Fallacy - Middle Era (Started!)

[Hadrian_II]

Xox said:
woo, where in the heck does the fevered imagination of anyone connect anonymous rituals to metagaming?

When it rains frogs in your capital, you cant say if the frogs were sent by pangaea or anyone else.

Xox said:
Hey, it's all in good fun, no worries. I take none of this personal, and i hope you do not either. You got me good, but..... it was a violation of the nap!!!

Nope, anonymous rituals cant break a nap, as they are anonymous. Also stealthy preaching, sneaking armies or to position huge armies on a border are not breaks of a nap. Even equipping vane venom charms on your scouts and sending them into the enemy capital is not a break of a nap (at least not until they are caught, and even then it is not a break of the nap but when someone would do that to me i would ignore the nap and attack the offender anyway).

Xox said:
Attacking someone during a nap treaty is breaking a nap. Just because it is an anonymous ritual does not mean it is not an attack or not breaking your treaty of non aggression.

An anonymous ritual is not an attack, or it is an attack but not by you, so it cant break a nap.

Xox said:
Naming you a treaty breaker is my right, calling me rude for doing so, is just evasion.

If in your opinion i have broken a pact, then you had another pact with me than i had with you.
A NAP is just an early game tool to make a deal with a player that both will attack some one else at first. Later on a nap gives you the chance to put your troops in position before the war starts (And your troops where in place as you invaded me with a huge army in the start of the war, if i really would have broken the nap you would not had that chance and the whole war would have been fought on your teritorry).

[Tichy]

Hadrian: Judging from the ongoing discussions on this board, you have an odd notion of what an NAP is...What you're describing here seems to be breaking an NAP surreptitiously and trying to get away with it. No player with good reason to believe that you'd hit them with anonymous rituals would consider an NAP with you to still be in effect. Of course if you can keep it ambiguous enough -- like using rituals that your nation isn't known to possess, etc., you can probably get away with it for a while, but aggression is aggression. And you don't even seem to be trying to play the grey area here...

My guess is that players who know this is your attitude about them simply won't forge them with you anymore. Unless of course this is in-character banter about a Fallacy-specific conflict that I shouldn't be kibbitzing about.

[Hadrian_II]

Tichy said:
My guess is that players who know this is your attitude about them simply won't forge them with you anymore. Unless of course this is in-character banter about a Fallacy-specific conflict that I shouldn't be kibbitzing about.

Pangaea is a very sneaky nation so playing it in a very sneaky way is almost mandatory.

As xox is the first player complaining about NAP breaches by me, i think naps with me are not that bad. Well, it was the first time i really casted lots of rituals before declaring war and i would not do this if i would not have pangaea, where casting rain of toads as early as possible gives just a very huge benefit.

A nap for me is no attacks and no un anonymous spells as they are attacks too. Offcourse unanonymous are attacks too but as they cant be linked to a player (as in anonymous) they cant break a nap. If you would make anonymous rituals nap breaking every nap becomes just an useless paper, as as soon an anonymous ritual would be cast on you you would have the right to engage anyone you like.

Lets just say that when i would be the pactbreaking type, there would now be a huge gangbang on ctis going on right now. So my adherence to pacts, i make in dom3 games, will make ctis win in this game.

Another point with a nap is, that punishment for breaking a nap is war. So if you intend to go to war anyway a nap becomes just a fancy peace of paper.

For me a NAP is an early game tool to fix a border with a nation, and non agreement to an early nap means war. The grace period of a nap means that you get preperation time if the other player decides to engage you. (And Jotunheim had that period, as the day the grace period ended a huge jotun army crossed my border.)

In the late game the grace period is worthless, as enemy scouts would notice your army moving to the border anyway so pactbreaking does not give you any benefit.

I also try to play the nations according to the theme and pangaea has a very sneaky theme.

And btw. i did not get any benefit from it, i may have crused jotun, but all lands of jotunheim are now belonging to shin, and i am loosing the war against shinuyama. (shinuyama is still pretending only to fight to help his jotun friends )

please vote in the poll i made in the main forum.

[cupido2]

There have been books written about that topic. Agartha the Enlighted asked their stone oracle. Hear the words of wisdom:

Casting anonymous rituals is no breach of an nap as long as you're not caught.

So the verdict of Helena is: Pangea broke the NAP with Jotunheim and shall be punished by C'tis for that insolence.

[vfb]

C'tis apologizes to our Agarthan overlords. We are drowning our sorrows in lizard beer, following our humiliating defeat at the hands of the wizards of Pythium. We are far too drunk to even think about punishing anyone.

[Tichy]

The wisdom of the Agarthan oracle is machiavellirrific as usual.

In other words, where Hadrian says "no attack" I say "attack you get away with." Anonymous spells are technically anonymous, which gives you *some* wiggle room. That is, there's a difference between calling an NAP null-and-void because I got seeking arrowed (Arrowed!), and calling my NAP with my only blood magic using neighbor null-and-void after multiple rains of toads. In the former case I don't have reasonable suspicion of that neighbor, in the latter case I do.

Of course if the neighbor claims that the spells weren't his, then it shifts to the court of public opinion. However, the one thing that no one will buy is to say 'yes they were mine, but that's not a breach of the NAP'.

[Xox]

Well said Tichy,

And that poll Hadrian has in another thread intentionally muddies the issue.

Hadrian, Just put up a poll that says "does casting anonymous rituals break a nap?"

yes or no?


Casting an attack ritual is aggression whether it is anonymous or not,

The only aspect that the anonymous part brings up is who is the one attacking.

In our case, in the game fallacy, there was no question it was you.

Not saying your a bad person or anything, as i said before don't take this personal. I just said you broke the nap, Breaking a nap is not cheating, perfec;ly legal, might affect you getting other people to trust you in traaties though. I guess that is really what this discussion is about.

But what do you expect Hadrian?!!

You signed a treaty that said you would give me 3 turns warning before you attack and then you hit me with about 50 rain of toads!! 20 before you even started the three turn count down.

Come on, would you yourself trust a nap with another player who does that?

[Reay]

Yes, since the leader of the forest beings has stated that they were his toads means it is a break of the NAP.

For me a NAP is worthless if both players do not have honour.

The honourable Bakemono will try to punish the sneaky forest beings for this insolence. However this has not been an easy task.

The giants will be free to grow large again now that the toads are dead.

[Hadrian_II]

Xox said:
Hadrian, Just put up a poll that says "does casting anonymous rituals break a nap?"

yes or no?

The results of the poss state that

50% of the people think that it breaks the NAP.
15% think the nap is still in place
35% are up for interpretation

I say that it does not break the letter of a nap, as it does not include a direct attack. But if someone would cast anonymous rituals on me, i would break the nap i have with him and attack him.

Reay said:
The giants will be free to grow large again now that the toads are dead.

I will have to see that first.

edit: second poste is from reay and not from xox (copy & paste)

[Xox]

I know there are a few proponents of your way of thinking Hadrian, as evidenced in other threads. But I also know that the majority do not agree with that line of reasoning.

It boils down to this:

You agreed to a nonagression treaty with me,

you attacked me without warning,

you broke the treaty.


Your claim that your attacks are not considered "real" attacks is just rules lawyering to gain an advantage.

Actually our particular example of this debate is illuminating because while a few people other than Hadrian may claim anonymous rituals do not break a nap even though most people say they do.... Hadrian has pushed that reasoning to its extreme conclusion.

He reasons anonymous attacks are not really an attack and so does not just one or two or even ten, but about 50 as a precurser to the "offical" attacks. There is no longer even a pretense of who is doing the attacks, yet the claim is that this does not break a nonagression treaty!!?

It shows where that kind of thinking goes.

XOX