Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Finalgenesis
How unfortunately, Samhain has broken the NAP 1 turn after we made them previously, via the direct target overwrite of our mother oak global. How that can be viewed as a non-aggressive action is far beyond me, and it is universally accepted in the community to be a breach if you insist to ignore common sense.
|
Me think though dost protest too much. I figured that overcasting your global would get your tentacles into a bunch. I did not and do not consider it a breach of NAP. As I did do a bit a research on the subject of NAP before first agreeing to one a couple of games ago, I already felt I had an idea of consensus on this particular matter when I ran across it this thread...
Inviolate NAP, First Draft
Note rule #2:
2. He has overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement?
No*
*Emphasis added.
Reading on in the thread...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lingchih
It all seems pretty standard to me. I follow most of these rules already when I sign NAPs. Except 17 is a little muddy (but it is also a situation I have never run into).
As far as dispelling or overwriting one of my globals. If it is overwritten, so be it. Global are cast to be overwritten at some point. If he dispels it though, that is an act of aggression. Of course, it would difficult to be certain that he was the one that dispelled it, unless he tells me.
|
Your opinion on the matter hardly seems "universal". Regardless, enough with the rule lawyering. There's no glory in debate, only in war. I'll drag you down with me to Tartarus, squid...er...thing!