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?

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Ravenlute
Paddy Fitzpatrick
There is a reason I defined it as also chaos by ideology, or promoting constant change and innovating ways to challenge the ststus quo. It is about more fluid ways of organizing and handling things that can be adapted on the fly. It is about being less formal at times or by taking things in a case by case basis but not a complete disavowal of the reality that you need some basic facilitator and point of contact to keep things moving.

Even random bands of roaming nomads and certainly bandits who just wanna cause trouble have some basic chain of command in order to GET SHIT DONE! If ya cant get shit done, you will not survive in the long term no matter who you are or what alignment you claim to be.

I'm taking this back to the present issue.

By this common sense reasoning we would have never survived as long as we have if we didn't have a way to get things done. In order to do that we must have "some basic facilitator and point of contact to keep things moving."

No where does it state that it is required that we disclose our seating arrangement to the public, general or private. Just because we build a machine doesn't mean we have to tell anyone how it works.

So having realized I probably should have said this in private instead of making a public spectacle of this, if ya want we can talk more in private since this is sort of a side thing really. I am on enjin.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Caldeathe Baequiannia
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.
Decius, if you are fishing for the specifics, I have to say it is really 100% none of Phaeros's or your business. There were specific things about the offer that were not anticipated, and I don't think could have been anticipated by any reasonable person. They required what might have been a very brief consultation, but in pms we established that they could conceivably require some time to settle, so we chose to not ask Drogon and his team to stand around and twiddle their thumbs. That's more information than you are entitled to. You will, as always, keep to your own opinions.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] Bringslite,

First, I value your input. I am a little confused by it since this is a BHA-HRC conflict, but I value it.

To answer some of your questions, I do not recall any expectation voiced, and I definitely did not have the expectation, that the 72-hour rule would cause such a fuss. I thought, I still think, that it is a fairly simple and fair treaty. However, we recognized that the community was against it, so we removed it.

A lot of this is above my pay grade, and honestly are discussions that belong between Mistwalker and Drogon rather than between you and I. I only made my statement to clarify what appeared to me to be revisionist history.

Regarding the major emphasis in your statement concerning the agreement on holdings, I have never disputed that HRC perceived an agreement that was never stated by BHA representatives. BHA was very precise with their language, and HRC drew a false conclusion. I grant that HRC may have earnestly believed a no-holdings rule was still in effect. That false belief on HRC's part does not constitute a breach of contract by BHA. The forming of that false belief on HRC's part does not constitute deception by BHA. BHA's language was not vague.

I still do not see an answer to my direct question though: 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]
Caldeathe Baequiannia
"legal shenanigans will not be tolerated" – Jokken

You asked for the "No holdings" and didn't actually mean for it to apply to you too, we've already established that one.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
MidniteArrow
Stilachio Thrax
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.

BHA does not have a current territory claim based on the placement of a tavern. There is one around a tavern based on the majority of adjacent holdings.

What organization do you represent?
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
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.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
[Drakis] Bringslite,

First, I value your input. I am a little confused by it since this is a BHA-HRC conflict, but I value it.

To answer some of your questions, I do not recall any expectation voiced, and I definitely did not have the expectation, that the 72-hour rule would cause such a fuss. I thought, I still think, that it is a fairly simple and fair treaty. However, we recognized that the community was against it, so we removed it.

A lot of this is above my pay grade, and honestly are discussions that belong between Mistwalker and Drogon rather than between you and I. I only made my statement to clarify what appeared to me to be revisionist history.

Regarding the major emphasis in your statement concerning the agreement on holdings, I have never disputed that HRC perceived an agreement that was never stated by BHA representatives. BHA was very precise with their language, and HRC drew a false conclusion. I grant that HRC may have earnestly believed a no-holdings rule was still in effect. That false belief on HRC's part does not constitute a breach of contract by BHA. The forming of that false belief on HRC's part does not constitute deception by BHA. BHA's language was not vague.

I still do not see an answer to my direct question though: What actual action are you suggesting that we have not taken?
Sorry MidniteArrow. I might not understand what you are asking or why you are asking it. Let's see. When HRC delivered it's claim on territory and you noticed that your Tavern was inside of it, did BHA contact HRC and ask about that particular?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Jokken
Caldeathe Baequiannia
"legal shenanigans will not be tolerated" – Jokken

You asked for the "No holdings" and didn't actually mean for it to apply to you too, we've already established that one.

You beat me to it Cal, carry on.
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
MidniteArrow
Bringslite
Sorry MidniteArrow. I might not understand what you are asking or why you are asking it. Let's see. When HRC delivered it's claim on territory and you noticed that your Tavern was inside of it, did BHA contact HRC and ask about that particular?

[Drakis] BHA expressed publicly a desire for that territory the same way HRC did - public declaration.

You seem to be claiming BHA should change something about our stance in this conflict. We can not change the past. I am asking, what are you suggesting we change?
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Caldeathe Baequiannia
MidniteArrow
BHA does not have a current territory claim based on the placement of a tavern. There is one around a tavern based on the majority of adjacent holdings.
We've heard this one repeatedly.
The claim is there because the holdings are there
The holdings are there becasue the tavern is there
But the claim totally isn't there because the tavern is there. Even though we orginally said it was, and that we bought territory from the developers. But you're not allowed to keep bringing that up because we've played a different Justification Card now.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post