Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - RE Stance...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

RE Stance...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 9>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote belargyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 12:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps I merely misunderstand you.  Can you clarify for me what exactly is one of the reasons surrender is not an option for some people?  Personally I'd be interested in hearing all of the reasons, but you seemed to allude to one specifically and I apparently don't properly understand what that reason is.

So, can you explain that reason, or by preference as many of the reasons as you're willing to share?

Perhaps that discussion should go in a different thread, since it seems that we've strayed from the original topic.
RIll, just go back and read what I wrote. 
It is very simple - people's attitude and more especially what I specifically stated.
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote belargyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 13:04
Originally posted by Tatharion Tatharion wrote:

In thy kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king...

PS: I am not sure I know what you are talking about with RE? As far as VIC's leadership knows, we haven't had any recent issues with RE. This is a serious matter to me. In what way precisely did VIC wronged RE?

PPS: I am a proud elf and I stick by my statement.

PPPS: Last I checked, numbers don't 'speak'. You seem to confuse the realm of numbers with the one of spinners. 

PPPPS: I think I understand why we can't see it eye-to-eye. As far I am concerned, and this is the only element I consider:  a city is 'lost' when .... it's no longer in the alliance's count!!.... full stop! I have never pretended to venture in the murky marshes of trying to understand for what reason (sieges, being kicked, going for a vacation trip in another alliance, moonlighting,...) a city is 'lost'. 

Best,
Tath
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.
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Darkwords Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote belargyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 13:51
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

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. 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.

Quote 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.
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.

Quote To clarify my statement about tremendous losses: I personally define it as a ratio; cities razed to cities lost.
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.


Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I respect Bela for speaking his mind.  I do think he underestimates many people in Illy on BOTH sides who do not respond to disagreement with threats of force or use of force. 
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
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote belargyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:10
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

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.
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.
Back to Top
Tatharion View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 139 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tatharion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:28
Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

Originally posted by Tatharion Tatharion wrote:

In thy kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king...

PS: I am not sure I know what you are talking about with RE? As far as VIC's leadership knows, we haven't had any recent issues with RE. This is a serious matter to me. In what way precisely did VIC wronged RE?

PPS: I am a proud elf and I stick by my statement.

PPPS: Last I checked, numbers don't 'speak'. You seem to confuse the realm of numbers with the one of spinners. 

PPPPS: I think I understand why we can't see it eye-to-eye. As far I am concerned, and this is the only element I consider:  a city is 'lost' when .... it's no longer in the alliance's count!!.... full stop! I have never pretended to venture in the murky marshes of trying to understand for what reason (sieges, being kicked, going for a vacation trip in another alliance, moonlighting,...) a city is 'lost'. 

Best,
Tath
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.
 

"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.
Back to Top
jtk310 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 35 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jtk310 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 14:30
Pardon me folks, I would like to post something from page one of this thread:

Originally posted by Praetor Nistiner Praetor Nistiner wrote:

I will Consider These  Topic closed as it had the  other effect i didnt want it to have.

Hope everyone has  a  good day.

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.
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 17:30
Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

 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. 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.


We'll have to agree to disagree on the similarities between this war and previous wars. However I thank you for clarifying some points, in particular your reasons for fighting.

Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

 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 weakness of not being allowed to build armies to 'x' amount 

If honor is your motivation for continuing the fight, then the reason(s) stated above is moot. Don't get me wrong; I just think that any disagreement over the proposed terms could have been resolved through negotiation. That said, we should refrain from public discussion of the subject...

Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

 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.

I can definitely respect honor as a reason for fighting; thank you for clarifying this.

Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

To clarify my statement about tremendous losses: I personally define it as a ratio; cities razed to cities lost.

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.

I begrudge the fact that my side is being forced to raze hundreds, maybe thousands of towns before being able to end the war. While (some) people on your side remain more than eager to blame all the destruction on us. Its exactly the spin, (public) mischaracterization of terms, posturing and name calling which prevent both sides from engaging in meaningful dialog.

(btw, the above is especially directed at Praetor Nistiner...)

We obviously have differences of opinion, which are heavily founded in cynicism and even resentment towards each other in certain cases. But if any side is truly interested in peace, we can't be labelling each other and playing blame games. The fact remains that we're at war, and our side for one begrudges all the destruction, and especially the "price" which is being set for victory.

Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I respect Bela for speaking his mind.  I do think he underestimates many people in Illy on BOTH sides who do not respond to disagreement with threats of force or use of force. 

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.

It seems that we will remain at an impasse for now. I do thank you for taking the time to explain your position, and wish you well in the coming battles. Perhaps both sides should try to make an honest effort to understand the other's reasons for continuing the war. Maybe then we'll be able to find an acceptable route towards lasting peace.


PS: I just want to add that Pellinell's comment isn't exactly constructive...
Originally posted by Pellinell Pellinell wrote:

Surrendering to bullies only ensures you will be bullied again.
Kinda hard to have an honest conversation; while people drop by to throw jabs, only to run away afterwards! Wink
"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."
Back to Top
Praetor Nistiner View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 49 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetor Nistiner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 17:39
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

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.
I Shared my  opinion not trolling-I Remember Artic Said everyone is  equal and everyone losses should be the same and i said then shade should loose  cities in that case it was not a threat just  a simple  responce to he`s comment i didnt involve RE in ANYWAY-Then Lego said does RE want to fight shade and me says no :)  i dont think thats trolling  for a long time Shade and RE  resolved disputres  quickly and efficiently so dont know why u call me a  troll?
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 17:48
Originally posted by jtk310 jtk310 wrote:

Pardon me folks, I would like to post something from page one of this thread:

Originally posted by Praetor Nistiner Praetor Nistiner wrote:

I will Consider These  Topic closed as it had the  other effect i didnt want it to have.

Hope everyone has  a  good day.

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.

I have to disagree jtk. The conversation has evolved organically from Nistiner's original post (which contained subjective opinions, and even characterizations of "the confederation"); to which I replied, and he subsequently replied back to. I'm sure Nistiner originally meant to post a simple statement, but he ended up turning it into a conversation LOL
 
Originally posted by jtk310 jtk310 wrote:

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.

This thread has already been moved from recruitment into politics and diplomacy. And honestly; I don't think this will reflect badly on RE, unless maybe... if someone nukes it by invoking/breaking Godwin's law. If anything, this post has had the positive effect of bringing people from both sides (and even "neutrals") together for an honest heart to heart.



Edited by Tamaeon - 23 Jan 2014 at 18:12
"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."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.