Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Jorcle View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem
    Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:19

Peace Agreement

1. Statement

Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar would like to acknowledge that our alliances have recently had disagreements resulting in a state of war. We believe that it helped us work things out and now we have agreed it is time to bring things to a close. We therefore agree to end our conflict and abide by the following,

2. NAP

As a mechanism to avoid unnecessary conflict. The NAP will be instituted once current hostilities between our respective allies allow.

3. Rare Mine or Resource Allocation

3a Ownership is automatic if within three squares of a city or nearest existing city if that is closer than three squares. A city settled with permission will be considered existing.

3b A sovereignty claim will be considered ownership provided it is not made within three squares of an existing city. A prior sovereignty claim will take precedence over 3c.

3c New cities establish ownership five days after notifying the party who currently claims ownership. Any occupying armies of the previous owner shall be withdrawn within those five days.

3d No new cities to be settled closer than seven squares of an existing city.

3e For other squares ownership shall be on the basis of occupying armies.

3f Were by merit of occupation, proximity or any other factor that the alliances consider open to interpretation a resource location is in dispute and two players have a claim that 3a to e does not resolve the player gathering will provide 30% of the resource gathered to the other player.

3g The player who holds ownership for a location may provide permission for another player to harvest that location. Once given permission will require renewal every six months the share of resources shall be as 3f above.

3h Resource locations belonging to inactive cities (defined as no player growth in 21 days) will be considered available for claim under rules 3a to e. If the inactive city concerned comes under new ownership it is to be considered settled with permission.

4. Other Conflicts

This agreement does not prohibit the alliances here agreed from aiding their allies in other conflicts. However on no account will the alliances here agreed attack or assist in attacks against each other's cities.

Back to Top
Jorcle View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:22

Absaroke is a signatory to this agreement.

Jorcle on behalf of Absaroke

Back to Top
snow View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 20
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:22
On behalf of Indeva State and RHY I confirm the above peace agreement.
Back to Top
HATHALDIR View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 380
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:29
Congratulations, job well done!
There's worse blokes than me!!
Back to Top
Nesse View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:29
That sounds like very reasonable rules to me.
Congratulations on the peace treaty and on drafting this agreement!
/Nesse, Great Archdruid
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:35
Awesome news all round.

Now, will this stop the rest of the fighting?
Back to Top
Buridan View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:36
Skeleton Boar also confirm this peace agreement.
Back to Top
Gaia Nutella Tulips View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:39
This is a message stating that they have resolved their differences but will happily slaughter each other for as long as the greater war continues. Though in theory the whole war should just stop because they have nothing in the fight about.. In Theory..
Back to Top
Darmon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 18:25
Originally posted by Gaia Nutella Tulips Gaia Nutella Tulips wrote:

This is a message stating that they have resolved their differences but will happily slaughter each other for as long as the greater war continues. Though in theory the whole war should just stop because they have nothing in the fight about.. In Theory..

I didn't quite get that impression from my initial reading of it.  That actually seems like a problem with the document -- that there is some wiggle-room for interpretation.  I assume the part that makes you think they'll keep fighting is this part:

Originally posted by Jorcle Jorcle wrote:

2. NAP

As a mechanism to avoid unnecessary conflict. The NAP will be instituted once current hostilities between our respective allies allow.

That part does make it seem like the whole agreement is fluff, since I don't see why the actions of allies will inhibit or modify their own behaviors.  Better to get the NAP in place and set a good example for all parties involved.

I assume the reasoning behind this is the dubious and limited implementation of diplomacy mechanics.  That is, signing a NAP doesn't prevent military actions in progress from ceasing, so I guess it might be against certain parties' (the defenders') best interests if there are already troops on the move.

In theory though, new offensive actions should cease and attacks in progress should be withdrawn...or at least that's what the end of the document heavily implies (though if that's the case, I'm not sure why it isn't organized differently):

Originally posted by Jorcle Jorcle wrote:

4. Other Conflicts

This agreement does not prohibit the alliances here agreed from aiding their allies in other conflicts. However on no account will the alliances here agreed attack or assist in attacks against each other's cities.

If you attach a particular meaning to this section involving "other conflicts" then I suppose you could argue that this isn't a peace agreement at all, since it provides no provisions for resolving the current conflict.  

In fact, even though I started typing this with the intent to refute GNT's perspective of this document, now that I've reached the end of my post, I suspect it might be quite accurate.  It's good to know that there will be some terms in place to help avoid this sort of conflict in the future...but that doesn't do a whole lot of good for resolving the conflict here in the present.



Edited by Darmon - 20 Oct 2012 at 18:40
Back to Top
Jabbels View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 45
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 18:43
Stop the war!! The whole lot of it. Pointless.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.