Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The London Conference 1857; Africa Partitioned
Topic Started: Aug 31 2014, 01:48 PM (1,470 Views)
Linny

House of Lords
Warlord_Murphy,Sep 6 2014
01:57 PM
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.

Warlord, Robie himself admitted that what he did wasn't authorized in the Treaty. His claim is that he should be allowed to do so because what he's doing [enlarging the claims of some signatories] doesn't need consent of signatories [even though nowhere in the rule says consent by all isn't needed] because they are still getting what they are entitled to [so they shouldn't care that other players get more than originally thought].

I am simply finding that, absent a treaty provision specifically stating that he is allowed to enlarge his or other players' claims without needing consent from the rest, he cannot do so.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warlord_Murphy

House of Commons
I agree that his reasoning is crap, however what did he did didn't actually violate the treaty either. And there's a clause in there that "reroutes" things to an internal vote of more then 50%, eliminating resigning and making membership mandatory for the duration of the agreement. Is that fair? No, but people agreed to it anyway. They specifically waived their right to choose to resign, if that wasn't allowed, it should have been a rule in the first place.

To use a real world example, if you participate in a dangerous activity with an organization, they make you waive your right to sue. One couldn't sign one of those and then go to the courts the minute you have regrets.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Robieman
Who Bitch Dis
House of Commons
i did not expect linny to just post the argument up here like this, mainly because the last lines are complete sarcasm and i still do not accept his ruling. Don't get me wrong, i am fully aware that i did write an explicit clause that allows me to edit the map correctly
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warlord_Murphy

House of Commons
Robieman,Sep 6 2014
11:52 AM
i did not expect linny to just post the argument up here like this, mainly because the last lines are complete sarcasm and i still do not accept his ruling. Don't get me wrong, i am fully aware that i did write an explicit clause that allows me to edit the map correctly

That's what I'm saying, they signed a treaty you designed to be openly unfair, they've waived the normal protections, that's their fault.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy 4 · Next Topic »
Locked Topic