Pacman: The truth will out

[DeletedUser107943]

Our last correspondence with Dab was on the 7th, and we were still friendly.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can actually see the point that the 'for some time' clause should have been investigated further, and not been left as a phrase that could just be used. If you want the NAP defined for a limited time, then define it, don't just leave it as it is, and Pacman have indeed used their words in a cunning sense there.

However, despite this slight loophole, it hardly makes up for what has actually occured. Without an official deadline set, the 'for some time' clause doesn't immediately translate to 'this can end when we feel like it'. Those are two very separate meanings. There should still have been a mail sent with some kind notice given of the termination.

 

[Rand_Althor]

I can actually see the point that the 'for some time' clause should have been investigated further, and not been left as a phrase that could just be used. If you want the NAP defined for a limited time, then define it, don't just leave it as it is, and Pacman have indeed used their words in a cunning sense there.

However, despite this slight loophole, it hardly makes up for what has actually occured. Without an official deadline set, the 'for some time' clause doesn't immediately translate to 'this can end when we feel like it'. Those are two very separate meanings. There should still have been a mail sent with some kind notice given of the termination.

About the most sensible post in this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why? Was their language in the agreement that stated notice must be given? If not then the bottom line is, you failed to be clear as a leader.

How many Dukes get 20 - 30 mails at a start up asking for NAP's? All of us get them.

How many times do you come out and say, No, we are planning to noble you? LOL, if you answer all the time, your a fool and have most likley never run a decent tribe.

Diplomacy is all about being clear, if as a leader you fail to get full clarification on a diplomatic agreement then you have only yourself to blame when it falls apart.

Honor? In a WAR Game? Not even going to address that silly statement, as it gets hashed out in every world as soon as one tribe gets owned by another.

Friends in other tribes? LOL, you think Pacman is all alone out here? ;P

@Greenmonsta- ROFL

 

[kalkoenvet]

Ah this is why I'm confused! I thought NAP was short for Noble All Players.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can actually see the point that the 'for some time' clause should have been investigated further, and not been left as a phrase that could just be used. If you want the NAP defined for a limited time, then define it, don't just leave it as it is, and Pacman have indeed used their words in a cunning sense there.

However, despite this slight loophole, it hardly makes up for what has actually occured. Without an official deadline set, the 'for some time' clause doesn't immediately translate to 'this can end when we feel like it'. Those are two very separate meanings. There should still have been a mail sent with some kind notice given of the termination.

You've got it spot on mate. Both sides of this were a little mis-led with what the NAP actually consisted of. For me when I read it before BP I saw it as a temporary agreement throughout the early stages. It would be illogical for our two tribes to remain NAPs for too long anyway (just look at the map).

At the end of the day, I apologise for not making the terms of the NAP fully clear and I think it's well known now that both tribes should just move on and accept an NAP will never have worked for long. We do have 2 official NAPs and those tribes know who they are and it shall be valued. Though in this case it was illogical for us to remain neutral and it seemed to have been forgotten about since the few mails we exchanged early on.

 

[DeletedUser105718]

Grow up.

Get off forums - and put up a fight if you wish to prove something.

 

[DeletedUser]

You've got it spot on mate. Both sides of this were a little mis-led with what the NAP actually consisted of. For me when I read it before BP I saw it as a temporary agreement throughout the early stages. It would be illogical for our two tribes to remain NAPs for too long anyway (just look at the map).

You were not mis-led you kew exactly what you were doing... why do you lie so much jeez. First you lie about how various members saying rumours of the tribe attacking you the very next post you say only 1 person said it, without realizing what you actually said previously.
Now you say both tribes were mis-led but previously you say this

Why did we accept? Protection...

Its a shame such a hyped up premade needs to use less experienced players for protection no wonder your members have crap troops if the O shown in this thread is bad wonder what your D looks like, probably have close to none thus hug all the inexperienced players to get you through the early stages. -.-

 

[DeletedUser]

Deleted.

 

[DeletedUser80534]

Question: Is this Nebula a.k.a. Nubula Noobula from W51? :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

That you nami from us7?

 

[DeletedUser]

If you think our d is below par, you should try sending your troops at us.

i can most certainly guarantee that your tribes D req was low. You personally have a lvl 24 farm which is terrible

 

[DeletedUser]

Deleted.

 

[DeletedUser107679]

Nobody wanted to join in on my gloating of Pacmans O?

 

[DeletedUser]

You were not mis-led you kew exactly what you were doing... why do you lie so much jeez. First you lie about how various members saying rumours of the tribe attacking you the very next post you say only 1 person said it, without realizing what you actually said previously.
Now you say both tribes were mis-led but previously you say this

Its a shame such a hyped up premade needs to use less experienced players for protection no wonder your members have crap troops if the O shown in this thread is bad wonder what your D looks like, probably have close to none thus hug all the inexperienced players to get you through the early stages. -.-

I think you'll find that the poor communication from both parties was hardly existent for this to work. Both tribes obviously thought differently of the NAP and had different expectations for it that neither party expressed.

I don't need to keep repeating that I apologize for this lack of communication.

 

[DeletedUser]

1) Show the evidence.

2) We tried to have a working relationship with you. We talked over a couple of ideas with you. YOU mailed us to try to start an alliance to fight against MuFFin. I'd say we were communicating.

But... :|
Oh my gosh. </3

 

[DeletedUser107874]

All I have taken from this thread is that the lack of comprehension from some of this worlds players is astounding..
That or they are really trying to go out of their way to make us look bad
Hopefully the next attempt will not be so sub par :icon_neutral:

 

[DeletedUser]

Pretty sure our tribal D req isn't/wasn't low. Hence why none of our members have been nobled. If you forced your members to make 2k/2k in their first village you're stupid. We could of easily got by with 200/200 D requirements (which we didn't have by the way) Because our hugging is good.

It was low enough that you needed to make NAP's and hug everyone since the D numbers you guys had once cats came out was horrible.

Hence why this Nap was made quick without any further discussion because DaBearo couldnt care less about the other tribe aslong as they dont cat his troopless members down, nice dirty tactics there...

As for Mm..food i did its embarrassing for such a hyped premade :|

 

[DeletedUser]

Deleted.

 

[DeletedUser]

1) Show the evidence.

2) We tried to have a working relationship with you. We talked over a couple of ideas with you. YOU mailed us to try to start an alliance to fight against MuFFin. I'd say we were communicating.

:icon_eek:
As stated before, this is interesting.