A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0
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=5732
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0
Posted By: Velociryx
Subject: A New Approach To Peace, Version 2.0
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 04:09
|
Kudos to Arctic for his thread. His original post was as follows:
I honestly am sick and tired of all your consistant bickering
(so-and-so did that, he did this, she said that). So I'm going to try
something else. All ten alliances at war with H? offer a white peace
and both sides agree to forgive and make up. I don't care how you make
up, I'll leave that in your hands. For the price of peace, I am willing to pay each alliance the total of the following: Total---Item Name--------Per alliance 440 Silversteel Chain (44 per alliance) 1,100 Silversteel Spear (100 per alliance) 330 Silversteel Swords (30 per alliance) 77k Normal Horses (7k per alliance) 2,200 Adventurer's Swords (200 per alliance) 1,100 Bone Handled Swords (100 per alliance) 1,100 Scimitar Swords (100 per alliance) 7,700 Marksman Bows (700 per alliance) 2,200 Duelling Spears (200 per alliance) 660 Jungle Spears (60 per alliance) 110 Barbarian Swords (10 per alliance) 110 War Bows (10 per alliance) 88 Tridents (8 per alliance) 7,700 Heave Platemail (700 per alliance) I will need leaders of all 11 alliances (Dark Brotherhood, The Western Group, NAAM-Alliance, Freelancer, nCrow, Insane Knight, Victrix, Dark Empire, Valiant Crows, Eagles Eyrie, and Harmless) to agree here in this forum and peace to be accepted by both sides before items listed above will be dispatched. Note: Yes, that is pretty much my whole warehouse plus all my gold (bought stuff for this list) but I expect no payment from anybody for this act if it works. I just want to end this freakin war.  Another note: I have no political power what-so-ever, I just want to end this war. ___ Like Arctic, I'm not involved in this
war. It also doesn't seem especially "Grand" to me. I'm probably not alone in thinking that. Your enemy is defeated. You have dethroned them, which was your purpose. Well fought, and congratulations. Objective achieved. I urge you to to BE truly grand now, and accept this amended offer for peace. Live up to the name you have given yourselves. Then I urge you to join me in supporting the code of conduct referenced in my other thread, as originally outlined by KP. If more blood is needed in order to for some or other debt to be satisfied...if you absolutely MUST raze a few more cities, then I offer you two of mine. My forces will stand down. If that's what it takes, so be it. Let there be Peace. -=Vel=- |
Replies:
Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 04:27
|
This offer is a nice thought but I do not think throwing gold at people will end hostilities. ------------- �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: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 04:34
Re:
From Halaldir's post regarding peace: 2 . 2 billion escrow NAP with NAAM 3. EO/Kumo/Starry/KP accounts each lose 1 town, which will be razed/capture by players on our side. ___ Item one is defacto. I don't think anyone would argue that H? has, in any way "won" this war. They are defeated. A formal announcement to that effect will not change the equation. I'm offering the full sum of the gold requested, and half the cities that must be offered up in sacrifice. If that is still insufficient, I'll offer two more from my alt. Peace terms satisfied. The only question now is whether they will be accepted. :) |
Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 04:54
I hate to break it to you but what I gathered was that those cities need to be from EO/Kumo/Starry/KP, I doubt they would change their mind and raze yours instead. I could be wrong. I suppose the only thing to do now is sit back and see what happens. ------------- �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 |
Velociryx wrote:Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 04:57
|
I'm not sure how it would be different though...I could simply let each of those players come take one of my cities to get back to where they were. Four cities requested - up to four offered if needs be. |
Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 05:05
It is different because you are not one of the leaders of H?. There are multiple reasons to go after their cities but no one besides the leaders of the Grand Alliance will probably ever know for sure. My guess is they want H? badly hurt enough physically and morally that H? never considers restarting the war. It makes sense. But since neither of us are in the war we probably are missing some important information pertaining to why there has not been peace yet.
------------- �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: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 05:12
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. If each of those players (specifically) are required to give up one city each, and I immediately give each of them one of mine, then there's absolutely no difference from a practical standpoint. They are right back where they were, and four cities have been destroyed. This is more efficient, since all my cities are in a nice, tight cluster. ;) (it's one stop shopping!) If the Grand Alliance is sincere in their offer of peace, then they now have EVERYTHING they asked for, plus a whole bunch of really great equipment offered by Arctic. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 05:52
|
The point of the escrow is to protect NAAM(Consult a map if you don't get it), and the point of that is defeated if you're just giving them money to not care about that. The point of city sacrifice is to be punitive, which, again, is defeated if they're just burning down some uninvolved player's cities. And all this is completely beside the fact that H? isn't unwilling or unable to meet material conditions, they just don't want to surrender, and there's really nothing anyone outside the conflict can do about that. I sort of get why people are frustrated about this, but stuff like this is really not helping anything. The parties involved are going to have to end the war between them, there isn't a whole lot we can do.
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 05:57
|
I respectfully disagree. A peace offer was made. In it, there were conditions set forth. 2b in gold, and four cities. Those are being offered. They were the victors' conditions. They are free to change their minds I suppose and demand something else, but their demands HAVE BEEN met by this offer. They can choose to accept it or not. And you can expect frustrations on the server to continue to increase. H? is in no position to attack at this point. Since they are not, it's up to the group DOING the attacking to choose to call a halt, or not. In a domestic dispute (which is what this is, at the core, inside our great big Illy family), you can't very well fault the person being beaten to death for "failing to submit." On the other hand, you CAN fault the party administering the beating. That's where this is now. Everything that was asked for has now been offered. They money can be applied to escrow, and cities can be taken. The full measure of what has been demanded. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 06:11
|
Respectfully, if you apply some reading comprehension, you would see that the point of Hath's terms isn't that they want stuff. You're just ignore the point of the terms and wondering why you aren't facilitating peace. And even if you could convince them, you're still faced with the underlying problem that Harmless still won't accept, because that's not their issue either. Not respectfully, your comparing this to domestic violence is unworthy and complete crap. Please cut that out.
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 06:13
|
The analogy was apt, and I stand by it. You don't have to agree. That's fine. And all the terms have still been met by the amended offer above. |
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 07:23
|
And for the record, I understand the context very well. Take your own advice and consult a map. ;) We live right next door and have ringside seats. Your "argument" such as it is, is that my offer of everything they asked for is unacceptable. And if I forward the money to H? and agree to let each of the four named H? members take one of my cities after the fact, allowing the "Grand Alliance" to have their much sought after pound of flesh, well...somehow that makes it all..."better." Except it's the same money and still four cities. ZERO difference from a practical POV. The offer stands. If they reject the terms of their own peace offer (plus the bonus equipment offered), that's on them. Yes? I'm willing to give up my personal fortune and fully 40% of the account I've worked on for a couple years now, in order to secure peace. That's my level of commitment to seeing it done. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 07:56
| Well, I'm not really "arguing" with you, as much as just telling you why I think this won't ever happen. Maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but maybe. It certainly didn't help that you stuck this up on the forum and took cracks at the people you're trying to negotiate with rather than, say igming ditto. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:07
| It seems to me that the main problem with this approach is that neither side is involved with or committed to it. Speaking as someone who made the offer of giving up cities in the Consone war, it's usually pretty futile -- the two sides need to talk to each other directly. |
Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:13
|
Simply put, it's not just about cities or currency; those are merely symbols. As symbols, it's what they represent that's essential; and what they represent is dictated by more than just their presence. IOW, the bat signal doesn't mean a thing, unless Commissioner Gordon is flashing it and Batman sees it. ------------- Garthen |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:24
This actually made me laugh out loud. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that taking four cities will hurt Harmless physically and morally? Since the start of the war, they have lost 7mil pop (maybe more, my memory is hazy). I kinda doubt that taking four cities can send any message that isn't already been driven into their chest. The taking of the four cities is a symbol, a further kick in the guts for Harmless to remind them that this time, THEY lost. It's more of a statement from the GA than a lesson for Harmless.
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:26
|
Sorry Vel, but how humilating to H? it would be to first have to surrender, and then taking towns of a player being nice enough to offer his town? It never is about the money! I had been on the loosing side in the war before this one. The debate, whether surrendering or not NEVER was about the reparations. We felt we were on the right side, we felt we were the ones being attacked, we were sure the reasons of the war were orchestrated, and we thought we would give up this cause when surrendering. All crap, when looking back at it now: We lost the war, learned that some actions of ourselves hadn't been that great, BUT STILL are sure we have been fighting on the right side  . The reparation had been paid within 3 month or so (due to sieging times) and now we're back again anyway.The only thing that still stands in the way to peace are EGOs... BIG egos of leaders of HUGE alliances.  Taking four towns, which they could take by force anyway, is definitly symbolic, and no so kind offer from you or Arctic would change anything to this...
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:32
Oh, and Aurordan is right... sorry Vel, but comparing actions in a war game with violance against real people is quite bad taste IMO (hey, little secret: This is a game!) 
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:58
|
For the record, I don't disagree. The analogy is as tasteless as the current situation. That's why it was chosen, why it is apt, and why the situation should be ended immediately. ;) And yes, it's just a game. And in that game, Illy is our big, extended family. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 13:14
...just nope... ehm ... NO,... I mean: Don't you get it?! ...  ... This was a kind reminder, that such comparisons are definitly not appropriate, are not amusing, are totally away from the point, might irritate / confuse / deeply insult people in here. I won't discuss it any further, but for future reference my kindest advice is to refrain from such comparisons, if you don't want to completly destroy your line of (possibly) valid points and have big parts of the forums seeing you as a troll...
|
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 13:25
|
Just throwing a bone in here... Settlement terms are more likely to work if they are not materialistic, but are instead behavioural, especially if hostilities broke out as a result of dispute. So rather than "You will pay X and lose X" (which seems like punishment), why not instead agree terms for future behaviour? As well as prohibitive terms, you could include enabling terms, such as time-limited trade/supply agreements on contested resources. Get the idea? -------------  |
Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 15:58
|
Oblivious. ------------- PublicRelations HumanResources |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 17:38
That is a cool idea, but how is the trade/supply agreement less punishment then "pay X"? I agree with the town capture stuff, this clearly is a punitive action. Sadly, those behavioural agreememts would be much harder to negotiate than the simple "pay X" terms. And the e.g. mining dispute (don't know how I thought about that example ) is never the reason! It simply is the cause to start the war, the reason in a game always is a mixture of "I'm bored!", and "I don't like your face...". E.g. the Consone war wouldn't have ended with the one alliance (ahh, who was involved in it... was it RHY?) to have the right for mining the one small Trove mine somewhere in nowhere  .Often, the original dispute is long solved, after 1 month or so, while the big alliances fight along.
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 17:41
|
Right...I think the final shape of any conjectural agreement would be more of an agreement in principle rather than a tightly codified "code." For instance - there's no rule outright prohibiting it (in fact, there's a mechanic that specifically allows for it), but we have, as a community, kind of adopted a code that says, "don't settle within ten tiles without permission." We've also adopted the, "don't attack newbies" community rule, and "don't mess with training alliances" rule. None of these are official RULES, and yet - the community at large seems quite content to abide by them. (and in GC, we've adopted the "hug frequently" rule) |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 23:04
------------- |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 06:16
Exactly my thoughts, as you say the language coming from the GA certainly points to that. Sadly the war won't stop until the alleged vengeance has been quenched. Though the GA should bare in mind they could be next... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 06:35
Yes, because if there's one thing people love more than surrendering, it's surrendering and having indefinite constraints placed on their future behavior. /sarcasm This would seem, at least to me, a lot more egregious than losing four cites and and an escrow, and then being able to go do whatever you want. And it continues to not address the point that it isn't the specific terms it's a pride thing.
|
Posted By: Glin
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:00
| Ok, Whats GA? |
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:08
|
The GA = The Grand Alliance. |
Posted By: Glin
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 19:28
|
Oh I see. I have not heard anyone call themselves the Grand Alliance. I do have one question though. If people so badly think that taking a city from EO/Kumo/Starry/KP each; would be a fair end to hostilities- then why not just do so- rather than argue on the base of that being a terms of surrender? Is this a type of posturing? If one really thinks ending a city from each of those players will teach the alliance to surrender then why does opposing alliances just not take it by force? Therefore, if one wanted to end hostilities for two sides who are not ready to- what makes a person think that their personal loss of monies or towns would aid in this surrender? I think I may know the answer ... This is just posturing. And for the sake of the argument here in this thread, why is anyone who is not a leader of the opposing alliance offering posturing or grand standing before the community? Does this really heal a rift? Bull dozing and infilling a rift between alliances must not be so casually and cheaply made with individual offerings of sacrifices. Rather, the healing will begin only when concessions are heartfelt between the opponents. I approve this message as the future overseer of BL and thank you for taking the time to read my post.
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 20:27
|
There you go, being all logical again... ;) Yes...one would imagine that having beaten the ever living (**insert expletive here**) out of the alliance and reduced it to regional status, if they wanted one city from each of those players, they would...you know...send the next wave of sieges there as opposed to hunting other accounts to extinction. Then again, that wouldn't properly satisfy all outstanding grudges. |
Posted By: Glin
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 20:57
|
Are we still talking about H? I count 7 regions they are populated in- within Illy and BL. 3 of which they are heavily concentrated in. I would hardly call them beaten. But back to the original post. Offering 4 towns from one person, when the demand is 4 leaders single towns is sort of like stating have little faith in those 4 leaders to solve the war, surrender or win- isn't it? How does that old saying go? The greatest war to be fought is not outside the tent but from inside the hearts of all who reside within {or something like that}.
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2014 at 21:25
|
H? has seen their total strength diminished by some 60%. That's a pretty thorough drubbing, no matter how you slice the pie. In the process of that, they went from being a continent spanning alliance to being in a tight cluster in the southern region of the continent...yes, their cities spill over into adjacent regions, but territorially, they are now essentially a regional power. As to the second part...being outmatched some 5-6:1 at this point, there's no victory to be had. The only question that remains is...how long until the community at large gets thoroughly fed up with the ongoing dogpile and starts making noise? That process began with Arctic's original thread and grew with this one. IMO, of course. |
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 03:32
|
Velo, Why don't you just give up on this? Clearly, none of the parties involved are interested. Also, if you really wanted to be peacemaker, you should have contacted the leaders involved in private, and not start a debate here. FTR, I have done so, and was politely declined by both sides. That's ok by me. Let it lie, man...
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 03:47
|
That's uh...pretty much what I'm doing. At this point, just responding to the idle comments of others. Kinda like...this. :) |
Posted By: Velociryx
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 03:56
|
As a postscript though, I'll say that both of these threads have served their purpose, and thank you to everyone who has written me privately in support. You know who you are, and I totally understand why you didn't feel comfortable enough to post here. To my mind, that's proof positive that public sentiment about the war is changing. Whatever support the Grand Alliance enjoyed in the larger community seems to be diminishing sharply. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 05:21
|
Thank you for the dialogue, Velo. It was very helpful and, imo, useful! It's over now. So Here's to Peace!!! Cheers! |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 06:33
|
Thank you for your contributions toward peace, Velo. Although you did promise to stop calling us the Grand Alliance. Remember, it's "You Guys." |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2014 at 08:20
| Close this too Rik. |