Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Titus Pullo]

Hm could have sworn we were in OUT too. Weird how Hegemony is accused of picking and choosing treaties to uphold.

Gramlins has a treaty with us

Fark has a treaty with Gramlins, and Lux Aterna states that attacking them would be a no-no

FCC has a treaty with us

MHA has a treaty with us

As for ROCK...well as was said before "Hearts of Iron" doesn't chain and ODP's are optional for a reason.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Titus Pullo

[KingSuck]

Hm, well, it's covered by various articles. This is only one of them.

Already covered that

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1477052

We're doing what we think is right and that's good enough for me.

Unlike other alliances, TOP doesn't break a treaty when war breaks out because we don't want to defend them. When we sign a treaty we intend to live up to it as long as its in effect, including the grace period.

so do you guys do what you think is right or do you honour your treaties? :S

Please refer to my post. Thank you.

I saw your post however as I'm not NPO/TOP gov I can't really respond to it. Do you honestly need NPO to ask you to honour your treaty though?

[Titus Pullo]

Already covered that

I saw your post however as I'm not NPO/TOP gov I can't really respond to it. Do you honestly need NPO to ask you to honour your treaty though?

According to the part of the treaty you quoted: "Yes"

Edited April 27, 2009 by Titus Pullo

[Hasin]

Can you state your goals of this lawyering King Suck, if you would state them from the beginning we may be able to accommodate you more easily.

[KingSuck]

The cancellation clause only triggers if assistance is requested and it has been stated that it was not. due to the way NPO conducted its foreign affairs in this affair TOP had no obligation to defend Pacifica. Therefore the treaty was neither broken nor canceled.

I can e-Lawyer with the best of them.

I never disputed this. I'm saying that if the NPO has/did request help then TOP would be bound by the treaty to provide help or it would be terminated.

Also I must have missed it, where was it stated no assistance was requested? :S

[Titus Pullo]

I never disputed this. I'm saying that if the NPO has/did request help then TOP would be bound by the treaty to provide help or it would be terminated.

Also I must have missed it, where was it stated no assistance was requested? :S

Where is it stated that assistance was requested?

[mythicknight]

I am in favor of the log dumping

As am I

[Petrovich4]

The last few pages of this thread looks awfully familiar

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

This sums it up best

We're doing what we think is right and that's good enough for me.

P.S. Please don't hurt Echelon too much - I still like them very much.

[KingSuck]

Can you state your goals of this lawyering King Suck, if you would state them from the beginning we may be able to accommodate you more easily.

I like both NPO and TOP and I was thus wondering for clarification as to why TOP is not honouring their treaty with the NPO

[Hasin]

I like both NPO and TOP and I was thus wondering for clarification as to why TOP is not honouring their treaty with the NPO

I think clarification has been provided ample times.

[King Srqt]

I never disputed this. I'm saying that if the NPO has/did request help then TOP would be bound by the treaty to provide help or it would be terminated.

Also I must have missed it, where was it stated no assistance was requested? :S

I think in this thread, I know I read it and i will be damned if I am going to search the forums for it now

[KingSuck]

I think clarification has been provided ample times.

Not really, a few reasons have been put forward by various members but only one holds weight (Titus's) and that's where we're at atm.

To summarise:

-TOP has not honoured their treaty because NPO have not asked them to

-If NPO does ask TOP for aid, TOP are bound to help NPO or the treaty is automatically terminated

-No one knows whether or not NPO have requested aid so we're kinda stuck for now

[LOLtex]

I like both NPO and TOP and I was thus wondering for clarification as to why TOP is not honouring their treaty with the NPO

What explanation is needed to achieve your satisfaction? I feel our stance has been explained multiple times, and if you still have questions, you should study the responses given.

[KingSuck]

What explanation is needed to achieve your satisfaction? I feel our stance has been explained multiple times, and if you still have questions, you should study the responses given.

I'm just looking for the actual reason. With all due respect, multiple explanations have been put forward, many of them differing. I think the current scenario is best explained by the post right above yours though

Edited April 27, 2009 by KingSuck

[Kiss Goodbye]

-If NPO does ask TOP for aid, TOP are bound to help NPO or the treaty is automatically terminated

We've repeatedly stated that their actions invalidate the need for us to defend them due to the way we wrote the treaty. If they take actions that will obviously lead to them being DoWed--such as declaring in the middle of peace negotiations--we're not required to defend them. That's how the treaty works. You've repeatedly ignored every post stating this. They are aware of this and would rather have the treaty down the line (if Karma lets them keep it), than pointlessly ask us to honor something that we are NOT bound to, once again due to the fact that it is written to prevent this sort of thing. If they asked us to defend them, THEY would be the ones breaking the treaty--again, because we are not obligated to do so--not us. They're not asking because they know this.

I suggest you re-read the first 500 posts in this topic as they cover it in greater depth.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Kiss Goodbye

[Hasin]

Article II

In the signing of this pact, both sides agree to defend and aid one another in times of war when requested by the other signatory alliance. Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources. It must also be clear that this pact is intended to only defend the safety and prosperity of the signatory alliances, and not as a tool to aid in any imperialistic goals of either alliance.

An arguable reason for us not currently being engaged on NPO's side. Not really all that important.

Article III

To request assistance in a time of war, the alliance which is in need must first send a request to the other signatory alliance. That alliance then has 48 hours, or two days, to fully prepare for the shift from peace to war for maximum war efficiency. The options of termination outlined in Article IV are still available even after assistance is requested and granted. If one alliance commits a warranted act of aggression and requests assistance from the other signatory alliance, that alliance is not required to grant the request. Granting assistance requests is only required if that request is defensive, not offensive.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Article V

This pact will not trigger reciprocal defense obligations in the event that a signatory has engaged in espionage, extreme provocation of another party, or otherwise conducted its foreign affairs in such a way as to bring the conflict upon itself.

Hmm... sound familiar.

Those are the parts of the treaty relevant to your inquiry as far as I can tell. Read them closely, now make a logical conclusion.

[KingSuck]

<snip>

Those are the parts of the treaty relevant to your inquiry as far as I can tell. Read them closely, now make a logical conclusion.

Each of those have been covered in depth over the last few pages. Here you are: Logical Conclusion.

Anyways this is between NPO & TOP, not me, so I'm going to leave it there. If you want to continue this conversation feel free to PM me

[Hasin]

Each of those have been covered in depth over the last few pages. Here you are: Logical Conclusion.

Anyways this is between NPO & TOP, not me, so I'm going to leave it there. If you want to continue this conversation feel free to PM me

Excellent, thank you for your inquisitiveness.

[Owned-You]

Have Fun TOP, I'm sure you will enjoy this war.

[Bossk]

I <3 you TOP.

[WarriorConcept]

And here comes WC. We couldn't have this discussion without you now could we. Keep on message WC keep on message.

Well I surely wouldn't want you to get away with your attempt at still applying double standards to everyone else. You'd think this war would've knocked that much sense into you, alas I suppose it's only honorable when it's you and pacifica doing the betraying and disgusting and shameful when others do it.

Hypocrisy, thy name is pacifica.

[Doitzel]

You know what's funny? When you call Dilber and all these Valhalla toadies out on their failures, miscommunications, and injustices they scream "we didn't do anything wrong!" But when you do something they don't like they automatically change their tune to "you're as bad as us!" which implicitly supports that they are, in fact, failures at diplomacy and communication.

Here's an idea: if you want someone to be on your side you might want to have more than just a treaty with them. Perhaps if you'd treated them like allies, as those in Karma clearly have, they would have stayed neutral or helped you. But even I know that NPO and friends have repeatedly taken craps on TOP for God knows what reason -- probably no reason at all except that you are sociopaths without any regard for anyone but yourselves.

Treaties are only as good as the bonds they are meant to represent. That is how it has always been and trying to elawyer around it is hilarious. It is you -- NPO and Valhalla, and all the Continuum -- that has created, pioneered, and long defended a treaty web that interlocks alliances so completely that they have the freedom to do almost anything they please in the event of a war like this. I warned you Dilber.

[ojiras ajeridas]

I really don't understand all this crying. NPO, when they declared war at OV, didn't see TOP as friend any more. Why else didn't they ask for help? I mean, if you look at their actions, TOP didn't play a big role in their hegemony system any more. In that peace talks, TOP was put aside when NPO was ready. I could imagine that NPO knew they went to war since the beginning. But that of course is hard to proof.

Fact is the following: When you leave peace talks and declare war, you act aggressively. Acting aggressively you start a war. Starting a war, you bring war upon yourself:

Article V

This pact will not trigger reciprocal defense obligations in the event that a signatory has engaged in espionage, extreme provocation of another party, or otherwise conducted its foreign affairs in such a way as to bring the conflict upon itself.

So, actually, this MDP was never obligatory in this war. And as TOP was the alliance (in person of GM Crymson) to lead the peace talks, for NPO it is quite hard to make us think something else. I mean, NPO brought this war upon itself. It was clear since the beginning that this wouldn't be a war where NPO stomped OV and that's it. Can't imagine that Crymson really took care that much about OV (I mean, I needed some time that OV doesn't mean One Vision ) if he didn't know the consequences of this war. As it seems, some guys of NPO undervalued these consequences. But, if I were NPO, I'd take an example at IRON and Invicta. They both are fighting, they aren't crying. And after all TOP didn't declare on NPO. We declared on Invicta. Invicta finished in this war as most alliances did. They didn't spy, they didn't break up peace talks. But the way they are acting now will bring them advantages after the war. Maybe NPO should begin to think too that sometimes you need other alliances, it's not always that other alliances need you.

[Jinnai]

I never disputed this. I'm saying that if the NPO has/did request help then TOP would be bound by the treaty to provide help or it would be terminated.

There is a clause for the case of wanton acts of aggression as well as the aggressive part of the treaty being optional. Anything after that is the result of an aggressive action that triggered it and we do not have to assist in an aggressive action whether requested or not...or are you saying now NPO did not strike first in an aggressive move?

[crazy canuck]

You, telling us we could have and should have stayed neutral? Yes, it also would have gone a long way if you had gone with neutrality as well.

I don't post much here, but this warrants some clarification.

Branimir, I can understand how this would could give you bitter feelings. I don't, however, understand how you don't seem to be able to look at the situation logically and take into account the reactions formed by your very own actions. TOP was very much committed to the defense of your alliance as well as the ones we now fight alongside. I personally urged many of the alliances now thirsting for your blood to cool it down, in fact many here were not happy with how some people were treating our allies, you, as enemies. Many long winded posts were made defending you guys. You made me look like a fool. I was confident that you guys wouldn't make such a blatantly careless mistake, you did, and that is when you lost our respect and voided the terms of our treaty. Many here still had you in the best interests even after the fact, we wanted to help you get easier terms/shorter beating, but I don't know if how you are acting currently will help that. If someone is to blame here, it is not us.

You might have a point, if we held an MADP with you, but this is why we do not sign them. The way I see it, your entire side of the conflict is in aggression, we chose not to activate those oA clauses because we don't agree with the offensive side of this war, and no defense clauses are activated. The Karma side on the other hand is technically in the defensive, so those treaties are activated if the help is requested.

I suggest that you own up to your mistakes, your current course can only make us into enemies, and it seems your friends are running in short supply.

This sums it up very well. I wonder if Branmir has any idea how difficult the NPO made it for people to make the case for them as they blundered into this war.

Branimir, you have to remember that there are a lot of members in TOP that remember our long held ties. But you sure made it hard to speak in your defence.

Edited April 27, 2009 by crazy canuck