Quote:
Originally Posted by sector24
I'm sure the response to this will be "strawman argument" this and "putting words in my mouth" that, but hey let's have some fun.
So basically #17 says that this particular NAP supercedes all other agreements that have come before or after it. So if people started using the template and two mutually exclusive agreements both contained #17, a player could put himself in a position where he is forced to break one of the two agreements, both of which supercede the other, and of course hilarity would ensue. I think the only honorable way out of that is to go AI.
And then your response was just to reiterate that this NAP supercedes the other one, so that situation wouldn't occur. Well what's the point of #17 if agreements are only between two people and would never be affected by another? Of course it's going to happen, and furthermore it's going to be extremely entertaining! It just struck me as funny that I pointed out how this would not work out logically, and your response was completely contradictory and illogical. Sweet irony.
Anyway, totally not a knock on you or your efforts. I think having a NAP template for people to look and reflect upon is a good idea. But that one in particular made me laugh. Anyway, thread derailed with my sincerest apologies. Carry on.
|
I'm sorry if I sound a bit obtuse here, but would you care to specify exactly which part of the Inviolate NAP would conflict with another Inviolate NAP? Can you give one specific example where this would happen? Perhaps you have a specific situation in mind that I had totally disregarded.
That rule was meant to prevent the crafting of a NAP with another party specifically to circumvent an existing Inviolate NAP, in the vein of "Oh by the way, I have a mutual defense treaty with Kailasa that I forgot to tell you about, so I'm attacking you now".