Public Announcement from Gathering Storm

[Shiber]

Originally posted by dejon
I can't speak for E_T or BigFree, but please don't judge the entire RP team due to my perceptions.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I knew we would get there in the end

Much better Shiber

That last statement isn't very clear. Do you feel that I owed you an apology?

[Arrian]

It's just the way it seems to me, Dejon, that's all.

As for the map issue... we're a small island civ engaged in a war. Trading our map is, IMO, bordering on outright stupidity. Failure to do so is held against us. So be it. I can't help that. Strategically, giving up our world map dramatically decreases our security. I can't see us ever coughing it up.

As for the possibility of indirect RP involvement in the war, I've heard that suggestion, and given the cold and/or downright angry tone I've heard from members of your team toward GS, I didn't think it was outside the realm of possibility. I wouldn't have accused you of it outright, though You say it isn't true, and I will believe that.

In defence of our diplomatic core, this thread was not their doing.

Hot Enamel,

Does GS propose that if any two teams go to war, nothing should be traded by the other teams to either waring teams ?

I am particularly confused as to why you stop at Iron??

Oh, please. All we said was we wouldn't be happy if teams traded Vox iron right now. We didn't say "you can't do it." We were attempting to discourage a trade that could hurt us. Until we destroy or capture Vox's harbor, we cannot prevent trades (edit: well, there is a way, as Shiber pointed out, but...). We know that. Hence Nathan's attempt to convince the world not to do something we cannot prevent for at least a little while.

If you wish to construe it as GS "making demands to the rest of the world" that's your call. Frankly, it seems that no matter what we say, it's wrong.

-Arrian

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Shiber

That last statement isn't very clear. Do you feel that I owed you an apology?

No, we just figured there would be a more carefully worded version to come out sooner or later.

[OPD]

Muhhhhhaaahhhhhaaaaawwww

War on Vox
War on the allies of Vox
War on those who would harbour voxians
And on those who would build harbours to trade with voxians


Please note that I nor anything I say represent GS or the views of GS in anyway.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Shiber



That last statement isn't very clear. Do you feel that I owed you an apology?

No no no

As Unortho said...
You have expressed what you team wanted to say far better than your team mates.

So... to you Shiber

[vulture]

Now now OPD, you've stopped taking your tablets again haven't you? Naughty Prince of infallibility.

[OPD]

Originally posted by vulture
Now now OPD, you've stopped taking your tablets again haven't you? Naughty Prince of infallibility.

Quite the opposite actually I think I'm the only sane one here.
Although maybe I should have made the disclaimer a bit bigger and more exhastive.

[mrmitchell]

PTW Award Entry

PTW Award Entry:
Gathering Storm, Most Coordinated Team

I must say, I had never imagined any team being this prepared to defend themselves on their statements. Moreso, never have I seen such an uncontrollable torrent of spam from one team alone in just less than a day. This has got to be one of the greatest threads of the game so far, thanks for making me forget this nice "to-do" list I have on my desk.

---

WARNING
The next set of statements are NOT made by the official Roleplay Team FAMdude. They are only the personal opinion of mrmitchell. Do NOT take them seriously.

As for the actual threat itself (and IMO it is one) then , if you're going to give us specific guidelines to live by just say "Do this or we'll bust your ass," don't bother making it fancy.

(The previous was NOT the official stance of the Roleplay team. It was my own self's opinion, and I will probably discover it to be something significantly different when I actually go to the forum. )

[Arrian]

To be honest, I wasn't "prepared" to defend GS in any coordinated way - I didn't even know that Nathan was going to post this thread. I just popped into our private forum and saw a reference to this thread, and decided to check it out.

My comments were entirely "off the cuff."

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by dejon
RE: Isolationism
I withdraw the "completely" from my isolationist comment earlier. GS participated a little in world affairs early on. However, my perspective of GS is still an isolationist one. Not sharing maps is a big deal. And I can't think of a single diplomatic deal GS did with RP at any time, though the diplomats of both teams may correct and remind of any. Lego is also guilty of some isolationism, but mostly because it took them so long to make contact. In comparison, we have had at least a couple of trades with Lego.

We offer to sell you Feudalism, you refuse, and you call us isolationist over it? If you don't think your team is involved in enough deals with us, why aren't you trying to persuade your own diplomats to engage us more? If your team's attitude is, "We won't trade with GS. They're a bunch of isolationists," I'd say you're the ones being isolationist, not us.

RE: Aggressor
Personally, I don't care who the aggressor was. This game is about war. I am not in favour of either side. I am however disappointed that GS has chosen to make this (nicely worded) threat to everyone. That alone is what has me irritated.

I wonder whether you would still regard the issue of who the aggressor was as irrelevant if you were the ones who were lied to and attacked by surprise. The treachery Vox used to set up their attack gives this war a rather different flavor in our minds from what it would have as a straight attack without the lies. War is a major, inherent part of the game. Dishonesty is not.

Now this really steams me:

This is outright slander. RP has had no part in the Vox/GS war. This is not the first time someone has unfairly implied dishonesty or treachery on the part of RP, as if we are predisposed to such behaviour because we role play. To my knowledge, the only time RP has ever been less than completely open and honest with other teams is early on, when we simply did not divulge how much land was south of us to ND/GoW, and the one time we stalled a diplomacy deal a bit. It is a pretty huge leap from that to accuse us of planning Vox's war.

To the best of my knowledge, your team's interest in roleplay has nothing to do with the suspicions many within GS have toward your team. (And my apologies for the bad manners involved in DeepO's presenting suspicions as if they were fact in a public forum; that should not have been done without clear evidence and without our having discussed the matter with your team in private to get a clearer picture.)

On the other hand, if you look at some of Togas's posts in the public forum, it seems quite clear that he, at least, has a rather hostile attitude toward us. I don't recall seeing much from other members of your team indicating that his attitude does not reflect the attitude of your team at large, and our discussions with other teams do indicate a general practice within Roleplay of trying to raise concern about us in the minds of other teams. (Of course with us, it's Lego you try to raise concern about.) Is it really such a big leap to suspect that Roleplay would go from that to actively encouraging, and maybe even providing some support for, a war against us? Then add to that your refusal to buy Feudalism from us, almost as if you wanted to make sure we wouldn't have the gold we desparately needed for upgrades to defend ourselves against Vox's surprise attack.

As I said, I think the way DeepO made an accusation withut hard evidence, based solely on suspicion and without even having discussed our suspicions with your team in private, was completely unwarranted. But are our suspicions themselves really so hard to understand?

If I was on the GS diplomatic team, I would have handled this differently. I would have contacted teams individually and requested a trade: do not trade/deal with Vox in exchange for something. Instead what we're getting is: do not trade/deal with Vox or we'll attack you too (implied threat).

Not, "or we'll attack you too." Indeed, we weren't the ones who started the war with Vox, so "too" would not quite be gramatically correct even if we were threatening an attack. Rather, "or the fact that you assisted our enemies will affect future relations."

Keep in mind that the only reason Vox has a need for foreign iron in the first place is that we cut off their domestic supply. So what we are asking for is not for other civs to turn down profits that they could reasonably expect due to natural distribution of resources. Rather, we are merely asking other civs not to take advantage of a situation our military created in order to profit at clear and significant expense to us. "Give us something or we'll undo the results of your military operation by providing Vox with a replacement source of iron" sounds entirely too much like extortion for my taste.

That's just poor diplomacy, as far as I'm concerned. It practically guarantees a negative reaction, regardless if the recipient had plans to send Vox iron or not (not, in our case). I just hope that Spain will overcome any such initial reaction and continue our peaceful path, despite GS's provocative statements.

I would have thought it would be obvious, at least once a person or team thinks about it, that undoing a military advantage a civ gains in cutting off an enemy's resources would not be viewed favorably. So much for my idea that I was merely calling attention to a fact that ought to be self-evident, at least once you think about it a little.

[Shiber]

Hot_Enamel: thanks. I hope that you understand our intentions better now.

MrMitchell: you haven't read my posts, have you? I said that our intention was to say that we will have no choice but to use a technical state of war in order to set up a blockade and prevent any iron trade, if any of the Bobian civs choose to send iron to Vox. "Do this or we'll bust your ass" is definitely a threat, whereas "If you trade iron to Vox we will have no choice but to use a technical state of war to prevent you from doing so, while not actually threatening any of your cities and units or otherwise acting as if we're at war"... may be perceived as a threat by some, but you must all agree that if this is a threat, then it is a very lame excuse for one.
As for the award, thank-you and appreciated, but I think that lack of coordination (we never discussed the actual wording of the announcement) is really the cause for all of this.

[Shiber]

Btw, is it just me or is MrMitchell's new sig particularly witty?
Congrats MrMitchell.

[nbarclay]

Just to reiterate something in case it gets lost in my longer message, the only reason Vox needs foreign iron in the first place is that our military action cut off their domestic supply. So if a civ starts trading iron to Vox, they are taking advantage of an opportunity our own military actions created in order to profit at our expense. When we ask other civs not to provide Vox with a replacement source of iron, we do not ask that they give up any trade or potential trade that would have existed without our actions.

[Beta]

Originally posted by nbarclay
War is a major, inherent part of the game. Dishonesty is not.

One of the best one-liners (actually a two-liner) yet.

Topped only by the post two down.