Jump to content

CCC Treaty Update

Recommended Posts


After review of our treaties, the CCC has come to the conclusion that the following treaties do not have the relationship that is implied by having a treaty.

By the terms of our treaty, here is the 24 hour notice of cancelation to Dunder Mifflin. The treaty was a MDP, but recently there has been no contact or activity between us, even after attempts to contact leadership, things have been unresponsive.

By the terms of our treaties, here is the 24 hour notice of cancelation to the United Blue Directorate. We had a NAP and PIAT, both listed as active in the CCC library. I am unfortuantely unaware about our intentions about keeping them both active, they were signed long ago, and we have had no contact since. Note, this is in no way linked to their recent conflict, but Spring cleaning on our part.

We wish both of you the best. Any questions are to be refered to me either here, the CCC forums, or our IRC channel, #CN-CCC.


Minister of Foriegn Affairs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\if you two can't make it who can :(

its sad to that you canceld with UBD they will be back and better after the war, they would be great allies to stick with

o/ everyone

I am sure they would. It wasn't that they were in a war, or even that we don't like them. There just wasn't a relationship there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the times where the "sad but necessary" meme is actually worth something. Especially with the Dunder Mifflin treaty - although there was the Knights of Christ bloc, DM was actually the first individual MDP the CCC ever had. :(

I know. I was in CCC when they signed it.

Anyhoo, it had to be done I guess. As Cookavich said, no point in keeping treaties with alliances you have no relations with.

Edited by Uralica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Convenient timing on the UBD cancellation.

It isn't really convenient when it makes no impact on the scenario and was done at the same time as they canceled a MDP, showing that it was a treaty review and not just an elimination of a treaty for political gain.

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.

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.

  • Create New...