Talk:Asenian Courier/May-June 08

"Earlier today, King Shady of the Obsidian Islands laid claims against the sultanate for violating the treaty, despite the fact that only a handful of nobles used Kazan as a mode of transport."

I suppose that "only a handful of nobles" makes for "only a handful of treaty violations", then, doesn't it?. The peace treaty signed between the Sultanate and the Obsidian Islands makes no provisions for small numbers of nobles to travel through each other's lands without permission. In fact, it specifically requires permission for the passage of any nobles at all. Please pardon me while I quote one of the terms of the treaty: "* Soldier and army, including infiltrator, need permission to enter the other realm land." Did Duke Aeneas, Sir Randolf, and Sir Alberto gain permission from OI to pass through Kazan, or did they not? Either King Shady is lying and permission was obtained, which should be ridiculously simple for you to prove, or three Sultanate nobles, leading a total of 130 armed soldiers, passed through Kazan without permission and violated the terms of your peace treaty.

You can't have it both ways, folks. Pick one way or the other. The Banker of the Sultanate complained loudly regarding the passage of unarmed OI nobles through Sultanate lands as a serious breach of the peace treaty. Now you are saying that the passage of Sultanate nobles and armed troops, including a unit of 100 infantry, is a non-issue, because it's "only a handful". So which way do you want it? Is your banker a fool for complaining that two OI nobles passed through Sultanate territory? Or was he correct and just in filing his complaint, which makes the unauthorized passage of three Sultanate nobles, including over 100 armed troops, through OI territory a breach of the peace treaty signed by the Sultanate? --Indirik 15:09, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

• After requesting permission, Priests of each realm can travel through each other land as long as they don't preach. Upon preaching, they will get captured and they can no longer travel through the other realm.
• Soldier and army, including infiltrator, need permission to enter the other realm land.

• Sabotage! (8 days, 8 hours ago)

Guards in Juazeiro have arrested Sundus, apparently an infiltrator from Obsidian Islands, while he tried breaking into the tax offices.

• Priest Activity (7 days, 16 hours ago)

You are being informed that Gauihu, a priest of the Awakening, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (7 days, 1 hour ago)

You are being informed that Spero, a priest of Dagdaism, has been seen preaching in Gadlock.

• Priest Activity (6 days, 22 hours ago)

You are being informed that Gauihu, a priest of the Awakening, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (6 days, 2 hours ago)

You are being informed that Spero, a priest of Dagdaism, has been seen preaching in Gadlock.

• Priest Activity (5 days, 21 hours ago)

You are being informed that Gauihu, a priest of the Awakening, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (5 days, 8 hours ago)

You are being informed that Gauihu, a priest of the Awakening, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (5 days, 2 hours ago)

You are being informed that Spero, a priest of Dagdaism, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (4 days, 15 hours ago)

You are being informed that Spero, a priest of Dagdaism, has been seen preaching in Kazakh.

• Priest Activity (3 days, 13 hours ago)

You are being informed that Caitlin, a priest of Dagdaism, has been seen preaching in Juazeiro.

all of those were from before the incident, and I know for a fact that two of those priests were personally asked to leave, and Shady responded to no requests to move them. Also, those are not all of the activity, only that which I had received. Also, Alberto did in fact have permission to pass through Kazan, so we have at least ten OI violations compared to two SoA, which is what the reported issue is concerning. The movement is as a result of a *week* of violations by OI.

The treaty between the Sultanate and the Islands outlines a clear course of action and penalty for the preaching of a religion in the lands of the Sultanate. Did you take the actions authorized by the treaty to take care of the problem yourself? Judging from the reports you provide, it looks as if you did nothing at all to enforce it. In the words of the Obsidian Islands Arch Priest Karlson Solarin: "As far as those pesky priest are concerned, they have been the cause of much internal strife with our own Lords and Nobles due to thier preaching as well! ... They seem to think themselves, as I am often reminded by them of course, "that the laws of God are above and beyond the laws of men" and therefore may come and go as they please of all things! If the priest in question are that much of a concern to you M'lord then slap them in irons and send them packing, good riddence I say!" So, did you arrest them and "send them packing" as Lord Karlson advised? It does not appear that you did.

But none of that excuses the Sultanate's clear violation of the treaty terms. If that one particular noble did obtain permission to travel through Kazan, then there were still two other nobles leading military forces through Kazan without permission, which is expressly forbidden by the treaty. For so long as you consider the treaty a valid diplomatic device, then you must abide by it's terms. Allow me to further quote the terms of the treaty: "* Should there be any breach of the treaty, the offended party will send their complaint directly to both guardians without contact with the other party involved. The guardians will then investigate the claims and decide what punishment, if any, should be imposed upon the offender." You claim that the Islands violated the treaty. Did you contact the "guardians of the treaty"? What was their decision regarding punishment of the offender? Or did you instead break yet another term of the treaty and decide for yourselves that you would just take your own course of action and ignore whatever terms you decided were no longer important, or did not apply to you?

Did either party that signed this treaty ever have any intention of holding to the terms of the treaty? Parchment is expensive. You invested the time and effort to create this treaty, perhaps you should actually try to live by the terms, and not act like a petulant child who points a finger at his sibling and whines "He did it first!" --Indirik 18:08, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

The ability to arrest priests had been removed over a year ago, so we have been unable to arrest them. They are abusing this game mechanic, knowing we are unable to do anything about it. Messages have been sent to all rulers involved and not just the guardians, yet no action had been taken, except for the continued preaching and yet another infiltrator attack. Had the attack occurred been an assualt in OI lands, there would have been no problem, as the noble should not have been there. The two nobles that were there without authorization, however, had done so without authority from the Sultanate council, so have acted indendently of the realm, and have been punished. However, it is quite clear that the Infiltrator hadn't been punished, as he returned.

Also, I expect more maturity than OOC flaming of an IC publication. ENDperorNoPants 01:28, 12 June 2008 (CEST)

(OOC: Actually, I am not writing this as from an OOC perspective. Sorry if I gave you that impression. I should have been more clear. Oh, and, yes, you can arrest priests. You just have to be at war with the realm to which the priest belongs. This is not a case of abusing game mechanics. Either they know more about game mechanics than the person who wrote the treaty, or they don't know they can't be arrested, and instead are taking their chances. But, if you still this is an abuse of the game, then I urge you to contact the Titans ASAP. That is where allegations of cheating and abuse belong, not here.)

You actually wrote into your treaty that you would arrest a priest for preaching in your lands, and then found out that you couldn't arrest them after all? I guess that's a bit embarrassing then, isn't it? As far as reporting the allegations to all rulers, that is itself violation of the treaty terms, is it not? The treaty clearly states that any violation of the treaty terms are to be "...directly to both guardians without contact with the other party involved." How does sending a message to all rulers of the East Island qualify as directly contacting both guardians, and not contacting the other side?

You claim that the two Sultanate nobles who traveled through Kazan were not acting with the authority of the Sultanate, and the were working independently of the Sultanate government. Lord Karlson of the Obsidian Islands has made the same claims regarding the two priests with which you have been having trouble. So let's call that one a wash. They have two priests that have been preaching in your lands, for which there are terms, actions, and punishments clearly defined in your treaty. (Your ability to carry out those actions and punishments in the treaty you wrote and signed are irrelevant. You should have been completely aware of the extent of the actions you could have taken before you signed the treaty. Perhaps you should request a renegotiation of that term with the Obsidian Islands.) You have two nobles, supposedly working independently, traveling where they are not supposed to be, while leading armed troops. You claim to have punished them. That sounds about even. So let's move onto this infiltrator. You captured him before he could do any damage or steal any gold. (So the message you quoted states.) You banished him as a result of his actions. Sounds like a suitable punishment, especially since he managed to do no damage. Now it appears that you have him in your dungeons again. Looks like you get to punish him again for violating the treaty.

So why all the hullabaloo? They supposedly broke the treaty, you supposedly broke the treaty. One of their infiltrators committed a crime, you captured and banned him. He tried it again, you captured him and get to make him pay. Why turn this into some huge, overblown, international incident?

And one final word of advice: When you want to posture and bluster that you hold the moral high ground in a debate, you had best make sure that you actually do hold the high ground, are not tramping through the moral muck yourself. You signed a treaty, live by the terms to which you agreed, regardless of what the other side does. Honor demands no less. --03:56, 12 June 2008 (CEST) Balkeese Indirik