Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Éric

[PvP1] France joins the war against Sweden

Recommended Posts

Obviously Thonar is trying the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" tactic. And he will refute this and call me a liar. All part of his lies.

Well, Roadtown was a port no DN player wanted gone. And certainly not in pirate hands.

Sad that you think so, but still he just repeats the truth and actualy can even prove it.

It seems like you have nothing compared to that - Which just gets us to a point where we can not take you serious.

You think we liked that we had to let you hold Fort Baai?

I do have a screenshot from a Dane player saying in the global chat:

"There goes our Pirate Embassy" btw...

Edit: funny that you directly switched from RDNN to DN :D

Edited by Twig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Thonar is trying the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" tactic. And he will refute this and call me a liar. All part of his lies.

Well, Roadtown was a port no DN player wanted gone. And certainly not in pirate hands.

If the pirates attacked and captured one of your ports why didn´t you declare war on them? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 1 pirate nation to declare on.

 

This, good Sirs, Captains, and wanna be Admirals, is the simple naked truth. Not that hard to understand if you really wish to understand it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simulataneously:

War escalated with the Danes and the French joined 3(!) days later against the Swedish, backstabbing the agreement regarding Saint-George and Basse-Terre, with the point of helping their allies against "aggressive Swedes" (it is the opposite as can be seen above) and because of DRUNK raiding French players (while French rogue-clans could easily take Swedish ports, without a big outcry on Swedish side, with Drunk not raiding the French for weeks before the war, except for a single time that was dealt with).

And Sweden is now the aggressor?

Let's face it:

The French council can't control their clans and players and needed a war due to no enemies close-by to fight. They have chosen the weakest one and are now thinking that Sweden will ever trust them again?

You do not fight us for honorable reasons, you didn't betrayed us for your allies (hell, you even wanted to betray them for two ports and didn't even declare war on us for 3 full fighting days after the wr started), you are only fighting to try to keep your nation together and for some selfish reasons.

Betrayal, treason and lies are something that are not forgotten.

 

I speak in my (french) name.

 

Bro, first of all, calm down, please.

For what i have seen,i t tooks 3 days for the FRE to join the war because of the complexity of our 2 "alliance", SWE and DAN.

What I understand so far is that the ENG population is more than 40% of the NA population, that is to say the dominating force. And DAN were engaged also at war with the ENG, whereas to the eyes of the FRE, SWE was "friendly"  (not hostile at least) to BRIT.

 

The FRE leaders took probably the party of the "weakest" side (not regarding SWEvsDAN but BRITvsDAN) in order to balance the global fight and not to get destroyed one by one by the most powerfull nation, what may happen in the future if the DUTCH and the SWE follow to fight DAN and FR.

 

Also, please consider that the french leaders can't be all the time there to try to calm every single independant frenchy that is trying to prove that he can do some PVP with his new 3rd rate. And it will probably happen also to the SWE one time in the future that not every single national SWE player would stay "under control".

 

The actual situation is clearly in favor of BRIT, they will try to calm the PIR asap in order to fight back in our common water (DUTCH/FRE/SWE/DAN)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask why "noble" nations make alliances with filthy pirates?

 

Because other "noble" nations make alliance with the brits.

 

If you do not take part, you bear the risk to be crushed by the other "big guy".

 

A RvR sanbox will likely ending up in a trench war between two big coalitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Twig, on 19 May 2016 - 3:22 PM, said:

Edit: funny that you directly switched from RDNN to DN  :D

 

Ouch, guess empty platitudes looked more appealing than something truthful ^^

 

There is no 1 pirate nation to declare on.

 

RUBLI then? Let's see how far this rabbit-hole of excuses goes.

 

The problem with using the 'nation-but-no-nation' excuse is when you're found to be contradicting yourselves. Casing point provided below.

 

 

- Sweden declined the French alliance proposal, and decided to fight the pirate coalition, our enemies' enemy.

 

- The CSNF said it wouldn't stay neutral if Sweden would declare war to the pirate coalition. Sweden didn't declare war to the pirate coalition, the CSNF didn't declare war to Sweden. 

 

 

[edit] One paste too many.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, good Sirs, Captains, and wanna be Admirals, is the simple naked truth. Not that hard to understand if you really wish to understand it.

I must be playing a different game then.

In my version of Naval Action there is only one pirate nation which even has a council.

 

Maybe it´s more like, the pirates are too big to declare war on them?

Edited by Bommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I speak in my (french) name.

 

Bro, first of all, calm down, please.

For what i have seen,i t tooks 3 days for the FRE to join the war because of the complexity of our 2 "alliance", SWE and DAN.

What I understand so far is that the ENG population is more than 40% of the NA population, that is to say the dominating force. And DAN were engaged also at war with the ENG, whereas to the eyes of the FRE, SWE was "friendly"  (not hostile at least) to BRIT.

 

The FRE leaders took probably the party of the "weakest" side (not regarding SWEvsDAN but BRITvsDAN) in order to balance the global fight and not to get destroyed one by one by the most powerfull nation, what may happen in the future if the DUTCH and the SWE follow to fight DAN and FR.

 

Also, please consider that the french leaders can't be all the time there to try to calm every single independant frenchy that is trying to prove that he can do some PVP with his new 3rd rate. And it will probably happen also to the SWE one time in the future that not every single national SWE player would stay "under control".

 

The actual situation is clearly in favor of BRIT, they will try to calm the PIR asap in order to fight back in our common water (DUTCH/FRE/SWE/DAN)

 

The Dutch are no nation with the wish to destroy another nation and we are in regular talks with the french to find ways out of that conflict. Right now it seems that the french council would like to continue the war against the swedes and in the confilct with us. At least they can´t make a proposal atm which is acceptable for all sides. Since we got told from the danish diplomats that the danish war goal is to reduce the swedish nation to a one port nation and to force them to change their leadership, we are eager to help the swedes to defend their community. So from our point of view we fight for the server balance, since swedes are in war with danish, french and pirates as it holds for the dutch too.

 

As long this war is a war between danish & swedish, we consider the french-dutch conflict here as no break of the alliance since we are just respecting our treaties and show the server, that we are loyal to our coalition partners. If the french council disagree on that then o.c. this relationship would come to an end and the dutch have to look for a new trustable alliance partner. But I´m not sure if the outcome of that will be in favour for the french then.

 

So it´s a very interesting time with a lot of talks and totally uncertain outcomes. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speak in my (french) name.

 

Bro, first of all, calm down, please.

For what i have seen,i t tooks 3 days for the FRE to join the war because of the complexity of our 2 "alliance", SWE and DAN.

What I understand so far is that the ENG population is more than 40% of the NA population, that is to say the dominating force. And DAN were engaged also at war with the ENG, whereas to the eyes of the FRE, SWE was "friendly"  (not hostile at least) to BRIT.

 

The FRE leaders took probably the party of the "weakest" side (not regarding SWEvsDAN but BRITvsDAN) in order to balance the global fight and not to get destroyed one by one by the most powerfull nation, what may happen in the future if the DUTCH and the SWE follow to fight DAN and FR.

 

Also, please consider that the french leaders can't be all the time there to try to calm every single independant frenchy that is trying to prove that he can do some PVP with his new 3rd rate. And it will probably happen also to the SWE one time in the future that not every single national SWE player would stay "under control".

 

The actual situation is clearly in favor of BRIT, they will try to calm the PIR asap in order to fight back in our common water (DUTCH/FRE/SWE/DAN)

 

1. I am calm, nevertheless I haven't seen a single point being valid by the Danes or French so far regarding the status of aggression.

 

2. The Brits are not the biggest nation ingame, the Pirates are unfortunately, followed by the Brits. When you would say that Sweden (4.) and the US(4.) are the smallest nations and the Dutch(3.), Danes(3.), Spanish (3.) and French(3.) roughly equally big, than you can easily make a ranking count:

Sweden (4.) + US (4) + Brits (2.) + Dutch (3) = 13

Pirates (1.) + Danes (3.) + Spanish (3.) + French (3.) = 10

Than you can guess that you didn't joined the weaker side.

 

And even dispite this being quite a naive fallacy, you could even make it more clear:

Pirates = 2x Brits

Brits = Danes + Dutch + French + Spain + Sweden

Than you would get:

British Side Strength: Danes + 2x Dutch + French + Spain + 2x Sweden

vs

Danish Side Strength: 3x Danes + 2x Dutch + 3x French + 3x Spain + 2xSweden

 

That the first nation is twice as big as the 2nd nation while the 2nd nation is roughly equally big to all remaining nations is a statement from an admin made towards a streamer.

The Brits are not a bigger nation than the pirates are, they are just more organized, thus the counting above should be roughly correct.

 

2. "Rogue Players": Wrong, Sweden already had this situation and was always able to find a diplomatic solution, you French are not able to do so as it seems.

Edited by Thonar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be playing a different game then.

In my version of Naval Action there is only one pirate nation which even has a council.

 

Maybe it´s more like, the pirates are too big to declare war on them?

 

A Council is not a Nation, especially on the pirate side.

 

Also we don't need to bath regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: funny that you directly switched from RDNN to DN :D

 

No, it was another word. My autocorrect is set to dutch and screws over english words from time to time. 

Otherwise you could never understand the words I write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Council is not a Nation, especially on the pirate side.

 

Also we don't need to bath regularly.

I have a lot of respect for all the posts I read from you on the forums, but this is ridiculous. 

You are trying to convince me that other nations (the danes in this case) can not declare war on pirate nation because it is not a nation in your point of view?

Based on what fact? The fact that pirate nation consists of different Clans, which is also true for every other nation in this game?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply agreed with Klooth up there. Have no idea if and why someone would want to attack a hippie community and bring starvation to the children in Mortimer again.

 

My guess is, and let's put the TP to Capital aside finally, each clan might have its own area of interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hetwill is being technical here.

You can only declare "war on piracy" as you would for example declare "war on terror".

As there is no pirate nation a "council" from the pirates would just be "organized crime".

An Apples, oranges, fruit - discussion to many of us, for sure.

Edited by Lytse Pier
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hetwill is being technical here.

You can only declare "war on piracy" as you would for example declare "war on terror".

As there is no pirate nation a "council" from the pirates would just be "organized crime".

An Apples, oranges, fruit - discussion to many of us, for sure.

 

What a nice way to put it. Let's say we are simply like Google. A bunch of freelancers that might do great things together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no intention to engage in this thread as I view it as pointless. Apart from the OP which is a repost of a statement from before NN was reopened, there is nothing but rumours and assumptions here. But please do not lie to me about what I myself have said or written.

 

Thonar, on 19 May 2016 - 2:52 PM, said:
​Let me answer this pretty straight forward: 2. Wrong. This is the official note: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/a7ff84eb-09f8-4295-bc85-99a3f1bee0a5/2f618b98b5b12c36 The diplomat who handed us this note over also set up a kind of ultimatum on the 4th of may: Either Sweden exchanges Les Cayes against Marigot (which was not possible as Les Cayes, as communicated with the Dutch, belonged to the Verenigde Province), or Sweden joins the war against the British and might(!) get Fort Baai and Marigot back or Denmark will take Les Cayes by force without being able to assure us that the war might not swap over into our homewaters. Which is an obvious threat.

 

Please... I was the diplomat who handed that note to a Swedish diplomat, and I was the one who wrote that note. There was another diplomat of ours who led the talks, but I was part of them. You can see from the note that it has not been edited since May 3rd, but if you're going to twist and misrepresent the words that I myself wrote, I am going to edit that note to say just "fuck no". The note was made to be handed to both Dutch and Swedes. It was at those talks we were informed that Les Cayes was considered by both Dutch and Swedes as a dutch port even though Swedes held it. I guess this was some sort of smokescreen to confuse the French. So it was pointless for us talking to the Swedes, because they claim no independence of their own, just following their puppeteers be they Dutch or British. But as a sidenote: How were we supposed assume that a port held by Sweden was not to be considered Swedish, yet you keep telling us at every turn that if a nation holds a port it is to be considered their ports.

 

Please answer me this: Why, if Road Town is "borrowed" by Pirates without permission, is it suddenly and instantly a pirate port to be claimed by Swedish, or if the British are helped to take southern Ile-a-Vache area from Denmark-Norway, and then abandon it to pirates, these are pirate ports with Danish claim relinquished. But if Sweden holds Les Cayes, Les Cayes is still a Dutch port. And if Denmark-Norway holds Marigot and Fort Baai, these ports are still Swedish, not Danish? 

 

It is impossible to deal diplomatically with nations that hold other nations to different standards from what they hold themselves.

 

 
Back to the diplomatic note. It speaks for itself. I advise people in doubt to follow the link and read it. We explain there in a reasonable tone why we need the ports in question back, and referencing earlier discussions why we consider it ungentlemanly of our presumed friends to hold these ports unnecessarily and blocking all of our Danish players from having their PVP and Port Battle fun. We know that the Dutch and the Swedes like to talk for a long time, so we insist on the urgency, because we cannot ask our players to stop playing the game for a week or two just for us to talk about this fairly obvious thing. The last part of the note expresses that Denmark-Norway in no way wished to blockade the Swedish or the Dutch, our friends, from having their PVP and Port Battle fun. We are not ungentlemanly like that. We wanted to let the note stand for itself and considered it pretty self-explanatory, but both the Swedes and mostly the Dutch wanted to talk to us for hours and hours about it. We obliged. It was explained repeatedly and explicitly in the talks - you could not fail to grasp this - that any action, reaction or decision regarding these three ports would not in Denmark-Norway's view affect our overall relationship or extend to the home waters of any nation. If an agreement could not be made about these ports quickly, our conflict over these ports would not extend to Swedish or Dutch home waters, or even to the ports on the north side of Haiti. We would reclaim possession of the three ports, and defend them from any attackers, but not attack Swedish or Dutch home waters.

 

 
There was no talk of ports that "might" change hands if the Swedish joined our coalition. There were concrete promises of ports in that case. We would give Marigot and Fort Baai. The latter as quickly as we could evacuate it. And we would find further ports to offer the Swedes in our home waters because of their isolation in the east, and Sweden would of course be allowed to keep ports in Cuba and Haiti for further conquest. Later, as we realised Sweden were uninterested in the offer of alliance, and even that the Dutch and Swedes seemed eager for an excuse to attack Denmark-Norway because the pirates were not fighting back and not giving them enough fun, we initiated talks to offer Marigot and Fort Baai to Sweden even if they stayed neutral and kept fighting the pirates, because we wanted to better our relationship with Sweden and by extension their apparent masters the Dutch.

 

Thonar, on 19 May 2016 - 2:52 PM, said:

1. Everyone who is able to read the link above should see that it is obvious that the Danes and Pirates cooperate with eachother, thus every statement that Road-Town was attacked and not given by the Danes towards the pirates is unbelievable.

As a matter of fact: As we Swedes attacked Road-Town and intercepted the Flag-Carrier of the Danish, this flag-carrier joined just a day later the RUS-Clan who we see as responsible for the giving of the Port towards the Pirates. Of course, some explanation for this clan-change of that certain player were already given, but these statements are unbelievable when the Swedish screening-fleet reported to us that the Flag-Carrier could have easily deployed the flag on Road-Town before their arrival and even after he escaped the screening fleet once. That's why the story of "Road Town was not given to the pirates" is unbelievable and only two options actually remain: A) Road-Town was given to the Pirates, and you guys are simply lieing to defend your proxy war or B ) The strongest clan, who for most of the time controlled the Danish diplomacy, is suddenly a rogue clan with the other clans not being able to compete with them. This would mean nothing less than Denmark being a failed state that caused attacks on Swedish Homewaters and everything you guys are further telling here has no meaning as even if your words can be trusted you do not have the power to assure anything of what you say, which renders you words meaningless.

I don't know which option is actually more scarry.

 

 

 
Danes and the Pirate Coalition cooperate about attacking Britain. They are our mutual enemies. We have no cooperation on anything beyond what helps toward that goal. In any case you cannot give away ports with the current system in this game. You gave the Pirates strong motivation to attack your home waters, so it is only natural that they should seize the opportunity. In the end the pirates failed to do anything significant out of Road Town in the time they kept the port. They did however take the opportunity to capture a lot of Danish-Norwegian traders. So just why would we "invite" Pirates to settle on our trade routes?
 
You are blaming RUS for somehow "giving" Road Town to the Pirates, yet you have no proof, only vague assertions. The flag carrier have been sailing with RDNN and RUS for weeks. Look at the videos and screenshots from our Port Battles. That he would join RUS or RDNN at some point is not a shock. He came to our TeamSpeak earlier in the day to rally people to join the assault on Road Town, and a big fleet of Danes did gather. After the incident Swedish officials bragged on their own forums about intercepting the flag in the last minute as it was being planted.
The words of Swedish captains themselves prove that the flag was not fake.
Furthermore, Swedish diplomats are familiar with the flag carrier, as he was invited to be present in our discussion about the Ile-a-Vache area, with the stated reason he wanted to monitor the discussion to be assured that they would not lead to war with Sweden.
 
Thonar, on 19 May 2016 - 2:52 PM, said:

3. Wrong. The idea of Fort Baai and Marigot belonging to Denmark only came up rather recently in the last two weeks as a kind of rumour. Fact is: Fort Baai and Marigot were kept as Bargain while all(!) other Swedish Homewater(!) ports were given back to Sweden for the truce. Fort Baai and Marigot were kept first to assure the Swedish will not enter the war against the Danes again (due to a good position of these ports against Sweden) and later as a safety zone because of some rogue clans. All understandable reasons. After both reasons fell away and Fort Baai and Marigot became instead ports that threatened the newer Swedish players and from which constant treaty breakings by the Danes against the Swedish were commited, talks were initiated to give back the Ports that belonged rightfully to Sweden but were under Danish control for safety reasons. Nevertheless they always belonged to Sweden in the understanding of every meeting between Swedish and Danish representatives when these ports were a matter of discussions. That's why reasons for Denmark to keep these ports were always given like: Rogue clans threatening Denmark, Ressources (a lie actually) or to assure the safety of the truce (at first)... it was never said "they belong rightfully to Denmark" as it was never the case and never argued by Denmark. Thus the Danish diplomats themselves agreed silently that these ports doesn't belong to Denmark but Denmark having a reason for controlling these ports, reasons that were not given anymore since DRUNK joined the Swedish council.

Otherwise Road-Town would have been a Swedish port by the same reasons and the Danes would have started the aggression first by attacking this port.

The reasoning for taking Fort Baai are the same as the reasoning of taking Road-Town, thus the attack on Fort-Baai by the Danes would have been the first aggression of the war.

No matter how you turn it, the result stays the same.

 

 

 
See above. You cannot apply one standard to how port ownership is asserted in the case of one nation, and another standard for yourself.
And regarding first aggressions. Intercepting a Danish flag to retake a port is definitely the first aggression. We were however prepared to overlook this, until Sweden started attacking the Danish ports Marigot and Fort Baai without preamble or warning. If you really believed that the flag was fake, despite being told in advance that it was real, you would have let it be planted, which would - in case you were right - have proven your assertions and been proof that Denmark-Norway was wielding a proxy. It would have been a lot more logical than all these baseless accusations to justify your attacks.
Edited by Anolytic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer you tomorrow more deeply, but I do not use double standards:

A ) If the controller of a port is also its owner, the attack on Road-Town by Sweden was legal and the Danish attack wasn't.

B ) If controlling a port doesn't cause ownership the attack of Sweden against Road-Town remains legal (for defensive matters), as is the retaking of Road-Town. Is the retaking of Road-Town legal, the retaking of Fort Baai and Marigot by Sweden is so too. Thus the Danish attacks on Fort Baai afterwards are the first illegal acts in this war.

Extra) Attacking a flag carrier outside of a Port remains Open-World PvP as is our understanding for the sole reason: Would it be illegal than Open world PvP would be illegal as a whole too as it is theoretically possible to stop a port attack by intercepting every player who wants to participate in it, except for the flag carrier and every intercepted player could argue he was stop in terms of the port attack despite being engaged in Open World (which would lead to misusing the point up to a moment where Open World PvP is not more allowed at all).

Because of this possibiliy, that port attacking players can't be differentiated from not attacking players, the logic demands that the Flag carrier is in no way to be considered different from any other player of a nation that tries to enter a PB and thus can be attacked too as long as he is in Open World because an interference with PBs can also happen without attacking the FlagCarrier itself.

Or in short: There is no assurance that the Flag Carrier will actually plant the flag and thus he is open for attacks even when he would have the intent to plant it due to the fact that no differentition is possible.

Edited by Thonar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read wall of english and sorry for that. Or i don't want, sorry for that too.

French are alwais ready to speak with thei old swedish friend to try to find a solution to end this stupid conflict. It's not a surrendering ask or demand, neither an ultimatum. It's just a proposal to speakrqul to equl to see what lead us into this situation and how we could try to make it better for both party to disengage and allow new players to joining back our nations wihtout the risk to be gank or attack in our own waters.

The frnech would love to be safe again somewhere and the swedish would probably love to see thie rnew players beeing safe around gustavia.

One more time, we propose you a discussion about the war, not to end it now, just to speak and build back reltaion wich may allow us to consider again and looking on the same direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read wall of english and sorry for that. Or i don't want, sorry for that too.

French are alwais ready to speak with thei old swedish friend to try to find a solution to end this stupid conflict. It's not a surrendering ask or demand, neither an ultimatum. It's just a proposal to speakrqul to equl to see what lead us into this situation and how we could try to make it better for both party to disengage and allow new players to joining back our nations wihtout the risk to be gank or attack in our own waters.

The frnech would love to be safe again somewhere and the swedish would probably love to see thie rnew players beeing safe around gustavia.

One more time, we propose you a discussion about the war, not to end it now, just to speak and build back reltaion wich may allow us to consider again and looking on the same direction

That is actually one kind of problems that we already got with you. Diplomates have to read this stuff to know what actually is going on.

Talking with you brings us nowhere if you are not informed properly.

Edited by Twig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is actually one kind of problems that we already got with you. Diplomats have to read this stuff to know what actually is going on.

Talking with you brings us nowhere if you are not informed properly.

In my experience with internet communities if you want to reach some kind of conclusion or compromise you should TALK not WRITE & READ.

Written text is easly misunderstood and most times if there is not "friendly" but "neutral" or "hostile" vibe going around it will be misinterpreted.

Basically what diplomats should do is to meet on TS, talk to each other and then when they reach conclusions they should write down TOGETHER some kind of ending statement and terms, that they reached during the meeting.

I thonk most of the conflicts in Naval Action are the result of people not talking "face to face" (or mic to mic ;))

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Basically what diplomats should do is to meet on TS, talk to each other and then when they reach conclusions they should write down TOGETHER some kind of ending statement and terms, that they reached during the meeting.

I thonk most of the conflicts in Naval Action are the result of people not talking "face to face" (or mic to mic ;))

 

Having concise written statements even about smaller agreements would've been pretty neat.

For example, from what I remember I was told that any Swede in a non-trader near Basse-Terre/St George would be kill-on-sight, whereas on here it sounds more as though any OW PvP there was outright forbidden. Could've been a good distinction to make.

 

Really hope they implement a more extensive chat/channel system, it's not all that easy to keep people informed in its current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreements shouldn't be complex too. Too much complexity will give problems in interpretation and explanation.

 

"Wanne be friends? Yes, let's  hug", can be enough sometimes.  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience with internet communities if you want to reach some kind of conclusion or compromise you should TALK not WRITE & READ.

Written text is easly misunderstood and most times if there is not "friendly" but "neutral" or "hostile" vibe going around it will be misinterpreted.

Basically what diplomats should do is to meet on TS, talk to each other and then when they reach conclusions they should write down TOGETHER some kind of ending statement and terms, that they reached during the meeting.

I thonk most of the conflicts in Naval Action are the result of people not talking "face to face" (or mic to mic ;))

Well, basically you are right, but in this specalised case you are wrong. First, he posted a statement in which was obvious that he did not read the original "official" statements.

Secondly, we answered him on that directly. Now to say: "I can not read such a wall of text or I don't want to read it" seems pretty insane.

How is it possible to talk to someone, who says: "We want to talk with you" but on the other hand declines to read the direct written answere just because he dont want to?

Also not every so called "diplomate" understands english good enough.

I can give you an example:

2 Weeks earlier, a DN "diplomate" came to our server. He just read out a statement of DN. We asked him a few things regarding that. He just read out the whole statement again. Actualy he repeated that 3 times and didn't even gave us the slightest answere to our questions.

Those are diplomates you are not able to talk about, it might be easier for them to just read the other statement or question.

Edited by Twig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...