The Glory of Manifestos

[ZargonX]

quote:
I don't think a UN will ever hinder a team from donig something, but it will definately make the arguments of who has the moral highground much simpler.


How so?

-Arrian

Let me rephrase that... It will make arguing who has the legal highground much simpler.

But, then again, most of these arguments don't seem to be about law, do they

I do think the UN would be especially useful in deciding issues such as the "force-teleporting" one discussed above. Some people will call it an exploit, others will call it a smart use of game mechanics; it needs to be decided as a whole whether it will be allowed in future games.

[Arrian]

It's a game played by humans. Humans are not entirely rational. There you have it.

It would be kinda boring if everyone was always coldly rational, don't you think?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I do think the UN would be especially useful in deciding issues such as the "force-teleporting" one discussed above. Some people will call it an exploit, others will call it a smart use of game mechanics; it needs to be decided as a whole whether it will be allowed in future games.

Indeed. But hopefully such things should be decided early on, preferably before the game even starts.

-Arrian

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Arrian
Indeed. But hopefully such things should be decided early on, preferably before the game even starts.
-Arrian

It's obviously too late for this game, but perhaps it SHOULD be discussed for PTWDGII what the "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" game mechanics back-doors are. That game hasn't gotten too far off the ground yet so it's perfect timing.

[Arrian]

I agree, we should discuss it. That game is in its infancy, so it's not too late. I can't be bothered to do the thread right now, though. You up for it?

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Master Zen

There are many things short of war one can do in this game which can be hostile: How would GS have felt if Vox in its last act gifted northern Estonia to Lego right before GS was about to take it? How would GS have felt if another nation sent enough ships to blockade any and all GS ports without actually touching your borders? How would GS feel if another nation landed a huge stack of troops in a tile in your continent just outside your borders?

We paid in blood for the advantage that made it impossible for Vox to hold their territory against us. All you did to "pay" for RP lands was declare a two-on-one war and advance your troops, and you haven't even declared war in-game, just in the forums. That difference gave us a vastly better claim on Voxian lands than you have on RP lands. The only "blockade" we can be regarded as engaging in is entirely within what were originally RP lands. Its role is to keep you out, not to box you in or to deprive you of your ability to trade. And the only place where our troops can possibly be construed as being close to your borders is in North Stormia, where they are within our own borders and across the water from yours. We interfered with your ability to take land you wanted, but we interfered with nothing and threatened nothing that you actually owned or had shed blood to take.

Nonetheless, I don't blame you in the least for being upset over GS's actions. We're definitely pushing the limits regarding what should be construed as a hostile act, more so than I would feel entirely comfortable with if it were not for GoW's own long history of interpreting agreements creatively. As things stand, I view the situation as one where your own past attitudes and actions regarding agreements have come back to haunt you.

I'm perfectly willing to write off the NAP as something we'd both hoped would work but that proved impractical due to our nations' contradictory interests. I am not, however, willing to sit idly by while GS's honor is challenged beyond what our responding to GoW's history of creative interpretation of agreements in kind (depending on one's definition of "hostile") can justify.

[ZargonX]

I agree, we should discuss it. That game is in its infancy, so it's not too late. I can't be bothered to do the thread right now, though. You up for it?

-Arrian

I will bring it up in the forum, Arrian. I'm going to get some international standards running in one of these games, by gum!

[Arrian]

[Rhothaerill]

And I was just about to head over and start one too.

Thanks Zargon.

[UnOrthOdOx]

That's not true, UnO (GS didn't intend to negotiate). You may choose not to believe me, but we were open to negotiation - within reason (ah, that's the rub).

What was offered us, however, simply wasn't viable. If you looked at it from our perspective, surely that's obvious.

I offered you exactly what you asked for, for the reasons you asked for.

I was told there was land you would not see in anothers hands. I provided for that.

I was told you needed an assurance that no one could make a one-turn trip to GS via a port in the south. I provided for that.

Never at any point did you say you had to have that land permanently for yourself. Not to me.

I took that into account to provide for both GoW and ND concerns, VALID concerns that you would use it to invade bob. We all know the difficulty of naval invasions. Giving someone a permanent foothold is no less a concern than giving someone a one-turn port. I would say it was far more of a concern despite your rhetoric of 'but it would be far from your core'.

But you know what REALLY gets to me is that not once was I given the decency of being informed that it would not work out. Not once was I told that negotiations had stopped and I could free my time for other things. Not even until after Toledo was I even CONTACTED again, and then only after some tracking down on my own part. GS simply decided to ignore me and not even take the time to reject the offer.

But, you are right. From a GS point of view, that permanent foothold was too tempting and the concerns of no one else mattered. From a GS point of view.

Re: the initial offer. It was not "but you keep nothing". It was "but that needs to be discussed".

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I still don't see why we've fallen inoto a trap of our own words. We made a post simply stating the reasons we were now on a colllission course with GS. If anything it was GS who started whining about the NAP ( I suggest you re-read the first page). In fact, I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THE NAP in my post since it was secret, since GS brought up the NAP issue that's one more clause they explicitly broke (although irrelevant since the NAP was moot in the first place)

You still don't get it, do you?

In multiple threads, you've made more convincing arguments for exactly what RP Team has been trying to convince others than we could have ever hoped to do on our own.

It's questionable how much impact is made when RP Team claims something about GoW, even if we say it until we're blue in the face (which has been tried to no avail before). This is why we didn't really even try... the decision was made merely to let you guys do the convincing for us.

As it turns out, that worked better than even we expected it would. You guys have managed to piss off members of Gathering Storm in nearly every single thread you've posted in without RP Team hardly lifting a finger. While that certainly didn't make or break the deals I was negotiating with Gathering Storm (they would have agreed anyhow given PAST GoW stuff along with what we offered, I believe), it certainly seems to have raised support for RP Team and helped cement the deals.

As for whether this was a "trap", no of course it was not. We never laid any "traps". I just figured you'd be prone to do this ANYHOW (as you have claimed yourself) and convinced others that we should just let you do it w/o interfering and thus ruining the fun.

All I did was attempt to frame the debate by setting the stage with a jesting reference to our MPP... you guys took it from there with the whole stupid argument about whether an MPP includes a NAP.

What I found amusing was that you thought you were SUCCEEDING with posts both in the thread and on IRC of "GS members are siding with our argument". The technical argument is and always was irrelevant. As I pointed out in chat, arguing what the definition of is is generally fails at its intended purpose. For a team that has a grudge against "lawyers", you should have known better.

Quite frankly, I can't think of many ways it could have gone better than it did.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
But you know what REALLY gets to me is that not once was I given the decency of being informed that it would not work out.

If we had told you, would not you and ND have been able to use that knowledge against us? Unfortunately, what is considered "decency" under most circumstances is sometimes imprudent when national interests are as directly opposed as ours seem to be.

[UnOrthOdOx]

It was too much to ask that when it was obvious and you sent ND a message saying you had switched sides that you could not have also sent a message to me saying you couldn't work with ND then?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.