Valerius

And I only missed it by a few days! Congratulations GATO.

A hearty congratulations to my friends in GATO!

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='06 March 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849'] You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is. -Bama [/quote] Good, that makes more sense. As I said it was hard to tell from the original post.

[quote name='soccerbum879' date='05 March 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267771922' post='2214679'] I would consider any attack by an MDP partner on an alliance as them breaking the treaty, thereby nullifying it. I don't know why anyone would think of it any other way. Same goes for NAPs. [/quote] But that attack would be illegal, since it would be prohibited by the non-aggression clause still in effect at the declaration, until the declaration. Again, my point is that the PC declaration was apparently legal because the treaty apparently included a cancellation clause which specifically said that the treaty would be legally cancelled upon any declaration beween signatories. Not a de facto, 'we're not non-agressioning anymore so the treaty is void" cancellation. A legal one. Or at least that's what I got out of the initial post. Again, hopefully someone will correct me. But you're not, because this differs from a normal NAP in that normal NAPs are written with the idea in mind that any declaration between signitories would be illegal under the treaty. As I said, apparently PC and TPF thought differently. How novel of them.

[quote name='soccerbum879' date='05 March 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1267770600' post='2214664'] Isn't that going against the spirit of the treaty, thereby defacto cancellation? I'm not looking to pick a fight here, I'm just curious. [/quote] Indeed. Most NAPs have been voided that way, which is why they're so worthless. But the vibe I was getting was that the PC-TPF NAP could be legally, as in, not defacto, cancelled by a DoW. Essentially treatying the idea that "we agree not to act aggressively towards each other unless one of us declares war on the other". Lol. Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

Get the hell off my lawn, rascal!

[quote name='Choader' date='05 March 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1267751851' post='2214332'] The NAP had two methods of cancellation. One was a waiting period, one was a DoW. The NAP was specifically written (by TPF) to provide for that clause to be used in the future and PC happened to use it first. [/quote] A Non-Aggression Pact which is considered legally canceled by a Declaration of War. Um, are you kidding?

Great to see Arsenal staying at the helm. Good luck guys.

Congratulations GGA, onto the next one!

C'arn the Aussies! Fairly good for a country where most people have never seen snow.

I can honestly say I'm surprised. Best of luck to NSO.

[quote name='bandnerd' date='17 February 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1266399814' post='2187359'] ummm... hate to be the bearer of bad news but not quite, your ranked 13. 14th if you include WTF, who only need 3 nations to gain a sanction. [/quote] My bad. :S

I do believe GATO is now sanctioned, for the first time in a long time.

Happy birthday to our dear, orange friends!

Good luck STA.

GATO was informed via a single in-game PM of Christie Kreme's plans to merge. This was the day before our DoW on TSO, and since we received no other information it was put on the back-burner. I accept responsibility for this, but since our OK was never given and the alliance Christie Kreme no longer exists, GATO considers the protectorate treaty void. We had fun while this lasted, and we wish the Dark Brotherhood the best of luck.

[quote name='Zero-One' date='09 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1265689776' post='2169770'] If I don't insult you in public, then do not insult me. Don't be surprised to get slapped if you do. Is that too much of a concept to understand? [/quote] I don't think the comprehension of the policy in theory was ever the issue. [quote name='James Dahl' date='09 February 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1265692200' post='2169897'] There was unlimited "Freedom From" for the Hegemony and hardly any of either Freedom for anyone else. [/quote] Yes, see: 'under' the Hegemony. But determining precisely who made up the Hegemony and who lived under it is another matter. Therefore blanket statements are preferable.

The idea that there was any sort of freedom, 'from' or 'to', under the Hegemony is completely ludicrous.

[quote name='The Thief' date='07 February 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1265503907' post='2165564'] Public opinion assures that when any war between major world players breaks out, the fear of being labelled neo-Hegemony creates a certain cap on harsh terms. [/quote] I think you hit the nail on the head there. But I'm not entirely sure whether that's a good or bad thing, in the long run.

Can't help but think of the GUARD days. Good luck guys.

You had me until Ebil.

'Nuff said. o/ Tetris.

And it gets a little more interesting.

I wish our allies the best of luck. o/ VE.

[quote name='Krack' date='02 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1265103868' post='2152892'] Let's all look on the bright side ... at least we don't have to treat this fiasco like it's two different wars anymore. It's now quite obviously one singular War of Incredibly Bad Decisions. [/quote] I think this guy just said it.