Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a contract, just a declaration of the will to cooperate, in my eyes.
But the nonaggression thing seems obvious to me, just not legally restraining because well, if two members hate each other's guts, they are free to fight I guess.
Sometimes, in a group of friends, two of them can have a dispute, and it doesn't mean that you have to necessarily pick a side, as long as they don't kill one another, or gravely injure one another.
If two companies start fighting, well, so it is. But if one of them wants to destroy the other one, then I guess RA will act.
Just like Jazz, it is only my interpretation of the thing.
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's this bolded section which I still don't understand about the Roseblood Accord; still getting hung up on that "mutual success" clause. Some here say that the clause basically amounts to nothing; some (such as Cheatle here, sorry to pick on you) seem to think it means you can't take activities which will harm settlements other than your own (so, for example, warring with other RA members would be out). It seems every member of the Accord has a different idea of what working towards mutual success looks like.So my questions are:
Is that clause intended to be nebulous? If so, what was the intent in including it?
The mutual success clause is in fact, deliberately nebulous. For some members it just means coordinating hexes for the Land Rush. Others are well on their way to making plans for a nation. Some just want trade and non agression pacts, others will go to war for each other at the drop of a pin. If we had left it out, it would have been denying the fact that most members who signed the RA are using it as a 1st step towards in game liaisons. It would have been insincere to say the RA was only about positive game play at a meta level and we are all about sincerity:)
In some ways it's like a networking party. We all exchange business cards and have drinks together, only some of us will actually ever do business. If you don't sign off for playing this game the right way, you don't get through the door.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Several people have asked in other threads why I asked Bluddwolf questions that no one else was asked when he made his pseudo-offer to be listed ("if you wish" was a strange thing to add). The simple answer is that I'm not a blind fool. I have been reading Bluddwolf's posts since he first joined this forum, and it's very clear to me what he plans to do. I don't consider it "positive gameplay", and I was reasonably confident that the other Signatories of the Roseblood Accord would agree. In fact, it was fairly obvious even to a well-respected member of the community who (I believe) was still unaffiliated at the time wrote this:
"... to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members."
I'm not sure that achieving mutual success can be possible when the goals of one party include robbery from the second party. That seems more of a win-lose condition than win-win. Perhaps UNC just isn't a great fit with the rest of the crew, despite their dedication to positive gameplay. There are undoubtedly others who won't fit in, for one reason or another.
And yet, even so, I remained civil (despite multiple claims that daring to question a declared Bandit was somehow a monumental offense). I asked for a very simple commitment, one that I believe went without saying for everyone else who signed the Roseblood Accord.
If your interest is genuine, I will gladly list UNC and encourage you to take refuge in the lands we hope to make safe. I would ask only that you add an explicit commitment that UNC will not initiate hostilities against anyone in the area in and around the southeast mountains.
What followed was a decidedly non-positive attack on the Roseblood Accord from UNC. Bluddwolf acknowledged as much, with a side-allusion to the fact that, when there's so much non-positivity, he's usually involved.
Who would have guessed my posts in this thread would have been some of the more positive ones?
And when Bluddwolf finally did deign to respond to the simple, civil questions I asked, his reply was distinctly aggressive and non-positive.
What "Arrogance" I place att Nihimon's feet is this. He has made several attempts to be the sole arbiter of the definition of "Positive Game Play". If you disagree with his definition, than you at the very least, do not support "Positive Game Play".
His arrogance does not stop there. In the land rush, organizations are vying for a settlement hex. Nihimon has claimed a whole region, including non claimable hexes, where are most adhere to his concept of "Positive Game Play" or they are not, and potentially even worse, they are toxic...
The Accord is corrupted in its inception. It is based on a self serving definition of "Positive Game Play." What it should actually say is: "Positive to Our Game Play".
By trying to pose it as a Community Wide initiative, and not a self serving one, it is built on deception.
As I have pointed out earlier, it is built on arrogance and naievete...
Cirrole is correct about alliances, they always fall to corruption...
If a consensus is reached by the Signatories of the Roseblood Accord that Bluddwolf and the UNC belong with us, I will list them. Until then, I am acting according to my own discernment, and my belief that the only reason Bluddwolf offered to join was because he knew (with good reason) that it would raise (simple, civil - that might have been unexpected, but shouldn't have been) questions and concerns, and he did so because he wanted an excuse to launch yet another personal attack against me.
It seems the controversy stems from some in the RA believing the Accord is a non-aggression pact, and some believing it's solely a meta affair.
This problem should probably tackled immediately. The Northern Coalition noticed a similar issue and managed to make plans to prevent any future confusion. It's the sort of thing that needs to be nailed down early on.
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us.
Bolded the relevant bit.
The question the Roseblood Accord needs to answer is, what does that mean? Is this a meta agreement, where "mutual success" is about furthering roleplay and general fun? Or is it a non-aggression pact, where "mutual success" is about being successful in-game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us.Bolded the relevant bit.
The question the Roseblood Accord needs to answer is, what does that mean? Is this a meta agreement, where "mutual success" is about furthering roleplay and general fun? Or is it a non-aggression pact, where "mutual success" is about being successful in-game?
Not sure what Damocles is referring to because it is clearly in there and always has been (and TEO helped draft it). The way this has unfolded, the positive gameplay is the mandatory part, the mutual success is optional for those that want to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When we agreed, it was with the understanding that it's all meta. Obviously, more concrete relationships would eventually arise, but the RA itself is meta.
When you play a game, the goal is to have fun. A success, then, is when you are having fun, and a goal of "mutual success" means working for a game environment where everyone is having fun.
Nothing about non-aggression pacts or any in game stuff like that.
*Ahem*
This started as an edit, but it got long.
Is this a meta agreement, where "mutual success" is about furthering roleplay and general fun? Or is it a non-aggression pact, where "mutual success" is about being successful in-game?
If it is the former, I will happily agree, use my new status as signatory to motion for UNC to be allowed in, and encourage my fellows in Freevale to sign up.
If it is the latter, I would wish the RBA the best of luck. In fact, I started to write out the encouraging message.
If it is the latter, I wish the RBA the best of luck in their in-character goals. We will likely be enemies in-character (that's we=me, not we=Freevale), since you are playing people of
I was gonna write "people of good" or something. But the RBA isn't. It contains morally ambiguous/bankrupt signatories, too. And that's perfectly fine—if there's an explanation in-character for why good people are leaving evil people alone.
So now I'm curious. If you keep the nonaggression pact, what is the in-character explanation? Rovagug stuff? Studying the mysteries of Pharasma?
This isn't an attack. It started as a criticism, but when I think about it, it seems relatively fine. As long as it has a reason other than the one espoused on the thread. Because that is, quite obviously, meta, and it's gonna really damage my personal suspension of disbelief if it's all you guys come up with. :P
And so there's no confusion, I'm asking this solely because Nihimon appeared to request that, if Bluddwolf wanted to join, he should keep his bandits from attacking Accordions. Either that was a special request for the pesky UnNameders, or it's a general NAP that the first post makes a bit unclear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When we agreed, it was with the understanding that it's all meta. Obviously, more concrete relationships would eventually arise, but the RA itself is meta.
When you play a game, the goal is to have fun. A success, then, is when you are having fun, and a goal of "mutual success" means working for a game environment where everyone is having fun.
Nothing about non-aggression pacts or any in game stuff like that.
As is your right and you are not the only one who joined only on the meta level. Others have taken up the more concrete mutual success part, as is their right. Both are acceptable interpretations of the Roseblood Accord.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As is your right and you are not the only one who joined only on the meta level. Others have taken up the more concrete mutual success part, as is their right. Both are acceptable interpretations of the Roseblood Accord.When we agreed, it was with the understanding that it's all meta. Obviously, more concrete relationships would eventually arise, but the RA itself is meta.
When you play a game, the goal is to have fun. A success, then, is when you are having fun, and a goal of "mutual success" means working for a game environment where everyone is having fun.
Nothing about non-aggression pacts or any in game stuff like that.
I wasn't aware of this. Did you guys make that information public and I missed it? I could see why some of the Accord members got upset with us assuming they were in an alliance then. It makes more sense now.
Edit- I'm actually really happy to hear about this Avari. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anybody see that?
No?
Good. Let's continue.
So, there is no non-aggression pact as I understand it. Some posters, like Urman and Nihimon, seem to have muddled this by questioning the "mutual success" potential of banditry, but there were no official condemnations on those grounds.
The source of the UNC...absence...originated from a special rule made for the UnNamed Company requesting that they take special care to leave new players alone. An area was declared off-limits.
Personally, I like the rule. I think it might have gone over better if it hadn't been made only when Bluddwolf showed an interest, in his enigmatic, unicorn-like way of being interested in something. Especially since it followed several very daring questions that highlighted the dim view Nihimon takes of Bluddwolf's brand of banditry.
I'm still not gonna sign, since I want the freedom to kill people in newbie areas who I don't think are actually newbies, but there are no actual rules in the Roseblood Accord that indicate a NAP.
*Takes drag of candy cigarette*
*Lowers fedora over eyes*
Case. Closed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Addendum: While there is no official Non-Aggression Pact, there are members who have signed an NAP. Therefore, the Roseblood Accord is a "faction"*—just not as big of one as the numbers indicate. In reality, it is split between the "hardcore" RBAers and those who purely treat it as a meta construct. Groups which have signed the Accord, but not agreed to a Non-Aggression Pact, should be marked separately on the map, which is on a different thread that is not this one.
*Lowers fedora further*
*Walks into STOP sign*
Case. ACTUALLY closed.
EDIT: *At least, as much of a faction as the Northern Coalition.
KC, I actually saw it and had a reply ready. But then I hit preview, saw your edit, and figured I'd cancel my post since you canceled yours. Lol
I wonder if KC has a youtube link switchboard he references constantly.He types almost as fast as he deletes. Amazing that he got that in there so quick.
I'm great at spotting mistakes, but always after posting. My hindsight is 40-40.
EDIT: Case-in-point, I just edited the previous post twice (after losing this edit to the goblins, that is). In real life, constantly second-guessing everything I say is a pain. Online, it's a great survival instinct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Addendum: While there is no official Non-Aggression Pact, there are members who have signed an NAP. Therefore, the Roseblood Accord is a "faction"*—just not as big of one as the numbers indicate. In reality, it is split between the "hardcore" RBAers and those who purely treat it as a meta construct. Groups which have signed the Accord, but not agreed to a Non-Aggression Pact, should be marked separately on the map, which is on a different thread that is not this one.
*Lowers fedora further*
*Walks into STOP sign*
Case. ACTUALLY closed.EDIT: *At least, as much of a faction as the Northern Coalition.
Wrong. Nobody has signed anything because there are no mechanics to sign. Some of us are working towards that, who actually signs up and what they sign is anybody's guess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, there is no non-aggression pact as I understand it. Some posters, like Urman and Nihimon, seem to have muddled this by questioning the "mutual success" potential of banditry, but there were no official condemnations on those grounds.
There is no pact of any kind inherent to the Roseblood Accord except the positive gaming one. Will we accept someone who has clearly stated they want to wipe us all off the map? Hell no. Why would anybody with an ounce of reason expect us to?
Understood, but...
Others have taken up the more concrete mutual success part, as is their right.
Perhaps those who have decided to adhere to the "leave fellow signatories alone" concept should specify that. It would be interesting to know what groups are approaching the RBA from an in-character perspective.
That's not a criticism. It's just an idea. Clarity is everything.
There is no pact of any kind inherent to the Roseblood Accord except the positive gaming one.
Like I just said. :P
Will we accept someone who has clearly stated they want to wipe us all off the map? Hell no. Why would anybody with an ounce of reason expect us to?
Dunno. I didn't, did I?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood, but...
Others have taken up the more concrete mutual success part, as is their right.Perhaps those who have decided to adhere to the "leave fellow signatories alone" concept should specify that. It would be interesting to know what groups are approaching the RBA from an in-character perspective.
That's not a criticism. It's just an idea. Clarity is everything.
I'm sure it would be interesting to know. But no, the RA has zero obligation or even jurisdiction to inform you who is talking to who about what. Those that want to declare they are or aren't can speak for themselves, as Talonguard has.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Did anybody see that?
No?
Good. Let's continue.
So, there is no non-aggression pact as I understand it. Some posters, like Urman and Nihimon, seem to have muddled this by questioning the "mutual success" potential of banditry, but there were no official condemnations on those grounds.
The source of the UNC...absence...originated from a special rule made for the UnNamed Company requesting that they take special care to leave new players alone. An area was declared off-limits.
Personally, I like the rule. I think it might have gone over better if it hadn't been made only when Bluddwolf showed an interest, in his enigmatic, unicorn-like way of being interested in something. Especially since it followed several very daring questions that highlighted the dim view Nihimon takes of Bluddwolf's brand of banditry.
I'm still not gonna sign, since I want the freedom to kill people in newbie areas who I don't think are actually newbies, but there are no actual rules in the Roseblood Accord that indicate a NAP.
*Takes drag of candy cigarette*
*Lowers fedora over eyes*
Case. Closed.
Bluddwolf made a request that he expected and wanted to be refused. He was countered with a similar request.
Members of the UNC can become a signatory to the Roseblood Accord simply by declaring their intent to unconditionally support positive gameplay and their belief that they largely agree with the Accordians regarding what "positive gameplay" means. They cannot become a signatory through any other means, including unanimous acclimation. The UNC as a whole can sign up simply by adopting a policy to the same effect.
What's with the terse textual tone? I didn't say you had an obligation. I keep saying it's an idea—I'm speaking to the signatories, suggesting they clarify their stance because this has in-character implications.
UNC's motivations are clear. They want to beat up people and take their stuff.
The Northern Coalition's motivations are relatively clear. It wants to protect stuff like the River Freedoms.
But there is a segment of this Accord which is apparently in-character. As such, I'm wondering if there is an in-character motivation. Because it would be nice to know for us roleplayers.
Members of the UNC can become a signatory to the Roseblood Accord simply by declaring their intent to unconditionally support positive gameplay and their belief that they largely agree with the Accordians regarding what "positive gameplay" means. They cannot become a signatory through any other means, including unanimous acclimation. The UNC as a whole can sign up simply by adopting a policy to the same effect.
People keep saying this stuff like I don't know it. Don't you guys see this candy cigarette and fedora ensemble? I done my homework. I got a D-, but I done it.
EDIT: And whether or not Bluddwolf "expected and wanted" his request to be turned down isn't only irrelevant, it is liable to start some serious trouble 'round these parts. People who were there saw what they saw and will believe what they'll believe. Theorizing over old motivations is not gonna do us a lick of good.
Who has stated they wish to wipe you off the map?
Uh, how about all the people complaining about this?
;D
EDIT: The joke is that they want to literally remove the Accord from a map.
*Tumbleweed blows through*
Almost midnight. Think I'ma take an NAP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there is a segment of this Accord which is apparently in-character. As such, I'm wondering if there is an in-character motivation. Because it would be nice to know for us roleplayers.
To make purses out of Kobolds that ask too many questions.
Well, when you guys have some answers, remember to post the thread about it. Inquiring purses minds want to know. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already have, like, ten of those.
Family's not too close.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members...
Look, it's just the wording. You can't say something AND something in that way without them both being of equal weight and importance. If the Positive Gameplay is required and The Mutual Success is optional then they need to each have their own sentence at least, explaining what that means for each. It's not that difficult, just do another rewrite.
Like I said, I second-guess myself too much to cut it out there. Besides, that particular gag was grabbed from a Pearls strip—I'm just not always able to find the right comic/clip to link. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He will be with me always. Unless you're buying? They're cheap. Helpful chaps keep "volunteering" to help me complete my Great Cleaves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking of chaps, I could use a new pair, going on some "diplomatic missions" this evening. Got a sister for sale?
(lol, nice bit about the Great Cleaves.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I was on TS when that part was drafted (I proposed the "by example" part, and might have proposed the "and mutual success")...what it meant to me, and admittedly others might have interpreted it differently, is that I personally will work toward (and support my guild working toward) any goal that increases the net influence of the collective RA...or rather, more accurately, the net influence of our mutually shared idea of positive gameplay.
Since the whole point of signing the RA is to promise to advocate and support positive gameplay....the only rational way to measure success is through the increase in influence of that ideal. Other possible measures of success, land ownership, resource accumulation, membership counts, PvP domination, whatever, is irrelevant to the purpose of the RA.
The only restriction I can think of that the RA places on any member is to not participate in "negative gameplay" as this would look bad, by association, upon all signatories and be a mutual loss, a loss shared by all of the influence our ideals have in the greater community. Since all members joined because they already had personal convictions toward this end, I do not fear this outcome.
Two members participating in PvP against each other does nothing to change our mutual success as it applied to our dedication to promoting positive gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It therefore strikes at least one outsider that the R.A. is simultaneously two things. A visible meta-commitment that virtually everyone on these boards supports, but many refuse to sign to because: it feels as though it's also an invisible in-game-commitment that only exists outside the game and may-or-may-not apply to everyone who signs and of which signatories to the visible commitment may-or-may-not be aware.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Honestly, I'm starting to think that there is a big misunderstanding between RA signatories. I don't have any power or responsibility to do anything about it, but maybe it's time for our representatives to talk about it.
Because honestly, it seems completely obvious to me, when I first decided to go play in the RA region, that a nonaggression pact was implied. If not, I don't really see the point of the concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Caldeathe, that's pretty much my perspective as well. To the extent that the RA is just a commitment to Wheaton's Law, it's unobjectionable but largely pointless. To the extent that the RA is a vague cover of plausible deniablility over a defacto alliance between an unspecified subset of the membership, well, I don't think you can blame anyone for wanting to know more clearly how forces are aligning in the gameworld, nor for feeling that hiding an alliance under the RA is disingenuous.
|
As is your right and you are not the only one who joined only on the meta level. Others have taken up the more concrete mutual success part, as is their right. Both are acceptable interpretations of the Roseblood Accord.When we agreed, it was with the understanding that it's all meta. Obviously, more concrete relationships would eventually arise, but the RA itself is meta.
When you play a game, the goal is to have fun. A success, then, is when you are having fun, and a goal of "mutual success" means working for a game environment where everyone is having fun.
Nothing about non-aggression pacts or any in game stuff like that.I wasn't aware of this. Did you guys make that information public and I missed it? I could see why some of the Accord members got upset with us assuming they were in an alliance then. It makes more sense now.
Edit- I'm actually really happy to hear about this Avari. :D
I think this exact disconnect is what started the whole mud slinging in the first place to be quite honest. The RA is an individual ideal we aspire to, each has their own belief as to how it works. Nobody I know could possibly police how people interpret what "positive gameplay" and "mutual success" means to them on the personal level, so we have decidedly chose to avoid doing so.
Part of it may be due to flawed vocabulary, and heated exchanged over nothing at all (Really, it was childish for us all) made the situation more obtuse than it really is.
I'd love to welcome anyone who want to work at making this a great environment for the MMO we want to create, and those who want to fight the forces that might threaten to undermine and poison the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf made a request that he expected and wanted to be refused. He was countered with a similar request.
Members of the UNC can become a signatory to the Roseblood Accord simply by declaring their intent to unconditionally support positive gameplay and their belief that they largely agree with the Accordians regarding what "positive gameplay" means. They cannot become a signatory through any other means, including unanimous acclimation. The UNC as a whole can sign up simply by adopting a policy to the same effect.
Don't presume you know my motivations, I made a genuine request to sign. The belief that you would not let us sign was anticipated, but that says more about your negative attitudes not mine.
My request took your group off guard, and you haphazardly through together a bunch of hoops we had to jump through that no others did.
Nihimon can say all he likes that he believes banditry is valuable for the game, but his every post and hinted at actions say otherwise. The only way we could have been a signatory of this accord was to not perform banditry, not just against any of the signatories but not within the entire SE region of the map. The noob area bring to the NE, would take that region out of bounds. Then if we targeted others outside of the RA and outside of those regions, I'm certain we would be held to account for not upholding the spirit of the accord.
Bottom line, no PvP focused company would be viewed to be compatible with Nihimon's view of "positive game play".
As I have always said, both publicly and privately, this is about control of definitions. Nihimon is trying to control the definition of positive game play, because he needs to rely on community condemnation to achieve what the Devs and the game mechanics will not.
PFO is an open world PvP MMO, and banditry and raiding outposts are a major economic and content feature of the game. The RA is designed to set to the side entire regions where that will not take place.
When one of your member settlements puts self interest ahead of mutual benefit, what will be the response?
What happens if a settlement of RA mercenaries are hired to siege another RA member's settlement?
What is the pecking order in the RA?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The RA is designed to set to the side entire regions where that will not take place....Er, is that a problem ? Because er, that's what the NC does too. No banditry between the signatories.
Umm... you stated the difference, but don't seem to be aware of it.
That is, one covers territory. The other covers people. For example, there is nothing in the NC preventing members from engaging in banditry against OTHER people in their territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Nihimon appeared to request that, if Bluddwolf wanted to join, he should keep his bandits from attacking Accordions.
I made no such request. My request, repeated in my previous post in the hopes that people would read it, was that he not "initiate hostilities against anyone in the area in and around the southeast mountains". There was no request to avoid Banditry against all Signatories.
____________________________________________________________________Addendum: While there is no official Non-Aggression Pact, there are members who have signed an NAP. Therefore, the Roseblood Accord is a "faction"...
I am not personally aware of any Non-Aggression Pacts signed by any Signatories of the Roseblood Accord. If any Signatory has signed such a Pact, that's perfectly within their right as Sovereign groups who retain their Independence. It astonishes me that anyone would suggest they should have to seek approval from, or even inform, other Signatories.
If there is a de facto state of non-aggression between some Signatories, this is more a result of us being friends than any formal treaty or pact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I'm starting to think that there is a big misunderstanding between RA signatories. I don't have any power or responsibility to do anything about it, but maybe it's time for our representatives to talk about it.
Because honestly, it seems completely obvious to me, when I first decided to go play in the RA region, that a nonaggression pact was implied. If not, I don't really see the point of the concept.
The difference between your view and Forencith's (stated up above a bit) is why I don't think the RA really works as a document for people to sign. Personally (and it might just be the Lawful in me talking here) I feel it leaves way too much up to interpretation, and without a clear indication of how it's supposed to be interpreted every person has filled in with a different idea of what it means.
Some signatories think it includes a non-aggression pact, some think it's purely an out-of-character Wheaton's Law deal. Some think nobody else can judge what positive gameplay means to you, while some think it well within their rights to judge others for their views of positive gameplay. Some say there's no requirements for specific in-game activities besides "avoiding negative gameplay", while others are including additional requirements such as "don't attack people in the SE portion of the map" (which, by the way, is something that isn't mentioned in the slightest bit by the Accord itself. If you wanted a requirement that signatories not attack your settlements in the SE I'd think that should be an important part).
In short, it seems to me there is much confusion among signatories for what the Accord is and what you're trying to accomplish with it, which is as far as I'm concerned a bad thing when some people think they just committed to something and other people think they committed to something else entirely.
Now's the time when I would suggest possible courses of action but you already know what I'd recommend; redrafting the Accord for more clear language as to what its purpose is.