GM Josh - Tenaria

Post by **trewqh** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:26 pm

Yes, it was me who asked for the extension. Still have to do some diplomacy and planning.

Besides that:

I am the reason why korexus supposed AF might have broken the NAP between them.

It happened to me again, I, by mistake, spied on some provinces that belonged to a player with whom I had a nap

Sorry!
trewqh

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:48 pm

trewqh wrote: I am the reason why korexus supposed AF might have broken the NAP

Now I am totally F'ing confused

Post by **korexus** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:50 pm

Allister Fiend wrote:Now I remember the game you are talking about.

The real story folks is this:

Yes, Korexus said he was going to take out Saladin and at that point he would nestle in next to me to sleep and recover.

So far you are (pretty much) accurate.

Allister Fiend wrote: But...........

Saladin obviously was winning the battle against Korexus and the inevitable was pretty obvious.

Saladin e-mailed me and told me to take his remaining provinces because he was about to "suicide" himself into Korexus with the hope to make it but at that point both of them were "screwed" and no matter what happened, neither was at all worth continuing.

Just for a moment, we'll ignore the fact that one player allready ran into Saladin to weaken him and ask ourselves why if Sal was "obviously winning" he would choose to "suicide himself" into me. Wait, that doesn't make sense...

Allister Fiend wrote: Korexus I believe won the fight, barely, and what was left in Saladins stuff was no POP at all so there was no way he would have been able to take the remaining nuetrals without creating more armies, and as we all know, you need POP to make armies.

korexus won the fight and had several armies left, along with quite a few workers making missiles. Maybe not enough to win the game, but certainly enough to take the remaining neutrals and so work up and make an effort. Except that Allister took those neutrals himself...

Allister Fiend wrote: So I took all of Sal's remaining provinces.

Korexus e-mailed me complaining about it.

I told him, and I believe these are quote words from me, " You couldn't get the job done on Sal, so I took care of it"

I emailed you after you tool the provinces from Sal, saying that I wished that hadn't happened and asking you not to take the neutrals you had agreed were mine. Not complaining until the following turn when you took them anyway.

Allister Fiend wrote: I never attacked you until after our agreement expired, I just took what was gonna be mine anyway.

At that point I ended my NAP with Korexus, and now I am accused of "breaking a NAP"

At that point you ended the NAP and in the 2 turn notification period, you continued to break the terms of the NAP. It seems open and shut to me. You broke the NAP. I was willing to let that one go as I couldn't have won that game anyway. However, doing so seems to have made you think that you can do the same thing again. I got news for you pal. When a NAP includes border conditions, overstepping them is the same as attacking the player directly. A breach of the NAP, even if the province in question is still a neutral. Bottom line is, you wait for the NAP to expire or you break it. You can't claim any middle ground.

korexus.

PS.

Allister Fiend wrote: I didn't win like you said so why do you insist on dwelling on it further?

Actually, you brought it up...

Post by **korexus** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:54 pm

trewqh wrote:Yes, it was me who asked for the extension. Still have to do some diplomacy and planning.

Besides that:

I am the reason why korexus supposed AF might have broken the NAP between them. It happened to me again, I, by mistake, spied on some provinces that belonged to a player with whom I had a nap

Sorry!
trewqh

trewqh, your not to blame here.

Yes, I thought, for a while, that the spies that you sent at me may have come from Allister, but the main crux of this discussion has come from the emails that AF has sent to me since turn 5, telling me that he intends to break our NAP.

Don't worry yourself. When it's your fault, I'll blame you!

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:03 am

korexus wrote:

but the main crux of this discussion has come from the emails that AF has sent to me since turn 5, telling me that he intends to break our NAP.

WTF is that?

Now you have really lost your mind.

I never said I was goingto break our NAP, just that I was going to take the nuetrals that were remaining on Nicks' island since he had quit, I say they were fair game. He quit, so his NAPs were nulland void as far as I am concerned. So I really had the right to take them before you RIP'd him.

Allister

Post by **korexus** » Fri May 14, 2004 9:18 am

Allister Fiend wrote: He quit, so his NAPs were nulland void as far as I am concerned. So I really had the right to take them before you RIP'd him.

Hey! I thought you said I could have the last word!!

I wasn't talking about the NAP you had with Nick. I was talking about the one you had with me. The one in which we agreed a border of you getting 31 and me getting 32. (The bridge provinces, if anyone's still reading this...) Then you email me, shortly after turn 5 runs, to tell me that you will take province 32 and 38 and that if I disagree with that then you will consider me in breach of our NAP. It looks to me like you're looking for an excuse to start the fight early and desperately trying to wriggle it around so you could blame me...

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:28 am

I lost interest in this thread some time ago and stopped reading it but then I looked at the game and realised Dameon had quit so went to work out why (simply out of interest)

As my name was mentioned a few times as a GM I thought it right I put in a few words. Firstly I like Josh as a GM, he is prompt and realiable and seems to take care with the turns, something a lot of GMs in the past didnt do.

As to the orders issue, I take a very simple view, which as much as it pains me to say, agrees with Dameon. If I dont have the orders by the deadline I dont use them, no matter how honest the player is, thats the only way to be 100% fair.

If he can prove he sent them by email before the deadline, tough luck, its easy to change the timestamp by email. If he sent them by aof_sender and the kaobase holds a record of it (though I have never come across this situation) I would still be very very reluctant to rerun, simply because they didnt arrive to me on time.

Ofcourse there are individual cases where the GMs judgement must come into a situation, and thats what josh has had to do here and fair play to him it is a very difficult situation and only he has all the information

Ben

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:17 pm

korexus wrote:
Allister Fiend wrote: But...........

Saladin obviously was winning the battle against Korexus and the inevitable was pretty obvious.

Saladin e-mailed me and told me to take his remaining provinces because he was about to "suicide" himself into Korexus with the hope to make it but at that point both of them were "screwed" and no matter what happened, neither was at all worth continuing.
Just for a moment, we'll ignore the fact that one player allready ran into Saladin to weaken him and ask ourselves why if Sal was "obviously winning" he would choose to "suicide himself" into me. Wait, that doesn't make sense...

I already ripped Trewqh on turn 2 or 3 in that game and i was leading you by the nose...i actually WAS winning the battle between us, untill i became too greedy and send my armies in to a neutral which wiped out my main army group. Some very bad luck in this battle, but wok's like that. After that i mailed AF that he should take my provinces which i think he did later on. I can't comment about the neutrals, but i do agree that if there's an agreement on neutrals it's valid untill one side of that agreement is ripped or quit...untill then the agreement stands, even if one side only has one empty province left.

korexus won the fight

Oy! THe neutral won the fight.

You and Trewqh looked pretty bad when you two couldn't even rip me.

BTW you didn't look as bas as AF did when he didn't even win that game!

Post by **korexus** » Fri May 14, 2004 1:54 pm

Saladin wrote: Some very bad luck in this battle, but wok's like that.

Indeed it is, I did a bit of stats on turn 5 when it ran. The chances of the turn going so well (or better) for you were 1 in 1000, so I guess it all evened out!

Saladin wrote: Oy! THe neutral won the fight. You and Trewqh looked pretty bad when you two couldn't even rip me.

But I did RIP you, Sal.

Saladin wrote: but i do agree that if there's an agreement on neutrals it's valid untill one side of that agreement is ripped or quit...untill then the agreement stands

Exactly the issue here. Thankyou!

korexus.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Fri May 14, 2004 2:41 pm

korexus wrote: But I did RIP you, Sal.

I thought i went M-3?

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Fri May 14, 2004 4:49 pm

But............... if there was no agreement on the nuetrals then it is OK.

My exact point.

Allister

Post by **korexus** » Sat May 15, 2004 10:58 am

Yes. It would be. But that's kinda irrelavent here, isn't it...

Anyway, I see you saw sense and didn't take those neutrals. Good boy.

korexus.

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:30 am

Guess what?

Post by **trewqh** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:30 pm

That Tribeturner thingy is a quite risky spell to use

trewqh

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Thu May 20, 2004 6:57 pm

Well Korexus, did you come to a decision yet?

Post by **korexus** » Thu May 20, 2004 7:03 pm

I already mailed you!

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:11 pm

7484+6778=14262

14262>14240

But they won't 'eliminate' me anyhow.

trewqh

Post by **Donut** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:53 pm

OK OK OK... So I just quick added it in my head

I could subtract from your score to make it even more dramatic

Should be an interesting end. Nice backdoor trick. Too bad AF got Val first. I've been assured numerous times that you're still going down...

Donut

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:54 pm

Donut wrote:Should be an interesting end. Nice backdoor trick. Too bad AF got Val first. I've been assured numerous times that you're still going down...

Yeah, I guess I should just give it up, then.

This is an extremely satisfying group for me, Donut!

trewqh

Post by **Donut** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:28 pm

lol, Always happy to make others happy... Although I think Korexus already thanked me for the VP's

Donut