TVM - SHARK Conflict |
Post Reply |
Page <1 56789 11> |
| Author | ||
Nokigon
Postmaster General Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(3)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 18:46 |
|
|
Okay, I'm a little bit bored tonight, so I thought I'd waste a bit of time pointing out some of the holes in Shark's arguments. Once again: I understand the strategic desire of opposing this land claim, and also understand them wanting a fight. I also would like to point out that TVM have not given their side of this; that is because there is nothing left for them to say, and have no problem trying to enforce their land claim.
So. SHARK have claimed so far that their actions are not intended as a challenge towards TVM's land claim in general. They claim to be furthering a strategic objective, which is to hold the centre of Broken Lands. The attitude I infer from there is "We don't really care about TVM; we have an objective and we're fulfilling it". They have consistently claimed to be keen to avoid a war. If you, as Shark have consistently stated, do not recognise land claims, then Shark's actions are entirely justified. This would appear to be the line of rhetoric which Shark are attempting to further.
However, claiming as Halcyon did to be the victims of aggression is fairly misguided, for a number of different reasons.
Firstly- regardless of whether you recognise land claims or not, Shark were aware that TVM would not have made their land claim without wishing to enforce it. By placing their cities specifically in an area of Newlands claimed by TVM (not all of Newlands is held by TVM), Shark are implicitly provoking a response.
Secondly- if Shark truly did wish to compete in tournaments, why exactly have they been moving cities in that contain, for instance, 262 catapults?
Thirdly- why is this forum post here to begin with? If Shark were truly interested in maintaining peace, they would have tried to message first Lorcan, then TVM leadership, then RE leadership. To a certain extent, this has happened. However, posting what is frankly a threat on the forum, directed purely at the leadership of two alliances, is one of two things (or both). It is either an attempt to claim, as I have already stated, the moral high ground- something which does not appear to be working all that well. Or- SHARK are flexing their muscles on the forums, and attempting to cow people into giving in to their strategic demands.... Or attempting to provoke the DSD further, of course.
Once again.... If Shark want a fight, simply say so.
Edited by Nokigon - 18 Sep 2015 at 21:18 |
||
![]() |
||
Halcyon
Forum Warrior Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 19:26 |
|
|
Like Nokigon, I'm getting a bit bored, but with the repeating arguments made by DSD leaders. But…here we go again:
1) Shark does not recognize land claims, so after deciding to establish a presence in NewLands, how can our leadership tell our members: "place towns in NewLands, but do not do it in the TVM land claim that we do not recognize"? A bit ridiculous, no?
2) Since we do not recognize land claims, we also can't contact TVM and ask to be exempt from their land claim. This will be recognizing the validity of their land claim and in essence the validity of ALL land claims. Can't be done.
3) Shark's stance in NewLands is defensive. There was no specific order given to move towns to NewLands with bombardment units. I am not aware at this time of the number of siege units we have in Broken Lands.
4) Saying that Shark sent prominent military players to NewLands, is also false. We told all our members that we want towns in NewLands. It is only natural that among those who complied there are military oriented players since from my experience such players tend to be both more active and team oriented.
5) I have contacted the leadership of TVM privately with an offer how to end the current conflict between us. This offer does not include any recognition in TVM's or any other land claim, or an agreement to move any of our towns. It's an offer to coexist peacefully.
|
||
![]() |
||
Nero
New Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 21:19 |
|
|
Reguardless of the land claim, moving cities next to a rival alliance screams future conflict. If your goal was to be in the center of the map some your cities veered off to the left a little.
|
||
![]() |
||
mjc2
Wordsmith Joined: 13 May 2015 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 136 |
Post Options
Thanks(3)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 21:20 |
|
ok, as a junior officer in a land claiming alliance, i have to argue with this. T-SC has made arrangements with several alliances to allow them to settle inside of our land claim without requiring them to recognize it. these negotiations are private between T-SC and the alliance in question so i am not authorized to publish who these alliances are but honestly you dont have to recognize land claims to negotiate with a land claiming alliance. if you could only negotiate with people that agreed with you then you wouldnt negotiate with anyone because the purpose of negotiation is so that 2 parties that do not agree on something can come to a compromise.
|
||
![]() |
||
abstractdream
Postmaster General Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 22:56 |
|
The SHARK group leadership has never been anything less than belligerent. Some individual members have actually been friendly but those conversations are out the window when leadership shuts the dialogue down and insists they "
can't contact TVM" regardless of what variety of Olive Branch is extended. They have never gone beyond "our members will settle where they please and we dare you to stop them" (again, not a quote, but that's the main talking point, as seen above).
This sort of "diplomacy" would not be tolerated anywhere, in Elgea or TBL, regardless of whatever claim has or has not been made by an alliance that is clearly colonizing an area. For example, if we were to send members to relocate and settle in a cluster of SHARK cities and when contacted by their leadership to ask what our intentions were we said "We will move where we want and don't care what you think," there would be some tension, to say the least. Don't be fooled by the talk; this is and has always been about diplomacy. Some are less...adept at it than others.
Edited by abstractdream - 18 Sep 2015 at 22:57 |
||
|
|
||
![]() |
||
Jane DarkMagic
Postmaster Joined: 10 Sep 2011 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 554 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 23:58 |
|
I think this type of relationship isn't born overnight either. Illyriad is a long game and it takes years of positive interactions to lead to large diplomatic decisions like TVM allowing both mcrow and HUGS to co-exist within their land claim. Some alliances work very hard at maintaining relationships and others focus on other aspects of the game. We've established trust... it's not the same as a confed because we do not agree with every decision tvm makes and I'm sure they don't agree with our's. But it would take something unforeseeable and completely out of left field to make us declare war on each other.
|
||
![]() |
||
Pico
New Poster Joined: 22 May 2015 Status: Offline Points: 27 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 00:08 |
|
TVM is welcome to settle towns in Sharks "cluster", just as long as you respect our 10sq radius, we dont have a problem with that. You certainly don´t need to contact us and ask permission for that, and we certainly dont care what your intentions are. |
||
![]() |
||
Bulani
New Poster Joined: 15 Sep 2015 Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 00:35 |
|
|
It was 262 catapults and you do not need to worry about them as they were destroyed. Now while I have no reason to doubt Halcyon's word on this I would like to suggest maybe another motive here. Most of the shark players that have moved have decided to place cities outside the TVM land claim. However the few who have directly landed inside the claim are ex Stomp members. And with 262 cats, that particular player was geared up. Could it be that a few players are upset at the outcome of the previous war and are looking to fight it with Sharks assistance. Now that is pure speculation but there are some interesting coincidence's. Just saying |
||
![]() |
||
Diva
Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 01:15 |
|
|
Is that an old scout report or a new one?
Edited by Diva - 19 Sep 2015 at 01:16 |
||
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
||
![]() |
||
Aurordan
Postmaster Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 08:11 |
|
If they have to ask you, they're recognizing it. If they even notify you specifically, they're admitting that you have some undue influence on that particular region. Not recognizing land claims means treating every city placement exactly the same no matter who may have said what about the area. The fact that some other alliances are more pragmatic about this doesn't change it as a matter of principle.
|
||
![]() |
||
Post Reply |
Page <1 56789 11> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |