NC

Halcyon wrote: SB, The days of The Coaliton intimidating Elgea to submission are over, you will either defeat us on the field and perpetuate your tyranny, or accept peace that will not allow the unbridled aggression that was perpetrated too long.

How did you stomach living under such tyranny of individual and alliance freedom for so long? It must have been unbearable having H? and the Coalition ignoring you and letting you do what you want individually and as an alliance for so long...

I'm so glad you are trying to rectify this horrible situation by making sure a new world order will come into being where no one is allowed to have any wars outside of tournaments. People would feel much more free knowing a global police force is watching them and the game will consequently thrive.






Edited by Kumomoto - 06 Nov 2013 at 16:59

Redfist wrote: Essentially, the point  I was making was that it would be a mistake view you or anyone from mcrow as a potential neutral mediator. I am sure that the leaders of the alliances opposed to H?/TVM/NC etc realise this already given the nature of ScottFitz's recent posts concerning the Crowfed and the current wars recent wars, but I thought that I would underline the point to counter Gragnog's suggestion that you be considered for that role. As for the water cooler reference that goes back to a convo you and I had in chatroom that you just set up. -  at that time you didn't know that you were talking to me. Now you do.

still not sure where this is intended to go.  you may note that i am not in mCrow, nor am i ScottFitz.  our reasons for abstaining from the war overlap somewhat but they are not identical.  if you are a crow, i won't mind sharing them with you privately.  i'm sorry that i've no memory of the conversation to which you refer.

while i appreciate the mentions by Kumo and Gragnog, the only player who could involve me as a mediator is dittobite.  if you're concerned about the eventuality,  you can focus your efforts at dissuasion appropriately.

Kumomoto wrote: Halcyon wrote: There was a global police force, it's name was H? and it was on the take. You want peace kummo? So do I. Let us know when you are ready to see NC and TVM lose a war. Peace will surely follow. See, Halcyon, that's where you are being inaccurate. We were never the global police. We prided ourselves on not being the global police. We have been the largest alliance since the White War and we purposefully did not interfere with small alliances fighting other small alliances. In fact, not interfering with NC is the perfect example of us not wanting to be the global police. We purposefully dropped our confeds with small alliances in times of peace to avoid interfering. That's the fundamental difference. We don't think that small alliance warfare should be interfered with. They should be able to conduct their own wars and diplomacy without big folks like us interfering. And you all obviously do think that they should be judged and interfered with. There's a fundamental philosophical difference there. The fact that you don't like NC (because they successfully fought a mercenary alliance you are friends with that were more than twice their size) and the way they conduct themselves is frankly incidental in our mind. They're small (19 members). Leave them be. Live and let live and stop advocating for some sort of big alliance driven control over the small alliances actions in the game. We do not believe that because we are large we should dictate to small alliances what they can and can't do.

Daefis wrote: Kumo This is a personal response and has nothing to do with VIC's neutral stance. Claiming NC's a 'small alliance' is simply odd as it's clearly a military vehicle for several alliances to wage wars whilst not actually having to declare themselves.....  I'd understand your hands off approach if this wasn't so clearly understood by so many now. Saying things like 'small' and only '19 members' would be fair if it was the same 19 members? not several times that number who move in and out dependent on troop levels.... Don't get me wrong NC have proven themselves to be incredibly good at war and they should be as it appears to be their sole function in the game. I think, but I genuinely don't know having had no contact with any of the alliances currently opposing H? at the moment that the feeling is that NC are sanctioned and defended by H? and hence leaves truly smaller alliances open to attack with little chance of ever being able to defend themselves. These as I say are just my thoughts and observations.

Daefis-- I appreciate your response, because I think a lot of people in the game share your perception. What I can definitively tell you is that NC has never ever initiated a war on behalf of H?. In fact, in the Bane war, when both Bane and NC accepted members from other alliances to bolster their war effort, absolutely no H? members joined them to fight. We had no interest in the Bane war. We actually had no interest in any of their wars. They were their wars. We, quite frankly, to be honest, would have rather not had to deal with the diplo blowback that occurred with them fighting others, but we respect their sovereignty and respect their choices. Most importantly, ask yourself if you don't believe me, how could H? have possibly benefited from them fighting these wars? There really isn't a single scenario where it helps H? as an alliance. But we're not going to judge their choices. What we will do is not interfere with them and we don't think that there should be a "global police" who stomp on them because they enjoy the war aspects of the game by landing on them with huge alliances for having wars with other small alliances (which, in every case historically are considerably larger than they are). I believe that the game should be open to all sorts of game play by small alliances. And, if you look at history, the only wars we ever get involved in are with huge alliances.

So this concept of NC being the vanguard for H? attacks couldn't be farther from the truth. I wanted to hire Bane in the next tourney!!! I personally (this was never discussed or approved by the H? Directors) wanted to outbid Ditto this time to do so! Why would we want them to be attacked?

Kumomoto wrote: Daefis wrote: Kumo This is a personal response and has nothing to do with VIC's neutral stance. Claiming NC's a 'small alliance' is simply odd as it's clearly a military vehicle for several alliances to wage wars whilst not actually having to declare themselves.....  I'd understand your hands off approach if this wasn't so clearly understood by so many now. Saying things like 'small' and only '19 members' would be fair if it was the same 19 members? not several times that number who move in and out dependent on troop levels.... Don't get me wrong NC have proven themselves to be incredibly good at war and they should be as it appears to be their sole function in the game. I think, but I genuinely don't know having had no contact with any of the alliances currently opposing H? at the moment that the feeling is that NC are sanctioned and defended by H? and hence leaves truly smaller alliances open to attack with little chance of ever being able to defend themselves. These as I say are just my thoughts and observations. Daefis-- I appreciate your response, because I think a lot of people in the game share your perception. What I can definitively tell you is that NC has never ever initiated a war on behalf of H?. In fact, in the Bane war, when both Bane and NC accepted members from other alliances to bolster their war effort, absolutely no H? members joined them to fight. We had no interest in the Bane war. We actually had no interest in any of their wars. They were their wars. We, quite frankly, to be honest, would have rather not had to deal with the diplo blowback that occurred with them fighting others, but we respect their sovereignty and respect their choices. Most importantly, ask yourself if you don't believe me, how could H? have possibly benefited from them fighting these wars? There really isn't a single scenario where it helps H? as an alliance. But we're not going to judge their choices. What we will do is not interfere with them and we don't think that there should be a "global police" who stomp on them because they enjoy the war aspects of the game by landing on them with huge alliances for having wars with other small alliances (which, in every case historically are considerably larger than they are). I believe that the game should be open to all sorts of game play by small alliances. And, if you look at history, the only wars we ever get involved in are with huge alliances. So this concept of NC being the vanguard for H? attacks couldn't be farther from the truth. I wanted to hire Bane in the next tourney!!! I personally (this was never discussed or approved by the H? Directors) wanted to outbid Ditto this time to do so! Why would we want them to be attacked?

Edited by Daefis - 07 Nov 2013 at 02:06