Treaty Cancellation

[TheEraser]

Although that still doesnt address the larger point of:

"Why have such a substantial treaty based upon a single person in the government? Shouldnt there be a bit of a stronger bond involved?"

chron, re-read my first post. I was 2nd in command when this treaty was originally signed just prior to the outbreak of war.

iirc, i liked the idea of the treaty b/c it opened up our options in war and allowed us to face a far weaker opponet. We were a newer alliance and most of our members had abysmal warchests and even worse tech:infra ratios, RoK wanted us to attack IRON who would have rolled us incredibly easily and i wanted no part of that. we put ourselves in a position to succeed, thats why the treaty was signed, there really was never any real friendship outside of Carter (though i do like a lot of their members)

/me sinks back to the shadows

[TehChron]

Any kindof questionable leadership, regardless of who it is makes a fairly bad imprint on ones Alliance.

And considering the gravity of who it was and everything thereof, we had to make the right call and I support our Parliament fully on this decision and have been for awhile now.

From the way things went down, it looked like Carter was the questionable leadership, to be frankly honest.

Edit:

chron, re-read my first post. I was 2nd in command when this treaty was originally signed just prior to the outbreak of war.

iirc, i liked the idea of the treaty b/c it opened up our options in war and allowed us to face a far weaker opponet. We were a newer alliance and most of our members had abysmal warchests and even worse tech:infra ratios, RoK wanted us to attack IRON who would have rolled us incredibly easily and i wanted no part of that. we put ourselves in a position to succeed, thats why the treaty was signed, there really was never any real friendship outside of Carter (though i do like a lot of their members)

/me sinks back to the shadows

Ah, I had been curious as to the motivations...But if it were purely out of pragmatism that outlived its usefulness, then that makes perfect sense.

Although dressing it up as being due to some kind of failure on FIREs part is rather disingenuous.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Chron

[TypoNinja]

From the way things went down, it looked like Carter was the questionable leadership, to be frankly honest.

Yea true, but consider, FIRE's charter (I believe they've since changed it) basically made Carter the all power ruler of his alliance, he was basically supreme dictator. A government without him under those terms represents an all new government, since the decision making powers now rest with different people. That doesn't quite make it a new alliance, but it does make it something new enough that an MDoAP is no longer appropriate.

[Nintenderek]

Any kindof questionable leadership, regardless of who it is makes a fairly bad imprint on ones Alliance.

Then why the hell did you sign with Carter in the first place?

[TehChron]

Yea true, but consider, FIRE's charter (I believe they've since changed it) basically made Carter the all power ruler of his alliance, he was basically supreme dictator. A government without him under those terms represents an all new government, since the decision making powers now rest with different people. That doesn't quite make it a new alliance, but it does make it something new enough that an MDoAP is no longer appropriate.

Wasnt the MDoAP inappropriate to begin with, then?

[President Kuse]

Then why the hell did you sign with Carter in the first place?

Personally I cannot say because I am not privy to such information. However from my point of view it was a rather hasty thing to do imo.

[TypoNinja]

Wasnt the MDoAP inappropriate to begin with, then?

The FIRE treaty was a carry over from the Syndicate treaty, I wasn't around when it was signed, so no idea there.

[TehChron]

The FIRE treaty was a carry over from the Syndicate treaty, I wasn't around when it was signed, so no idea there.

Why keep it, then?

[Nintenderek]

That doesn't quite make it a new alliance, but it does make it something new enough that an MDoAP is no longer appropriate.

The FIRE treaty was a carry over from the Syndicate treaty, I wasn't around when it was signed, so no idea there.

Okay, here's my question. Your yourself said that it was carried over from another alliance, so if your canceling the treaty just because of something being new, why wasn't it canceled when the new alliance was formed?

[flak attack]

Okay, here's my question. Your yourself said that it was carried over from another alliance, so if your canceling the treaty just because of something being new, why wasn't it canceled when the new alliance was formed?

They knew the person in charge of the new alliance. It's like how MK signed a protectorate with Ronin. We knew AirMe and thought he would be a reasonable leader, so we agreed to a treaty. VE did the same with FIRE. They guy they signed with isn't in charge anymore, so they don't really know you guys anymore. Seems reasonable and straight forward enough to me.

[Ar Pharazon]

o/ Treaties!

oh... wait.

[TehChron]

They knew the person in charge of the new alliance. It's like how MK signed a protectorate with Ronin. We knew AirMe and thought he would be a reasonable leader, so we agreed to a treaty. VE did the same with FIRE. They guy they signed with isn't in charge anymore, so they don't really know you guys anymore. Seems reasonable and straight forward enough to me.

Same here. But dressing it up as something else entirely is what I dont see the need for, when a more upfront and honest explanation would be more easy to accept.

I just dont see the need for jumping through these kinds of hoops for the sake of covering their tracks over such a simple thing.

[Ilya Murometz]

When the initial treaty was signed, it was a carry-over from the Syndicate. Recent actions have made us realize that Fire is no longer Syndicate. Hence the cancellation. VE holds no ill-will towards Fire and we wish Fire the best of luck in their endeavors.

I also find NSO posting negativity here, after being forced to apologize to neutrals, with the initial apology coming from #UJA, which is VE's creation, I find the NSO negativity here somewhat amusing.

[Solaris]

Wasnt the MDoAP inappropriate to begin with, then?

No. There were sufficient reasons to trust elboarraor's and carter's leadership. (During signing with Syndicate)

Why keep it, then?

In hope of finding friendship and alliance, forged in the crucible of fire and blood. Carrying a treaty over a merger/name change seemed reasonable at the time. However, information that puts that decision to a new light has been recently acquired.

Okay, here's my question. Your yourself said that it was carried over from another alliance, so if your canceling the treaty just because of something being new, why wasn't it canceled when the new alliance was formed?

Our perception in regards to the degree of "how new" was clouded, but recently clarified. We wish FIRE all the best.

edit: clarification

Edited July 7, 2009 by Solaris

[RandomInterrupt]

I thought so too. I guess I must have been wrong. This was the one treaty I was actually expecting we would keep. Nice to know that as soon as a little bit of internal drama happens in an alliance, everyone decides to drop treaties with that alliance. It tells you a lot about Planet Bob.

Bad protectors will do that to you. That's why it's important to find one that understands how to work with protectorates instead of one that you know.

With the VE's history of poorly thought out treaty signing and then dropping, they're hardly a bastion of stability. Which is a key thing when you are looking to that person to protect you against all threats.

Good luck as you attempt to turn FIRE around.

[Bill Wallace]

Bad protectors will do that to you. That's why it's important to find one that understands how to work with protectorates instead of one that you know.

With the VE's history of poorly thought out treaty signing and then dropping, they're hardly a bastion of stability.

What did I miss here? I don't believe FIRE was a protectorate of VE's. They were an equal treaty partner. Maybe I missed something?

As to your second comment on VE's stability: What are you talking about?

[Logan]

The thing everyone is failing to understand is that the treaty that carried over was from The Syndicate, not with The Realm.

Edit: forgot a word

Edited July 7, 2009 by Logan

[Heracles the Great]

No surprise here - Good luck VE

[RandomInterrupt]

What did I miss here? I don't believe FIRE was a protectorate of VE's. They were an equal treaty partner. Maybe I missed something?

As to your second comment on VE's stability: What are you talking about?

You are right. I was thinking it was a protectorate and not a full treaty. Sorry for the mix up there. In regards to the VE's FA stability, take a look at how many treaties the VE has signed and later dropped in comparison to other alliances that have been around for the same length of time. It's staggering. Some alliances pick their treaties carefully and stick by them. Others sign them quickly and indiscriminately and cancel the ones that were poor decisions. Seems a bit backwards to me.

[Bill Wallace]

You are right. I was thinking it was a protectorate and not a full treaty. Sorry for the mix up there. In regards to the VE's FA stability, take a look at how many treaties the VE has signed and later dropped in comparison to other alliances that have been around for the same length of time. It's staggering. Some alliances pick their treaties carefully and stick by them. Others sign them quickly and indiscriminately and cancel the ones that were poor decisions. Seems a bit backwards to me.

I've only been around for a little over a year and I don't see what you seem to be saying in regards to VE signing lots of treaties and dropping them. It just hasn't been the case over the last year. But, say that you are correct, one might be inclined to say that VE doesn't keep treaties with alliances when the relationship is not the same as when it was when the treaties were signed. That's actually a good thing if you ask me.

[Il Impero Romano]

Same here. But dressing it up as something else entirely is what I dont see the need for, when a more upfront and honest explanation would be more easy to accept.

I just dont see the need for jumping through these kinds of hoops for the sake of covering their tracks over such a simple thing.

Um, the OP was about 1 sentence....

You are right. I was thinking it was a protectorate and not a full treaty. Sorry for the mix up there. In regards to the VE's FA stability, take a look at how many treaties the VE has signed and later dropped in comparison to other alliances that have been around for the same length of time. It's staggering. Some alliances pick their treaties carefully and stick by them. Others sign them quickly and indiscriminately and cancel the ones that were poor decisions. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Please, explain where we have done that. After deliberating extensively, a few months ago we canceled some treaties that we had held for a very, very long time. Is that what your referring too? Because from my point of view that is exactly how treaties are suppose to be canceled and signed, and there was not a hint of rashness or backwards thinking involved.

[NoFish]

I don't really see what's so controversial about this cancellation.

Let's break it down into steps, and someone can correct me if I miss something.

1. VE signs a treaty with the Syndicate, in large part due to their friendship with Carter, its leader, and a few other government members.

2. The Syndicate merges with the Realm to make FIRE.

3. VE decides to keep the treaty, as Carter is still in charge and starts to become friends with the rest of the new alliance.

4. FIRE coups Carter.

5. VE decides to cancel the treaty with the alliance that had staged a coup against their friend.

6. ????

7. OUTRAGE

Edited July 7, 2009 by NoFish

[King Srqt]

I don't really see what's so controversial about this cancellation.

Let's break it down into steps, and someone can correct me if I miss something.

1. VE signs a treaty with the Syndicate, in large part due to their friendship with Carter, its leader, and a few other government members.

2. The Syndicate merges with the Realm to make FIRE.

3. VE decides to keep the treaty, as Carter is still in charge and starts to become friends with the rest of the new alliance.

4. FIRE coups Carter.

5. VE decides to cancel the treaty with the alliance that had staged a coup against their friend.

6. ????

7. OUTRAGE

How can you coup someone who no longer exists?

You are right. I was thinking it was a protectorate and not a full treaty. Sorry for the mix up there. In regards to the VE's FA stability, take a look at how many treaties the VE has signed and later dropped in comparison to other alliances that have been around for the same length of time. It's staggering. Some alliances pick their treaties carefully and stick by them. Others sign them quickly and indiscriminately and cancel the ones that were poor decisions. Seems a bit backwards to me.

I do not recall VE signing and dropping copious amounts of treaties. I recall the original incarnation of Viridia severing all ties at one point in an attempt to get a fresh start, I remember a cancellation with Polar that I still feel was 100% justified and cancellations in the build up to the current conflict which were made out of need and because of the way some of their "allies" treated them.

VE is no more a culprit of canceling treaties than any other alliance. If anything I see their willingness to sever ties that they no longer feel are worth having is a good trait even if I do wish they held on to this one a bit longer.

Edited July 7, 2009 by KingSrqt

[Aurion]

How can you coup someone who no longer exists?

I believe he was couped before he ceased to exist, though I could of course be mistaken considering I steered well clear of that particular dramabomb.

Either way, I would be antsy as heck about holding a treaty with FIRE atm all things considered. What with the leader booting most of the gov, and then getting couped and banned, or banned and removed, however you want to say it or how it transpired.

[USMC123]

I believe he was couped before he ceased to exist, though I could of course be mistaken considering I steered well clear of that particular dramabomb.

Either way, I would be antsy as heck about holding a treaty with FIRE atm all things considered. What with the leader booting most of the gov, and then getting couped and banned, or banned and removed, however you want to say it or how it transpired.

You are correct. Carter did exist when the coup occured.

EDIT: clarity

Edited July 7, 2009 by USMC123