Embassy establishment ... Hostile Act ???

[fe3333au]

The comments in the MIA newspaper thread does raise an interesting question.

For those who are blind to what has occured ...

Nuts established an embassy on MIA.
From MIA's perspective this was a hostile act ... it's only purpose to benefit the KISS/Nut alliance with the ability to peak at our cities and to steal technology.
The only way to neuter an ambassy is to declare war.
MIA stated this in a letter ... and also stated that we would not use this to begin open hostilities.

Therefore our treaty of non-agression is still valid from our perspective.

I'd ask the other teams ... how would you react differently?

I'd also like to add, that if anyone feels that we are not playing the game in a fair manner ... please let your feelings be known ... because above all this is a game and we should all be enjoying the experience win or lose.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Looking at it in a non-CIV way: an embassy is created between 2 friendly nations. When the relationship between 2 nations deteriorates in real life sometime the ambassadors are kicked out.
I haven't checked the situation in the game for a long time (since that is not my task) but as long as the official civ-status is "peace" between 2 nations we must assume the nations are friendly with eachother. Embassies can be signed by friendly nations.

In game: As long as you have a N-turn agreement of peace; you have an N-turn agreement that all peacetime actions the game allows (including ambassadors) are possible and allowed, unless specifically specified otherwise.

But what do I know ? - I'm just a silly forum-mod.

 

[classical_hero]

Looking at it in a non-CIV way: an embassy is created between 2 friendly nations. When the relationship between 2 nations deteriorates in real life sometime the ambassadors are kicked out.
I haven't checked the situation in the game for a long time (since that is not my task) but as long as the official civ-status is "peace" between 2 nations we must assume the nations are friendly with eachother. Embassies can be signed by friendly nations.

In game: As long as you have a N-turn agreement of peace; you have an N-turn agreement that all peacetime actions the game allows (including ambassadors) are possible and allowed, unless specifically specified otherwise.

But what do I know ? - I'm just a silly forum-mod.

But there could be other reasons that makes one team to doubt another team, and thus they could be considered to already have broken the agreement.

In RL, wars have been declare for far less.

 

[CommandoBob]

Nuts established an embassy on MIA.
From MIA's perspective this was a hostile act ... it's only purpose to benefit the KISS/Nut alliance with the ability to peak at our cities and to steal technology.
The only way to neuter an ambassy is to declare war.
MIA stated this in a letter ... and also stated that we would not use this to begin open hostilities.

Therefore our treaty of non-agression is still valid from our perspective.

(Hmm. Sounds paranoid. Not sure. Some of this happened before I volunteered.)

On what turn did the Nutters establish an embassy with MIA?

Did MIA have an embassy with the Nutters at this time?

If MIA had an embassy with the Nutters before the Nutters had one with MIA (a fact not known to me at this time) then ...

Hmm.
I also read into this that MIA would not use an embassy to peak into cities and/or steal technology.
Has this been true?
Will this be true?

MIA stated this in a letter ... and also stated that we would not use this to begin open hostilities.

????
The war began because of a 'hostile embassy', right?
The only way to neuter an ambassy is to declare war.

It appears MIA can only give an hostile act; it can not deal with one.

I am not convinced (yet) that the DoW on the Nutters was anything more than an opportunistic power grab in a gamble to win the game by domination. And as such, there is no need to justify the DoW with a smoke screen about a 'hostile embassy'. The DoW on KISS was not over a 'hostile embassy' was it? Just good gameplay (not fun for us KISSers, but it was a move we could appluad while we lay on the ground bleeding).

Did MIA have a lapse in judgement due to 'victory disease'?

 

[Whomp]

Read this CommandoBob.
How ironic it that MIA was more than willing to throw TNT under the bus but has a cow when Donut attempts the same. With a DOW and breaking a treaty? That's ridiculous.

Seems lame to me but I'm learning to expect this from MIA. Live and learn.

Hi KISS Idiots

How goes your war?

We are sick of being left out of the fun and have decided to become information brokers

We will be establishing an embassy next turn (in 145) so that we can 'peek' into cities. We will be charging the cost of the peek and a 20 gold eyeball fee.

If Interested ... send us a PM with a list of the cities that you would like to be viewed.

Fe's Keyhole Services are not a charity and require a down payment to be sent prior to any peaking or shadow work.

We await your answer.

Cheers

Feaurius III
General Manager
Fe's Keyhole Services

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

"Nuts established an embassy on MIA.
From MIA's perspective this was a hostile act"

Establishing an embassy is an "aggressive act"? Declaring war, could just possibly, be concieved as an "aggressive act." I don't believe that establishing an embassy is. Definition of aggresive: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=aggressive 1st definition. Check out synonyms under "H".

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

BTW... Since you are saying that embassies are inherently hostile, I am putting in a formal complaint about your military, because it IS hostile, and is a danger to our national security.

 

[BCLG100]

Good allies you were MIA-glad your loyalty and honour only stretches so far

 

[azzaman333]

MIA had infomation that Nuts were using the embassy to steal technology. The only way to keep our technologies our own, was to declare war. As we have said, we will not act offensively towards the Nuts until the treaty has expired.

 

[Whomp]

How can you foretell that Donut was going to steal techs? I smell a rat.

 

[Nobody]

How can you possibly argue that a declaration of war is not an agressive act, but the establishment of a embassy is?

 

[fe3333au]

Interesting interpretation

While establishing an embassy is not inheritantly a hostile act ... the establishing of one by Nuts most certainly was.

Previous to the Nuts establishing one ... we received a letter indicating that Nuts would not enter into any further trades once the 'treaty' ended ... they also made their intentions clear that MIA is now the target. Therefore added to the fact that they had teamed up with KISS, then the only reason was to steal tech and peak at cities ... anyone who claims another reason is trying to create a smoke screen.

Again, the only way to counter tech stealing and city peaking in this game is to declare war ... if another opion was open then we would have taken that ... hence the letter of explanation being sent.

Perhaps the rules which we are developing for MTDG need to addess this.

Yes we established an embassy on TNT for the only reason to supply defensive information to Nuts (on their request) and yes we received payment for this service ... we never had any agreement with TNT at the time. At the same time, we chose to support TNT with resources to extend their life in the game ... purely to distract and use up the resources of KISS.

Good Game strategy IMO.

When we unexpectedly and sooo rapidly expunged KISS from the our continent, I offered peace to KISS as the Nuts were then the greater threat to MIA winning the game. We were also concerned that a saltpeterless KISS could quite easily be wiped from the game at this stage.

All good strategies for MIA.

We have attempted to keep our word to the letter of any and ALL signed and official documents ... regarding the KISS issue, both teams have had the administrators and moderators agree that due to the loose wording of our agreement, that there was an element of interpretation involved and that both parties' views are valid ... perhaps this has also occured with our treaty with Nuts.

But, we also had it confirmed that technology exchange has occured between KISS and Nuts ... which was the whole crux of us having a Nut/MIA treaty ... if Nuts found a loophole excellent !!! ... therefore this is our reason to declare war when the Nut embassy was established, we had no other choice in a mechanism available to protect our technology lead !!!

When the game ends, everyone will be able to sift through history and you will find that there was no 'unsportsman' or malicious attempt to pervert any official treaty from MIA.

My concern is that a badblood element is developing ... I hope that I am wrong because the object of us all being involved over a year in the game project is to have fun and to explore this game to the very limits adding elements of team dynamics and roleplaying ... at least that is my interpretation.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

MIA had infomation that Nuts were using the embassy to steal technology. The only way to keep our technologies our own, was to declare war. As we have said, we will not act offensively towards the Nuts until the treaty has expired.

Such a statement requires proof. Did you catch them? If not this is pure BS.

 

[fe3333au]

Yes it was BS (of course there was no proof) ... we had no proof ... just the only possible interpretation of the reason behind an embassy being established by a team that had alligned against us ... good move and a strategy that any good player would have taken ... BUT to expect no counter move is ... well ... a strange expectation indeed

What I posted is what has happened and our reasoning and all will be transparent when all the team forums are accessible.

So lets play and have fun

 

[BCLG100]

Previous to the Nuts establishing one ... we received a letter indicating that Nuts would not enter into any further trades once the 'treaty' ended ... they also made their intentions clear that MIA is now the target. Therefore added to the fact that they had teamed up with KISS, then the only reason was to steal tech and peak at cities ... anyone who claims another reason is trying to create a smoke screen.

Surely you could do the same so what are you complaining about?

Yes we established an embassy on TNT for the only reason to supply defensive information to Nuts (on their request) and yes we received payment for this service ... we never had any agreement with TNT at the time. At the same time, we chose to support TNT with resources to extend their life in the game ... purely to distract and use up the resources of KISS.

Well you have me stumped there, i dont seem to be able to access the TNT forum anymore however we from memory we had one agreement and another was being written up though i suppose that doesnt count does it.

Good Game strategy IMO.

When we unexpectedly and sooo rapidly expunged KISS from the our continent, I offered peace to KISS as the Nuts were then the greater threat to MIA winning the game. We were also concerned that a saltpeterless KISS could quite easily be wiped from the game at this stage.

what would you have cared if they'd been wiped out???

All good strategies for MIA.

We have attempted to keep our word to the letter of any and ALL signed and official documents ... regarding the KISS issue, both teams have had the administrators and moderators agree that due to the loose wording of our agreement, that there was an element of interpretation involved and that both parties' views are valid ... perhaps this has also occured with our treaty with Nuts.

Ah these loopholes which you were only too happy to use when they work in your favour however when something doesnt a dozen people get angry PM's about it

But, we also had it confirmed that technology exchange has occured between KISS and Nuts ... which was the whole crux of us having a Nut/MIA treaty ... if Nuts found a loophole excellent !!! ... therefore this is our reason to declare war when the Nut embassy was established, we had no other choice in a mechanism available to protect our technology lead !!!

but thats what you must deal with by having a peace treaty-you declare at the end of it, not halfway through when you *think* something could happen-perhaps they were going to offer a RoP after a rethink in their diplomacy??? unlikely but as much chance as what you were proposing

When the game ends, everyone will be able to sift through history and you will find that there was no 'unsportsman' or malicious attempt to pervert any official treaty from MIA.

you just said previously that you took advantage of any loose wording-to me that seems wrong

My concern is that a badblood element is developing ... I hope that I am wrong because the object of us all being involved over a year in the game project is to have fun and to explore this game to the very limits adding elements of team dynamics and roleplaying ... at least that is my interpretation.

Indeed it is and i dont think anyone will be so petty as to carry this over to other games especially as Aloha (future rules of the universe) have a couple of MIA'ers on our team.

 

[Nobody]

Interesting interpretation

While establishing an embassy is not inheritantly a hostile act ... the establishing of one by Nuts most certainly was.

Previous to the Nuts establishing one ... we received a letter indicating that Nuts would not enter into any further trades once the 'treaty' ended ... they also made their intentions clear that MIA is now the target. Therefore added to the fact that they had teamed up with KISS, then the only reason was to steal tech and peak at cities ... anyone who claims another reason is trying to create a smoke screen.

Again, the only way to counter tech stealing and city peaking in this game is to declare war ... if another opion was open then we would have taken that ... hence the letter of explanation being sent.

Perhaps the rules which we are developing for MTDG need to addess this.

Yes we established an embassy on TNT for the only reason to supply defensive information to Nuts (on their request) and yes we received payment for this service ... we never had any agreement with TNT at the time. At the same time, we chose to support TNT with resources to extend their life in the game ... purely to distract and use up the resources of KISS.

Good Game strategy IMO.

When we unexpectedly and sooo rapidly expunged KISS from the our continent, I offered peace to KISS as the Nuts were then the greater threat to MIA winning the game. We were also concerned that a saltpeterless KISS could quite easily be wiped from the game at this stage.

All good strategies for MIA.

We have attempted to keep our word to the letter of any and ALL signed and official documents ... regarding the KISS issue, both teams have had the administrators and moderators agree that due to the loose wording of our agreement, that there was an element of interpretation involved and that both parties' views are valid ... perhaps this has also occured with our treaty with Nuts.

But, we also had it confirmed that technology exchange has occured between KISS and Nuts ... which was the whole crux of us having a Nut/MIA treaty ... if Nuts found a loophole excellent !!! ... therefore this is our reason to declare war when the Nut embassy was established, we had no other choice in a mechanism available to protect our technology lead !!!

When the game ends, everyone will be able to sift through history and you will find that there was no 'unsportsman' or malicious attempt to pervert any official treaty from MIA.

My concern is that a badblood element is developing ... I hope that I am wrong because the object of us all being involved over a year in the game project is to have fun and to explore this game to the very limits adding elements of team dynamics and roleplaying ... at least that is my interpretation.

Just to explain i am only outraged in game, I dont think your declaration was against the rules. But from the point of view of a doughnut citizen i think it was sneaky and underhanded. Its normaly for people from different countrys to blame the war on each other. From a ingame diplomatic legal point of view (not the game rules) i think that our establishing a treaty was perfectly legal, while your declaration of war broke our treaty. You can say a declaration of war is not a act of war. So forshame you might have just given yourself a diplomatic black mark, we shall think very throughly before we sell your wares to you again.

 

[greekguy]

Well you have me stumped there, i dont seem to be able to access the TNT forum anymore however we from memory we had one agreement and another was being written up though i suppose that doesnt count does it.

when MIA was selling city screenies to D'Nuts we had a peace treaty with them and some tech deals done. we didn't have a treaty which said they couldn't spy on our cities, though we (TNT) assumed that being allies meant not selling out friends for some quick cash.

 

[donsig]

when MIA was selling city screenies to D'Nuts we had a peace treaty with them and some tech deals done. we didn't have a treaty which said they couldn't spy on our cities, though we (TNT) assumed that being allies meant not selling out friends for some quick cash.

The Greeks were selling intel on Ironic cities to the Nutters? Was that when TNT was at war? Before this game is over I'm going to try to come up with a definition of Greek Honor. Well, I can understand why we (MIA) declared war now. Since the Greeks know every trick in the book (since they've used them) they know what to be on the look out for.

 

[BCLG100]

The Greeks were selling intel on Ironic cities to the Nutters? Was that when TNT was at war? Before this game is over I'm going to try to come up with a definition of Greek Honor. Well, I can understand why we (MIA) declared war now. Since the Greeks know every trick in the book (since they've used them) they know what to be on the look out for.

Seems you read about as much of the history of MIA as you did the latter history of TNT, ahwell understandable with your huge efforts into re-establishing TNT.

 

[fe3333au]

Read the game Rules BCLG100 ... There is a difference being official treaty which you sign and send to administartors and chatting

Also as mentioned this game offered an element of roleplay ... so get over it mate ... it's a game !!!!


The object of this thread was NOT to dissect MIA stratergies ... or using this thread as an oppotunity to bash MIA ...

BUT to discuss if everyone who is involved in the game considers that another team establishing an embassy for the pure reason of gaining an upperhand in the game by stealing technology could be considered a hostile act ... and that due to the game mechanisms ... the only option to close an embassy is to declare war.

I'd be more than happy to discuss my point of view regarding how MIA has conducted foreign affairs via AIM or PM ...

If you feel that MIA has broken any rules or have acted unsportsmanlike ... well you have 3 options ... communicate with me, the administrators ... or just continue to play the game.