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]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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.

Report message to a moderator

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.

Scorpius wrote

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:12

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."

Crap.. that voids all my agreements :s

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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!"

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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]

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 02:17

In a breach of contract non-breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by the other party's breach.

... and because that's subjective and to the discretion of the party more interested in ending the NAP, there go down the drain all the NAPs ever signed, regardless of exact wording or exit clauses. Nice work!

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 03:11

So there was a breach of agreement.

Plenty punished on the spot, most would say.

Quote:

And the offended party has every right to not honor their end and terminate the contract immediately.

Indeed. And everybody else will have every right to watch them with a specially wary eye whenever they meet them in other games, much the same as NeoGrendal will need careful watching "just in case"

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:23

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 03:11 So there was a breach of agreement. Plenty punished on the spot, most would say. Quote: And the offended party has every right to not honor their end and terminate the contract immediately. Indeed. And everybody else will have every right to watch them with a specially wary eye whenever they meet them in other games, much the same as NeoGrendal will need careful watching "just in case"

And everyone will be watching you, as you don't consider breaking game rules cheating.
And there go all the rules in games as nobody will think rule breaking is cheating. Nice work!

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 04:40

And everyone will be watching you,

... because I'm good enough to beat them if they don't play well.

Quote:

as you don't consider breaking game rules cheating.

I consider breaking game rules breaking game rules. Why it should be more complicated than that escapes me.

Quote:

nobody will think rule breaking is cheating. Nice work!

Don't thank me. It's been working ok that way for more than a decade!

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

Thanks Matt! I always knew you had my back

I don't know... I think in this case they have buyer's remorse and they are talking advantage of the situation. A very bitter pill to swallow.

Not to nick pick.. it was only one attack under the NAP.

Regards,
NeoGrendal

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 11:26

Quote: nobody will think rule breaking is cheating. Nice work! Don't thank me. It's been working ok that way for more than a decade!

I missed it this last decade. Where is the link to the post that shows this consensus here?

Did you just read the post here by Mlaub? About the breaking of the NAP? He's been around a decade too.

Quote:

...Its not like cheating by breaking rules...

Report message to a moderator

neogrendal wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 13:56

Thanks Matt! I always knew you had my back

I was posting from a strictly abstracted situational view.

I'll point out that I have played with neo, and been the host of at least 1 game he has been in. So judge of character would come into play if instead of Jago, it was "me" in that situation. I would have given neo the benefit of the doubt. He has always been a class act in my games, and others.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:05

Where is the link to the post that shows this consensus here?

Buried down at r.g.c.s probably.

Another quite cogent question would be: where are the gazillion posts condemning the gazillion "minor cheaters" that the lack of such basic consensus should have allowed?

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:18

Its not like cheating by breaking rules.

Of course not. NAP-breakers used to be called backstabbers. But if we fall down this slippery slope some want to take, in no time they'll be called cheaters too.

Report message to a moderator

neogrendal wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 20:56

A very bitter pill to swallow.

How about some sweetener? They probably signed the NAP in the 1st place to give you a false sense of security so their future war on you would catch you even more unprepared.

You just jumped their gun, that's all.

Report message to a moderator