Judochop wrote:Semantics as smoosh said... Really this is all about percieved things not specifically stated. Blahh, I thank you for posting, Sva confused me the entire topic, but you made it more concise.
NAP's have certain implied things, while not printed directly, they have aspects which are just taken. Most people would not sell to an allies enemy, I wouldn't based on certain things, which i won't go into.
Trading is almost a 100% wholly protected right players have. Trading is adherently a balancing act, you trade one resource for another, limiting you in one area, and stimulating another. In this situation, they would be weakening themselves in main(one can argue the important server) and getting better ascended accounts. While rebuilding from a lose on main is hard, ascended depending on CER, can only take days. So really are they helping themselves? Or are they making themselves weaker in the server that has the most sway in wars?
How I see it, in wars... ascended is like icing, as main is the cake. Main server really makes or breaks an alliance. Depending on massing skill, you can put players back months. Ascended is just that little part that makes it all better, like remembering a particular sexual encounter after the actual deed, it justs makes you feel all warm inside.
Main determines the victor, ascended determines the amount of posterior that was handed to the loser.
I figured out something, something that changes things for me personally.
NAP = non agression pact = i leave you alone, you leave me alone
FMA = full military assistance = friends
See to me a NAPed alliance is not a friend,,, yes it means there is a potential friendship but it is not set in stone.
As for trading, NAPed alliance do not bear on my trading practices,, But someone warring against an alliance I have a FMA with, will not be traded with until the war has ended.
Thats the difference to me, and thats how I veiw things myself.
