Trout Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 They could just be waiting for the cancellation period to expire before announcing. Has it been almost a year since that thing has been signed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Surely such a treaty would never be signed except with the utmost of commitment, and would never be canceled by either party, which was why the cancelation period was put in as just a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Chill I Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Ah, and after everything RIA went through to defend you guys in this war.I guess even the strongest of bonds between the most trustworthy of allies can be broken. Shush. You gonna make me agree with an NSO member, we dont want that to happen now do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Surely such a treaty would never be signed except with the utmost of commitment, and would never be canceled by either party, which was why the cancelation period was put in as just a joke. Sparta had a multiple decade cancellation period with RIA. What a mistake that was. Now we're stuck with those !@#$%cakes for another 30 some-odd years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Sparta had a multiple decade cancellation period with RIA. What a mistake that was. Now we're stuck with those !@#$%cakes for another 30 some-odd years Hey, you've still got 47 and a half years left on that baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Pretty much expected I guess. Good luck to both sides though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Shush. You gonna make me agree with an NSO member, we dont want that to happen now do we. We must never speak of this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes it is a major shake up. But I so far have been very very pleased with the results. A lot of people were upset when we signed the MK treaty, its a heck of a lot easier to make decisions when theres a big long thread of public opinion to guide you. They aren't polls, or binding, their just opinions, but they've been a great help to making policy decisions. For instance, we were all gung ho on some red unity efforts, until the BR said overwhelmingly that they wanted to take it slow. It turned out to probably be a better decision. So tell me, how much rejoicing was there when we cancelled it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 So tell me, how much rejoicing was there when we cancelled it? and there was much rejoicing Seriously though, how many 'shrooms were against you cancelling it? Probably about the same number of Pacificans who were upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 and there was much rejoicing Seriously though, how many 'shrooms were against you cancelling it? Probably about the same number of Pacificans who were upset. Makes a lot of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Makes a lot of sense. are you babyjesus on irc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 are you babyjesus on irc? Confirmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Confirmed. unconfirmed. I am babyjesus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 They do not have a choice. They are getting annihilated over there, and the last thing Pacifica needs is a mass defection. Whatever the reason for it happening, its a good thing. Everyone can see now that the true power of NPO is indeed the BR and the loyalty. Yes, they lost quite a few members but I would say most of those didn't spend much time actually getting involved with the NPO forum culture. May NPO leadership never again take the BR for granted. They are the NPO. I have to say though, it is quite a step forward if NPO is consulting the BR on it's FA now. It is a huge step forward. They could just be waiting for the cancellation period to expire before announcing. Had a few good laughs over this. Have wondered about this myself as well as MHA certainly seems like a different alliance these days. Lots of facepalms all around when the topic of that treaty comes up I am sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Hey, you've still got 47 and a half years left on that baby. Great, now my day is even worse. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrotskysRevenge Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 At least the Eternal MDoAP with MHA is still valid. On our end it most certainly it. And from what I have heard it is on their end as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Alexander Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 They could just be waiting for the cancellation period to expire before announcing. If we wanted to cancel it would be done by the the amendment section of the treaty. Which would circumvent the need to wait out the year long period. Rest assured if neither alliances wanted to keep the relationship alive it would have been cancelled already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 If we wanted to cancel it would be done by the the amendment section of the treaty. Which would circumvent the need to wait out the year long period. Rest assured if neither alliances wanted to keep the relationship alive it would have been cancelled already. Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Alexander Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO). Indeed, the war put us on opposite sides and the government of the MHA decided for whatever reason to commit the alliance on the IRON front. The last one has been discussed before I can point you to the thread as i do not wish to derail this one. As for the thread; Expected/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Indeed, the war put us on opposite sides and the government of the MHA decided for whatever reason to commit the alliance on the IRON front. The last one has been discussed before I can point you to the thread as i do not wish to derail this one.As for the thread; Expected/10 No need, I'm sure the MHA knows my stance on this one... illogical choice of ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO). A treaty between two sovereign alliances, as well as how outside events impact that treaty, are open to interpretation by the alliances that sign it, and only the alliances that sign it. If both parties agree on and are able to get over what happened, regardless of the legality in their treaty, then more power to them. If MHA and NPO still see themselves as friends, then what right do any of us have to tell them that their friendship is wrong or illegal via article X of their treaty that was technically violated in a way that was probably unavoidable (not saying you said it was illegal, I'm just adding that for emphasis). Us sitting here and e-lawyering a document that does not even affect us is quite pointless, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO). Treaty text. NPO's attack on OVI am not sure which clause you think this attack violated. NPO certainly complied with III.C. MHA's attack on IRONYou probably think this was a violation of III.D. It wasn't. MHA's war with IRON was defensive in nature, and III.D. only prohibits aggressive wars. MHA's refusal to defend NPOBy a plain reading of III.A., this is a treaty violation. MHA has clearly stated that they intended this treaty to be a non-chaining treaty, though; I would suggest a rewording of III.A. Note that MHA did defend NPO against bandwagoners, which is in line with their interpretation of III.A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Alexander Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 No need, I'm sure the MHA knows my stance on this one... illogical choice of ally. We do, but it is the hitchhikers who ultimately decide on our side whether or not we cancel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 [*]NPO's attack on OVI am not sure which clause you think this attack violated. NPO certainly complied with III.C. No, they did not, as MHA government members admitted immediately after NPO's declaration. [*]MHA's attack on IRONYou probably think this was a violation of III.D. It wasn't. MHA's war with IRON was defensive in nature, and III.D. only prohibits aggressive wars. IRON most certainly didn't declare war on MHA. If you think along the lines that "an attack on one is considered an attack on its treaty partners," then NPO violated III.D in declaring war on OV. [*]MHA's refusal to defend NPOBy a plain reading of III.A., this is a treaty violation. MHA has clearly stated that they intended this treaty to be a non-chaining treaty, though; I would suggest a rewording of III.A. Note that MHA did defend NPO against bandwagoners, which is in line with their interpretation of III.A. I don't see the word "bandwagoners" in the treaty, nor do I see a non-chaining clause, nor would a non-chaining clause apply to every attacker that declared on NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Us sitting here and e-lawyering a document that does not even affect us is quite pointless, to be honest. It's fun to discuss things 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.