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?

Fiery
As per my previous disclaimer, I do not currently represent BHA. I *am* active in the game, but my discussion with BL is intended to be purely personal.
Bringslite
Fiery
@BL You are free to hop on our mumble and verify I'm the "real" Fiery…Drogon has been using my accounts while I was gone and will continue to. I also don't think this is at all productive between us, so I'd be more than happy to discuss it in mumble anytime. Feel free to pm me on paizo as Fierywind.

Those are two fairly simple questions up there. They can be answered in public, or not. The answers would be productive to the conversation here. I am not the only one that would like to know those answers.

Apologies for the @ antics. I thought that they would be humorous and I was most definitely a bit confused.smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Stilachio Thrax
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?

I'm just a simple miles of Iomedae from the Dominion. I do not represent the Dominion, just seeking to understand the HRC & BHA's positions.

As I see it, the holdings in HRC lands wouldn't exist if not for the tavern. As such, the tavern is intrinsically tied to the territorial claims. I find it highly unlikely the holdings would have been placed if the tavern did not exist or was located elsewhere.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Fiery
Bringslite
Fiery
@BL You are free to hop on our mumble and verify I'm the "real" Fiery…Drogon has been using my accounts while I was gone and will continue to. I also don't think this is at all productive between us, so I'd be more than happy to discuss it in mumble anytime. Feel free to pm me on paizo as Fierywind.

Those are two fairly simple questions up there. They can be answered in public, or not. The answers would be productive to the conversation here. I am not the only one that would like to know those answers.

Apologies for the @ antics. I thought that they would be humorous and I was most definitely a bit confused.smile

I do not wish to continue posting in these threads, I merely came here to post my thoughts and reply to a couple posts that necessitated clarification on my part, but that's it from me for now. I am more than willing to have a personal conversation though BL…we can catch up :p
Bringslite
Fiery
Bringslite
Fiery
@BL You are free to hop on our mumble and verify I'm the "real" Fiery…Drogon has been using my accounts while I was gone and will continue to. I also don't think this is at all productive between us, so I'd be more than happy to discuss it in mumble anytime. Feel free to pm me on paizo as Fierywind.

Those are two fairly simple questions up there. They can be answered in public, or not. The answers would be productive to the conversation here. I am not the only one that would like to know those answers.

Apologies for the @ antics. I thought that they would be humorous and I was most definitely a bit confused.smile

I do not wish to continue posting in these threads, I merely came here to post my thoughts and reply to a couple posts that necessitated clarification on my part, but that's it from me for now. I am more than willing to have a personal conversation though BL…we can catch up :p
Alright Fiery, take it easy. If it isn't in your menu to answer those questions, I understand.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Ravenlute
2 Spring Rolls
1 Egg Drop Soup
1 Beef Pad Khing
1 Green Tea Ice Cream

Myl
Tavernhold, Western Echo Woods

(Go around back and ask for Sally)
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Decius
Mistwalker
Decius
Might I suggest "Until negotiations are completed or break down, members of each polity will not enter the undisputed territory of the other, nor engage in any aggressive action within the disputed territory" along with "It is agreed that the removal of any structure placed after the beginning of negotiations, when incidental to any agreement, would not be considered a concession of any kind, but where an agreement is reached where the construction of such buildings would become unobjectionable, no harm would have been done by them being placed prior to final execution."?

Those got a little bit wordy because the letter of the intent clearly needs to be spelled out, but since I think nobody involved would make the spurious claims required to pretend loopholes existed I think they would stand.

Not sure if I am following you completely.
You seem to be saying that the holdings should be taken down, and if negotiations are successful, then new holding be put up, with no animosity in regards to the original placement of holdings?
No, that's the horrible costly way that benefits nobody. I'm suggesting that negotiations continue exactly as if those holdings weren't there, and then one any deal is worked out, holdings which are in violation of that agreement would be removed- the way that doesn't burn the sunk costs to no benefit, and also doesn't create a perverse incentive to place buildings during negotiations.
Jokken
Decius
Might I suggest "Until negotiations are completed or break down, members of each polity will not enter the undisputed territory of the other, nor engage in any aggressive action within the disputed territory" along with "It is agreed that the removal of any structure placed after the beginning of negotiations, when incidental to any agreement, would not be considered a concession of any kind, but where an agreement is reached where the construction of such buildings would become unobjectionable, no harm would have been done by them being placed prior to final execution."?

Those got a little bit wordy because the letter of the intent clearly needs to be spelled out, but since I think nobody involved would make the spurious claims required to pretend loopholes existed I think they would stand.
I'm posting this for the sake of reference as it clearly states our position of minimum requirements for the the continuing of negotiations:

Jokken
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.

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?

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.

And now I have specific questions for you, Decius. Why is a member of Phaeros interjecting themselves into these negotiations at every turn? Is Phaeros a member of the BHA? My cursory examinations would say no. Does Decius have the authority to negotiate deals for the BHA? Is Decius' main stake in this thread that he gains personal enjoyment in empty legal pandering and trolling Cal? I can understand the need to give an opinion on the matter and make a point or two. However, looking over the history of these threads, that does not appear to be your intent. You sat down at our negotiating table and are now acting as a self appointed mediator.

The same can be said of Bringslite to a lesser extent, but the Dominion and the HRC share ownership of territory in a loose alliance. Does Phaeros claim the same with the BHA?
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
Mistwalker
Way back when holding first came out, the HRC put up some holdings in hexes that were within two hexes of both Dominion and HRC settelements - HRC didn't think it would be a problem as negotiations were heading that way.

The Dominion did not see it that way - they asked us to remove the holding as a condition to continuing negotiations on how we were going to work together to administer those shared hexes.

The HRC didn't think that the placement of a couple of holding was/would be a problem. Once the Dominion indicated that it was a problem to them, the HRC took down the holdings - what are a few T1 resources compared to the continued good relations with a neighbouring alliance?
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Decius
Might I suggest "Until negotiations are completed or break down, members of each polity will not enter the undisputed territory of the other, nor engage in any aggressive action within the disputed territory" along with "It is agreed that the removal of any structure placed after the beginning of negotiations, when incidental to any agreement, would not be considered a concession of any kind, but where an agreement is reached where the construction of such buildings would become unobjectionable, no harm would have been done by them being placed prior to final execution."?
Interesting thought.

So the BHA keep the holdings they put in our territory until they get what they want or we stop talking, then might or might not take them down depending on exactly what they got.

We, in turn, agree not to do anything that might actually inconvenience them anywhere until we've given them what they want or we end up back exactly where we are now.

TLDR: Let the BHA do what they are doing, but don't do anything about it.

When I first saw your post, Decius, I thought "that seems frighteningly unbiased for its source. Is it possible hell froze over and I missed it?" Then I realized it was simply Decius once again manipulatively suggesting that Brighthaven get what it wants, while trying to set us up to appear as unreasonable if we don't agree.

Brighthaven has seized control of hexes inside our borders. Once they correct that, I think we have been clear in our indication that we are happy to talk about the details of the things we've publicly promised them that give them virtually everything they want, except drawing borders on the map around a tavern. We have never broken trust with the BHA. It is the BHA that needs to undertake exactly one course of action to restore our trust.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post