Game 156: 2014 Championships

[Ry Vor]

At the end of Turn 3, no ally or enemy declarations have been made.

These regions just became controlled:

Amberland by the Warlock forces of Head Honcho
The Eastern Steppes by the Dark Elves of Canticar
The Southern Sands by the Black Dragons led by DuPont.

[Brogan]

Well I am sorry to say the the first back-stabbing has occurred in the game. After telling the trusting Gnomes 7 days ago that the Red Dragon has no desire to "Hunt Gnomes", the Red has showed up at my capital with an army and the city with another force to block my relocation efforts. Good to know who I can believe from now on and who is on the enemy list.

- Gnome 156

[Cloud]

I'm not hunting you. You are simply occupying areas I desire.

I've executed several blind-sides but I've never backstabbed anyone. You and I have no agreement. I was very explicit about that.

Cloud
RD - 156

[Brogan]

Your email from last week:

I'm not hunting Gnomes. If you don't cross my path, I won't trouble you.

Call it what you like, but I call it being dishonest.

[Cloud]

(RD) I feel bad, because you are making a fool of yourself. What is the meaning of the idiom 'to cross someone's path' in your mind? Cause it means to meet or encounter. Are you perhaps thinking of what it means to 'cross someone' which is to thwart them or provoke their ire?

I'm certainly happy to adjudicate this in open forum if you insist, because you are being silly and I am so clearly correct. I'd recommend against it, though.

[kevindusi]

(RD) I feel bad, because you are making a fool of yourself. What is the meaning of the idiom 'to cross someone's path' in your mind? Cause it means to meet or encounter. Are you perhaps thinking of what it means to 'cross someone' which is to thwart them or provoke their ire?

I'm certainly happy to adjudicate this in open forum if you insist, because you are being silly and I am so clearly correct. I'd recommend against it, though.

I would have interpreted that statement the same way as Brogan did, actually. Could be just me, though.

To each their own!

[Cloud]

(RD) I'm definitely interested on everyone's take on this if they want to give it, but the meaning of the phrase is not really a 'to each his own' kind of thing. There's really no controversy there.

cross one's path to encounter or meet unexpectedly:
Tragedy crossed our path again.

cross somebody's path
to meet someone, especially by accident : If he ever crosses my path again, I'll kill him.

The only definition that I found in my brief search that mentions any implication of ill will was this one:

cross someone's path
Encounter or meet someone, especially unexpectedly. For example, John didn't know her name, so he was hoping she would cross his path again soon, or She swore she would scream if a snake crossed her path. This phrase originally implied that such an encounter meant obstructing or thwarting a person, but in current usage this is not necessarily true. [Early 1600s ]

So, unless the English vernacular you use is the same one Shakespeare used, there's no room for debate on the meaning of the phrase.

Cloud

[Daredevil]

Here is my two cents:

He did not cross your path; you went to his population centers and sought him out. Since he did not cross your path, you should not have troubled him. You can argue your literal words, but your meaning was pretty clear that you would not be attacking unless he conflicted with you in some way or you happened to run into each other in some manner.

Having said all that, it is challenging to answer someone who asks your intentions when you are getting ready to attack them. Not fair to have to give away your plans, so you try to say something vague like you did. Misleading, perhaps, but probably not breaking one's word or backstabbing. We have seen much clearer examples of bad conduct. And then it flares up and someone gets mad and someone quits, then someone gets shot. Let's hope this does not escalate to all of that.

[Cloud]

As long as were are interpreting my words, let's take them all in, then I'll get out of the way and folks can discuss it if they find it interesting.

Actually, I'd arranged for my resource needs after the turn 0's were sent out but before your first email. As it is, I think I'm all full up on peace at this point and am not making new arrangements. That said, I'm not hunting Gnomes. If you don't cross my path, I won't trouble you. But I don't think we need to strike any deals at this time, certainly not for peace and/or winter food.

This is the complete record of my comments. Nothing has been clipped or left out. He wrote back and asked if I would promise not to expand in Runnimede. I did not reply. We were not at peace. I said so. Twice. All full up. True to my word, I did not seek him out, but found his capitol in my explorations and attacked it.

So interpret away. Is this a backstab? If you had this exchange with another player would you think you had a peace arrangement? I'll bow out and let anyone discuss who cares to do so.

Cloud

[kevindusi]

(RD) I'm definitely interested on everyone's take on this if they want to give it, but the meaning of the phrase is not really a 'to each his own' kind of thing. There's really no controversy there.

According to a quick internet search:
Controversy
noun, plural controversies.
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.

It seems, by virtue of this now being a public dispute, debate, or contention, that it is a controversy by definition... unless you're using a different vernacular, of course. I love that word, by the way.

I don't think there's really much defense to saying "I'm not hunting you" and then showing up at someone's capital. Shakespeare would agree, as would just about anyone that happened to be on the receiving end of such a literal interpretation.

Your first definition was "to encounter or meet unexpectedly". Was this a chance landing at his capital?

In the end, it's a war game... there's going to be some strife. I guess the lesson here is to be cautious when dealing with players that seem to take a more legal interpretation to thing.

Best of luck to both the GN and RD in what appears to be the first real conflict of game 156!