TIVIUM and EAGLES

EDIT: This is in reply to EF's post, not Ryelle's. Her post is just silly.

Who would or wouldn't follow me is up for debate. The ones big enough to make a difference, have their heads in the right place. You know who they are. Your allies turned their backs. You seem to understand that my allies clearly did not do that.

I guess my attempt to seek counsel, my trying to make sense of the turmoil brought down on our heads by Capt. Bligh would look like mutiny to said Capt.

In your fevered mind, I somehow led and successfully carried out a massive conspiracy between myself, Shade and The Night Confed. You give me too much credit. I didn't pressure anyone, except for you and that didn't work out, now did it?

And now for a message from your sponsors: "From what I've been able to decipher you seem to deny responsibility for the attacks, that such attacks are not calling for return attacks by EE?"

That quote comes directly after this quote: "True. Have never denied it."

I think that pretty much illustrates my point.


Edited by abstractdream - 21 Jan 2013 at 22:49

abstractdream wrote: ES2 wrote: abstractdream wrote:   We didn't leave to avoid hostilities, we left to avoided certain death (or as you put it, because we didn't like how it was handled.) Have you seen the size of Shade? Our former leader did not seem to care about us, so we left. While this thread has been amusing to be read through for some time, I'll step in right here.  A word of note to all, delivering propaganda was one of the first things you learned in TLR for leadership purposes, using it to defend the executive branch whenever possible and blame some other party IE "Fromfrak's crusade on Gemleys mine". Everything I know I learned from you...lol ES2 wrote: So in actuality, the war with Duke would never have been avoided, This fellow right here kept pressuring me to declare war on druids "This will be TLR's way to advance itself in the community", Bonfyr bypassed my military functions by telling my military squad leaders to inform him and not the military leader on their  todo's, Bypass, right. Just so everyone knows...at that time and for months preceding these events I was a sitter on EF, as he admits below...Why bother with all the subterfuge when I could take TLR away from it's glorious leader whenever I pleased? Because no one would followed a usurper with that tactic, you had to illustrate that you did everything possible but TLR was led by an erratic soul and you had to take action to preserve the work put in, why even our allies turned their backs... ES2 wrote: he was in contact with Nightbringers themselves debating on a coup on TLR ( we had sitting rights on each other and the others alts). I did indeed ask for council from my friend. No surprise, right? To me, TLR was family and I did not want to loose her. Looking back, I should have logged onto EF, had him quit TLR (many, many opportunities to do just that) and be done with it but I didn't. My mistake. And just as I had the opportunity to log onto your account and see your detailed messages planning a coup, I believe you and your lovely associates deemed me mentally unstable to lead an alliance.  ES2 wrote: Sure enough a NC player wipes TLR sieges on shade, Quite true. That NC member had a personal vendetta. Guess who that vendetta was against. You only get one guess. What a great moment for that vendetta, you pressure TLR members to actively fight Druids, Shade threatens war unless TLR backs off, TLR/Shade war and bam suddenly NC player wipes TLR sieges on a shade player. Pretty nice timing for that vendetta.  ES2 wrote: N refuses to help the ex ally TLR and the glorious messiah Bonfyr and his disciples escape through the red sea of digital blood to the promised land in Trivum all the while promising all TLR members at that time that I would send chariots after them in revenge. That, or rage quit. I must admit, your continued presence in Illy (in the EF account) surprised me. Well it reminded me of my old friend in illyriad by the name of Squill who was in a similiar situation. He left for a vacation and his executive members took over and left him nothing. Squilly was sad and quit but I looked on as a way to continue teaching the bountiful history of illy that I've acquired by staying in the game. So many vets have left, I'm sure you can understand why some stay.  ES2 wrote: I'm sure that will be dissected fully, but thats more or less the case. TVM meant to continue hostilities that originated in TLR. True. Have never denied it. From what I've been able to decipher you seem to deny responsibility for the attacks, that such attacks are not calling for return attacks by EE? ie "siege breaking is a tradition" Why is it so hard for so many players in a game which is focused on confrontation (military and otherwise) to understand that war is why we are here?

deorasandeep wrote: abstractdream wrote: Without declaring war on us you attacked our siege on a VALAR city, one of your Confederates. In my opinion, doing that without a declaration was fine. Siege breaking is a time honored tradition here in Illyriad. It was annoying to loose thirty thousand plus troops AFTER the city fell but we don't feel ONLY attacking armies in the field is an act of war. Guess we were wrong. without declaring a war you went to sieze a valar city and expect others to declare war first  Just wanted to know why sieze a VALAR  city in  between war   under what circumstances did you think that fit.  and the after that you deemed fit to declare war on VALAR

No. We declared war on VALAR before the siege.

You are another of the uninformed, seeing what you wish, asking no real questions, judging from afar. If you don't care to look at the whole picture, you are blind to the truth.

abstractdream wrote:   We didn't leave to avoid hostilities, we left to avoided certain death (or as you put it, because we didn't like how it was handled.) Have you seen the size of Shade? Our former leader did not seem to care about us, so we left.

Sajreth wrote: So basically in six pages I get this.... the thread started as a war declaration from one alliance whos confed was being militarily harassed by another alliance.

Well, no. Not according to Hathaldir's original post. In his original post he stated the reason was that we attacked their siege. Later he added the Confed loyalty stuff. Later.

Sajreth wrote: in defense I see the following paraphrased of course: "We were in an alliance that was at war, didn't like how it was handled and quit to start up an alliance to avoid hostilities"

We didn't leave to avoid hostilities, we left to avoided certain death (or as you put it, because we didn't like how it was handled.) Have you seen the size of Shade? Our former leader did not seem to care about us, so we left.

Sajreth wrote: "We do not deny being militarily involved in hostilities against an alliance that is confed with the alliance that declared war"

Right. Not denying it now. Never have denied it. Thanks for understanding.

Sajreth wrote: "We feel that we could attack one individual member of an alliance, but since we did not intend to attack other members, we would expect a well established alliance to turn a blind eye on our actions"

Actually, no. I expected Druids to do much more than they did. They did enough, though. We couldn't get the job done on our own. However, they never did declare war against us. Go figure.

Sajreth wrote: What I get out of this as a whole is it's quite a miracle it took this long for someone to declare!

I agree. Based on Hathaldir's statements they should have done so as soon as TVM was founded. We were attacking their Confederate then. It's just that they did not have a vested interest in our actions at the time, whatever that interest is. I can think of no other reason, as all the criteria existing over the last few days existed then.