Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

The dramabomb appears primed




Now might be a good time to remind people to play nice and hopefully we'll all still be around in a month or two. Maybe then we'll have a few cold beers together and laugh.

To that end, I suggest that victorious alliances try to avoid imposing terms that require:

  • alliances to give up members or leadership positions of certain members;
  • the payment of punitive reparations;
  • the disbandment of alliances.

We've all got communities here. Maybe you don't like some other guy's community, but don't try to take it away.

Until then, I'll be seeing you. Some of you will probably point guns at me, but that's how it all shakes out. ;)


Recommended Comments

I am actually in agreement with this. This particular time seems to hold no acts that require such stringent terms. However, I would hesitate to make a blanket policy that bans all such terms. Deterrence seems prudent for some.

Link to comment

While you make good suggestions Haf, the resentment from 3 years of crushing alliances and forced disbandments isn't going to go away after just one war. Like I said on the boards, it's up to each individual alliance to determine what they feel is fair.

I'll just point out that punitive damages is a highly interpretable term. NPO claims that GW1 was at least a stalemate, if not a victory for them because they were able to rebuild much quicker than their opponents. I doubt very much that any alliances out there want to see NPO rebuild quick enough to see a re-birth of their supremacy. Terms like the ones they imposed on MK and Polar might not be far from a reality.

That said, I expect NPO to impose crushing terms on their opponents should they win. I haven't seen anything in their history (past and current) to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment

Aloop, should "my side" win, you better believe I'm going to be pushing this stuff.

That's partly why I went public with this blog when I did. I thought about what I was doing.

Punitive damages is an interpretable term, yes. One easy way to get around it is to insist on white peace, but we'll see.

Link to comment

Very much like the sane voices that unfortunately did not prevail at Versailles and led to yet another war. Bravo Haf, you've got me behind you.

Link to comment

Point 1 is the one I see as being most likely to lead to trouble actually. But we'll see; I'm no longer in a position to do much about these issues besides talk.

Link to comment

I've seen two former alliances destroyed. One died in battle. The other succumbed to endless provocation. I don't ever want to see that happen again.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...