All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance

Maybe if a sensible proposition was put forward by the other side then an agreement could be met.

Caco.. I think the accounts being destroyed down to respawn in this war has cause way too much damage.  

I honestly do not see an end in sight since the leaders of Team B allowed active players of this game that are not power players to be handled in the way they are.  

It sad but it is the way of Illy now constant war all the time turning it into the games many of us have tried to escape.  The hate , the revenge... it is destroy the other players not try to work through anything.  

I hear both sides saying they want the same thing but no way to meet in the middle cause others cry revenge. 

 If you look through the posts many of the same people say the same hateful things and hold on to the hate.  Even when other realize the mistakes of things done in the past the hate filled people cant let go or even try to move on.

To the ones full of hate on BOTH sides.. this is the reason Illy is changing this is the reason it if full of war so often now.  This is why this war is so nasty this time around.  This time it is not who has better strategies or timing it is all about who can you destroy.

Shame on all ya all.  Seriously I have really become ashamed on the behavior all around. Yes it a game but that is the point it a game why are you so full of hate.  The alliances that are fighting for the most part the bigger members have been around for years and years... but now you are trying to drive the same players away the ones that have supported this game from the beginning.  

Sometimes i feel like i have a bunch of 4 year olds running around think about the behaviors of the most vocal and look at a group of 4 year olds you be surprised on how much they sound the same.

Time to grow up think of the greater good ( illy) not the little alliances.

I agree with much of your post and it is clear that you feel passionately about it. I also think that a lot of other players feel equally passionatly about the game and the 'hate' that you talk about is that same passion coming through in other players.

The question is really how do we set aside that emotion and let cool heads come to some arrangement so that we can continue the game.

What I would say is that any loss is hard to stomach when you've worked so hard and for so long. I think that whilst the coalition thought that their terms were reasonable at the end on the Consone war, they made some very broad sweeping demands.

I had to lose two cities as reparations (to be fair to H? they allowed me to give one to a former opponent and the other to a player in my training alliance) However, the loss of those two cities cost me 60K in population. Their replacement cities are 316 and 318 days old as of right now and they are still yet to reach their former "glory"

So does that compare to someone going from 3 or 4 cities down to a respawned hamlet? I'm not sure, but nearly a year to recover (including a fair amount of prestige building) is a lot to accept.

I will also say that it was me that orchestrated the recent removal of TVM from Ursor. Having noticed that the bulk of TVM had relocated away from Ursor I made the decision that anything that was left up North was either abandoned as in the case of Nalleen and another player or simply inactive. There were two reasons for doing this. The first was to try and provide a wake up call to TVM to withdraw from the war and the second (a point I want to come back to) was to free up settlement space.

If I have reduced an active player to respawn status then I not only wish to apologise but wish to make it quite clear that I will happily provide substantial resources to help that player recover, because you are quite right that the last thing this game needs is to force players out.

I guess the point of this ramble is two-fold. One, that I have been honest about my actions and hope that others can be as well and put aside all the propaganda. And secondly that both sides are capable of decency - H? (in regards to the allocation of my towns) in the last war and our side as well. When I was informed by TVM that Barash was still active but for personal reasons unable to play I not only withdrew my sieges from his towns and those of his alt but strongly asked that my alliance respect his towns as well. These are two examples that I have a personal connection to, I am sure that there are many more.

I am also not so naive as to think that there aren't far more incidents of unpleasant behaviour than positive given the current climate. But if we cling on to those negatives then we might as well just pack the game in and play Evony.

Finally to come back to the issue of land clearance. As a community we have been bemoaning the lack of space for new players to settle in to and that ALL alliances keep hold of inactive and abandoned accounts for no real purpose other than to bolster their size and importance in the rankings and to retain fictional land they believe belongs to them.

I would strongly advocate that as part of any peace accord BOTH sides of the conflict agree to get rid of these inactive or abandoned accounts so that we can let smaller players flourish.

These are just my thoughts and sentiments. I do not speak for anyone else.

Caco

My personal experiences in that war such as losing cities and a 100K drop in population due to the forced exoduses truthfully didn't bother me nearly as much as the threats and insulting IGM's I received. And in all fairness, during the war these did not come from H?, but from their allies. I was perfectly happy to go the route our opponents seem to want, and lose every city I had, as long as doing so cost an even minimal loss and continued effort on the part of our opponents. Cooler heads prevailed and we accepted terms, for better or worse.

Like Elmindra, I have no hesitancy about continuing to raze cities of an alliance we are at war with until they surrender. I have said all of this with the idea that it may highlight a point that others have mentioned regarding the issue of terms. Here I speak solely for myself and not as a representative of EE or our allies. I think any notion of a unilateral or even mutual ceasefire is naive, especially at this stage and scale of events. Reparation payments have been and should be a part of any surrender. Personally, I don't care if in ending a conflict it's called a surrender, or think that any public declarations are needed beyond what can be observed by a change in status on the diplomacy page. I do think that the continued practice of demands for loss of cities as part of terms in concluding a war is something we could and should do without. This is one of if not the major causes of resentment and desire to even the scales at some future point that drives new conflicts. War itself is punitive, that is the time to capture or raze cities, not after.

I would actually like to see a thread that discussed the whole issue of terms, not solely in this instance, but in future conflicts as well, One that came with no new rehashing of past or current events, except to the extent that specific instances or examples were presented solely as factual backgrounds to the discussion, minus any sort of judgement. 

Apologies for the length...