RB NAP Extension Vote

Should we agree to RB's NAP Extension proposal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 72.7%

  • Total voters
    11
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
2,097
Location
Los Angeles, CA
This vote is to determine whether or not to agree to the following NAP Extension proposal from RB:

NAP Extension Proposal
1) Current Deals
A) All current deals are still in effect until their expiration on T175.
B) These cannot be canceled in any way except for the opt-out clause in Section 2A-C

2) Opt-out Clause
A) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) Realms Beyond declares war on another team, CFC can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with RB if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
B) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) CFC declares war on WPC, Realms Beyond can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with CFC if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
C) The window for this is 3 turns. Example: If RB declares war on a neighbor during T168, CFC has until the end of T171 to notify RB that they would like to opt out of their agreements with RB. After the 3T window is closed, the agreements can no longer be canceled unless an opt-out condition is triggered again.
D) The opt-out does not apply to any other wars not explicitly covered by 2A-B. This means none of the following qualify: on-going wars, wars in which a 3rd party declares on RB, non-WPC wars which CFC initiates, or anything else that does not explicitly follow section 2A-B.
E) This opt-out clause takes effect immediately upon agreement of the deal by both sides.
F) Exception: Team RB has made it clear to our neighbors that if they use spies to revolt our civics or religion, we consider that to be an act of war. If one of our neighbors does that to us, we will consider that to be a declaration of war on us, so we would be free to officially declare war in game and retaliate without opening up the opt-out window. RB does not expect this to happen, because we either have spy agreements or very clear warnings with all of our neighbors.

3) T175-T200 agreement
A) NAP agreement from T175-T200, which goes into effect immediately upon the previous deal expiring.
B) EP agreement to target EPs at other teams as long as both sides are able to view graphs. RB and CFC will not run EP missions against each other.
C) Extension of Open Borders throught he duration of the agreement.
D) No NAP loopholes or exploitation. This includes:
-No gifting (or trading) units, gold, or strategic resources to a nation the other side is at war with. If such deals are in place prior to a war, they must be canceled if a war begins. Example: If RB is trading iron to a neighbor of CFC and a war breaks out between that neighbor and CFC, RB will cancel the trade immediately. Note: Brand new trades must wait 10T to cancel, so if advance warning is provided, it must be followed. If it is not provided, then the deal must be canceled on the earliest possible turn. Health resources and non-strategic luxuries are not covered by this provision and are free to trade.
-No doing damage to land/units/resources that the other has claim to, even if cultural borders allow it (example: pillaging in the BFC of recently captured/razed cities).
-No granting Right of Passage to and/or aiding an army that has the intent of hurting the other party or giving tactical scouting info to the 3rd party.
E) By "Expiring on T200" that means the deal is effective through EOT199. During T200, the deal is no longer in effect.

If you would like to abstain, please simply refrain from voting or post your abstention below. If you disagree with the NAP Extension in it's current form, but would agree to it with alterations, please state your desired changes below. This poll will be open for one week, and votes will be confidential.
 
No. They desperately want to consolidate their German lands, switch over to a builder's economy, and coast to victory- giving them any extra time plays right into their hands. Slowing them while they're still slowable is much better than trying to slow them when they're unstoppable.
 
In my haste to post the poll, I forgot to set the timer to one week. The poll is open indefinitely, but votes will stop counting seven days after the timestamp on the original post.
 
I do not think I know quite enough to make an informed decision. At the moment I'm leaning (quite heavily) on the "No" side, but if possible, I'd like to have at least some of following info before making the official decision:
  1. What is our allies position on this?
    • Is Poly going to turn RB down as well?
    • Has CP received an offer from RB since the last time we spoke?
  2. I'd like to hear from UCiv before jumping into this decision as well.
  3. What is our current strategic standing?
    • Do we have enough power to defend effectively against RB and CivFr at the same time and what is estimated cost if they decide on joint attack on us after all?
    • What do we expect to win from RB in case a war breaks out instead of just a siege?
    • If we were to take this NAP, could we realistically beat CivFr in the timeframe of this NAP?
 
Top Bottom