Crymson Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox Regarding Non-Aggression Pacts Having consulted with the applicable alliances, The Order of the Paradox hereby dissolves all of the non-aggression pacts we currently hold. The treaties in question concern the following alliances (I will reiterate that these are all of our non-aggression pact partners): OPA MHA ODN IRON NPO Note that this is an impersonal action and is not whatsoever intended as a means by which to make any sort of political statement toward any of the above alliances---indeed, we have MDP-level treaties with MHA and IRON in addition to the aforementioned NAPs. Rather, it is merely symbolic of our belief that non-aggression pacts are of extremely limited utility in this day and age in the Cyberverse, and of our desire to proverbially clean the books of unnecessary treaties. Indeed, our foreign affairs policy has long since been against the signing of NAPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sorry, but it makes so much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Seems like a good move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Ubet Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) coolio Edited June 7, 2009 by Andre Fincher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Could you get dates from when the treaties were ratified? That would be interesting to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) Why the hate again NAPs? They are a good way of starting a friendship. Unless of course, they are really old and nothing has came up them since they were signed. I would understand then. However, an NAP is a good starting block for something more. Edited June 7, 2009 by Nintenderek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Lines Being Drawn!!111!!1!1!! Good move, NAP treaties are pretty worthless in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) Could you get dates from when the treaties were ratified?That would be interesting to see. The only one I know for sure is the MHA NAP date of Nov 2006. The others were too old for me to find the original posting date... Also, necessary move. Edited June 7, 2009 by Titus Pullo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamrecognized Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Clearly you plan to attack us. You'd have to fight GRE too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Death to all NAPs! And the dates would be intresting. It really is of a time long gone. Only reason to hold on to them was for historical reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Please TOP don't betray MHA (and Gremlins by extension)! Good move to clean up old/outdated/etc treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Why the hate again NAPs? They are a good way of starting a friendship. Unless of course, they are really old and nothing has came up them since they were signed. I would understand then. However, an NAP is a good starting block for something more. Most people start with a PIAT these days. Good move, TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Begovic Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) I do not have the exact date, but The Orange Hegemony Protocol, a NAP between OPA and TOP occurred sometime around Aug 31 2006 - Sep 4 2006. Edited June 7, 2009 by Begovic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Witz Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) Why the hate again NAPs? They are a good way of starting a friendship. Unless of course, they are really old and nothing has came up them since they were signed. I would understand then. However, an NAP is a good starting block for something more. I wouldn't call it hate; generally speaking I've rarely see NAPs signed by alliances in CN in recent times. The most commonly signed treaties usually contain non-aggression clauses anyway (e.g. MDPs, MDoAPs, ODPs). I tend to see ODPs (or PIATs as Drakedeath pointed out) being used in the place of NAPs now for starting off friendships as they are not totally binding, but they also express a strengthening level of agreeability between two alliances. o/ Streamlining Edited June 7, 2009 by General Witz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 RIP NAPs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Please TOP, don't betray MHA...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 I endorse this action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Good move, NAP treaties are pretty worthless in this day and age. How so? They have as much worth as any other treaty: that is, they have as much value as the signatories ascribe to them. Nor are they useless -- indeed, their use is right in their name. Basically NAPs have simply been replaced by the Treaty of Amity / Friendship Pact / PIAT which all (I think?) have non-aggression clauses as well as optional defence clauses within. I think that's a bad thing, to be honest, as it cements the idea that you have to have a treaty to activate in order to declare war in defence of another alliance, or at all. Anyway, whatever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Glad to see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epik High Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 No more NAP time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Please TOP, don't betray MHA...? That's their new plan. They're going to betray Gre by first betraying MHA. Dastardly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 And it all falls into place. Prepare, Grämlins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 That's their new plan. They're going to betray Gre by first betraying MHA.Dastardly... That pretty sneaky I must admit. We learned it all from the NPO, always start a major conflict over a secondary alliance then when the time is right, hit your intended target. Wait a second. MHA bigger then Gremlins? Damnit! Lets go back to the drawing boards guys, and remember this time secondary alliance meaning smaller and less connected to the cluster %$@ that is the MDP web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Manbearpig Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 How so? They have as much worth as any other treaty: that is, they have as much value as the signatories ascribe to them. Nor are they useless -- indeed, their use is right in their name.Basically NAPs have simply been replaced by the Treaty of Amity / Friendship Pact / PIAT which all (I think?) have non-aggression clauses as well as optional defence clauses within. I think that's a bad thing, to be honest, as it cements the idea that you have to have a treaty to activate in order to declare war in defence of another alliance, or at all. Anyway, whatever... People usually sign them and just don't live up to their ODPs at all, so it really doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 People usually sign them and just don't live up to their ODPs at all, so it really doesn't matter. With that logic, most treaties do not matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.