here's the PNAP signed, from the mouth of one of their own players:

[22:55:17] <&Metrex> Week 42, 5
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> Perm nap between 2173 and 2168
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> no cores clause
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> nap cant be broken
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> 2173 pay 2168 20 planets as comp
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> signed
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> Skyroshroud
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> signed
[22:55:19] <&Metrex> TArantula

(for the record, Metrex says he is against this PNAP break)

we offered you a 48h nap with a core clause

you wouldnt take it so we continued attacks

take the 48h nap and all is fine

lol Nolio since when?

You don't sign a PNAP, then attack ~15 ticks later because 'planets werent paid'. You give 48 hours to pay planets, and you certainly don't sign it and then arbitrarily decide that you don't want it anymore?

Their loser 'diplo' guy says they'll kill us if we don't accept a 48hr core NAP, while their leader, colorado, says nothing - top 5 fam against 20th ranked fam

a) im not the diplo guy
b) i never said we would kill you if you dont accept
c) im just expressing the view of the majority
d) just take the 48h nap agreement and stop crying

end of discussion

Expos for planets were sent out within a few ticks of PNAP agreement. At the same time, attacks were *still* coming so the the payment planets were deducted accordingly (original 20 minus 6 planets they took after PNAP was signed = 14). I personally sent out explo ships to a system near them - the planets are still there untaken. I went to bed as the explos would take overnight to arrive, and when I get on the next day, attacks are still ongoing. I message them again, still no response. Few ticks later, more attacks, and then I'm told that there is no PNAP because of the stupid reasons listed above.

In summary, planets were explored, they didn't bother to ask for nor wait for them, then said PNAP wasn't there anymore. All this within 24 hours. How is this any reason to void a PNAP?

lol I'm just reading what the nap says.  If the planets were paid then the Pnap was in place. If they weren't, then there was no nap.

If the nap deal was for you to change your fam name to "We Suck" for the entire round and you don't, then there's no nap.

But in the end, if they broke it. It's only permanent to you not them:p

OK Nolio so you're saying
that if I sign a NAP with a fam that says they need to pay 20 planets, then 1,2,10 or 20 ticks later I still don't have the planets, I can attack as I want without anything else? Without any consideration as to how long it may take for planets to be explored? If a NAP doesn't say clearly within how many ticks planets need to be paid, then that discretion is up to anyone to make? So a signed NAP can be voided anytime as long as planets haven't been passed yet? Is that how NAPs work now? Since when have they worked like that? If you sign a NAP, it's signed and done. If you want to wait until planets are paid for NAP to be in place, then you sign a ceasefire until planets are paid, then NAP. In this case, NAP was signed and done. It didn't say in the NAP anywhere that planets need to be paid within XX ticks, much less did it say within the few ticks that they started attacking again.

I don't care about the results or anything, I'm merely pointing out that this is not how things work, nor is this a good approach towards playing this game.

It wasn't a TNT NAP.
If you want to be all technical, it was just a plain old PNAP. Which was signed by both leaders. It had no clauses, and it wasn't a TNT NAP.

(and there is no standard template NAP that says the NAP can be voided arbitrarily because planets haven't been paid in less than 24 hours anyway)

Also I never use TNT nap rules, there are flaws too. We usually go with a no bs nap. Basically if you're an idiot you won't know how to follow it. If people like to play word games be my guest but this time it wasn't even that.

> orangeAutumnWindz wrote:

> OK Nolio so you're saying
that if I sign a NAP with a fam that says they need to pay 20 planets, then 1,2,10 or 20 ticks later I still don't have the planets, I can attack as I want without anything else? Without any consideration as to how long it may take for planets to be explored? If a NAP doesn't say clearly within how many ticks planets need to be paid, then that discretion is up to anyone to make? So a signed NAP can be voided anytime as long as planets haven't been passed yet? Is that how NAPs work now? Since when have they worked like that? If you sign a NAP, it's signed and done. If you want to wait until planets are paid for NAP to be in place, then you sign a ceasefire until planets are paid, then NAP. In this case, NAP was signed and done. It didn't say in the NAP anywhere that planets need to be paid within XX ticks, much less did it say within the few ticks that they started attacking again.

I don't care about the results or anything, I'm merely pointing out that this is not how things work, nor is this a good approach towards playing this game.

Yes orange exactly. Its how its always been. I mean, if I personally agree to a nap with someone and I sign my name then as far as I'm concerned the deal is done. However if I didn't get the say...50 planets I asked for after a week or two of signing then the nap is null and void. Obviously not the case here but just an example. In this case, its just a matter of if the planet coords were sent or not. If so then the deal is set regardless of if they were taken or not. You held up your end of the bargain. If not, then yes they can revoke the nap deal as the terms weren't met to have the nap finalized. This is why I don't usually sign naps. You gotta make sure the family as a whole agrees to it. You need to make sure the terms are agreed upon by both fams and that the terms are met. Then you sign the nap with each appropriate representative. Anything else = fail.

<Nolio> lol well
<Nolio> naps are a touchy thing
<Nolio> if the nap was signed but the planets weren't given then there was no nap
<Nolio> if the nap was signed but the planets were given then its a nap break
<Nolio> if the family didn't agree and the nap was signed anyway, then that's a bad leader:p