Address from Commanding General

[Matthew Conrad]

And you talk about my ignorance.... there was a thread that went forever and a day about PC attacking us to break the NAP we had rather than wait the cancelation period.

Just saying....Of Course, makes you wonder. There was once this story I heard about a guy who threw a rock at a pack of dogs. One yelped, it turned out that was the one that got hit.

Actually that treaty was written quite oddly and they technically followed a clause that broke it. I read through that thread also and it was filled with tremendous e-lawyering by everyone around. It's not really their fault you guys didn't really understand that line of the treaty.

[Kilkenny]

Actually that treaty was written quite oddly and they technically followed a clause that broke it. I read through that thread also and it was filled with tremendous e-lawyering by everyone around. It's not really their fault you guys didn't really understand that line of the treaty.

Still doesn't change the facts though, does it?? And for that matter every treaty has that clause, just not written or does that mean if RIA attacked you you would keep the treaty with them. And if you keep the treaty with them, does that mean you would counter attack your own attack on them in support of your treaty?? Or would you call on their support and ask them to help you attack them for their attack on you??

Poorly worded it may be, it still took them breaking the treaty without canceling it, to break it. In fact, I would think that applies to any treaty out there.

[youwish959]

lol...childish logic...You question Sparta's integrity, yet I cant mention your alliance? Ok...

Mind your own conversations please. But, perhaps you shouldn't bring in completely irrelevant examples such as my alliance?

[Matthew Conrad]

Still doesn't change the facts though, does it?? And for that matter every treaty has that clause, just not written or does that mean if RIA attacked you you would keep the treaty with them. And if you keep the treaty with them, does that mean you would counter attack your own attack on them in support of your treaty?? Or would you call on their support and ask them to help you attack them for their attack on you??

Poorly worded it may be, it still took them breaking the treaty without canceling it, to break it. In fact, I would think that applies to any treaty out there.

The cancellation period in almost all MDP level treaties prevent direct hostilities until the time frame is over. The fact is, a NAP and MDP are based off of two different motivations. MDP level is based off of mutual like or protection whereas NAP's have traditionally been signed so as to prevent direct hostilities because the possibility of war was high.

The difference is, if RIA hypothetically attacked us the cancellation period would still be in effect and make the attack "e-lawyer illegal". It doesn't constitute an immediate cancellation.

Of course, the way that NAP was worded it essentially made it worthless, by design or not.

[BamaBuc]

Actually that treaty was written quite oddly and they technically followed a clause that broke it. I read through that thread also and it was filled with tremendous e-lawyering by everyone around. It's not really their fault you guys didn't really understand that line of the treaty.

Do I have to spell it out for you? The treaty went something like this:

"If either party ----> BREAKS <---- the treaty..."

If that's a loophole, it's the &#33;@#&#036;%^ loophole I've ever seen.

-Bama

[Matthew Conrad]

Do I have to spell it out for you? The treaty went something like this:

"If either party ----> BREAKS <---- the treaty..."

If that's a loophole, it's the &#33;@#&#036;%^ loophole I've ever seen.

-Bama

That's what I said. I said they broke it legally under the treaty lines.

[BamaBuc]

That's what I said. I said they broke it legally under the treaty lines.

Then we agree that they broke the treaty.

-Bama

[Matthew Conrad]

Then we agree that they broke the treaty.

-Bama

I believe we're using two different definitions of broke. By break, I mean they canceled the ties. I probably should have said they canceled the treaty. Technically, legal treaty cancellations don't have to go by the traditional means.

Anyways, a loophole is there because someone didn't notice or care enough to change it. TPF should have been more careful imo

[astronaut jones]

Still doesn't change the facts though, does it?? And for that matter every treaty has that clause, just not written or does that mean if RIA attacked you you would keep the treaty with them. And if you keep the treaty with them, does that mean you would counter attack your own attack on them in support of your treaty?? Or would you call on their support and ask them to help you attack them for their attack on you??

Poorly worded it may be, it still took them breaking the treaty without canceling it, to break it. In fact, I would think that applies to any treaty out there.

Again, this is the only NAP in history that, when it was broken, people seemed to give a damn about it. Why? Because you wanted to make PC look bad, nothing more, nothing less.

You would have broken it in much the same manner, had they not beaten you to the punch. Stop your !@#$%*ing.

[NoFish]

But RIA didn't drop their treaty with NPO and RIA is not fighting NPO.

RIA's treaty was written very specifically to revert to a NAP in the event of a large-scale conflict that both parties found themselves on opposite sides of.

[JoseyWales]

And you talk about my ignorance.... there was a thread that went forever and a day about PC attacking us to break the NAP we had rather than wait the cancelation period.

The cancellation period was upheld just the way TPF intended it to be when written. (Thanks Hoo)

[BamaBuc]

Again, this is the only NAP in history that, when it was broken, people seemed to give a damn about it. Why? Because you wanted to make PC look bad, nothing more, nothing less.

You would have broken it in much the same manner, had they not beaten you to the punch. Stop your !@#$%*ing.

How many NAPs have been broken lately that no one's cared about? You keep citing them, but where are they?

-Bama

[Kryievla]

Again, this is the only NAP in history that, when it was broken, people seemed to give a damn about it.

Again, Legion broke one in GWIII, and there was indeed an uproar over it. Whether Legion *actually* broke a NAP was less clear than it is here, yet it received a lot more media play than this did.

Though I surely do hope to not see this topic again; that horse has been shot and beaten, then mutilated beyond all belief.

[astronaut jones]

How many NAPs have been broken lately that no one's cared about? You keep citing them, but where are they?

-Bama

Oh I'm sorry, let me spend hours doing research just so you can be appeased.

I'll be back later just so I can make you feel better.

[Kilkenny]

The cancellation period was upheld just the way TPF intended it to be when written. (Thanks Hoo)

Still waiting for the Log Dump that Mhawk requested proving it. Given that Mhawk's word is final on all stuff like that, seems that he would also know/have these logs. But hey, take anyone's word for soemthing like that and i guess that counts.

BTW I happen to know that PC's treaty with RIA has a Super Sekret Section that reverts to a tech treaty if PC reaches 100 members. Must be true, it was said on OWF. and I can produce logs to prove that too

01[10:23] <Kilkenny[TPF_MoW]> Heard about that Super Sekret Section of PC's and RIA treaty

[10:25] <E_C> yep

[10:25] <E_C> I can't believe it

01[10:26] <Kilkenny[TPF_MoW]> I know

01[10:26] <Kilkenny[TPF_MoW]> reverting to a Tech Treaty

01[10:26] <Kilkenny[TPF_MoW]> if they hit 100 members?? wtf is that about.

really really really must be true now.

*for those without the sarcasm gene the above senario is sarcastic in nature and not meant to be taken serious, kinda like the talk that TPF Hates PC and Mhawk is out for their destruction. If that were the case, it would have happened a long time ago when we had the opportunity. Poorly worded NAPs are just that, Poorly worded. Breaking is Breaking, no matter how you say it or word it. If I knock the vase off the table it is broke, doesn't matter if it was hanging off the edge, it is still broke.

[Kilkenny]

I believe we're using two different definitions of broke. By break, I mean they canceled the ties. I probably should have said they canceled the treaty. Technically, legal treaty cancellations don't have to go by the traditional means.

Anyways, a loophole is there because someone didn't notice or care enough to change it. TPF should have been more careful imo

Again, the point being you can cancel a treaty just by attacking.

Funny thing is if TPF had canceled the treaty this way, those of you saying PC did it right and it is ok, it is only a NAP, would be the same people running the rope up the tree to hang TPF by it. Funny how stuff done by those on your side of the fence is ok, no matter what it is.

[Un4Gvn1]

Enough of the PC stuff! Mhawk wanted peace with them and all of TPF deferred to his judgement. Mhawk is the reason TPF didn't hit PC last winter.

The more relevant history that seems to have been overlooked in recent pages goes along this line:

Ask not what NPO did to TORN April 21; ask what TORN did to NPO.

To those complaining about the OP and saying it should have been said privately -- don't read the darn thing if you're not interested after reading the first couple of sentences. The announcement was necessary to inform the world that Mhawk releases members from that point forward ... because, well, you know how the world loves to brand those that leave an alliance during war time. Now kindly STHU.

[Grabem]

It's sad to see some good friends leave. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

[mhawk]

It's not that you're evil, it's that you're ramming down the "HAI WE'RE AT WAR, SO WE'RE HONORABLE" card down everyones' throat. You've made maybe 3 threads (although one was a "Personal statement" from mhawk) that make no announcement other than the fact you're still at war.

At this point, no one would really care if you got peace terms, nor care if you kept fighting, you've reached the point where there's diminishing returns on the PR bonus you're getting for needlessly dragging it out.

As for the "TPF has changed" argument, there's nothing really to support that before this war. Maybe the war is a turning point, maybe not. As of right now there is insufficient evidence, but the real question is how they will act once the war is over.

Just curious what is this "three statements of nothing" everyone keeps talking about? Are you referring to my change of command thread, (before tpf was in war), the TPF dow, and then this?

So a DoW and then a statement 8 weeks later is "ramming down the throat".

[mhawk]

I haven't seen any change in policy since he took over. As I said, until I see any actions that show you have changed I cannot be sure you have. It is easy to say you have changed when there is no requirement to act. I certainly hope you have changed and will show mercy and decency to fallen foes in future.

And when I referred to "seeing the light" I was speaking generally, not specifically of TPF. In fact, I was referring to a number of alliances on both sides of this current/recent conflict. Alliances that happily applied horrific terms to fallen foes in previous conflicts now preaching to others about their leniency and honour while demonising alliances who dare seek reparations no matter how small or who now complain incessantly about how harsh or unfair terms they now receive are despite them being far lighter than anything they themselves meted out in previous conflicts.

There are genuine changes and changes of convenience. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on a lot of the "changed" alliances. I certainly hope the majority of them have changed. Time will tell.

I don't think I can change then tyga. Mostly on account of I don't believe I've ever given "horrific terms" to a fallen alliance. So to change I'd need to give horrific terms?

[mhawk]

The cancellation period was upheld just the way TPF intended it to be when written. (Thanks Hoo)

Hoo has said there was no one in TPF that told him as such. He was going off a rumor he heard from an alliance that is not allied to us. I've asked him privately to correct his thread, I doubt he will though.

[Ellis]

The cancellation period was upheld just the way TPF intended it to be when written. (Thanks Hoo)

Oh, well that just changes everything.

Now that Hoo, who is the leader of an alliance, which is, I hear, somewhat different from TPF, has said something, what can we do but bow to his superior intellect?

Note: I'm not calling Hoo stupid in any way, he just doesn't know everything.

[Roadie]

I'm tired of the drama. Next time there's bad blood between ourselves and an alliance of untested, pouting rulers, lets just roll them and be done with it.

[Lycurgus Rex]

Mind your own conversations please. But, perhaps you shouldn't bring in completely irrelevant examples such as my alliance?

Truly a piece of work arent you? If thats the case then by your own clearly superior logic you are irrelevant in this thread and should leave, or is my presence the sole reason for you being here? I can deal with that.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Lycurgus Rex

[Haflinger]

I think TOP fighting for the Hegemony would have had a much more profound effect than purely the NS factor. I don't see a non-Citadel alliance in Karma's lineup that could have handled TOP's upper ranks. If they had entered on Hegemony's side (purely by themselves), it would have been a much different war.

Yes, I tend to agree.

Ticking off TOP was the absolute worst part of how this war started.

Again, this is the only NAP in history that, when it was broken, people seemed to give a damn about it.

Well, speaking for myself, I've never been a member of an alliance that violated a NAP, and as far as I'm concerned, if you can't be trusted to honour the easiest treaty on the planet to honour, then why should anyone trust you to keep to any other treaty?

Ask not what NPO did to TORN April 21; ask what TORN did to NPO.

Peggy knows what she's talking about. And I was there for a good part of it.