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?

Eyraphel Teralyn
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of BHA. I have no first-hand knowledge of any events or experiences previously described on these forums. I will do my best not to speak for others who do.

From what I've been reading, I think several individuals are concerned about the accountability of HRC members. While your citizens enjoy many individual freedoms, there seem to be no repercussions if anyone oversteps their bounds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems from the outside that HRC expects other factions to enforce their own laws as appropriate. HRC gatherers in territory defined as a No-Gathering zone, for example, should be dealt with by the land owners with HRC's blessing, but HRC as a whole seems to disavow any responsibility for its people in these circumstances.

I'm of the opinion that while that structure is fine, it can't coexist with laws and restrictions imposed on other factions. There's no incentive for other factions to respect the laws of the HRC if it claims no responsibility for its own citizens when they disrespect the laws of other sovereign states. In the eyes of a hypothetical faction wronged by a hypothetical HRC member, the treatment is nearly identical to any nameless bandit. In this allegory, though, the bandit also makes demands about borders and restricted actions.

For several pages now, I believe individuals in this thread are merely frustrated in dealing with what they perceive to be a group of lawless citizens imposing demands on other players with no accountability themselves. And while this must certainly not be the intent or focus of HRC, one must be willing to work together to find a solution that isn't simply incessantly contradicting one another.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I note that my viewpoint is that you have mischaracterized several steps in the process and rearranged the order of actions in order to paint your alliance in a better light. You have further chosen to change the words you used in fact into something similar but different so as to make your position appear more flexible than it ever was when presented to us. You have turned casual comments about things that could be done in the future if needed to support a tavern into "offers to rent" multiple hexes when such offer was never made, and used that as a justification to occupy land while pretending you were just doing what we said you could. You have portrayed our position as intractable on issue which were never intractable. You asked us to do something which we did, then after-the-fact, when you returned with a counter proposal that we could not possibly agree to on the spot, treated the agreed to extension of negotiations as a break, making it clear that you had no intention of treating the negotiations as anything more serious than an inconvenient delay to your goal.

Our one and only firm (not "under no circumstances," but firm) position in negotiations was that drawing a territorial border around a purchased item that can't be taken by players is a bad thing for the game and we'd prefer to find a different way to handle it.
Just reposting this part, because you seem to have missed most of it in your rush to label the HRC as leaderless and inconsequential.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Drogon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I note that my viewpoint is that you have mischaracterized several steps in the process and rearranged the order of actions in order to paint your alliance in a better light. You have further chosen to change the words you used in fact into something similar but different so as to make your position appear more flexible than it ever was when presented to us. You have turned casual comments about things that could be done in the future if needed to support a tavern into "offers to rent" multiple hexes when such offer was never made, and used that as a justification to occupy land while pretending you were just doing what we said you could. You have portrayed our position as intractable on issue which were never intractable. You asked us to do something which we did, then after-the-fact, when you returned with a counter proposal that we could not possibly agree to on the spot, treated the agreed to extension of negotiations as a break, making it clear that you had no intention of treating the negotiations as anything more serious than an inconvenient delay to your goal.

Our one and only firm (not "under no circumstances," but firm) position in negotiations was that drawing a territorial border around a purchased item that can't be taken by players is a bad thing for the game and we'd prefer to find a different way to handle it.
Just reposting this part, because you seem to have missed most of it in your rush to label the HRC as leaderless and inconsequential.
In my opinion your version or perception of the way things happened is incorrect.
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
MidniteArrow
As Drakis: I attended both meetings. If you are free to declare the bold "never", we are free to deny the agreement of extension. We made no such concession, explicit or implicit. In accordance with the HRC behavioral standard from the first meeting, BHA extended a treaty. You rejected that treaty.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Drogon
In my opinion your version or perception of the way things happened is incorrect.
Apparently we have something in common. I have no idea how we are supposed to get past you saying our position is one we don't hold, or that we said things we never said.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Eyraphel Teralyn
Caldeathe Baequiannia
You have turned casual comments about things that could be done in the future if needed to support a tavern into "offers to rent" multiple hexes when such offer was never made

Caden
From the beginning, the HRC offered to lease you a hex at an uber-reasonable rate to support a game mechanic that doesn’t even exist.

For those of us who weren't present, are these not the same thing?
MidniteArrow
Ooc: They claim the offer was just for one hex
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Hobson Fiffledown
Now, now, now. With the whole down there attacking players bit, has no one has really put together anything in common with the characters that have been attacked? Most characters just go down in the journal. Loves me my notes…

Our land was invaded and occupied. Leaders of the invading settlements, members of any primary/founding company of those invading settlements, and members of the occupying companies all seem like fair targets for a defender taking action against an aggressor. Find me a (recent) target outside of those groups and I will apologize. smile

Any suggested timeline which puts Hobson in the SE for anything other than retaliation against an invasion and occupation is incorrect.
This space for rent.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
MidniteArrow
Ooc: They claim the offer was just for one hex
Which is why the offer to rent multiple hexes was never made.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
MidniteArrow
As Drakis: I attended both meetings. If you are free to declare the bold "never", we are free to deny the agreement of extension. We made no such concession, explicit or implicit. In accordance with the HRC behavioral standard from the first meeting, BHA extended a treaty. You rejected that treaty.
I attended both meetings. If you're going to pretend that you didn't agree to meet again, despite agreeing to a data and time to do so, then as far as I'm concerned there's no point negotiating.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post