RE Stance...

Hora wrote: Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself.

I don't think losing 375% of everything is actually possible.  At least there is no dishonor in losing, not even in utter destruction, if you stood and fought for what was right to the last man with earnest effort.  At least then you can walk away with your head held high and your shoulders square.  I find this far preferable to mere survival, and Harmless could have easily "survived" by actually destroying enemies instead of merely knocking them down, then picking them back up and dusting off their clothes.

Tameon wrote: I begrudge the fact that my side is being forced to raze hundreds, maybe thousands of towns before being able to end the war.

Gee, I'm sorry that the war you started isn't ending promptly to your satisfaction.  There was a time when your side had all the power in the world to stop the war.  Your only cost would have been accepting failure to achieve your objectives.  Just imagine, leaving the war without even contributing millions of resources and billions of gold toward continued destruction of your friends.

Now you have given us objectives.  We should at least return the favor of destorying every isolated, overwhelmed satellite city and account to be found, to the last fragment of existence.  Then, as battle lines are formed, perhaps we'll consider eventually stopping some point short of the total annihilation your side has so recklessly and indiscriminately sought from the start of this war.

But after watching alliances and players with whom we previously warred on a limited and reasonable scale and afterward built peaceful, positive relations join this battle purely for the profit, glory, and our utter destruction - I can't imagine why we should suffer such coexistence again.

But go ahead and offer platitudes here, while you harvest inactives (or claimed inactives), non-combatants, and whatever non-key players are handy.  It's far easier than focusing your efforts on tactical objectives designed to disrupt continued war operations, and it looks really good on paper.  It would even work if you were up against mewling, easily spooked cowards.

But tough break: you're up against us.

Edited by HonoredMule - 23 Jan 2014 at 20:15

Jeez..
this topic jas gotten so out of hand i can't even understand it anymore.
It seems to me that every topic started, no matter about what, ends up with ppl twisting words and bickering and such...

And i thought WoW was a harsh enviromnent...

Like a true WoW player all i can say is: TAKE A CHILL PILL!
(cookies and 1k beer to whoever understands the pun)..(even if they're on the other side of the war).

/me goes back to killing Paragons of the Klaxxi...or trying to..


Edited by Tyrande Whisperwinds - 23 Jan 2014 at 22:13

HonoredMule wrote:   Hora wrote:  Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself. I don't think losing 375% of everything is actually possible.  At least there is no dishonor in losing, not even in utter destruction, if you stood and fought for what was right to the last man with earnest effort.  At least then you can walk away with your head held high and your shoulders square.  I find this far preferable to mere survival, and Harmless could have easily "survived" by actually destroying enemies instead of merely knocking them down, then picking them back up and dusting off their clothes.

jtk310 wrote: Tamaeon wrote:  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  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. You are right, it certainly did evolve organically. Perhaps the conversation will help in some way to solve the problems! I think my posts are enough that if it would somehow have reflected badly, it won't now. Our neutrality is plainly stated multiple times, I apologize for my unnecessary interruption of the discussion. I just wanted to be sure that everyone knows that some of the things discussed are not really related in any way to the literal topic, "RE Stance...". (in other words, a lot of this is opinion and not our stance as an alliance).

Edited by Tamaeon - 24 Jan 2014 at 00:10