Jump to content

Treaty Clarification


The AUT
 Share

Recommended Posts

SoldierFlag2.png

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 "The Soldiers will be Your Van Guard Pact" (PiAT) and "The Soldier ARES Pact" (PiAT) are no longer valid.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 by The AUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *still* lurve you AUT B)

And you are teh apple of mah eye. :wub:

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 by The AUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Style 386
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Revanche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...