[SOUTH] - Code of Conduct Signatories

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   ...Such a code would serve nothing but introduce lots of bureaucracy.
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 

Edited by Hora - 18 Jul 2014 at 12:09

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Hora Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839	Post Options Post Reply Quote Hora Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 12:06
	...Such a code would serve nothing but introduce lots of bureaucracy. 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 Edited by Hora - 18 Jul 2014 at 12:09

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Post Options Post Reply Quote Rill Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 09:43
	The main problem with your offer in the other thread, Velociryx, is that you are not in H? 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.

Velociryx Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45	Post Options Post Reply Quote Velociryx Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:36
	I dunno 'bout the "yet to be seen," part, Grego...seems pretty clear to me who's gonna be stepping into that role. The Grand Alliance is the new Sheriff in town. From here on, everything they do (beginning with whether they keep the boot on H?'s neck until their opponents are dead, or whether they let them up, let them live, and rebuild) is going to resonate strongly throughout the tapestry of the game. If The Grand Alliance hunts H? to extinction, that sends a message. It's open season. That's why it's incumbent on THEM, and not H? to end the war. In the other thread, I offered up everything they asked for as terms went. Everything they wanted...right there for the taking. If the offer was genuine, they'll accept. If not - I don't think it's a stretch to expect them to hunt to extinction, and then nobody's safe. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. I am writing from a hospital bed and kinda dopey just now...LOL But I don't think so. Edited by Velociryx - 18 Jul 2014 at 08:37

Grego Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 09 May 2010 Location: Klek Status: Offline Points: 729	Post Options Post Reply Quote Grego Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:29
	Some always try to play nicely and will judge every case individualy according to it's specific situation, which is hard to do with raw, mathematic set of rules. Some other can use spin or false flags, then raise crusade under Convention banner. All seen through our little history. I'm not surprised that KP tries to pocket latest idea of Illy code of conduct but is yet to be seen who will play role of feared world cop in the future.

Velociryx Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45	Post Options Post Reply Quote Velociryx Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:25
	I think ultimately it is going to be up to the clear victors of this war. Separate from the peace talks. It's their server now. We live in their shadow. They may not set the full agenda, but they absolutely set the tone and call the tune. Whatever world they choose to make, that's what's going to be. If they decide that hunting to extinction is the new normal, then that's just how it is. If they choose to open the door to such talks, that sends a very different (and much better, IMO) message. Based on actions so far...I'm finding it unlikely that they'll be all that excited about the prospect of such talks. Perhaps that will change in time, but on the basis of what we're seeing...at present, I can't say I have much faith in that. Edited by Velociryx - 18 Jul 2014 at 08:26

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Post Options Post Reply Quote Rill Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:21
	I would advocate for development of a code such as the one we're talking about, but I think that the code should be developed by a group of people -- including people not parties to this war, who may have clearer vision about things. 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. Edited by Rill - 18 Jul 2014 at 08:26

Velociryx Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45	Post Options Post Reply Quote Velociryx Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:15
	No argument from me on the balancing of interests. Clearly, such a pledge would need more than just the two highlighted points. But I don't think you'd find many (warlike or peaceful players) who would make the claim that hunting accounts to extinction becoming increasingly commonplace is, by any definition a "good thing." I would hate to see Illy become one of "those games" where as soon as the newbie protection disappears, out come the knives, which is exactly what such a stance opens the door to. Balance interests? Absolutely - but the points above should be a part of such a balance.

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Post Options Post Reply Quote Rill Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:11
	Personally I think if a code were to be created, it would make more sense to create one focused on avoiding war, rather than limiting the consequences of war if it occurs. Or at least such a code should have a balance of those interests.

Velociryx Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Location: Myrtle Beach, S Status: Offline Points: 45	Post Options Post Reply Quote Velociryx Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:07
	I appreciate your concerns, but I have to say that I do not really see how moving from a stance of pruning accounts rather than outright hunting them to extinction is any better. At all. :) I can tell you that if I were to lose three of my ten cities, I would regard that as a fairly serious consequence. grin Edited by Velociryx - 18 Jul 2014 at 08:09

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Post Options Post Reply Quote Rill Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 08:02
	I applaud your effort to encourage people to move toward peace. However the specific clause you mentioned actually benefits warlike alliances rather than peaceful alliances. I have serious reservations about agreeing to that in the absence of other important agreements. 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.