NAP terms offer from PK to TMN and IMO

[Mohammed]

http://s2.piratesglory.com/share.php?id ... 58d03a605a

the attack was before the forum post was even wrote

[Edward_Teach]

the attack was before the forum post was even wrote

Yes but i believe there was an unofficial cease fire, a couple days ago, before this forum post. If I am wrong tell me, but I believe I am correct in my statement.

Sincerely,
Edward Thatch

[Roileon]

If it was unofficial then he should not have been bound by in a term that would need reperation or complete alert. Considering that (contrarily to ur guilds propaganda announcements) TMN proposed a cease-fire in the first place. In the time that this attack happened (i'm assuming) PK was still deciding on whether they would accept or not. By this, Mohammed is not to blame here.

[Captain Blue]

Subject: NAP offer from Pk to TMN/IMO

Pk is willing to form an NAP with TMN and IMO again and end the war officially, therefore insuring that it does not resume. The terms are the following:

1. Neither Pk nor TMN will cast offensive voodoo on the other guild without permission
2. Each member of the guilds will only attack a player 3 times in 12 hours if they are available for attack on the plunder list
3. To compensate for some damages done, Pk will receive 4 Ship of the Lines from TMN/IMO through the use of commandeers. Pk will offer assistance to any IMO members who are active and have not yet recovered from the attack
4. If the NAP is broken, each guild must contact the other side and wait 48 hours to allow the other guild a chance to make reparations
5. If either guild wishes to end the NAP without reason, 4 days must pass after declaring the NAP void before it is officially terminated

All TMN members and Admiral Blackpants must agree to this NAP in this topic for it to be official. The terms may be negotiated, but Pk sees all of the points stated as necessary and will most likely not agree to anything other than minor changes

For 1,4 and 5 i believe we are willing to agree on that however on 2, we may have to do some changes. As this term can cause future conflict and complication for both side therefore i suggest a player can only attack someone from the opposite guild if it was for the mission. the attack must message both his and the other side guild leader and the player he is attacking. He must say the reason for such attack. If no reason is given the player must be punished.

3 No ships will be given to PK for a couple of reasons. First both side suffered and our lost during the war are pretty much evenly. Second because some of your members has continued to attack us including the recent attack and use of multiple Levi on CJW would make this term disproportionate. As for the other recent attacks like Mohammed we are willing to over look that.

[Roileon]

To make up for the leviathans, at the time of the attack, lets just say he was in the Fox homeless shelter at the time. There, that issue is gone. Next. Whatever it takes to get this to work. Not only, what about the attacks on innocent luffy, that deserves reparation.

[Hawk]

Roileon, you do not speak for Pk in this topic, and you are not aware of the details of things that happened between TMN/PK recently

Thanks for trying to help though

[Hawk]

Now, the fact is that Luffy and all of Pk were attacked preemptively because of the actions of a few members. In addition, even though TMN had the upper hand, LARGE amount of leviathans were cast on Pk dealing massive damage to certain members. The losses on both sides of the war are nowhere near equal and unless TMN is willing to account for it's actions there can be no NAP. As for the Unofficial ceasefire, there have been two Pk members who broke it after Admiral Blackpants and I established it. Juicy Lettuce cast a few flood cards on Achillies, and Mohammed attacked Retiro once. Those very minor attacks have been dealt with swiftly in Pk and do not try to use those as an example of Pk not adhering the the agreed ceasefire. Which I will remind you again had very loose terms and was far from concrete like this offer

[sun]

relevant posts,only one deleted which had nothing to do with any attacks or planned attacks.
the original offer it was suggested i make was 5 sols,which was reduced as on second thoughts i agreed it was too severe.
i do not plan on staying peace officer,but for now i will tell you i have never lied to anyone here or as far as i can remember anywhere in the games i have been put in this role (i don't count things like the tax man irl & i don't like lying irl also)
i am assured the attacks took place before i posted the NAP offer and checking the battle reports verify this,unless i have missed something?
a bit of restraint and thought is all i am asking for from both parties.

mohammed 50 Mins 20 Secs ago
okay i well not attack any one anymore

hellSpawnLuffy 01 Hours 07 Mins ago
Havent we all decided? Everyone. Must comply..halt all attacks on tmn..and i mean all!!!

[sun]

Subject: NAP offer from Pk to TMN/IMO

Pk is willing to form an NAP with TMN and IMO again and end the war officially, therefore insuring that it does not resume. The terms are the following:

1. Neither Pk nor TMN will cast offensive voodoo on the other guild without permission
2. Each member of the guilds will only attack a player 3 times in 12 hours if they are available for attack on the plunder list
3. To compensate for some damages done, Pk will receive 4 Ship of the Lines from TMN/IMO through the use of commandeers. Pk will offer assistance to any IMO members who are active and have not yet recovered from the attack
4. If the NAP is broken, each guild must contact the other side and wait 48 hours to allow the other guild a chance to make reparations
5. If either guild wishes to end the NAP without reason, 4 days must pass after declaring the NAP void before it is officially terminated

All TMN members and Admiral Blackpants must agree to this NAP in this topic for it to be official. The terms may be negotiated, but Pk sees all of the points stated as necessary and will most likely not agree to anything other than minor changes

For 1,4 and 5 i believe we are willing to agree on that however on 2, we may have to do some changes. As this term can cause future conflict and complication for both side therefore i suggest a player can only attack someone from the opposite guild if it was for the mission. the attack must message both his and the other side guild leader and the player he is attacking. He must say the reason for such attack. If no reason is given the player must be punished.

3 No ships will be given to PK for a couple of reasons. First both side suffered and our lost during the war are pretty much evenly. Second because some of your members has continued to attack us including the recent attack and use of multiple Levi on CJW would make this term disproportionate. As for the other recent attacks like Mohammed we are willing to over look that.

i didn't expect full agreement and i do like the attacks for missions i have already given my personal permission to a player today,lets keep it sensible though and limit them to a small number in 24 hours,if we are going to NAP we do not want to be causing real damage.

as for 3? well its a sticking point at the moment part of the terms i would have to go back and ask about,we did agree a reduction from 5 to 4,but i accept things have happened when to be honest we had not fully fixed everything at our end,i believe most did as asked,but i know one didn't until the NAP was official,on the other hand zombie reported a curse turned away by his mindbar.this whole proposal came with a very split vote though from its official proposal all have agreed to bide by it,if some reluctantly.i have not spoken to individuals,but this is the truth to the best of my knowledge.

[Edward_Teach]

If it was unofficial then he should not have been bound by in a term that would need reperation or complete alert. Considering that (contrarily to ur guilds propaganda announcements) TMN proposed a cease-fire in the first place. In the time that this attack happened (i'm assuming) PK was still deciding on whether they would accept or not. By this, Mohammed is not to blame here.

I Know This,
But in times of war if there is a cease fire called, it is very rarely turned down. If an unofficial cease fire is proposed, by either side, you should take it as accepted until someone either objects or vehemently disagrees with it.

I want everything besides war, and other contemptible, actions. RoiLeon we have had our disagreements, but surely we can agree that that war is not the path which the people of PK, TMN and IMO, including myself, should take.

Edward Thatch