dwthegreat Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 What are you going to do without the NAPs that help you move at TOP speed? Anyway good luck TOP Looks like a good move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 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. Fire your evil genius' and hire new ones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Fair enough. Cool stuff TOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko 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. The cool thing now is to sign PIATs where the information and aid clauses are never ever activated thus making them much fancier NAPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 HOW DARE YO--- Oh ok. That's cool. Yeah...sure... Haha, good stuff TOP, I can see where you're coming from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Great, I set my foriegn affairs office to detonate when NAPs are obsolete. OH SHI- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdcchn Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 o/ TOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 With that logic, most treaties do not matter.Most treaties don't. Most treaties shouldn't. Most Planet Bob treaties aren't really even treaties at all, but instead are silly ramblings of prepubescents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) NAPs are naf (see PC) o/ TOP edit: I personally hate the NAP. It a lame treaty that has no practical purpose. It doesnt tell people you are getting close it says you couldn't wait to sign a proper treaty and wanted to sign something to tell people how great your friendship is, just not good enough to commit to an MDP or better. If there is already an MDP or better its just plain silly. Congrats again TOP. With that logic, most treaties do not matter. To some alliances they dont. Edited June 7, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) 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. I am no expert regarding the history of treaties or their application on Plante Bob, but I can say that the PIAT's that I have been a part of specifically do not have any military commitments to them at all. Being a big proponent of being as faithful to treaties as possible, I congratulate TOP for getting rid of NAP's. If you feel it necessary to indicate that you won't be attacking someone just because you've signed a treaty, then there's obviously not enough friendship there to sign a treaty anyway. A mandated commitment for an exchange of intelligence and financial exchanges seems to be acceptable to, if nothing else, indicate priorities. The cool thing now is to sign PIATs where the information and aid clauses are never ever activated thus making them much fancier NAPs. I hope I don't ever get convinced to sign a PIAT with those cool kids then, cause we sure try to live up to the intelligence and aid portions of our PIAT's. Edited June 7, 2009 by Stetson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb 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. I cannot give you the date they were posted on the OWF (The MHA topic took ages to find) but I can tell when they were ratified (Could be up to a week until official treaty, but this has no internal reason, but more people being lazy ) ODN : 2nd of August 2006 IRON : 18th of August 2006 NPO : 26th of August 2006 OPA : 7th of September 2006 MHA : 21st of November 2006 We used to have a rather massive NAP web back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 It's all TOP's fault! I don't know, just seemed an appropriate place for my new favorite meme. Regards, VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 ...move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 What? People still have these? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstep Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 What? People still have these? we don't anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yubyubsan Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 we don't anymore So you guys aren't going for 2009's Most NAPs Held By One Alliance? Time to step up your game, son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) The only reason that NAPs are worthless is that the entire community doesn't bother to take treaties seriously (especially NAPs or PIATs or ToAs or anything other than MDoAP for the most part). Edited June 7, 2009 by ender land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Don't roll us please D: Anyways, I understand your point about NAPs. No hard feelings or anything crazy like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sad to see a document from so long in MHA's past now gone, but realistically that happened when we upgraded to MDP anyway so... yay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yinner Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 interesting if nothing else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sad to see a document from so long in MHA's past now gone, but realistically that happened when we upgraded to MDP anyway so... yay? Yea. You'd think there would be a clause in a NAP that would automatically terminate it when the connection between the two alliances is elevated to MDP. Guess no one though about that at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Yea. You'd think there would be a clause in a NAP that would automatically terminate it when the connection between the two alliances is elevated to MDP. Guess no one though about that at the time. Heh, if it was November of '06, I'm doubting we thought much else apart from "Ooh shiny treaty with bigger alliance" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hormones74 Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Good move TOP. NAPs really are worthless, unless of course theres alot of bickering going on between alliances and something needs to be set into place to calm the sides down. With these cancellations I feel that all the parties involved are more or less agreeable to the fact that they can all get along without hurting one another. So, once again, good move TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) 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. You should have jumped on the band wagon 34 months ago, when we first made a similar statement. Regardless, I do welcome an alliance helping end the tyrannous reign of NAPs this world has experienced. Edited June 7, 2009 by Smooth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinnai Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) The only reason that NAPs are worthless is that the entire community doesn't bother to take treaties seriously (especially NAPs or PIATs or ToAs or anything other than MDoAP for the most part). Sadly this is kind of true. Even then though, a lot of times those are't even take those seriously. Edited June 7, 2009 by Jinnai 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.