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?

Bringslite
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?

Well since the last motivation that I read concerning why BHA wanted hexes there was to ensure access to it's Tavern, and HRC has guaranteed that access publically, why does BHA feel the need to own hexes there?

Does The BHA recognize that HRC was pressured to lay out a territory for itself largely by The BHA?

Does The BHA recognize that The HRC did do that and that it claimed those hexes before the BHA claim BHA-2?

If the BHA wants to appear benevolent or at least non aggressive, I suggest that they take those holdings down and return the hexes to the HRC by withdrawing it's secondary and late claim to them. If it does not mind seeming aggressive, I suggest nothing.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
If the real problem is simply that The HRC will not guarantee access to the Tavern in perpetuity and regardless of any state of ongoing conflict, I suggest they reconsider that. It is a small enough concession.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
MidniteArrow
[ooc] Bringslite, I just want to clarify one thing. MidniteArrow [me, the player] was not the speaker there, Drakis was. I RP, and my two characters are quite different.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
[ooc] Bringslite, I just want to clarify one thing. MidniteArrow [me, the player] was not the speaker there, Drakis was. I RP, and my two characters are quite different.

My apologies. I shall be more attentive to that. I like your pluck. smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Access to the tavern has always been a non-issue.

The HRC has been 100% clear that we will not restrict anyone's movements or activities in the Thornguard protected road hexes. The freedom of Golarion's denizens to follow those roads has never been, and will never be, restricted by us. That doesn't mean we won't ever fight in them, especially if the fight spills over from somewhere else. If we are in a feud, we are in a feud, and no guarantees will be enough.

The guaranteed access that the BHA asked for is access from the Tavern to Rotter's Hole. And we were even perfectly happy to guarantee that, as well. We can even guarantee it in perpetuity. But once again, if things have degenerated sufficiently in some unforeseen future that we are in a feud state, an agreement we made in the past is not going to stop us from fighting. No-one in an MMO can guarantee anything in perpetuity without the understanding that the world changes. I fail to understand how that was considered a blockade to an agreement
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Access to the tavern has always been a non-issue.

The HRC has been 100% clear that we will not restrict anyone's movements or activities in the Thornguard protected road hexes. The freedom of Golarion's denizens to follow those roads has never been, and will never be, restricted by us. That doesn't mean we won't ever fight in them, especially if the fight spills over from somewhere else. If we are in a feud, we are in a feud, and no guarantees will be enough.

The guaranteed access that the BHA asked for is access from the Tavern to Rotter's Hole. And we were even perfectly happy to guarantee that, as well. We can even guarantee it in perpetuity. But once again, if things have degenerated sufficiently in some unforeseen future that we are in a feud state, an agreement we made in the past is not going to stop us from fighting. No-one in an MMO can guarantee anything in perpetuity without the understanding that the world changes. I fail to understand how that was considered a blockade to an agreement

Hmmm… Well you have considered that the guarantee is the nature of the thing, right? If you aren't feuding and aren't KoS to each other then no one needs a guarantee of safe passage, do they?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Jokken
Bringslite
If the real problem is simply that The HRC will not guarantee access to the Tavern in perpetuity and regardless of any state of ongoing conflict, I suggest they reconsider that. It is a small enough concession.

The HRC granted the BHA the right to travel to and from their tavern on the shield road regardless of our political relationship. This is a guarantee. We unilaterally agree that attacking someone for traversing the shield road is wrong. However, if we are at odds and you are found in the Bulwark Hills not on the shield road, we will chase you down and take your husk. Running back to the shield road after we catch you will not spare you from punishment.

The BHA's response to this was that asking them to go round 3 or so hexes extra in times of political stress is an unreasonable expectation of access.
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
Fiery
(I'm not a current leader in the BHA, so not representing official positions): ok, so for anyone that may not know, I've been gone a long time. In the neighborhood of half a year. That's following a couple month absence last year as well. Obviously I've missed a lot of the politics that's happened in the interim, and I personally disagree with some of the decisions we've made prior to my rejoining, such as the 72-hour declaration. I think just about everyone I've spoken to about what happened recognizes it was misguided, if not a bad idea for a server-wide agreement. I can't even deny it was possibly hubris that led to a momentary lapse in judgement. That being said, we have never accused the HRC of lying about what agreement was made. In fact, I believe at least a couple of our early posts say as much, that we had at least enough faith in them to think they weren't lying about their impression of our agreement, but clearly they lacked that faith in us. Instead of coming to us about what they should have considered a misunderstanding of the agreement - as opposed to an intentional violation of it - cal, whom I can only assume represented at least the opinion of the HRC at the time, took to the forums, and were justifiably outraged.

I don't deny the HRC their right to be outraged - they believe the agreement was clear and we thus couldn't have misunderstood it, necessitating that our actions were an intentional violation of our agreement. At this point, BL, it's very possible there was a misunderstanding on at least one side's part - whether that be ours or theirs. We both seem to have considered the agreement clear, and we both considered ourselves to have followed it. Either way, there's no real way to dig deeper on that, given it was only ever a verbal agreement and we only have biased hearsay on either side to corroborate it.

Following this, we found HRC's forum behavior - which we considered to have started with cal - to be unacceptable. Obviously feelings have been hurt on both sides, but what really matters is we are confident we maintained our integrity throughout this process, whether you agree what we did was "Good" or representative of your expectations of us as Brighthaven. Maybe fighting is inevitable. Maybe it isn't….only time will tell. Either way, what is your stake in this? Feel free to get in touch with us if you want to discuss what's happened or offer advice on the situation, BL, but your rhetoric is becoming rather heated as well here.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Fiery
I believe at least a couple of our early posts say as much, that we had at least enough faith in them to think they weren't lying about their impression of our agreement, but clearly they lacked that faith in us. Instead of coming to us about what they should have considered a misunderstanding of the agreement - as opposed to an intentional violation of it
So your assertion is that we should have come to the BHA privately to ask why they put +4 holdings in two hexes in the middle of negotiations, but it was perfectly reasonable to the BHA not to come to us privately and say "Hey, we have a Tavern here that will be affected by your claim."
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Fiery
[Following this, we found HRC's forum behavior - which we considered to have started with cal - to be unacceptable. Obviously feelings have been hurt on both sides, but what really matters is we are confident we maintained our integrity throughout this process
Preceding this, the HRC found the BHA's behaviour in our environs and in General Chat to be unacceptable, and were given ample reason to mistrust them, after they cost us a day one member, something the server can ill afford to be throwing away.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post