Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Posturing?

Stilachio Thrax
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] This conflict began with HRC drawing a national border around BHA property, and continues only because they are unwilling to negotiate that border.

We're willing to share. They are not. They're willing to not kick us out if we cede to them the right to kick us out.

Could you please point to any public post/declaration that shows BHA's claim to those hexes prior to HRC's claims to the area? Could you please point to any prior discussion where the community or GW established that a tavern established territorial rights?

I am currently unconvinced of any territorial claims based on the placement of a tavern. You, imo, are entitled to free passage to and from the tavern along the shield hexes and nothing more.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Caldeathe Baequiannia
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] This conflict began with HRC drawing a national border around BHA property, and continues only because they are unwilling to negotiate that border.

We're willing to share. They are not. They're willing to not kick us out if we cede to them the right to kick us out.
That is entirely false.

I don't know for sure when the actual conflict began, but it flared up over the BHA refusing to leave any high level escalations on the map alone unless there were borders drawn around them.

The BHA have made it clear they're willing to share, as long as it's other people's stuff they are sharing, not their own.

The HRC never indicated any interest in retaining the right to kick anyone out. We merely pointed out that if it ever came to a state that relations were so bad that we wanted to kick them out, the existence of an agreement that said "in perpetuity" would have little effect on what happened next. We didn't say we wouldn't sign it.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] This conflict began with HRC drawing a national border around BHA property, and continues only because they are unwilling to negotiate that border.

We're willing to share. They are not. They're willing to not kick us out if we cede to them the right to kick us out.

OK. Would you have any idea if The HRC even knew who owned that Tavern or thought about that? It is a surprise to me, it certainly could be a surprise to them. Nothing about Taverns has been mentioned for MONTHS.

How about if The BHA did that PM thing to discuss concerns first before declaring hexes already spoken for?

I understand that when an alliance feels big it doesn't think as clearly about what is was intended to be when it was small. It starts doing things like issuing time limits for escalations and arbitrarily blooming inside other group's territories. It starts throwing it's weight around, possibly without considering or maybe not caring about whatever is in it's way. At least some groups that grow large end up that way.

Is that where BHA is going?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Thod-Theodum
Wow - how many pages have we filled now?

Don't both parties realize that the whole reason for all this bickering is a simple lack of trust in the other side.

BHA wants a guaranteed access to their tavern - not knowing what will happen in the future. I doubt they otherwise care much about the HRC (well - they care about escalations - but that is another point). Them being thrown out of all HRC territory caused a breakdown in trust.

HRC feels the NW is theirs and abhor pay2win. They were sceptic of the BHA as the largest group that seemed to gobble up escalations where they could find them. Trust completely broke down when a holding was planted.

HRC doesn't want to start a war as they are likely the losers.

BHA doesn't want to start a war as it would make them bullies and would be bad for the game.

HRC seems oblivious that they goaded BHA into placing a holding as the only way in game to stake a claim and to ensure their interests are not denied.

With some trust in each other and some flexibility all this could have been prevented. But all the mud slinging FROM BOTH SIDES are just perpetuating it and make a solution more difficult each day as feelings are hurt and no side wants to lose face.

There are likely many solutions out there that would be acceptable for both sides. But it needs a minimal trust into each other. As long as you assume the worst of each other there won't be a solution at all.

There are legitimate reasons ON BOTH SIDES for actions they did.

There is poor behaviour ON BOTH SIDES in regard to postings here.

Don't look at the fault of the other side. First identify your own faults - that might be a way forward. One thread got closed - Lisa had to restrain everyone in absense of Bob. Is this really the best how this community can work?
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Eyraphel Teralyn
Thod-Theodum
With some trust in each other and some flexibility all this could have been prevented. But all the mud slinging FROM BOTH SIDES are just perpetuating it and make a solution more difficult each day as feelings are hurt and no side wants to lose face.

There are likely many solutions out there that would be acceptable for both sides. But it needs a minimal trust into each other. As long as you assume the worst of each other there won't be a solution at all.

There are legitimate reasons ON BOTH SIDES for actions they did.

There is poor behaviour ON BOTH SIDES in regard to postings here.

Though I've disagreed with Thod on certain topics in the past, I believe this bears repeating.
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] Bringslite - our behavior is contrary to your description of it. Some things we have done were not perceived as we intended. We apologized and changed our stance. What actual action are you suggesting that we have not taken?
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Ravenlute
It's pretty easy here. BHA gets rid of the Holdings and removes their claim of that area. The Tavern is theirs, that's fine. The land it is on and around is not. Until this happens, no change will be made.

HRC has already said they don't care about the Tavern and who visits it. What they care about is the HRC land that the BHA has claimed for their own.

What does the BHA gain by saying they own this land? How would it change from removing that claim?
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] Bringslite - our behavior is contrary to your description of it. Some things we have done were not perceived as we intended. We apologized and changed our stance. What actual action are you suggesting that we have not taken?

I suppose that my point is a complex one and I am trying to illustrate something about the "Large and in Charge" mentality that might be a conscious attitude or simply an unconscious and unintended result of feeling like you are BIG.

1. The BHA tried to lay a blanket statement about escalations. They retracted it after pressure. The point is: Did The BHA consider before writing it and posting it that it would cause some uproar? If yes, and they posted it anyway then that means they feel BIG and able to dictate things to the server. If no(they did not think it would cause trouble), then that kind of suggests that they feel that they can just do as they like because they are BIG.

2. There was already trouble between HRC and BHA before BHA decided to claim some hexes previously claimed by HRC. First it was BHA's right because they own a Tavern in the area. Next it was because they suddenly have holdings there in the hexes that really were previously claimed. Next BHA wants an apology for not recognizing BHA's sovereignty and rules in hexes that are being contested. It looks like this:

A. OK, finally HRC has made a territory claim. Finally they are acting like most of the rest of us. We don't have a good excuse to grab escalations near them, except…. (see number 1)
B. Hey we have a Tavern over here. HRC has booted us and that means we can't access our Tavern. Let's pretend they did that deliberately and claim 8 or so hexes around it!
C. Hmmm. We are getting flak and bad press, but we offered to share Their hexes with them. I don't understand…

I am a witness to the truth that the HRC really had believed that there was a deal to NOT PLACE HOLDINGS OR "UP" the tension until talks were complete and that the talks were not complete before BHA put holdings down there. I have the emails wherein I suggested that HRC PUT HOLDINGS IN THOSE HEXES if there was no such agreement. They replied "No. We have an agreement". That is how I knew about it in the first place.

Now BHA also wants an apology for supposedly slanderous accusations about that. Well I can tell you with all confidence, whether BHA feels that there was an agreement to wait or not, HRC honestly did believe there was an agreement.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Jokken
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] This conflict began with HRC drawing a national border around BHA property, and continues only because they are unwilling to negotiate that border.

If this were the case, why was BHA-2 never claimed in your original border announcement? (now known as BHA-1) If you considered those hexes your property, one would assume you would have claimed them in your territory claim. We claimed the hexes within the Bulwark Hills excluding all shield hexes and NPC settlements. (this technically excluded your tavern, know only to us as Andius' Tavern whom was already long gone in a ball of fiery wrath and displeasure) Then we get a new claim from you with a two hex ring inside of our claim. Now you state that the conflict exists because we officially claimed territory that already belonged to you. At the time of our claim you had NO holdings in the area and had not since the implementation of holdings.

As a lawful and "good" society, why did you not include the area of interest adjacent to Rotter's Hole when you announced your land claim in the South East? Why, after we communicated that we support the existence of your tavern as a social point of interaction and trade hub in the region, did you feel the need to claim territorial land around it? Why did you insist on a minimum of "shared ownership" after we agreed to give you rights and access to that land for a symbolic token payment? The ONLY thing we asked you not to do is make any claim of actual ownership or political possession of land within the Bulwark Hills region. (excluding shield and NPC hexes) Going into the second meeting we were given a counter proposal which requested shared ownership and offered a minor symbolic payment for that ownership. It was pretty clear it was a take it or leave it ultimatum, one in which it was implied, but not stated, that you would use overwhelming force to enforce. We expressed the need for further internal discussion before accepting your offer carte blanche. We even offered to schedule the follow up so there was no confusion as to a timeline. We were told to "take our time and consider it carefully." Either during this meeting or within hours after you placed holdings in the disputed territory.

Now we are at an impasse.

Remove the holdings, withdraw your political land claim within the Bulwark Hills, answer the questions I have made in this post and negotiations can continue. Do not and they shall not. You accuse us of stalling, etc, etc. From our perspective, you are stalling. Ask the Dominion and Golgotha and both will tell you that we are reasonable and honorable people who keep their word when it is finally given.
Go West for freedom and adventure! Join the free soil settlers of High Road. Be a positive and constructive force for freedom in the Bulwark Hills. www.coalroad.com/hrc
Decius
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
So, the HRC received an offer that they were not prepared to respond to and needed more time to discuss. Was te offer beyond what you had contemplated or otherwise unexpectable for some reason?
? Is that not implicit in needing a few minutes to discuss it?
That's sufficient for me to conclude that organizational inadequacy was a factor unless the counteroffer was something strange. I currently understand that the counteroffer was not unexpectable.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post