Response PM from UnO:
I sent back a quick "I understand if you can't provide documentation. Thanks for the explanantion. I'll post it."
RE: RE: Proof of MPP's
Hey Arrian,
I posted a response, but it got buried in a hurry. Please relay this to the team as well.
I can understand hesitation, sure. I'll be frank. Was there an MPP? Yes. Did it expire? Im looking right now, this is difficult, more on that in a minute.
Our team does not consider MPP's an NAP. I have told NYE that, but more importantly ROLEPLAY knew that. They had no right to be expecting it as an NAP. I can prove that RP believed them TWO SEPERATE deals as well, but am hesitant to do so, given the proof is negotiations between RP and myself. If, however, it will ease GS relations, I will poll on it.
I will tell you this. In my negotiations with RP, they drafted a contract that specifically stated it was to be seen as BOTH an MPP and a NAP. Tell me, if MPP included an NAP to them, would they have specified both in the contract I was negotiating?
RP knew they were seperate negotiations, they are only now complaining to suit their own needs. As far as GS and negotiations in the future, make sure you get an NAP with us if you want to be safe from attack. It is as simple as that, and the reason we were hell bent on sigining one with you guys in the first place.
Now. The MPP in question is a dubious piece of writing at its best. There was no mention of a starting date or turn, nor was there mention of an ENDING date or turn, just a general 'this is for 30 turns'. We have learned from this and will change documenting procedures in the future.
What I do know is RP has continually changed how many turns are left on it in their private discussions with us. Again, I can prduce evidence but hesitate to do so. We acted under the belief that it had expired. Plain and simple. RP's last statement even claims it expires after the present turn. Given the ambiguity of the contract, I feel RP is again attempting to stretch it so that we appear to have violated. However, also given the ambiguity, I cannot prove such, hence we are not publicly crying out in such a manner. Lets just say RP and ourselves disagree on when it ended. It is easier to use what we CAN prove, publicly: It was not an NAP, and RP knew it.
Anything else, please feel free to ask.
- UnOrthOdOx (Cole)
Hey Arrian,
I posted a response, but it got buried in a hurry. Please relay this to the team as well.
I can understand hesitation, sure. I'll be frank. Was there an MPP? Yes. Did it expire? Im looking right now, this is difficult, more on that in a minute.
Our team does not consider MPP's an NAP. I have told NYE that, but more importantly ROLEPLAY knew that. They had no right to be expecting it as an NAP. I can prove that RP believed them TWO SEPERATE deals as well, but am hesitant to do so, given the proof is negotiations between RP and myself. If, however, it will ease GS relations, I will poll on it.
I will tell you this. In my negotiations with RP, they drafted a contract that specifically stated it was to be seen as BOTH an MPP and a NAP. Tell me, if MPP included an NAP to them, would they have specified both in the contract I was negotiating?
RP knew they were seperate negotiations, they are only now complaining to suit their own needs. As far as GS and negotiations in the future, make sure you get an NAP with us if you want to be safe from attack. It is as simple as that, and the reason we were hell bent on sigining one with you guys in the first place.
Now. The MPP in question is a dubious piece of writing at its best. There was no mention of a starting date or turn, nor was there mention of an ENDING date or turn, just a general 'this is for 30 turns'. We have learned from this and will change documenting procedures in the future.
What I do know is RP has continually changed how many turns are left on it in their private discussions with us. Again, I can prduce evidence but hesitate to do so. We acted under the belief that it had expired. Plain and simple. RP's last statement even claims it expires after the present turn. Given the ambiguity of the contract, I feel RP is again attempting to stretch it so that we appear to have violated. However, also given the ambiguity, I cannot prove such, hence we are not publicly crying out in such a manner. Lets just say RP and ourselves disagree on when it ended. It is easier to use what we CAN prove, publicly: It was not an NAP, and RP knew it.
Anything else, please feel free to ask.
- UnOrthOdOx (Cole)
Comment