Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Louella Dougans]

go on then, you say there are reasonable surrender terms.

scenario A:

sani sabik corporation X is doing stuff in a constellation.
amarr corporation Y declares war to drive them out. And are thoroughly trounced by the blooders.

What reasonable terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the amarr community as willing to negotiate with the vilest of vile heretics.


scenario B:

amarr corporation X is doing stuff somewhere.
minmatar corporation Y declares war to stop them. And get trounced.

what terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the minmatar community as people willing to give in to the slavers ?

[Mizhara]

Neither of those are 'surrender' scenarios. They're 'retreat, try again' ones. Neither side have won or lost. Now if the defenders had gone so far as to deny the aggressors the ability to go back and lick their wounds etc, then surrender would be a simple matter of "Yeah, we lost. We'll talk terms."

[Veiki]

I think as the Eve culture has become a lot more competitive over the years it's probably had its own impact on RP groups.

The first RP corp I joined in 07 got beaten down hard first by CAIN and then Stimulus within the first 6 months of its existence. Both wars were negotiated out, roleplayed through, and no one cried foul or unfair.

I also remember the various wars EM and U'K were involved in at the time that didn't have sheer level of acrimony that you have today.

(Yes, I am aware of the irony of me saying that).

[Louella Dougans]

Now if the defenders had gone so far as to deny the aggressors the ability to go back and lick their wounds etc, then surrender would be a simple matter of "Yeah, we lost. We'll talk terms."

describe those terms.


because who the initial attackers/defenders are does not matter. A declares on B, loses, and B then declares on A, for a counter strike. It matters not what started it.

[Mizhara]

... "describe those terms" what? They'd all depend entirely on the context and situation. You're inventing nonsense scenarios here and expecting answers to them.

[Louella Dougans]

... "describe those terms" what? They'd all depend entirely on the context and situation. You're inventing nonsense scenarios here and expecting answers to them.

No I am not.


Explain, what compromise position you can see between slavery and freedom ?

what compromise there is between allowing human sacrifice, and not ?

[Samira Kernher]

scenario A:

sani sabik corporation X is doing stuff in a constellation.
amarr corporation Y declares war to drive them out. And are thoroughly trounced by the blooders.

What reasonable terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the amarr community as willing to negotiate with the vilest of vile heretics.

scenario B:

amarr corporation X is doing stuff somewhere.
minmatar corporation Y declares war to stop them. And get trounced.

what terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the minmatar community as people willing to give in to the slavers ?

The very fact that they lost is bad enough. Negotiating in surrender doesn't really pile much more onto 'we got our asses kicked by X'.

[Mizhara]

Those aren't war goals, for fuck's sakes. It's not about ending the overall conflict. It's about agreeing to terms around the specific war. If one side ceases to be able to operate, then they can agree to terms in order to regain that ability, paying a price for it. The terms would, as I already said, be dependent on the specific situation they're in. The slavers agree to hand over X amounts of slaves and maintain that delivery weekly/monthly for Y amount of time in return for temporary cease-fire/peace as an example.

There's always potential terms, even if the overall conflict can't be solved.

[Louella Dougans]

The slavers agree to hand over X amounts of slaves and maintain that delivery weekly/monthly for Y amount of time in return for temporary cease-fire/peace as an example.

Abandon their holy duty as Imperial citizens to cultivate the spirit of man, and hand over imperial subjects to minmatar terrorists. Betraying two core principles of almost any Amarr character (except the ultra-mercantile tash-murkonites, i guess).

okay. that sounds perfectly ~reasonable~.


now find the middle ground between allowing the most vile of vile heretics to continue to preach and practice their religion, and burning them all.

[Mizhara]

Oh now they're "Imperial Citizens upholding holy duties". Of course you're not going to find reasonable terms when you MJD the goalposts with every post. And for your second nonsense scenario: If they're in a position to burn them, they can burn them. If they're not in a position to burn them, they can't negotiate fuck all anyway. Your scenarios are nonsensical and have nothing to do with conflicts in Eve.

[Samira Kernher]

The slavers agree to hand over X amounts of slaves and maintain that delivery weekly/monthly for Y amount of time in return for temporary cease-fire/peace as an example.

Abandon their holy duty as Imperial citizens to cultivate the spirit of man, and hand over imperial subjects to minmatar terrorists. Betraying two core principles of almost any Amarr character (except the ultra-mercantile tash-murkonites, i guess).

okay. that sounds perfectly ~reasonable~.

If you have lost the war, you aren't the one that gets to dictate terms in a way that upholds your pride or values. If you want to maintain those, then you need to win. Or fight to the bitter end.

Also, we've seen the literal emperor of Amarr deliver slaves to the Republic. That is hardly beyond Amarrian diplomatic sensibilities.

now find the middle ground between allowing the most vile of vile heretics to continue to preach and practice their religion, and burning them all.

Again, if you lost the war, you don't really get to have a middle ground. You tried to burn them all, and failed. Thus, you have no choice but to come to terms in a way that tolerates or even benefits them, because you failed in your efforts to challenge them. The alternative is that you keep fighting to the bitter end.

[Louella Dougans]

If you want to maintain those, then you need to win. Or fight to the bitter end.

isn't that the whole point.

[Louella Dougans]

Oh now they're "Imperial Citizens upholding holy duties".

of course they are, it's right there in the scriptures :U

Of course you're not going to find reasonable terms when you MJD the goalposts with every post. And for your second nonsense scenario: If they're in a position to burn them, they can burn them. If they're not in a position to burn them, they can't negotiate fuck all anyway. Your scenarios are nonsensical and have nothing to do with conflicts in Eve.

the majority of conflicts in eve, in nullsec, lowsec, wormhoels, etc. are all about making the mad isks, or getting dank killmails. compromise is possible there.

rp conflicts are far, far, far more about principles. the principles on which people wrote their characters. compromise is far more difficult to achieve there.

[Mizhara]

I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.

[Louella Dougans]

I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.

so, mizhara the character is prepared to wobble on the principle of "better to die a freeman than live a slave".

I find that hard to believe.