The Glory of Manifestos

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Shiber
that Lego let themselves be bullied into a NAP in the first place.

It's amazing the pressure one can place on another team as they watch you microwave their lego blocks into puddles of useless plastic one by one........

[UnOrthOdOx]

Is there any way to put a whole thread on your ignore list?

I can't help myself and every time I look in here I see something else that I find annoying/angering. Then I'll say something stupid again and piss everyone off....

Damn it, I can't lock the thread either...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I can't help myself and every time I look in here I see something else that I find annoying/angering. Then I'll say something stupid again and piss everyone off....

I think thats what fuels most of the larger threads in this forum.

[Hot_Enamel]

Wow.. so many posts since my last.

1. @ Nathan

Given the absence of immediate danger to your troops and the fact that cooperating with your plans would have placed our own troops in greater danger, our actions have ample explanation independent of accusations of hostile intent.

I doubt anyone disbelieves that GS think that they acted in their best interests. Hell..even I think it. But “acting in your own interests” has nothing to do if GS broke the NAP or not. I am quite happy to agree to disagree on which team broke the NAP so that this thread can die.


1. @ notyoueither

GoW has failed to keep a single agreement with GS. Every single one has been broken.
GoW entered into one last agreement with GS with the intent to twist the agreement to their advantage. We would be welcome to send troops to kill RP and then we could bugger off.
GoW attempted to twist an NAP into things which it is not, such as an RoP.
GoW is seriously shocked when the patience in GS for GoW and their 'tricks' has been exhausted and we tell them where to get off when they make demands in a... less than diplomatic tone.

I still get a laugh when GoW tries to point fingers in this. What the hell do they know about honoring agreements when they've never met one they wouldn't break?

Same thing as Nathan. Why does GS want to cloud the issue. I don’t mind GS stating the justification for breaking the NAP was a little bit of pay back. But if you do, don’t keep repeating that the NAP was not broken by GS.
Was it payback/revenge/acting in your best interest or that GS did not act hostile towards GoW ?

My opinion, is that GS broke the NAP because GS felt it was in their best interest to do it.

3. @ Nathan & Shiber

I still get a laugh when anyone tries to say a MPP is a NAP

Sorry gentlemen .. I was laughing very hard at this point. I was referring to the RP MPP and should of wrote.
“I still get a laugh when anyone tries to say that our RP MPP was a NAP”
I find it amusing that GS need to comment on it when they have not seen any of the negotiations & offers that surrounded the deal.


4. @ WhiteBandit




5. @ Unorthodox.

Unortho…I am sure that it was just an oversight that you forgot to preface your response with that it was your personal opinion. I for one (who also does not speak solely for the GoW) still firmly believes the GoW did not break the NAP. GS (while acting in their best interests) broke it by allying with our enemy and taking actions to hamper our military forces.

6. @ ….Oh dear… I cant remember….maybe Shiber ??? or just GS in general ??

{edit} - Quite rightly removed


7. @ who else haven’t I offended yet ??

[Shiber]

OK, back to trash-talk and war rants.

I WILL KILL YOU ALL UNTIL YOU DIE !! :fire:

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
Why does GS want to cloud the issue. I don’t mind GS stating the justification for breaking the NAP was a little bit of pay back. But if you do, don’t keep repeating that the NAP was not broken by GS.
Was it payback/revenge/acting in your best interest or that GS did not act hostile towards GoW ?

No... I don't think no Stormian will see what we did as payback, certainly not as no Stormian has commented that what we did was even remotely breaking a deal. But what we want to say is that given GoW's track record, maybe others should try to take GoW's promises and public postings with a grain of salt. The NAP was the 6th or 7th deal breaker, and only the first one where GoW finds even a remote possibility to put the blame in our shoes.

One other thing could also be deduced from this: maybe GS is too naive, too friendly, and too forgiving. Maybe we should open up a book of grudges too

DeepO

[notyoueither]

I think the fact that GoW is surprised that we took them at their word as being mercenaries is very surprising.

You can call acquiring cities and not granting you an ROP hostile til the cows come home. We will have to agree to disagree about that.

However, no, it wasn't payback for past deeds by GoW. It was a decision that our behaviour should be governed by the context of who we were dealing with, and what the situation was. So yes, our actions were determined by the context, but no our actions were not 'payback'.

[Aeson]

then to cowardly hide behind the “cant post any private chat logs” rule so that he cant reply.

HE,

I brought up the private message/chat part. I wasn't just targetting GF, but GS members as well, as was specifically noted with the message. I also noted "Even summary posts shouldn't be made IMO." I think it's just plain wrong, and I am sure it is against forum rules to post private messages publicly, and thought the same logic might apply to private chats. I didn't comment on the subject matter at all, as I don't think it even belongs in the public forums.

If you think I acted cowardly for what I post, address your statement to me. Don't try to hide behind your inability to properly target your inflamitory statements.

[Hot_Enamel]

Oh Boy ... Yet another GS member who has put me on their sh!t list



Aeson .. You are correct ... I will edit my post to remove it.

[Theseus]

I'm sorry, but what is WRONG with you people???!!!

WhiteBandit's post had me ROTFFLMFAF!!!!



(and should put an end to this back and forth sniping... let this thread die)

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Shiber
I WILL KILL YOU ALL UNTIL YOU DIE !!

Killing someone would pretty much would mean that they die, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by notyoueither
It was a decision that our behaviour should be governed by the context of who we were dealing with

Man do I feel sorry for whatever it is your getting ready to do to Roleplay......

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Man do I feel sorry for whatever it is your getting ready to do to Roleplay......

Why? Contrary to reputations, they've never broken a deal with us, and they've never behaved in any way that would indicate that we should not treat them as we ourselves would want to be treated.

It's almost as if some people are shocked that we would not allow our natures to be taken advantage of, again. What a laugh.

[WhiteBandit]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm sorry, but what is WRONG with you people???!!!

WhiteBandit's post had me ROTFFLMFAF!!!!



(and should put an end to this back and forth sniping... let this thread die)

I agree. What the hell? Hot Enamel and you are the only ones who seemed to notice my post! People are taking this crap too seriously. :P

Anyway, thanks a lot

[Hot Mustard]

Good grief - this is still going?

Ok boys - I've got a ruler here - whip 'em out!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Aeson

HE,

I brought up the private message/chat part. I wasn't just targetting GF, but GS members as well, as was specifically noted with the message. I also noted "Even summary posts shouldn't be made IMO." I think it's just plain wrong, and I am sure it is against forum rules to post private messages publicly, and thought the same logic might apply to private chats. I didn't comment on the subject matter at all, as I don't think it even belongs in the public forums.

Aeson, back in the early days of the game set-up, before you decided to join, it was decided that private messages sent in an ambassadorial capacity in connection with this game would carry inplicit permission to share them in ways not normally allowed by Apolyton rules. So it seems to me that the sharing of private communications in this game should be viewed in more the way it would among real-world nations rather than under Apolyton's normal rules governing PMs.

Of course if a PM contains something truly personal, as opposed to part of the game, that would be another matter.