So Poison Clan. NAP?

[Sir Wellington]

Meh... so be it. It will be a fun war. There are alot of ex-TPF members in PC (quite a few I know well).

I personally dont really care if they cancelled the treaty like that. Of course it was "legal," that isnt what people are worried about. It is like breaking a non binding verbal agreement.

With that being said, I dont really care and I enjoy a good fight. I know they can put up one.

Cheers.

[Shigh707]

Please PC, don't betray TPF!

haha the ebil PC

[cowen70]

Meh... so be it. It will be a fun war. There are alot of ex-TPF members in PC (quite a few I know well).

I personally dont really care if they cancelled the treaty like that. Of course it was "legal," that isnt what people are worried about. It is like breaking a non binding verbal agreement.

With that being said, I dont really care and I enjoy a good fight. I know they can put up one.

Cheers.

Not really this was expected and hoped for by both sides and everything else is merely PR. Hence all the ''phoenix hungers'' talk and trolling recently.

Both wanted to fight, fight is on. Good stuff.

[Steve Buscemi]

mhawk, I find your grandstanding hypocritical. Very hypocritical. You guys are the ones always telling people, "private channels FTW" and then you make a public spectacle of yourself here.

I've seen your condescending "negotiations" with OV. Your are the last person that should be talking about honor. I won't go into your dirty tactic of treaty deception either.

[Brotherington]

Lol your just wingeing because they disregarded the NAP before you got a chance to. Good luck flattening them PC, though you arn't going to need it.

[Huang Ti]

Wow, refusing to honour treaties. PC are showing real class these days

[Stewie]

O/ pc&dt

I'm staying out of this war though : I'm not bothered about people tryin to get into a e-peen contest.

Mhawk, this would have been better to talk about on #pc or in #cybernationscentral.. But that's my $0.02

[Joe Kremlin]

If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.

This is why NAP's are useless. Don't attack each other because of this treaty, but if you attack each other this treaty is cancelled.

[Mozaffar]

And like a boomerang, this whole "might makes right" attitude comes around to hit TPF & co right in the face. Guess what guys, this is what you get for this whole "we do whatever we want" thing, as soon as other people get the chance to return the favor they do. Personally, I treat people in exactly the same way they treat me. I think this is a good example of that idea. Needless to say that the null and void clause was probably built in as a loophole by TPF, and they are just pissed they didn't get the chance to make use of.

[Trout]

)): PC )):

[KCToker]

Lesse...

Treaty states that aggressive actions cause the treaty to be rendered null and void.

PC took aggressive actions against TPF.

Said aggressive actions caused treaty to be rendered null and void.

I see nothing wrong this. The poorly worded treaty presented to PC by TPF made this possible. If anything, you should be mad at whoever wrote that treaty.

Also, lol NAP's.

Edited April 23, 2009 by KCToker

[tolkheleknar]

I think the clear moral of this story is don't sign NAPs with PC. They're pretty worthless.

I think the clear moral of this story is don't word your treaties like an idiot.

Well I'm stunned what npo did is nothing compared to this. Abusing a poorly worded nap. This clearly proves that the entire KARMA side is evil.

*insert some retardedly overused joke about eating babies here*

[o ya baby]

Well I'm stunned what npo did is nothing compared to this. Abusing a poorly worded nap. This clearly proves that the entire KARMA side is evil.

Yeah, attacking during peace talks and then the very next day stalling to slip nations into peace mode among the other countless things...sure. Where is your rock you live under again?

[OneBallMan]

Now first of all, I like PC and frankly this isn't much of a surprise, but I find this to be in direct contradiction to the chorus of moral outrage stemming from the rest of the Coc Bloc.

[OneBallMan]

Lesse...

Treaty states that aggressive actions cause the treaty to be rendered null and void.

PC took aggressive actions against TPF.

Said aggressive actions caused treaty to be rendered null and void.

I see nothing wrong this. The poorly worded treaty presented to PC by TPF made this possible. If anything, you should be mad at whoever wrote that treaty.

Also, lol NAP's.

You sire, are a total idiot. Not only did you miss the joke, (CTB left out the rest of that sentence) but you sit and justify it. Does being on the cross with the rest of your buddies make the pain any less?

[Kilkenny]

Regardless of the beliefs of PC, this treaty has been broken. Now, the actions after its cancellation (being considered null and void due to aggressive action) occur after the first act which has broken the treaty. Of course a Non-Aggression Pact is considered null and void after you have broken it. The spirit of the document alone proves such a fact to be inferred due to the nature of the treaty. PC, you can skate around the truth all you want- but the truth is you broke a active treaty in a way that you had no right to when you attacked TPF; if you wanted out there was a cancel option. This means that you are no better than other alliances you condemn for their actions. And that is the only point I am trying to make.

Wow, couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, as the Minister of War, I can tell you that no Target list was generated for PC for this current conflict, nor any of PC's protectorates. I gave no such order to do that either. Since I am in charge of that sort of thing, I would know.

PC, Honorable when convinent, nice to have public confirmation.

The Phoenix Feeds

[delendum]

I can't believe you gentlemen are arguing over the way a NAP was canceled.

Some of you viciously bawwing here might want to remember this thread: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54884

And before you all start saying "oh but PC did the same thing!" look up what a NAP means, then learn what a MADP is at least suppose to stand for.

[oinkoink12]

I can't believe you gentlemen are arguing over the way a NAP was canceled.

Some of you viciously bawwing here might want to remember this thread: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54884

And before you all start saying "oh but PC did the same thing!" look up what a NAP means, then learn what a MADP is at least suppose to stand for.

They atleast honored the treaty's eventhough they cancelled them.

[delendum]

They atleast honored the treaty's eventhough they cancelled them.

The point of a cancellation is to avoid honoring said treaty.

Having meanwhile changed your mind doesn't mean that you weren't trying to weasel out originally. Else, why would those cancellations be needed to begin with?

[King Srqt]

The idea is if they attack, they are breaking the treaty and we are no longer held to it. Not that to cancel just attack. They broke it on the basis there is no consequence because they're going to war already. I hope folks see them for what they are.

I know, I have seen all the logs. I was the one to set up the meeting with you and CTB with DJP moderating. Fact of the matter is orders were still sent out to have target list made up for PC and a protectorate of PC, which is still a violation of the treaty in your part.

This.

sorry Mhawk but even if you want to argue that your treaty is just the most poorly written agreement in the history of Planet Bob then you are still going to be stuck on the fact that you were taking aggressive action by organizing a war against PC. We all know you did it so we can stop pretending otherwise now.

[Fighter26]

And the cancellation clause, as clearly authored by TPF, was to attack them. Now had I told them that I was going to cancel it, I would have had to wait 10 days.

For you to argue that I broke a treaty because I violated the spirit of it is a bunch of BS. I interpret a treaty the way I interpret it, and you interpret it the way you do - TPF did not add any stipulations about the spirit of the treaty or what it entailed, and I signed knowing full well that one day I would take advantage of that clause. I did not break the treaty, I rendered it null and void. The wording is 100% clear. Better luck next time, Mincus.

Okay so... you committed a aggressive act to break non-aggressive pact, but are somehow honorable. Please say this I want to quote it. Interpretation of treaties does not matter- it is a active NAP that you broke dishonorably. The funny part is there is a double standard. I guess if KARMA does something then it's "lol they deserve it" but if anyone on our side does a single action the fourms have a pissyfit. You cannot have it both ways- admit that your righteousness is total "BS" and then we can all move on.

I think the clear moral of this story is don't sign NAPs with PC. They're pretty worthless.

So don't trust PC's word as honorable? That is a accusation they have been using on our side for quite awhile. The irony is that many of the accusations are not true or have conditions. This is a blatant offense.

aming, read it. We cancelled it legally.

Just out of curiosity, you call me Mincus- but then try to push wording and legality?

Meh... so be it. It will be a fun war. There are alot of ex-TPF members in PC (quite a few I know well).

I personally dont really care if they cancelled the treaty like that. Of course it was "legal," that isnt what people are worried about. It is like breaking a non binding verbal agreement.

With that being said, I dont really care and I enjoy a good fight. I know they can put up one.

Cheers.

It is the breaking of their word that is the issue here.

mhawk, I find your grandstanding hypocritical. Very hypocritical. You guys are the ones always telling people, "private channels FTW" and then you make a public spectacle of yourself here.

I've seen your condescending "negotiations" with OV. Your are the last person that should be talking about honor. I won't go into your dirty tactic of treaty deception either.

This is the point of all this (once again...) You cannot take the high road when you have committed dishonorable acts. You know you could of, but then you went and tried to say that a DoW is not dishonorable when having a active Non Aggression Pact.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Fighter26

[Shigh707]

Wow, refusing to honour treaties. PC are showing real class these days

wow, read the treaty fool

This is why NAP's are useless. Don't attack each other because of this treaty, but if you attack each other this treaty is cancelled.

and thissss ^

and here mhawk, if want to ask questions

answer this.. Mhawk (from PC)

and all that want to talk honour.... where is Mhawk now? after leaving TPF not 2 days ago??

Edited April 23, 2009 by Shigh707

[Damon Sriv]

OKay

So what we have here, is

1) TPF organizing a target list with PC as the target. (Violation of he NAP to begin with, nullifying the treaty??!)

2) PC Legally (according to the NAP agreement) nullifying the treaty. Avoiding the actual cancellation part with an aggressive act.

3) TPF crying

Epic

Edited April 23, 2009 by Damon Sriv

[energizer]

Also, as the Minister of War, I can tell you that no Target list was generated for PC for this current conflict, nor any of PC's protectorates. I gave no such order to do that either. Since I am in charge of that sort of thing, I would know.

PC, Honorable when convinent, nice to have public confirmation.

Hm, so you do then admit that a list was generated, but for a different war yall were planning to start. Ah it all makes sense now! You sly dog you.

[The King of Town]

Lesson of the day: don't extort alliances into signing treaties (especially treaties with loopholes for instant cancellation).

The loophole is there and is clear as day in my opinion.

mhawk, either you intentionally put that loophole in to create legal basis for attacking us whenever you want in the future. Or, you didn't notice it clearly showing your incompetence as a leader. Which one is it?