. wants to have the code, and two smaller alliances are at war. Then the code can be inflicted onto those...  and I'm not sure, whether I'd like this sort of policing.

As for the concernes for newbys being razed as soon as out of protection: This won't happen anytime soon! All big alliances know the importancy of new players, and everyone sieging new players must have a really good explanation to not become a target himself. 

There are exceptions... as many as there are aggresive, annoying, etc. new players up for causing trouble... sorry, but that's what I call ingame suicide. Luckily the slow pace of Illyriad usually sorts those players out before any measures are needed 

I suggest that if you want to do something about it, try drawing something up and contacting a few major alliances to see their opinions. Very little diplomacy done on the forums has ever led to any good.

Vel, obviously noone wants your stuff. It was a kind offer, why are you getting angry about the others not accepting?

About the example with your alliance attacking a smaller one... I think it doesn't apply here. 

In this case, at least the official war declaration was issued by H?, so the "smaller" side started. 

Second, an (IMO acceptable) offer for surrender terms was made, which was so far not agreed about. 

Thirdly, they're still negotiating, which usually doesn't include nor you, nor me. 

As this is an open forum, feel free to comment and advice (I do so, too ), but you have to accept, if the warring parties simply don't like your idea.

I am not quite sure what I am at fault for now that I am supposed to be admitting?  I don't want to derail this thread -- perhaps you could post in another thread your list of grievances with me that I am supposed to be taking responsibility for.  Or if you'd rather not do it on the forum, perhaps send me a mail.

I am far from perfect, and if there are some things for which I need to make amends, please bring them to my attention.  It is possible that one of my faults is not seeing my faults with your discerning eye.

Feel free to be as direct and harsh as you feel is appropriate.  If by acknowledging my faults I can begin to mend the harm that has been done, then I am ready to do so.

Honestly, this is troubling to me.  I have spoken out within my alliance and urged restraint.  On an individual level, I have reached out to other players as well as alliance leaders to try to facilitate personal surrenders to prevent this from occurring.

There are a lot of excuses that people might use with regard to this or that account being sat or something like that, but I still find it troubling.  It is too easy to look from the outside about how other people conduct themselves and justify ones own actions (see Fundamental Attribution Error for more how this may affect one's thinking without really being aware of it).

I don't know if that action was wrong, but I am not convinced it was right.

I believe that sieging so many cities from individual players was at least in some cases an error.  I said so at the time and I say so now.

I recognize that many of my allies may be frustrated by me saying this.  Perhaps I should have been more vocal about it earlier.  One of the reasons that have not said anything sooner is that I am not confident in my judgment on these issues.  I left Illyriad for a time when the war was started in part because I didn't think I had the wisdom to provide input on important issues -- like should there have been a war in the first place.

Because I was not engaged in the war at the beginning, I have not felt that it was my place to condemn the tactics of those who were.  I do continue to think that the overall cause for the war was probably just, but again I am deeply ambivalent.  My main concern was that I was not sure a war would mend some of the harms that people saw as leading to the war.  Unfortunately I think this has turned out to be true in many cases.

I am not convinced that sieging all of a player's cities is a terrible wrong.  Maybe I am blinded by the long war.  But honestly, I have restarted an account recently, and building up new cities is lots of fun!  So maybe losing cities is not always a huge, tragic thing.

By the same token, I have not lost any cities in this war.  So maybe I am not the right person to judge that.

So, how about we let me find out?

If you believe it would help expiate the harm you perceive as having been done to you, and in order to allow me to experience proper compassion for those who have been harmed in this way, I now offer Harmless? all my cities.

The condition is this:  That you take my cities and agree to end this war.  That further you agree that the price for any wrongs done by me and my allies are paid in full.  We in turn would agree that any perceived wrongs you have done to us are also paid.

Let's start over with a clean slate.  Let's move past the destruction of this war and into the future of Illyriad.

Perhaps we might even be able to be friends again.  I miss having you as friends.

I do believe that rebuilding one's former enemies to a point where they can stand tall is not just a point of honor; but also a stabilizing factor in Illy. 

I also believe that once forcing individuals from an alliance is hard-fisted and creates deep threads of rage that later will re-bubble. 

Making anyone back into a corner then drop to their knees in acknowledgment of superior strength is humiliation and wrong. It is not a code for knights, but for dogs. 

My alliance will stand for strength in superiority of numbers, honor in diplomacy, leadership in strength, integrity in trading, bravery against hecklers, and most importantly- wisdom in dealings with aggressors. 

Now it stands to reason that not all shall stand with a leading alliance in their policies of diplomacy. This is why Naps and Confeds should be a closely guarded gift. 

As future overseer of BL I approve this message. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

GM Rikoo

I would appreciate if he would acknowledge that I have provided the proof he requested.

KillerPoodle, I meant what I said about wanting to move on.  I know there is a lot of bitterness between us, and I don't pretend I have been in any way perfect.  Honestly, you have been less than kind to me on occasion.

But I'd really like to move forward.

Edited:  It's also fine with me if we as Kumomoto suggested just completely move on.  The fact that we are at peace is most important.

I salute Harmless?, Kumomoto, KillerPoodle and everyone for achieving this end.