The AUT Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) It has come to my attention that there is confusion about our treaties. Before the war the treaties with the Ascended Republic of Elitist States and Vanguard had been cancelled, however not terminated. As per our terms here: 1) All treaties canceled 2) No treaty attempts for a period of 2 months I'd like to say that our PiAT with both ARES and Vanguard have effectively been terminated. "The Soldiers will be Your Van Guard Pact" (PiAT) and "The Soldier ARES Pact" (PiAT) are no longer valid. We hope that perhaps in the future we may restore relations with both of these alliances. I'd like to thank both of them for the time we were treatied and wish them good luck in their future endeavors. Yeah this announcement should've came sooner but it came. Happy Easter folks. Edited April 10, 2009 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Didn't Enigma have an ODP with Oceanic Alliance? What happened to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Sad to see our ties broken, hopefully said relationships can be rebuilt in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Doesn't canceled mean terminated? Did you just cancel canceled treaties? I know it seems to be popular right now... but what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 They were canceled... but not terminated... and now they're discontinued? I hate you so much right now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) The distinction seems to be between those treaties being canceled due to terms imposed by another alliance and Soldier actually electing to terminate these treaties themselves. Apologies if I'm reading this incorrectly. Edit: Spelling. Edited April 10, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted April 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Doesn't canceled mean terminated?Did you just cancel canceled treaties? I know it seems to be popular right now... but what? TPF told me it was cancelled in the sense of it being like a game cancellation. It can be reknewed once terms were done. However no real efforts have been made to restore relations, unfortunately. Hopefully this can change in the future. Also, people were asking me about this so this is why this announcement came. Didn't Enigma have an ODP with Oceanic Alliance? What happened to that? That'll have to be discussed later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Didn't Enigma have an ODP with Oceanic Alliance? What happened to that? Eh, I have a lot of respect for you, Soldier. Hopefully you can restore relations with these alliances in the future. Didn't Enigma have an ODP with Oceanic Alliance? What happened to that? I don't know what happened to the treaty, but this happened to OA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Cheers for this earth shattering update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted April 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Cheers for this earth shattering update. Sure no problem. I'm sure you know about the current situation in depth enough to post your opinions on it. Thanks for taking the time to do so. I'll be sure to laugh next time, because you are hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Sure no problem. I'm sure you know about the current situation in depth enough to post your opinions on it. Thanks for taking the time to do so. I'll be sure to laugh next time, because you are hilarious. Maybe you should call a plumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fokker Aeroplanbau Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Sure no problem. I'm sure you know about the current situation in depth enough to post your opinions on it. Thanks for taking the time to do so. I'll be sure to laugh next time, because you are hilarious. That's a little excessive, watch out before this thread gets out of hand. Not judging, just don't think you'll get your point across through bashing his head across with a piece of subtle 2x4 lumber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Didn't Enigma have an ODP with Oceanic Alliance? What happened to that? Gone. Kaput. Non-existent. etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Gone. Kaput. Non-existent. etc. etc. etc. Aight thanks man. Soldier is doing great under AUT's leadership. He's the one who really deserves to head this alliance. Him and only him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Aight thanks man. Soldier is doing great under AUT's leadership. He's the one who really deserves to head this alliance. Him and only him. You talking to me? Afraid I might come in and coup him? Something like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Ehhh, what? Is flaming seriously necessary in this thread? As AUT said in the title, this is a clarification, not some new, exciting revelation. In this day and age, such willing transparency with treaties is refreshing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 I *still* lurve you AUT B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted April 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) I *still* lurve you AUT B) And you are teh apple of mah eye. Soldier is doing great under AUT's leadership. He's the one who really deserves to head this alliance. Him and only him. Thanks man, I apreciate the kind words. You talking to me? Afraid I might come in and coup him? Something like that? lol, I guess they don't know what's in store. Ehhh, what? Is flaming seriously necessary in this thread?As AUT said in the title, this is a clarification, not some new, exciting revelation. In this day and age, such willing transparency with treaties is refreshing. Thank you. This was a thread to clarify the treaty compendium, althought insignificant I was asked to make this announcement. I may have caused trouble by making it more complicated than it needed to be but English isn't my frist language so I tend to make mistakes like that. Anyways, disregard it if you think it's insignificant. Thanks. Edited April 10, 2009 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Isn't it Ascended Republic of Elite States? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Why were they cancelled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum T. Gundraw Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 In this day and age, such willing transparency with treaties is refreshing. If having different 'cancellation' and 'termination' clauses is transparency, I'm not sure where I've been for the last two years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Why were they cancelled? I believe he was stating this was a pretty late announcement to clarify some treaty situations. Back when TPF went to war with Soldier one of the terms was the suspension of treaties for 2 months, while they stabilized under our protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) If having different 'cancellation' and 'termination' clauses is transparency, I'm not sure where I've been for the last two years or so. As he further clarified, they were suspended. Now, they are terminated. Edit: mhawk beat me to it. Edited April 11, 2009 by Style 386 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) This is rather strange, because as far as Vanguard was concerned, our agreement with Soldier was made entirely void by the terms imposed on Soldier. I would rather not get into a debate over semantics, but I interpret "cancelled" to be the same as "terminated" as far as treaties go. After all, the very definition of cancel is to invalidate or annul. While mhawk has mentioned "suspension" in this topic, the terms clearly dictated cancellations. However, hypothetically, if the treaties were indeed suspended for two months - as mhawk stated - with the agreements reactivated after that period of time had passed, I would begin to wonder why 'Article XI - Termination' of The Soldiers Will Be Your Van Guard was not followed. In other words, I believe there is a prior 48 hour notice of intent missing. Either way, best of luck to Soldier. Edit: Typo. Edited April 11, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 This is rather strange, because as far as Vanguard was concerned, our agreement with Soldier was made entirely void by the terms imposed on Soldier. I would rather not get into a debate over semantics, but I interpret "cancelled" to be the same as "terminated" as far as treaties go. After all, the very definition of cancel is to invalidate or annul. While mhawk has mentioned "suspension" in this topic, the terms clearly dictated cancellations.However, hypothetically, if the treaties were indeed suspended for two months - as mhawk stated - with the agreements reactivated after that period of time had passed, I would begin to wonder why 'Article XI - Termination' of The Soldiers Will Be Your Van Guard was not followed. In other words, I believe there is a prior 48 hour notice of intent missing. Either way, best of luck to Soldier. Edit: Typo. I believe that the treaty was to be terminated, not suspended. I.e. we may resign such a treaty or a new one in the future, but we must work from the point of which the terms of "no treaties for two months" ended. 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.