Goblin Squad Member
|
I worked my ass off writing this fine document so let us give it a spotlight, yeah? Thanks to the other Settlements in the NC that took the time to look it over, make some minor tweaks and give it the go ahead.
-------------------------------------------
1. Protection
1.1 All Structures and Members belonging to NC signatory settlements are protected from assault by Members of any other NC signatory settlement.
1.1.1 Accepting a contract to perform a function for a third party's interests, be it caravan guard, point of interest management, or otherwise, removes the preface of non-aggression.
1.2 Protection Coverage
1.2.1 Terms of the NC apply only to NC signatory settlements, their holdings, and their members unless otherwise stated.
1.2.2 Players entering or leaving NC signatory settlements guarded by 4 or more NC guards will be extended the courtesy of Non-Aggression.
2. Consensual PvP
2.1 Companies and Members of NC signatory settlements may engage in Consensual PvP with each other so long as terms have been discussed and all involved parties are in agreement beforehand.
3. Conflict Resolution
3.1 Conflicts between NC signatories will be dealt with diplomatically through the leadership council and their designated representatives.
Additional Terms
1. Joining the NC requires a Settlement to receive unanimous approval from all current NC signatories.
2. All Settlements within a signatory Nation automatically become a signatory of the NC. They may not opt out as long as they remain within that Nation. This supersedes the requirement for a Settlement to get unanimous approval from the NC signatories.
3. Changes to any terms of the NC must be negotiated, and a reasonable time period given for negotiations in order for signatories to arrive at their votes. Drafts must be provided to Settlements (via representatives) and decided upon before any public statements about NC business are made.
-------------------------------------------
The following Settlements agree to the Terms of this Pact and having signed below are now considered signatories of this Pact.
-------------------------------------------
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I worked my ass off writing this fine document so let us give it a spotlight, yeah? Thanks to the other Settlements in the NC that took the time to look it over, make some minor tweaks and give it the go ahead.
By what means did YOU send or present this to Aragon or one of its representatives, to tweak it?
There were three of us working on this, and I know I received nothing from you nor read anything by you.
Xeen, you get anything?
Doggan, you get anything?
That damned chaotic mail service! Obviously ravens are not a good replacement for carrier pigeons!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravenlute forced a vote through the Freevale council to present an NC draft. In 12 hours, without Blunt Logic rep input, he presented me with a poorly compiled document. I removed trade terms and a few other items that were not appropriate.
When the document was presented, it was redrafted in The NC forums into something readable. The redraft with it's edits was presented to Freevale and was accepted with one further change. Ravenlute insisted on a change to something none of the signatories touched in edits. Almost an entire week was added to this process so Ravenlute could delay obstruct work hard at editing himself.
Unfortunately, posting this also violates the spirit op expects other signatories to exhibit. Don't speak for other signatories without approval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SHUT DOWN SON
More seriously, I believe 1.1.1 is saying you are not protected by the NA pact while performing a beneficial act for a non-NC member, so other NC members have the option of killing you as part of acting against said third party without breaking the NA pact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SHUT DOWN SON
More seriously, I believe 1.1.1 is saying you are not protected by the NA pact while performing a beneficial act for a non-NC member, so other NC members have the option of killing you as part of acting against said third party without breaking the NA pact.
Reading for understanding of what it says, and not for what you want it to say is a great asset. Congratulations.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Is paragraph 1.1.1 intended to provide exceptions for members who accept contracts on other members?No, read it carefully and you will understand what it is saying.
I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've seen "preface" used that way, and I don't have the ability to divine intent by staring at words.
I'm guessing that posting this rough draft was a mistake, so I'll stop trying to make predictions about how others will act based on it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all recall how confused you could be on determined subjects... :)
1.1.1 Accepting a contract to perform a function for a third party's interests, be it caravan guard, point of interest management, or otherwise, removes the preface of non-aggression.
It's not that complicated, though replacing "be it" with "such as" might clarify it a tad. This section is solely to simplify guard-bandit relations and has nothing to do with getting hired to kill other members. It's defensive only.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It's not that complicated, though replacing "be it" with "such as" might clarify it a tad. This section is solely to simplify guard-bandit relations and has nothing to do with getting hired to kill other members. It's defensive only.1.1.1 Accepting a contract to perform a function for a third party's interests, be it caravan guard, point of interest management, or otherwise, removes the preface of non-aggression.
So, if I hire a Freevalian to guard my caravan, the Aragornian raiders can attack the guards, but the guards can't proactively clear out the Aragornian raiders?
Nope. And if you hire me to protect your caravan and then demand I start hunting bandits like a TEOer, I'ma tell ya to go hire a bounty hunter. Hiring a merchant guard to go to war is like hiring a neighborhood watch program to track down Osama.
Hire me to actually guard, though, and I will kill any identity-crisis-afflicted bandit who comes close to your precious shipment of tiny kittens and bunnies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the complication is in the use of "preface," which I also have some trouble parsing in this context. Unless there is a non-aggresion preface to the agreement that we aren't seeing. Or it might just be a usage I haven't encountered before.
edit: Not that any of us has any real business dissecting the meaning of your agreement.
I believe, decius, that the person is wholly excepted from the NA pact, so they can defend themselves if attacked by fellow NC members. It would be too limiting if they can't defend themselves, because obviously no one outside of the NC would hire a NC member to do anything, but the NC would have to keep an eye on things to make sure a NC member-settlement isn't taking advantage of the clause. A balance would have to be worked out.
Unless of course, the point is actually to discourage members working for third parties, in which case it would work as intended.
Decius is asking about guards attacking proactively, not reactively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey, it's nice that some of you have questions and all that jazz. But this entire thread was posted because of angry happenings within a settlement. This is not the NC policy thread. If you have questions or "confusion" about the NC and how parties therein interact with one another, direct it to the NC thread.
That would depend on how you define proactive, kobold. If for example, you declare very openly that any hostiles within striking distance, or some other arbitrary distance, is considered a raider, then it becomes reactive. That being said, what decius said is true, and it may just be better to hire allies who have no issues killing hostiles at any distance.
@doggan We can't ask questions about a NA pact we haven't seen, so I believe we're just airing our thoughts on what has been presented. If this is not the current form of the treaty, the NC is free to give us the current one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe, decius, that the person is wholly excepted from the NA pact, so they can defend themselves if attacked by fellow NC members. It would be too limiting if they can't defend themselves, because obviously no one outside of the NC would hire a NC member to do anything, but the NC would have to keep an eye on things to make sure a NC member-settlement isn't taking advantage of the clause. A balance would have to be worked out.
Unless of course, the point is actually to discourage members working for third parties, in which case it would work as intended.
It is actually what I would call a "mercenary clause". If a 3rd party caravan hires NC member guards, and an NC member bandit group attacks the caravan. The NC member guards can fulfill their contract and fight off the attacking NC member bandits. The NC bandits may continue their attack, without violating the NAP, because they are raiding a 3rd Party caravan.
There is another element of this, "Fore Knowledge". If the NC bandits are made aware that the caravan has NC guards, or more importantly if they are made aware that the caravan is destined for a delivery to an NC settlement, then it will be left alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Decius is asking about guards attacking proactively, not reactively.Right- guards that allow bandits to approach close enough to attack get replaced by guards that do their job.
Who said the guards would let them approach? The bandits come near, they get shot. And if the guys from Aragon don't like that, they can file a complaint with the complaints department.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Again, not a Q&A.
Right, so a discussion of the leak. According to a strict reading, any member hired by any third party is completely exempted from both the protections and restrictions, so that is the status quo, given that the various stakeholders have expressed a strong preference for strict readings of rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In all honesty, when have I ever cared about the "sanctity of the agreement display" or things like "don't question that" and "you should make a thread for that"?
My question, though rhetorical, still stands. I was suggesting you might want to revise your positions and your document to make it more clear. Or am I just trying to poke the bear?
4?
Red!
-Aet- Aareks.
Well, the "a" had to go somewhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not ask questions here. Send any questions you may have to the Northern Coalition FAQ Thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I did have questions, where would be the best place to direct them? I know how to reach various Pax related groups, and I'd go to Hobbs for EoX matters, but I don't have a contact for the NC.
As always, thank you for being respectful enough of other players to make that effort. As Ambassador, I know you have an account on the EoX forums. We can direct you from there as to where you can ask your questions and receive answers.