CE's position concerning FTR.

[Lukie]

-- Sending support to an allied tribe who is knowingly under attack from an NAP'd tribe in an effort to cause more damage to the attacker is obviously a violation of an NAP agreement, as it is meant to cause harm.

I just wanted to quote this for you ***** out there to whom this applies. You know who you are.

Milen: I did some editing.

 

[DeletedUser]

don't cosider this a violation of the AP. It is a non-aggression pat and allies stand higher than NAPs so it is pretty norma to defend an allied player against a NAP unless you do not wish to get involved.

 

[Lukie]

don't cosider this a violation of the AP. It is a non-aggression pat and allies stand higher than NAPs so it is pretty norma to defend an allied player against a NAP unless you do not wish to get involved.

They weren't allied.

 

[DeletedUser1185]

-- Agreements made within an NAP don't necessarily create a violation of that NAP as long as all parties are aware.

-- Sending support to an allied tribe who is knowingly under attack from an NAP'd tribe in an effort to cause more damage to the attacker is obviously a violation of an NAP agreement, as it is meant to cause harm.

.

Sorry i have to disagree a NAP = Non-Aggression Pact that means not attacking while defending is not a non-aggresion violation,by your own standards attacking a village that contains troops that are NAPed to you is a violation of your NAP agreement,is this what you are indicating?since after all your troops are attacking your NAPs defenders?

 

[DeletedUser]

I was describing the hypothetic situation in that rule or whaeer it is. As the comon practice (at least in W1) is that NAP consider only attacks.

If a NAPed player is attacking an allied player it is fine to offer support to the allied player. Allliaces should support each other and NAPs are only as a cease fire pacts which are meant to las longer and to give official indication to members that they should not attack each other.

NAP has nothing to do with alliance, members of napped tribes do not need to be nice to each other. Members of allied tribes should try and help each oter though.

That is why it is ok to support an allied player while he is attacked by a napped player. Of course many people might disagree with me which is their concern, not mine.

Of course tribes can make agreements what each party understands under a NAP ad then these situations should be covored in that agreement and everything will be clear at least with that specific case.

 

[DeletedUser]

-- Sending support to an allied tribe who is knowingly under attack from an NAP'd tribe in an effort to cause more damage to the attacker is obviously a violation of an NAP agreement, as it is meant to cause harm.

There is a reason why I'd originally italicized the word "knowingly". Sometimes there are things that you are unaware of.

I personally would like to hope that the leaders of the bigger tribes out there have enough of an understanding of alliances and NAP's themselves to not have to explain that yes, alliances are higher and should be regarded better as an NAP. That does not however require a tribe to help an ally against an NAP.

I know that the very definition of NAP seem to vary between tribes. Some believe that no attacks or any kind can cross, while others seem to believe that scouting is fine, and still others have tried to play it off as one on one skirmishes are not a violation of an NAP agreement... *cough*

I hadn't meant to start an NAP debate, simply to state our position in the matter with FTR.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was describing the hypothetic situation in that rule or whaeer it is. As the comon practice (at least in W1) is that NAP consider only attacks.

If a NAPed player is attacking an allied player it is fine to offer support to the allied player. Allliaces should support each other and NAPs are only as a cease fire pacts which are meant to las longer and to give official indication to members that they should not attack each other.

NAP has nothing to do with alliance, members of napped tribes do not need to be nice to each other. Members of allied tribes should try and help each oter though.

That is why it is ok to support an allied player while he is attacked by a napped player. Of course many people might disagree with me which is their concern, not mine.

Of course tribes can make agreements what each party understands under a NAP ad then these situations should be covored in that agreement and everything will be clear at least with that specific case.

So true!

I personally would like to hope that the leaders of the bigger tribes out there have enough of an understanding of alliances and NAP's themselves to not have to explain that yes, alliances are higher and should be regarded better as an NAP. That does not however require a tribe to help an ally against an NAP.

I thought that that's what allies are for... Does anyone agree with me? Alliances are made for the tribes to HELP eachother, not to just sit back and watch if they die or not in the face of one of your NAPs.

 

[DeletedUser222]

Note that I am no longer duke of CE and voice my own opinions here. I am not speaking for the entire tribe.

If an ally is being threatened and warred unprovoked, certainly we must defend them even against our NAPs.
In this case however, our some of allies chose to aid PTT in their war against FTR. First off CE has no relations with PTT, and secondly our allies entered this war by choice and not because they had no other options or were under heavy attack.
FTR has in my eyes never made any foul or dishonorable moves and thus we chose not to be a part of this war. Simply because our allies did choose to aid PTT does not mean we on our turn are obliged to aid our allies. This war is was formed due to problems between FTR and PTT, and PTT is not our ally.
In both their announcements our allies (T.F.A and Hatred, for those who did not figure this out yet) stated to support PTT. They chose to support PTT, we choose not to support PTT.

If we do not agree with the argumentation behind this war and see FTR as a honorable tribe which is reasonable in finding diplomatic solutions, then I do not see why we would be obliged to aid our allies in their choice to aid PTT.
Should we aid the allies of our allies now? I think that goes a bit too far.

 

[DeletedUser]

I thought that that's what allies are for... Does anyone agree with me? Alliances are made for the tribes to HELP eachother, not to just sit back and watch if they die or not in the face of one of your NAPs.

Agreed that allies are there to help each other, but no tribe is required to assist an ally if they do not agree with the stance. Consider two allied tribes being at war with one another. Would you assist both?

And no, we are not allied with FTR, but as Mandril said - FTR is (to us) considered an honorable tribe who has never wronged CE, and therefore, we have decided not to become involved in this effort.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just out of interest how did CE's name appear on the grand alliance post? Where you not informed of the press release or just not have time to make your postion clear to the tribes that thought you were on-board?
Purley Idile curiosity on my part.

 

[DeletedUser222]

We were made aware of the plans made against FTR long before the list and did have multiple conversations with those involved. After thoroughly discussing the matter our decision was to remain neutral.

The list was posted without consent of any of the tribes on it, as far as I am aware.
Hatred, T.F.A, KATZ and CE are mutually allied with one another and for unknown reasons AoS assumed all four of us were "anti-FTR", which is not the case.
I definately wouldn't call it a press release, and if it was it would be prematurely put together.
Some of us were still considering what course of action to take on the matter.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have personally heard that while many were informed of AoS' and PTT's position against FTR, many were not informed of a war or alliance against FTR until they saw their names on that list. More than one tribe who I have been in contact with was added to that list without prior notification or consent, as was the case with CE.

The only *press release* I am aware of was the listing itself, after it was posted, which is what prompted us to clairify our position.

 

[Brbbbq]

We were made aware of the plans made against FTR long before the list and did have multiple conversations with those involved. After thoroughly discussing the matter our decision was to remain neutral.

The list was posted without consent of any of the tribes on it, as far as I am aware.
Hatred, T.F.A, KATZ and CE are mutually allied with one another and for unknown reasons AoS assumed all four of us were "anti-FTR", which is not the case.
I definately wouldn't call it a press release, and if it was it would be prematurely put together.
Some of us were still considering what course of action to take on the matter.

well at least we know discussions took place now.
Thanks.

Btw, anyone who thinks a tribe sending support to a random village to stop a big player taking it is not a breaking of any diplomatic agreement obviously misunderstands the meaning of NAP.
At the very least it pertains to the fact you don value the NAP, its just a convience so you dont get your a**es kicked.

 

[DeletedUser1185]

I would also like to make note that several people have tried to allude that FTR does not help their allies and such,that is wrong when ever we needed help FTR was there,also while we may hold an Alliance With TFA and a NAP with HATRED,we will not attack them,but we will support FTR with defensive troops from attacks by those tribes,also we will assist FTR on any and all attacks on PTT,since their tribe is nothing but a bunch of lying scum who are planning to suicide on everybody in game then leave.

Why are they lying scum you may ask?because once we were allies they asked us to help with attacks on some villages we did then they attacked our villages,also after awhile we NAPed to try to heal wounds and then they attacked us again well no more they will be crushed and destroyed.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am looking forward to the day when I have to support my allies instead of them riding to my aid. One of my villages is only mine now due to the excellent allies FTR has and I will always be grateful.

 

[DeletedUser137]

while we may hold an Alliance With TFA and a NAP with HATRED,we will not attack them,but we will support FTR with defensive troops from attacks by those tribes

completely opposite to everything discussed in this thread about the understanding of NAP's

 

[Lukie]

completely opposite to everything discussed in this thread about the understanding of NAP's

Hatred has already shown AND SAID that they do not recognize this as a true breach of NAP.

True.

 

[DeletedUser222]

well at least we know discussions took place now.
Thanks.

Yes, discussions.
In my original post I misused the word plans, that should be discussions.
After CE decided on its neutrality we tied an end to the conversations with those involved, hence we are unaware of any plans.

 

[Brbbbq]

Yes, discussions.
In my original post I misused the word plans, that should be discussions.
After CE decided on its neutrality we tied an end to the conversations with those involved, hence we are unaware of any plans.

No need to defend your actions sir. I have the greatest respect for your tribes decision to stay neutral in this conflict so far and for that matter to actually admit that *something happened* in terms of a discussion.

It at least clarifies everyone else hasnt quite been telling the whole truth, even if they havent quite been lieing.

By the way, any news on why you stepped down as leader?

 

[DeletedUser]

I am looking forward to the day when I have to support my allies instead of them riding to my aid. One of my villages is only mine now due to the excellent allies FTR has and I will always be grateful.

Can I get an AMEN



"AMEN!"