Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

BHA's missed opportunities at diplomacy

Mistwalker
BHA claims to be the biggest alliance in the game, in numbers of active players. Brighthaven is supposed to be Neutral Good. There are also rumours that they are the richest alliance in the game, due in part to the fact that at the start of EE, members had to provide a certain amount of resources to the settlement, for the good of all.

1st missed opportunity at diplomacy was putting in a territorial claim for territory that had been claimed by another alliance, without even contacting that alliance first claimed the territory.
(the HRC consulted with all of their neighbours with shared territory before putting out the territorial claim, to ensure that there would be no issues).

2nd missed opportunity at diplomacy was when they placed the holdings down in HRC territory. When the HRC expressed concerns over the holding placements, the BHA could have easily taken them down, stating something like "we got a little ahead of ourselves, it looked like we had a deal and we got excited and placed the holdings".
The BHA has stated that they were going to place the holdings regardless of HRC wants, to them it was just a matter of negotiating a fee with the HRC, to allow the HRC to save face.

3rd missed opportunity at diplomacy is the continued attacks on Takasi, in saying that Takasi's actions in the past is a burden that the HRC will have to bear forever.
The HRC has asked that the BHA stop this, both politely and more vigoursly (and perhaps with little to no diplomacy in the responses) in the forums.
I would like to point out that the BHA also had a member that was banned, for the exact same reason that Takasi was - if you are tarring all of the HRC due to the actions of Takasi, should everyone else also tar you for the actions of your banned member?

4th missed opportunity at diplomacy is the demands for apologies by the HRC. Both sides has been less than diplomatic at times, yet the BHA is demanding that the HRC apologize for their comments, while maintaining that their comments do not need any apologies (or at least that is my perception of things).
I am not including the apology that was given by the BHA for the tresspass of one of their members, as the second half of that message appeared to be a deliberate attempt to get the HRC to recognize their BHA-2 claim in a backhanded manner, by demanding an apology from the HRC for killing a BHA member in BHA territory.

5th missed opportunity at diplomacy is that the BHA appears to ignore a lot of posts about the inaccuracies in their statements, yet are quick to respond in a vigour manner when they believe that they have been insulted. Or the manner that their position changes when they do address the inaccuracies.
A BHA company leader, the company of the killed trespasser, claimed that the HRC had murdered a gatherer in starter gear, someone just trying to get achievements. When it was pointed out that the tresspasser was in T2 gear, the BHA company leader said that they consider T2 gear to be starter gear.
I could go on, but don't see the need or point to doing so.

Possible opportunity at diplomacy (and perhaps to appear magnanimous) for the BHA, is for the BHA to remove the holdings, withdraw their territorial claims in the Bulwark Hills, but to state that the BHA does have an interest in the area due to the tavern, and if the game goes in the direction that taverns need bulk resources, territorial claims and/or lease negotiations may take place.

BHA could even request that as the Tavern cannot be destroyed or captured by in game mechanics, that the HRC withdraw it's territorial claim to the hex where the tavern is, and treat it like Rotter's Hole, as neutral territory for all - perhaps that the BHA will maintain a "police" presence in the Tavern hex to guard travellers (and the Tavern's clients) from banditry.
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Decius, this is none of your business.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Decius, this is none of your business.

I must say if you don't want 3rd parties asking questions or butting in then you probably shouldn't be trying to wage any part of this ongoing discussion in the public forums. If however your goal isn't to wage a discussion then I suppose you should proceed as is, but if that is true then I and many others (who are staying out of it regardless) will be disappointed.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Decius, this is none of your business.

I must say if you don't want 3rd parties asking questions or butting in then you probably shouldn't be trying to wage any part of this ongoing discussion in the public forums. If however your goal isn't to wage a discussion then I suppose you should proceed as is, but if that is true then I and many others (who are staying out of it regardless) will be disappointed.
Decius has repeatedly demonstrated, both privately and publicly, that his only concern is protecting the wall of safety around his settlement. I think we are open to suggestions from virtually everyone else in the game, as long as they aren't hiding behind anonymity.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Decius
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Decius, this is none of your business.
An official spokesperson for the HRC has made a public policy statement. I doubt that it was not intended for public comment.
Mistwalker
I haven't had the chance to have full discussions with the rest of the HRC, but I believe that everyone would be fine with withdrawing the HRC territorial claim to the hex that the tavern is in, as long as it is treated as neutral territory (like the old starter settlements and Rotter's Hole).

HRC would also remove the restrictions on BHA members in HRC territory. Basically BHA would have the same privileges and restrictions as anyone else on the server while in HRC territory.

Well, Hobson might be disappointed if peace broke out. smile
Mistwalker
Duffy Swiftshadow
I must say if you don't want 3rd parties asking questions or butting in then you probably shouldn't be trying to wage any part of this ongoing discussion in the public forums. If however your goal isn't to wage a discussion then I suppose you should proceed as is, but if that is true then I and many others (who are staying out of it regardless) will be disappointed.

I took this approach due to Drogon not being willing to discuss things with me by email, or any other more private approach.

Also, I was hoping to head things off before another Forever War like situation started - after a certain amount of insults, animosity and attacks, sides in a dispute are less willing to talk, make diplomatic gestures, or other diplomatic moves to reduce or eliminate tensions/hostilities.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
That's an interesting place to start from. What concessions is the HRC putting on the table, and which ones are explicitly off the table?
Decius, this is none of your business.

I must say if you don't want 3rd parties asking questions or butting in then you probably shouldn't be trying to wage any part of this ongoing discussion in the public forums. If however your goal isn't to wage a discussion then I suppose you should proceed as is, but if that is true then I and many others (who are staying out of it regardless) will be disappointed.
Decius has repeatedly demonstrated, both privately and publicly, that his only concern is protecting the wall of safety around his settlement. I think we are open to suggestions from virtually everyone else in the game, as long as they aren't hiding behind anonymity.

I'm going to avoid getting into a long debate over it (and I too can find Decius's line of questioning or comments quite vexing), but the validity of a question should have no bearing on where it comes from. The debate is being presented here, if I wanted to participate the answer to his last question from both sides is the thing I would want to know the most before discussing anything else.
Mistwalker
Decius
An official spokesperson for the HRC has made a public policy statement. I doubt that it was not intended for public comment.

It wasn't a policy statement.

I was pointing out how BHA missed a few opportunities to show the server that they are a "Good" settlement, that they won't throw their weight around.

I will acknowledge that it was/is also an attempt to resolve the situation. But as both sides have had different interpretations on what was said, I figured that it would be harder for anyone to do so if everyone saw what was being said/written.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post