Blue Lightning Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1323159521' post='2865539'] Well, I'll have to disagree with that. If the meaning changes it's another treaty, and why change the wording if the meaning was the same? [/quote] This is a bit like saying that GATO isn't the oldest alliance because they've amended their charter (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years). TOP-IRON have held an MDP level treaty continuously since June 07. The fact that the text was changed doesn't change anything as both versions of the treaty held/hold a clear MDP clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1323616313' post='2873899'] This is a bit like saying that GATO isn't the oldest alliance because they've amended their charter (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years). TOP-IRON have held an MDP level treaty continuously since June 07. The fact that the text was changed doesn't change anything as both versions of the treaty held/hold a clear MDP clause. [/quote] This is a valid point, so the oldest is TOP-IRON? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1323616313' post='2873899']This is a bit like saying that GATO isn't the oldest alliance because they've amended their charter (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years). TOP-IRON have held an MDP level treaty continuously since June 07. The fact that the text was changed doesn't change anything as both versions of the treaty held/hold a clear MDP clause.[/quote] This is becoming increasingly theoretical, and I like it. First, treaties and alliances aren't the same thing and not even in the same class of things: the former is a document, the latter is an organization. GATO isn't GATO's charter and they can thus change their charter, or even go without one, without ceasing to be an alliance, or without becoming an other alliance just for that reason. Your comparison would have been better if you had talked of GATO's charter, saying: «this is a bit like saying that GATO's isn't the oldest charter because they've amended it (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years).» And yes, if they amended it, it isn't the same charter: that's the point behind amending it! Second, your comparison isn't completely off mark either. Slightly further changing your wording, you could have affirmed that «this is a bit like saying that GATO isn't the oldest chartered alliance because they've amended their charter (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years).» And yes, even if they amended it, they didn't cease to be a chartered alliance. About the TOP-IRON MDP-level treaty - or rather, any X-level Alliance A-Alliance B treaty that was amended across the years, but always remaining "X-level" - you can very well say that «A and B have held a X-level treaty continuously since [date]. The fact that the text was changed doesn't change [s]anything[/s] [i]the level of the treaty/relationship[/i], as [all] versions of the treaty held/hold a clear X clause.» In other words, if your reasoning is that all versions of the treaties held a X clause, that justifies/proves the statement that A and B always shared a X-level relationship, not that the relationship has always been documented with the same document, and not even that the meaning of the various documents has always been exactly the same (except for the X-level clause). Now each case is specific and I imagine that there are some in which the various documents always had the same practical effect, with the wordings differing just for "cosmetic" aspects (I have no idea if that is valid for TOP-IRON's case, BTW). In that case it would be justified to say that A-B treaty [i]practically[/i] dates back to [date]. Strictly speaking, the document(s) anyway [i]changed[/i] and can't be considered the same document. An example... I have no idea how things work in your country. In my country people that rent a housing do so with a contract, which has to be "registered" in a governmental office to be valid/legally binding. Registered contracts get a registration number. Expired/ing housing contracts can be renewed, even without changing a single word, but they need to be registered again nonetheless. If either party then develops any complaint, and they want to bring the issue in front of a court, they need to do so based on the pertinent contract - i.e. the one that is/was valid when the things they're complaining for happened - any other version being identical to that notwithstanding. That's because [i]they're not the same contract[/i], despite being (maybe) identical for all but the registration number. That's just the nature of legal documents: if you make/sign/register a new version [i]it's not the same document[/i]. Back to the initial question, anyway, we'd have to ask Reptyler about the meaning he attributes to [continued] "treaty partnership". If all it needs, to be "continued", is "to be of the same level", then I agree with "your/Blue Lightning's approach". Otherwise I'll have to disagree. [size=1][[b]Edit:[/b] excess possessive case][/size] Edited December 12, 2011 by jerdge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't care enough to read all that and respond appropriately, so you'll just have to take my word for it that you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoctor Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1323648831' post='2874402'] I don't care enough to read all that and respond appropriately, so you'll just have to take my word for it that you're wrong. [/quote] You're wrong. You have had 2 separate treaties with different names different wordings and different signatures.([url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=75608"]Hearts of Iron[/url],[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70806"]Hearts of Iron II[/url])The older treaty is even listed under defunct on your wiki. You may have the oldest "MDP level relationship" but you do not have the oldest treaty. As an aside responding that way to a well thought out and well constructed argument like that one is exactly the type of thing that keeps the discourse on this forum in the proverbial crapper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) EDIT:TARDIS^^^ yayyy for old treaties Edited December 12, 2011 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xellos Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 iMove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 It's crazy to me that people consider treaties signed in 2008/9 old. Time flies, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1323616313' post='2873899'] This is a bit like saying that GATO isn't the oldest alliance because they've amended their charter (I'm assuming they have amended it at some point over the years). TOP-IRON have held an MDP level treaty continuously since June 07. The fact that the text was changed doesn't change anything as both versions of the treaty held/hold a clear MDP clause. [/quote] This is the oldest standing Treaty, not the oldest standing relationship. If we had an "Oldest standing charter" thread then no GATO would not be the oldest, but if it was a "Oldest Alliance in CN" thread then it would be most definitely GATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='TheDoctor' timestamp='1323649285' post='2874405'][url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=75608"]Hearts of Iron[/url],[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70806"]Hearts of Iron II[/url][/quote] Hey, that ol' one of bay signed both of them, [i]that[/i] is having been in the midst of things for a long while! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.