The Great War

Angrim wrote: Tamaeon wrote: Angrim wrote: Tamaeon wrote: The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning. it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records. So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words. no, i have the knowledge of the facts. i do not have the ability to back up my words because of the ToS's prohibition on posting personal conversation, and because revealing what i do know is to put certain agreements in jeopardy. but i will ask this: if the "grand alliance" felt that its offers would survive scrutiny, why veil them with oaths of secrecy? you seem very proud of them in the abstract. perhaps it is you who lack specific knowledge.

I personally have no issue with making all the surrender terms public post-war. During the war however it would have been dangerous, given that the specifics varied from player to player and alliance to alliance. This could have lead to situations where players or alliances protested or even contested the terms, if they were expected to pay more than others. It would be especially dangerous if 3rd parties external to the war got involved in heated discussions regarding terms.

I'll also note that there's so much going on during a large scale war, that it's virtually impossible to entertain lengthy discussions about anything. Many of us were exhausted and stressing to the point of burnout, already 3 months into the war; so heated public debates about surrender terms would most likely have made things worse.

Angrim wrote: Tamaeon wrote: I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim. i have never baited you. if you feel harassed in the sense from which illyriad policy ought to protect you, you should report me and we shall see what GM Rikoo will make of the situation. but if you refer to my dogged correction of your misrepresentations of facts that you forget or do not realise i know, timelines that i was involved in, plans that i was a party to, and meetings that i attended, i think we will find that all of that is entirely within the ToS. indeed, one might think with your casual attitude about facts that you intend to bait me. thanks in part to you, i have no allegiance in this other than to the truth. if you have made it your enemy, you should expect to face me as well.

What I construe as harassment is the incessant questioning of virtually everything I've said over the past year. One situation that comes to mind happened about a month ago in GC, where you were throwing jabs, while Sir Bradly and Pellinell hurled insults at me, which I can't even repeat on the forums without nuking the entire conversation. I'd frankly feel more at ease had it been clear that you've been subjecting leaders on both sides to the same kind of scrutiny. However, since this does not appear to be the case, my opinion has shifted to reflect this perception. That being said, i f I ever feel the need to report you... you'll find out automatically.

Regarding "The truth", its entirely within the eye of the beholder. You can choose to ascribe to one version or the other, but the fact remains that the truth surrounding the events of the Great War, is relative to each of the different factions involved. Furthermore, if you're unaware of certain aspects, opinions or facts as perceived by alliances on the GA side of the war, it is perhaps a direct consequence of your own choices.  If memory serves, you took it upon yourself to  unilaterally speak for and  define the entire Crow Confederation on the forums. Your post was widely praised by H? and the Coalition, while the broader Crowfed just shook our heads in the background and observed the evolving discussion from a distance.

I could go on and on detailing how you've been overstepping boundaries and publicly  airing dirty laundry that we'd all rather keep inside Crowfed. But to wrap up this point; I'll be honest in saying that everything I've written above, speaks to my personal opinion about your reasons for incessantly  targeting my every word in public.  You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation. So it appears at least to me, that you've been attacking me to build favor with (and/or audition for) other confederations.

I generally enjoy a good debate, but draw the line at deliberate personal attacks and unmerited hostility. If a civil discussion and exchange of information regarding facts isn't possible... then I'd rather we ignore/forget each other entirely, for the sake of sanity.

Angrim wrote: Tamaeon wrote: You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence. how would you know what i suffered as a result of the war? more than you, i would guess; one must have attachment to feel loss. but that is no fit discussion for the forum, and i suggest you keep it out of it.

I'm not aware of any losses you incurred, because you haven't felt the need to express anything other than contempt towards me over the past year and a half. I honestly have no problem with your choice to side with the coalition's version of the events, and I'd very much prefer to bring this discussion to some kind of conclusion somewhere far from the forums and the public eye.

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.