| Friday, November 14, 2003 - 03:54 pm |
Hmmm... At least Monkey has told me that no hostile action is intended against me if I leave SKP Star alone. What I don't know is whether this one Monkey speaks for all. A public message here on that point would be interesting.
| Friday, November 14, 2003 - 05:27 pm |
That should have been, "At least ONE Monkey has told me..."
In any case, Jackle took SKP Star before I had a chance to decide whether to jump in or not. The Ball is in the Monkey's court now.
| Friday, November 14, 2003 - 08:22 pm |
just leave it
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 12:13 am |
We are all one fed. One member is sufficient enough to relay our thoughts. IMO
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 02:20 am |
I apologize for postponing an official response until now, but it was necessary.
The declaration upon SKP was characterized as 'Provocative' by Erehwon. This description is one I would agree with, technically, but I would refine it and name it "Threatening."
Regardless of the actual intent, it was certainly seen as a threatening action. If I were to plan an invasion of the territory of my federation, one of the ways I might attempt it would be to conquer a recently ex-member of the federation within the region, and launch a massive ground-based attack. I might think that I could justify such an activity by references to past actions, or that my opponents might be too uncertain as to the nature of such an event to risk a full-scale war.
One thing I would not do is admit that It was a failed attempt at war, if the attempt were unsuccessful (actually, I probably would; but most would not, and the action isnt exactly rational :P)
When Erehwon himself had an active, strong player move in near him without any such delcaration of war, he very firmly 'requested' that he leave, with an unspoken threat hanging in the air. I think the individual who received this treatment is still around to verify what happened, as are the records on the BB.
Note that in that case, no war was declared upon a country nearer erehwon (ally, ex-ally, or no); Erehwon simply felt threatened by the proximity of a player whose intentions and alllegiance were unknown. I do not condemn such caution on his part by a long shot, I simply offer the example to help explain.
This, to me, indicates that he understands our reaction perfectly. If A metaphor will help, picture a person makeing a threatening gesture towards a dog, and the dog growling back. That is how I happen to see this incident.
The war declarations were piled on SKPs recently ex-country in an effort ot prevent its capture, and provisions were made to permit a rapid and large assault on it if it were captured.
Barsoom was threatened, rather than any other country(ies), simply because it was the sending point for Erehwon's declarations. Some advocated declaring war on all of his countries in order to make our position even clearer, but this was decided against for those very reasons Erehwon mentions. A bit of diplomatic caution never hurt anyone ;)
Of course, the backround probably doesnt interest anybody (I just want it to be clear , for the present and for posterity ).
None of the soldiers of the Erehwonian empire will be harmed so long as they remain within his protective borders, and out of the area surrounding our territory.
As noted, the outcome of the war was finished shortly before he was able to show his true intentions.
Unfortunately, some members of my federation are now convinced that the action was a calculated move - a successful probe/test, a fouled attempt at invasion (seizing an opportunity when it was seen), or simply an intentional provocation to get us to redeclare, and start a larger war. It is difficult to believe that erehwon was fooled by "such a simple trick", and it is also difficult to believe that he would not know he we would respond.
We know with certainty that such actions have been discussed in other federations, although the conclusions remain unknown to us.
The goals and stance of our federation have definitly shifted as a result of this incident, and we will not forget.
One furtehr thing I would like to clear up was imperios last statement. I Believ he meant to affirm the unity of our federtion from outside threats, which is laudable.
However, I would like it to be clear that I speak for the federation as a whole. This is my privedledge until circumstances change.
Cheers, good day, and happy gaming to all involved
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 03:05 am |
I'd like to point to this argument made by grey in this thread: http://sim04.simcountry.com/discus/messages/2/803.html?1068857331
I don't think rules like that can be imposed yet. I don't even know if a rule like that would pass because it seems to me like artificially-imposed rules pertaining to the logistics of war like that have proven themselves to be more of a hassle than a help.
1) Many might not know of the rule if we had it, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to hold it against someone for not knowing.
2) It might make countries too complacent when it comes to protecting themselves against ground attacks.
3) That rule would favor some, and impede others. It seems biased. Who are we to decide where a person puts their country?
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 03:32 am |
I said nothing about imposing rules other than those given by W3c. In fact, I think dictating them is wrong.
I do not follow the relevance, or, perhaps, the helpfulness. Rather than respond to something I think you might mean - regarding a concern which should already have been addressed in private - I choose to ask for enlightenment.
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 04:01 am |
I don't beleive any elightenment is necessary, it clearly shows that the monkey stance changes to suit their needs.
| Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 04:36 am |
Grey was stating he did not advocate imposing in-game rules binding the conduct of other players. I said the same, and . The "monkey" stance , also, is the same.I see no change whatsoever.
although I belieive it might clutter this thread up a bit, I will even quote myself if it will clarify things:
The only 'ground rules' which I think are valid to enforce involve respecting the game rules (not cheating , intentionally abusing known bugs, or otherwise engaging in such cheesy behavior), helping to enforce the game rules, respecting fellow players (at least an attempt at no out-of-character profanity or real nastiness...although in/game trash-talking can be good natured and fun ), and communicating any bugs/flaws/potential abuses found. This will require some degree of trust, but there shouldnt be any reason to worry, as long as the council does what it is suposed to.
Again, I said nothing about enforcing any kind of rule on anyone else.
Either you and I (and by extension, the federation I represent) are thinking along totally perpendicular lines, or you are trying to make it appear so. I see no additional ways to make this clear, it seemed simple enough to me and I can find no ambiguities in its communication.
I see no further need to post here, I think Ive explained things clearly enough. I believe the 'ball' is at rest for now.
I wonder what would have happened, or what would happen, if others were presented with the same situation. Perhaps in the fulness of time, we will know for sure.