Diogenes Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Perhaps their cancellation of the NAP has to do with their treaty "partner" attempting to ostracize and destroy them for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Perhaps their cancellation of the NAP has to do with their treaty "partner" attempting to ostracize and destroy them for a year. I don't think CTB or Twisted can honestly say I've done anything of the sort since that treaty or even since they took terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tolkheleknar Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 They attacked TPF before canceling it.. me thinksthis is very dissapointing move from Poison Clan, while i know you have a lot of Grudges with TPF, but at least cancel it before you jump in.. Looks to me like one valid way of canceling as per the treaty was actually just straight up attacking. Welp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Looks to me like one valid way of canceling as per the treaty was actually just straight up attacking. Welp. That is how I read it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulkan Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Care factor? Yep you guessed it, nil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighter26 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Article 3: CancellationEither Party may cancel this agreement. Once one party notifies the other with their intent to cancel, the Pact stays in effect for 10 days. If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void. haha it's cause no one likes TPF KARMA and co have been arguing the higher moral ground in this war. PC making a move like this shows that this is simply not true. It does not matter what your feelings are towards alliances you make treaties with- you honor them. If PC felt that TPF was not worth dealing with than they should have canceled the treaty via Article 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Its a badly worded treaty that was OFFERED to PC, not the other way around. Bad wording is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Looks to me like one valid way of canceling as per the treaty was actually just straight up attacking. Welp. Yes, Yes, whatever makes you sleep at night you talk $@&t about NPO who attacked during peace talk, and now this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 KARMA and co have been arguing the higher moral ground in this war. PC making a move like this shows that this is simply not true. It does not matter what your feelings are towards alliances you make treaties with- you honor them. If PC felt that TPF was not worth dealing with than they should have canceled the treaty via Article 3. Reread article 3. Great, now you see the part you bolded? Read the part after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think the best way to cancel any NAP written this way is to attack. Someone call Slayer to sort out the lawyer stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the riddler Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 This is a classic example of loopholes. My guess is that TPF put that part in when writing the treaty in case they needed to attack a certain alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 This NAP left the door wide open to instant cancellations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) I hope folks see them for what they are. I suspect they are laughing at you, like the rest of Planet Bob. EDIT: Learn how to write a treaty before complaining about its 'violation'. Edited April 23, 2009 by kingzog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I could really care less whether they had a NAP or not. Point is, TPF, you are getting what has been coming to you for a long time. Tastes good doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fant0m Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Looks to me like one valid way of canceling as per the treaty was actually just straight up attacking. Welp. /thread Bad wording FTL, TPF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewish Lord Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 i likw how TPF is bawwwing cuz they know it's all but over for them.. look you guys left it open for this to happen.. and lets see.. you screw around with an alliance for a long time.. practically threatening them into ZI.. and then ohh NAP.. yea that will fix them everything.. wtf did you think was gonna happen 1st sec they get a chance to attack you?? O/ PC O/ DT O/ LSR and O/ all the rest of you guys fighting this cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yeah, you should really fire whoever's in charge of foreign affairs for you guys TPF. As PC's attacks immediately nullified the treaty, they didn't break it any more than all the alliances who have been cancelling are breaking theirs. You guys just got played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Really TPF? You're complaining about someone not following the wording of a treaty? Really? Really?! /me faints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighter26 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) The Phoenix Federation - Poison Clan Non-Aggression PactArticle 1: Non-Aggression Neither Poison Clan nor TPF may engage in any hostile actions, overt or covert, towards the other signatory. 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. Edited April 23, 2009 by Fighter26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 They attacked TPF before canceling it.. me thinksthis is very dissapointing move from Poison Clan, while i know you have a lot of Grudges with TPF, but at least cancel it before you jump in.. Seems to me it's the same deal as declaring war in-game before posting the declaration. It didn't come very long after they hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan1 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Really TPF? You're complaining about someone not following the wording of a treaty? Really? Really?!/me faints exactly what i was thinking 24 hrs ago must be a looooong time ago in Bob time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgun0820 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Seems to me it's the same deal as declaring war in-game before posting the declaration. It didn't come very long after they hit. It is Nothing like Declaring War in-game before posting the declaration. Treaties are treaties and Should be upheld. Sad Move for PC. Very dishonorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooksland Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. And that is the only point I am trying to make. How do you know that TPF did not make target list for PC less then 7 days ago and told OPP to make target list for PC as well? Is that not considered covert hostility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) 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. 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. Edited April 23, 2009 by Chinatownbus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts