The Second Age Treaty

Forum for In-Game politics, relations and matters of justice.

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Procne » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:07 am

Darwoth wrote:if the details given do not suit you then feel free to disregard the entire thing and get your face cut off.

Well, the point was there were almost no details. But I have gotten my answer, thank you.
Image
Procne
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Cheena » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:00 pm

Procne wrote:
Ikpeip wrote:Good evening,

The transparent (and pretty "JV") attempts to manipulate Darwoth in this thread by hyping his relationship with the Tribe are pretty laughable.

The attempts to manipulate Tribal politics by pointing out Darwoth might crawfish are also not quite up to snuff.

These follies only further accentuate the rot that has addled your wits.

Faithfully,

-Peter


Come on, don't go defensive mode. We both know that Darwoth has a history of going on killing sprees every now and then. Especially that he has already threatened that he will do just that - killing as many characters as he can.
With the tribe apparently being the only faction so far, one might want to join the treaty in order to play in relative peace. But then the contents of this thread make me doubt it. We have Darwoth threatening and using excuse of a "claegue" to call anyone he wants an enemy. For all I know one could get killed for simply asking questions. Or for being a newb / casual player, and Darwoth hates those with passion.

So far I haven't seen any serious statement made by the tribe or Darwoth which would clearly indicate the nature of the relationship between the both parties and what does it mean for treaty payers. Especially that this "claegue" is not mentioned anywhere in the treaty and so far I have seen it being used as "I don't agree with you, you have cleague" argument. Which leads me to believe that Darwoth or the tribe can use this argument whenever they want and just get rid of the treaty payer.

Another thing that is worrying to me is the "TMs shall not conspire against the Tribe, or work to weaken their interests" rule. I think it needs explanation as to what exactly "work to weaken their interests" means. Will the tribe come and say "you have to buy 10 bars of iron, 200s each, from the tribe" because "the tribe needs silver and not buying those bars will weaken our interests"? Or is it limited only to physically attacking the tribe or any of the treaty payers, as well as supporting known enemies of the tribe with silver / items / information?

I think you can agree that many things have been said in recent weeks which may confuse the "common playerbase", so it would be good to resolve all the ambiguity.


What makes you think that it isn't their exact goal and that they would clarify such problems ?

The main goal of the Tribe is to do what they want... Being too much precise may restrain their action liberty. That said... they do not fear to see their reputation being lowered, because they already know how to counter this. And they don't care about people talking **** about them. They already consider themselves stronger than anyone and that gives them the credit to refute any argument against them. But I don't think they are stupid enough to say things they'd want to strike afterwards, especially Paymast... er... Missionary Peter.


...I wonder how a missionary can accept that this Tribe doesn't consider the British Royalty and its divine right, and so the British Government in its entirety as The Only Government, but I guess we've seen enough enormities to not ask ourselves such "trivial" questions.

Whoever that will wrote:
Cheena wrote:They already consider themselves are stronger than anyone
Fixed that for you

Tribe lover, don't bother.

edit so it's not a wall of text anymore
Last edited by Cheena on Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust your enemies more than your friends. Your enemies will never betray you.
loftar wrote:***** the treaty.

(Note: Citation is severely out of context.)
User avatar
Cheena
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:46 am
Location: Providence

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Snowpig » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:35 pm

Cheena wrote:
Procne wrote:stuff

more stuff


You could just write "the grass is green, the sea is blue" - that would have the same amount of information as your both wall'o'texts.
Just for my curiosity: If you do not plan to be a treaty member - why bother writing stuff here? :roll:
In feudalism, it's your count that votes...
User avatar
Snowpig
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:01 am

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Procne » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:56 pm

Snowpig wrote:
Cheena wrote:
Procne wrote:stuff

more stuff


You could just write "the grass is green, the sea is blue" - that would have the same amount of information as your both wall'o'texts.
Just for my curiosity: If you do not plan to be a treaty member - why bother writing stuff here? :roll:

How can you know? Maybe I was interested and needed some clarifications? Well, I got them now.
Image
Procne
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Snowpig » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:06 pm

How can i know? Just from those 5-6 posting you did in this tread. All your initial questions were answered at pages 3/4. Everything else you have posted was a plain "fishing in troubled waters".

All rules - Treaty, Claeque - are almost self-explanatory. One might just ask for small details, as done in pages 3/4 - everything else beyond that is a sign of either: being a retard or playing a retard.
In feudalism, it's your count that votes...
User avatar
Snowpig
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:01 am

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby _Gunnar » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:16 pm

This "treaty" is essentially "the tribe does what it wants - tell us who and where you are and we won't hurt you" - any and every act that is not a result of a direct order from the tribe could be classed as against the tribe's interests, so i don't think any rational being can sign it in an honest spirit, although it would be perfectly rational to sign it dishonestly.

as an aside; the tribe's claim to legitimacy is based on two facts:

a) they are "native" to these lands, i.e. were present before the so called "filthy squatters". This is manifestly false; it is a scientific fact that all Colonists are born grey and Equal on the European docks.

b) Their power is uncontested. This appears to be true, but it is as yet unknown if it will remain so after the Flood, nor can it be a just basis for a government.

I find it funny that the other vocal "powerful" players seem to want to cooperate with the tribe; to me this shows their lack of true power.

Snowpig wrote:Just for my curiosity: If you do not plan to be a treaty member - why bother writing stuff here? :roll:


There is no enforceable treaty over minds (or forum posts); if people want to point out the idiocy of this and other threads they are at liberty to do so and you are just showing your small-mindedness and/or cowardice.
ImageImageImage
Darwoth wrote:tradewinds is gunnar
Brego wrote:***** STUPID GUNNAR!

great minds
User avatar
_Gunnar
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:21 pm

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Procne » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:23 pm

Actually, I was honestly trying to clarify some inconsistencies, to see if it was possible for me to play under the treaty.
Image
Procne
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Snowpig » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:23 pm

There is no enforceable treaty over minds (or forum posts); if people want to point out the idiocy of this and other threads they are at liberty to do so and you are just showing your small-mindedness and/or cowardice.


wrong. The small-mindedness and cowardice is shown here by all those "forum-warriors" who make themselves look like retards by doing so (read: writing retarded stuff in this thread) instead of making a decision in-game (join/fight the treaty) and sticking to it.
In feudalism, it's your count that votes...
User avatar
Snowpig
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:01 am

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby Mushibag » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:28 pm

***** the Treaty!
User avatar
Mushibag
 
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:22 am

Re: The Second Age Treaty

Postby darnokpl » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:33 pm

Mushibag wrote:***** the Treaty!


If you are going to defend base vs tribe invite me please. I want to see how they are fighting without frogs :evil:
Image
User avatar
darnokpl
 
Posts: 2019
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to House of Burgesses

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron