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 1314151617 23>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Halcyon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Halcyon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 20:23
Players were given opportunities to leave the war. If they chose not to do it - it was their choice and they remain enemies.
I do not see any evidence that any alliance is ashamed. They have no reason to be ashamed.

I can't comment on the permasat issue since during the war all the major fighting accounts in Dark were active players.

Your accusations btw take to task our actions, but I see no evidence of any thoughts about the morality of inaction. You chose to sit it out and do nothing - is that such a moral decision?
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: 19 Jan 2015 at 20:02
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:


Having been on the same side as Tama on the war it should come as no surprise that I agree with almost everything he posted in this thread concerning the views of many in the Grand Alliance about what brought the war. I also do not feel that our conduct in the war gives us any reason to apologize: we had what we had to do to win the war.
I would also like to hear more from the oposition - those who actually fought against us and those who chose not to join on either side, but watch from the sidelines.


Many of those who fought against your 'grand' alliance are no longer playing the game, since you destroyed most if not all of their cities. You razed/forced exodus just about every single player who was on the other team, regardless of if they were aggressive or peaceful, there is no disputing that fact.
And don't say they have the opportunity to rebuild, because very, very few people would even bother to rebuild an account that took 2+ years to create and a few days to destroy.

It is good to see that some of the alliances are ashamed of their conduct during the war, but it is clear that the majority, crowfed, are quite happy.

I wonder how the outcomes of the wars would have changed if permasits and gifted accounts were once and for all taken off the map.

P.S. Does anybody bother to read Tama's long propagnada sermons anymore? LOL
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 (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 18:56
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

I, too, am aware of those so-called 'fair demands'. Like Angrim, I am bound.*  However, the fact that GA refuses to discuss them openly even now should tell enough.
Now that this war is over and that it is being discussed in this forum, I think it's time for the victors to post the surrender terms. Certainly, what harm will it bring? The losers of the war accepted them and paid them, and there are obviously a lot of hard feelings about them already. No further harm can come from making them public, but there can be some good. 

As someone who was not in the war and not bound by any "gag order," I'm calling for a full disclosure of the Great War's surrender terms 

1) in the interest of full transparency 
2) so that the entire gaming community can get a clearer sense of the consequences of this war
3) so that we can learn from this war, which will undoubtedly inform how future wars are prosecuted.
I would personally support and even advocate for full disclosure, provided the coalition agrees to do the same for all conflicts starting with the Valar war. We could in theory open a new thread towards that end, discussing surrender terms objectively within the appropriate historical context.

Otherwise I'm afraid disclosure might be pointless, given that there would be no point of reference to validate the GA's efforts to offer "better" terms than those seen in previous wars.

It goes without saying that full disclosure should also include the many, many offers that were rejected!
"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
Halcyon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Halcyon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 17:43
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.


Having been on the same side as Tama on the war it should come as no surprise that I agree with almost everything he posted in this thread concerning the views of many in the Grand Alliance about what brought the war. I also do not feel that our conduct in the war gives us any reason to apologize: we had what we had to do to win the war.
I would also like to hear more from the oposition - those who actually fought against us and those who chose not to join on either side, but watch from the sidelines.
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: 19 Jan 2015 at 17:15
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance.
no, i do not. but if you meant "us" to mean only uCrow (or yourself, in the royal sense) then i have misread your post, which i took to include the "grand alliance" entire. you are certainly not the only former member to make this defence, and it rings hollow regardless of who says it. if it was wrong when done before (and many ex-members of Consone who later fought on your side stated quite publicly at the time that it was), it is still wrong when done again.
I obviously can't speak for the entire Grand Alliance, though I have made some general statements regarding surrender terms and such. Mainly because we tried to discuss them as a group and tailor them to be less harsh than in previous wars. Whether or not this ended up being the case in every single surrender is obviously doubtful/debatable. Nevertheless, our intent at the beginning of the war was to avoid imposing what we considered to be harsh terms. Particularly the long established practice of demanding towns be forfeited as part of each surrender.

When making statements in the plural sense I'm generally referring to uCrow, sometimes including some alliances of the GA. For example when referring to "our" growing concerns regarding NC's "adventurism" I'm obviously referring to the broader GA. I understand this may be confusing at times, so I would suggest construing any plural statements as subjective opinions.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words.
no, i have the knowledge of the facts. i do not have the ability to back up my words because of the ToS's prohibition on posting personal conversation, and because revealing what i do know is to put certain agreements in jeopardy. but i will ask this: if the "grand alliance" felt that its offers would survive scrutiny, why veil them with oaths of secrecy? you seem very proud of them in the abstract. perhaps it is you who lack specific knowledge.
I personally have no issue with making all the surrender terms public post-war. During the war however it would have been dangerous, given that the specifics varied from player to player and alliance to alliance. This could have lead to situations where players or alliances protested or even contested the terms, if they were expected to pay more than others. It would be especially dangerous if 3rd parties external to the war got involved in heated discussions regarding terms.

I'll also note that there's so much going on during a large scale war, that it's virtually impossible to entertain lengthy discussions about anything. Many of us were exhausted and stressing to the point of burnout, already 3 months into the war; so heated public debates about surrender terms would most likely have made things worse.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim.
i have never baited you. if you feel harassed in the sense from which illyriad policy ought to protect you, you should report me and we shall see what GM Rikoo will make of the situation. but if you refer to my dogged correction of your misrepresentations of facts that you forget or do not realise i know, timelines that i was involved in, plans that i was a party to, and meetings that i attended, i think we will find that all of that is entirely within the ToS. indeed, one might think with your casual attitude about facts that you intend to bait me. thanks in part to you, i have no allegiance in this other than to the truth. if you have made it your enemy, you should expect to face me as well.
What I construe as harassment is the incessant questioning of virtually everything I've said over the past year. One situation that comes to mind happened about a month ago in GC, where you were throwing jabs, while Sir Bradly and Pellinell hurled insults at me, which I can't even repeat on the forums without nuking the entire conversation. I'd frankly feel more at ease had it been clear that you've been subjecting leaders on both sides to the same kind of scrutiny. However, since this does not appear to be the case, my opinion has shifted to reflect this perception. That being said, if I ever feel the need to report you... you'll find out automatically.

Regarding "The truth", its entirely within the eye of the beholder. You can choose to ascribe to one version or the other, but the fact remains that the truth surrounding the events of the Great War, is relative to each of the different factions involved. Furthermore, if you're unaware of certain aspects, opinions or facts as perceived by alliances on the GA side of the war, it is perhaps a direct consequence of your own choices. 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 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. But to wrap up this point; I'll be honest in saying that everything I've written above, speaks to my personal opinion about your reasons for incessantly targeting my every word in public. You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation. So it appears at least to me, that you've been attacking me to build favor with (and/or audition for) other confederations.

I generally enjoy a good debate, but draw the line at deliberate personal attacks and unmerited hostility. If a civil discussion and exchange of information regarding facts isn't possible... then I'd rather we ignore/forget each other entirely, for the sake of sanity.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence.
how would you know what i suffered as a result of the war? more than you, i would guess; one must have attachment to feel loss. but that is no fit discussion for the forum, and i suggest you keep it out of it.
I'm not aware of any losses you incurred, because you haven't felt the need to express anything other than contempt towards me over the past year and a half. I honestly have no problem with your choice to side with the coalition's version of the events, and I'd very much prefer to bring this discussion to some kind of conclusion somewhere far from the forums and the public eye.

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.
"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
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 15:15
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".
...In spite of the propagandistic talking points that Consone **** somehow managed to make into a fact,
.. the Coalition/Consone war did not begin over a Trove mine.
 
That is probably why it is 'sometimes' 'accidentally' considered it as an example of a bogus reason behind a war. Tamaeon and Brandmeister were not part of consone.
 
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

 The Trove mine incident ... Those who forget should read the addenda to the RHY casus belli on the old RHY public forum.
 
That addenda is an example of half truth. An SkB mine 2 squares near their city was occupied by RHY (you?). SkB was bullied for a month by RHY(you?)(those 'mails' are missing in the addenda apparently) and then the 'addenda things' happened.
 
I have great respect for Indeva State and all other RHY players who made peace with us in a difficult situation. You-the-former-RHY-diplomat left RHY and joined NC to continue the war with us. No need to drag RHY/SkB/Absa into the current diatribe - none of these alliances took part in the last war.
 
PS:
Both the language of your post and the publicly posted addenda are examples of violations of ToS. 





Edited by Ander - 19 Jan 2015 at 15:17
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 (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 13:23
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances . . . and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction.
I'm aware that both you and Brandmeister were never members of Consone, which is all the more reason for you not to accept the "Trove War" talking points, Tam. My pejorative use is a result of the frustration that the characterization of the start of that war is built on what I believe to be a falsehood. And for as long as people continue to propagate it in the forums, I will seek to counter it.
Cheers Jejune, I can't speak for Brandmeister but I personally do not subscribe to the "Trove War" talking points. I'm aware of how that war started, and the only thing I find questionable was H? involvement... though that's a subject for a different thread Wink

That said, a little facetious humor shouldn't be too bad some 2 years after the end of that conflict. However I do understand your point of view, and appreciate that you posted a link to its respective thread. It's certainly an interesting read for newer players seeking to learn more about the geopolitical history of Elgea.

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.

I don't know if the Great War aspect of this thread can be characterized as "bickering" or not, but from an outsider's perspective, it is already certainly a partisan debate.
Touche; I just hope we can keep it civil to avoid nuking the entire discussion LOL



Edited by Tamaeon - 19 Jan 2015 at 13:23
"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
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: 19 Jan 2015 at 13:10
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Dark was not defending BANE's right not to surrender. They were trying to mediate an end to the war. There was considerable commotion, even outrage over the casus belli and a general perception that the war was unjust.

Halcyon was in fact trying to negotiate white peace as an alternative to surrender. When this failed, he tried to join BANE and eventually offered DARK as a substitute sparring partner.


Um - that's exactly what a white peace is - not surrendering.  NC offered terms to Bane, Bane refused to negotiate so Dark stepped in to try force an end without surrender.
As I recall BANE did not refuse to negotiate, they refused to surrender because they were offended by the fact that NC declared on them; even after they agreed to cave to NC's & NS's demand that they rescind sovereignty around the town of a newly spawned player.

DARK was not the only alliance that was dismayed by the absurdity of the situation, but as a member of the Coalition they were in a unique position to negotiate a reasonable end to the war, which would be acceptable to both sides.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Also, from the H? perspective Halcyon came to us with the decision already made, "NC have to do what we say or we'll join the war against them".  There was no negotiation or even discussion that I was privy to.  Our response was pretty predictable too - if you escalate against our confed we have to get involved too.
Given your explanation I can understand H?'s reaction to some degree, though I'm still somewhat puzzled by the threat of force against an ally. Would you say that H? could have shown more tact in discussing the issue with DARK?

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


You can post all the Halcyon quotes you like claiming they did X, Y, Z but I have all their discussions with us on the H? forum still available and I posted a detailed rebuttal on this forum including dates and times of Dark statements.
I've never had access to the H? forums, so I'm not privy to the details of what was discussed there. My knowledge of DARK's involvement in the discussions surrounding the NC vs. BANE war stems only from my personal conversations with them, and the information available on the politics & diplomacy forums.

You can claim to have more details/facts than are currently public knowledge, but I'm sure you understand that most of us won't simply take your word for it.

Halcyon has joined the discussion, so I'm sure the two of you can work out the details going forward.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

It's depressing that the same tired arguments are still being made in the face of the facts, backed up by the record of the actual discussions. I'll also add a quote from you in one of those threads you linked:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Also, I have to side with Twilights and Deranzin on this; live and let live should be our guiding principle. If these two parties want to got at it, and involve their friends to any end; it should be entirely up to them!
I'm glad you're quoting this, as it speaks to the zeitgeist of many in that moment in time. When I made those remarks I was already convinced of the inevitability of the Great War. My own experience as well as that of other leaders, showed that reasoning with H? regarding NC's behavior was pointless. H? had become a force that would resort to any means to defend an overly belligerent NC that was indiscriminately targeting alliances all over the server.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Next HFW:
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


You forget that members of the GA previously had access to the H? embassy, and other coalition resources. I won't name any names, but a convincing case was made that H? directors were saying the game would be quote: "better off without Hannibal Foul Wind".


I'm not forgetting anything - what I said to Hath in IGM is completely consistent with what I said to the The Duke in our embassy (as The Duke has now confirmed). Now that The Duke has confirmed - can you finally admit that you were misinformed/misled? You've already backpedalled from "This is absolute fact" to "A convincing case was made" it's not really that hard to take that final step is it?
Nope, I stand by what I said. And just as a refresher, I'll quote what The Duke said:

Originally posted by The Duke The Duke wrote:

To my knowledge the forceful extermination of the account was never said outright. 
To be clear I am not backpedaling from anything, and I want to point out that I did not say "absolute fact" but rather "confirmed fact". I'm obviously not going to get into the semantics, but there is certainly a difference. I'll concede that I should have chosen my words better, to avoid triggering a debate over fact vs. fiction.

I want to point out once more that my interest in this conversation is not to engage in endless debates over the facts or merits of the war, but rather to share some of my beliefs and information about the causes of the Great War with the broader community. Obviously I'm also very interested in learning about your side's perspective as well as the many invested players who remained neutral during the Great war.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


I don't know if the duke had any doubts about our chances to secure victory;


You don't have to be unsure - it's here in black and white in a post on this forum - why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your sweeping statements are simply not true?
The Duke has offered his thoughts on this, please read my reply to him regarding this point.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


In closing I'd like to invite constructive reflection going forward.


That's only really possible when you decide to actually post facts instead of posting opinion/slander and trying to pass them off as facts, and when your descriptions and claims are actually consistent from post to post.
In my opinion the only facts that really matter are those which are public knowledge. For example the fact that a number of alliances grouped together to form an ensemble that would later come to be known as the Grand Alliance. We rose together for different reasons, though in response to what most of us perceived as an existential threat in H? and particularly NC. This event would come to be known as the Great War, which raged on for nearly a year and caused much destruction etc etc.

What lead to the war etc is largely a matter of opinion. Many perspectives and opinions exist... and it is my opinion that these subjective accounts are and should remain at the core of this discussion. Facts may be relevant, but I don't think we should reduce this particular thread to partisan bickering about facts. Hence my invitation for "constructive reflection".

edit: improved grammar


Edited by Tamaeon - 19 Jan 2015 at 17:05
"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
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 12:38
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances . . . and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction.

I'm aware that both you and Brandmeister were never members of Consone, which is all the more reason for you not to accept the "Trove War" talking points, Tam. My pejorative use is a result of the frustration that the characterization of the start of that war is built on what I believe to be a falsehood. And for as long as people continue to propagate it in the forums, I will seek to counter it.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.

I don't know if the Great War aspect of this thread can be characterized as "bickering" or not, but from an outsider's perspective, it is already certainly a partisan debate.

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: 19 Jan 2015 at 12:27
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".

Since some here are trying to push back against propaganda, I'll do my part with the flippant little joke above. In spite of the propagandistic talking points that Consone (censored) somehow managed to make into a fact, the Coalition/Consone war did not begin over a Trove mine. The Trove mine incident was a pvp conflict between an RHY and Skeleton Boar player; RHY declared war not on SkB, but on ABSA who jumped in and attacked the RHY player as a "third man in."

I know the losers of that war like to minimize its casus belli to make their loss seem more like an atrocity, but in fact, any other alliance would have declared war under the same circumstances. In fact, Indeva showed incredible restraint. Those who forget should read the addenda to the RHY casus belli on the old RHY public forum.
Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances.

I see nothing wrong with using a little humor to help lighten up the discussion, and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction. Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.



Edited by Tamaeon - 19 Jan 2015 at 12:28
"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 1314151617 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.