caligula

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1280724646' post='2397939'] I found another similarity. Both times MHA pushed to have an eternal treaty canceled. [/quote] You really do need to move on. The first treaty has already been dismissed and was not cancelled by us, rather by you when you ventured off and attacked OV, I was in TORN when you left us to dry...etc... but that's not about that. We've done all we can for our brothers, i can't say the same for you.

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1280723937' post='2397927'] Apparently that is how treaties work in MHA, and apparently they can just refuse to honor them when it suits them. I guess we all know exactly how much our MHA treaties are worth. [/quote] I remember a certain uncancellable Order of Orders treaty.

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1280718166' post='2397838'] Look, MHA, I get that Grä has gone in a different direction than y'all. I get that the Grämlins of today are not the ones you signed the treaty with. Those reasons are completely understandable... People cancel treaties for those reasons all the time. What absolutely boggles my mind is that you apparently signed an eternal treaty without so much as [i]considering[/i] that Grä could possibly evolve into a different alliance than the one it was at that moment! Alliances change. Maybe you had undying loyalty to the Grämlins as they existed at that moment, and would have upheld that bond forever if they had forever remained the same. But did you seriously not give thought to the possibility that Grämlins [i]might[/i] not stay the same forever? You guys made the decision to enter into a treaty that had no way to cancel it without breaking your word. It didn't say "if one signatory goes !@#$% insane and no longer resembles the entity that signed this treaty, it's void." Or "if most of the government officials signing this treaty should leave, it's void." You guys boxed yourselves into a corner where you could either break the treaty or stay allied to an alliance that's proven to be extremely volatile and irrational. Like I said, I don't blame you for wanting to get away from Grämlins. People feel that way about treaty partners all the time. But the lesson here is not to write checks you aren't willing to cash. That's what you did. I do have one question though: why not just wait for Grä to disband? They're down to 12 members total, probably less than that active, and there seems to be a rift between Ramirus and the other two triumvirs (or whatever Grä calls them) about ending the war. So why take this PR hit (I'm assuming you guys knew this would bring a PR hit) when Grämlins are likely to bite the dust any time now? I will say that I applaud you for waiting until the war ended before canceling. I've always felt that even if you disagree with an ally in war, you should wait til they make peace before you cancel on them. -Bama [/quote] OOC: Bama, I responded because I generally agree with you on most issues when I see your posts. Both of the MHA's treaties were signed in 2008. While I get the other reasons for criticizing the cancellation of this treaty, I do not understand the criticization that it is directly related to any current members failings. As someone mentioned earlier, only two signatories from either alliance remain in either alliance, and only one has affiliation with the government, as an advisor. To criticize the MHA because it signed what were thought to be unbreakable treaties with alliances they truly shelt a deeper bond than most in this game have ever felt with one another at any time was not done out of lack of foresight, but perhaps a case of optimism gone awry. I believe that those on both sides who signed either document never felt that the relationship we had would change, but the politics of that era have also changed. We're talking about 2008. Aqua Unity was still a goal of most, Trident didn't have conflicted interests (Major ones, there were, but they were workable issues.) I don't think any of the signatories could have predicted the events of recent, or even of the past few years that brought the cancellation of the previously two eternal treaties. (The NPO treaty indeed had a cancellation clause, but it was one year, and was not meant to broken.) I only arrived in 2008, and had stated during discussion stages that these treaties could possibly come back to bite us in the $@! if things changed. Unfortunately our database was erased from our old forums and much of that history is now gone. Our alliance was also different from within back then. We were quite happy with our position in the world, us "lowly," members only thought the best of either alliance, and most were giddy at the prospect of securing that relationship permanantly. Our government was more of an Oligarchy rather than the relatively steady Republic we have today. Over the years, we have all drifted. It is a testament to the strength of that relationship that it lasted so long [i]despite[/i] it's obvious eternal flaw. We've corrected it, and legally have cancelled the HA Accords (in the only alliance's eyes that truly matter, our own,) at a time when our relationship is no longer at the MDoAP level. As for your question as to why not wait for Gre to disband, (and I do hope they do not,) it is in my opinion that we took the pr hit because we felt so strongly as an alliance about the issue. As an alliance, the rift between the leaders does not even factor in. As an alliance I believe there is a feeling that we would rather not be treatied to an alliance where one leader has exclusively led the alliance to ruin, not for one days, not for ten, not for two hundred more. To expect a dramatic change would be naive. IC: That being said, we didn't even cancel this treaty because the "times have changed." The issue is listed in the OP. The alliance we were formerly allied to had made decisions that threatened not only their existance, but us as well. Did we just give up on them? No, we attempted to reason with their leade(R)s. The responses we were given were that we just didn't understand and that it was for our own good. In fact, at one time we were told that the supposive threat that another ally faced from an already vanquished foe that THAT SAME OTHER ALLY had given peace was greater than our concern that their action was killing themselves and damaging them beyond repair. In fact, THAT SAME OTHER ALLY did not even agree with that rationale. We spent hours, days, typing back to eachother but at the end of it it was clear that reason was not going to rule. Did we abandon our brothers? No. We fended off several wolves who came knocking. We instead attempted to help them procure a peace they desired. When it became obvious that it was not possible, we still stuck by their side. We've done all that was asked, and more. Edit: Lowly peon view, not view of alliance as whole, yada yada yada

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280708965' post='2397625'] No treaty is unbreakable regardless of the wording. Its the lead up to canceling a treaty that everyone will remember. I will remember this as a pointless cancellation designed to win some PR for MHA, it will fail. [/quote] Yes this is clearly a pr stunt.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1280707354' post='2397589'] Caligula, a bit of friendly advice - you may just want to let this thread take its course and accept the damage that comes with it, if your main defence is telling the rest of your treaty partners that your alliance may spontaneously decide not to honour that treaty the next time it's called upon. [/quote] I answered one of...tens of questions, if it's taken out of context so beit.

edited: No point, Haters gonna hate.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280707018' post='2397583'] You didn't honor your obligations to NPO or Q and you canceled a treaty that can't be canceled. You violated two. [/quote] I've already answered the first and object to it in my previous posts. In the second we protected the Gramlins after we had secured a peace we thought would suffice in the war and then were asked not to assist them in further efforts, we went above and beyond and protected them from other alliances who...despite what you think...were very willing to attack them. And the post you quoted... all accounted for.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280706785' post='2397576'] Oh the irony. Treaties mean something, except if the members of MHA vote to cancel or ignore it. [/quote] 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 name='iamthey' timestamp='1280705750' post='2397533'] In hindsight MHA probably should have just waited for gre to disband, won't be that much longer. Also MHA thank you for now violating two major treaties. [/quote] We have violated zero. We have cancelled one, so points for you. I'm really going to have a hard time sleeping at night because of this post though.

[quote name='Edifice' timestamp='1280705939' post='2397543'] Yeah, since you already committed so much, might as well see it through toward them becoming a respectable alliance once again, no? You guys help Gramlins beat down IRON/DAWN, and then turn around and say you can't hold a treaty with them anymore--again, after you've backed Gre's beatdown. Just seems a bit inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Gramlins will probably stagnate/die off in the future, so cheers to that. [/quote] I think the danger was in letting an alliance who showed little to no regard in our sake hold an MADP with our alliance, regardless of how big or small they were after this. There was no appreciation for the effort we put into staving off what occurred, and even helped try to procure peace for them. In fact, I have found all of Gre to pretty reasonable with the exception of one person. Unfortunately he leads the regime with an iron fist, and only until recently were people able to outweigh his voice. As the OP again states, things have changed. Look at the list of signatures on there. There are two members in MHA who signed that document, and none in Gre. Throughout this time the H.A. spirit has been voiced and protected, throughout government changes. Our relationship has changed as to what we feel for one another, and as much as I've defended the treaty for the past few months it makes sense to cancel the H.A. after this glaring example of its failing. We did all that was asked of us and more in the meantime for them

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1280705796' post='2397536'] Yeah, that's the point of all the arguments here. Glad you could join us. [/quote] Well it's answered in the OP, so I don't know what your problem is.

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1280705611' post='2397527'] Ah ha! This is wear Gramlins went wrong. They thought discussing principles would resonate with MHA. [/quote] Pardon me, but wouldn't a MADP partner care more about its partners concerns, pleadings, position and well-being rather than "unconditional surrender," from a foe we've already defeated? I think that's where the disconnect was.

[quote name='Edifice' timestamp='1280705469' post='2397520'] Why would you cancel *after* you implicitly protect Gramlins while they pull their crazy stunt and make it drag on and on? Either cancel early and make Gramlins' job a lot harder, or stick with them through the war and help them rebuild afterward. This just seems like taking the worst of both worlds. [/quote] You have no idea what we've done for them in the meantime.

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1280705430' post='2397519'] They commit themselves to the letter of the treaty, so in a way, they do lose some sovereignty, specifically the sovereignty to not do what the treaty demands of them. Of course, nothing forces an alliance to follow these treaties, other than the court of public opinion. Theoretically, public opinion should consider such unscrupulous alliances as the scum of the Earth, but in practice people always side with their interests and desires. However, those of us with integrity (and we are very few nowadays), do recognize MHA for what it is. [/quote] You are wrong then. We did not fail the treaty in any aspect other than the eternal part, which was misguided and written in a time when such treaties were thought to be worthwhile and ever lasting, and in the case of the NPO, and now Gre, we have been let down. In this instance, as the OP states, we do not have the relationship of which this treaty was intended. Forgive us for handling our own business and not hanging Gre out to dry like other alliances may have.

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1280704991' post='2397509'] Regardless of how you feel about Ramirus, abandoning Grämlins now is a pretty !@#$ move. [/quote] Yeah, i know, we should've done it after that whole "We're going to force unconditional surrender on an alliance even though we know they won't accept it," thing. Or after we prevented several attacks on them during that several month long saga. Or after we were told by Gramlin leadership that they didn't care about their ally, only their "principles." You're right.

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1280705021' post='2397511'] You sure [i]waived[/i] it for Gremlins. [/quote] We did the same, we threatened bandwagoners, iirc.. You went to war without telling us anything and expected us to commit suicide with no regard to us whatsoever. Same result

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1280704808' post='2397500'] At least with Gremlins they protected them with the threat of a treaty still "on the books" and then cancel the treaty after the threat is over. With us, they just stood to the side and didn't do anything letting the treaty expire due to Surrender Terms. [/quote] Yes, I forgot, all alliances wave their soveirgnty after they sign a treaty, especially after the other party to it completely ignores you and decides to tyrannize other alliances.

[quote name='Wentworth the Brave' timestamp='1280703589' post='2397458'] What's the point of holding on when they can no longer help you financially and diplomatically amirite? [/quote] Yeah, protecting them from a quicker death was really really classless. I'm sure you would've loved it if we held a MADP treaty with an alliance that recently committed suicide with no regard to how much effort our own alliance was using to prevent their suicide completing sooner than it did. Also, sup went

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1280703573' post='2397457'] Who's holding MHA's lease now? [/quote] Spelling, and no one. Just like no one ever has. You should take some notes, it's worked well for us.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280650372' post='2396910'] It wasnt as funny as Shattenmann trying to present them to the world as his own questions. [/quote] I had been so confused as to why this failed epicly and now I know. I should have never doubted you, Schat

Oh wow. I'm already going Thursday

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1280605245' post='2396255'] Congratulations on a hard won victory IRON and DAWN, enjoy your time of peace, it is well deserved. Very honourable move to let them off with white peace, can't say I would have been so charitable as to let the rats live and continue to spread their disease, but you are obviously more merciful than I. Now that Gre has been defeated, is this the time that I ask them to admit that their alliance is terrible and everything they have ever done in their entire history is a stain on the political landscape of Bob? It would seem quite fitting to me, though that may be too much of an inside joke. [/quote] No, because that would be very revisionist of you.

Holy....Congratulations. Everyone.

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1280392942' post='2393732'] I am guessing here but most likely a vacation for the nation rulers? [/quote] This. I don't think these numbers are exactly "fascinating," or notable :/ Please enlighten us?

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1280365955' post='2393222'] Even if I did, I'd have contributed more than you have. Also, you can't void an eternal treaty. [/quote] Perhaps in your own mind. I'd argue that many of us are quite fine with the way things are now, and are enjoying it. If you're really that bored, why don't you start something yourselves... and... I see you have no idea what you are talking about, let me enlighten you. As per the terms of Karma, all of the New Pacific Order's treaties were dissolved. That's why they waited till the terms ended to sign with those they felt they still had a strong relationship with. The Order at the End of the Universe treaty had a long cancellation period, but was not by any means an eternal treaty.