"COMPLETE CEASE FIRE. NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER FOR THREE ROUNDS."
How would you interpret this statement. I took it to mean exactly that. A COMPLETE cease fire. No attacks whatsoever.
Backstory:
Yellow Player is attempting to hold all of Asia, except Middle East which we are contesting. I'm attempting to hold all of Africa. Yellow has his hands full with Purple who is in Europe and playing rather erratically. I want to focus on fewer borders, and when Yellow fortifies almost all of his men to guard against Purple (Europe), I notice that all of Yellows bonuses are unprotected against me. I can take them all with just a few men, but as a gesture of good will, I did not attack and let him earn the bonuses. I offered a truce instead:
MONKEYDANCER: Yellow, Are you up for a temporary truce? None of your bonuses are protected (I suspect because of purples erratic play), but I have no interest in Asia at the moment. It looks like I'll be forced to take out purple to prevent retaliation.
MONKEYDANCER: I'll leave the Mideast (you can have it uncontested), and you can collect the full Asia bonuses.
The next round Yellow broke through the Middle East into Africa and prevented all my bonuses. Which is fine. Then he wrote:
YELLOWPLAYER: sorry didnt read before going...but i would have turned it down and broken the bonuses. now that thats done though, i will withdraw from mahgreb for a cessation in return for peace in the mideast...two turn notice at egypt and somalia
He offered a truce at the Egypt/Somalia border with two turn notice to end. Pretty standard. But as he was now trying to hold the horn of Africa too, I didn't take him up on it. Cut to several rounds later. Very similiar set up. I've got all of Africa fairly well defended. Yellow is still trying to hold Asia (except Middle East which we still contest). But I've prevented ALL of his bonuses for 3 rounds in a row. His few men each turn are used to retake the same ground, and is on his last leg. But its using up men I could use to protect against Red who is rapidly gaining strength holding both Americas and even mangaged to once prevent my Africa bonuses. Two front battle. Then Yellow, who has run out of reserves to reinforce offers this:
YELLOWPLAYER: grey...we're both bleeding badly...3 turn cease fire before someone else kills us?
MONKEYDANCER: Agreed. A complete cease fire. No attacks on each other for 3 rounds. Next round is 28. So is round 31 "game on"?
Now I was very clear to clarify how I read his offer. He didn't offer a "truce" or ask for "peace" at a specific border as he did the last time. He said "cease fire", so I clarified how I interpreted that by restating "A COMPLETE CEASE FIRE. NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER FOR 3 ROUNDS." And then I let him earn all of his Asia bonuses instead of taking them as I had done each of the previous 3 rounds.
On the very next round, Yellow does not dispute or redefine the ceasefire terms. He just earns his bonuses and attacks three countries that I currently occupied in the long contested middle east. I was the only person he attacked.
I responded:
MONKEYDANCER: Yellow, Last turn you asked me for a CEASE FIRE. For three turns. And I agreed. And in your VERY NEXT TURN you attack me (and only me) three times. The only reason I let you earn your bonuses (instead of taking them as I did the 3 previous rounds) was because of your cease fire request. Immediately breaking a truce that YOU requested, just to earn bonuses for one round is disingenuous and dishonorable. Is this how you earned your impressive win rate?
And because the "COMPLETE CEASE FIRE" I agreed to obviously wasn't in effect, I had no qualms about taking his bonuses a fourth time. And oddly, on his next turn he is OUTRAGED that I would attack him back.
YELLOW: wtf? took back my territory, not yours
YELLOW: nice play monkeydancer....wow...apparently you believe a cease fire means i should leave my bonuses broken?
YELLOW: what a scumbag...
Now to be clear we had both been contesting the Middle East for 20 rounds (I actually started two round earlier than he). He managed to clear me out once for a single round. The territory wasn't "his", but that's irrelevant. I agreed to a complete cease fire. If that's not what he meant to offer, fine. He could have said so. And even though he didn't say so, I made it clear that's what I would agree to. If we weren't in agreement as to the terms, then there was no agreement. He was free to attack (as he did), and I was free to attack back (as I did). But the hostility and name calling continued.
monkeydancer: Scum bag? You asked for a CEASE FIRE. Not a truce with specific borders. If you had asked for that, I would have done what you did when I asked for a truce with specific borders several turns ago... If you wanted territory back before a "cease fire", you should have stated so. "Apparently" I take a CEASE FIRE to mean exactly what it says. If you read your offer and my agreement, it CLEARLY indicates NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER. I don't appreciate the verbal attack. You are the one who reneged on your offer when I took you at your word.
YELLOWPLAYER: non-core territories are never part of a truce or cease fire which makes you a scumbag...no problem...thats the way a lot of scumbags play...so enjoy the gmae
monkeydancer: Actually truces are generally clearly defined. When one party wants to maintain (or in your case regain) certain territory before ceasing attacks they usually set specific borders and term limits. A CEASE FIRE, without stipulations means exactly that. In virtually EVERY game I've played one player has asked another for a truce at specific borders or with specific stipulations. You've played THOUSANDS of games and can't claim ignorance. I don't even have to look at your other games: In round 18 of THIS GAME, you asked for a two turn truce at the Egypt and Somalia borders. You show that you are well familiar with defining terms of "truces".
monkeydancer: Last round however, you did not ask for a truce at specific borders. You didn't even own the territory in question when you requested the truce. You hadn't had it for 4 rounds and had only held it for one round. You asked for a CEASE FIRE with no stipulations, and the game chat clearly shows that the cease fire agreement meant NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER FOR THREE ROUNDS.
YELLOWPLAYER: whatever...dude, that you think i'd have to explain non-core territories or define that i'm not leaving broken bonuses...if you had had a question you would have posed it...instead you chose to broke truce thru unprotected borders...
and even now, you dont apologize and offer reparations, you argue like a scumbag trying to defend an improper act...so enjoy it...just a game after all. and you can decide for yourself if you are a scumbag or not. i already have sufficient evidence to make my determination...
monkeydancer: YOU BROKE THE TRUCE. Quote:2011-09-29 05:14:48 - YELLOWPLAYER: grey...we're both bleeding badly...3 turn cease fire before someone else kills us? 2011-09-30 14:21:08 - monkeydancer: Agreed. A complete cease fire. No attacks on each other for 3 rounds.
monkeydancer: I'm not defending anything. I don't need to. You are pointedly ignoring the fact that AS THE LOG SHOWS, I agreed to a "complete cease fire. No attacks on the other for three rounds". You break you're own truce and accuse ME of being the scumbag. I would invite anyone else to interpret the quote: "Agreed. A complete cease fire. No attacks on the other for three rounds."
monkeydancer: What does the word "complete" denote to you?
Then he continues to call me a cheat, a scumbag, and various other derogatory remarks as well as promising vindictive feedback. And also continued to deny that even if we agreed to "A COMPLETE CEASE FIRE, WITH NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER FOR 3 ROUNDS", that his attacking the Middle East was ok, because it wasn't one of my "core territories" as he perceived them.
Yes, yes... Foe him and move on. But am I wrong in thinking that the phrase "COMPLETE CEASE FIRE, WITH NO ATTACKS ON THE OTHER FOR 3 ROUNDS" means that neither one of us could attack a single country the other currently occupied? By continuing to insist that I was the one that broke the truce, he is claiming that there was a valid truce in effect. Meaning that when I clarified how I read his offer, he agreed. (Because if he didn't agree than there was no truce to be broken). So if the truce was valid and both parties agreed, then HE WAS THE ONE THAT BROKE THE TRUCE when he attacked me. Either way it is impossible that I broke a truce. Because if there was a valid truce in effect, he attacked first and broke it. If there was no valid truce, then there was nothing for me to break. Is the logic of this not apparent to someone who has played THOUSANDS of games?
