Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TIVIUM and EAGLES
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Topic ClosedTIVIUM and EAGLES

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:07
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Let's note here that Bonfyr Verboo of TVM and Wilberforce of N are alts.  There is nothing secret about this.  Wilberforce was involved in the war through N.

 Bonfyr Verboo and Abraxox, who are friends in real life, dragged their former alliance, TLR, into a war on behalf of an alt.  (Through for example sieges on Dwarven Druids.)

The Duke of Shade objected to this behavior, and their alliance leader, Eternal Fire, did not support it.  

In response, Bonfyr Verboo and Abraxox took a group of their followers from TLR to form Trivium, leaving their former TLR alliance mates to face the consequences of their actions.  Which, to his credit, Eternal Fire did, and has earned my respect in so doing.

Trivium has been at war with Consone since before it was even formed.  They have reinforced sieges on Consone members and launched their own sieges at times.  EE has decided to recognize these actions with a declaration of war.

In describing the flow of history as I understand it, I am not making judgments (except for my increased respect for Eternal Fire, as noted).  But let's call a spade a spade.


All true except: Eternal Fire declared War on Shade. Shade simply launched feints and blockades assuming EF would contact them and they could talk (EF had ignored The Duke's messages, thus an escallation ensued.) EF acted on impulse and "dragged" TLR into a war in which it was clearly outmatched. I had no idea The Duke was trying to talk to and being ignored by EF. THAT was the last in a long line of poor decisions that forced me out. The members followed me. They did not remain behind to "face the consequences."

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I did not launch without authorization while in TLR, ever.

Edited by abstractdream - 20 Jan 2013 at 20:33
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:20
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:

If you have been in this since before Trivium was formed then that has everything to do with the fact that you were helping siege our allies, attacking our sieges, and then when asked in IGM about your intentions you refused to declare.  By acknowledging this Hath made no misrepresentation of your intentions.  Attacking our allies and our sieges is not defending yourselves.  


Very well. I admit (and have never denied) that we were attacking your allies and one of your sieges. Why the declaration now? When one of EE's general membership contacted me in a rude and demanding way, insisting I explain TVM's intentions with respect to Druids, why not declare then? After all, it was clear then that we were sieging a Druid member. Was this Druid member not worth the effort? It is only VALAR that matters enough to declare and post?

Again, I have no qualms about the declaration. This IS a war. I am arguing the blatant hypocracy demonstrated by the OP and illustrated again by waiting until it is "important" enough to act and then using all previous action to retroactively reinforce that action.
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:26
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:31
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:


Edited to add:  It is impossible to edit the subject line of a thread after it has been posted.  (Except possibly for GM Luna, who surely has more important things to do than correct spelling errors.)  Therefore all the hur-hurring about Hathaldir's failure to edit the subject line is as silly as ... well ... this entire "war."  I give the participants credit for consistency, at least.


It is not impossible: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/edited-to-show-it-can-be-dOne_topic4555.html

EDIT: After the usefulness of changing its name waned, the title of the thread referred to above has been restored.

Edited by abstractdream - 25 Jan 2013 at 02:45
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 20:57
So now you admit to being the aggressors the entire time, and instead criticize not the fact that we finally declared but that we didn't do it sooner. It is apparent that you wanted to pile on but were too cowardly to declare yourself.

Just a suggestion, don't cry about losing troops when you are razing a town. You will notice that EE didn't cry about you attacking our allies and camps, we simply declared and did something about it. I get tired of people trying to get some sort of pity and thinking that they are the victims after they are called out on their actions. At least you had the wherewithal to admit you were really in the war since the beginning.
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 21:56
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:

So now you admit to being the aggressors the entire time, and instead criticize not the fact that we finally declared but that we didn't do it sooner. It is apparent that you wanted to pile on but were too cowardly to declare yourself.

Just a suggestion, don't cry about losing troops when you are razing a town. You will notice that EE didn't cry about you attacking our allies and camps, we simply declared and did something about it. I get tired of people trying to get some sort of pity and thinking that they are the victims after they are called out on their actions. At least you had the wherewithal to admit you were really in the war since the beginning.


So now? I have never denied any of the military action. I didn't think declaring against Druids was necessary just because we were after a player who happened to be Druid. We had no intention of going after other Druids and I believe that was expressed in NOT declaring. I take it you think that has never been done before.

I did notice that the leader of EE came on and cried as you put it. How can you even say "EE didn't cry about you attacking our allies and camps" with a straight face? Oh, internet. No faces necessary. And you didn't "simply" declare you came on on here and tried to get a PR campaign rolling. As for my wherewithal, since no one ever asked, I didn't say anything. You will not find a single instance of denial. I suppose I should have taken your leader's tack and started a thread to "declare" my intentions but I didn't.

I don't want pity, I want clarity.
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 22:14
Hath made a statement as to why we declared upon Trivium.  Your alliance responded with a "Haller attacked us first!" we are the victim statement.  If that is not a denial perhaps I don't understand the definition.  When pressed you finally admitted that you were involved in attacks from the beginning.  I also did not question whether or not you declared on Druids, but criticized us for not declaring on you sooner because of your aggression on Druids.  In my time in Illy, almost every war declaration has followed with a forum post explaining the reasons.  I don't see a 2 sentence declaration as starting a PR campaign.  And yes I asked that you admit that you started attacks against our allies long before your current siege was hit by EE simply because your alliance spent 2 pages attempting to state that they didn't do anything of the sort.

As for clarity, judging by the comments from outside factions you have done a good job of providing it.
Back to Top
Myr View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 22:45
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by Myr Myr wrote:

Trivium is at war with Valar and had a siege up. EE attacked that siege.

EE is at war with Dlords and had a siege up. Trivium attacked that siege.

Why is the second one so much worse than the first one? They look pretty similar to me.

Last I checked Trivium and Dlords don't have a confederation, let alone a long standing relationship with them. It's pretty different for a confederation to help each other than it is for a month and a half old NAP alliance to jump into a war just because they can. 

Come on Brids, the alliance has only been around for a couple months, how can they possibly have long standing relationships on their diplomacy page? 

Besides that, different alliances assign different importance to NAPs and Confeds. Some alliances put little weight on NAPs, others only set up NAPs with people they are willing to fight for and with. For example when ~N~ was small and got a NAP with Crow we had to pay an escrow, the reason for the escrow was to help cover expenses if they had to come to our aid militarily. So to say that one siege break was ok, and the other wasn't based on NAP vs Confed or length of time of a relationship really doesn't fly.
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 23:04
My replies are in bold type.

Elmindra said: Hath made a statement as to why we declared upon Trivium. And included misleading statements and a joke. Your alliance responded with a "Haller attacked us first!" we are the victim statement. Abraxox's post clarified the hypocrisy. If that is not a denial perhaps I don't understand the definition. Denial: an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false. No one ever denied we had been involved in attacks on the siege in question or against two Druid players. I am denying that we "constantly" attacked your siege(s.) I am denying that we sent a siege or sieges against EE. Nothing else has ever been denied. What exactly have you read to show otherwise? When pressed you finally admitted that you were involved in attacks from the beginning. Pressed? I guess that's a decent spin on someone finally asking. I have never denied -that word again- sieging the Druid players, the VALAR player or attacking your camps around a city owned by Fromfrak. I also did not question whether or not you declared on Druids, but criticized us for not declaring on you sooner because of your aggression on Druids. I am criticizing the fact that the same sort of actions we took previously did not warrant a declaration. Only when your troops died in the field in an attack from us did you do that. In my time in Illy, almost every war declaration has followed with a forum post explaining the reasons. Really? I've read a dozen, maybe...just a guess but closer to reality than "almost every." How many wars are declared just at this moment, not to mention all the previous ones? I don't see a 2 sentence declaration as starting a PR campaign. Well, of course you don't. And yes I asked that you admit that you started attacks against our allies long before your current siege was hit by EE simply because your alliance spent 2 pages attempting to state that they didn't do anything of the sort. Again, show it. Simply stating it does not make it fact.

As for clarity, judging by the comments from outside factions you have done a good job of providing it. That we can agree on. "Outside factions" would not be squawking as they were if a nerve had not been exposed...
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2013 at 23:16
During our last siege there was a constant stream of Trivium attacks.  That would tend to be defined as constantly.  We never stated that you sent sieges against EE.  I fail to understand when the first Trivium members posted that they had never done anything to deserve an attack on their seige can not be understood as a denial of hostility.  I will state that you finally did clarify this hypocrisy.  

Also, how can you state that our troops never died in the field before this declaration.  We lost many troops defending sieges against Druid members who you have admitted to reinforcing.  And once again, I made a clear statement such as "In my time in Illy" when noticing that people tend to post explanation behind their declarations.  Ever declaration in this war has one, TLR stated their intents during their last fights, as well as the few wars I have witnessed prior.  I have not played long, therefore have not observed as many "under the radar" declarations.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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