The Glory of Manifestos

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Glory of Pigeons does not exist. Doesn't that make it a perfect name for a team that does not exist?

This Pigeon will self destruct in five seconds.......

[Shiber]

four...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Right. Glory of Pigeons does not exist. Doesn't that make it a perfect name for a team that does not exist?

but there is Glory of Pigeon Poop

[nbarclay]

Regarding "the spirit of the agreement," I would like to make clear the spirit in which GoW seems to have entered into the NAP. Their intent was never that the agreement be something reciprocal through which both sides would receive similar benefit (or if it was, the only gains they planned for us were too long-term to be relied on in the absence of near-absolute trust). Rather, their intent was to make GS stand idly by while they and ND carved up RP between just the two of them.

If the NAP had held, the worst that GS's actions would have done to GoW during the course of the NAP was more or less what they were trying to do to us. GoW instead of GS would have been the ones stuck with a hard time expanding, but if it's okay within the spirit of the NAP for them to do it to us, why not for us to do it to them? If they had entered into the agreement with a spirit of equality and reciprocity, we would have regarded ourselves as bound by such a spirit. But since their goals in the treaty centered around manipulation and cynical self-interest with little regard for what GS wanted to gain from the agreement, we were content to interpret the treaty in a similarly manipulative and self-serving way.

If the spirit of the agreement was supposed to be that both sides had a full right to conquer whatever land we could so long as we did not fight each other, GoW violated that spirit before they even proposed the NAP by having an agreement with ND that divided RP's lands in such a way as to exclude us. And if they expected us to ignore the self-serving, manipulative spirit with which they requested the agreement in deciding what "the spirit of the agreement" was for our own planning, that was a very serious miscalculation.

[Hot_Enamel]

Blah Blah Blah ...

I would love to respond, but for fear of offending any GS member who may then claim it was a personal attack.

[Shiber]

There we go again.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Regarding "the spirit of the agreement," I would like to make clear the spirit in which GoW seems to have entered into the NAP. Their intent was never that the agreement be something reciprocal through which both sides would receive similar benefit (or if it was, the only gains they planned for us were too long-term to be relied on in the absence of near-absolute trust). Rather, their intent was to make GS stand idly by while they and ND carved up RP between just the two of them.

Were you aware of this when signing the NAP?

[Shiber]

No.
First they made us promise to sign a NAP in a chat. Then they told us about their plans to attack RP with the help of ND.
Later, in a joint GS-GoW-ND chat, we were told that any GS presence on Bob is unwelcome and that we can't actively participate in this war as well, or we can help GoW and ND but in the end we'll have to give away anything that we conquer.
GoW told us that they signed a NAP with us in order to prevent ND from backstabbing them. But after the joint chat, it became clear that this was also a scam that GoW pulled on us in an attempt to prevent us from intervening while they and ND split up a continent that is more than three times larger than Stormia, according to the tile count.
IMHO, the spirit of the agreement that GS agreed to was to prevent ND from using us to backstab GoW. A day or two later (after the NAP was already signed, IIRC) GoW tried to stretch the spirit of the agreement to include that GS establishing presence on Bob without the consent of GoW would constitute an act of hostility, as forbidden by the NAP. But changes to a contract cannot be made retroactively, at least not without the consent of all parties involved, and we have made very obvious statements during the chat against GoW's plans for GS.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Shiber
No.
First they made us promise to sign a NAP in a chat. Then they told us about their plans to attack RP with the help of ND.
Later, in a joint GS-GoW-ND chat, we were told that any GS presence on Bob is unwelcome and that we can't actively participate in this war as well, or we can help GoW and ND but in the end we'll have to give away anything that we conquer.
GoW told us that they signed a NAP with us in order to prevent ND from backstabbing them. But after the joint chat, it became clear that this was also a scam that GoW pulled on us in an attempt to prevent us from intervening while they and ND split up a continent that is more than three times larger than Stormia, according to the tile count.
IMHO, the spirit of the agreement that GS agreed to was to prevent ND from using us to backstab GoW. A day or two later (after the NAP was already signed, IIRC) GoW tried to stretch the spirit of the agreement to include that GS establishing presence on Bob without the consent of GoW would constitute an act of hostility, as forbidden by the NAP. But changes to a contract cannot be made retroactively, at least not without the consent of all parties involved, and we have made very obvious statements during the chat against GoW's plans for GS.

I am going to have to come of not nice mode to deal with this. This is blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

1) GoW was considering who it needed to attack with its UUs. Both Roleplay and GS were considering very real theats to our existence. GS refused to sign a NAP which made us feel it was very likely they were preparing to take us out by themselves or more likely with another team.

2) UnOrthOdOx worked very hard to prevent a war with GS. He send pms and organized chats, which is very difficult with GS as their pms and communication are slow due to the nature of the way they make their decisions. It was in these chats that notyoueither began suggesting that GoW should attaack Roleplay. He continued to push this and during this he hinted that if we in fact GS was very gung ho on the assault on Roleplay.

Excerpts from the ND/GoW/GS chat:
Note: the excerpts from the chatlog have been removed per Aeson's requests. Members of the GS team have been lying. There is black and white undeniable proof of this. However, they don't wish this to come out and therefore the excerpt has been deleted.

And there was a lot more. Shiber's BLATANT LIES that GS didn't understand what they were getting into and hadn't realized GoW and ND were going to attack Roleplay are exactly that. It was their suggestion and they turned coat when enough money/cities were offered to them.


Do I hold this against GS? No, it was in their best interest. But, their lying about stuff in posts such as the previous is going too far. Beta's was done in fun and humor and no one took it seriously. The post above was an attempt to declare a falsehood as fact.

[Aeson]

(this applies to GS as well as any team)

It was my understanding that diplomatic PM's and chat logs are posted 'publicly' in the team forums by mutual team consent. Posting them in a public forum seems like a breach of that trust and forum rules. Even summary posts shouldn't be made IMO.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Aeson
(this applies to GS as well as any team)

It was my understanding that diplomatic PM's and chat logs are posted 'publicly' in the team forums by mutual team consent. Posting them in a public forum seems like a breach of that trust and forum rules. Even summary posts shouldn't be made IMO.

I agree, but BLATANT LYING as in this case shouldn't be done IMO. GS members have done this.

How is lying "honorable"?

[Shiber]

I don't lie GF. I make mistakes and misunderstandings sometimes, as much as we all do, but I don't tell lies knowing that they are lies. This could be just a big misunderstanding, where both teams have made certain leaps in logic and have come to wrong conclusions (for example, we never planned on attacking you, but you still interpreted our refusal to sign a NAP with GoW for quite a while as a sign that we are preparing for war), but I know one thing for sure - labeling people as liars isn't going to solve anything.

Now, it may come as a shock to you but: GS did not plan any of this.
I can't quite point out a single member of GS who didn't like RP to be destroyed or at least crippled. They have done a lot to upset us, much like they've done a lot to upset GoW and ND and forged this unlikely alliance. So I don't think that you can really blame GS for being upset with RP or wanting it to be destroyed.
However, when RP made their offer we accepted and put ourselves in a condition that we'd have never believed that we'd end up in a few months ago. We got over our emotions when our logic told us that if we leave GoW and ND alone, we're almost forgoing any chances of winning this game at all.

Still, noone was seriously considering lending RP a hand (or at least noone voiced such an opinion on GS's forum, IIRC) until they made us an offer, which happened about two days after the joint GS-GoW-ND chat.

Shiber's BLATANT LIES that GS didn't understand what they were getting into and hadn't realized GoW and ND were going to attack Roleplay are exactly that.

The team-up of GoW and ND came as a complete surprise to GS. I can quote shock posts from GS's thread if you want me to.
We didn't expect any of this "Hey, you can't have anything substantial on Bob, period." either.
You can call me a fool for not seeing any of this coming, but please don't call me a liar.

Despite what you said, I still think that GoW tricked GS and over-stretched a NAP. I continue to stand behind my previous post.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Note, how that after I edited out the proof, they start posting again.

[Shiber]

You called me a liar and posted logs that were put out of context, what can I say?

[Aeson]

You can't seriously expect us to believe that you felt "BLATANT LYING" would go without someone commenting on in.

(I wish they wouldn't though...)