| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
StJude 
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
 Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:35 |
 Anjire wrote:
Please continue and translate that into "Illyriad" mechanics as per your original request. |
Excellent! Thank you.
A little exercise if you will permit.
Let's take the following scenario and see if we can break it down. I will endeavor to leave ICON specific actions out of this, I would ask that if you see me bringing up alternate agendas that you bring them to my attention specifically and I will retract.
So, here is the scenario to illustrate the above.
Player A gets to Consulate level 9 and researches theft. After the research is complete, he is excited about his new toy.
He builds a few thieves and sends them after some inactives.
He comes away with a small amount of "Stuff"
He then decides that this is a pretty good way to get "Stuff" quickly and so goes after bigger fish.
One day, he sends a thief to test defenses and his thief is caught and the player is exposed.
Is this scenario acceptable to you?
Edited by StJude - 06 Oct 2011 at 17:35
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:40 |
|
It is a very typical scenario, so yes - acceptable.
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:45 |
Anjire wrote:
It is a very typical scenario, so yes - acceptable. |
Thank you Sir.
This is where this can get tricky. The question here is how far does the player that was "thieved" (or at least an attempt) take their reprisal before the line of Mercy is crossed?
There are multiple ways to respond.
So, I think you and I could both agree that sieging Player A to zero pop for his offense is not merciful?
Am I correct in that?
Since I have been gracious in responding to your request, would you lay out the most extreme reprisal you are willing to take in this scenario if you are the recipient of the lone thief?
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:06 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
It is a very typical scenario, so yes - acceptable. |
Thank you Sir.
This is where this can get tricky. The question here is how far does the player that was "thieved" (or at least an attempt) take their reprisal before the line of Mercy is crossed?
There are multiple ways to respond.
So, I think you and I could both agree that sieging Player A to zero pop for his offense is not merciful?
Am I correct in that?
Since I have been gracious in responding to your request, would you lay out the most extreme reprisal you are willing to take in this scenario if you are the recipient of the lone thief? |
I will agree that there are many different ways that this situation can be resolved. I believe that the extent of the resolution depends solely on the extent and manner in which the player that was caught(player A) owns up to their misdeeds.
So I will have to disagree with you on the degree to which Player B should be restrained in dealing with the situation...
I would have no problem razing Player A to the ground if said Player A, both refused to own up to the misdeed after being caught and was a complete asshat (to steal a phrase) in his/her responses.
That said, my personal response has been to send a friendly note to Player A laying out that what he/she did was considered an aggressive act and suggest that they refrain from future attempts verse active players because it can result in retaliation. I also point out how to determine if a player is inactive so that Player A can utilize thieves/diplomats verse such targets.
So, I would once again put the extent of the reprisal in the hands of the perpetrator and their willingness to own up to their actions and face the consequences.
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:11 |
Anjire wrote:
I will agree that there are many different ways that this situation can be resolved. I believe that the extent of the resolution depends solely on the extent and manner in which the player that was caught(player A) owns up to their misdeeds.
So I will have to disagree with you on the degree to which Player B should be restrained in dealing with the situation...
I would have no problem razing Player A to the ground if said Player A, both refused to own up to the misdeed after being caught and was a complete asshat (to steal a phrase) in his/her responses.
That said, my personal response has been to send a friendly note to Player A laying out that what he/she did was considered an aggressive act and suggest that they refrain from future attempts verse active players because it can result in retaliation. I also point out how to determine if a player is inactive so that Player A can utilize thieves/diplomats verse such targets.
So, I would once again put the extent of the reprisal in the hands of the perpetrator and their willingness to own up to their actions and face the consequences.
|
Then regardless of the response of the thief sender, you are essentially espousing a "No Mercy" philosophy. As I consider a siege to 0 pop "No Mercy"
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:22 |
|
hmmm after accurate thinking i decided to NOT tell you how i deal whit thieves i caught whit the fingers in the honey pot...
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:26 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
I will agree that there are many different ways that this situation can be resolved. I believe that the extent of the resolution depends solely on the extent and manner in which the player that was caught(player A) owns up to their misdeeds.
So I will have to disagree with you on the degree to which Player B should be restrained in dealing with the situation...
I would have no problem razing Player A to the ground if said Player A, both refused to own up to the misdeed after being caught and was a complete asshat (to steal a phrase) in his/her responses.
That said, my personal response has been to send a friendly note to Player A laying out that what he/she did was considered an aggressive act and suggest that they refrain from future attempts verse active players because it can result in retaliation. I also point out how to determine if a player is inactive so that Player A can utilize thieves/diplomats verse such targets.
So, I would once again put the extent of the reprisal in the hands of the perpetrator and their willingness to own up to their actions and face the consequences.
|
Then regardless of the response of the thief sender, you are essentially espousing a "No Mercy" philosophy. As I consider a siege to 0 pop "No Mercy" |
Wrong, reread what I wrote.
I am saying that the extent of "Mercy" rests entirely in the manner in which the thief sender responds.
If the response is BOTH denial and asshattery then yes, I believe razing the offending players city to 0 pop is an acceptable response. Note: BOTH
Once again, there are many different ways of dealing with such a situation. I will start out friendly and helpful to gauge what type of player/neighbor I am dealing with. The extent of my "Mercy" will vary depending on the response to my extending hand...
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:26 |
Anjire wrote:
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
I will agree that there are many different ways that this situation can be resolved. I believe that the extent of the resolution depends solely on the extent and manner in which the player that was caught(player A) owns up to their misdeeds.
So I will have to disagree with you on the degree to which Player B should be restrained in dealing with the situation...
I would have no problem razing Player A to the ground if said Player A, both refused to own up to the misdeed after being caught and was a complete asshat (to steal a phrase) in his/her responses.
That said, my personal response has been to send a friendly note to Player A laying out that what he/she did was considered an aggressive act and suggest that they refrain from future attempts verse active players because it can result in retaliation. I also point out how to determine if a player is inactive so that Player A can utilize thieves/diplomats verse such targets.
So, I would once again put the extent of the reprisal in the hands of the perpetrator and their willingness to own up to their actions and face the consequences.
|
Then regardless of the response of the thief sender, you are essentially espousing a "No Mercy" philosophy. As I consider a siege to 0 pop "No Mercy" |
Wrong, reread what I wrote.
I am saying that the extent of "Mercy" rests entirely in the manner in which the thief sender responds.
If the response is BOTH denial and asshattery then yes, I believe razing the offending players city to 0 pop is an acceptable response. Note: BOTH
Once again, there are many different ways of dealing with such a situation. I will start out friendly and helpful to gauge what type of player/neighbor I am dealing with. The extent of my "Mercy" will vary depending on the response to my extended hand...
|
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:39 |
Anjire wrote:
Wrong, reread what I wrote.
I am saying that the extent of "Mercy" rests entirely in the manner in which the thief sender responds.
If the response is BOTH denial and asshattery then yes, I believe razing the offending players city to 0 pop is an acceptable response. Note: BOTH
Once again, there are many different ways of dealing with such a situation. I will start out friendly and helpful to gauge what type of player/neighbor I am dealing with. The extent of my "Mercy" will vary depending on the response to my extending hand...
|
There is a saying: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"
My contention is this, as the player with more power, it is your (and mine if I am in the situation) responsibility to set the example.
To me, denial and asshattery of a thief attempt are not grounds for a sieging of a pop to 0.
I would escalate the disagreement differently.
However, I can see that this debate can go round and round and I am not convinced that we will reach an agreement or persuade the other.
Let me throw out a tired old cliche.
"With great power, comes great responsibilty". (I almost threw up writing that)
So, that said, as it relates to this game.
ANY, I REPEAT ANY (This is not a metagaming attempt to undermine H?) alliance that finds itself in the number one position and with supreme executive power needs to realize that how they conduct themselves, will essentially set the tone for the whole game.
I feel I have made my points sufficiently, I welcome your response Anjire, and I hope you will not take offense if I do not respond. I feel I must conclude on that note.
A good day to you!
Edited by StJude - 06 Oct 2011 at 18:43
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:53 |
StJude wrote:
ANY, I REPEAT ANY (This is not a metagaming attempt to undermine H?) alliance that finds itself in the number one position and with supreme executive power needs to realize that how they conduct themselves, will essentially set the tone for the whole game. |
Not really. If Harmless had lets say, the ideals of TMM and everyone else was all like "F that" do you really think they're going to set the tone for the game? No, they're going to sieged into the number 2 or 3 or 10 position. The community sets the tone for the game, not one alliance.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
whaever