Term Interpretation Consultancy

[Elldallan]

I agree with EOA cf + non-compete for you and eoa cf without clauses for sparta. I further add that I expect those I deal with (as well as myself) to adhere to the good faith spirit of my agreements without needing a separate clause stating that people will honor the spirit of the agreement.

Those that don't honor the spirit and intent of agreements with me can expect a more difficult time in getting 'friendly' agreements in the future.

If it's not written in the actual deal then it doesn't exist, the "good faith" differs between person, and you yourself is a person who very often writes very "intricate" deals that allows you to violate what the other signatory feels to be "in the spirit" of the agreement.

OTOH I would say that "scheming with others" to deny the provcrown is actually competing for it, therefore Bart does seem to be in breach of the terms if he's actively trying to obstruct.

[Bart of Sparta]

It merely states that the KD of 8:9 cannot finish above 8 13 in case 8 13 has a prov in top 2. Thats all folks!

[AquaSeaFoam]

It merely states that the KD of 8:9 cannot finish above 8 13 in case 8 13 has a prov in top 2. Thats all folks!

If that was all it said, then clearly it wouldn't say "8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13". Why would it say that if the stuff in parenthesis was all it said? The stuff in parenthesis was just how we discussed to handle one aspect of the non compete.

[Palem]

therefore Bart does seem to be in breach of the terms if he's actively trying to obstruct.

Not only obstruct, but actually seize the #1 spot for himself once ASF is removed (if I understand everything correctly). There is no reasonable interpretation in which that is not competing for the #1 spot

[realm of ding dong]

If that was all it said, then clearly it wouldn't say "8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13". Why would it say that if the stuff in parenthesis was all it said? The stuff in parenthesis was just how we discussed to handle one aspect of the non compete.

Then what is the point of the parenthetical content anyway? Why is it even there, if not to elaborate on the specifics of #3? I don't have a dog in this race, but the terms look pretty vague to me. Is the parenthetical of #3 simply a restatement, or is it a hypothetical example? I think both sides have an argument, but ultimately I would side with Bart here, because as it is written it appears that the parenthesis specify the meaning of point #3. And my opinion matters because I dropped out of law school.

[Chris121]

Sorry Bart, I disagree with you.

"3. 8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13 (we will stay #2 so long as 8:13 has a prov on #1. Also if we are #1 and 8:13 is #2, we will make sure to drop to #2 allowing 8:13 to be #1)."

The bracketed part does not supersede the part outside of the brackets. So you will not compete for #1 on the individual prov charts with 8:13. If it is true that you are helping others hit 8:9 with the result that you are more likely to end up #1 land, then you are competing. I agree with ASF that if point 3 was ONLY intended to be about the bit in brackets, then you would not have needed the bit that is not in brackets.

[Pillz]

Palem, I understand there must be pressure on you to support the owners and their friends, but try to keep some personal integrity and pick the fights you can win.

1. EOA CF between 8:9 and 8:13.
Bart hasn't violated this term of the CF.

2. EOA CF between Sparta and 8:13
This one is largely irrelevant but it seems to have been honoured and is in effect.

3. 8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13
I've removed the parenthesis to make matters simple for the less capable members of this community.

8:9 won't compete with 8:13.
Not that 8:9 won't compete, period.

There is no stipulation in this deal that states Bart or his allies can not try to remove 8:13 from the competition for the crown.
As long as 8:9 is not trying to outgrow 8:13 while they're in a position to crown, Bart is not violating this term. Bart is free to grow, and to crown, assuming 8:13 hasn't got an avenue by which they themselves can do so.

If Bart were coordinating an effort to drop MEGA from the crown race, that would not violate the CF. It isn't an ingame action being undertaken by 8:9. In so far as good faith / the 'spirit' of the deal go, such an action would be no different than ASF attempting to talk other kingdoms into dealbreaking RoO (who they had EOACFs with) before the expiration of his notice agreement.

Bart didn't agree to a deal that barred him from crowning, and it didn't bar him from using 3rd parties to circumvent the CF. Perhaps ASF shouldn't encourage DBs against KDs he has CF's in place with, and people might not treat him this way. Or maybe he should make better CF terms for himself.

[Korp]

But crowning is to compete and if you aim at crowning you are competing with others that aim for the same goal.

[MyNameIsMatija]

Palem so so biased.

[Pillz]

But crowning is to compete and if you aim at crowning you are competing with others that aim for the same goal.

Then ASF should have asked for better terms that stated 8:9 could not crown at all.

[Korp]

Then ASF should have asked for better terms that stated 8:9 could not crown at all.

Wanting to crown is to compete. If they have the desire to crown they are competing for it.

[Palem]

8:9 won't compete with 8:13.
Not that 8:9 won't compete, period.

Sure.
But...

There is no stipulation in this deal that states Bart or his allies can not try to remove 8:13 from the competition for the crown.

This is literally the definition of competing for a crown when you're in the position that Bart is in and when he signed the agreement.

As long as 8:9 is not trying to outgrow 8:13 while they're in a position to crown, Bart is not violating this term. Bart is free to grow, and to crown, assuming 8:13 hasn't got an avenue by which they themselves can do so.

Sure, but ASF currently has the avenue to crown and Bart is working to outgrow him. Hence, he is in breach.

If Bart were coordinating an effort to drop MEGA from the crown race, that would not violate the CF. It isn't an ingame action being undertaken by 8:9.

A noncompete clause is not the same thing as a CF. Not breaking a CF is not analogous to not competing against someone. Plenty of kingdoms have EoACF agreements but are still competing for the same spot.

Bart didn't agree to a deal that barred him from crowning, and it didn't bar him from using 3rd parties to circumvent the CF.

Bart agreed to not compete against ASF for the #1 prov land spot. A spot that ASF was actively playing for as Bart chose to compete against him and try to beat him.


Also, suggesting any sort of bias for ASF because of the new owners while pretending that you don't actively despise ASF and would love nothing more than to see him get screwed over is laughable. If I have any sort of bias to call out, it's a bias against Bart. But I can say, as objectively as I try to see it, Bart is in breach of his noncompete clause.

[Pillz]

Wanting to crown is to compete. If they have the desire to crown they are competing for it.

Sure. But the terms are specific. 'with 8:13'. If 8:13 ca not crown, there is no competition between the two kingdoms.
The trick is making sure 8:13 can't crown, of course, but the CF doesnt say such measures cant be explored or taken.

[Pillz]

nonsense

None of the actions Bart is accused of undertaking violate the terms according to the letter of how they were written.

Bart is not barred from crowning, merely from beating ASF for crown, but obviously this can't be enforced if ASF is not actually in a position where he can crown.
As it stands, Bart is still #2. He isn't violating anything.

I applaud you for ignoring the parts about DBs, as those were the most relevant to the situation at hand. Good way to show an absence of bias.

[Palem]

None of the actions Bart is accused of undertaking violate the terms according to the letter of how they were written.

Bart is not barred from crowning, merely from beating ASF for crown, but obviously this can't be enforced if ASF is not actually in a position where he can crown.
As it stands, Bart is still #2. He isn't violating anything.

Bart agreed to not compete with ASF for the #1 land province. Bart is currently competing against ASF. Thus, he is in breach.

I applaud you for ignoring the parts about DBs, as those were the most relevant to the situation at hand. Good way to show an absence of bias.

Whether or not someone is or isn't a scumbag has no bearing on whether or not an agreement between two bodies is being violated. If Bart wants to dealbreak ASF for the stuff he pulled earlier, then say you're dealbreaking him for the stuff he pulled earlier.