Sir Scarfalot

Welcome ~

Happy birthday TKR~

No, I didn't know it was a 10 month minimum, and I'm sorry to hear that nations are being chased out of the game; that's not cool in the slightest I agree. That said, I haven't seen any scoreboard and there's definitely no 'celebrating' on these forums (actually there's barely any forum activity at all, which is worrying in its own right). This whole thing has nothing to do with NPOLT, that was years ago m8. What you're being punished for is isolating yourself by flagrantly violating NAPs, twice. As much as you might want Orbis to believe that you were justified in that, your arguments have quite simply fallen flat. 10 months might be too extreme, sure, but that's the kind of argument you could bring up in a debate or in a UN style discord server. Which you've been loathe to do for some reason? Ultimately, if you want to become a raiding alliance then go for it, but it's impossible to be both a politically isolated pirate alliance and a traditional peace-cycling warfare alliance at the same time, which is what you've been trying to do as "close allies" of Samurai. Deny it if you want, but given the leadership and membership of your alliances bouncing between Sam and Cam you just don't have plausible deniability there. Have your cake or eat it, but commit to the decision either way. Now, this is something else. There's no good reason to not have the info of the UN server be public, so you may have a point here. Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny after all. (Honestly, I doubt that Orbis has the patience to actually follow through on a 10 month blockade cycling campaign, or even the capacity. Apply pressure with nukes and missiles and they'll fold eventually, you know that.)

10 months =/= permawar.

Hallo~

I seriously don't see what your problem is. If you want to put it on Youtube then you can do that with or without being the moderator of the debate. It's hardly unfair to ask that the moderation of the debate be neutral to both parties. You're the one making it hostile to yourself by insisting on unreasonable terms in your favor. These shenanigans are why people are 'hostile to you', you know. You had a shot at defending your actions, but now you're undermining your own arguments by being petty.

P&w lives on yet, welcome back ~

Congrats, and may your opponents' VDSes always fail

Welcome to orbis~~

Purr~

No u pirates good, NAP breakers bad

Not in game-mechanical terms, which is what OP is talking about.

Can so. One-nation alliances are totally a thing, I ran one myself for almost a year.

I need my dose of autism

Happy birthday~

Exactly, so brag about the current war, not last year's raids

Last. Year. Brag about the current war, surely you can?

Man, I thought you'd actually gotten a bank raid in more recently than last year, get new material 😕

I probably shouldn't have, but there's three main issues to discuss and a centralized post would get messy imo

Obviously this is the most complicated question of all. Should Camelot pay reps? Be rolled out of the game? Should TFP and Rose be rolled out of the game for breaching the NAP first? Should they pay reps? Should we just let Camelot’s actions slide and not give nor take anything from them? Personally I’d like to let Camelot’s reputation damage be enough as long as they pay back their existing debts but I’d be interested in more possibilities.

Again, not simple, and it depends on the mindset of the actors going in. I don’t have enough evidence to rule either way myself, so I’ll wait for logs before posting my vote.

It’s not exactly a simple question since it depends on the definition of what it means to be proxied as well as the mens rea of the actors. I say that Camelot’s relationship with Samurai provides probably the best argument: if you can protect an otherwise pirate alliance that hits your pact partners without that being an NAP breach then TFP pressuring your other protectorates into dropping you isn’t a breach, and Rose simply encouraging hits against you isn’t a breach either. It could be a reason for diplomatic resolutions though.

I remember long ago in >bloc there was an alliance that blitzed someone they had an NAP with. They lost all their allies and the guy they blitzed got a ton of support from the rest of the game. Ironically they did this because they were convinced that he was going to blitz them, and he was pretty despised, but like I told them: pacts matter. If they’d waited for him to hit them, they’d have been awash in support from the most unexpected places and he’d have lost most of his power anyway. now, the cam situation is more complicated than that, since the NAP had an explicit exit clause (two actually). What we therefore need is something from IRL law: arbitration. The questions are simple: Was Camelot proxied by Rose/TFP, was “good-faith diplomacy” attempted before the invocation of the exit clauses, and what should be done about the answers to the preceding? These are important because we are in uncharted waters and the precedents that they set will affect our gameplay for years. As for how we answer these questions, I’ll set up forum threads for each; though ultimately it is up to the alliance leaders of the game to decide for themselves how to proceed on a concrete level.

Again, you're giving accusations and not evidence, and for that matter you haven't actually posted the embassy logs you claimed to have posted? And even if you were justified in breaking an NAP (which I'm convinced you were not), how does that justify defaulting on your debts? You were working secretly with Arrgh on the nuke auction to extort money from TFP, so why not use that money to service your debt? And for that matter, why isn't extorting money another violation of the NAP from your end, in spirit if nothing else?

I'm seeing a lot of accusations against Rose, but even ignoring the fact that TFP hasn't been even accused of wrongdoing there's no logs of "good faith diplomacy", which was specifically entered into the text of the peace treaty. Now, maybe I'm missing something, but there's a logical order of operations here: Alleged violations are to be dealt with by diplomacy and then withdrawal if that is honestly attempted and fails, not "we don't have to attempt diplomacy since X Y and Z, and therefore our obligations didn't matter in the first place". If Camelot had attempted diplomacy, and it was "true and acceptable" then "they wouldn't have hid it", now would they? 🤔