Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
Golly, Commodore is going to be upset when Mack declares on him early.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Yeah, I don't see anywhere in the chat Commodore posted where the condition Mack cites comes in. It's too bad as I think we'd all rather see an exciting, time-sensitive finish rather than the obvious Mackoti win that's been in the cards since he Oracled Civil Service (lol). But it's his prerogative.
Posts: 17,554
Threads: 79
Joined: Nov 2005
Now that's a ded lurker earning his keep. Nice pickup by Ceilizul and Commodore spots the incoming SOD.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
oledavy Wrote:- Mackoti looks set to NAP-stab Commodore over the sketchy excuse of Commodore refounding an "aggressive" city in the old Reach location. I can't say I would do much differently though. If I was in such a dominant position and facing a rival who was trying to sneak out a culture victory, I would go after them too, NAP or not.
Thats something I really don't understand. Why would you break a NAP you yourself agreed to? Why agree to it then in the first place? Because it sounded great at that time? Well, then you obviously made a strategical error. Are you asking the other players to reload back 5 turns because you did one? If no, why break a NAP? Honestly, thats excatly the attitude which makes me consider asking for a ingame-peace-treaty every 10 turns just to make sure that NAPs are honored...
January 9th, 2012, 18:52
(This post was last modified: January 11th, 2012, 14:00 by oledavy.)
Posts: 4,272
Threads: 38
Joined: Jun 2011
Anyone else think about how ironic this situation is?
Mackoti NAP's Gaspar early to forestall any dogpile on him and jumps out to a commanding lead. However, he makes a foolish long NAP with Commodore and now is breaking it (though the terms were kinda fuzzy) to prevent Comm's cultural win.
Gaspar faces the choice: NAP-stab or lose the game, he chooses lose the game.
Mackoti faces the choice: NAP-stab or lose the game, he chooses NAP-stab.
Fuzziness or not though - with the benefit of being an omniscient lurker  - I think Commodore was foolish to replant Reach and give Mackoti this out. From Mackoti's posts in his thread and our chats on gmail, I genuinely believe he is being sincere when he says he would not break this NAP had Commodore not taken the city location.
Posts: 886
Threads: 4
Joined: Feb 2006
Hey, let's not all jump on mac too hastily. He hasn't done anything yet.
January 11th, 2012, 13:51
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Well, I think Mack has the right to attack Commodore, since the NAP is void. The NAP was made coupled with some obligations that Commodore had to fulfill. He didn't fulfill one of this conditions, therefore the NAP is void. It seems pretty simple to me.
Wether Mackoti is only using it as a pretext doesn't matter, in my eyes. Of course, I'm not ready to discuss morality theories here, since I'm not qualified enough to do so. But that's my opinion, anyway.
January 11th, 2012, 14:03
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Ichabod Wrote:Well, I think Mack has the right to attack Commodore, since the NAP is void. The NAP was made coupled with some obligations that Commodore had to fulfill. He didn't fulfill one of this conditions, therefore the NAP is void. It seems pretty simple to me.
Wether Mackoti is only using it as a pretext doesn't matter, in my eyes. Of course, I'm not ready to discuss morality theories here, since I'm not qualified enough to do so. But that's my opinion, anyway.
Which condition do you think he broke? I sure don't see any.
January 11th, 2012, 14:05
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
SevenSpirits Wrote:Which condition do you think he broke? I sure don't see any.
QFE
January 11th, 2012, 14:07
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
SevenSpirits Wrote:Which condition do you think he broke? I sure don't see any.
Yeah, I thought about adding a paragraph in that comment about if there indeed existed a condition in the deal that forced Commodore not to settle TT's land (I believe that is the condition mackoti is saying that was broken).
If such a condition existed, then I believe the NAP is void. If not, then the NAP is valid. So, such a condition existed? I don't know. I'm not following the game that closely and I don't have acess to the communication between Commodore and Mackoti. I seemed to recall that Commodore actually admited that a condition like that existed, but maybe I'm wrong.
Edit: The question and the emphasis lead me to believe such a condition didn't exist .
|
