I like option A myself
Wolf359 wrote::roll:
Alliances are free to demand what they want (should've been an option in the poll really - hence I haven't voted)- it's up to the individuals concerned to decide whether they can accept the terms or not, whether they are fair or not depedning on their circumstances, taking into account how much they want out of the war. In some cases it may persuade people that it is better to stay and fight.
Some of it might have got out of hand - but sometimes that might be a purposeful decision...
It does certainly seem that way. Both sides are of course able to enact whatever penalties they want for anyone who has an interest in getting out of the war. The sad thing of it is, that both sides needlessly keep people stuck in a war that they would otherwise be done with.
Those people who have decided (on either side) that they are unable/unwilling to agree to other side's terms... they continue fighting. I am old-fashioned, so I was under the impression that the idea in a war was to win at all costs. Somewhere along the line, it turned into humiliate/punish at all costs and make the other side an enemy for life. (or tenure in the game) To bad, but that is what we seem to've come to.
If you can get people to stop fighting against you, and you won't let them... (without them surrendering and agreeing to harsh demands) Well, it makes people wonder how bad you really want to win this war. Quite frankly, it doesn't seem to me that either side is particularly interested in winning the war, but rather both sides are interested in punishing the other side.
I can say that for a person on the outside of it, I am not particularly impressed with either side, and not especially interested in joining either side, be-that during or after the war. (again due to the behavior of both sides in relation to this war)
Wolf359's last line there seems all to true...
SVaRuN wrote:Really nice of you Piano
The problem here is: that while some of the folks that were on fuall list may be innocent and have left for XYZ reasons, cause of fuall making the first strike we know for sure that at least some ppl have left for tactical reasons (not to be involved in the conflict) so its the problem of punishing no one or all of them for couple of good guys or couple of bad guys...
Its debateable, perhaps we could treat them seperately and just request surrender from them...
As for the TLE part I am mostly leaving it up to the purple one...
The history is the biggest pain in the backside here...cause every time I was nice there were ppl using it against me...
Blue
It really is to bad that you feel that you've been taken advantage of. There are so many good people in this game, and it is ruined by a few who are mean, rude, and/or take advantage of another's kindness. Newsflash for some, but there are good/honest people on both sides of this war. Chances are in far greater numbers than their bad/dishonest counterparts. (who again are on both sides in this war) They just aren't as vocal, or as noticeable. It is a shame, it really is. For all of the honest people who are part of the war and who are to good natured to say anything, I think both sides are wrong.
It is amusing if you think about it too. The server sees both sides as stubborn. There isn't even a "good-guy" side like there normally is. Both sides have taken the stance of punishing the other side for leaving. (of course you can say that one side or the other is really worse and "our side" isn't as bad as "them" but really when you get right down to it, since when did "more-wrong" enter the equation? You may also say "they started it." Get a grip people! Both sides were well aware that at absolute best the war would wait until the NAPs expired. Both sides were prepared, or at least knew that they would be wise to prepare.
Arguing who started it is pretty shallow at this point. A year from now when people talk about this, no one is going to say, "Yeah, but they started it, so that made their tribute/reparations fair." All people will remember is who fought, and who won, and who made a good or bad LASTING impression on the population. Going back to the long-term scenario, who will be remembered for what???
It is so silly to make someone continue to fight YOU when they don't want to anymore. (for instance: more people quit fighting because one side drops their tribute/reparation, and that side has a clear advantage as people are now able to "honorably" leave the war without being bribed, or hunted... or nothing changes, both sides make people stay and neither side ever wins and no-one gets out of the vicious cycle) If more long-term thought was put into it, both sides would care about what the server as a whole would be thinking of this long-term. People that aren't on either side of this war, who are watching who may've joined one side or the other at some point in the future are taught that both sides are unforgiving and stubborn. Not exactly the traits you want to show to potential new recruits, let alone the entire server.
I'm of the opinion that both sides should let people who don't want to fight anymore(w/out harsh agreements/tributes/reparations) just be done. Before anyone gets upset or reads to much into what I've said, this is just my opinion which I felt like sharing with whoever was patient enough to read it. I won't argue with anyone about it. I respect the views and understand the reasoning of why both sides have what they do. I just didn't feel that anyone had articulately stated what I felt like saying, ergo my post.
But I digress, to each his own I suppose...