Due to the scarcity of land this reset, as a Christmas present to our members, we have set some of our NAPs to Will Retal in our database. All terms in the pacts that we signed in the beginning of the reset still hold. We're just allowing some more grabbing. This is not an invitation to landtrade. We only see this as temporary. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.

Happy Holidays from MD!

So LGing = not aggressive?

=P

i like the idea of it Highrock :)

Land Grabs = Christmas presents

Retals = Returning presents to the store because the presents sucked

A NAP is a Non Aggression Pact, setting to will retal and allowing members to grab is showing aggression.

What you are infact doing, whether by the terms of the policy or not is breaking your pacts with alliances, your intent when signing the pact is that you will not show any aggression towards that alliance.


Congratulations, in one move you just admitted on AT that your alliance can not be trusted and that you will break pacts for the good of your own members.

i <3 iScode

i thought non-aggression meant we aren't going to willfully go after you and not try to raze the **** out of your countries....

its a signing of good faith MO, that you won't be aggressive towards each other, allowing your countries to grab at will is aggressive.

*will keep his mouth shut on this one, and hopes iScode will realizes his own definition*

Who cares if they grab you just retal!

where's that dang like button.......

translation: iScode is right and i have no argument against the fact that MD breaks pacts. So I will shut up like my leadershiphas requested.

So its ok to sign a pact and then break it Requim?

**is leadership**

i dont see it as agression

they arnt FSing you, they are allowing their members to grab


stop being a vagina

grabbing is aggression is not. If i took something of yours after saying i wouldnt touch anything, would you not be aggrieved.


do people not declare war over land grabbing?

vagina

I agree with iScode... unless they talked to their NAP's then why did they bother signing it if they plan to change the pact at the first unsight of no land :P

do NAPs have a "no grabbing" clause in them? or do they have retal terms?

if there was not a no grabbing clause, then no pact was broken.


you all fluff about there being no land, but then fluff even more when a clan moves to make land.

vaginas

Sure, it isn't a FS, but it *is* unilaterally changing a key element of a pact without any sort of a discussion.

Seems to me like that's either pactbreaking or asking to renegotiate a pact...

like i said, was there a no grabbing clause in the pact?

i seem to remember NAPs having retal terms and not much else.

If most of MD's pacts are 200%, then they really are giving you a present.

so does that mean all of your NAP's that you just set to will retal for open grabbing are allowed to do the same to you?

its not the point mrford, its the intent of signing a pact, or is that something you don't understand? Look I know you have no moral's I mean look at the rampant cheating you did/allowed in NA. Maye this discussion is just not for you.

pacts are agreements with terms

if there are no terms on grabbing, then its just open to interpretation.


as for me supposedly cheating in NA, i never cheated, and it shows the confidence you have in your argument that you would have to bring something like that up.

A NON-AGRESSIVE PACT is based on NO grabbing. The only reason somebody would sign a NAP is because they don't want to exchange grabs/retals with the other alliance, but still have the option to break the pact (if the other alliance ended up at war with one of your DPs).

that being said, if you sign a NAP, then it can be cancelled at any point for ANY reason (usually with FA contact), so technically MD haven't done anything wrong - morally or contractually.

no mrford, they are an intent to not be aggressive towards that alliance, hence why they are called non aggression pacts.

I believe your past shows your true colours, which shows why you have no problem with this, any fair honorable player would consider this a pact break. You not being a fair honorable player who would allow his alliance do anything the have to win shows the angle your coming from.

you know nothing of my past in NA. you are just like any other flufftard around here that rolls with the flow. trying to stand on a high horse and preach about it is as arrogant as it is stupid.

you also know nothing of my morals, and pretending to is frankly insulting. so kindly fluff off and stick to the topic.


if you want a limit to grabbing, you put it in a pact. otherwise you just kinda have to assume what is ok. and interpretation is just that.

has nothing to do with morals as you seem to keep harping on.

wow, arguing on AT is so much better when you are a bystander, alas i do miss the adrenaline rush.

I know you were HIA in NA when they were cheating there arse off. YOu had to of known about that or you are a very very horrible leader.

you do not assume, assumption is the mother of all fluff ups. If you sign a pact, you dnt break it, you don't grab the alliance you signed it with, if you do you offer compensation and make things right, any FA knows this, any President knows this.

This has everything to do with morals, MD signed pacts saying the would show NO aggression towards those alliances, now they are changing that and allowing to show aggression, im sure the alliance will still be able to retal as per the terms of the NAP signed, but that is not the point, the intent when signing the pact was that thier would be no aggression from ether alliance and it would of been signed in good faith that both alliances would up hold that end of the bargain, well thats what i would expect when signing an pact with an alliance.

you saying morals has nothing to do with it shows you have no understanding of how pacts work how to deal with FA issues, your out of your depth here. This is a clear indication of a pact break by MD.

i wasn never hIA in NA you dipfluff. infact NA didnt have a hIA for about 4 years after morwen left. i was HoW for a while, but by that time the cheating had stopped. please stop bringing that up, you are only making yourself look like an idiot.

keep trying to judge my morals based on what you seem to think you can remember about an online game you sack of fluff. i am enjoying the stupidity. i really dont understand why you keep bring this about my time in NA when this really has nothing to do with it. dont you have some sheep to go fluff or buildings to rebuild?

hows that for morals?



NAPs are breakable at any point in time. otherwise you sign a uNAP, and put specific terms in them. there is nothing morally wrong with breaking a NAP, because there is nothing in the pact against changing or voiding it.

Normally NAPs come with a 1:2, because they are made to punish the players that show aggressiveness to a clan that you are supposed to not be aggressive.


Dropping NAPs for no reason IS pactbreaking, unless MD is ready to receive 2 retals for every hit, with is exactly what everyone of their NAPs should do until they agree to renegotiate the terms of each and every pact, if MD isolated itself by making a ton of pacts that is a failture of leadership.

pretty sure they said pact terms still apply, they just changed a check box in the embassy

that would kinda mean hat the retal terms in the pact still apply meaning that everything in the pact still applies, they will just be grabbing. i dont see that as a break in the pact at all.

Addendum:

My apologies, NAPs can be dropped for no reason, it has happened in the past is just that normally a FS comes a few seconds later.

And if the terms will be respected then we are drowning in a glass of water

Signing a NAP was always done to discourage grabbing between two alliances. This was common stuff that even little clans like MoD and LoC knew. Doing something like this pretty much voids the pact. Definitely disrespects the other alliance.


With 200% land:land though. I hope I get hit. Merry XMas!

Just to be clear Kya, you guys have been hitting us, we haven't been hitting you =)

What, those two grabs earlier? Yep. Guess so. Not exactly the same thing though.



Ah I'll be glad to fly up to Dutch Harbor and get back on the boat in a couple weeks. Won't have to deal with earthers. :)

I can't speak for others, but in our pacting discussions, LCN's agreement with MD had the standard NAP terms, then, when we debated over the retal policies, MD's representative indicated that it would not be an issue, because LCN would be on DNH. Following that, we signed.

So, in LCN's case, I believe that constitutes a no grabbing clause, even if there was no implicit no grabbing clause in a NAP.

We are not going to response to ambit claims on AT. If anyone who is pacted to us feels the need to clarify or debate happy for that to happen in private. Anything you say on AT will just be treated by MD as spam.

Our pact terms are clear and every one of them still stands across all of our pacts as indicated above by highrock. In addition our retal policy for non-pacted alliances remains consistent and was posted for all of earth on AT weeks ago.

What's the big deal. They arn't required to pact everyone and not LG anyone if they don't want. Obviously NAP's are the least formal of all pacts and can be void any time they want to. At least they are still saying that the terms of the pacts still stand so if you get grabbed by them and you have a NAP consider yourself lucky and get free land...

LGing isn't a bad thing people.

aggression means war, not grabbing - landgrabs are just cuddles with jets

scode = pot stirrer

The fear is over doing land grabbing too a point where you are unable to retal those hits, which then turns into a FR matter.

Other wise, its a healthy and natural way to play the game if a certain amount of respect can be upheld. If communication doesnt occur between alliances then issues of course are going to occur.


The reason this is even an issue is because of the state of the game. 722 people means that land is scarce and hard to come by.

Certainly I am not saying that being aggressive land grabbing is a good thing. Far from it. I do think though that there has to be a level of common sense applied to the situation.

If you dont like the level of grabbing occuring, talk it out. If talking doesnt work, then issues will occur. This is a risk MD is taking, but they are attempting to reduce that risk by being open about their intentions.

Jiman you've hit the nail on the head.

It's not like we've gone out LaF style and aggressively LG'd Evo as a precursor to war (sorry LaF, but its an obvious example).

Plus, everyone who has a NAP with us has the benefit of the terms to ensure the exchanges are orderly.

hmmm...

This also brings up an interesting point, given that we are under 800 players should any alliance pact anyone?

Maybe it should be wide open given the current population?

please note, my posts were made before i was an imag FA, the sig seems to still show up. At the time of my posts i did not represent my alliance.

please also note, i hate you archaic :P

it is NOT a uNAP being the unbreakable kind so it is expected to have a few landgrabs here and there as long as people dont go overboard.

A NAP says you won't war unless defending a DP and outlines terms of retails. It doesn't say you won't grab. If you want to discourage LGing then feel free to try to sign an NAP with something 2x l:l retails on all grabs or something like that. As signed, all an NAP does is outline what happens if a grab occurs