Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Great War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Great War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 23>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2015 at 03:16
Originally posted by Mona Lisa Mona Lisa wrote:

P.S.  One commonly held myth I can, without question, totally dismantle based on first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the beliefs held by many in H?, Rill played utterly no part in any of the events that formed the GA or led up to the war. In fact, Rill had gone missing from Illy in the months leading up to the war, she had already abandoned Ryelle’s account during the Consone war, and did not return to actively playing until well after hostilities began (as one of Rill’s sitters, I can swear to that fact…). 

Sorry to burst any conspiracy bubbles . . .there was, however, no shortage of other conspiracies much more entertaining . . . .



You aren't looking back far enough.  A significant part of what people think they know about H?, mostly the negatives, can be traced to Rill's long term defamation and slander campaign against us.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2015 at 02:46
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

We were indeed a tranquil alliance, despite my occasional belligerence and our involvement in the Great War. I've been reading through my inbox and have uncovered more interesting info to share with those interested. Would you have any suggestions?
erm...i suppose you could start with me. i've no idea what you're going on about.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I agree. And if you remember, I started sounding the alarms from the moment NC thought it would be "funny" to siege a HugCr town back in April of 2013.
no, i left that meeting early after it became clear that suggesting we might speak with NC about the situation was regarded by certain parties as...dare i say it...traitorous. (i did hear later that you had inserted yourself into that momentary power vacuum in HUGcr, but i don't know the details well enough to comment on them. i do think i may have made the comment that i hoped you didn't think you were entitled to do similarly on behalf of eCrow, as i thought it was quite presumptuous.)

Originally posted by Tameaon Tameaon wrote:

I'm not aware of anyone breaking confed agreements or even leaving the confederation, but maybe I missed something.
well, i have a very cordial announcement of it from Stort, iirc, and a very businesslike one from Mona Lisa someplace in the bowels of my igm. i can't recall who announced it on behalf of vCrow. uCrow needn't have done it, because we hadn't been confederated for months by that time.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I'm open to the idea that "my faction" may have mischaracterized the point of that post, if you care to enlighten me about it, I may be open to showing you a chat transcript...
you can send it if you like. i'm sorry i don't have anything to compare with it; i don't eavesdrop on my enemies, much less my allies (and if i did, i certainly wouldn't come to the forum to show it off).

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I really hope I'm not the reason you've chosen not to be confederated with vCrow and nCrow.
heh. no, but i couldn't call it a coincidence.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Crowfed has existed for over 4 years; and yet you've been the only one who's had the audacity to jump the gun and speak for all of us without consulting your fellow leaders.
wrong again, several were consulted, just not you. if you review a bit of your own gc performance from that period, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand why.
That's not what I heard.
not surprising. this may come from keeping the company of only those who agree with you. (monotonous, i should think.)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

But I can understand that you didn't consult some of us; after all, you did intend to kick us out of the confederation. I recall rather vividly your remarks...
right. well, i've asked to be released from the trust that i consider implicit in private chat so that i can respond to that as it deserves. i am not so cavalier about trust as are you. it may be that pesky truth thing, or it may be that i'm simply mired in conventional definitions for words. or it could be that i realise that a few words mined from any conversation and presented without context can make all sorts of things seem true. i begin to wonder if, when you say truth is a matter of perception, what you mean is that it can be manufactured with enough manipulation.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Not so much a secret agenda, but a clear preference for, and allegiance to the coalition.
lol. could you please say again how you are not calling me a traitor?

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Most if not all of what you tried was out in the open, whether or not you were aware of it. I'll give you that.
i think i've been more than clear about how secure i believe eCrow ac to be.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I made my peace with your dissenting opinions and commentary before the war even started. In one of the messages I wrote during the early days of the war, I sincerely apologized for being harsh at times, and explained that the war had already started, so I was no longer able to continue our long discussion over its merits, causes or the eventual consequences.
did i take it seriously? because if there's been anything established by this very long conversation is just how at peace you are about my dissenting opinions and commentary.
Back to Top
Rhino70 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rhino70 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2015 at 01:42
Originally posted by Mr Damage Mr Damage wrote:

Enjoyed Prares' and Brands' posts purely from the fact that they are simply their interpretations and not out and out mudslinging. If others would maybe stick to the same practice then we might actually at least get each combatant groups' reasons for joining the war. This would then achieve some of what the OP was intended to do.

Shad, Rhino, Mack maybe you guys could enlighten the viewers on SOON's background for joining?

Gee, thanks Mr D. Tongue I was hoping to stay out of this but it appears I can't. Since this post started I really thought that not much good could become of it and while it doesn't exactly look good, maybe it turns out okay. On that note, I am really not going to elaborate on the reasons why SOON joined in this fight. We had our reasons but I am not going to have my words picked up, chewed on and then spit back out as some ongoing conspiracy or slander. I will keep this short and simple:

-We joined in the war. (Again, we had our reasons)
-We participated in the war. (This was quite interesting and we did learn a lot from this)
-Once we felt our goals were achieved, we got out. Quietly. (We had our reasons for this too)

Best wishes to the rest that participate in this ongoing discussions. May the odds be in your favor.LOL 
Back to Top
Mona Lisa View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Mona Lisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 23:09
Memoirs of a “Banshee” (so named by a fallen foe…)

Fade in : The Consone War was raging, and a poorly timed tourney kept those of us not in the War busy with troops in a somewhat less destructive manner. I just so happened to be a Rook (Rooks are the leaders of the respective Crow Wings) in both Crow and nCrow deeply immersed in trying to keep two tournament strategies in line and out of friendly fire. 

Events outside the tourney, and the Consone War, transpired to have me call into question my role in leadership within the Crowfed.  Seeking not to stir further dissension, I resigned my Rookdoms and, as soon as the tourney ended, left the Crowfed, spent a little time as a Trout, then formed my semi retirement alliance of BLOC-Q.  I had grown weary of Illy, and expected my full departure was very near. 

Through my semi-retirement, I maintained contact (in and out of game) with people in Crow.  I kept abreast of developments in game, and was eventually convinced by a certain key player that storm clouds were brewing, and that Crow’s northern borders sorely needed a strong presence.  Harry, Cookieman and Rill had all gone inactive in nCrow, and new Rooks had come to the fore in potentially dangerous times.  In August before the war, I was convinced to return Mona and Roux to vCrow ( not initially nCrow) in order to help bolster the lines in the North. 

Certain powerblocs were beginning to take shape and that War with H?, unthinkable in the past, was not out of the question. . .  a host of reasons, shifting allegiances and past histories had conspired to alter the status quo . . .

Dlords, H?’s blood brothers, was now part of the Dominion. . . nCrow had had a long history of minor territorial squabbles with TCol in Keshalia, relations with TO had always been strained as well . . . any blow up on the Dominion front now could embroil Dlords who had historically been on very good terms with vCrow and the Crowfed in general.  If Dlords became embattled, their strong bonds with H? could then commit H? to defend their Dwarven allies.  Politics had become messy.

In the Consone war, NC had cozied themselves up closely to H? and was their reliable ally in the conflict, H? made never shied away in GC of the fact that they would stand with those who stood with them.  NC had a long history of tweaking some Crowfed noses at every opportunity, nearly coming to blows with uCrow and nCrow in the not too distant past, they were getting more and more reckless and unpredictable (from Crow view). Leaders in H? seemed amused by NC's antics, and did little to calm Crowfed's anxiety. Toss TVM’s increasing ties with N, NC and their role in the BANE war, and the long standing tension between them and nCrow further complicated the mix. Trouble with NC now meant trouble with TVM and most importantly H?, trouble with H? invoked trouble with Dlords , trouble with Dlords invoked trouble with the Dominion …  messy times indeed . . .

Further tangles could found within Crowfed itself,  many within mCrow had long and storied ties with people in H?, conflict between H? and Crowfed would cause certain strife within Crow. It was similarly known that eCrow had certain tolerances for NC that were not necessarily shared by vCrow, nCrow, uCrow, likewise the geography of eCrow and the evolution of various relationships put eCrow on very comfortable ground with alliances of the Dominion.  Alliances can indeed be very tricky affairs  (I now look back and better appreciate both of their positions) . . . .

Eventually I was moved from vCrow back to nCrow to help rally the troops and brace for what was to come ….

Sooner or later something was bound to give, nearly any altercation on any side could trigger Armageddon.  The metagame reached a fevered pitch, unlikely alliances were forged, formerly tense or outright hostile past dealings were laid to rest in the interest of a common goal, and the Grand Alliance was formed.  It is not proper for me to go into details, but it was a truly herculean feat.  I was aware of a great deal, but no doubt much occurred that I can only guess at . . .

There was little surprise when a relatively minor altercation (shades of the Trove War) blew up out of proportion into the biggest war in Illy’s history, it was inevitable at that point. The only question was where the fence sitters would lean…

Contrary to Tam’s view (no doubt accurate for him, but gauging these things is never an exact science, and likely I was privy to details that Tam was not), the final outcome was never a foregone conclusion in the early days. Any number of events could have entirely derailed the war from the GA’s viewpoint.  Could all the various alliances be kept focused and engaged?  Could internal bickering cause some alliance to flip? Would the “Neutral” alliances remain neutral, or might they suddenly throw down the gauntlet?  Could the GA shoulder the immense cost of the war?  Could coalition alliances be split out of the fold or would they all fight to the last city? 

Eventually, sheer weight of numbers did make the outcome a foregone conclusion, but it did take a good long time (although actually faster than I had guessed).  In the end, Illy is very much ruled by simple mathematics.  1 on 1 I do not doubt that H? would most likely defeat any single alliance, they are an incredibly disciplined and efficient organization. However, given the numbers arrayed against them, it was only a matter of time before attrition would take its toll. 

I have to believe that if leaders of H? were honest about the events, they would admit that the solidarity and the unity with which the GA acted had to have caught them off-guard.  I worried often that the train would come off its rails, it was never an easy task to keep the tracks well-oiled and pointed in the right direction. The real crowning achievement in the war was that so many alliances with such disparate views and objectives could be wielded effectively.  Make no mistake, the war was won in the metagame . . . and that story would be a good one . . .  ( I was but an observer, that tale is not mine to tell . . .)

Mona Lisa

Aka “Banshee of the North”

 

P.S.  One commonly held myth I can, without question, totally dismantle based on first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the beliefs held by many in H?, Rill played utterly no part in any of the events that formed the GA or led up to the war. In fact, Rill had gone missing from Illy in the months leading up to the war, she had already abandoned Ryelle’s account during the Consone war, and did not return to actively playing until well after hostilities began (as one of Rill’s sitters, I can swear to that fact…). 

Sorry to burst any conspiracy bubbles . . .there was, however, no shortage of other conspiracies much more entertaining . . . .



Edited by Mona Lisa - 22 Jan 2015 at 00:49
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: 21 Jan 2015 at 22:43
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

i'm going to give this yet another post, solely because Orin says it's helping him.
That's a good thing. For the record, I have no problem with an honest debate. There's a reason why I'm only posting on the forum, and not just writing Orin igm's giving my own accounts. That said, as mentioned in my reply to Brandmeister... we're better of agreeing to disagree on certain things.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

you use "obvious" in a way in the way i've noticed you use several other words ("peaceful", for example, a self-description from the uCrow alliance page even as you prosecuted the war). if it "can be confusing", it is not obvious. semantics, i'm sure.
Well, the uCrow alliance page does not have, nor has it ever had (to my knowledge) the word peaceful anywhere on it. Its obvious that I'm referring to the broader GA when referring to NC's adventurism, because most of us on the GA side have been repeating the same thing over and over for the past 18 months.
i am corrected; the word was "tranquil", which i think most would accept as a synonym. also "neutral", both of which gave me a chuckle when i noticed them with the war still in progress.
We were indeed a tranquil alliance, despite my occasional belligerence and our involvement in the Great War. I've been reading through my inbox and have uncovered more interesting info to share with those interested. Would you have any suggestions?

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

And what is it exactly that you know to be misleading or untrue? You've had numerous opportunities to elaborate, and yet you've simply limited your comments to allegations and vague verbal assaults.
i've been a bit busy defending myself from your defamation, actually, but if you've forgotten how we got here: you insisted that everyone was given "good" and "reasonable" terms, which is simply not the case. many were given good terms; some others were given terms so out of line with the prevailing price that i can only imagine they were motivated by spite and/or to keep them in the war. is that different from H?'s practice? probably not. but your statement is still untrue. i also heard several complaints that parties had applied for parole and were kept for days or weeks waiting for their terms (still targets), which, while possibly unavoidable given the nature of the game and the relatively small number of players entrusted with fixing the price, is still not giving everyone a way out from the beginning. (i do appreciate the break from the character assassination to pay homage to the thread topic. thanks for that.)
Regarding terms, I've already indicated that I personally have no objections to them being made public, under the condition that H? and the coalition agree to do the same for previous wars. That being said, you mentioned that "reasonable" and "good" were a matter of perception, and I already agreed with you.

Regarding parole, not sure I agree with the term... but its entirely possible that some players or alliances had to wait for an extended period for replies etc. Large wars are very chaotic and it can be very hard to keep track of everything. I remember negotiating a ceasefire with RE, and then relying on Dittobite to step in and complete a peace deal. RE had to wait for weeks, but if memory serves, the ceasefire was mostly upheld.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


so it might cut down on my reasons to object if you would take a bit of your own advice and avoid propagandist tactics and spin. (regarding "truth monopolisation," we will have to disagree. some things are true and others are not; that some facts will never come to light or are obscured by perception does not make the truth less true.) The Duke makes a fine post without sweeping generalisations and emotional language. perhaps you could use his as a model.
What would you consider to be propagandist tactics and spin? So far I've really been going out of my way to accommodate your objections by using the words "subjective", "perceived" and "in my opinion" in most of my sentences. I've even suggested that we simply agree to disagree on certain things.

Regarding "truth monopolization"; I don't subscribe to the absolutist school of "there is only one truth". In my opinion truth is a relative concept, this may be another one of those things we need to agree to disagree on.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


now what i hear you saying with regard to my most recent misconduct is:
* to take issue with anything you say is to question "virtually everything i've said over the past year" (most of which you spent not playing).
* to take issue at the same time as another player is to court their favour.
* to claim knowledge of anything is to claim knowledge of everything.
* i am the one making no sense.
i'll let the forum judge. i don't have anything to say to any of that.
I was in fact around for most of last year, otherwise my account would have been removed due to inactivity. At some point I think I was gone for 80 days, which isn't even close to most of the year. I will concede that I was relatively inactive for most of the year. Real life happens.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Angrim, no offense... but you're the last person who can speak about loyalty. Especially after you took it upon yourself to unilaterally define Crowfed, secretly plotted behind our backs to remove the Crow Chapters involved in the war from the confederation, spewed a bunch of vitriol (again) behind our backs and openly wished for our destruction by the Coalition. Make no mistake, we're all very much aware your of where your loyalties lie. Wink
really, you meant no offence by that? if that's the case, you're really terrible at this. ah, but perhaps you mean it in reverse...
All I have to say to that is... ErmmI'd use a facepalm, but we don't currently have that emoticon.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


i was quite open about the fact that i opposed the war, was up front with dittobite about it from the beginning, and was quite happy to try to talk anyone out of participation in it, including crow wings, members of the Dominion, Harmless?, dittobite, or even previously unaffiliated third parties. that i was spectacularly unsuccessful is a testament to Mona Lisa's point about the war being inevitable, and there is no doubt that at a certain point it became so, and well before i took it seriously.
I agree. And if you remember, I started sounding the alarms from the moment NC thought it would be "funny" to siege a HugCr town back in April of 2013.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


as for who left the confederation, i suppose that might be open to interpretation, but i don't recall being the one breaking any confed agreements.

I'm not aware of anyone breaking confed agreements or even leaving the confederation, but maybe I missed something.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

If memory serves, you took it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for and define the entire Crow Confederation on the forums. Your post was widely praised by H? and the Coalition, while the broader Crowfed just shook our heads in the background and observed the evolving discussion from a distance.
i did not speak for the confederation, but yes, i did attempt to define it in the wake of Kumomoto's verbal attack on its right to exist. you have so little idea of the reaction from either side that i will not pain the forum readers further with a rebuttal to yet another mischaracterisation of events.
I know more than you think.
and unless you've been in my igm, you've no idea what any of the several rooks and ravens from about the confederation said to me about it. i am aware that your faction did not see the point of it, and i think that says something about us both.
I'm open to the idea that "my faction" may have mischaracterized the point of that post, if you care to enlighten me about it, I may be open to showing you a chat transcript in which you were quite vocal about your intention to quote: "up eCrow's numbers, and get some land from Censored (insert other Crow alliance)" and also your intention to "redefine who crows really are".

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I could go on and on detailing how you've been overstepping boundaries and publicly airing dirty laundry that we'd all rather keep inside Crowfed...You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation.
right, so this isn't much of a mystery. check the eCrow diplomacy page and you'll see which crow alliances we're not confed with. (spoiler: the ones Tamaeon is in.)
I really hope I'm not the reason you've chosen not to be confederated with vCrow and nCrow.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Crowfed has existed for over 4 years; and yet you've been the only one who's had the audacity to jump the gun and speak for all of us without consulting your fellow leaders.
wrong again, several were consulted, just not you. if you review a bit of your own gc performance from that period, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand why.
That's not what I heard. But I can understand that you didn't consult some of us; after all, you did intend to kick us out of the confederation. I recall rather vividly your remarks about vCrow and uCrow breaking an unwritten rule, by deciding to join the war without a 100% consensus amongst Crowfed leadership. You made comments like "If I knew we were counting rooks, I would have made everyone in eCrow a rook." also "Crowfed is not a republic, stop trying to make it one".

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

as an aside, eCrow generally regards "audacious" as a positive trait. a cultural difference, perhaps.
No comment.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I really don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm trying to demonise them; though I've come to accept that its more of a manifestation of where your real loyalties lie.
nothing about this conversation amuses me quite so much as the idea that i might have some secret agenda. woooo.  Wink

Not so much a secret agenda, but a clear preference for, and allegiance to the coalition.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Some of the people we consider(ed) to be our friends and allies, actually conspired against us. Angrim was one of them, but thankfully dissent within his own ranks allowed us to become aware of the plot which eventually failed. The entire plot arose due his (and others) dissatisfaction with vCrow, nCrow, CalCr and uCrow's decision to pursue war against the Coalition.
i think "conspiring" properly belongs on your side of the disagreement, as everything that i did was pretty well in the open. (i was at a bit of a disadvantage, i hadn't spent months planning it.) no idea what you mean by "dissent within his own ranks". eCrow has guests of all types at all times; we do ask that members keep ac in ac, but it's not too tough to get a chat log if one is not opposed to deceit. ftr, all the dissatisfaction was with uCrow and vCrow, because neither of the other two had yet entered the war.
Most if not all of what you tried was out in the open, whether or not you were aware of it. I'll give you that.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

At this point we notified our fellow Crowfed leaders that the war was happening, reminding them that we respected anyones decision to not get involved.
mmmm, yes, i'm feeling very respected just now. 
the easy way you equate dissent with disloyalty says more than i ever could.
I want to correct something I said above, as it may misrepresent my position. We didn't contact our fellow leaders to "notify" them that the war was happening, but rather to inform them that it was about to start. It was a heads up and a reassurance, not a press release or something of the sorts.

I made my peace with your dissenting opinions and commentary before the war even started. In one of the messages I wrote during the early days of the war, I sincerely apologized for being harsh at times, and explained that the war had already started, so I was no longer able to continue our long discussion over its merits, causes or the eventual consequences. Not because I wasn't interested in what you had to say, but rather due to the time constraints. I'm sure you can understand that my time, attention and focus were needed elsewhere.

"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
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 20:12
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

For me, one of the fundamental tenets of Crow-ness is a tolerance for the beliefs of others. 


That's pretty funny given the massive and strident intolerance of alternative view points I've observed from you over your time in this game.

Also fairly amusing judging by the general intolerance vested behind the discussion between Angrim and Tamaeon. Were uCrow a truly tolerant alliance, they would not have taken umbrage with NC's playing style and would not have decided to help to organise the suppression of NC. The only truly "tolerant" alliances that are in the Crowfed by that same logic, then, are the ones who decided to remain neutral. Tamaeon accuses these alliances of being traitors. Further amusement to be had by all.


@KillerPoodle:  Disagreement is not the same as intolerance.  My main point is that the CrowFed can handle having disagreements and even heated arguments without "breaking."  When I disagree with someone, I am not shy about expressing it.  I do not attempt (other than by persuasion, and on one occasion by city placement Wink) to change the beliefs of people with whom I don't agree.


@Nokigon Then there is the question not of beliefs but of actions.  At what point does one decide that another person's actions have crossed a line into one's own virtual space and decide to take action to address that?  It's a question I struggle with.  I did not have the answer to this prior to the war, and I don't now.

I would say that is the question about which I perceived the Crows to be most divided.  I think many in the Crow Fed were concerned by some actions of NC and Harmless?  The question was what, if anything, should be done about it.  This was a question that different Crow alliances had different views on, and I respect the choices that each made.

In terms of when to act and when to remain neutral, that is also a question that different Crow alliances have decided differently during their history.  For example, mCrow was the only Crow alliance to join in the Valar war; the others decided to remain neutral.  (Keep in mind that at that point there were only 3 Crow alliances: mCrow, Crow and Calcr.)  In the most recent war, mCrow, eCrow, KCrow and HUGcr remained neutral, while vCrow, uCrow, Calcr and nCrow participated to differing degrees and against different opponents.

Differences of opinion (and sometimes conflict of personality) divide us, but we remain Crows.
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 18:23
Originally posted by Mona Lisa Mona Lisa wrote:

. . . he is a true dwarven mastermind . . .



That is one of the nicest things anybody has ever said about me.


Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

I cannot claim to have any knowledge of the internal subterfuge involved with both Epidemic and eCrow. All I can state is that if Epidemic was supplying the Coalition too, I was unaware of it- and I find this unlikely, unless it was purely to an alliance which I was not in hugely regular contact with.


I openly, and privately, supplied anybody who needed help. A wide range of players from Ditto to Sir Bradley.
Back to Top
Mona Lisa View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mona Lisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 17:40
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

...

I have received a wide variety of speculation for this reason.
  • Concern over NC's widespread aggression, which they perceived to be a threat.
  • Desire to change the balance of power, over anger due to the "Harmless domination of the server"
  • (FOR EE ONLY) Revenge for the Consone war
  • Paranoia; vCrow were the number 2 alliance, and historically number two alliances have reached a sticky end in this game. Some have argued that vCrow wanted to hit first.
  • Desire to reach the top of the rankings.
  • Boredom!
For the record, I don't actually agree with any one of the above reasons. I suspect that a combination of a couple of them were the true reason, as well as undoubtedly more that I am unaware of. 


Perhaps one of the most concise summations I have seen to date, shades of truth lie within ! Certainly the last reason should not be trivialized . . . 

I would love to see the impact the war had on the DEV's bottom line, I know people decry the point that sooo many veterans were "driven" from the game, they tend to forget that prior to the war Illy had been on a steep decline (and had been apparently forgotten about by the DEVS),  people were already leaving in droves (witness the rise of the sat account syndrome), if anything, love it or hate it, the war did breath some life back into Illy . . . 

Now, seemingly a new crop of players appear to be joining in the face of renewed attention from the DEVS and a bit of positive press, life begins anew . . . the sky did not fall, the alliances "sieged out of existance" seem to be doing quite well . . .  games ebb and flow, alliances rise and fall  . . . afterall, it is indeed only a game . . .
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 16:31
My apologies for the double post, incidentally.

I cannot claim to have any knowledge of the internal subterfuge involved with both Epidemic and eCrow. All I can state is that if Epidemic was supplying the Coalition too, I was unaware of it- and I find this unlikely, unless it was purely to an alliance which I was not in hugely regular contact with. As for eCrow- Dark Blight considers ourselves to be friends of eCrow, and have been visitors in their alliance on a couple of occasions. I do not believe that Angrim would ever "betray" the Crowfed in the way that you are suggesting, nor was I ever at any point aware of anything more harmful within the ranks of eCrow than pure disgust at what they perceived as manipulation and bullying. Ultimately, of course, we cannot know for sure, due to the ToS in this forum.

The Dominion has been accused of being a major power bloc that flexes our muscles in order to bully smaller players and alliances. I bear an unfortunate level of responsibility of this; Aurordan himself has claimed in the past that it was, in large part, my actions in declaring war on the House of Plantaganet that led him to join the Grand Alliance's crusade. I would like to stress for the umpteenth time, simply for the sake of posterity- we do NOT bully new players. As for alliances- wars of aggression undertaken by the Dominion had a very clear purpose, and were fair fights unless escalated by our opponents. But I digress. The Dominion suffered very greatly from the war, and gave us considerable reason to not undertake wars such as the DB-PLAN war again.

Despite my confederation's poor reputation within the Grand Alliance, we do not bear the responsibility for orchestrating the war. We were, at best, allies and advisers. Our role was limited to promising our support to NC and TVM, who were fighting wars against opponents who greatly outnumbered in terms of population. Later on, we were ostensibly drawn into the war due to a settlement dispute between TCol and uCrow. This dispute was because Robbrit had settled within the ten square radius of an inactive and unaffliated player called Timothy_. Later, Timothy_ became active once again, joined uCrow and demanded the removal of Robbrit's city. Robbrit was a member of BSH at the time, and referred the matter to Rorgash. Many of you may remember Rorgash; diplomacy was not his strong point, as illustrated by the nature of his in-game departure, in which he attempted to siege his former allies in TCol. He refused point-blank to remove the city, as he claimed that any cities in Mal Motsha belonging to the Black Skull Horde were not privy to the rules and regulations behind the ten square rule. Later, BSH merged with TCol, without informing Kale Weathers of this issue. The first that Kale heard of this entire issue was Tamaeon's notification to Kale that he had sent three sieges in order to remove this city. Kale, angered by Tamaeon's neglect in not discussing the issue with him previously, and also aware that war with uCrow was already looming on the horizon, warned him that these sieges would be broken.

It is, however, important to understand that the Dominion did NOT go to war over this dispute- a flimsy casus beli for both sides. Tamaeon's second siege was a feint, and uCrow declared war before the third siege ever landed (the first siege was broken). The Dominion was inevitably going to go to war with the Grand Alliance, because they were determined to achieve war against our allies.

Why did they want to go to war against Harmless and NC in particular, but also the Dominion?

I have received a wide variety of speculation for this reason.
  • Concern over NC's widespread aggression, which they perceived to be a threat.
  • Desire to change the balance of power, over anger due to the "Harmless domination of the server"
  • (FOR EE ONLY) Revenge for the Consone war
  • Paranoia; vCrow were the number 2 alliance, and historically number two alliances have reached a sticky end in this game. Some have argued that vCrow wanted to hit first.
  • Desire to reach the top of the rankings.
  • Boredom!
For the record, I don't actually agree with any one of the above reasons. I suspect that a combination of a couple of them were the true reason, as well as undoubtedly more that I am unaware of. 

Now- every one of these goals, minus boredom (an ever present problem), have been achieved. The Grand Alliance has achieved what they set out to do. Now I ask them this- if you have achieved such global domination, then why should these terms being revealed be of any concern whatsoever to you?
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2015 at 15:18
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

For me, one of the fundamental tenets of Crow-ness is a tolerance for the beliefs of others. 


That's pretty funny given the massive and strident intolerance of alternative view points I've observed from you over your time in this game.

Also fairly amusing judging by the general intolerance vested behind the discussion between Angrim and Tamaeon. Were uCrow a truly tolerant alliance, they would not have taken umbrage with NC's playing style and would not have decided to help to organise the suppression of NC. The only truly "tolerant" alliances that are in the Crowfed by that same logic, then, are the ones who decided to remain neutral. Tamaeon accuses these alliances of being traitors. Further amusement to be had by all.

Originally posted by GM Rikoo GM Rikoo wrote:


Again, I am fine with these discussions... in fact I love them. BUT, we cannot allow any posting of private conversations. (I only say this when words like "reveal" are used.) 

Why?

Because people alter them.

Also, they are kept private for a reason. If they were not, they would not be private.

Anyway, if someone wants to post some long list that came across during the war, cool, but let's just say this: if it comes in the form of IGM or PM on the forums, etc, it -- and the post it is in -- will come down and the thread will be closed. 

If posts of screenshots and copied/pasted IGMs or "chatzys" or "Facebook posts" want to be shared, fine, but not on this forum. Sorry. :)

(Not saying you offered that, Noki... just saying.)

GM Rikoo


So, if I am to understand this correctly, were I to simply state the terms (eg. DB had to pay X, Y and Z) without copying it straight from an IGM (which was actually what I was originally suggesting) then that would not violate the ToS?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 23>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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