This is the renegotiation of the treaty with NYE of GS:
Arnelos> NYE
notyoueither> hi
Arnelos> there is one small issue that seems to have cropped up among our roleplay camp (we have a sizable one) concerning hte treaty
notyoueither> shoot
Arnelos> they have a concern, being roleplayers, that we're gifting "catholic" lands into the hands of a "non-christian" civ... Pope Calixtus I (History Guy) is particularly upset about this... perhaps we could asauge them
Arnelos> with something completely meaningless in-game
notyoueither> hmmm, anything in mind?
Arnelos> two things: GS "converts" and you get to have several cardinals that can vote on the next pope or, at the least, those lands "remain catholic, respecting local cultural traditions"
Arnelos> History Guy is aiming for the former, but he might settle for the latter
notyoueither> i think that the storm can respect the cuctoms of the local populous
Arnelos> since it's completely meaningless in game and it resolves a problem our roleplayers have, I'd think it's possible
notyoueither> the church is valued of course, to maintain order and to supply sucor to the masses during these dark times
notyoueither> btw, we are leaning towards leaving as much of th south in rp hands as possible, and take more in the north
Arnelos> that makes more sense corruption-wise
notyoueither> we understand the importance of the land to your people
notyoueither> well, we could have put a govt centre down in the south, or the north
notyoueither> the north makes more sense
Arnelos> personally, I'd just want to decide the boundaries of the lands based upon corruption to various capitals... may even placate your "economics" crowd
notyoueither> that makes sense
Arnelos> my personal recommendation is that you put your FP somewhere near where Bilbao currently is and stretch your lands north along the East
notyoueither> what is being discussed is that we occupy toledo to defend it, and free up your entire army for pamplona-zaragoza
notyoueither> we would return toledo when the danger is past
Arnelos> ah
notyoueither> we would need nm for a turn or two, to speed our troops to the front
notyoueither> then it is better you have it, unless toledo falls
notyoueither> which i doubt it will
Arnelos> yeah, we'll see
notyoueither> if we can get there quickly
notyoueither> 16 or 18 combat units on the way
Arnelos> that's quite a sum
notyoueither> first wave
Arnelos> I think we just won over History Guy hew: ... that will help.
notyoueither> very good
notyoueither> arne, can we chat this evening? about the treaty?
ArnIDLE> yes
ArnIDLE> but only between now and ~7 p.m. my time
ArnIDLE> so in the next few hours
notyoueither> cool. maybe after the strat chat breaks up
ArnIDLE> I have to be out of here by then
notyoueither> oh. ok
ArnIDLE> *IF* it breaks up by then
notyoueither> i will nip out soon.
notyoueither> ok, arne
ArnIDLE> 4BACK (for now)
notyoueither> ok.
notyoueither> the treaty.
notyoueither> 1st issue
notyoueither> most of the clauses would have to be subject to other agreements with other civs
notyoueither> tech, for instance
notyoueither> if we trade for a tech with a nt clause
Arnelos> true
notyoueither> the nap would never be subject to
Arnelos> I suppose that can be added
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> 2nd issue
Arnelos> I didn't even think about that... knew there were things I was overlooking
notyoueither> would rp rather keep land in the south and give up land from nd?
Arnelos> That's what it sounds like most of the team is arguing
notyoueither> the north and midlands of nd
notyoueither> they are for it?
notyoueither> or they are arguing over it?
Arnelos> it's one of those things where Togas and I are agreeable either way, but MOST of the team seems rather partial to our current lands
notyoueither> we understand that. it is perfectly reasonable
notyoueither> i knew it would be an issue after i thought about it for a short bit
Arnelos> The way our team works, there are a lot of roleplayers who've grown rather attached to those lands over time.
notyoueither> understood
notyoueither> we want a partner, more than a servant
Arnelos> the landswap seems to have been an automatic sell to more gameplay-oriented people, not so much for the dedicated rpers
Arnelos> yes
* notyoueither nods
notyoueither> we would seek to maintain coastal outposts, and return other cities, like toledo when the need for us to defend it passes
notyoueither> long run, i think the only important position would be nm 6 9
notyoueither> and a patch of jungle 9 9 9 9 of nm
notyoueither> brb
Arnelos> ok
Arnelos> Togas just came back on... but he keeps losing his connection. We'll keep chatting and I'll relay it to Togas with logs
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> so. to be clear. is it likely that rp would want to preserve historic lands in exchange for nd lands.
notyoueither> ?
Arnelos> yes
notyoueither> cool
notyoueither> 3rd issue
notyoueither> confidentiality
Arnelos> (another thing I forgot to write in)
Arnelos> I knew I was forgetting stuff
notyoueither> we would like the treaty to be kept under wraps until gs agrees to make it's existance known
Arnelos> yeah, that was the original discussion
notyoueither> and then, that it's extent would still remain under wraps
Arnelos> correct
notyoueither> great
Arnelos> funny thing about that... you should see the post I wrote in the RP forum telling people to do just that
notyoueither> heheh
Arnelos> because it's critical to our own security that ND and GoW not realize what's up until later
Arnelos> especially Lego
notyoueither> i have to fetch something from our forum
notyoueither> that is very true. we do not want a 3 way with lego joining the bad guys
Arnelos> well, and Lego has been magnanimous enough to send us 150 gold to help defeat ND and GoW. It's pocketchange, but we won't turn it down.
Arnelos> as dejon already told you... Lego has a non-interference agreement with ND and GoW which they signed several turns back.
Arnelos> the agreement is basically that Lego is not allowed to put a single unit on Bob and ND and GoW are not allowed to put a single unit on Legos
Arnelos> they can't accept cities, either
notyoueither> but, nd could void the treaty
notyoueither> with lego agreeing
Arnelos> something like that
notyoueither> 4th issue. Posted by Aeson.
notyoueither> 'Also I would prefer it if the clause to include something along the lines of "Either team may allow the other to forgo declaring war if it serves the alliance". It may serve us better if RP doesn't have to declare war with Lego in the future, and thus can be our go between (trading, investigating cities, ect.)... situations like that.'
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> in fact... there's something I'm willing to spill the beans on
Arnelos> We've had an agreement with Lego since the start of the game
Arnelos> Lego is not allowed to invade RP Team until I believe 1000 A.D.
Arnelos> not that they would
notyoueither> that is very good
notyoueither> it could keep them out of the war for longer
Arnelos> they are also responsible for giving us technologies at discount... though we note that ZargonX hasn't been as good about upholding that part of the treaty as Nimitz and Spiffor were with vondrack
notyoueither> hmmm.
notyoueither> any chance they will give you chivalry?
Arnelos> they are bound by the nt clause with GoW
Arnelos> same as you
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> Education is the tech we were somewhat miffed they didn't trade us
Arnelos> but they did recently give us 2 techs for free I believe, so we didn't complain about Education, just politely asked them for an offer
Arnelos> of course, the 2 techs for free was in return for our promise not to build Michaelangelo's, I believe
Arnelos> they REALLY REALLY want it, not having luxuries
notyoueither> yes. we are aware of that one
notyoueither> 5th issue. Posted by Arrian
notyoueither> 'The rest of it looks good, although I'd amend clause 2 of section 1 (neither nation shall even declare war on the other) to include the possibility of a DoW being necessary for cooperative purposes - such as maybe exchanging some cataputs or something along those lines.
Arnelos> yes, that one has been discussed in the milOps channel, I see
Arnelos> agreed on that
Arnelos> it just never occured to me because I didn't know about that little trick
notyoueither> heh
notyoueither> Article VI
notyoueither> how do we rework this?
Arnelos> lemme look at the treaty
Arnelos> ah, exchange of territory
Arnelos> well... what exactly did you have in mind as the new demarkations?
notyoueither> ok. we specify that certain lands of Spain be trasferred to GS for protection during the war.
notyoueither> All but Bilbao to be returned to Spain
notyoueither> unless you guys really want Bilbao back.
Arnelos> that only covers the most southern regions of Bob
Arnelos> we don't NEED Bilbao if it helps as a port for you guys
Arnelos> it's a good port for you guys to use if it survives (which it may not)
notyoueither> we would have rights to build and keep ports from nm 3 3 and north of there
notyoueither> neither of us would accept a flip, and would return any cities which did flip
notyoueither> (if we don;t have a choice)
Arnelos> got it
notyoueither> Marlowa
notyoueither> Arneblanca
notyoueither> Neu Theban
notyoueither> Trippolis
notyoueither> Mavdad
notyoueither> their environs, and land south of them are to be granted to the Nobles of Spain
notyoueither> that extends Spain up to the ND mountains
Arnelos> ok, and to GS?
notyoueither> most of the north
notyoueither> we have our eye on a govt centre
notyoueither> maybe some other bits and pieces could be swapped back and forth
Arnelos> build your FP around where Lux and ND had their contesting cities?
notyoueither> near there
notyoueither> would need two things
notyoueither> victory
notyoueither> and a gkl
notyoueither> *gl
Arnelos> you just might get a GL defending us... there will certainly be enough die rolling
notyoueither> what we are hoping, arnelos, is that Espana never has reason to regret this treaty.
Arnelos> right
Arnelos> from the looks of it, we won't
notyoueither> i hope so.
notyoueither> i have had my differences with togas in the past, but I hope that is the past.
Arnelos> with Togas, seemingly it is
notyoueither>
Arnelos> he seems to be fully behind this
notyoueither> is there someone else mad at me?
Arnelos> not at you
notyoueither> at gs?
Arnelos> as I said, some of the RP'ers have wounded prides at the moment due to the ND and GoW invasions
notyoueither> ahh. yes. np
Arnelos> handing over land to GS was something they didn't want to do... there are 1-3 people who'd rather just go the way of Lux
Arnelos> History Guy was one of them, but he seems to have been won over
notyoueither>
Arnelos> there are a few others
notyoueither> hopefully, we can put them at ease
Arnelos> MrWIA is also unhappy, but he's most upset that we even signed an MPP with GoW
notyoueither> haha
Arnelos> he doesn't seem to have anything against GS as far as I can tell
notyoueither> OK. DeepO's comments
notyoueither> Article VII
notyoueither> is missing...
notyoueither> we need some points on agreements with other nations as well, and even on proposals from / to other nations. E.g. we can't have RP signing a MPP with Vox, if we want to invade them later on. Further, we can't have RP sell techs if we want to kepe them secret. Stuff like that.
Arnelos> I see
Arnelos> should then all agreements with other civs be mutual agreement?
Arnelos> or only certain types?
notyoueither> dont know
notyoueither> tech can only be traded with other civs with the approval of GS?
notyoueither> we will be researching most of it
Arnelos> true
Arnelos> I think that was already covered in the techsharing area, though
Arnelos> lemme check
Arnelos> oh... I took that part out
Arnelos> because I wasn't sure how to word it
Arnelos> was that in the notes?
Arnelos> no, it's not
Arnelos> odd
notyoueither> yeah
notyoueither> what about mpps and naps?
Arnelos> well, I was thinking about adding a clause whereby whoever originally researched a tech would have control over who it was traded to
Arnelos> or at least veto
Arnelos> MPPs and NAPs... mutual agreement?
notyoueither> i would like to. not sure if gs would accept it though
notyoueither> can rp live with a gs veto on nap's and mpp's?
Arnelos> I believe so
notyoueither> we may be planning a war, and not want entanglements.
Arnelos> that would be consistent with other areas of the treaty if it's an issue
notyoueither> ok. btw, i will leave you to write these things in. so that you guys are happy with it.
Arnelos> np
notyoueither> we have been pleased with your writting style
Arnelos> probably not until much later this evening
notyoueither> i might veer towards legalese
Arnelos> as I mentioned in the notes, I've been trying to make it as clear and unambigous as possible... but cover all the bases... which inevitably make it look "legalise"
notyoueither> you are doing a fine job of it
Arnelos> I happen to be of the opinion that making it vague would only cause arguments down the line over interpretation
Arnelos> and that's something I'd rather we avoided
notyoueither> re tech, could rp live with a gs veto on trades?
Arnelos> probably, if that's an issue. We will be sharing all techs between RP and GS, so it shouldn't be THAT much of an issue if you guys are providing techs.
notyoueither> agreed on the avoiding arguments
Arnelos> I'll add it and see what RP thinks
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> back to Article VII
notyoueither> Some paragraph on that we can't foresee all situations, and in case discussion occurs on some point not covered here, both will do their best to find a mutual beneficial solution, with GS having end-responsibility
Arnelos> oh, about the notes... any mention of the money concerns I raised or is it better to just leave that out?
Arnelos> ok, sounds workable on article VII
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> other things will come with time, trust, and friendship
Arnelos> true
Arnelos> I think my original thought was that what you just suggested as a paragraph in Article VII is implied, but it wouldn't hurt to state it
notyoueither> well, about note 1
notyoueither> it is difficult to put words together that require certain things without humiliation for one of us
Arnelos> true enough
Arnelos> I figure a number of these things can be worked out seperately... my thought is that we only put into the permanent treaty rules we want to be... well... permanent
notyoueither> i think clause 3 of tech is about as direct as we need
notyoueither> agreed
notyoueither> i read clause 3 that gs directs research, after discussion
Arnelos> exactly
notyoueither> in practice, it will often be us saying we can get x and y, best to shoot for z
Arnelos> something like that
notyoueither> "* note: Should there be an article about money and gifts/loans or can we just handle that as situations arise and on the basis of mutual trust and cooperation? Also up to you."
notyoueither> i think that we should work back and forth as the game goes on
Arnelos> right
notyoueither> right now, you need gold for rushes, but we need it for knights
notyoueither> it is a turn by turn decision of what does most for the 'union'
Arnelos> which can be decided by the partners together, ok that works - no need for it to be in the agreement, which was my instinct. I just included it in the notes in the event that was a concern.
Arnelos> because I figured someone might raise it
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> btw... I was working on something of a theme for our avatars that some of you guys might be interested in (should avatars ever come back...)
notyoueither> yes?
Arnelos> I've made a rather nice set of King Theoden avatars for Togas... working on other Rohirrim avatars for other RP people
notyoueither> Rohirrim?
Arnelos> if you guys do indeed show up and this thing blows wide open, related temporary avatars might be cute. Just a propaganda thing I was cooking
Arnelos> Lord of the Rings
notyoueither> ohhhhh. that would be wonderful *clap clap*
Arnelos> you see... we're the ones holed up inside Helm's Deep getting our asses besieged
notyoueither> are we the elves, or are we darker...
Arnelos> and GoW bears some... resemblance... to orcs
notyoueither> please go on
Arnelos> the analogy breaks down in several places, but oh well
Arnelos> you guys could use elven and Gondor avatars
Arnelos> the implication being that ND and GoW are the hordes of orcs created to destroy the world of men
notyoueither> being elves would explain the fixation on nature, and the cotrol over winds and seas
notyoueither> hehe
Arnelos> We had an "alliance" with GoW... Saruman?
notyoueither> heh
Arnelos> it was just a cute idea I came up with while watching the Two Towers in the cheap theatre with friends last night
Arnelos> $2.50 for that movie is great
notyoueither> i am waiting to see them all. 1 2 3, the same night
Arnelos> the dvd's?
notyoueither> unfortunately, 1 came on tv one night
notyoueither> or in a theatre
Arnelos> the dvd's all three of them would be something like 10-11 hours put together
notyoueither> theatres may well do that
Arnelos> that's a daylong activity
Arnelos> but I agree it would be great
Arnelos> so yeah... if we ever get avatars back, we could certainly work on that
notyoueither> i will cut the log of this before this point <<<<<
Arnelos> got it
notyoueither> i see deepo is pestering dejon to death
Arnelos> I need to make a log as well
notyoueither> he is very enthuisatic
Arnelos> lol
notyoueither> please don;t take him the wrong way
Arnelos> why would we do that?
notyoueither> english is also his second language
Arnelos> ah
Arnelos> NYE
notyoueither> hi
Arnelos> there is one small issue that seems to have cropped up among our roleplay camp (we have a sizable one) concerning hte treaty
notyoueither> shoot
Arnelos> they have a concern, being roleplayers, that we're gifting "catholic" lands into the hands of a "non-christian" civ... Pope Calixtus I (History Guy) is particularly upset about this... perhaps we could asauge them
Arnelos> with something completely meaningless in-game
notyoueither> hmmm, anything in mind?
Arnelos> two things: GS "converts" and you get to have several cardinals that can vote on the next pope or, at the least, those lands "remain catholic, respecting local cultural traditions"
Arnelos> History Guy is aiming for the former, but he might settle for the latter
notyoueither> i think that the storm can respect the cuctoms of the local populous
Arnelos> since it's completely meaningless in game and it resolves a problem our roleplayers have, I'd think it's possible
notyoueither> the church is valued of course, to maintain order and to supply sucor to the masses during these dark times
notyoueither> btw, we are leaning towards leaving as much of th south in rp hands as possible, and take more in the north
Arnelos> that makes more sense corruption-wise
notyoueither> we understand the importance of the land to your people
notyoueither> well, we could have put a govt centre down in the south, or the north
notyoueither> the north makes more sense
Arnelos> personally, I'd just want to decide the boundaries of the lands based upon corruption to various capitals... may even placate your "economics" crowd
notyoueither> that makes sense
Arnelos> my personal recommendation is that you put your FP somewhere near where Bilbao currently is and stretch your lands north along the East
notyoueither> what is being discussed is that we occupy toledo to defend it, and free up your entire army for pamplona-zaragoza
notyoueither> we would return toledo when the danger is past
Arnelos> ah
notyoueither> we would need nm for a turn or two, to speed our troops to the front
notyoueither> then it is better you have it, unless toledo falls
notyoueither> which i doubt it will
Arnelos> yeah, we'll see
notyoueither> if we can get there quickly
notyoueither> 16 or 18 combat units on the way
Arnelos> that's quite a sum
notyoueither> first wave
Arnelos> I think we just won over History Guy hew: ... that will help.
notyoueither> very good
notyoueither> arne, can we chat this evening? about the treaty?
ArnIDLE> yes
ArnIDLE> but only between now and ~7 p.m. my time
ArnIDLE> so in the next few hours
notyoueither> cool. maybe after the strat chat breaks up
ArnIDLE> I have to be out of here by then
notyoueither> oh. ok
ArnIDLE> *IF* it breaks up by then
notyoueither> i will nip out soon.
notyoueither> ok, arne
ArnIDLE> 4BACK (for now)
notyoueither> ok.
notyoueither> the treaty.
notyoueither> 1st issue
notyoueither> most of the clauses would have to be subject to other agreements with other civs
notyoueither> tech, for instance
notyoueither> if we trade for a tech with a nt clause
Arnelos> true
notyoueither> the nap would never be subject to
Arnelos> I suppose that can be added
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> 2nd issue
Arnelos> I didn't even think about that... knew there were things I was overlooking
notyoueither> would rp rather keep land in the south and give up land from nd?
Arnelos> That's what it sounds like most of the team is arguing
notyoueither> the north and midlands of nd
notyoueither> they are for it?
notyoueither> or they are arguing over it?
Arnelos> it's one of those things where Togas and I are agreeable either way, but MOST of the team seems rather partial to our current lands
notyoueither> we understand that. it is perfectly reasonable
notyoueither> i knew it would be an issue after i thought about it for a short bit
Arnelos> The way our team works, there are a lot of roleplayers who've grown rather attached to those lands over time.
notyoueither> understood
notyoueither> we want a partner, more than a servant
Arnelos> the landswap seems to have been an automatic sell to more gameplay-oriented people, not so much for the dedicated rpers
Arnelos> yes
* notyoueither nods
notyoueither> we would seek to maintain coastal outposts, and return other cities, like toledo when the need for us to defend it passes
notyoueither> long run, i think the only important position would be nm 6 9
notyoueither> and a patch of jungle 9 9 9 9 of nm
notyoueither> brb
Arnelos> ok
Arnelos> Togas just came back on... but he keeps losing his connection. We'll keep chatting and I'll relay it to Togas with logs
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> so. to be clear. is it likely that rp would want to preserve historic lands in exchange for nd lands.
notyoueither> ?
Arnelos> yes
notyoueither> cool
notyoueither> 3rd issue
notyoueither> confidentiality
Arnelos> (another thing I forgot to write in)
Arnelos> I knew I was forgetting stuff
notyoueither> we would like the treaty to be kept under wraps until gs agrees to make it's existance known
Arnelos> yeah, that was the original discussion
notyoueither> and then, that it's extent would still remain under wraps
Arnelos> correct
notyoueither> great
Arnelos> funny thing about that... you should see the post I wrote in the RP forum telling people to do just that
notyoueither> heheh
Arnelos> because it's critical to our own security that ND and GoW not realize what's up until later
Arnelos> especially Lego
notyoueither> i have to fetch something from our forum
notyoueither> that is very true. we do not want a 3 way with lego joining the bad guys
Arnelos> well, and Lego has been magnanimous enough to send us 150 gold to help defeat ND and GoW. It's pocketchange, but we won't turn it down.
Arnelos> as dejon already told you... Lego has a non-interference agreement with ND and GoW which they signed several turns back.
Arnelos> the agreement is basically that Lego is not allowed to put a single unit on Bob and ND and GoW are not allowed to put a single unit on Legos
Arnelos> they can't accept cities, either
notyoueither> but, nd could void the treaty
notyoueither> with lego agreeing
Arnelos> something like that
notyoueither> 4th issue. Posted by Aeson.
notyoueither> 'Also I would prefer it if the clause to include something along the lines of "Either team may allow the other to forgo declaring war if it serves the alliance". It may serve us better if RP doesn't have to declare war with Lego in the future, and thus can be our go between (trading, investigating cities, ect.)... situations like that.'
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> in fact... there's something I'm willing to spill the beans on
Arnelos> We've had an agreement with Lego since the start of the game
Arnelos> Lego is not allowed to invade RP Team until I believe 1000 A.D.
Arnelos> not that they would
notyoueither> that is very good
notyoueither> it could keep them out of the war for longer
Arnelos> they are also responsible for giving us technologies at discount... though we note that ZargonX hasn't been as good about upholding that part of the treaty as Nimitz and Spiffor were with vondrack
notyoueither> hmmm.
notyoueither> any chance they will give you chivalry?
Arnelos> they are bound by the nt clause with GoW
Arnelos> same as you
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> Education is the tech we were somewhat miffed they didn't trade us
Arnelos> but they did recently give us 2 techs for free I believe, so we didn't complain about Education, just politely asked them for an offer
Arnelos> of course, the 2 techs for free was in return for our promise not to build Michaelangelo's, I believe
Arnelos> they REALLY REALLY want it, not having luxuries
notyoueither> yes. we are aware of that one
notyoueither> 5th issue. Posted by Arrian
notyoueither> 'The rest of it looks good, although I'd amend clause 2 of section 1 (neither nation shall even declare war on the other) to include the possibility of a DoW being necessary for cooperative purposes - such as maybe exchanging some cataputs or something along those lines.
Arnelos> yes, that one has been discussed in the milOps channel, I see
Arnelos> agreed on that
Arnelos> it just never occured to me because I didn't know about that little trick
notyoueither> heh
notyoueither> Article VI
notyoueither> how do we rework this?
Arnelos> lemme look at the treaty
Arnelos> ah, exchange of territory
Arnelos> well... what exactly did you have in mind as the new demarkations?
notyoueither> ok. we specify that certain lands of Spain be trasferred to GS for protection during the war.
notyoueither> All but Bilbao to be returned to Spain
notyoueither> unless you guys really want Bilbao back.
Arnelos> that only covers the most southern regions of Bob
Arnelos> we don't NEED Bilbao if it helps as a port for you guys
Arnelos> it's a good port for you guys to use if it survives (which it may not)
notyoueither> we would have rights to build and keep ports from nm 3 3 and north of there
notyoueither> neither of us would accept a flip, and would return any cities which did flip
notyoueither> (if we don;t have a choice)
Arnelos> got it
notyoueither> Marlowa
notyoueither> Arneblanca
notyoueither> Neu Theban
notyoueither> Trippolis
notyoueither> Mavdad
notyoueither> their environs, and land south of them are to be granted to the Nobles of Spain
notyoueither> that extends Spain up to the ND mountains
Arnelos> ok, and to GS?
notyoueither> most of the north
notyoueither> we have our eye on a govt centre
notyoueither> maybe some other bits and pieces could be swapped back and forth
Arnelos> build your FP around where Lux and ND had their contesting cities?
notyoueither> near there
notyoueither> would need two things
notyoueither> victory
notyoueither> and a gkl
notyoueither> *gl
Arnelos> you just might get a GL defending us... there will certainly be enough die rolling
notyoueither> what we are hoping, arnelos, is that Espana never has reason to regret this treaty.
Arnelos> right
Arnelos> from the looks of it, we won't
notyoueither> i hope so.
notyoueither> i have had my differences with togas in the past, but I hope that is the past.
Arnelos> with Togas, seemingly it is
notyoueither>
Arnelos> he seems to be fully behind this
notyoueither> is there someone else mad at me?
Arnelos> not at you
notyoueither> at gs?
Arnelos> as I said, some of the RP'ers have wounded prides at the moment due to the ND and GoW invasions
notyoueither> ahh. yes. np
Arnelos> handing over land to GS was something they didn't want to do... there are 1-3 people who'd rather just go the way of Lux
Arnelos> History Guy was one of them, but he seems to have been won over
notyoueither>
Arnelos> there are a few others
notyoueither> hopefully, we can put them at ease
Arnelos> MrWIA is also unhappy, but he's most upset that we even signed an MPP with GoW
notyoueither> haha
Arnelos> he doesn't seem to have anything against GS as far as I can tell
notyoueither> OK. DeepO's comments
notyoueither> Article VII
notyoueither> is missing...
notyoueither> we need some points on agreements with other nations as well, and even on proposals from / to other nations. E.g. we can't have RP signing a MPP with Vox, if we want to invade them later on. Further, we can't have RP sell techs if we want to kepe them secret. Stuff like that.
Arnelos> I see
Arnelos> should then all agreements with other civs be mutual agreement?
Arnelos> or only certain types?
notyoueither> dont know
notyoueither> tech can only be traded with other civs with the approval of GS?
notyoueither> we will be researching most of it
Arnelos> true
Arnelos> I think that was already covered in the techsharing area, though
Arnelos> lemme check
Arnelos> oh... I took that part out
Arnelos> because I wasn't sure how to word it
Arnelos> was that in the notes?
Arnelos> no, it's not
Arnelos> odd
notyoueither> yeah
notyoueither> what about mpps and naps?
Arnelos> well, I was thinking about adding a clause whereby whoever originally researched a tech would have control over who it was traded to
Arnelos> or at least veto
Arnelos> MPPs and NAPs... mutual agreement?
notyoueither> i would like to. not sure if gs would accept it though
notyoueither> can rp live with a gs veto on nap's and mpp's?
Arnelos> I believe so
notyoueither> we may be planning a war, and not want entanglements.
Arnelos> that would be consistent with other areas of the treaty if it's an issue
notyoueither> ok. btw, i will leave you to write these things in. so that you guys are happy with it.
Arnelos> np
notyoueither> we have been pleased with your writting style
Arnelos> probably not until much later this evening
notyoueither> i might veer towards legalese
Arnelos> as I mentioned in the notes, I've been trying to make it as clear and unambigous as possible... but cover all the bases... which inevitably make it look "legalise"
notyoueither> you are doing a fine job of it
Arnelos> I happen to be of the opinion that making it vague would only cause arguments down the line over interpretation
Arnelos> and that's something I'd rather we avoided
notyoueither> re tech, could rp live with a gs veto on trades?
Arnelos> probably, if that's an issue. We will be sharing all techs between RP and GS, so it shouldn't be THAT much of an issue if you guys are providing techs.
notyoueither> agreed on the avoiding arguments
Arnelos> I'll add it and see what RP thinks
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> back to Article VII
notyoueither> Some paragraph on that we can't foresee all situations, and in case discussion occurs on some point not covered here, both will do their best to find a mutual beneficial solution, with GS having end-responsibility
Arnelos> oh, about the notes... any mention of the money concerns I raised or is it better to just leave that out?
Arnelos> ok, sounds workable on article VII
notyoueither> ok
notyoueither> other things will come with time, trust, and friendship
Arnelos> true
Arnelos> I think my original thought was that what you just suggested as a paragraph in Article VII is implied, but it wouldn't hurt to state it
notyoueither> well, about note 1
notyoueither> it is difficult to put words together that require certain things without humiliation for one of us
Arnelos> true enough
Arnelos> I figure a number of these things can be worked out seperately... my thought is that we only put into the permanent treaty rules we want to be... well... permanent
notyoueither> i think clause 3 of tech is about as direct as we need
notyoueither> agreed
notyoueither> i read clause 3 that gs directs research, after discussion
Arnelos> exactly
notyoueither> in practice, it will often be us saying we can get x and y, best to shoot for z
Arnelos> something like that
notyoueither> "* note: Should there be an article about money and gifts/loans or can we just handle that as situations arise and on the basis of mutual trust and cooperation? Also up to you."
notyoueither> i think that we should work back and forth as the game goes on
Arnelos> right
notyoueither> right now, you need gold for rushes, but we need it for knights
notyoueither> it is a turn by turn decision of what does most for the 'union'
Arnelos> which can be decided by the partners together, ok that works - no need for it to be in the agreement, which was my instinct. I just included it in the notes in the event that was a concern.
Arnelos> because I figured someone might raise it
notyoueither> ok
Arnelos> btw... I was working on something of a theme for our avatars that some of you guys might be interested in (should avatars ever come back...)
notyoueither> yes?
Arnelos> I've made a rather nice set of King Theoden avatars for Togas... working on other Rohirrim avatars for other RP people
notyoueither> Rohirrim?
Arnelos> if you guys do indeed show up and this thing blows wide open, related temporary avatars might be cute. Just a propaganda thing I was cooking
Arnelos> Lord of the Rings
notyoueither> ohhhhh. that would be wonderful *clap clap*
Arnelos> you see... we're the ones holed up inside Helm's Deep getting our asses besieged
notyoueither> are we the elves, or are we darker...
Arnelos> and GoW bears some... resemblance... to orcs
notyoueither> please go on
Arnelos> the analogy breaks down in several places, but oh well
Arnelos> you guys could use elven and Gondor avatars
Arnelos> the implication being that ND and GoW are the hordes of orcs created to destroy the world of men
notyoueither> being elves would explain the fixation on nature, and the cotrol over winds and seas
notyoueither> hehe
Arnelos> We had an "alliance" with GoW... Saruman?
notyoueither> heh
Arnelos> it was just a cute idea I came up with while watching the Two Towers in the cheap theatre with friends last night
Arnelos> $2.50 for that movie is great
notyoueither> i am waiting to see them all. 1 2 3, the same night
Arnelos> the dvd's?
notyoueither> unfortunately, 1 came on tv one night
notyoueither> or in a theatre
Arnelos> the dvd's all three of them would be something like 10-11 hours put together
notyoueither> theatres may well do that
Arnelos> that's a daylong activity
Arnelos> but I agree it would be great
Arnelos> so yeah... if we ever get avatars back, we could certainly work on that
notyoueither> i will cut the log of this before this point <<<<<
Arnelos> got it
notyoueither> i see deepo is pestering dejon to death
Arnelos> I need to make a log as well
notyoueither> he is very enthuisatic
Arnelos> lol
notyoueither> please don;t take him the wrong way
Arnelos> why would we do that?
notyoueither> english is also his second language
Arnelos> ah
Comment