Talk:Wiksik PKers/War Against The Necromancers

Thoughts on the War

I believe that the Necromancers have a right to declare such rules inside their own hut. Its theirs, even though taken by force.

However, I don't think like them killing Black Fang because of an outsider headhunting incident, esp when it was against their own policies. -Elegost 07:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters now that peace has broken out. The page is intended to serve as a neutral record / memorial of events and to mark those who were involved. The Necromancers will doubtless have their own record of events, not sure that the natives will have their own record but someone should probably create one. I guess, for what it's worth, this page does demonstrate the (lack of) wisdom in claiming a medical / healing hut as your base. --Skull Face 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No one takes the med hut for an HQ. Indeed. Good job in creating a record! -Elegost 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad piece

Well its not a bad summery, a little inaccurate (the death penalty was introduced in December and many of our guild members were victims of murder and not combatants) but not a bad summery at all. Although the fact that the peace was established on even grounds dictated by the head of the guild and not a necromancer submission is I am sure something all that were there know already. Still overall a nice summery--Etherdrifter 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does not state a date for Necromancers' introduction of death penalty. Didn't the Necromancers apologise? Didn't they concede wrongdoing? I'm sure that many of those killed (Necromancers and their opposition) could make a perfectly valid case for being labelled as victims rather than combatants. That would of necessity be a consequence of their stance in the war. A neutral stance will be maintained for this page. Feel free to present the Necromancers' version of events on your clan pages. Someone will undoubtedly write up the events from the other POV. --Skull Face 11:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its already been done from a neutral POV here http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Current_Events . Perhaps we should try and merge both into one. Oh and here is a complete record of the war in the medical hut, perhaps a link should be put in whichever one we keep.--Etherdrifter 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a complete record of the war. I'm sure things continued after Ziggyirked got irked (Ironic that) --Johan Crichton 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough just a few more necromancer deaths, the actual terms of peace were put up on the forums. Everything else was just "x killed y" "y killed x (insert insulting comment here)" "Comment on how the necromancers are murderers (after all of them were murdered)" Basically it was the talks before the killing, oddly enough all other accounts of this are missing details--Etherdrifter 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"I say 'death penalty' you say 'murder'". We could go on and on... but we won't. The Necromancers have their version of the events and this one will be preserved for those who keep track of the PKers of Wiksik. Perhaps we should write up one from the perspective of the 'death-penaltied' natives, just to keep things balanced, hmm? Let's keep the comments constructive and to the point please. --Skull Face 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we won't, we have our record of events and you have yours. Mine disputes yours and yours disputes mine, although anyone who really wants to know what happened can easily find out via the link above. Your account sounds like one from one of the "death-penaltied" natives and as such lacks neutrality, I think that about covers everything. Good luck with this page, it needs more work but could be something good.--Etherdrifter 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that neither side is neutral. Etherdrifter, you and other Necromancers have put as much spin on the events that transpired in Wiksik as anyone else. --Johan Crichton 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I never claimed the version on our page was neutral. I claim that the page in the "current events" section is neutral and will stand by this, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Good luck--Etherdrifter 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You should point out what you consider to be inaccurate or non-neutral. To do otherwise just makes you look daft and a wee bit pathetic. --Skull Face 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now lets get started:

1. Conflict began before any kind of talks, the necromancers denied nothing to start with as they were not given the chance to do so.

2. The rules of the hut were voted on and not just "declared" and while not everyone there was present nor were the majority of our guild members in the end it balances out (we did not allow the absent guild members a vote nor were our forums set up then).

3. Most of the aggressors were head-hunters and their allies, not native villagers. Few who we had killed for exorcism raised arms against us and that is why we offered them an apology.

4. After the war not all wiksiks were free to live as they pleased, the guild is still wrongly persecuted to this day and any who trade with or are friendly with outsiders seem to go missing or end up dead.

5. You're missing the part as to why the war lasted so long, namely every peaceful overture was rejected as either being not total submission or "posturing".

I think that covers most of the points, do fell free to correct me if I am wrong. Try to watch your manners mind, I find the set you are using at the moment distasteful and ignorant. --Etherdrifter 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I assure you I am far from ignorant. And different tastes are what make the world go around. --Skull Face 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Context

Let's look at your comments:

Well now lets get started:

1. Conflict began before any kind of talks, the necromancers denied nothing to start with as they were not given the chance to do so.

Conflict began when the first non-Necromancer was killed by a Necromancer for exorcism. As noted in this article the war in question (if that is what you mean buy conflict) was sparked by a Necromancer killing a native - that native was given no opportunity to talk.

The first death was Etherdrifter, mudered by Um Bongo for speaking up for the spirits exorcised.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2. The rules of the hut were voted on and not just "declared" and while not everyone there was present nor were the majority of our guild members in the end it balances out (we did not allow the absent guild members a vote nor were our forums set up then).

What does this statement mean? A resource hut is a resource for all. These votes do not validate the Necromancers clan policy of killing natives and they do not excuse the many killings.

Many killings? There were 4 people killed for the crime of exorcism. 1 kill per exorcism, hardly a massacre. We voted and you usurped, natural way of things yes. Doesn't mean I have to like it.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Most of the aggressors were head-hunters and their allies, not native villagers. Few who we had killed for exorcism raised arms against us and that is why we offered them an apology.

The original aggressors were the Necromancers. Those who were killed for exorcism were reluctant to fight (as noted in the article) and they requested aid. A broad mix of natives opposed the Necromancers, there were no non-natives involved. Like it or not, warriors, headhunters, whomever, all were natives.

I saw no such evidence of this but I will concede this point if you can present it.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

4. After the war not all wiksiks were free to live as they pleased, the guild is still wrongly persecuted to this day and any who trade with or are friendly with outsiders seem to go missing or end up dead.

All Wiksiks are free to do as they please. The natives are free to exorcise, or wail, as they wish. Those who PK will earn a place on the PKers page, whether they do so by machete, blowgun or other means.

But not to protect spirits or to strike at those who exorcise you, odd how that does not figure in your idea of freedom. Cut the rhetoric, its poorly put together and full of holes.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

5. You're missing the part as to why the war lasted so long, namely every peaceful overture was rejected as either being not total submission or "posturing".

The war lasted longer than it had to because both sides rejected terms offered - these were decisions taken by both sides and both sides must take responsibility for them - negotiation and warfare go hand in hand. It was Black Fang, one of your enemies, who proposed the current location of your spirit hut in order to bring about a resolution to the conflict - the consensus was that the war should continue and no quarter be given at all.

Relocation was already under way before the war started (hence my absence at the start) and the place for the new hut was actually suggested by Bhaal for its invoke spirit protection. Oh and to quote yourself on the forums "There are no votes in Wiksik. There is no democracy in Wiksik. In Wiksik there are only machetes and blowguns", do not try and use façade democracy to cover your actions when you obviously have no regard for it. The war was started by black fang, the war was continued by black fang and the head hunters allied with SOS (The only group who actually had a grievance with us and who were the first to stop the killing) and the war was ended by the diplomacy of the guild. To claim otherwise is a lie and an insult to everyone who took part in what is probably the largest event the village of wiksik has ever seen.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have issues with the account per se. It seems to me as though you have difficulty accepting your responsibility for what occurred. If not for the policy of killing exorcists this conflict would not have occurred. The hands of the Necromancers are equally as reddened as the hands of those who opposed them. Both sides of the war must bear responsibility for the bloodshed. --Skull Face 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think my replies covered all the points needed. You claim to accept responsibility but I see no admission of that. I see only that you claim to have "won", a fact that is false. We just decided we did not want to prove you right and become the murderers you claimed us to be. Well posture and post up your propaganda as much as you like now lad, I'm a busy man with things to do and I have no more time for the likes of you. Should a guild member be killed because of your demonisation of us we will set the person in question straight and direct them to you with the complaint.--Etherdrifter 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)