A joint CD, MK and TOP announcement

[Monster]

Then you didn't read the thread where Carpe Diem declared because other people did have issues and it was considered a violation by more than one party. Why do you think people who signed it were asking CD if they were actually entering when the fake DoW got posted if they weren't concerned at all?

Simply put, attacks on NSO began before the terms were signed. Therefore entrance on their behalf later on was a violation.

Now you'll probably ask why CD wasn't declared en masse. There was an agreement in place not to escalate the conflict over again by doing that given the fact that CD's offensive output was not going to be high and they told the signatories that. Further escalation hinged on it.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Varianz]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301358748' post='2679494']
Not that I speak for him, but I believe what he means is that to peace out and then redeclare is a cheap trick to gain a military advantage, not some kind of moral decision. Even had there been no explicit text in the treaty forbidding it, everyone knows that it's against the spirit of the agreement.

When they claim 'doing the right thing' as justification for the stunt, they are implying that when they peaced out the first time they did so intending to stay out of the war. And then that they subsequently changed their minds and decided to return to the war later on. When the obvious truth is that they had no intention of leaving the war at all, and simply wanted to gain a significant advantage in the war by betraying the people who'd just peaced out on them.

If you or they don't have a problem with them breaking their word and betraying the agreement with the alliances they surrendered to, that's fine by me. However, don't you think the people who's agreement they broke, or the people who they subsequently attacked, will want a bit more than just their word that they wont do it again (especially when they literally just did it a week or so ago)?
[/quote]
I will repeat what I said earlier.
[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1301335786' post='2679194']
Trying way, way too hard.
[/quote]

Edited March 29, 2011 by Varianz

[youwish959]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1301364622' post='2679584']
Then you didn't read the thread where Carpe Diem declared because other people did have issues and it was considered a violation by more than one party. Why do you think people who signed it were asking CD if they were actually entering when the fake DoW got posted if they weren't concerned at all?

Simply put, attacks on NSO began before the terms were signed. Therefore entrance on their behalf later on was a violation.

Now you'll probably ask why CD wasn't declared en masse. There was an agreement in place not to escalate the conflict over again by doing that given the fact that CD's offensive output was not going to be high and they told the signatories that. Further escalation hinged on it.
[/quote]
I believe you missed the part where we talked to Mushroom Kingdom regarding the wars previously declared by their nations upon ours. Mushroom Kingdom made it clear they were not at war with us, and that those were just "trigger happy" members. When the attacks by "trigger happy" members continued, we recognized war in a defensive state.

I'm sorry, but the New Sith Order is not going to sit back and let an alliance do damage upon ourselves via the proxy of "trigger happy" members. The New Sith Order will cause as much damage to your alliance as possible; even if that means calling in allies. I'm sorry the New Sith Order will not just roll over like many alliances of Digiterra.

Edited March 29, 2011 by youwish959

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301364521' post='2679583']
I think the heart of the issue lays in your last paragraph. The agreement was worded wildly different than every other one, specifically to allow for CD's re-entry under certain circumstances. In CD's judgment, those circumstances were met; in fact, it is my understanding that the only alliance that had a problem was Umbrella, not MHA or any of the others.

And, yeah, frankly, the "they broke their word!!!!" !@#$ doesn't fly for me anyway in a war started over "that's a nice looking Francograd you've got there, it'd be a shame if something happened to it "
[/quote]
I'll let others play e-lawyer since I don't care for it much (a little ironic since I've written a few treaties in my time, I guess...but I don't care about the text in this case). Regardless of the specifics of the paper, it is clear that CD took a white peace with the intention of using it to reload and redeploy elsewhere in the war. It is also clear that the alliances who accepted the surrender were doing so on the condition that CD stayed out of the war. That was the core of the agreement, both sides knew it, and CD deliberately broke that agreement in order to gain a significant military advantage.

And, as I said, I don't mind if you don't have a problem with them breaking their word, but the people who felt the rough end of it do. I don't think we're being unreasonable by demanding they face a little music for their cheap shot, and in making sure CD stick to their surrender this time around.

[Heft]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301371036' post='2679656']
I'll let others play e-lawyer since I don't care for it much (a little ironic since I've written a few treaties in my time, I guess...but I don't care about the text in this case). Regardless of the specifics of the paper, it is clear that CD took a white peace with the intention of using it to reload and redeploy elsewhere in the war. It is also clear that the alliances who accepted the surrender were doing so on the condition that CD stayed out of the war. That was the core of the agreement, both sides knew it, and CD deliberately broke that agreement in order to gain a significant military advantage.

And, as I said, I don't mind if you don't have a problem with them breaking their word, but the people who felt the rough end of it do. I don't think we're being unreasonable by demanding they face a little music for their cheap shot, and in making sure CD stick to their surrender this time around.
[/quote]
CD agreed to peace in order to support their allies on that front, it was pretty clear at the time that CD themselves didn't like the peace. They then re-entered on an entirely separate front to support more allies.

There is a semantical debate that will likely never be resolved between the two sides as to whether CD broke the wording of the agreement. That debate is at least a legitimate debate, as it hinges on exactly when one believes MK and NSO were first "at war." Accusing someone of breaking the "spirit" of surrender terms is one of the stupidest things I've heard anyone do, though. Not that you're the first, apparently the idea that "surrender terms" constitute a proper moral agreement rather than just a simple legal text agreed to for the sole purpose of ending a conflict is surprisingly common.

[Sephiroth]

[quote]Carpe Diem agrees to pay 18,000 tech and $150 million to the Mushroom Kingdom. 6,000 tech will come from its top ten nations in peace mode at the time of this surrender. This debt shall not come due until the substantial conclusion of the current global conflict, a time decided by the Mushroom Kingdom.[/quote]

I remember a time when TOP would want nothing to do with helping extract such reps from another alliance and would rather peace out separate than take part, such as in the Karma War. Did TOP change since then or was the Karma War just a special situation is what I'm wondering...

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301371036' post='2679656']
I'll let others play e-lawyer since I don't care for it much (a little ironic since I've written a few treaties in my time, I guess...but I don't care about the text in this case). Regardless of the specifics of the paper, it is clear that CD took a white peace with the intention of using it to reload and redeploy elsewhere in the war. It is also clear that the alliances who accepted the surrender were doing so on the condition that CD stayed out of the war. That was the core of the agreement, both sides knew it, and CD deliberately broke that agreement in order to gain a significant military advantage.

And, as I said, I don't mind if you don't have a problem with them breaking their word, but the people who felt the rough end of it do. I don't think we're being unreasonable by demanding they face a little music for their cheap shot, and in making sure CD stick to their surrender this time around.
[/quote]
"Regardless of the specifics of the paper" Hahaha, [i]WHAT?[/i] The specifics [b]are[/b] the agreement. That's why they're there. People dont' sign treaties, surrenders, trade agreements etc and then go "oh yeah, by the way what this agreement says is not what it means, and it doesnt matter." We write agreements because the agreement means [i]what it says[/i]. As Heft touched on, while people that wub each udder might have some special folksgeist in their treaties taht means they'll go above and beyond what it says, there is no "spirit" in a surrender document.

The stipulation "these parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted," makes it clear that CD (or [i]any[/i] of the signatories) may declare war again under specific conditions. If anyone did not understand that, then maybe they shouldn't be signing things they can't understand.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Blue Lightning]

You're just repeating yourself now. Saying it over and over isn't going to convince anyone you're right. I've said my piece and explained it in fair detail. Good day to you both and good luck finding someone else to bait into arguing your propaganda with you.

[Cairna]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301371036' post='2679656']
I'll let others play e-lawyer since I don't care for it much (a little ironic since I've written a few treaties in my time, I guess...but I don't care about the text in this case). Regardless of the specifics of the paper, it is clear that CD took a white peace with the intention of using it to reload and redeploy elsewhere in the war.
[/quote]

What I will say is that we had no original intent to re-enter the war. We were tread on and we responded using the only option we felt we had at that point.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301400752' post='2679878']
"Regardless of the specifics of the paper" Hahaha, [i]WHAT?[/i] The specifics [b]are[/b] the agreement. That's why they're there. People dont' sign treaties, surrenders, trade agreements etc and then go "oh yeah, by the way what this agreement says is not what it means, and it doesnt matter." We write agreements because the agreement means [i]what it says[/i]. As Heft touched on, while people that wub each udder might have some special folksgeist in their treaties taht means they'll go above and beyond what it says, there is no "spirit" in a surrender document.
[/quote]

Actually, you're partly right, and partly wrong.

[OOC]It all depends on what branch of law interpretation you're using. The US way, which is probably the one you know of, is to just read the words, and only the words. The European school of law however, focus more on the intention[/OOC]

Just wanted to clear that up

[Jens of the desert]

Having to apologise to the people who don't need terms to start a war for breaching their terms...wow...

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jens of the desert

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301409420' post='2679927']
You're just repeating yourself now. Saying it over and over isn't going to convince anyone you're right. I've said my piece and explained it in fair detail. Good day to you both and good luck finding someone else to bait into arguing your propaganda with you.
[/quote]
Oh, so every position I take is propaganda because I wrote a weekly news journal 2 years ago, but you're just a workin' joe out here spreadin' the gospel and you're above rebuttals to your baseless, self-serving claims about spirit treaties. I gotcha.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1301388587' post='2679800']
There is a semantical debate that will likely never be resolved between the two sides as to whether CD broke the wording of the agreement.
[/quote]

This is all that needs to be said. One side will have one view, another side will oppose it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1301410907' post='2679936']
Actually, you're partly right, and partly wrong.

[OOC]It all depends on what branch of law interpretation you're using. The US way, which is probably the one you know of, is to just read the words, and only the words. The European school of law however, focus more on the intention[/OOC]

Just wanted to clear that up
[/quote]
If the [u]intent[/u] of the treaty is that the signatories could not go to war again within a certain timeframe, then that is what is should have [u]said[/u]. Instead, it [u]said[/u] in no uncertain terms that the signatories were perfectly welcome to honor treaties activated after it was signed. That clearly shows that its [u]intent[/u] was to remove this signatories from the Polaris front, and it did that.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Timberland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1301389736' post='2679803']
I remember a time when TOP would want nothing to do with helping extract such reps from another alliance and would rather peace out separate than take part, such as in the Karma War. Did TOP change since then or was the Karma War just a special situation is what I'm wondering...
[/quote]

We're always there for our allies, Next time an alliance will think before attacking them. Nothings changed Methrage, we've accpeted no reps this war and thats the way its going to stay.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1301412137' post='2679951']
We're always there for our allies, Next time an alliance will think before attacking them. Nothings changed Methrage, we've accpeted no reps this war and thats the way its going to stay.
[/quote]
There is no practical difference between taking reps and holding the gun while your partner takes the reps. Your treaties are your wholesale endorsement of your partner's policies, and it doesn't matter one iota whether you agree or disagree with reps-taking if you enforce it; if you are [i]doing[/i] it, then you agree with it--people do what they want to do. VE could spout about PZI all day long until they were blue in the face, but as long as they were giving Andromeda the power to PZI people through military backing, it didn't matter what VE was saying, their actions mattered. When Valhalla wanted to PZI the entire gov of MK during the noCB War, TOP told Joe to take a flying leap it wasn't happening, and it didn't.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301412276' post='2679952']
There is no practical difference between taking reps and holding the gun while your partner takes the reps. Your treaties are your wholesale endorsement of your partner's policies, and it doesn't matter one iota whether you agree or disagree with reps-taking if you enforce it.
[/quote]

Not one iota?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1301412627' post='2679956']
Not one iota?
[/quote]
Maybe one a really small, inconsequential one.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1301410907' post='2679936']
Actually, you're partly right, and partly wrong.

[OOC]It all depends on what branch of law interpretation you're using. The US way, which is probably the one you know of, is to just read the words, and only the words. The European school of law however, focus more on the intention[/OOC]

Just wanted to clear that up
[/quote]

Spider are you serious about that? I would think that would make the European legal system a complete train wreck. Who is to decide what the intention is behind the law if it is not properly written out?

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301411533' post='2679946']
Oh, so every position I take is propaganda because I wrote a weekly news journal 2 years ago, but you're just a workin' joe out here spreadin' the gospel and you're above rebuttals to your baseless, self-serving claims about spirit treaties. I gotcha.
[/quote]
That's pretty much the gist of it, yeah.
[IMG]http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa3/BlueLightning_01/samuelljackson.gif[/IMG]

Edited March 29, 2011 by Blue Lightning

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1301413815' post='2679968']
Spider are you serious about that? I would think that would make the European legal system a complete train wreck. Who is to decide what the intention is behind the law if it is not properly written out?
[/quote]

I am serious, yes... And it's not a train wreck, hence the reason we don't have laughable law suits

The intention is decided by a thing called common sense from the judges.. It's not hard actually

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301412001' post='2679949']
If the [u]intent[/u] of the treaty is that the signatories could not go to war again within a certain timeframe, then that is what is should have [u]said[/u]. Instead, it [u]said[/u] in no uncertain terms that the signatories were perfectly welcome to honor treaties activated after it was signed. [b]That clearly shows that its [u]intent[/u] was to remove this signatories from the Polaris front, and it did that.[/b]
[/quote]

About that...

[quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1301410777' post='2679934']
What I will say is that [b]we had no original intent to re-enter the war[/b]. We were tread on and we responded using the only option we felt we had at that point.
[/quote]

Edited March 29, 2011 by SpiderJerusalem

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1301411328' post='2679941']
Having to apologise to the people who don't need terms to start a war for breaching their terms...wow...[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up.

It's what you do with that information going forward that is important.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301371036' post='2679656']
I'll let others play e-lawyer since I don't care for it much (a little ironic since I've written a few treaties in my time, I guess...but I don't care about the text in this case). Regardless of the specifics of the paper, it is clear that CD took a white peace with the intention of using it to reload and redeploy elsewhere in the war. It is also clear that the alliances who accepted the surrender were doing so on the condition that CD stayed out of the war. That was the core of the agreement, both sides knew it, and CD deliberately broke that agreement in order to gain a significant military advantage.

And, as I said, I don't mind if you don't have a problem with them breaking their word, but the people who felt the rough end of it do. I don't think we're being unreasonable by demanding they face a little music for their cheap shot, and in making sure CD stick to their surrender this time around.
[/quote]
Are you serious? CD isn't some backstabbing plotter- they had no plans on re-entering the war. I'm not really sure that you and your side should be complaining about cheap shots, seeing as you're the ones who randomly declared on NPO out of the blue.

[trance addict]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1301421038' post='2680026']
Are you serious? CD isn't some backstabbing plotter- they had no plans on re-entering the war. I'm not really sure that you and your side should be complaining about cheap shots, seeing as you're the ones who randomly declared on NPO out of the blue.
[/quote]


Hey, wanna see two play that game?

Are you serious? Doomhouse/PB (ourside) aren't some backstabbing plotters -there were no plans of handing CD reps for their first forray into this global conflict (infact none were, the first time). I'm not really sure that you and your side should be complaining about reps, seeing as CD are the ones whom voluntarily re-entered the conflict and declared on MK out of the blue.

Edited March 29, 2011 by trance addict