Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » NAP Violation
NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 02:03 Go to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

Ok, letís just say up front that I am many things, a moron, incompetent, lazy.. and maybe a little bit of a hothead, but that being said let me play this out for you and you tell me what you think.

The setup

This game has several two player teams prepositioned away from other players. Early on in the game my team has decent exchange of information with the team farthest from us. I was interested in pursuing the relationship, looking at the other team as an anvil where my team can hammer the players between us. As it turned out the team farthest from us does more of the hammering than my team does.

I suggested to the other team that we should all set each other to neutral and edit our default battle orders to attack enemy only. So in the first instance where our ships happen to be in the same place there is a battle.. and I am the one that attacks.. I sincerely have no idea how I screwed up these orders. In this skirmish no ships are lost. I feel really bad about this and I honestly have no clue how I got this wrong. The only thing I can point to is some discrepancy in doing my turn between my home computer and work computer. Unfortunately the other team took this really hard and they are convinced I did this on purpose. Now remember; the battle resulted in no loses to either side, Iím thinking no harm no foul. Implications that Iím capable of doing this again are thrown around so I get a little testy but I try to smooth it over (in the end I probably blew things a little out of proportion). BTW; did I mention Iím a moron for letting this happen?

I try very hard and I convince them to sign an NAP. Here is the completed text which includes amendments that all parties agree to.

NAP:

1. Minimum 10 years duration.

a. 3 year exit clause can be exercised after the initial 10 years. Exit clause must be submitted as an in-game message to all party members with a three duration after receipt of message before hostilities can begin. Example: Player A submits exit request as in game message. Players B, C and D receive the message on Year 2479. All players change status of treaty members to enemy for the year 2482. (status change submitted on 2481)
b. All player party to the treaty must have all other players in treaty set to neutral if not friend. Setting a treaty member to Enemy will be a violation of the treaty.

2. Aggressive Actions as defined by this treaty:
a. Pop-dropping on a treaty member without the express permission of the planet holder
b. Minesweeping
i. Except when clearing mines from around a owners planet or freight travel lanes, or preparing for offensive actions against non-pact members in the Stranger arm. Except when clearing mines from around a owners planet or freight travel lanes.
c. Setting a treaty member to enemy
d. Shooting down of another players ships or orbitals, without the express permission
e. Stealing of minerals from planets, ships or space salvage.
i. In the event of a space battle a treaty member has the right to claim the salvage if he was the majority in ship loss.
ii. In the interest of securing the salvage from the enemy a player not involved in the action may recover the minerals but should return the minerals to the lawful owner, minus a 20% salvage fee. (OPTIONAL)
f. Mass Packets may not be launched before the expiry of the 3 year exit clause (i.e. on the same turn as setting someone to enemy)


Ok so flash forward to a couple of years into the NAP. It is motherís day weekend and Iíve spent way too much time at my daughters school helping out with a Mayfair celebration on Saturday (you know.. little kids dancing around a maypole with flowers and ribbons in their hair) . I know I need to make a few tweaks to my turn, but Iím too tired so I wait. The next day is Motherís dayÖ There is brunch, I have to run to the office to get some files I forgot to bring home, and then I go to install a new front door for my house which I promised my wife that I would do (y
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 02:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nmid

 
Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

Well, having played against you and with you, I've seen a few of your ships forgetting what they were doing Razz, but I haven't seen you breaking any NAP/Host rules/game rules.

Coming to your situation :
1b. Setting a treaty member as an enemy is a violation of the NAP.
2c. Setting a treaty member as an enemy.

Looks as if you messed up.. However, on closer reading :
> You made a mistake in Year 1.
> This NAP was signed after your 1st mistake, in the same year (Year 1).
> Immediately after signing the NAP, you missed a turn (Year 2).
> On account of missing year 2, you again engaged in battle.

If my understanding is correct, then it seems to to be an honest mistake, with more losses on your side than theirs.
(1 FF + freighters against paint scratches on 21 DDs..)

I agree with you so far.
I wouldn't cancel the NAP in the starting 1 year of the NAP itself, on account of this.

However
Quote:

In the end I notice that the agreement says an act of aggression is ďa.Shooting down of another players ships or orbitals, without the express permissionĒ. Now I never fired at them.. and I most certainly did not shoot them down.


Hmmm... to be fair, it was your ship that initiated the combat, not theirs.

Overall, what changed in 2 years that they suddenly decided that they don't want to continue the NAP anymore?
Or is this a multi-year gen, with you having undefended baby planets in place, thus rich and easy pickings?
Or your mails aggravated them?
Perhaps a mixture of the two.

Anyways, NAPs aren't really enforceable by the host, but perhaps they'll see that it was not an offensive action but a mistake.
As for voiding the NAP, not something I would do. Perhaps they get to gain from not giving you time to withdraw.

edit - added "paint scratches on"


[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:00]




I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Dear Morons of the World, of which everyone has at least once been a part... Rolling Eyes

I'd say there's two sides in the "conflict". Dueling

On the one hand, it would seem you need some overseeing for delicate matters such as Battle Orders. Your teammate(s) should help you with that. And of course the rest of players would regard you and your ships as dangerous regardless of assurances and NAPs. You're not the only player who suffers from that. Deal

On the other hand, that other team seems a little bit too eager to escalate the conflict. Even after they won the battle! So you may as well forget about the NAP, they are likely to attack you whenever they see fit anyway. At least you'll have the consolation that in doing so they will have violated the NAP by not respecting the exit clause. 2 Guns

my 2 cents



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 07:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nmid

 
Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 17:19

Dear Morons of the World, of which everyone has at least once been a part... Rolling Eyes

Silly hair Thumbs Up
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 17:19


On the one hand, it would seem you need some overseeing for delicate matters such as Battle Orders. Your teammate(s) should help you with that. And of course the rest of players would regard you and your ships as dangerous regardless of assurances and NAPs. You're not the only player who suffers from that. Deal

Yes Thumbs Up
nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 12:26

Well, having played against you and with you, I've seen a few of your ships forgetting what they were doing Razz, but I haven't seen you breaking any NAP/Host rules/game rules.


m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 17:19


On the other hand, that other team seems a little bit too eager to escalate the conflict. Even after they won the battle! So you may as well forget about the NAP, they are likely to attack you whenever they see fit anyway. At least you'll have the consolation that in doing so they will have violated the NAP by not respecting the exit clause. 2 Guns
my 2 cents

Yes Thumbs Up
nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 12:26


Overall, what changed in 2 years that they suddenly decided that they don't want to continue the NAP anymore?
Or is this a multi-year gen, with you having undefended baby planets in place, thus rich and easy pickings?
Or your mails aggravated them?
Perhaps a mixture of the two.
(SNIP)
Perhaps they get to gain from not giving you time to withdraw.





I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 10:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

Between us are lots of ripe planets due to a a team dropping out of the game. They now have the clear advantage and can many planets where previously it was a bit of a balance.

My mistake has not only cost me the NAP but the loss of my colonists means the loss of two planets, adn at least two more potential planets.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jagophile is currently offline jagophile

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 20
Registered: June 2006
Location: Boston, MA
As the nasty nasty man in all of this, here is the view from my side. I hate to get into the tit-for-tat PR battles, but... well, here goes <abandons moral high ground>

Year 1: We are both cleaning up the remnants of another empire.
Race A: "How about we set each other to neutral, battle orders to attack enemies, so we don't attack each other while cleaning up here."
Race B: "Sounds splendid. Done."

Year 2: Race A attacks race B.
Race B: "WTF?"
Race A: "Sorry, accident. Have now changed my orders, won't happen again."
Race B: "OK... make sure it doesn't"

Year 3:
Race A: "How about a NAP?"
Race B: "OK, sounds good"
terms are negotiated, NAP is agreed. Everyone is at this point should have been not attacking each other for 2 years already, but it is now formally written down (somewhat fundamental to this NAP).

Year 4:
Race B: "How about a bit of tech trading"
Race A: "Super - let's get to it!"

Year 5: Race A attacks Race B *again*
Race B: So were you lying earlier?
Race A (and I quote): "F*** You" and "Adam is a f******g prick" (Adam would be me)
Race B: OK then... war it is.
Race A: But... but... you can't
Race B: Tough

Subsequently, much grovelling from Race A about how they are sorry, lost sleep, missed turns. I understand we all get busy, but frankly this was a "mistake" over 4 turns, not 1. When that didn't work, it was followed by how I am the worst human being he has ever played with and he will tell everyone he meets about me and ensure I can never make allies again. (As a side note, I hate the metagaming - be nice to me now otherwise all my friends will pick on you in the next game?)

I don't care to have a NAP with a super-stealth player I can't see who will attack me whenever, wherever he wants and claim to be in a NAP while swearing at me.

As for the tactical situation, nothing has really changed as we are only 2 years into the NAP. There is only 1 planet of theirs near us, and it was already there, and as far as I can tell neither side has sent many warships to the area. So it's really no different than going to war 2 years ago.

It might all have been an unfortunate mistake, but the reaction was not. I don't see why I need to wait for a 3 year exit clause when *I was attacked*, *twice*, during agreements when we weren't meant to be fighting, once during the formal NAP, and then insulted for bringing up the issue.

I appreciate that not everyone will agree with me, some may think I'm overreacting. But I believe my reactions are justified.

Jagophile/Adam

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
I understand your position, but...

jagophile wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:05

I don't care to have a NAP with a super-stealth player I can't see who will attack me whenever, wherever he wants and claim to be in a NAP while swearing at me.

Then why did you sign it in the 1st place? Deal

Quote:

Year 5: Race A attacks Race B *again*

Gaining what, exactly, for their unspeakable act of aggression? Sherlock

Quote:

Race B: So were you lying earlier?
Race A (and I quote): "F*** You" and "Adam is a f******g prick" (Adam would be me)
Race B: OK then... war it is.
...
It might all have been an unfortunate mistake, but the reaction was not.

Theirs, or yours? Shocked


Quote:

I don't see why I need to wait for a 3 year exit clause when *I was attacked*, *twice*, during agreements when we weren't meant to be fighting, once during the formal NAP, and then insulted for bringing up the issue.

Deal You signed the NAP. Prior events shouldn't count.
Deal The NAP speaks of "Shooting down". "Attacking", or even "hostile intentions" aren't mentioned.

Rolling Eyes It would seem someone was covering his rearguard when drafting that NAP in case they "accidentally" "forgot" to check their Battle Orders. You signed it, and are now bound by it. Tough.


Quote:

But I believe my reactions are justified.

Doesn't everyone? Twisted Evil But the PR "metawar" is not quite favoring you at this point. Hit over head



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Azrael is currently offline Azrael

 
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Treasure Hunt Winner May 16, 2011
Past Weekly Puzzle Master
Treasure Hunt Winner May 16, 2011
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 41
Registered: February 2011
Location: 53¬į 34&#8242; 28&...

jagophile wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:05


Year 5: Race A attacks Race B *again*
Race B: So were you lying earlier?
Race A (and I quote): "F*** You" and "Adam is a f******g prick" (Adam would be me)
Race B: OK then... war it is.
Race A: But... but... you can't
Race B: Tough
...

I appreciate that not everyone will agree with me, some may think I'm overreacting. But I believe my reactions are justified.

Jagophile/Adam


I think that you are not overreacting. Shure, accidents like this could happen to evryone. But if someone would write such an Email like this to me, I would do the same. Specialy if i could kill him in the game without Problems Twisted Evil

But on the other hand if i would get big Problems without a NAP i would try the diplomatic way... Maybe some People would give me a Planet for staying in the NAP.

Remember, the best victory is gained without a fight.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LittleEddie is currently offline LittleEddie

 
Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 516
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware
I have a question first?

Was a turn slipped? On the autohost game page.

in that the game genned on time.
And no file was turned in.

Ed









[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:42]

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

Ok, of couple points. I had no intention of disclosing anyones name but myself. I just wanted to know what others thought.

I did us the F word.. as I stated in the original post, but only once and after being called dishonest and a liar. I'm sure any of us might react that way. In the second case of poor wording I said "[name removed] is a total prick... ."

So let's all assume I am a total nutcase... is this still a good enough reason to dismiss the NAP?

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

And yes the unfortunate battle happened the same year I missed submitting a turn. If I had managed to get my turn in none of this would have happened.

But I really should've had my battle orders corrected before that.


[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46]

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Quote:

Year 5: Race A attacks Race B *again*
Race B: So were you lying earlier?
Race A (and I quote): "F*** You" and "Adam is a f******g prick" (Adam would be me)


I'm a long time friend of NeoGrendal. He sent me the email thread and Race B's email was more confrontational/insulting than the otherwise factually correct timeline suggests, resulting in Grendal's F-you overreaction.

Having played in many games with Grendal I know that he is not someone to push/bend rules or agreements. At times when we have been allied I've pushed him to be more lawyerish in interpreting treaty language than he was comfortable doing. I also know that he's the father of two kids and the co-owner of his own company; he's very busy and really has no business playing Stars Twisted Evil So I'm highly confident that things happened exactly as he explains them.

OTOH, as a player who takes a very lawyerly view of treaty language I disagree with Grendal that it is a violation of the NAP for Race B and ally to consider the treaty void. From Grendal's treaty text:
"2. Aggressive Actions as defined by this treaty:
c. Setting a treaty member to enemy"

Grendal did not mean to do this, but he did and so he inadvertently violated the treaty. Now if Race B and ally wished to continue the treaty they certainly could; no harm has occured to them, while Grendal has lost ships and the pop on them. However, if Race B and ally are having buyer's remorse about having signed the treaty and wish they could get out of it, then Grendal's mistake has handed them a, IMO, legitimate excuse to do so.

Finally, the questioning of Grendal's honesty right out of the gate was, IMO, over the top and does merit an apology along the lines of Grendal's effusive apologies for being a moron and overreacting.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LittleEddie is currently offline LittleEddie

 
Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 516
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware
neogrendal wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 12:42

I .. is this still a good enough reason to dismiss the NAP?


Yes, you haven't shown your are going to respect the nap, I can't understand how you ever changed them to enemy after setting them to neu.

Ed

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Oops, Grendal, on the phone, pointed out to me that he HAD set Race B to Neutral, but that he had failed to update his Battle Orders to only attack Enemies. Since the Battle Orders are not mentioned in the NAP language I take back my opinion that the NAP has been violated. That is all.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

Actually I never set them to Enemy. They were set to Neutral.. I had some screwed up sweeper orders that unfortuanately targeted their ships.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
I don't know what you are trying to get at Neograndal.

NAPs are all about trust. You violated their trust. They don't trust you, so they back off from NAP.

End of discussion?

There is very little to add to this. You are not rally a moron or anything, but a victim of consequences. Thus is life.



STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LittleEddie is currently offline LittleEddie

 
Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 516
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware
But a ship will only clear mines of someone who is set to enemy, but I will look it up

Ed

Fleets will only sweep minefields if their battle orders specify to attack the owner of the minefield in question.


[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:04]

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 13:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

Hi Eagle,

I agree with you completely. I don't expect anything to come out of this at all, except to know what other player's opinion would be if they found themselves in this position. This thread is purely an opinion poll... maybe I should have stated that up front. I appreciate the time all of you have wasted in replying to the thread.


Best Regards,
NeoGrendal

ADDED: And the battle orders for the sweeper were badly set. They were set to attack Neutral and Enemy. I should've had them set to Enemy Only.


[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:09]

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jagophile is currently offline jagophile

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 20
Registered: June 2006
Location: Boston, MA
OK just to add my final 2 cents, as I think everyone has heard both sides, probably as much as they want to. Believe it or not, I am not trying to start a longstanding grudge match. And I appreciate that Neogrendal did not mention my name, I threw that in voluntarily.

I am sure Neogrendal is a perfectly honourable (and very busy!) guy, I'm sure that in every other game nothing like this happens. Certainly people here seem to be happy to believe he didn't do it on purpose.

However, I don't know him at all. My entire experience is from what has happened in this game. It was quite possibly all a horrible accident. However I have accidentally attacked people due to orders screw ups before, and it has lead to war (and sometimes I've managed to blag my way back to peace). Such is life.

Actions have consequences, even the unintended ones.

Anyway, best regards to everyone.

Adam/Jagophile

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 15:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Eagle of Fire wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:57

NAPs are all about trust.

Uh. No. NAPs are all about setting rules and boundaries. If you don't trust someone then don't sign a NAP with them. Or make damn sure that you can make them comply with the NAP anyway. Deal


Quote:

You violated their trust.

He did? By starting a losing battle with no possible way to win anything? When it was his ships that stayed put and the other side that appeared, unexpected? Shocked

There is a name for that, and it's casus belli, and that's better translated as "excuse", as in "yikes, the moron just handed me the perfect excuse to declare a righteous war on him!" Twisted Evil


Quote:

They don't trust you, so they back off from NAP.

Thus breaking it. Yeah, they might be justified, and it can indeed result in their winning the war and the game, but the NAP is still broken.

The next player(s) thinking about signing a NAP with those who would so readily throw it to the winds better think twice!
Shame



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 15:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
jagophile wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 20:16

Actions have consequences, even the unintended ones.

I wish you a nice game, but I seriously hope all the other players see you for the warmonger you are and unite against you. That would greatly increase the excitement, IMO. Twisted Evil



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
neogrendal wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:04

the battle orders for the sweeper were badly set. They were set to attack Neutral and Enemy. I should've had them set to Enemy Only.

It's always useful to set the Default Orders (and any others you might actually use) to "Enemy Only" at the start of the game. Saves a lot of time and grief! Deal



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BlueTurbit

 
Lt. Commander

RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011

Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas
neogrendal wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 11:42

....
So let's all assume I am a total nutcase... is this still a good enough reason to dismiss the NAP?


But of course the contract is not valid in the first place, because one of the requirements for a valid agreement is:
"The legal competence of each party, meaning the parties are not minors and are of sound mind." Razz



BlueTurbit Country/Rock

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scorpius

 
Crewman 3rd Class

Messages: 4
Registered: July 2010
Location: Oxford
I feel that I need to defend my honour. I'm not interested in a mud-slinging match so this will be my only post.

The NAP states in clause 1a that "3 years notice must be given before hostilities can begin". Note that there has been no definition of "hostilities". (Although the NAP does then goes on to define "aggressive actions" in clause 2.)

We are interpreting an (admittedly unsuccessful) attack on our ships as "hostilities". As such, we consider Grendal to have breached the terms of the NAP. As LittleEddie points out, fleets will only sweep minefields if they have orders to attack the owners. We had (and still have) no minefields in the region. If we had, we might have reached a different conclusion. Also, if this were the first offence I think we would all agree that it was an accident.

Whilst we agree that events previous to the initiation of the NAP should not be taken into account, it is hard not to when Grendal had previously initiated an identical incident (when we had an informal agreement). As Jagophile states, it was Grendal who requested that we set each other to neutral and set battle orders to attack enemies only. We complied and he did not. We assumed that this was an accident.

These are excerpts from the discussions that follow the first incident (and I believe that this is the "offensive" bit):

Jagophile: In future I will pip you to a planet. Then what? Pretend that you didn't see the 50K people on the ground?

Grendal: This statement implies implicitly that you think I am a dishonest player and that I can't be trusted. †

Anyway, Grendal assured us that his battle orders had been corrected (we believed him) and a couple of years later we entered into the NAP. Two gens after this, a similar incident occurs in which Grendal's ships engage ours and his ship is shot down. I accept that Grendal hadn't submitted a turn, but we are still left to assume that Grendal has altered his battle orders so that his ships attacks us. (Just think, if he had submitted, he may have made a successful attack!) On seeing his turn, Jagophile sent the following message (quoting the above conversation).

Jagophile: It is always the dishonest who protest most strongly their trustworthiness. Unless you have another explanation for your ships engaging mine at <planet name>?

Now, personally, I wouldn't find this offensive but each to their own. The reply we get from Grendal is:

Grendal: You know what? †You have always accused me of being dishonest in every statement you made... There is a very good explanation but you seem to point the finger first and blame then ask questions later... so I am not going to bother... F*CK YOU

To prevent offending people I have removed the U... Anyway, this email was swiftly followed by another email to all members of the NAP:

Grendal: Hi All, Adam is a total pr*ck... but for your benefit here is what happened.†<explanation follows>

(*=i, obviously.) It is worth noting that (to Grendal's credit) we later received an apology for the above emails.

The above are the facts. What follows is my opinion.

Despite the apology, I think that most players would consider that:
a. attacking our ships counts as "hostilities" (especially after the assurances we were given following the first incident); and
b. the emails are blatantly aggressive.

I'm sure that if you were in our position, you would assume the NAP to have been violated and terminated.

When we enter into an alliance we expect competency and honesty from our allies. This is because a "victim" cannot distinguish between the two (nor can we verify sob-stories). Had Grendal's response to Jagophile's email been more... polite, we may well have given him a third chance. However, we do feel inclined to give extra chances to a player who, through either dishonesty or incompetency, breaches an NAP and who then launches into an abusive tirade against us. His actions were hostile and he has breached the
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: NAP Violation Thu, 12 May 2011 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
BlueTurbit wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:42

"The legal competence of each party, meaning the parties are not minors and are of sound mind." Razz

Sound mind? Still playing a 15-year old wargame full of bugs? Oh my... Silly hair Laughing



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: lol Mac cheats
Next Topic: Mac cheats
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Dec 05 17:40:54 EST 2023