Goblin Squad Member
|
I would LOL, but I can't tell if he is serious or not.
I decided if I incorporated a grain of truth into some of the conspiracy theories floating around about me on these forums it would make it more interesting. Obviously the truth based part was separating into multiple physical beings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, thank you for your response.
The screen shot in the OP showed that the Aragon PvP Window had been open, I am not sure how long you have your window set. Under these circumstances, the tower had to have been taken at least 27-28 hours BEFORE my OP. I believe Atheory himself said that they had already taken then for several days.
Well that time line is quite important. They were only admitted about 3 - 4 days ago. I posted the announcement at 10:20 Saturday Night.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The northern tower of Iron Gauntlet was indeed claimed by Pax Aeternum of Callambea at some point. Since our tower numbers haven't changed in some time, I'm fairly certain at this point it was an error in the initial rush to claim towers.
Should this had been brought up at any point during that time, Callambea would of course not contested Iron Gauntlet retaking their tower. Iron Gauntlet, however, does not seem to be active as all their other towers were 'Unclaimed'. Of course now that a week has passed, those Unclaimed towers are being acquired by various companies, but before today the Northern Tower was the only one that appears to have been wrongly taken.
As all this was brought up less then 24 hours before the point became moot, my personal feeling is no-harm, no-foul. Just as the Empire of Xeilias didn't make an issue about Phaeros taking Kreuz Bersteins Northern Tower, we simply took it back. Since Phaeros didn't contest, no harm, no foul. We simply felt it silly to blow something causing absolutely no harm completely out of proportion.
At any rate, we are cleansing our roster and re-enforcing with our people what the NAP means. If any person(s) want to pursue this, feel free to contact me directly.
- High Thane Kard Warstein
Aragon will be taking this same position. If any Alpha Towers are contested by their rightful owners, we will withdraw and if possible even assist them in getting their towers controlled and contributing to their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf - I will take all of the information into account - including similar infractions by other groups. This thread has developed in interesting ways.
I still like to get Caldeathe and whoever else together to discuss this. So please could you nominate a group representing you.
I will also sending some PMs to Phaeros and Callambea to give me a little bit more background what happened there and what actions (if any) where taken.
I'm also fully aware that we now are in the second phase where it is allowed to take towers not claimed.
The main reason to want to progress this is two-fold
Going through the motions to ensure we learn for next time
Drawing a conclusion under all of this
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf - I will take all of the information into account - including similar infractions by other groups. This thread has developed in interesting ways.
I still like to get Caldeathe and whoever else together to discuss this. So please could you nominate a group representing you.
I will also sending some PMs to Phaeros and Callambea to give me a little bit more background what happened there and what actions (if any) where taken.
I'm also fully aware that we now are in the second phase where it is allowed to take towers not claimed.The main reason to want to progress this is two-fold
Going through the motions to ensure we learn for next time
Drawing a conclusion under all of this
FYI-
Ozem's Vigil still has not discussed if we even want to be involved in any of this.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be willing to put an alt in their settlement and help them recapture their towers.
I would dedicate my time as repayment, freeing them up to do something else.
Given that the NAP strongly emphasises the resolution of matters without the removal of NAP protections, either in Tribunal or out, I suspect this would be more than enough.
At any point before the Tribunal has made a final decision, the Petitioner may withdraw their Petition. This will immediately cease the investigation and all parties will retain their status. Parties are encouraged to make compromises and attempt to resolve the matter without a Tribunal first. If the Accused offers to make fair restitution, this will be considered by the Tribunal as evidence they are acting in good faith.
...
If the parties agree to the Tribunal’s alternate resolution, the matter will be considered settled without prejudice.
You know, sometimes I think I'm the only person who refers back to the document we all signed. It's good shit, people. Basically the only way that this ends in Aragon losing its Protected status is if both Brighthaven's Advocate and Emerald Lodge's Advocate both vote 'YES' after Brighthaven has failed to accept your offer above (or something similar proposed by the Tribunal).
Even though the AGC is thumbing his nose, this is a first offence. It'd take a pretty insane series of events for this to end in revoked protections.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I'm wrong here but it sounds like the Settlements that can break the NAP will, and the settlements that can't wont. So really the only settlements that truly care about the NAP is non-PvP settlements?
It doesn't take PVP to capture a tower, and it is useless to try to defend and hold a tower. If your tower comes under attack, abandon it, find another tower that is open and undefended and take it.
Every active settlement has an excess of towers they could possibly need. Even the argument that faster crafting times are needed, what for?
There is not significant item loss? It takes 20 deaths to lose an item. You can't lose an item that is equipped due to threading.
But most of all, this is still EE. The real economy won't be until OE (supposedly) and we have such a head start on OE, what is the hurry?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Aragon is being disadvantaged in this because their settlement management isn't around enough to take action. I'm prepared to presume he would do so if he was, so based on Bluddwolf's assurance that they will not contest, I'm not willing to support sanctions against them currently. At the moment, there is no evidence that anyone has suffered from the act, and I'm not behind giving in to agents provocateur who have publicly expressed their disdain for our efforts.
If either Allegiant shows some public sign that they regret causing Aragon stress and are prepared to abide by the terms of the NAP, or Goodfellow expels them at the first opportunity, I think the matter should be considered handled.
If neither of those is an option, then we likely have to go to a tribunal.
In the meantime, I have no issue with anyone who considers themselves an ally of the wronged party doing whatever they need to to the members of Allegiant (which would probably make them happy) as long as it doesn't involve Aragon's core towers. If it offends you enough, spend some reputation on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also want to add that Ozem's Leaders, in general are not responsible for the delay in deciding on Cheatle's request that we serve as their tribunal representative. I neglected to contact them until I got up this morning, so some of them were not even aware there was an issue, and if they haven't seen my messages, may still not be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to thank Cal for reaching out in this way and demonstrating a balanced view (I intentionally did not say unbiased, because balanced is more appropriate).
I have been in discussions with Kard of Aeternum, mostly due to when we brought Lone Wolf Clan in, a similar situation existed. I was only aware ahead of time in that situation because our NC partners had alerted us to LWC holding KB towers, before they had been accepted to Aragon.
We did not have that same information concerning Hammerforge's towers before Allegiant was accepted.
Not to be self serving, just pointing out an oversight in the NAP agreement, there was no provisions discussed concerning:
1. Absent Settlement Leaders, even temporarily so. In Alpha, settlements could have up to three leaders and all could invite companies. This feature got lost in translation from Alpa to EE.
2. The NAP did not address accepting companies that already held unclaimed towers, of any kind,particularly Core Six towers of dormant settlements.
If this comes to a Tribunal stage I do formerly request that Caldeathe represent Aragon's position in this matter. Principally the interests of the Aragonian Council (Aragon's Settlement Management Co) led by the Goodfellow, Talonfox and Myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since that request is directed to me, rather than Ozem's, I can make a decision quickly, presuming all parties are okay with an individual (I'm not technically a signatory)
While I think Ozem's would be fine fielding another rep to the tribunal, I'll give Brighthaven some time to make another choice if they prefer.
Again, presuming it is necessary.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since that request is directed to me, rather than Ozem's, I can make a decision quickly, presuming all parties are okay with an individual (I'm not technically a signatory)
While I think Ozem's would be fine fielding another rep to the tribunal, I'll give Brighthaven some time to make another choice if they prefer.
Again, presuming it is necessary.)
Since you're a citizen of Ozem's Vigil (a WoT NAP signatory), you would have to move to either Highroad Covenant (Stoneroot Glade or Talonguard) or the Aeonian League(Canis Castrum, Sunholm, Hope's End) in order to represent Aragon. The intent is two separate representatives from different power blocs than that of the plaintiff and defendant. From there, it depends on whether that power bloc accepts your settlement membership request. Basically both parties can't choose the same representative settlement.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I observe that there is no requirement that the advocates be signatories to the NAP.
(Sorry for the excessively stilted formal language here; I recognize that there is history that exists but isn't relevant, so I'm making an extra effort to state only the literal facts that I find relevant.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I observe that there is no requirement that the advocates be signatories to the NAP.
(Sorry for the excessively stilted formal language here; I recognize that there is history that exists but isn't relevant, so I'm making an extra effort to state only the literal facts that I find relevant.)
Aren't citizens bound by the treaties of their settlements, assuming you mean Cal is not an actual signatory? Couldn't that mean Aragon could choose an advocate from Doomhammer (VVV Gaming's settlement)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since you're a citizen of Ozem's Vigil (a WoT NAP signatory), you would have to move to either Highroad Covenant (Stoneroot Glade or Talonguard) or the Aeonian League(Canis Castrum, Sunholm, Hope's End) in order to represent Aragon. The intent is two separate representatives from different power blocs than that of the plaintiff and defendant. From there, it depends on whether that power bloc accepts your settlement membership request. Basically both parties can't choose the same representative settlement.Since that request is directed to me, rather than Ozem's, I can make a decision quickly, presuming all parties are okay with an individual (I'm not technically a signatory)
While I think Ozem's would be fine fielding another rep to the tribunal, I'll give Brighthaven some time to make another choice if they prefer.
Again, presuming it is necessary.)
I'm confident the intent is to ensure neutrality.
The wording does not say that they can't select from the same signatory. If both picked "Ozem's Vigil" there would be no issue with the NAP's wording. Some may feel that selecting a specific person from a signatory is not supported.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This was just pointed out to me:
Just as the Empire of Xeilias didn't make an issue about Phaeros taking Kreuz Bersteins Northern Tower, we simply took it back. Since Phaeros didn't contest, no harm, no foul. We simply felt it silly to blow something causing absolutely no harm completely out of proportion.
I appreciate the fact that you don't think of this as a big deal.
However, I do not appreciate the fact that you made the assertion without providing any evidence. To the best of my knowledge, this did not happen.
The existing strained relationship between our Power Blocs makes it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt that this is not a ploy to cast doubt on Phaeros's integrity without having to do so formally with evidence.
Note that I am not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying I was not aware of it if it did. If you have any evidence, I would very much like to see it. I will also talk to the rest of the Phaeros leadership to determine if any of them have any knowledge of this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would LOL, but I can't tell if he is serious or not.I decided if I incorporated a grain of truth into some of the conspiracy theories floating around about me on these forums it would make it more interesting. Obviously the truth based part was separating into multiple physical beings.
I see your military/logistics/leadership genius didn't win you any fans in Star Citizen either. Welcome back!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't that a conflict of interest though? Just saying...
That is up to Brighthaven and Aragon. Ozem's Vigil is a co-operative, but we do not agree on everything. There is no advantage to Ozem's Vigil in this, since there is no way in Hades that we will be foraying all the way down to Aragon to take towers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI-
Ozem's Vigil still has not discussed if we even want to be involved in any of this.
LOL.
I say hang 'em til their eyeballs pop out. If they openly mock the NAP they will openly mock any tribunal.
Save the hassles of the tribunal for a defendant that actually cares. We all got enough on our plates as it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say hang 'em til their eyeballs pop out. If they openly mock the NAP they will openly mock any tribunal
You might need to read the whole conversation. Aragon very much cares. One group within Aragon is not happy with the NAP. What happens to Allegiant is up the them, and to Aragon. All the tribunal can decide is whether Aragon should be held accountable for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might need to read the whole conversation. Aragon very much cares. One group within Aragon is not happy with the NAP. What happens to Allegiant is up the them, and to Aragon. All the tribunal can decide is whether Aragon should be held accountable for them.
I've read it.
Allegient Gemstone = hang 'em
Aragon = If they defend Allegient, hang 'em also.
Just tryin' to save ya'll a big headache. But if you wish to proceed, by all means...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that's what will happen. Except the "hanging them" part. But up to this point there's been no sign that Aragon intends to defend them. Would you like us to presume that Goodfellow is hiding from us to avoid dealing with it, and secretly is thrilled that Allegiant took a couple of extra towers that' aren't really doing them any good at the moment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going to handle this all legal-like:
Ladies and gentleman of the community, I'm just an orc. I was raised eating the weakest of my own littermates and later got conscripted into your army. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the flashing lights of your wizards make me want to strip off my Soldier's Chain +2 and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a whisper in game, did little demons get inside my screen and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
But here's what I do know: this is what the NAP says.
The Tribunal will be made up of an Advocate for the Petitioner, an Advocate for the Accused, and a Neutral Party. The Petitioner and Accused may select any Signatory that is not a member of their Power Bloc as their Advocate. If the Accused fails to select an Advocate, then there will only be an Advocate for the Petitioner and the Neutral Party. The Neutral Party will be Emerald Lodge unless they are the Petitioner or Accused, in which case the Advocates will select another Neutral Party.
...
The Tribunal will then convene for deliberations, and may make suggestions for alternate resolutions rather than always making a simple yes/no decision on revoking the protections of this agreement from the Accused. If the parties agree to the Tribunal’s alternate resolution, the matter will be considered settled without prejudice.
Points of interest:
- Advocates are Signatories.
- Signatories are Settlements.
- Caldeathe cannot be an advocate, only Ozem's Vigil can be an advocate.
- The pact text does not indicate how a settlement selected as advocate must or should represent itself with real persons.
- The pact text neither forbids nor considers the possibility that the same settlement might be chosen to advocate for both parties.
With those points in mind, the text of the document has no language which would prevent Ozem's Vigil, selected to advocate for both the petitioner and accused, from choosing to represent itself at this hearing with multiple real persons and assign them different responsibilities.
The pact text also does not specify what form the Tribunal's "deliberations" should take nor how to resolve any intractable differences among the Tribunal's membership. It seems to assume that the Tribunal will reach a unanimous consensus. It nowhere indicates that two of the Tribunes could make a ruling in the face of the third's dissent. If we trust that a 3-settlement tribunal can reach an equitable and unanimous decision, we should feel equally confident that a 2-settlement tribunal, with one of those settlements represented by multiple real persons with different responsibilities, can do the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read it.Allegient Gemstone = hang 'em
Aragon = If they defend Allegient, hang 'em also.
Just tryin' to save ya'll a big headache. But if you wish to proceed, by all means...
I had to favourite this
Just because it made me laugh out loud while at work
Now you can fire me again
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
~ Tzu
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we're going to handle this all legal-like:
Ladies and gentleman of the community, I'm just an orc. I was raised eating the weakest of my own littermates and later got conscripted into your army. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the flashing lights of your wizards make me want to strip off my Soldier's Chain +2 and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a whisper in game, did little demons get inside my screen and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
But here's what I do know: this is what the NAP says.
Pharasmadammit, Guurzak wins another thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except for one thing, I agree iwth everything Guurzak said:
If we trust that a 3-settlement tribunal can reach an equitable and unanimous decision, we should feel equally confident that a 2-settlement tribunal, with one of those settlements represented by multiple real persons with different responsibilities, can do the same
A tribunal only fails when one person fail to express an opinion. Two people fail any time they disagree.
There is no requirement for a unanimous decision, so no reason to expect that the NAP anticipates one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I'm wrong here but it sounds like the Settlements that can break the NAP will, and the settlements that can't wont. So really the only settlements that truly care about the NAP is non-PvP settlements?
As a member of a settlement (Forgeholm) that vocally supported the NAP, you are correct.
My intentions in supporting the NAP were solely to ensure that small, non-pvp oriented, active settlements were able to hold enough towers that their members can access Tier 2 training.
A large, pvp dedicated settlement doesn't need protection, and an inactive settlement doesn't deserve it.
The purpose of the NAP is so that settlements like Blackfeather Keep or Canis Castrum don't get completely shut out of training, which would make it nearly impossible for them to recruit new members.
No matter what NAP detractors might try to suggest, the NAP is in no way intended to resolve conflicts, stifle PVP or impose some sort of "world order" on PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note that I am not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying I was not aware of it if it did. If you have any evidence, I would very much like to see it. I will also talk to the rest of the Phaeros leadership to determine if any of them have any knowledge of this.
*throws some fuel on the fire*
Nihimon, if you are genuinely interested, I happen to have a screenshot of Phaeros holding Kreuz Berstein's tower from a few days ago.
I also have screenshots from the same time of Aragon via the Lone Wolf company holding the other five towers belonging to Kreuz Berstein.
At the time I assumed KB was inactive and I didn't really care that Aragon and Phaeros were fighting over those towers. Now that Kreuz Berstein appears to be active again, I assume the towers will be returned to their control, and as of last night, the tower that Phaeros temporarily occupied was in fact under the control of Kruez Berstein.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lord, are all of you new to PVP?
The NAP existed as a poker table, all players waiting to see who would fold first. That guy is the weak meat and everyone will pounce on him justified in their cause. Actually, they're just itching for PVP and need a legal excuse to gangbang the poor sod.
Have you never had a staring contest with your friends to see who blinks first?
Aragon just blinked. Time to pay the piper.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lord, are all of you new to PVP?
The NAP existed as a poker table, all players waiting to see who would fold first. That guy is the weak meat and everyone will pounce on him justified in their cause. Actually, they're just itching for PVP and need a legal excuse to gangbang the poor sod.
Have you never had a staring contest with your friends to see who blinks first?
Aragon just blinked. Time to pay the piper.
You're entitled to hold that opinion. You might want to try to get in on Ryan's pool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I'm wrong here but it sounds like the Settlements that can break the NAP will, and the settlements that can't wont. So really the only settlements that truly care about the NAP is non-PvP settlements?As a member of a settlement (Forgeholm) that vocally supported the NAP, you are correct.
My intentions in supporting the NAP were solely to ensure that small, non-pvp oriented, active settlements were able to hold enough towers that their members can access Tier 2 training.
A large, pvp dedicated settlement doesn't need protection, and an inactive settlement doesn't deserve it.
The purpose of the NAP is so that settlements like Blackfeather Keep or Canis Castrum don't get completely shut out of training, which would make it nearly impossible for them to recruit new members.
No matter what NAP detractors might try to suggest, the NAP is in no way intended to resolve conflicts, stifle PVP or impose some sort of "world order" on PFO.
Shills in sheep clothing...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the signatory that signed for Brighthaven, as well as the petitioner that posted the OP, I have the right to withdraw the petition, before a tribunal.
I recognize a few of the negative situations that we have encountered here, as well as the treaty not providing for some of the niche situations we see. Under these circumstances, I ask for reparations to be made in lieu of a tribunal, and Brighthaven will withdraw the petition.
#1 - Someone from Aragon taking the two towers in question with an unsponsored company, then refraining from taking the towers (since Hammerforge is recognized as inactive) for seven days.
#2 - AGC be reprimanded, publicly, and a penance be placed upon the company, by Aragon.
I feel that this is an accurate penalty to what actually occurred, and takes into consideration that the AGC held the towers before joining Aragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why we are in the crowdforging part of the game. :)
Going over the NAP, it seems to bind all players to abide by it even though it is settlement leaders that signed on to it. Those players that did not have any stake in any settlement before joining the game are now playing by social rules that are imposed on them.
And if those players do not chose to play by those social rules, their is currently no recourse allowed them in order to play a game that they paid for.
This will be a good test of the consequence of social peer pressure.
Aragon just blinked. Time to pay the piper.
Aragon has not blinked yet. It is stuck between supporting the letter of the NAP, and supporting a very active and beneficial company that had the audacity to play the game as it was intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
#2 - AGC be reprimanded, publicly, and a penance be placed upon the company, by Aragon.
Except for the fact that AGC did nothing wrong nor was bound by any such agreement when the towers were taken.
AGC has be assertive in calling in to question the legitimacy of the NAP, but has has not violated it. So therefor should not be a part of any condition of resolution, outside to release of the towers in question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Lemkii twins" has a good point. What Allegiant did was not a violation of the NAP. A case might be made that Aragon should have done due diligence before accepting them, or that they should have disclosed, but Allegiant does not deserve to be reprimanded by anyone unless they remain unrepentant, then only by Aragon. It's not like they took more towers after they joined. I'm in favour of an unaligned group taking the tower.
I just wish Allegiant would fish or cut bait. If they want to be in a settlement that supports the NAP, then whether they like it or not, they should apologize to Aragon. If opposing the NAP is more important than settlement membership, they should ask to withdraw, or dissolve the company and reform it. The fact is, they've been ignoring, or avoiding the thread. It makes it seem like they only want Aragon for the training, and don't actually have any interest in the settlement itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf, the reason you had not heard word from AGC is because you did not inquire about this matter until just your last post, even though you had already contributed to this thread multiple times since yesterday.
You have our TS info as well and could have popped over at any time to inquire. We are an independent company and not subject to the untimely and willful summonings of Aragon leadership.
We have watched you try to minimize the AGC for Aragon's benefit as you try and find that tail of yours....I think its between your legs. And we have remained silent. But I fear the time for silence has come to an end.
I will address your PM on its own.
@whoever cares
I have always felt Aragon's possible actions were simple, having already admitted to the offense in the 2nd or 3rd post of this very thread. I have not sought to defend, nor amplify my actions. Others have done that on their own accord, but mostly by only drawing their own conclusions which in itself does a disservice to the NAP you guys are so hard trying execute and prove its relevance.
I have voiced my opposition to the WoT NAP and am distraught that such an act would be acceptable by the community at whole....wait it hasn't, but a blanket inclusion was enacted nonetheless by what I call the "Alpha Aristocracy", A term I did not coin, but have adopted.
It must be understood that I support the process of the NAP's inception. An open sandbox MMO should have little to no restriction on player generated content, as allowable through the games developed mechanics. I strive for a certain play style, for myself and for my members....many of whom have joined me because of this.
My actions were calculated and the potential consequences were known. Myself and those of my company have for the large part, remained outside the development of this thread's discussion knowing full well the process of the NAP would have to go through its cycle. We do respect the NAP and its process as a player created entity even though we do not support nor recognize it. While others may drum up drama, I only encourage the matter to conclusion.
I shall simplify matters for everyone, hopefully. AGC joined Aragon with the understanding that we would be independent in all things, with the exception of mutual defense of settlement towers. As many of you already know, if you remember from past discussions when AGC was looking for a home, that AGC was very concerned about obligated entanglements outside of our own operations. We take to heart having the ability to function as an independent entity, cultivating relationships on our own terms.
It was neither conveyed nor expressed through any means by Aragon that we were to uphold the agreement's Aragon itself had accepted on any scale. While the matter is trivial at best, and joining Aragon meant upholding the NAP may have been implied, but currently my lawyer is out of town at the moment.
Have I put Aragon in a bind, perhaps. Maybe it shows Aragon truly isn't the best home for my company after all? It's hard to say at this time. By expelling us from Aragon, in my view, is the best course of action for Aragon if it wishes to remain a part of the NAP. For AGC will not accept any form of penalty imposed by a tribunal through an agreement AGC does not recognize.
I will say one more thing as well. My actions were not intended to announce any form of open season on core towers. We believe in diplomacy and politics, but when these place a blanket on the entire game, and limits how I want to run my company, I must hold true to my purpose and push back, even if it's only just a poke from time to time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Lemkii twins" has a good point. What Allegiant did was not a violation of the NAP. A case might be made that Aragon should have done due diligence before accepting them, or that they should have disclosed, but Allegiant does not deserve to be reprimanded by anyone unless they remain unrepentant, then only by Aragon. It's not like they took more towers after they joined. I'm in favour of an unaligned group taking the tower.
This is pretty much it. The NAP can not be used to dictate the internal workings of any of the signatories, as long as the settlement itself does its best to comply with the terms of the NAP. (That being not hold any other protected tower)
And decision made between Allegiant and Aragon is completely and internal affair and not subject to the purview of any external entity.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I observe that there is no requirement that the advocates be signatories to the NAP."The Petitioner and Accused may select any Signatory that is not a member of their Power Bloc as their Advocate"
I stand corrected.
I'm not going to read any more strictly worded documents until I've slept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want to point out that the terms for dropping the petition is not imposed by anyone, its just what Brighthaven requires to put this issue to bed. If Aragon wants to PM me and negotiate the terms, that is their right, and I am open to any meeting with them.
The second part of our terms were written based on my understanding that Atheory knew what they had done prior to joining Aragon, and Aragon did not. Some can make a claim that Aragon didn't do their homework before allowing AGC to join, either way a penance on some level will be required.
@AGC, you are completely within your right to play the game how you see fit, this has been your stated goals from the start. I just feel you put Aragon in a potential bind, it is up to them what happens at this juncture, or perhaps what your own decisions will be going forward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AGC joined Aragon with the understanding that we would be independent in all things, with the exception of mutual defense of settlement towers.
Getting what you can out of others with minimal commitment is a perfectly valid strategy, and probably one of which the developers would approve. If Aragon had the same understanding, then it was their choice. If they didn't, then it was their mistake.
I'm going to (try to) stop talking about this now until Aragon weighs in or it's time for a tribunal.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"Lemkii twins" has a good point. What Allegiant did was not a violation of the NAP. A case might be made that Aragon should have done due diligence before accepting them, or that they should have disclosed, but Allegiant does not deserve to be reprimanded by anyone unless they remain unrepentant, then only by Aragon. It's not like they took more towers after they joined. I'm in favour of an unaligned group taking the tower.This is pretty much it. The NAP can not be used to dictate the internal workings of any of the signatories, as long as the settlement itself does its best to comply with the terms of the NAP. (That being not hold any other protected tower)
And decision made between Allegiant and Aragon is completely and internal affair and not subject to the purview of any external entity.
Having an unaligned group claim the tower and then join is a loophole, and use of loopholes is prohibited.
I'm not saying that Aragon did that; it's entirely possible that Goodfellow didn't closely examine AGC's holdings before accepting them.
But this thread is not where any tribunal would determine the facts of the matter anyway. "Kick 'me out and blacklist them" was intended for what I thought at that time was the most likely case of "rogue company tries to stir crap up"; I no longer believe that is the most likely case, and no longer believe that is the most appropriate resolution. Right now my probability distribution across possible ways it happened is broad enough that I am uncomfortable suggesting resolutions.