Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - An Open letter to H? rank and file
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

An Open letter to H? rank and file
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 3.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Vanerin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanerin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 04:24
Dantem,

Thank you for the well thought out post. (And for speaking on behalf of Chocolate!)

The only problem I see with your suggestion is that it appears that H? is not willing to do anything that involves a surrender (H? please correct me if I am wrong.) And it also appears that the DTCNBVVE-Alliance is not willing to do anything that does *not* involve a surrender (DTCNBVVE please correct me if I am wrong.)

I am afraid that no amount of negotiation could reconcile that difference.

If it is just an issue of H? not being able to afford terms, I would be more than willing to help with gold. (As a gift, not a loan)


IMO, the best possible path to peace is Hora's option 3. The  DTCNBVVE could say "These are our terms if you agree to them and *these* are our terms if you don't agree." Perhaps a sliding scale could be built into the "don't agree" option so that any additional attacks from H? will incrementally  raise the conditions.

This could give  DTCNBVVE the definitive  victory a surrender would bring, while H? does not need to agree to surrender terms, and there would be a definite point at which the war would end regardless of how it was reached.

But  DTCNBVVE would need to make the first move on that.

~Vanerin

Back to Top
RatuJone View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RatuJone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 05:42
Originally posted by dantem dantem wrote:

I joined this game sometime in in April/May and I am not aware of much of the history except for the posts in the forums, which are very contradicting if you read through them, so I am still not sure on the reasons for the war. The impression i got from GC and others was the H? is some kind of evil alliance who were taking over the game and had to be put down. I don't remember who said what, but that was the impression given.


That is the impression certain people in  WLTWPO have been bandying around in GC ever since I came to Illy in 2011. Glad to see you decided that opinion is coloured. :)
I'm pretty Harmless, really :)
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SunStorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 06:18
Geofrey and Dantem:  Wonderfully thought out and articulated posts.  Thank you.

Although I have no stake in this fight, I sadly cannot refrain from voicing my own opinions on matters such as these.  So scroll down if you only want to read H? or GA posts.  :P  My feelings won't be hurt.

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

. . . dignity, freedom, and honor. They are social concepts that only exist in a social settings. Part of those concepts are that you exclude certain people from your ideals. As in you are honorable because other people are not, etc.
Though there is something (and I'm not quite sure what) that makes me believe things are not this black and white, I will accept this premise as true and would be interested in how this might apply to the GA?  They also uphold their dignity, freedom, and honor.  They believe themselves to be more honorable than Harmless, and to prove this point, they will siege Harmless out of the game.  This kinda reminds me of a fable about a girl named Snow White and a stepmother who needed to prove she was the most beautiful...  Please don't misunderstand, because this leads me into the next points I would like to make.

Originally posted by dantem dantem wrote:

. . . I am not aware of much of the history except for the posts in the forums, which are very contradicting if you read through them . . .
Sadly, this will always be the case.  Such is the nature of forum.  However, it takes time and understanding to see things through the lens of others.  Many never attempt to take these steps, so I am pleased to see Geofrey take a step towards opening up more civilized communication (yes, I just used a hierarchical social term...sorry).

Originally posted by dantem dantem wrote:

I would say mistakes have been made on both sides and now there is not going to be an end to this war till H? is destroyed, which I think is sad.
This is where I blatantly disagree with what has been going around in the forums and in GC.  This is the black/white mentality that has been thrown around lately; whitewashed with words such as honor, noble, righteous, just, etc.  People have fallen into believing that either H? surrenders, or they are wiped out.  In reality, there are other options.  Options of declaring the limit of the destruction that will ensue (e.g. they will continue until each leader's accounts have been dropped by 20% of their total population at the start of the war...or something else along those lines).  Options that Hath and the GA have not bothered to present. 

With the ridiculous ultimatum in mind, H? is stuck between holding onto their dignity and pride as a truly great alliance (and there are few in here that would/could argue - even in spite of their shortcomings - against H? stature among the great alliances), or fighting for their lives against the mob that has formed who, by name alone, call themselves "The Grand Alliance."  A truly grand alliance (e.g. how Harmless has dealt with enemies in past wars) would never advocate such an ultimatum!  I have been friendly with Hath in the past and I wish him no ill, but if I still had my cities and troops, I would die alongside Harmless with such an ultimatum on the table. 

Now, the only person who can truly do anything about this situation is Hath and the GA.  Can they prove how grand they truly are.  A grandness that establishes limits and doesn't seek the utter annihilation of other players?  I would expect nothing less from a truly Grand Alliance.

(for the sake of old times, I will make my usual disclaimer that these views and opinions are my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of Harmless)
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 09:05
Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

I apologize, I hit post instead of preview and had to go back and edit some stuff that cleans up a bit of the points you posted. (but I did it before you commented!)


Sometimes it pays to be fast Tongue

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

It is an interesting method of commenting, but does lend itself to anger issues.


Only if you nit-pick everything looking for insults, real or imaginary ...

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


I do want to take a second to talk about dignity, freedom, and honor. They are social concepts that only exist in a social settings. Part of those concepts are that you exclude certain people from your ideals. As in you are honorable because other people are not, etc.

To say you dont care about your reputation, only about doing the honorable thing, or maintaining your dignity, you are really saying you want to be the most dignified person in the community. Which is a reputation.  You said english is not your first language, so that may be why this does not translate well.  It is a difficult concept to understand. 

A person can not be honorable by themselves, just like they can't be tall. They can only be more tall than some, and less tall than others. It is a social hierarchy thing.



Them being social concepts does not mean that they are attributes that one gains via the recognition and acceptance of others or your reputation.

You can be honorable and have no such reputation. (e.g. making a secret donation to an orphanage)
You can be dignified and have no such reputation. (e.g. your behavior at your home)
You can have freedom and have no such reputation. (e.g. being able to live in a lifestyle you like)

Just because something exists only within a social setting because that attribute is tested there, does not de facto mean that such a thing is about your social reputation of it.

In this sense "doing the honorable thing, or maintaining your dignity" has nothing to do with any goals of being "the most dignified person in the community".

You see all those social attributes as a "contest" or a comparison between members of society ... alas they are not. There are many things that exist within society and cannot exist outside it. For example money.  If you have quite a lot of them, that fact does not change with or without a reputation for being rich. Outside of society money are indeed worthless and their worth is set by the existence of society ... but you having money is not the same as having a reputation for possessing it.

Same thing with honor, dignity and all the other intangible values ... the only difference is that unlike money they are much harder to quantify and prove to be in your possession ...  Wink

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


And to say they do not need to be validated by a 3rd person is completely false. Your entire concept of dignity, for example, is based on other people that you have looked up to (real or fictional). You want to be just as dignified as that person, or more dignified than your father, etc. (examples).


That is how you understanding of those concepts ... allow me to have quite a different one ... I measure dignity not by the opinions of others, but whether or not I can sleep at night feeling that I did the right things ...

In front of the mirror or in the darkness of the night, alone. Only there you know if you did the dignified/honorable/whatever thing ... Of course what you did was with interaction with other human beings within the concept of society, else those words lose meaning, but the social perception of your actions and whether you gained a good reputation by them are immaterial in front of the judgement of self-reflection.

edit:
I just remembered that Plato's Republic at some point takes up the very serious issue of being honorable/honost, but actually having the social reputation of being dishonest .!. if you can find it, do read it. Very interesting.
/edit

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


On a similar note, it is apparent you take great joy in your comments. You are very good at them. I do believe you are under the assumption that you come across as the superior debater when you comment.


Your belief is in error in that regard ... I indeed relish in forum posts, but not because I am good at it or, as you accused me earlier, by some "childish" effort to "win" ... everyone "wins" in a good dialogue. The process of thinking, replying, communicating and learning new ways of seeing things is the victory of any dialogue ... whether your arguments proved to be good or more accurate than the arguments of others is imho beside the point. If someone else had better arguments, then good for you ... you learned something new ... if not, then also good ... you helped someone else learn something new.


Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


 And in many regards this is true. But there are several players who just see all of the stuff me and you are typing as a waste of time.


Well, I can't blame them ... LOL

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

And even more that see it as a reason NOT to play the game.


So the forum posts of others is something that prevents of playing the game .?. Sorry, but I do not see why we should all "shut up" or "self-censor" ourselves just for invisible other people to feel better .?.

As long as someone sticks with the forum rules, even 21 pages long posts are fair game LOL


Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

I think this is summed up best by you admitting to taking joy at getting me to come off that high horse of bettering the game, as you mentioned.


I actually said "high horse" period. That " of bettering the game" is your own addition ...

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


If i am to understand the jest of your accusations, you are very upset that people were wrong about you being a sat account, but would not apologize publicly.  I don't know the reason for this, but maybe they cared about some intangible concept too much to apologize. And to insult them for having that opinion would make you a hypocrite . And as you pointed out at my earlier statements, no one likes a hypocrite.


First of all I didn't insult them for having an opinion. I called them out for lying and said that I have no respect for them since they never even apologized or rectified their mistake. Pure facts, no insult.

Second point is, I am not upset by people lying or spreading rumors (inaccurate or uncertain things which they perceive as correct/true at the time), such things are reasonable ... I am midly annoyed that those very same people later on pretended to be "all goody goody" and "smiley smiley" and "hey if what we claimed was untrue, so what .?." ... I find such behaviors not within my taste and I have always made that perfectly clear in every way possible ...

Third point is a question : " maybe they cared about some intangible concept too much to apologize" you say ... but what kind of concept could that be .?. Tongue

Originally posted by dantem dantem wrote:



I know this can turn into another conversation where everyone blames each other, so I propose that you find a player/alliance who has not been too long in this game, and who you all know will be neutral and only terms are discussed. This will keep things from turning into a war of words like it has in the forums.
 


This cannot work, even though it is a good idea ... there has been many people that "used" to play the game and returned posing as "newbies" ... it is quite easy actually to duplicate the effect.


Edited by Deranzin - 01 Jul 2014 at 09:09



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
nvp33 View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 124 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote nvp33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 11:22
Dantems idea isn't bad, and it isn't without precedence in the real world.

After the US civil war, the US wanted reparations from the UK government for allowing confederate raiders and privateer ships to be built in the UK, most famously the CSS Alabama.
Initially the UK denied any involvement, knoweledge or responsabillity and it seemed that the US's claim and the UK's denial was "more of the same" in international relations at the time. But by then there had been a couple of cases of international cooperation and mediation in other parts of the world.
Thus it was agrred upon by the UK and US that a neutral comission be set up and hear the evidence and come with a verdict, including damages. Both parties agreed in advance to abide by the commissions ruling.
This commission was also the start of the first official and international maritime law.

The commission ruled in favour of the US, but reduced the amount of damages the UK should pay. The UK and US abided by the ruling, and their relations became better and closer instead of more strained.
It was one of the first examples of "great powers" settling their disputes based on international commisions and rulings, instead of via force or the threat of force, or just scaling up hostilities or "cold war" activities.

Something similar could be applied in this situation:
The disputing parties each appoint two non-alliance/allied persons to participate in a settlement hearing, and both parties aggree on a "chairman" who can only cast a vote in case of a tie.
The commission gets a deadline for comming with a resolution, and the commission sets its own deadline for recieving evidence, and both the disputing parties aggrees publicly to adhere to the commissions findings in advance.

Not only would this be able to stop hostilities immediately, it would allow everyone to be heard, it would allow for bad blood to be aired and hopefully to be resolved (Like Mandelas truth and reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid).
And just as importantly (in my opinion) it would set the precedence for a way to solve military conflicts that are spinning out of control, and, just like with the Alabama case mentioned previously, it could be the beginning of international law in Illyriad - a first in any mmo I believe.

Don't think of what you might loose, think of what you might be able to help create in this process.
This idea is no where near perfect, and it can be modified, so please troubleshoot it if you find problems, but don't say that there isn't something to be gained by it, not just for you, but for all of Illyriad.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc
Back to Top
Grego View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grego Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 11:44
International laws and commissions are just another tool for those in power, far from beeing fair and equal for all. Do we really want that in Illyriad too?
Back to Top
nvp33 View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 124 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nvp33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 12:27
It is true that international law is slated towards those with the resources to fully use them, but they are also a recourse of the weak or weaker against the strong, and with public and international opinion and even a complex trading system in Illyriad to affect the strong there would be similar pressure on the strong in Illyriad as there is in the real world.

Furthermore; even though the current system in the real world has loopholes and can be misused, it is far, far better than what existed before, where the greater powers dictated to the smaller, where you had no recourse but to cling your self to a great power and hope to get something out of it in return, whereas today you are more or less sure to get something out of it. 
And even though smaller powers are still dictated to, it is not in the same fashion, nor with the same aggression as before the international community was established.

Is the system perfect? no. Is it better than what existed previously? yes. Is there room for improvement and reform? yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be abandoned, just that it should be improved.

To answer your question in full - yes I would like some standards put into Illyriad - they are already here, they are unwritten, they are informal and they often contradict each other and are not always applied, and if broken, ppl have no recourse but to say "hey, unfair" and hope a great power listens and wants to act on it - like in the real worl, before international law and standardization. If they were put into system with rules of engagement, rules of arbitration and then they would apply to all.

But this is taking it a step to far from my current proposal, which, if used, could be a steppingstone to international law in Illyriad, but the purpose of which is not that, but to resolve the current conflict.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc


Edited by nvp33 - 01 Jul 2014 at 12:28
Back to Top
Grego View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grego Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 13:00
Maybe world is better than it was before and I am not able to recognise that improvement. Anyway, I only want to say that some ideas look great as theory but are hard to put in practise.
Back to Top
King korr View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: england
Status: Offline
Points: 66 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King korr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 13:07
Originally posted by nvp33 nvp33 wrote:

It is true that international law is slated towards those with the resources to fully use them, but they are also a recourse of the weak or weaker against the strong, and with public and international opinion and even a complex trading system in Illyriad to affect the strong there would be similar pressure on the strong in Illyriad as there is in the real world.

Furthermore; even though the current system in the real world has loopholes and can be misused, it is far, far better than what existed before, where the greater powers dictated to the smaller, where you had no recourse but to cling your self to a great power and hope to get something out of it in return, whereas today you are more or less sure to get something out of it. 
And even though smaller powers are still dictated to, it is not in the same fashion, nor with the same aggression as before the international community was established.

Is the system perfect? no. Is it better than what existed previously? yes. Is there room for improvement and reform? yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be abandoned, just that it should be improved.

To answer your question in full - yes I would like some standards put into Illyriad - they are already here, they are unwritten, they are informal and they often contradict each other and are not always applied, and if broken, ppl have no recourse but to say "hey, unfair" and hope a great power listens and wants to act on it - like in the real worl, before international law and standardization. If they were put into system with rules of engagement, rules of arbitration and then they would apply to all.

But this is taking it a step to far from my current proposal, which, if used, could be a steppingstone to international law in Illyriad, but the purpose of which is not that, but to resolve the current conflict.

Sincerely Nvp

A curiously wellspoken orc

This wouldn't be to hard to set up and wouldn't need to be permanent could form or close as needed, And make up wouldn't even need to be the same each time it was needed ( if needed after this conflict ........) 

the simplest make to me would be ask leaders or officer's from the top 20 or 25 Alliance's to join who haven't been involved in the war to hear about side's and then come to an decision based term's for both side's. 

This would only work though if both sides want the war to end.

Back to Top
Gemley View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gemley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 14:51
My thoughts are, well it seems impossible for both sides to live in Illyriad without attacking one another after this war. Any "peace" made will only delay the war a few months before it continues.
I could be wrong, but that is how I see things right now. I hope I turn out to be wrong.
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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