Fighter26 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) 2) PC Legally (according to the NAP agreement) nullifying the treaty. Avoiding the actual cancellation part with an aggressive act. Yes, they broke their word to gain a war. If PC felt that TPF was not worth their relations "for months/years" as some put it they could have canceled the pact. You could even suggest that this is dishonorable and pathetic... 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. Sounds like someone is trying to derail a topic. I have seen this tactic used by you guys many times, but every time it doesn't matter. The whole tactic you use to gain popular support in CN is saying the other side is dishonorable. This moral high road is now null and void. Edited April 23, 2009 by Fighter26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Very low PC. Out of all the cancellations, you call this low? I don't understand, is there not a smidgen of biassy in that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yes, they broke their word to gain a war. If PC felt that TPF was not worth their relations "for months/years" as some put it they could have canceled the pact. You could even suggest that this is dishonorable and pathetic... Incorrect. If it was a method of canceling outlined in the treaty, where's the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl I 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 OoOoh you make me laugh Flinders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I've always liked PC, but I'm not gonna lie this completely disgusted me. Attacking a NAP partner is wrong, no matter which way you spin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 To be honest the NAP was a farce to begin with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kswiss2783 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 To be honest the NAP was a farce to begin with... Still doesn't excuse PC's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fernando Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. you know that lies make the nose grow longer ...right also, point that nose at slayju, it might put his eye out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Just out of curiosity, you call me Mincus- but then try to push wording and legality? Yes. I am pushing the obvious interpretation. You are pushing some abstract, spiritual, reading between the lines, deeper meaning interpretation. Which one is more dweeb-like? 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? I only left out the rest of the article for emphasis. I could include it and it still wouldn't matter. The article clearly states that if I were to notify anyone, I would have to honor the 10 day cancellation period. I did not notify anyone, I simply decided to attack, thus legally rendering this NAP null and void. You sire, are not a total idiot. But your biased vision is definitely starting to render you one. Edited April 23, 2009 by Chinatownbus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I have to wonder how many of those who are denouncing our interpretation of the NAP cancellation would be hailing TPF if the roles were reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathDread Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void. Then... why even have said pact? I mean, with a clause like this, you might as well just not sign the NAP. At least if you put something more significant you could actually complain about them breaking pacts. But if breaking the pact voids the pact does that even really break it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leatherneck Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Yes. I am pushing the obvious interpretation. Article 3: Cancellation Either 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. Some definitions..... Null -adjective 1. without value, effect, consequence, or significance. 2. being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent. Void -adjective 1. having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable. 2. useless; ineffectual; vain. So according to the definition of "Null" and "Void", Article 3: Cancellation, must be interpreted as this: Either 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 (the pact as a whole) is considered null (nonexistant) and void (having no legal force or efect). Any arguement about the legality of PC actions would be an arguement against the definition of the words used by TPF in the NAP. Edited April 23, 2009 by leatherneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leatherneck Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Then... why even have said pact? I mean, with a clause like this, you might as well just not sign the NAP. At least if you put something more significant you could actually complain about them breaking pacts. But if breaking the pact voids the pact does that even really break it? Nope, breaking the pact doesn't break the pact.....it makes it disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Man, if only someone had told the world that NAPs were useless and a waste of time! Not my fault when people don't pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan1 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yeah, maybe I should stop talking to people who have switched their Alliance Affiliation 8 times within 6 weeks you blew up the numbers there a bit so cut 5 (not 8) times down to 2 because MCXA (including you personally) kept asking me back when i left. but your OOC attacks last war combined with you destroying an alliance (mcxa) leaves you very little room to talk. on topic: i still dont see how you post this thread after canceling on NPO in their time of need and when you seemed to be a huge aggressor in the chat logs against OV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 blah blah definitions blah blah Breaking the NAP would involve attacking us (or one of our allies), as it clearly did. It doesn't mean you just say "We break it" and then you can be all honorable in your little farce of a declaration. I'm glad to know PC are such honorable people, and stand by their word. And since I know some PC knuckleheads will come in and try to argue this, I'll ask this, what if it were the other way around? We all know you'd be screaming foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Oh please. It's a farking worthless treaty....a god damned NAP, FFS. Boo Hoo, the meanies at PC broke our NAP....I say GOOD, give em all we got, we wanted that door open, they kicked it down. Unleash hell boys. I've been in nuke anarchy for 2 weeks and I can't wait to get one of those !@#$%^&*.....maybe Kal, for old times sake.....I should drop down near his range in a bit....ahahahahahaha.....im comin fer u Kal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leatherneck Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Breaking the NAP would involve attacking us (or one of our allies), as it clearly did. It doesn't mean you just say "We break it" and then you can be all honorable in your little farce of a declaration. I'm glad to know PC are such honorable people, and stand by their word. And since I know some PC knuckleheads will come in and try to argue this, I'll ask this, what if it were the other way around? We all know you'd be screaming foul. If you didn't notice, I wasn't making an arguement about honor. I was addresing the concerns of legality. Also, we didn't "break" the pact. We made it null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 They atleast honored the treaty's eventhough they cancelled them. Show me somewhere we haven't followed our treaty word for word. As a TPF protectorate we fought against NoV, FCO, CSN and USN. As a Valhalla, GGA, RoK and MA treaty partner we fought against Nueva Vida and Atarax. As a Dark Templar treaty partner, we are fighting against TPF and a loophole filled NAP written by them. Then... why even have said pact? I don't know, you should ask TPF why after working for months to destroy us and later putting us under surrender terms they would hand this over to us. Then after signing, repeatedly violate the first clause over and over. 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? Before there are any more responses from TPF, I would like to see an answer to this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 To be honest, the NAP was worded badly. You guys gave them a back door, and they took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Oh please.It's a farking worthless treaty....a god damned NAP, FFS. Boo Hoo, the meanies at PC broke our NAP....I say GOOD, give em all we got, we wanted that door open, they kicked it down. Unleash hell boys. I've been in nuke anarchy for 2 weeks and I can't wait to get one of those !@#$%^&*.....maybe Kal, for old times sake.....I should drop down near his range in a bit....ahahahahahaha.....im comin fer u Kal. Maybe the rest of TPF and allies should grow some balls like J here and have some goddamned fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Oh please.It's a farking worthless treaty....a god damned NAP, FFS. Boo Hoo, the meanies at PC broke our NAP....I say GOOD, give em all we got, we wanted that door open, they kicked it down. Unleash hell boys. I've been in nuke anarchy for 2 weeks and I can't wait to get one of those !@#$%^&*.....maybe Kal, for old times sake.....I should drop down near his range in a bit....ahahahahahaha.....im comin fer u Kal. I don't know if I say this enough. I JBone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 To be honest, the NAP was worded badly. You guys gave them a back door, and they took it. It was probably worded that way intentionally by TPF so they could attack PC anytime they wanted without consequence. Except, you know, they didn't anticipate that PC would declare on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Before there are any more responses from TPF, I would like to see an answer to this question. The intent behind that part was not as a loophole, just a way of stating that if one party attacks the other, that the Pact was THEN null and void. It was not there due to either malice nor incompetence. People see what they want, I'm sorry you're so fueled by hatred that you've turned paranoid as well. EDIT: Yeah, I agree with Jbone. Fark this treaty. Edited April 23, 2009 by Felix von Agnu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 It was probably worded that way intentionally by TPF so they could attack PC anytime they wanted without consequence. Except, you know, they didn't anticipate that PC would declare on them That was my thought too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts