CR dealbreaking Emeriti v2.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija

Is that what exploring a bank means?

---

It's called still playing the game. You are allowed to do stuff even if you've (allegedly) agreed to not crown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

That is not a thing to which they agreed. they feel / felt like we should trust them and they could grow to be two acres behind us. We clearly can't trust them, if they can't keep their word here and can't talk without accusing us of deal breaking over their failure to close a deal.

If it was, they wouldn't have grown. The difference to me is that BB etc offered different solutions (won't crown) whereas emeriti offered " we will raze the land", and then haven't.

---

This post is so utterly confusing.

You had their word, but no agreed deal and the reason you had no agreed deal was because you felt you couldn't trust them and now you're mad that they broke their word about a deal whose validity depends entirely on someone whose word you've said you can't trust.......what? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

It's called still playing the game. You are allowed to do stuff even if you've (allegedly) agreed to not crown.



This post is so utterly confusing.

You had their word, but no agreed deal and the reason you had no agreed deal was because you felt you couldn't trust them and now you're mad that they broke their word about a deal whose validity depends entirely on someone whose word you've said you can't trust.......what? lol

---

I think you're confused. Here, let me lay it out for you:
1) We have a yrwhatever + 48h notice deal with Emeriti.
2) Emeriti is fighting BB, gives up.
3) Emeriti makes a deal with flogger to have an EOA with everyone and give up on the age.
4) Flogger shows the deal to topsy, who says "That seems ok in principle, it depends on the actual terms and Zauper and I will need to review them".
5) Days pass, no terms are presented. We go to Emeriti and say, "What do you understand this deal to be? We need actual terms as we expressed previously in order to actaully agree to it" (and we are informed that 'flogger said topsy agreed to it' -- and of course, flogger says there are no terms)
6) Emeriti says, "Oh, the terms are just that we won't get too close and won't crown"
7) We say "What does that mean?"
8) Emeriti says, "Oh, it just means we won't crown."
9) We express not being happy with that, they go AFK for a while.
10) We talk to them on IRC a week or two later, and hash out what seems to be a deal at 85%, and CK sends the terms ingame
11) Topsy replies, clarifying again that too close is 85%
12) CK replies saying that they don't agree to 85% and informs me on IRC that we should just trust them to not come too close.
13) I tell CK we'll try to trust them. We do, they show they aren't trustworthy.

So, the question becomes:
1) What does "too close" mean? It seems like it means whatever we want it to mean, which in turn means that there is no real deal.
2) Did CK declining the term mean that the deal was ever agreed to? It seems like if not, the pre-existing 48h notice deal would be in effect which could be given at any time.
3) We could always opt to trust them to not get too close, but why would we do that when they illustrated in this case that they are willing to try to get out of things they say, and talk about the loopholes they could exploit?
4) We could always ignore it because we're big enough that it's unlikely to be an issue, but it seems silly to not resolve these things before they become issues.

p.s.

This seems like a really bad reason to not keep your word:

Quote:

---

<Chris_Keeling> the acres don't matter
<Chris_Keeling> we don't want/need'm
<Chris_Keeling> too lazy to raze'm off

---

This brings up somewhat the same question as the Divinity/Spartans issues, what obligation if any does the offended KD have to notify the offending KD that everything is not good to go?

Emeriti could make a somewhat believable argument that it was their impression that the deal was good to go, just like Divinity could make the argument that they thought their deal with spartans was good to go.

Where this situation differs I guess is that Emeriti and CR had an old CF/deal in place, so it's not like the in-game NAP being in place or not would have conclusively indicated whether or not there was an acceptance of the new deal.

I suppose that from the advantaged position, CR has not much motivation or incentive to remind Emeriti that a deal hasn't been concluded because at all points future CR was very likely to hold massive advantages over Emeriti. But, from a 'what's the right course of action' perspective, if I had negotiations wrap up on uncertain terms I would probably prod the other KD with a reminder within a couple of days.

You should refer to us as YOLO btw! We've abandoned Nicolas Cage and went LOTR style!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by protector

You should refer to us as YOLO btw! We've abandoned Nicolas Cage and went LOTR style!

---

http://i.imgur.com/HUYYv.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meep

This brings up somewhat the same question as the Divinity/Spartans issues, what obligation if any does the offended KD have to notify the offending KD that everything is not good to go?

Emeriti could make a somewhat believable argument that it was their impression that the deal was good to go, just like Divinity could make the argument that they thought their deal with spartans was good to go.

Where this situation differs I guess is that Emeriti and CR had an old CF/deal in place, so it's not like the in-game NAP being in place or not would have conclusively indicated whether or not there was an acceptance of the new deal.

I suppose that from the advantaged position, CR has not much motivation or incentive to remind Emeriti that a deal hasn't been concluded because at all points future CR was very likely to hold massive advantages over Emeriti. But, from a 'what's the right course of action' perspective, if I had negotiations wrap up on uncertain terms I would probably prod the other KD with a reminder within a couple of days.

---

Well, they can't really complain -- per what CK offered ingame, we've informed them that we consider them to be too close to us in size as of ~24 hours ago now? So even if they felt that deal was both agreed to and binding, they'd have no recourse because they wrote it poorly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

Well, they can't really complain -- per what CK offered ingame, we've informed them that we consider them to be too close to us in size as us ~24 hours ago now? So even if they felt that deal was both agreed to and binding, they'd have no recourse because they wrote it poorly.

---

A good point, pretty solid negotiating tactic though you gotta admit, 'lets make a CF where you can arbitrarily at any time decide we're too close in size to you and notice us!'

Send notice already :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

I think you're confused. Here, let me lay it out for you:
1) We have a yrwhatever + 48h notice deal with Emeriti.
2) Emeriti is fighting BB, gives up.
3) Emeriti makes a deal with flogger to have an EOA with everyone and give up on the age.
4) Flogger shows the deal to topsy, who says "That seems ok in principle, it depends on the actual terms and Zauper and I will need to review them".
5) Days pass, no terms are presented. We go to Emeriti and say, "What do you understand this deal to be? We need actual terms as we expressed previously in order to actaully agree to it" (and we are informed that 'flogger said topsy agreed to it' -- and of course, flogger says there are no terms)
6) Emeriti says, "Oh, the terms are just that we won't get too close and won't crown"
7) We say "What does that mean?"
8) Emeriti says, "Oh, it just means we won't crown."
9) We express not being happy with that, they go AFK for a while.
10) We talk to them on IRC a week or two later, and hash out what seems to be a deal at 85%, and CK sends the terms ingame
11) Topsy replies, clarifying again that too close is 85%
12) CK replies saying that they don't agree to 85% and informs me on IRC that we should just trust them to not come too close.
13) I tell CK we'll try to trust them. We do, they show they aren't trustworthy.

---

To me this seems like you've agreed to their deal. They offered terms, you accepted.

What are the current sizes? Have they even reached the 85% you had stated you'd like them not to cross? In what way have they betrayed your trust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topsy's revenge

I feel like i'm being baited. Can you just have one of the adults in your kd talk to us?

---

savage. you used to be nice Topsy, wut da hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

To me this seems like you've agreed to their deal. They offered terms, you accepted.

What are the current sizes? Have they even reached the 85% you had stated you'd like them not to cross? In what way have they betrayed your trust?

---

Their terms aren't defined. It's real dumb to not define terms, because then someone can just interpret them however they want. Which was our point in the first place. They have not crossed 85% of our land, which means if only they had agreed to our terms, this wouldn't be a problem. You're arguing that we agreed we'd tell them if they're too close. We've done that.

They betrayed my trust by calling me a liar when I told said they weren't going to drop acres post-Spartans, and informing me that if it ends, they will raze the acres... and then not doing so, calling me a liar again and accusing me of dealbreaking when confronted about it.

Maybe palem joined abs kd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnirpsneR

Maybe palem joined abs kd

---

Oh noez, he might quit again after this drama ends poorly for Emeriti :P

EDIT: Actually he'd want to bully Zauper for Zauper saying "Nicki Minaj is hotter piece than Taylor Swift" but he'd fail and then quit and QQ...

I dont think starting a thread in the forum titled dealbreak when there has been no such thing was the correct way to close out diplo...

All I'm going to say, is I called this during the other long bottom is hot post. I called this exact thing happening and I was told specifically that policing should never be for the land. Doesn't matter if there was a deal. From what I know the "correct" and honorable way to deal with this would be to raze away the land taken from policing. Otherwise it was just a farm of the small kd you took 12k acers from. Just how I see it. Hope it gets resolved.