DeletedUser
Yes, there is that part of the scene that is missing, because it is a bump I experienced with them many months ago. Betsy's understanding of a NAP (which is the standard definition) differed from their understanding (which I had been exposed to months ago in a previous discussion), so when I took over the discussion, I entered into it with the intent of ensuring the NAP included not attacking owned forts.
See, basically, many months ago one of the founders and I discussed a NAP. However, that discussion broke down when they indicated a different interpretation of a NAP, which is to dis-include attacking town-owned forts. In this NAP discussion, Betsy did not know they had a distorted definition of NAP. When I took over this discussion, I was aware of their atypical definition, and attempted to ensure the standard definition would be honored. They indicated it would not, I indicated no deal.
As far as dueling is concerned, that town is inconsequential. Fort wars are a different matter, and even though they barely participate, what little participation they do present can nonetheless help to fill the ranks of the opposing forces and therefore we have a vested interest in decreasing the amount of towns opposing us in fort wars. Simple as that.
In fact, the NAP presented here is no different than the NAP presented in the past, well other than D.Saint being tossed in for craps & giggles.
Oh, and one more thing I wanted to point out about this drama-filled event: By all that is presented, BilleA (VE founder) was ready and willing to agree to D.Saint's (grunt's) expulsion in exchange for a NAP. If he had been trying to pull one over on us, he would not have backed off when the specifics of the NAP were clarified. The "laugh on us" doesn't quite work that well if you back off, now does it? Given this, it is logical to deduce that BilleA had full intention of accepting an atypically defined NAP in exchange for D.Saint's expulsion. But, as I indicated earlier, I will leave D.Saint to save face as best he can. ta ta
See, basically, many months ago one of the founders and I discussed a NAP. However, that discussion broke down when they indicated a different interpretation of a NAP, which is to dis-include attacking town-owned forts. In this NAP discussion, Betsy did not know they had a distorted definition of NAP. When I took over this discussion, I was aware of their atypical definition, and attempted to ensure the standard definition would be honored. They indicated it would not, I indicated no deal.
As far as dueling is concerned, that town is inconsequential. Fort wars are a different matter, and even though they barely participate, what little participation they do present can nonetheless help to fill the ranks of the opposing forces and therefore we have a vested interest in decreasing the amount of towns opposing us in fort wars. Simple as that.
In fact, the NAP presented here is no different than the NAP presented in the past, well other than D.Saint being tossed in for craps & giggles.
Oh, and one more thing I wanted to point out about this drama-filled event: By all that is presented, BilleA (VE founder) was ready and willing to agree to D.Saint's (grunt's) expulsion in exchange for a NAP. If he had been trying to pull one over on us, he would not have backed off when the specifics of the NAP were clarified. The "laugh on us" doesn't quite work that well if you back off, now does it? Given this, it is logical to deduce that BilleA had full intention of accepting an atypically defined NAP in exchange for D.Saint's expulsion. But, as I indicated earlier, I will leave D.Saint to save face as best he can. ta ta
Last edited by a moderator: