Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » NAP Violation
Re: NAP Violation |
Thu, 12 May 2011 17:19 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Scorpius wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:44 | 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.
|
You might be surprised how many people would.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some players just attacked you without further notice, instead of trying to amend things.
Quote: | a. attacking our ships counts as "hostilities"
|
Of course, you're free to interpret them as such. Nobody will deny you that.
Quote: | b. the emails are blatantly aggressive.
|
Yep. Yours too. Some like their diplomacy hot, perhaps to goad the unwary into giving them a plausible reason for attack.
Quote: | I'm sure that if you were in our position, you would assume the NAP to have been violated and terminated.
|
I'm sure that if I were in your position I'd just think to myself "hey, this moron sure looks like an easy picking, and perhaps we can even make the other players sit still while we destroy him!"
But then, I would remember the darn NAP and hold my fire until the expiration time was fulfilled, so as to not give anyone the excuse to call me a backstabber, or, using the newspeak some now like, a cheater.
[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:19]
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation |
Thu, 12 May 2011 18:44 |
|
|
neogrendal wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 22:24 | Actually I never set them to Enemy. They were set to Neutral.. I had some screwed up sweeper orders that unfortuanately targeted their ships.
|
Wait, you mean it was only that single minesweeper that had neutral targeting while the other ships were set to attack enemies only?
Talk about a football fake, to start a war !!
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 18:47 |
|
|
jagophile wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 23:46 | 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
|
Well, it's time for you to show yourself the better man, than the other ppl who ignored that you made unintended mistakes.
If you feel that grendal made an unintended mistake, then you'll either
1. continue with the NAP
2. quit the NAP (DARN SS @#$&%*) using the exit clause.
Sounds reasonable enough.
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 18:50 |
|
|
Eagle of Fire wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 22:27 | 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.
|
Sure they can back of the NAP... but only after they use the NAP exit clause.
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 18:52 |
|
|
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 22:16 |
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.
|
Exactly. Simple enough to understand it was not an intentional mistake... and the best part.. it didn't result in any losses/damage to Player B.
It's just an excuse to take out a poor SS !!
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 22:16 |
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.
|
Over the top, yes.
Grendal's apologies? Nice of him to admit he messed up.
Apology from player B? Sometimes ppl don't consider ingame honesty = RL honesty, so they don't think they need to apologise for anything.
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 19:07 |
|
|
Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14 | 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.
|
Ah.. well, for your free-time reading then..
[quote title=Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14]
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.)
[quote]
It also speaks about not canceling the NAP for 10 years.
Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14 |
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.
|
Did your ships arrive at the scene or did his?
Tough to understand how someone can initiate "hostilities" by staying in orbit of a planet.
Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14 |
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.
|
Confused.
What's the point you are tying to make here?
Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14 |
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!)
|
Just think, if we both play the same game, I'll remember that you think a lot !!
.. and don't believe in NAP exit clauses
Scorpius wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:14 |
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.
|
So he fired off 2 offensive mails in a duration of 10 mins.
Which he has admitted was "stupid/moronical/etc etc".
What's more is that he sent it only to the NAP members.. not to all the players.
...
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 19:10 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 02:49 |
But then, I would remember the darn NAP and hold my fire until the expiration time was fulfilled, so as to not give anyone the excuse to call me a backstabber, or, using the newspeak some now like, a cheater.
|
Heh... I agree about with the NAP point, but lol, these are NAPs... not host rules or game rules.
They are backstabbers or dishonest, but not cheaters
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 20:17 |
|
BlueTurbit | | Lt. Commander
RIP BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 | Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002 Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 17:50 |
Sure they can back of the NAP... but only after they use the NAP exit clause.
|
Uh uh. The exit clause is the method of ending a contract for those abiding by the terms. In a breach of contract non-breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by the other party's breach.
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation |
Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26 |
|
|
BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 05:47 |
nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 17:50 |
Sure they can back of the NAP... but only after they use the NAP exit clause.
|
Uh uh. The exit clause is the method of ending a contract for those abiding by the terms. In a breach of contract non-breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by the other party's breach.
|
I hate rule-lawyering... I would rather go by the spirit of the agreement and the actual instances.. but ok, rule lawyering.
Actually, I don't need to. The response is already here.
The best rule-lawyering quote.
m.a@stars wrote |
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.
|
You signed the NAP. Prior events shouldn't count.
The NAP speaks of "Shooting down". "Attacking", or even "hostile intentions" aren't mentioned.
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.
|
Couldn't have said it better
Other quotes
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:51 |
Quote: | Year 5: Race A attacks Race B *again*
|
Gaining what, exactly, for their unspeakable act of aggression?
|
m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 00:36 |
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?
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!"
|
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 21:11 |
|
BlueTurbit | | Lt. Commander
RIP BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 | Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002 Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
Quote: | I hate rule-lawyering... I would rather go by the spirit of the agreement and the actual instances.. but ok, rule lawyering.
Actually, I don't need to. The response is already here.
The best rule-lawyering quote.
|
LOL You love rule lawyering. Just read all the discussions between you and m.a about the game rules and the meaning of cheating.
Quote: | Couldn't have said it better Wink
|
Sure you could. You could have said. The NAP (which BTW, means non-aggression, does it not?) was broken by neogrendal.
The purpose of the NAP was to prevent acts of aggression between the two parties. That didn't happen.
The NAP was breached by neogrendal. The fact that no ships were downed is irrelevant. The violation was in setting a treaty member to enemy.
Oh, that didn't happen, you say. Yes it did. The purpose of using the neutral orders, as neogrendal himself stated, was to prevent shooting at treaty member ships. By forgetting to change his battle orders neogrendal violated his own NAP. He left the orders to shoot neutral ships, in this case treaty member ships, which is the same as setting them to enemy.
No matter what you call it. Attacking treaty ships is the same thing as setting them to enemy. It's the results that determine the intent of the ships. You don't shoot at friendly or neutral ships if you made an agreement not to.
So there was a breach of agreement. And the offended party has every right to not honor their end and terminate the contract immediately.
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation |
Thu, 12 May 2011 21:19 |
|
|
Ah, but the NAP is a standard clause.
The points of this NAP aren't. They are specific.
None of them says anything about damaging ships..
I won't talk about the intent of the NAP now, if you don't want to talk about the mistake being a mistake.
The main point would also be what you pointed out. Results.
None of their ships were damaged, forget destroyed.
If we were to talk about intent, Grendal didn't move his ships.. They got their ships in.
I'm not assigning blame on anyone, but it was a skipped turn + wrong minesweeping orders.
What damage did it do?
Nmid.
edit - lol, I guess I do love rule-lawyering.. but my intentions are pure
[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:20]
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 |
Fri, 13 May 2011 13:18 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 11:21 | 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.
|
I side with Jago. This comes from someone who has done accidental stuff like Neo has done, and had a NAP canceled on me. Granted, it hasn't happened many times, as I am extremely careful. But if YOU mess up the trust in a NAP, it is not the other persons fault.
NAP - NON AGGRESSION PACT.
Was there aggression? Yes. You forced a combat the other person wanted no part of, twice! This cancels the NAP *if* the other party chooses.
Now, of course, this is not goverened by anyone. Its not like cheating by breaking rules. So, when it comes right down to it, its an honor thing. Not a rule thing. No one is required to adhere to NAP's. Just don't wonder why everyone attacks you, without negotiating, after you dishonor a single NAP.
I think I would be more inclined to NAP Jago after reading this.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: NAP Violation |
Fri, 13 May 2011 18:49 |
|
BlueTurbit | | Lt. Commander
RIP BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 | Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002 Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
Well, you can take Matt's experience and then consider mine.
vote of confidence: -2
recommendation: keep a sharp eye on Neogrendal at all times
game experience: Rules and Regulations, May 2010
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation |
Fri, 13 May 2011 19:01 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
mlaub wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:18 | This cancels the NAP *if* the other party chooses.
Now, of course, this is not goverened by anyone. Its not like cheating by breaking rules. So, when it comes right down to it, its an honor thing. Not a rule thing. No one is required to adhere to NAP's. Just don't wonder why everyone attacks you, without negotiating, after you dishonor a single NAP.
|
So very true!
But that also applies to the other side. Did they *need* to break the NAP? To recover their losses? To teach NeoGrendal to be more careful? Or just because it pleases them to do so? Because it gives them a good excuse for a war they already wanted to start?
Yeah, the clumsy need watching. And the warmongers even more so.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 05:07:17 EDT 2024
|