The Glory of Manifestos

[Shiber]

GF, I'm offended by your avatar.
Btw, avatars are back!

[Panzer32]

Avatar wars!!!!!!!

[UnOrthOdOx]

/me attempts to speak without losing his temper again.

Just to be clear ... as the message does not seem to be getting through

GoW has failed to keep a single agreement with GS. Every single one has been broken.

I admit I don't know the full history here. However, this is not true.

When no one else would deal with you, we bought Feudalism.

Now, you can argue we 'broke' the Non-disclosure agreement here. But, let's analyze that agreement:

We make a deal, GoW goes out at lightening speed and secures deals with everyone else, THEN you add in a PM 'oh, BTW we would also like an NDA'. We could have handled it better at this point I admit. Had I been your diplomat at the time I would have simply told you it was too late for that and we had already blabbed it around.

Now, I kow you also claim we broke the no-trade. I have looked back and can find no evidence that we did. So, we must disagree here.

If there is one thing GoW has excelled at, it is tech whoring. You just made it easy on us in this case. While you were using your superior Civ knowledge to deduce that since it would cost someone X beakers to research it themselves it must be worth Y gold to be sold, GoW whored it at impossibly dirt cheap prices, before the Non-disclosure that was NEVER a part of the original deal, in nothing more than an attempt to get it for free.

GoW entered into one last agreement with GS with the intent to twist the agreement to their advantage. We would be welcome to send troops to kill RP and then we could bugger off.

For the last time:

We didn't need your help. We wanted you here at the end of the war to keep a balance of power on Bob. We were willing to basically GIFT you some cities temporarily so that you would come.

Why did we need you here?

Well, Ansars are cheaper than Riders, ND would have a bigger army, and ours would be farther from our core. What better time for ND to attempt a backstab? Im not saying they would, just that we were trying to cover our own ass due to the illogical agreement you are so fond of pointing out. In return we were promised you help in the future.

GoW attempted to twist an NAP into things which it is not, such as an RoP.

Not exactly again.

After you accepted Bilbao, I specifically told you in chat that GoW would be happy to allow you to accept the cities you had been pining over during the earlier negotiations, which boiled down to a stretch of coast. We were even willing to specifically THREATEN those cities in hopes RP would gift them to you. I also told you that if you attempted to block our path we would see that as an act of aggression. Though I never specifically stated as such, I figured you would get the hint this meant also a violation of our NAP. You still decided to accept cities that were not on this list and use them to attempt to block our progress while hiding behind the NAP.

And you speak of attempting to twist deals into ones own favor?

GoW is seriously shocked when the patience in GS for GoW and their 'tricks' has been exhausted and we tell them where to get off when they make demands in a... less than diplomatic tone.

Personally, I was shocked you ceased to speak to me. Nothing more. Though I know not of when I was less than diplomatic in tone. Can you elaborate? Or are you talking about all this cat fighting after war was decided upon?

[Shiber]

I cannot blame GoW for tech whoring.
True, it did make us mad because we ended up paying the most for Feudalism (the full research cost), while GoW got the tech for some gold and recovered part, all or more than they paid by whoring it around, and some civs even got the tech for free.
But we recognized that we were out-witted by GoW, and that we have no real case against GoW whoring our Feudalism around.
I'm not sure about the whole part about us asking for an NDA after the deal was secured. IIRC the deal wasn't officially ratified until we agreed on the no-trade period, and by accepting the no-trade clause, you did the right thing. However, you violated that clause, or so we can say, when you liberally interpreted the meaning of 'GoW cannot trade away Feudalism until 10 turns pass after they have received it from GS' as 'Other civs can't receive Feudalism from GoW until 10 turns pass after GoW has received it from GS'. You sent Feudalism to ND, accepted, one turn before the NDA expired. ND comes before GoW in the turn order, so they'd receive Feudalism on the turn that the NDA expires, but before GoW gets its turn.
So basically the accepted trade proposal was sent 9 turns after the technology was received by GoW, and received by ND and completed 10 turns after the trade between GS and GoW was made. Or to be more specific, 10 GS turns after the trade was made, but not yet 10 GoW turns.
IMHO, anyone who sides with GoW's logic is missing the point: turns, as in "game years", are bogus and irrelevant. This concept has merely been inserted into the game to make it more human-friendly, to borrow concepts from reality into a game where time flows in an absurd manner (in the real world, everything happens simultaneously). But what matters is individual turns, and if a team must obey a clause that says that they cannot trade away something for 10 turns, it means that this team cannot send a trade until 10 of ITS turns have passed.
Of course, a lot of ambiguity lies in here, and GoW can certainly evade these accusations and claim that its interpretation is the correct one (though I doubt that many would agree; plus, I don't recall that any other team has ever exploited this ambiguity before GoW, though only Trip can tell for sure). But IMHO, GS may still claim that GoW broke a deal (though we haven't in fact mentioned this to anyone until the recent arguments broke out).

[DeepO]

UnO, you waited 9 turns on a 10 turn NDA before whoring it around. We weren't paying attention at the moment, we thought you kept your end of the agreement... only 2 or 3 turns ago we found out. That seems to indicate you knew, and acknowledged the clause, even if it was agreed upon a bit later (which I'm not sure on, but could very well be true)... otherwise you could have whored the tech around the moment you received it.

DeepO

[Shiber]

P.S. My previous post was a response to UnO's post, as well as an attempt to start an interesting discussion on how game mechanics may, should and/or do interfere with deals and human concepts. It is by no means intended to jump-start another flame war or a war of accusations and mud-slinging between GS and GoW.
Hopefully, bringing this issue to light will prevent such occurances (and possibly misunderstandings) in the future.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I can see where you disagree now, then.

You know, Shiber,

One could argue that GS taking such a stance as this 'turns are not game years' is merely an attempt on their part to take advantage of the fact that they are first in the turn order as well. After all, any deals would end with GS first, wouldn't they?

But GS would never try to take advantage of anything, so I won't argue that.

AFAIK GoW has always treated it as game years from the beginning. FYI

[DeepO]

UnO, that was the question that lead to our discovery: because we're first, do we have to wait 11 turns on a 10 turn NDA, or 10?

BTW, we stopped discussing this once we found out the broken NDA on Feud, but I think the consensus was that if you receive it on turn 100, you can trade it on at turn 110. This has meant you didn't trade it for 10 turns (starting with 100), even if you were able to. In that case, it doesn't matter who is the team in question, GS would be the same as Lego (being last in turn order, IIRC).

DeepO

[Shiber]

On the contrary, you could go around and say that GS will always receive techs a turn after the NDAs on them expire, so if for example GoW received Chivalry from ND and at the end of the NDA, whored it off to RP and GS, RP would receive Chivalry first and be able to take advantage of it first, and this could mean serious trouble for GS if it were at war with RP, and therefore it is also a disadvantage.
On the other hand, if Lego was whoring off Gunpowder, then GS would be the first team to have the advantage of Musketmen, and again, this would be crucial during war.
Being first can be an advantage one time, and a disadvantage the next time.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Let me illustrate:


MPP between GS and A team ends on X turn: Y team attacked GS on X turn, Z team attacked A team on X turn. Since GS had already played their turn BEFORE Z team attacked A, GS doesn't need to help A. Y team attacked GS before A played their turn so A is obligated to still assist GS via the MPP since it happened before their turn.

By the logic of 'number of turns by team':

NAP's, GS would always be able to attack first.
NDA's, GS would always be able to talk first.
NTA's, GS would always be able to trade first.
I already illustrated the MPP problem (if you can make sense of that)
You're example is only of a TRADE that lego is making, and a deal with a third party, not a DEAL WITH GS. Show me a DEAL WITH GS that does not advantage GS by this thinking.

[UnOrthOdOx]

My mistake, sorry:

Even by year #'s GS will always be able to attack first in an NAP and talk first in a NDA.

The others have valid arguments that would allow a team to trade on even terms or the MPP mess to be averted.

[Shiber]

IMHO, you are wrong.
If GS and RP signed a NAP for 10 turns while ND was holding the turn, they can decide that each team will be obligated not to attack the other team for 10 of its turns, starting with RP's turn since they're the next to play. Then RP will be the one that can attack first.
If RP signed a NAP according to game years and not game turns, then surely they can't complain if GS uses that advantage, because it was RP that agreed to give that advantage to GS. It was their fault that they could not shake the concept of game years out of their minds and realize that what really matters is that ND plays after GS, and that GoW plays after ND, and that GS plays after Lego and so on.

[Panzer32]

I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the duration of the no trade clause; I fear it might have been me that did it wrong.

We however, do not think this should count as a broken deal. We honoured what we believed to be the 10 turn no trade which I guess GS figured out to be really 9 turns.

I am sorry it has turned out to be such a big deal for GS.

[DeepO]

UnO, that's not how we have been going about NDAs, and it doesn't apply to any other deal either. If we sign a 20 turn NAP after turn 100 was already played, we won't attack before turn 121 has passed. If we sign one before turn 100 is played, we won't attack before turn 120 has passed. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever when we play the turn, the only difference is that we move first. This makes it possible that we trade a tech to e.g. you, before Lego would be able to do so, as Lego comes after you. That is the only advantage there is to starting early that I see, in no way any deal will be advantaged for us.

And Panzer: it wasn't a big deal. Nor were the doctored screenshots, the broken NAP, the invasion after promising not to or the 'mistake' with the NDA on CoL. But we now finally realize who we are dealing with, name me one deal with us you didn't break.

Oh, and by no possible count can you believe it was a 10 turns fulfilled on the NDA, it was either 8 or 9, depending on how you count. If you say it was a genuine mistake, and you weren't counting, I can understand (well, it is at least an excuse albeit not a good one). But you can't tell that for you, 10 turns have passed.

DeepO

[Shiber]

It's not a big deal at all. Among GoW's distinguishable repertoire of broken deals this is the least important item to GS, as far as I know my teammates.
To support this statement, scroll back and you will notice that we haven't even brought up this case at all, not in public nor in private. It was UnOrthOdOx that mentioned it at first (and I daresay that I find it funny that when he had to come up with examples for deals that GoW has not broken, he could only find one case, and that turned out to be very ambiguous as well ).

[DeepO]

Not ambiguous, Shiber. Perfectly clear if you do the math. If you would take the years instead of the turns, you would end up having only 8 turns of NDA instead of 10.

DeepO

[Arrian]

It continues, eh?

I really need to stop clicking on this thread. I've had my say already.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Ah, GoW found a new topic to discuss, Arrian

DeepO

[Shiber]

I have an idea.
Let's discuss... AVATAR WARS!!

[UnOrthOdOx]

*sigh*

There are many ways to respond here.

But I am done here.

Consider this one more vote to the category of I don't care one bit any more if we win this game or not, My singular purpose is now to ensure that Gathering Storm does not win. Whatever needs to happen, and whatever it takes, that has become my personal goal in this game.

Nothing personal, but I have a limit to the amount of 'We do nothing wrong, we are holier than thou' attitude that seems to be comming from GS, at least from my point of view. It's the same reason I make a point of seeking out and killing any and all Paladin's in any RolePlaying game.

I honestly wish GS good luck as well, though. Let's Civ!

[UnOrthOdOx]

Sneak preview of upcomming Trappings:

[Aeson]

GF, stop trying to mindread. You're no good at it.

I wasn't offended by what you said in the least.

[Aeson]

...that has become my personal goal in this game.

Nothing personal...

How does this work?

[UnOrthOdOx]

It is my personal goal because I can't speak for GoW.

It's nothing personal as in I don't hold the grudge to any members of GS and not past this game.

[Aeson]

Ok.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Sneak preview of upcomming Trappings:

GoW used an elite rider to pillage an undefended town?
How unprofessional

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
My singular purpose is now to ensure that Gathering Storm does not win. Whatever needs to happen, and whatever it takes, that has become my personal goal in this game.

Well, at least that gives you something to look forward to.

[notyoueither]

This is getting absurd.

[Shiber]

About time you noticed (this is becoming my trademark smiley)

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Shiber

GoW used an elite rider to pillage an undefended town?
How unprofessional

Unortho had been begging us to let him have the first kill for weeks

[GhengisFarb™]

Ugh, I've gotten a headache reading this page of the thread. Please, if you are going to trash talk and attack the characters of other teams and players at least try to make it entertaining.

If I want to read a serious page of words I'll read the ingredient list of a bag of toliet paper in my bathroom.

UnOrthO, please change your avatar, it looks like a molded gargoyle in a cheap gothic knockoff at Home Depot.