Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4368
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem
Posted By: Jorcle
Subject: Rhyagelle, Absaroke and Skeleton Boar Peace Agreem
Date 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Any occupying armies of the previous owner shall be withdrawn within those five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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Jorcle
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:22
|
Absaroke is a signatory to this agreement. Jorcle on behalf of Absaroke |
Posted By: snow
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:22
| On behalf of Indeva State and RHY I confirm the above peace agreement. |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:29
|
Congratulations, job well done!
------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Nesse
Date 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 |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:35
|
Awesome news all round. Now, will this stop the rest of the fighting?
|
Posted By: Buridan
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 11:36
| Skeleton Boar also confirm this peace agreement. |
Posted By: Gaia Nutella Tulips
Date 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.. |
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 18:25
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:
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):
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. |
Gaia Nutella Tulips wrote:Posted By: Jabbels
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 18:43
|
Stop the war!! The whole lot of it. Pointless. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bard
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 18:45
| Oh cool, so H? and Consone can all go home peacefully now? Since this supposedly burgeoned up out of the RHY/Absa/SkB thing I fail to see why the rest should continue. Of course that hasn't stopped Curse declaring war on WE (not Consone) because DLords asked them, but that's another thing entirely. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 20:06
| Well good they made peace. Although RHY thought that everything was fine with SKB when Absa attacked their armies to. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Consone went back on well everything they 'promised.' |
Posted By: Alti (SkB)
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 21:50
I think you are unclear in what you have written - to pick on one point, Absa is the only Consone member that is a party to this agreement and they have not negotiated on behalf of Consone. There is no suggestion that anything is settled between H? and VIC, or Dlord and WE, or any other conflict. If you agree with that, then which promise are you worried about? |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 21:53
|
RHY had and agreement with SKB. ABSA attacked RHY troops after an agreement was made. What is to stop ABSA from attacking RHY troops when it suits them after this agreement?
|
Posted By: Gon
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 23:08
| I'm just curious what would happen to any army that parked 2 squares from one of your cities Deathdealer89. |
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2012 at 23:57
I believe that would be the NAP.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 00:06
You are aware that NAP's can be dropped right?
|
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 00:09
Has ABSA broken a NAP in the past to attack RHY? Has ABSA broken a NAP in the past to attack anyone? If the answer to both of those is no, what makes you think they would in the future? If the answer to either is yes, then your paranoia may be founded in reality.
|
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 03:05
|
DeathDealer, In the past, Rhy did not remove from a square, against their agreement. What will stop them from doing that again? In a relationship of peace and friendship, there is always a sense of trust and with that trust, risk. And I applaud all parties involved for the steps they have taken towards peace. Well done! ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: Alti (SkB)
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 08:35
The agreements between SkB and RHY over resources were (before this treaty) purely bilateral.
Which they did without breaking any promises to RHY that I am aware of.
What is to stop anyone breaking any treaty when it suits them? It sounds as if your claims of Absa dishonesty are baseless.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 10:04
| Well done to those involved in this arrangement, as is the way with the forums, there's always the conspiracy theorists eager to eat at the fabric of something they can't control. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 13:07
So, if you call a third alliance to do the dirty work for you (as you did before by calling ABSA to clear 6000 troops - an army you could have cleared easily by yourselves), then they wouldn't be breaking any promises either, eh .?.  |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 13:21
|
My answer is simple and obtuse. I refer you to the other 47 threads on this topic! I rest my case your honour. (Oh Im good. Damn Good!) ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 14:57
|
Congratulations to RHY, SkB and Absa. Common sense, justice and peace is always good news for Illy's players. This is a very good bit of news. ------------- "A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander. |
Posted By: Bard
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 15:16
Plus you didn't answer this one Deathdealer. I think we all know the answer though.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2012 at 15:27
Two sq's away is highly dependent. But if I had an agreement with the respective player about said sq then I would stick to whatever the agreement stipulated. Besides other than sov issues 2 sqs away is about the safest place for an enemy army. With current game mechanics it would take them 3 times as long to attack.
|