Quote:
Graeme Dice said:
It's the only correct way to read the term "Three turn NAP" without making any assumptions about the meaning.
|
Until a few days ago, that was the assumption I was operating under. Thats how it was explained to work.
This is a quote from our discussion last night, which is one of the reasons I felt the need to bring this up.
<archae> NAPs have traditionally been interpreted as a number of turns of warning
<archae> if you want to use some other sense, you shouldn't call it a NAP
I am not the only one who was operating under this assumption.
I felt the need to resolve the two schools of thought, as I thought it would lead to a much smoother diplomatic process with no one misinterprating anything. It just seems very very odd to me that there are two schools of thought. It just made sense to me to bring it up and try to get a community definition for the term. That and its nice to get a new thread going every couple days. I thought it would be a nice discussion thread as per the feedback I got, I wasn't the only one who thought this.
As Cain said, I don't break them intentionally. I was about to go to War with someone, when in IRC he brought up our NAP. I had totally forgotten I had one setup. I have had only once incident that a player went back on his agreements. Other then that one isolated incident, diplomacy is the real reason I am hooked to MP as bad as I am.