NAP

Oversway · #1 March 29th, 2005, 04:08 PM

What do people think about stealth preaching in their territory? Does that violate a NAP? What about causing unrest via spies?

Tuidjy · #2 March 29th, 2005, 04:45 PM

I always try to fully state the terms of a NAP before I enter it. My 'standard'
clauses include:

Agreed upon borders.
No excessive temples on the border, i.e. enough to maintain your domain, but
not two rows deep. No blood sacrifice.
No stealth preaching, no unrest inciting, all sneaking troops set to 'retreat'.
No dispelling or replacing globals. Usually I try to even coordinate globals.
No stealing mercs (well, I do not use mercs anymore, but I used to)

As for the survey, I'd say that replacing the global is way up there as
violations go.

The_Tauren13 · #3 March 29th, 2005, 06:18 PM

@ big daddy
Perhaps I should have explained more of what was going on beforehand.
The global in question is Well of Misery, and the former owner of it also has Mother Oak. The new owner has no other globals.
I had assumed it would be obvious that I was discussing casting the same spell; why else would there even be a remote reason to call it agression? Oh well.
I was just hoping this thread would dissuade rex_havok from throwing the game away (giving all his VPs to the 3rd player) in a fit of anger.

BigDaddy · #4 March 29th, 2005, 06:43 PM

The question really is somewhat complex. If for instance some nation who was allied with ermor decided to quickly case Well of Misery, I could see why that wouldn't fly. NAP or not Ermor has the gems and a definite reason to cast WOM. Otherwise Ermor would feel abused by the you and the NAP. . .

The_Tauren13 · #5 March 29th, 2005, 07:16 PM

Well, the nation who replaced the first nations global is C'tis Desert Tombs, and the other is Caelum.
I didnt want to talk about the situation too much because I wanted to stay neutral. I have the feeling there are some people who would vote for or against me just because its me not because of the issue.

Oversway · #6 March 29th, 2005, 07:41 PM

I think you screwed up

Technically it is arguable about it being aggression, but clearly replacing someones global will upset them.

Good luck with your persuasion!

BigDaddy · #7 March 29th, 2005, 07:51 PM

Hey,

If I was C'tis and my eventual enemy was Caelum, I doubt that I would be able to accept them having what I considered MY global spell. . . While it might make them somewhat angry, they shouldn't be suprised. They're just using the NAP to cast an otherwise infeasible spell. You can't really expect C'tis to let Caelum have WOM, just because they cast it first. C'tis might consider Caelums casting of WOM unacceptable as part of the NAP, and it really should have been discussed BEFORE anything was cast. Again, Caelum shuould have known better. . .

The Panther · #8 March 29th, 2005, 07:44 PM

Actually, this in no way can be considered a violation of an Non-Agression Pact UNLESS it was specified as part of the agreement. Truidy above was talking about an alliance between players, not a simple NAP. There is a huge difference between those two.

For example: Your Cyclops has lost his only eye and somebody else has the GoH up. You need it bad to cure your pretender. Why should a simple non-agression pact interfere with this in the slightest? You need it. Period. Go for it!

How about the Forge? If you need it, just cast it and hope for the best. Or maybe you can demand the other player make artifacts for you as part of an agreement for not dumping it.

What about dispelling? For example, you are Abysia and the Jontuns cast Illwinter. Of course you will dispel it as soon as you are able! Ask for pearls from other races and just do it... Dispel is actually more problematic since you do not know who did it.

Also, what about the gem income globals? If you need one, then a NAP cannot change that fact of need. If the other player is concerned about losing it, then maybe you can ask for part of the gem income to avoid the attempt to cast over it. Why should someone else reap the benefits and not you?

A NAP cannot possibly interfere with the needs of a player. Only in an alliance of some sort can this matter. But alliances (unless fully disclosed before the game begins like in a 2 vs 2) are not a real part of a true FFA game and usually just cause problems with everyone else in the game.

Most NaPs are simply an agreement to not attack without some notice. Usually it includes a border definition. Globals are not a necessary part of this at all. No way.

To each his own.

Huzurdaddi · #9 March 29th, 2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

The Panther said:
Actually, this in no way can be considered a violation of an Non-Agression Pact UNLESS it was specified as part of the agreement. Truidy above was talking about an alliance between players, not a simple NAP. There is a huge difference between those two.

Panther I totally agreed with you when I started playing the game. However I now agree partially with Tuidjy in that the terms of the agreement must be specified in full when you are entering it. That way no one is suprized when something happens.

Personally I would like game enforced diplomacy. But that's pie in the sky thinking.