Ryuzaki

Since the only point of this announcement is to make people decline membership requests from these people how about showing some evidence? OOC: I believe you, just want something half interesting to read

[quote name='LJ Scott' timestamp='1282035538' post='2419303'] 2 for 1 trade :3 [/quote] I can't help but feel we came out worse.

Getting closer to VE.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281594671' post='2412423'] I am arguing that RoK's rationale for skirting around the diplomatic process is invalid. It is the skirting around diplomacy that makes the war unjust. [/quote] I don't believe there is a requirement for diplomacy to take place before war can be declared. Are you claiming there is?

This is why I love GOONS.

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1281568036' post='2411684'] [img]http://a.imageshack.us/img716/5271/gunj.png[/img] [/quote] I may disagree with the content but that is one fine image.

[quote name='Jessebelle' timestamp='1281410026' post='2408956'] [IMG]http://i693.photobucket.com/albums/vv292/charli167/NPO.png[/IMG] [/quote] Nice, although I don't think many people will get it.

Democracy Still, a good change.

Odd colour choices for the sides.

1. Yes. Fairly straight forward. 2. Other. Morals are stupid. 4. Yes. (OOC: War is fun, why would I choose to avoid it?)

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1281102396' post='2402671'] Looting a nation and killing its inhabitants in the process is monstrous and completely at odds with the standards of civilized conduct of our realm. [i] OOC: Unless you actually RP a pack of murderous thieves, tech raiding is way too OOC. If people could keep their IC personas straight I think nearly all alliances would be strongly opposed to it. Except maybe PC, GOONS, and \m/, but not even MK.[/i] [/quote] Your entire argument relies on the fact that there is something morally objectionable about killing people.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1280846030' post='2399472'] They were annoying, but they mostly $%&@ed with themselves and continue to do so now. But really, someone with your AA isn't really in the position to bash our friends for something they were prevented from doing so by your very alliance and your friends. [/quote] If they wanted to assist you they could have decided not to sign the terms when they did.

[quote name='Chris Kaos' timestamp='1280836893' post='2399398'] You don't have to. Guests can view the main article. [/quote] Why not just post it here then?

[quote]Africa is a direct democracy[/quote] I want to say good luck, I really do, but direct democracy? Really?

Please don't merge again.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1280727843' post='2398015'] [color="#0000FF"]It is? Are you sure? I was kind of hoping it'd be real. That would have been fun. Besides, how would you know. Last time I checked you weren't in \m/.[/color] [/quote] Unless one of people with admin powers on \m/s board is stupid enough to leak a SS, its fake. Besides, look at the joke of a website it was obtained from.

[quote name='unpronounced' timestamp='1280712451' post='2397714'] These people are the ones that should be able to object to the cancellation (legally and technically speaking): Still in MHA: -Count Rupert -Johnson Still in the Grämlins: - [/quote] Do we really have to go over this again?

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280711333' post='2397691'] I don't know. Nobody should ever sign treaties with anyone - they should take a page from NSO's book and make a Moldavi Doctrine, allowing them to defend whatever alliance for whatever reason. [/quote] Lets not make this about NSO or their doctrine.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1280709646' post='2397643'] Treaties with democratic alliances are not to be trusted as they can be broken and dishonored by a simple vote. Got it. [/quote] Time to expel ODN.

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280708922' post='2397624'] Every treaty has a cancellation clause. I believe that there is a precedent for "unbreakable" treaties being broken, isn't there? Making a treaty without a cancellation clause is stupider than canceling it when it comes time to do so. The MHA of now isn't the same MHA of late 2008, and neither are the Gramlins. If the majority of the members of MHA choose to break the treaty, then why shouldn't they? It isn't like this was signed yesterday or a month ago. [/quote] Precedent doesn't mean jack. (OOC: For a time there was a precedent of hunting people across rerolls using OOC information to do so, that isn't something we would like to see in the game at present, would we?) For what it's worth, I agree, "unbreakable" treaties are incredibly stupid, that doesn't negate the gact that it was signed with mutual consent by both parties.

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280708659' post='2397617'] As long as the treaty isn't being activated when it is being cancelled, there should be absolutely no problem with this. If a majority of the voting members of MHA wish to see a treaty end, then what's the point of keeping it? edit: lol haters gonna hate on MHA [/quote] If it is at peace I would have no problem with it. If the treaty had a cancellation clause, I would have no problem with it. This treaty didn't have a cancellation clause and they have also shown in the past that they will ignore a treaty, or only honour certain parts of it, when they see fit.

[quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280707520' post='2397591'] edited: No point, Haters gonna hate. [/quote] I'm no hater, I just can't stand to see an alliance with a treaty with one of my allies sit there and claim that there is a chance they won't honor it. [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280707653' post='2397594'] I answered one of...tens of questions, if it's taken out of context so beit. [/quote] I don't need to take that quote out of context to show the terrible attitude towards treaties you apparently have.

[quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280706916' post='2397581'] Well yeah, that's kind of how we work. We vote on treaties too. In this instance the executive thought it was in the best interest of the alliance to make a statement now, and they did so. I dare say the rest of it supports their opinion. [/quote] So you admit that what is meant to be a binding treaty can become meaningless through a vote. Tell me, why sign anything other than a ODP if this is the case?

[quote name='majorddf' timestamp='1280706557' post='2397570'] It has been this way for some time now. [/quote] Oh the irony. Treaties mean something, except if the members of MHA vote to cancel or ignore it.

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1280706187' post='2397556'] "Our old gov signed this so it's ok to cancel" [/quote] "The people voted to cancel so it's ok."