26-03-2003 08:32									#91
	Got spare money?

re Tech trade, TW and WC for Writing.

I'm fine with it so long as it is binding. Hut results, or no hut results, we get Writing as soon as they complete it.

	26-03-2003 08:58									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 BF: I think it's more like Trip's map here. CFC is probably to the South, that's why anarchy was surprised that we had seen them. BTW, before seeing the brief CFC-GCA meeting Trip posted above I thoiught anarchy was just curious whether CFC might be on this continent and we might have run into them, but now it is clear they have met.

I have to admit his is prettier than mine!

But, I think mine is more accurate. I'm basing that soley on my interpretation of chats with both CDG and GCA. Time will tell though. The only reason I'd come up with any sort of map was to help us plan for contengencies. Niether map should be concretely accepted.

	26-03-2003 09:27									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

After Lucky asked me to join a triple meeting with CDG and GCA (while I told him I couldn't come as MOW, and no one else was around), he told me this:

quote: Lucky: Lucky: where do you want the Poly warrior to go to? Lucky: Kentonio: if you still wont let them past then straight north Lucky: so, both CDG and we only allow your warrior to move back where he came from Lucky: and such a movement would be covered by both our treaties Lucky: that´s what you can relay

	26-03-2003 09:33									#94
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Let them know that we are not bound by agreement with GCA, and will go where and how we please so long as we stay away from their cultural borders.

Let CDG know that we will live up to the agreement, only south of them, and we are heading that way. Privately. We might also let them know that we have reason to believe that there is another contact out there.

That's what I would do.

	26-03-2003 09:49									#95
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Don't forget, our treaty that we signed with CDG requires that BigFree continue to move south. We cannot move back as it would violate the treaty, and we have no intention of breaking our own treaty.

For easy reference, here is the part of the treaty that applies:

quote: 3) The warrior BigFree shall remain in place until turn 23, and at that time he may move south to make contact with the Gamecatcher Alliance. Once this contact is made, he shall not retrace his steps, he may only explore south of the GCA nation. Any attempt by CDG to block the warrior BigFree’s movement will be seen as a hostile act and a violation of the Non-Aggression Pact.

	26-03-2003 09:56									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yes, they buried themselves here by agreeing to the exact terms of the agreement. 'he shall not re-trace his steps' and 'Any attempt by CDG to block the warrior BigFree’s movement will be seen as a hostile act and a violation of the Non-Aggression Pact.'

They have no recourse other than to break the agreement if they don't want us to go South.

	26-03-2003 09:57									#97
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If we get Writing for The Wheel and Warrior Code from GCA, I'll be extremely happy. It evens out the points lost with the CDG Iron Working trade, and covers all the major bases.

Make it so!


Dominae

	26-03-2003 10:05									#98
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Yes, they buried themselves here by agreeing to the exact terms of the agreement. 'he shall not re-trace his steps' and 'Any attempt by CDG to block the warrior BigFree’s movement will be seen as a hostile act and a violation of the Non-Aggression Pact.' They have no recourse other than to break the agreement if they don't want us to go South.

I was thinking about what would GCA's response would be. In theory, if they asked us not to move our warrior south they would be forcing us to break a signed treaty something that we should not allow. GCA must be made to understand this, and we would should urge them to confirm this with CDG so they may realize that such a petition is not permissible.

God bless that CDG pact

	26-03-2003 10:24									#99
	Draft letter (just in case) Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

At the moment I have no intention of sending this, but am just preparing a draft response when GCA (or even CDG perhaps) asks us to remove our warrior north. This letter is assuming that GCA will approve the NAP between our nations. If they don't, then we will have to slightly modify this. Anyways, suggestions and comments on this issue are welcome.

-------------
It has come to our attention through certain channels that you wish our warrior BigFree to turn around and move north. Regretefully, I must inform your nation that Apolyton cannot currently honor this request.

Our treaty with CDG requires that after making contact with your nation, BigFree will continue to scout further south and cannot retrace his footsteps back through CDG territory. We do not intend to violate this treaty.

BigFree is neither a threat nor a nuisance to your civilization. He will not violate your borders and will honor the NAP between us by staying at least one tile away from your borders at all times.

While we typically do not like to divulge any information regarding our treaties, I will make an exception in this case.

Section 3 of our treaty with CDG states that:
"The warrior BigFree shall remain in place until turn 23, and at that time he may move south to make contact with the Gamecatcher Alliance. Once this contact is made, he shall not retrace his steps, he may only explore south of the GCA nation. Any attempt by CDG to block the warrior BigFree’s movement will be seen as a hostile act and a violation of the Non-Aggression Pact."

You may verify this fact with Kentonio at CDG and I am sure he will agree. You may also take this up with Mongoose at 1BC, as this treaty has been verified by him as well.

The United Nations at 1BC does not look favorably on teams who break their treaties and I am sure that such a breach would be far more catastrophic for all nations involved, politically and militarily, than it is worth.

Please direct all communications between your nation and my nation regarding this matter to me.

Respectfully yours,

WhiteBandit
Apolyton Ambassador to GCA

-----

Edit 1: Take out the "suitable compromise" as per Togas' suggestion.

Last edited by WhiteBandit on 26-03-2003 at 11:18

	26-03-2003 10:39									#100
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It's a very clever edge.

From what I've seen from CDG and GCA, basically GCA wants us to go north, and CDG is willing to let GCA tell us that. We may have to talk with CDG first about this before sending this PM to GCA, because GCA is the team that really cares, while CDG is just going along with what GCA wants. Once we have CDG's backing, then we can confront GCA on that issue. However, that would require a PM to CDG ASAP.

Just my suggestion. I'll leave the decision to the FA Ministry.

Phew, that's a ton of acronyms. Don't get confused anyone.

	26-03-2003 10:45									#101
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Actually, my recommendation would be to NOT talk to CDG. We already have a treaty with them. If they want to break it, so be it. Then there isn't much we can do.

By talking to them about this and trying to get their support, we open it up for them to try and weasel their way out of this problem and come up with all sorts of excuses and threats to entice us to turn around.

I figure by totally eliminating the middle man out of all of this, we can kind of turn this against both GCA and CDG and force them to accept. I'm really tired of having our country have to accept the demands of everyone else. *Hopefully* something like this could turn the tables on them.

That's why I included the info about the United Nations in the letter. They don't seem to realize the rammifications of breaking a treaty, hopefully when they realize that there are 5 other nations besides us 3, that the stakes are going to become a lot bigger, and if no one likes you to begin with, then the game is going to be really hard to play

	26-03-2003 10:52									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

But the problem is that GCA will then go to CDG and ask them to nullify that part of the treaty. CDG, trying to avoid friction with GCA will tell them it's okay without having consulted us on this issue (which, in essence, has already happened...), and GCA will tell us that CDG has allowed that part of the treaty to be void for the purpose of us getting home. If CDG doesn't want to respect what is written, then we automatically lose the edge of it being "official," if the other party refuses to acknowledge it. While ranting and raving saying it would break the treaty and it would be horrible is one approach, I don't think it will get anywhere without the legal backing of CDG.

The main problem with all this is that it would be us breaking the treaty, not CDG or GCA. So the argument that it would hurt relations with other teams would only apply to us. What would GCA care about our relations with other teams? They just want our Warrior gone.

I just think we need a firmer stance on this. This may be where our appeasement of CDG can (gasp) benefit us against GCA (the irony).

	26-03-2003 10:55									#103
	Re: Draft letter (just in case) Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Very good letter. I approve.

You just need to take this line out:

quote: Originally posted by WhiteBandit I'm sure we can come up with a suitable compromise that is acceptable to both sides in this issue.

We do not want to leave open the notion that we will compromise or negotiate about our warrior movements. We should merely defend ourself with the treaty and with common sense and leave it be.

Also, we do not need to discuss this matter with CDG unless CDG brings it up to us themselves, and if they do, we can send them virtually the same letter.

--Togas

	26-03-2003 11:01									#104
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Trip But the problem is that GCA will then go to CDG and ask them to nullify that part of the treaty. CDG, trying to avoid friction with GCA will tell them it's okay without having consulted us on this issue (which, in essence, has already happened...), and GCA will tell us that CDG has allowed that part of the treaty to be void for the purpose of us getting home. If CDG doesn't want to respect what is written, then we automatically lose the edge of it being "official," if the other party refuses to acknowledge it. While ranting and raving saying it would break the treaty and it would be horrible is one approach, I don't think it will get anywhere without the legal backing of CDG. The main problem with all this is that it would be us breaking the treaty, not CDG or GCA. So the argument that it would hurt relations with other teams would only apply to us. What would GCA care about our relations with other teams? They just want our Warrior gone. I just think we need a firmer stance on this. This may be where our appeasement of CDG can (gasp) benefit us against GCA (the irony).

How are we breaking any treaty by moving in a southward direction, as was so obviously intended in the treaty with CDG?

WE do not consent to moving north. End of discussion.

	26-03-2003 11:03									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Trip But the problem is that GCA will then go to CDG and ask them to nullify that part of the treaty. CDG, trying to avoid friction with GCA will tell them it's okay without having consulted us on this issue (which, in essence, has already happened

You can't just decide to nullify a part of a treaty! You can't just ask one party to take something out and if they say "OK" then it's gone. What has to happen is that both sides have to agree to edit/renegotiate the treaty. We should never, never do that and in this case we will not. Furthermore, we should state that the treaty is NOT up for renegotiation until 25 turns after it's signed.

--Togas

	26-03-2003 11:16									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither How are we breaking any treaty by moving in a southward direction, as was so obviously intended in the treaty with CDG? WE do not consent to moving north. End of discussion.

I mean by going north, not south, would break the treaty.

	26-03-2003 11:17									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Togas You can't just decide to nullify a part of a treaty! You can't just ask one party to take something out and if they say "OK" then it's gone. What has to happen is that both sides have to agree to edit/renegotiate the treaty. We should never, never do that and in this case we will not. Furthermore, we should state that the treaty is NOT up for renegotiation until 25 turns after it's signed. --Togas

That exactly my point. If we tell CDG this, then they may see the light (ha), and give us the legal and moral backing that we need.

Whether or not it's "allowed," CDG has already given GCA the "okay" to make us go back north, against what our treaty dictates. Which is why I feel we must approach CDG first.

	26-03-2003 18:51									#108
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that CDG is trying to damage our relations with GCA so we won't ally with them against CDG. That cold give another explanation for their 2nd city site. They were probably aware that GCA wouldn't want us moving south when they made the NAP and made us wait two turns so they could build the city and cause this conflict. I think it might be a good idea to mention this possibility to GCA, especially if CDG starts whining.

	28-03-2003 08:05									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

New correspondance posted, these guys are some stubborn thick headed bastards. At least they aren't flat out lying like CDG was (or at least that we know of).

NAP Treaty proposal from GCA:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...586#post1863586

Chat log with Lucky:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...591#post1863591

Talking in the chat with BigFree, MZ, Trip, Togas and quite a few others, we were thinking of perhaps redoing their "ammendment" to reflect that it can be "renegotiated" if *we* are the agressors.

It would probably read something like this:

If war breaks out between Apolyton and a nation friendly to GCA, this NAP may be renegotiated only if Apolyton is the agressor of the said war.

(Of course these guys are kind of simple minded, so it should probably read: If Apolyton goes to steam roll your friend's ass, you should probably suck up to us.)

Last edited by WhiteBandit on 28-03-2003 at 08:11

	28-03-2003 08:25									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

How about this, "If Apolyton declares war on CDG this NAP may be renegotiated upon the agreement of both parties"

or, hell, we could even go as far as to say anything so long as we toss in "upon the agreement of both parties." Bottom line, we'd never agree anyhow unless we wanted those idiots to declare war to give us a Caucus Beli with which to remove them too.

--Togas

	28-03-2003 08:46									#111
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Re: Chat with GCA via ICQ


Here's a revised draft:


Non-Agression Pact between Apolyton and GCA:

In the interest of peace and future cooperation, to ensure our security and friendship, the nations of Apolyton and The Gamecatcher Alliance glady agree to the following:

There shall be no war or conflict between us. Our units shall not attack each other, nor shall they enter or come within 1 tile of the cultural borders of the other party without permission. Nor shall our units interfere with the travel and movement of each other outside of these borders.

This agreement shall last 30 turns after it is ratified by both parties. This agreement shall be open for renegotiation after 25 turns have passed

This agreement shall not be implied in any way to create an alliance between GCA & Apolyton. This agreement is a pledge between both of our nations to keep the peace and to not engage in hostilities of any kind with each other.

In the event that war is declared on or by any nation that Apolyton or GCA is in contact with, this agreement may be re-negotiated upon the agreement of both parties.


--Togas

	28-03-2003 09:04									#112
	Locked and loaded. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Revised proposal shipped off, correspondance thread updated. Let's hope they fall for the sneaky language!

	28-03-2003 09:19									#113
	My Conspiracy Theory Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

GCA is confused in their explanations of the reasons for the amendment. Here they are stating that the want it because it allows them to remain neutral if war should break.

quote: WhiteBandit (04:28 PM) : we're wondering why you attached that clause at the end? it would seem as if that voids the NAP between us if conflict were to some how unfortunately fall upon my nation? Lucky (04:28 PM) : we attached it because we do not want to be drawn into any conflict WhiteBandit (04:29 PM) : Understandable! But with a NAP is meant to prevent conflict between us anyway, is it not? Lucky (04:30 PM) : it is, yes Lucky (04:31 PM) : but our "plan" in case of war between neighbors would be to take a totally neutral stance Lucky (04:34 PM) : so, as a kind of official explanation Lucky (04:34 PM) : you could add that we added it to prevent ANY form of getting drawn into a war

Below, they are saying that they want the amendment so that they can react in a manner in which they see fit; they want to be able to "break" the agreement if it is in their best interest.

quote: Lucky (04:40 PM) : it´s an amendment our people wanted to have Lucky (04:41 PM) : agreed, and we know that Lucky (04:42 PM) : but suppose another nation threatens us to help them, like "either you or them", we would like a way out without breaking a pact Lucky (04:42 PM) : or other scenarios that might happen Lucky (04:43 PM) : we are just trying to plan for all eventualities Lucky (04:44 PM) : I hope you understand that

It is clear to me that GCA is planning the eventuality of War between CDG and Apolyton. By being able to nullify the NAP with us, they will then be able to join forces with CDG against us.

If they are planning this together then CDG must wait for our NAP to end before it attacks, or else their reputation will take a major hit; GCA is free of this and may effectively end our NAP with them on the same turn that CDG may declare war on Apolyton.

It sounds to me like GCA is very nervous about a war right now; they may have an alliance with CDG that requires this amendment to the NAP. If this is so then their Alliance was formed after we agreed to a NAP with CDG because CDG would've surely put in a like clause at the behest of GCA.

Or it could be that GCA is trying to be as opportunistic as possible; leaving all windows open in case of War between CDG and Apolyton. GCA could simply wait a bit and then join on the side that was winning or take out CDG if they are sufficiently weakened.

Conclusion:
I think CDG and GCA are 'sleeping' together. They both realized, quite early, how close they were to each other. They've decided to form a temporary Alliance, one that will help them find more room to expand by conquring other Civ's. I think that the CDG and GCA Alliance is planning to have GCA expand in the direction of CFC and finalizing the takeover of CFC land through the combined efforts of them both. The result is that CDG expands to the area's that were GCA's and GCA moves into CFC's.

	28-03-2003 09:41									#114
	Tired of ads?

I totally agree BigFree. Both of these civilizations pose a huge threat to us. In fact, if you keep reading the log, it appears that CDG shares EVERYTHING with GCA, as they had already known about our tech proposal with CDG!!!

I really do want to try to keep GCA on our good side. But it seems clear to me that they have some type of alliance together. I don't want to straight out confront them, but hopefully our relations can pick up between us and we can show them that we have more to offer than CDG.

We initially analyzed CDG's city placement, thinking it could be a sign of souring relations between them. Not only was it stupid, but the city was probably "strategically placed" to block us!

I really hope relations between us and CFC once we find them are much much better. It might be best to gang up with them against the "little guys"

	28-03-2003 11:11									#115
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the next steps we must take diplomatically wise is to start pulling GCA into our sphere. Make them realize that CDG are the unstable ones around and that they are best off if they start building stronger relations with us.

And if we contact CFC well, things can get even sweeter. CDG's geographical position probably means that if we started a 3-civ war against them, ALL of us would share the spoils.

	28-03-2003 18:03									#116
	Support Apolyton

If they was really interested in remaining "neutral" then that clause would serve no purpose, just having an existing NAP with all sides and honoring it would accomplish that.

quote: In the event that war is declared on or by any nation that Apolyton or GCA is in contact with, this agreement may be re-negotiated upon the agreement of both parties.

The way I'm reading that clause is that "We'll remain neutral until the moment you are attacked, have a nice day."

The only other possible scenario I see them envisioning to require that clause is if they expect us to try to conquer CDG and don't want to be bound against defending them. I agree with those above who said the only way we should allow anything like this clause is if it specifies that the treaty is only voidable if Apolyton is the agressor.

How about this:
In the event that war is declared by either GCA or Apolyton on any nation that Apolyton and GCA have contact with, then the other side has the right to void the agreement. Neither side has the right to void the agreement in the event war is declared on the other party.

	28-03-2003 18:23									#117
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Another possibility:

We could agree to consider our NAP with GCA to apply to any nation which GCA also has a NAP with for the 30 turn duration.

It won't matter to us anyways since we already have a NAP with CDG, and we can renegotiate in 30 turns regardless.

And if they still want a loophole, then they are either a) just looking for a way to get around the NAP when they are ready to attack or b) saying they don't think our agreements are worth the paper they are signed on so to speak. In either case, I'd have to say forget signing a worthless NAP and tell them to come back when they are ready to actually commit to peace.

	28-03-2003 18:32									#118
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The way I'm reading that clause is that "We'll remain neutral until the moment you are attacked, have a nice day." The only other possible scenario I see them envisioning to require that clause is if they expect us to try to conquer CDG and don't want to be bound against defending them. I agree with those above who said the only way we should allow anything like this clause is if it specifies that the treaty is only voidable if Apolyton is the agressor. How about this: In the event that war is declared by either GCA or Apolyton on any nation that Apolyton and GCA have contact with, then the other side has the right to void the agreement. Neither side has the right to void the agreement in the event war is declared on the other party.

I think Togas's proposal was fine. The last clause is essentially meaningless, because I would assume ANY treaty would be renegotiable if BOTH parties wanted to change it.

	28-03-2003 18:32									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

We should ask if GCA have that clause in their NAP with CDG.

	28-03-2003 19:01									#120
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I think Togas's proposal was fine. The last clause is essentially meaningless, because I would assume ANY treaty would be renegotiable if BOTH parties wanted to change it.

I think its fine too But, I also halfway expect GCA to realize that its a meaningless clause written that way and object on that basis. We'll see though :P