Complaint: too fast
Moderator: Staff
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Complaint: too fast
Dear MCS council,
It is not that I am ungrateful for the recent handling of claims relating to Mittlere Stadt and Arietta. But the treatment went so fast that I had no opportunity as co-submitter to call "ON HOLD".
Yes, there is a Treaty of Mittlere Stadt Treaty transferring the city of Mittlere Stadt from Francia to Elwynn. But make that transfer conditional. You, the MCS Council, cannot fully take this into account, but in the opening post of the combined claim I stated that the treatment should be kept on hold.
So: thank you for the approvals. But I would like to have the treatment set to "on hold", so that my treaty partner also carries out his part of the deal. If my treaty partner does not adhere to the deal, then I trust the MCS council that Francia has the right to occupy or even claim Mittlere Stadt, as the treaty also states.
Regards,
Gustaaf Vermeylen
It is not that I am ungrateful for the recent handling of claims relating to Mittlere Stadt and Arietta. But the treatment went so fast that I had no opportunity as co-submitter to call "ON HOLD".
Yes, there is a Treaty of Mittlere Stadt Treaty transferring the city of Mittlere Stadt from Francia to Elwynn. But make that transfer conditional. You, the MCS Council, cannot fully take this into account, but in the opening post of the combined claim I stated that the treatment should be kept on hold.
So: thank you for the approvals. But I would like to have the treatment set to "on hold", so that my treaty partner also carries out his part of the deal. If my treaty partner does not adhere to the deal, then I trust the MCS council that Francia has the right to occupy or even claim Mittlere Stadt, as the treaty also states.
Regards,
Gustaaf Vermeylen
Arky
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Complaint: too fast
My personal reading of the situation was that the claim was on hold due to a disagreement on the manner of its dual submission, with the transfer and expansion together. This is what I thought was meant by the usage of the word "treatment". With the re-submission of the transfer, entered without a hold request, which the Council ultimately accepted, I believed the issue had been smoothed-out. With the additional votes to accept the claims, it appear those who also voted had this understanding as well.
Sorry for this misunderstanding...
Sorry for this misunderstanding...
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Complaint: too fast
The choice for the word "treatment" is perhaps a bit unfortunate and caused by the rapid translation of my Dutch-language expression into English. Next time I will be even clearer, because in the original post I had stated "on hold". See here.
But it doesn't matter, the treaty partner has kept to his share of the deal. What could take a while, it was possible to arrange very quickly.
I have nothing to complain about, at least as far as the MCS council is concerned.
But it doesn't matter, the treaty partner has kept to his share of the deal. What could take a while, it was possible to arrange very quickly.
I have nothing to complain about, at least as far as the MCS council is concerned.
Arky
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Complaint: too fast
Not a problem, language barriers can sometimes cause misunderstandings even when both parties are on the same page. Just as long as no negative repercussions have come from the claim being passed sooner than hoped, I'll make sure to be more vigilant in any similar future circumstances!
Re: Complaint: too fast
Why not just only file claims we can vote on?