(09-29-2019, 05:39 AM)DSE|-CEO Wrote: It IS in context and in RP.
These Gallia thugs had no intent to do the wink-nudge pay me and it will be OK... and I'm being a loud-mouthed CEO of a Libertarian company having a go at them.
Ah, you see, you may have thought your words were in character, but something you referenced poisoned the well in that regard:
(09-29-2019, 04:16 AM)DSE|-CEO Wrote: 6 hours into the declaration you were outside the base. You had NO intention of not destroying the base and fulfilled your "obligations" to the letter of the law. It didn't matter what discussion was involved... you just did enough to cover your "derriere massive", to justify your actions and as soon as the eight hours rolled over, you did the deed. It was a farcical episode, a vulgar interaction, as pathetic as they come.
It was just lip service and as slobbery as it gets.
OK by the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the game.
The "law" which you are referring to is a server rule, which as you stated, was followed. However, the server rules are not an obligation to the characters we play, but us the players ourselves.
So as players we fulfilled our obligation. But the "spirit of the game"? That is not something that the agents in the fiction we partake in are aware of. The spirit of the game is the drive to roleplay. We roleplayed, you roleplayed. Spirit of the game met. Our characters, and yours, only did as we intended they do. But it is not a universal law of Sirius or Gallia to wait 8 hours to blow up a space station that contravenes the sovereignty (actual or perceived) of a houselike faction.
I'm not here to dunk on you. However, I get the sense that you might have some difficulty delineating what is faction doctrine (in-game laws that apply regionally, depending on the political entities present) and server rules (controls on the framework around the game to inhibit unfair play). Server rules are not arguments that are valid for citation in an in-character communication.
I was not present for the raid, as I had houseguests and was not able to reach the computer until after the fact. Those among MdG/ who were present have informed me that the presence near your base prior to the end of the eight-hour timer was for dealing with an unrelated group of hostiles in the area. Regardless, being near a base on the eve of its siege, is not only not against the rules, it's not a violation of some unspoken code of player conduct, as it makes just as much sense for attackers or defenders to rally their forces near a base on such an occasion.
Furthermore, it's presumptuous at best (and paranoid at worst) to assume we had no interest in throwing our hat in the ring in making a deal with you. Your character, Steve Veltman, acted in such a way that made Maréchal Laroux's mind up very quickly. Had Veltman showed a little more initiative and eagerness to preserve his faction's assets, and thus improvise a mutually beneficial deal (rather than suggest that DSE could possibly be valuable to MdG in the future), the chances of your base's siege could very well have deeply been lessened and perhaps even avoided altogether.
You were done a courtesy by being given the opportunity to negotiate. The rules don't even require that for a level one base.
Even then, such short notice power plays are common on the battlefield of international relations in real life, and all sorts of treaty organizations exist to bend over backwards and quell the sorts of consternation that threaten to cause wars or block trade.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
I think there is clear misunderstanding. My comments in that thread was not being related to the server rules/ This was all inRP. For me the "letter of the law" isn't referring to any DiscoGC rule. It is that those cheating Gallian swine gave me 8 hours to get back to them and they had no intent to dialogue. The fiends. They played me off... cheated me! Told me 8 hours to no doubt attack early. That is not sporting and is highly disrespectful!
As to Marchal Laroux? I had no idea who she was. A con artist? I was the new kid on the block. Anyway my response to her was an opening gambit for ongoing RP dialogue. The only reason she knew about my response is because I got hold of her in-game as she was there, with a navy fleet, outside my base. I don't know if I can accept she was miffed by my response. Perhaps she should have read my inRP responses, and governed her response with a bit more patience.
I know the rules re: not needing to give a reason for a Core1 base but the tone of the attack declaration was to RP a negotiated solution. That didn't happen. Not in the "Spirit of the game" . Think in the context RPing betrayal. And no, in reality I don't believe there was ever going to be a deal. That is the usual practice, a shakedown as it were, but the intent wasn't truly there this time. Not presumptuous but pragmatically derived conclusion TBH. The mind was made up.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. My comments were, in my mind, totally inRP, not related to server rules, but I'll try being a bit more clearer/prudent about the terminology I use next time.