MP NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 8: A Dance with Illithids - Page 61

bbz · #**601** May 19th, 2011, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Well, this is it. Bandar Log, I just sent you my remaining gems (some small reward for beating me, in addition to my lands). My last fortress will be taken this next turn. A few rogue bands of rangers might keep me alive for a turn or two, but for all intents and purposes resistance has been broken. Good game.

Thank you for that the gift, it will be appreciated and I will make sure to put some extra care in developing your lands and making sure that your formal people are happy.It was an honour fighting you.

Samhain · #**602** May 19th, 2011, 07:40 AM

Word of warning, Finalgenesis broke NAP3 by attacking without notice this turn. To say the least, I strongly suspect he had also targeted me in previous turns with Leprosy and Mind Hunt.

To be fair, I previously overcast his Mother Oak also while in NAP3 with him. Though, I did not consider that in violation of NAP myself. If he did he didn't voice it.

Finalgenesis · #**603** May 19th, 2011, 11:55 AM

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.

Btw, we've PMed your breach and oathbreaker status to everyone except for Agartha awhile ago when it happened.

To all, I've repeated this in pm already, Oathbreakers should not be accorded any consideration or fair dealings at all in the current and any future incarnations, for they have proven themselves undeserving of them. Do deal with them as you deal with oathbreaking scums.

Thanatus del Dragos · #**604** May 19th, 2011, 12:08 PM

Hey! Why is Agartha left off the PM list? Nobody likes Giant pale bloated one-eyed gys who wear nothing but a cape! Racist!

iRFNA · #**605** May 19th, 2011, 12:09 PM

I think I trust samhain more than finalgenesis, but maybe I'm racist against tentacle mouthed monstrosities...

Finalgenesis · #**606** May 19th, 2011, 02:02 PM

Apologies Agarthans, we suspected you of allying with the treacherous fomorians.

And iRFNA, feel free to trust the fomorians, say themselves that they overwrote ryleh's mother oak during NAP, there, better believe it ;-).

Samhain · #**607** May 19th, 2011, 09:54 PM

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!

iRFNA · #**608** May 19th, 2011, 10:14 PM

Finalgenesis is obviously of the lawful evil alignment. And being a chaotic evil masquerading as chaotic neutral, his ways are anathema to me! What about you?? Let us rise up against the tentacled tyrants!

Finalgenesis · #**609** May 19th, 2011, 10:42 PM

Ah yes, I would assume Ling is speaking of random overwrite when global slots are full, rather then target overwrite, in which case Ling is absolutely correct, would you perhaps provide the full context? Of course, there's always the rare lone rebels. I can just as easily pull up quotes that the majority consider target overwrite a breach.

But really, we agree that at this point rule lawyering is moot, let's begin (though we've never really stopped). I would remind everyone to keep in mind Fomorian's proven treachery however, and take heed in current and future incarnations.

We look forward to adding more royal fomorian bones to the ocean floor, could I perhaps entice you to send another dozen or so of them down for tea?... *sigh* I suppose it's my turn to fight on difficult non-native terrain.

Samhain · #**610** May 20th, 2011, 12:47 PM

That is the full quote. I meant to supply the link above, but I broke it.

The thread number is 40476. Here is another attempt at the URL: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40476

I think it is pretty clear though that he was in agreement with the thread's author that overcasting another's global is not a violation of NAP. There is, I believe, some disagreement on that point later in the thread. But, the weight seemed to side with me.

That would make you the oathbraker, not me. That you pre-empted your violation with a PR campaign followed by treacherous tactics, anonymous spells, speaks to the fact that you knew you were in the wrong.

Actually, I blame myself, though, for making a treaty with such a vile creature to begin with. I certainly won't make the same mistake twice.