RE Stance... |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 9> |
| Author | ||||
jtk310 
New Poster 
Joined: 05 Jun 2012 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 35 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:30 |
|||
|
Pardon me folks, I would like to post something from page one of this thread:
This thread is obviously far off topic, and since it was considered closed on the first page I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would consider this matter closed. RE will remain neutral, I think that is one thing everyone in the thread agrees with. Since this thread will be associated with my alliance, I hope you understand my desire for these outside conversations to be continued in other threads. I see the connection to Praetor Nistiner's post, so I get how the topic got where it is. I just hope you will all respect my wishes and continue the discussion elsewhere. I don't want this kind of negativity and war talk associated with RE as we try to grow.
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Tatharion
Wordsmith 
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Status: Offline Points: 139 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:28 |
|||
"Never ruin an apology with an excuse" Benjamin Franklin |
||||
|
Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:10 |
|||
I agree there are different views in this. Correcting a person where they were incorrect on facts directly related to the context of the subject of 'siege / losses' is not the same thing as a difference of opinions here. His opinion is his own and I agree. In fact, if I were to use his numbers and used all cities no longer a part of Dlord as losses since the war - then I would, without question, agree we have had 'tremendous losses' but I would state more so 'devastating losses'. However, the discussion was about cities that were sieged and thus the phrase 'tremendous losses" directly relates to those cities intentionally removed by another alliance. I agree that Tam and I can have a difference of opinion on what constitutes this phrase comeing into play, however Tath brought in losses that were not a part of the numbers being discussed by Tam nor myself. Yet these additional numbers were interposed into the figures being initially discussed and caused them to be skewed greatly. |
||||
|
||||
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 13:51 |
|||
No. It is based upon THIS war and All previous wars. We discussed your terms, and rejected them. We do thank you for discussing them. There is more to peace than loss of cities or armies, till you understand that you will be hard pressed to find ...peace.
Ego?? No, not at all. We would gladly surrender, if our surrender didn't empower our adversaries with gold and T2 resource to continue assaults against our friends and allies; AND if it didn't mean breaking our oath to friends and allies; AND if it didn't cripple us militarily to the point if attacked we can have "NO" guaranteed protection against certain alliances that would attack us trying to abuse and/or trying to take advantage of our weekness of not being allowed to build armies to 'x' amount I have tried to work with Ditto for any members that want to leave Dlord. And a few have availed themselves of this for various reasons. But the whole of the rest has chosen to stay the course. It isn't Ego that prevents us (as in the alliance as a whole) from surrendering - it is honor. Honor to our oath to defend our allies to the last town we have (we take our oaths seriously) Honor to not give our adversaries more to hurt our friends and allies we have sworn to defend. Honor in fact that we do not agree with your 'ideology' for the game and based primarily but in direct accordance with your reasons for this war.
As do i, as do most. However I do not begrudge anyone the honor for being able to take a large amount of cities. I just don't like skewed numbers.
And yet that is exactly what you will most always get if you can't find or obtain a common ground. Threat of force is part of the game and it is one of the aspects that can help in negotiations. Don't believe me... I can show you terms for peace in this war and it is funny how force is described as a means for getting what they want. I didn't join Illy to play Farmville but I also didn't join to play Evony either. My favorite part of the game is negotiations. However I have had my fair share of threats and challenges against us. And yes, prior to the Consone war Dlord was threatened a couple of times that if we didn't cow-tow to a groups demands they would bring in their friends. I told them I wasn't scared. Threats don't scare me, sieging my account doesn't scare me. They didn't do and I called their bluff. But it doesn't diminish the fact we too were threatened with force and large forces to try to force us to yield. Edited by belargyle - 23 Jan 2014 at 14:19 |
||||
|
||||
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General 
Joined: 23 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1005 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 13:18 |
|||
|
Lol... what is it with people that can not accept a difference in opinion, all this he said she said, but I think... and therefore YOU are all wrong.
Really, can't we just grow up and accept different people view things and value things in different ways. Tam like I and others consider DLords to have suffered Tremendous losses, Bela does not view things this way.... end of. |
||||
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
||||
|
||||
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 13:04 |
|||
Not full stop. You jumped into a conversation dealing with cities lost, wherein the causation was due to sieges. In keeping with said conversation I dealt with you on the premise of the original conversation. If you left that premise and continued trying to argue from another point, that is your fault. The discussion did not revolved around your opinion but what was initially discussed regarding 'tremendous losses' of Dlord, TVM, TCol - which was specifically about cities being sieged. Another point, numbers do 'speak'. The 14th and 15th of 26 definitions for speaks says: 14. to declare in writing or printing, or by any means of communication. 15. to make known, indicate, or reveal Thus yes, the numbers do speak and the message you were trying to make them convey did not (per your own statement) actually have anything to do with the discussion I engaged Tam on As for RE, I got you and Tam confused and fused the two discussion together. My apologies on that. |
||||
|
||||
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 12:45 |
|||
RIll, just go back and read what I wrote. It is very simple - people's attitude and more especially what I specifically stated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hora
Postmaster 
Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 12:40 |
|||
|
Well...
It's the task of each alliance to determine their own status in this war. Some render themselfes on the winning side, some on the downside. I'm not as far into statistics as to determine who is who... Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself. Each alliance must take this decision by themselves. An alliance leader might be in fear, that he might loose more members when surrendering than when keeping on fighting. VIC had been in a similar position during the last war. I can say we put up a decent fight and were determined not to surrender. But more and more players and allies stated, they couldn't take the constant state of alarm and the lies in the forums (from both sides) anymore, RL being far more important - and left, sometimes even the game. And this was the point, when we surrendered and paid the reparations. I dare say the consequent peace was worth the money, but that's my opinion again. If all members want to keep on fighting and are up to it, why should an alliance stop? Thus, I don't think there's any point in haggling about numbers (as any alliance seems to have their own...  ). Each alliance make their offer to the other side, and it's their choice to accept or not. And I recomend IGM for that...  .kindest regards, Hora, neutral dwarf.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1005 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 11:24 |
|||
|
I would like to make a couple of comments on here:
1 - On the actual tread subject itself. The issue that had been taken RE:RE was due to Nistiners trolling on GC and some half hearted (and possibly jovial) threats he had made there. Nistiner to my knowledge has since stopped this and I believe this post was intended to act as some declaration to that point. Perhaps it was poorly worded and was mis-understood, but really that should not be an issue. 2- On the DLord sideline (thread de-railment); Bela has made his view clear and it is 'his view', we should respect that. As I commented in my previous post in this thread, what it comes down to is a matter of personal values, whilst some consider DLord to have suffered 'tremendous loses', others do not, there is NOTHING wrong with such differences of opinion. |
||||
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
||||
|
||||
|
Tamaeon
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Dec 2011 Location: Centrum Status: Offline Points: 152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 10:46 |
|||
It looks like your concern is based more on the outcome of previous wars, than the reality that governs our side's perception and objectives in the current conflict. The idea that RE are prohibited from speaking their minds, or are under any kind of threat is false. My objection as repeatedly stated, was based on the simple fact that RE -- to their credit -- were able to accomplish peace with no losses. An option which by the way, is also available to DLord.
No offense, but by the looks of it... YOU seem to be the only person interested bringing RE back into the war.
So is this what its going to take for DLord to embrace peace? The entire alliance losing 1/4th of its (active) towns? I understand that surrender is bad for the ego, but as I mentioned above... DLord has the option to leave the war without enduring any further losses. As far as "victory metrics" go; I personally hate to limit the count exclusively to active cities razed, as it forces both sides to inflict much more damage. To clarify my statement about tremendous losses: I personally define it as a ratio; cities razed to cities lost. And finally, I want to highlight Rill's post...
I couldn't have put it better! |
||||
|
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 9> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Praetor Nistiner wrote: