| Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The London Conference 1857; Africa Partitioned | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 31 2014, 01:48 PM (1,472 Views) | |
| Kristian | Sep 3 2014, 03:25 AM Post #31 |
![]()
|
The NGF does not believe this “proposal partition” was made fairly. And the NGF would never be able to colonize that part of Africa as it only has Yoruba States and Benin, and can therefore only colonize from them.
|
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 3 2014, 12:11 PM Post #32 |
![]()
|
France will happily sell its claim to the naval base at Sekondi for 13k. As for it being unfair, you signed it, you keep to it. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 3 2014, 12:22 PM Post #33 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
The Mexican proposal is a fair one. This would require a redistribution vote on a new map based on the open territories. England's map makers will draw up a new version to be voted on. Should there be any other territorial edits please say them now |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 3 2014, 12:59 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
![]() Liberia to France, clarification as to whether Fernando Po is to be considered Part of the German claim, the entirety of Tripolitania is Ottoman. Also France would like to declare that if Spain refuses to sign, France, as indirect ruler of most of Morocco, will be claiming that land. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 3 2014, 02:21 PM Post #35 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
England has redistributed our maps accordingly (it would seem our mappers have used some kind of marker that was hard to erase). France has given up a portion of their land in favor of the ottomans for having gained the Spanish and American land. The Mexicans have gained the larger portion of the old dutch territories however the Canadians have gained the far eastern part due to proportional power Should this be ratified, Mexico you are free to sign on for colonies Five votes must be accounted for. England votes yes, leaving only four. |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 3 2014, 02:26 PM Post #36 |
![]()
|
I must say that any changes to the original terms would mean the treaty is void and must be re-signed by all players for it to be enforceable against them |
![]() |
|
| Kristian | Sep 3 2014, 02:50 PM Post #37 |
![]()
|
The NGF believes the the partition of Africa is completely unfair. Looking at it now Canada is to get an Area of more than 2.5 million population and some of the worlds best RGO’s and what is the NGF getting, A small area of nothing more than 250 thousand population and an RGO timber and wheat. The NGF is without a doubt a stronger power, and in any way a greater power than Canada. The NGF will not in anyway stand for this and hope you make drastic changes in the near future
|
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 3 2014, 03:18 PM Post #38 |
![]()
|
(OOC: Linny, this isn't a rewriting of the treaty, it's a vote by the signatories, if more than 50% vote against it, we go back to the first proposal, and the land that no one is occupying becomes free to dispute, this was included in the treaty, does anyone around here read what they sign? ) Once again NGF, France must say that, if you wished to argue your share, you shouldn't have done it after wholeheartedly endorsing it. |
![]() |
|
| StylishG33k | Sep 3 2014, 03:38 PM Post #39 |
![]()
|
The United States would like to make clear they are ready and willing to provide negotiations over their colonial holdings once the partition of Africa is complete. This can be handled on a case by case basis.
|
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 3 2014, 03:49 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
I will give my reasoning later. I am outside so can't type properly. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 3 2014, 04:13 PM Post #41 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
Linny read article C and explain to me how we would need to resign the entirety of the treaty... i am not redistributing land from other nations i am redistributing land they knew they weren't already going to get but also land they knew they were guaranteeing edited for blind morons sake |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 3 2014, 04:54 PM Post #42 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
We are more then happy to come to terms with the Americans over their land and believe they are wise to understand it would be so futile to try and resist the conference however we are confused on why you did not simply sign onto the treaty for at least Liberia guaranteed in the American name |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 4 2014, 08:11 AM Post #43 |
![]()
|
Article C states
It doesn't state how that is to be done and could be assumed as to require re-signing of all the members for it to be valid. When players sign on to this, they agreed to what they will get and what others will get. They didn't agree to other countries getting a larger share than when they signed it without their consent, especially since there is no rule in the treaty stating it is to be done by voting. Now i assume you are using Article E as to your method
The Dutch, Americans and Spanish have not broken the pact for they never signed it. So dividing up their land through majority vote is not supported by the terms of this treaty. The fact that this article is reserved for taking land from people who signed and then violated the treaty is even further evidenced by the last sentence of quote subjecting such countries "also will incur following penalties". I think we all know Dutch, Americans, and Spanish are not going to incur any penalty for a treaty they never signed. You, as host of this conference, are changing the terms that people expected when they signed onto this. As such I think it is proper to void the signatures and require re-signing for inclusion of any proposed changes. Talk to me on steam if you would like to make your case. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 4 2014, 09:14 AM Post #44 |
![]()
|
It isn't physically taking their land off them and redistributing it, it's redistributing theoretical claims. The only way you could read it as physically taking their land is if you read it as literally as possible and don't apply any common sense at all. Thus all your objections are totally irrelevant, since they're based on a totally flawed understanding of the agreement. The voting system was explained, that Britain was in charge of redrawing things if necessary was explained. This agreement has been up for 4 days before you started objecting to it, and you signed as a player half way through. So either you didn't bother reading it until others started wanting to get out of something they signed when they also failed to read it, or you're trying to pick it apart after the fact to appease those players. There was ample opportunity for the players to complain in character if they felt the text was unfairly bias, they didn't do it. There was ample opportunity for you to object as an admin, and you didn't do it. It's totally absurd for you to stand behind the legitimacy of something and then 2 days later decide it's unfair. And the timing leads me to assume bad faith. |
![]() |
|
| StylishG33k | Sep 4 2014, 09:29 AM Post #45 |
![]()
|
The United States is insulted the United Kingdom feels Liberia is a sufficient "compromise" when we would be giving up our lands in the Sokoto region. Not to mention we are only 100 or so points behind the United Kingdom in our colonial reach. This treaty was a slap in the face to the American people and the President will not stand for such a blatant disregard of our nation's sovereignty.
|
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 4 2014, 10:29 AM Post #46 |
![]()
|
Agreed, the Austrians noticed that France and GB get the biggest parts. And aswell the GB made the treaties in their favour. You cannot change treaties when is after someone signed it, so make it get renewed. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 4 2014, 10:31 AM Post #47 |
![]()
|
You arent allowed to change treaties without the agreement of people who signed it, so stop trying to get a way around it. And if you want people to agree to your changes. Im the 1st one who wont agree to the changes so that means i can just get out of this treaty. Because you have to make it renewed because you changed it. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 4 2014, 10:39 AM Post #48 |
![]()
|
To be clear, I didn't change anything, GB made this and GB is the one making changes, it this point I'm in favour of nullifying the whole thing since parts of it are inherently at odds with the rules, you can even ask linny and he'll tell you I pointed them out. I'm simply annoyed that we're having this now rather then when everyone signed it, it's only being examined this closely due to sour grapes. So don't go saying "Oh War_lord did this and that" I'm sick of being used a a focus of others need to act out just because I'm the Newbie. Point your finger elsewhere. |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 4 2014, 11:34 AM Post #49 |
![]()
|
Markoni, please do not accuse others of things. Warlord has as much influence and control in this process as you. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 4 2014, 01:45 PM Post #50 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
linny i still need to make a case on the article C ruling but i have to point out, if anyone is going to blame anyone you can go ahead and blame me. On that note you can also go right ahead and fuck off because you signed the treaty that i made, why the fuck do i care if you don't like what you signed. Manipulation is the name of diplomacy. oh and quit trying to pretend the rules don't apply to you, i make my rules pretty damn specific, its hard to pretend you can interpret them any other way... |
![]() |
|
| TheDerpyBeagle | Sep 4 2014, 03:00 PM Post #51 |
![]() ![]()
|
( So, final verdict - will everyone need to sign this or not? ) |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 4 2014, 03:18 PM Post #52 |
![]()
|
You will know in an hour or two. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 4 2014, 04:22 PM Post #53 |
![]()
|
When i said that it was towards UK, and you were the one defending him. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 4 2014, 04:24 PM Post #54 |
![]()
|
This is bs, you cant change things without our agreement for the people who signed it. |
![]() |
|
| Otto of England | Sep 4 2014, 04:33 PM Post #55 |
|
The Free State of Kiev
![]()
|
This discussion is not in the right thread, ffs people. OOC discussion, about anything happens in general discussion this is just hurting the RP aspect of the game. Anyways there is a clause of the treaty that allows it to be changed Markoni so, he can infact change the map but, we vote on whether we like it or not. We should move this to the proper thread now. |
![]() |
|
| CynicalLiberal | Sep 5 2014, 12:41 AM Post #56 |
![]()
|
Gran Colombia proposes that the entirety of Africa is simply given to the control of Gran Colombia, problem solved.
|
![]() |
|
| dibbern | Sep 5 2014, 01:26 AM Post #57 |
![]()
|
Let's split it
|
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 5 2014, 12:26 PM Post #58 |
![]()
|
Only thing worse than Austria claiming parts of Africa with no navy, is Gran Colombia claiming all of it with a standing army the size of Dai Nam's. I like that proposal. |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 6 2014, 10:16 AM Post #59 |
![]()
|
So this is robie's case. I didnt get a chance to reply to him so i am making my rulings here, taking into consideration what he said. The changes after signature requires signing by ALL members for it to be accepted. Pre-changes clauses will still be valid. The offensive provision of the treaty is VALID FOR ONLY ONE session. I am finding that what has occurred are changes, specifically they are changes that occurred without any authorization from the treaty that players sign onto. My prior post has dealt with why such changes are not authorized by majority vote. These are changes even if players who signed are still getting what they were promised and agreed upon. These are changes because they attempt to give larger share to other players than what players expected when they signed it: when players signed the treaty they agreed upon what they will receive AND what others will receive, contrary to Robie's claim that they agreed upon only what they will receive and thus shouldn't have a say in what others receive. Such claim doesnt make sense when an example such as UK claiming to the entirety of US, Dutch, and Spanish possessions to himself. Are we to say that because signatories still get what they were promised, they can't dissent to UK getting larger share through unauthorized method? Or what if the French did not sign it and the UK were to take possession of its large African claims? Are players such as the NGF, Russia, Austria etc... not allowed to object, as signatories, to such enlargement of UK's claims through unauthorized method? Did they agree to UK getting such larger portion of Africa [France+US+Spain+Dutch] without their consent when they signed the treaty? I think not. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 6 2014, 10:57 AM Post #60 |
![]()
|
You cannot rule on the grounds of unfairness, because the treaty includes that very unfairness, that GB is allowed to redefine the boundaries is quite clearly stated, Robie did not suddenly decide to change the terms, the mechanism by which terms were set was agreed upon. You're essentially setting a precedent here were the GM can void any treaty he considers unfair to one or more signing parties, essentially encouraging whining to the GM. I don't see why you're ruling based on this when there's still the elephant in the room of the other provisions being blatantly contrary to the base rules of the game. It's akin to a murderer being caught in the act of murdering someone with 10 witnesses, the murder saying "yes I did it, the bastard deserved it" and then at trial the prosecution deciding to only submit flimsy circumstantial evidence and hearsay. I'd also like to note again that Prussia and Austria were totally fine with what they were getting, up until I had words with the Austrian player. Not twenty minutes later both of them tried to pull out of this illegally, then they started this whole controversy. I personally feel that a certain player feels he is somehow scoring "points" against me personally with this, because he repeatedly accuses this of being something I've masterminded. I'm absolutely pro-shitcanning this, it's the rational behind it I detest. And the argument that UK could use that to give himself a massive portion of Africa is horseshit, since quite clearly he intended for that to be subject to vote, even if it was phrased ambiguously, he did attempt to call one, and his revised proposal gave the land to others. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy 4 · Next Topic » |









5:56 PM Jul 10