TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[b3x]

The fact is that PC broke the treaty to cancel it. Good day to you as well.

How did PC break the treaty?

[King Srqt]

Let me give you a lesson in Opinion and fact:

The fact is: PC acted within the guidelines of the treaty as worded.

Your opinion is: PC broke the treaty.

See the difference there?

Good day sir.

the fact is that in order to work within the owrding of the treaty they had to break it, either way they broke it. In the DoW they even satetd that they broke it.

Fact PC broke the treaty.

Good day to you sir.

[Yggdrazil]

Oh the argument for it is pretty straight forward, I've repeated it dozens of times. Holding out for better terms only works when the terms are worse than continuing the war, otherwise its still a net loss, If terms go down 200 million but you took another 400 mil in damage while being stubborn you have won NOTHING. Stalling as a negotiating tactic for the losing party only works if you have managed to secure a ceasefire while negotiating terms, something that almost never happens on Planet bob. Stalling without the ceasefire just ensures the further destruction of the alliance.

By the logic of this argument,VE should have given up Sethb to the NPO. It certainly would have made more economic sense since VE lost a sanction. Yet, VE felt under bound to come to the defense of a treaty partner. An honorable choice even given the massive economic damage that resulted. Therefore by logical extension, what TPF is doing by sacrifices economics for honor is in the same vein and Karma needs to realize this.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

True, but likewise if we do not want to give them peace until they agree to pay fair reparations to PC, there's nothing they can do about it, no matter how big and bad they think they are.

This sums it up pretty much exactly. You are saying that no matter how big and bad we act they wont back down, but that goes both ways. TPF lost the war. Period. We dont have to cater to them if they are gonna be persistent.

[b3x]

the fact is that in order to work within the owrding of the treaty they had to break it, either way they broke it. In the DoW they even satetd that they broke it.

Fact PC broke the treaty.

Good day to you sir.

The fact is there were two ways outlined in that treaty to render it null and void. One was to attack the other party, and the second was to give notice.

[King Srqt]

The fact is there were two ways outlined in that treaty to render it null and void. One was to attack the other party, and the second was to give notice.

Incorrect. 1 way was to give notice the other way was to break the trety. the specific wording of that clause says the treaty must be broken to be rendered null and void.

now to those people who do not understand cause and effect i will try and break it down a little simpler.

the exact wording from the treaty is "If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void." That means that before the treaty is rendered null and void PC had to do something that broke the treaty (in this case attacking TPF).

What that means is that when PC attacked TPF they were still under a treaty obligation not to attack TPF, once they broke that obligation (or did something outside what was legally allowed y the treaty) then it became null and void.

PC broke the treaty and that is a fact.

[Jackalope Despot]

Incorrect. 1 way was to give notice the other way was to break the trety. the specific wording of that clause says the treaty must be broken to be rendered null and void.

now to those people who do not understand cause and effect i will try and break it down a little simpler.

the exact wording from the treaty is "If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void." That means that before the treaty is rendered null and void PC had to do something that broke the treaty (in this case attacking TPF).

What that means is that when PC attacked TPF they were still under a treaty obligation not to attack TPF, once they broke that obligation (or did something outside what was legally allowed y the treaty) then it became null and void.

PC broke the treaty and that is a fact.

...exactly what I was trying to say 10 pages ago. Srqt spot on as usual.

Whether or not TPF should be hung up on this point is another matter...

[RKANYZ]

It's so much more fun making a mockery of your alliance.

Oh, so that was you.

Yeah, I remain in this alliance for the lulz.

[Roadie]

How did PC break the treaty?

Generally aggressive actions are considered to break a Non Aggression Pact.

Hence once PC attacked TPF, the contract was voided and TPF was released from any and all contractual obligations to PC.

[Roadie]

The fact is there were two ways outlined in that treaty to render it null and void. One was to attack the other party, and the second was to give notice.

I like this mans reasoning. Keep treaties to the letter. That would allow other alliances to pay NPOs reps. Pacifica should be spreading this mans message far and wide.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Roadie

[Kzoppistan]

Rationality? Surprise reality isn't always positive, in fact the reality of losing a war is pretty much always negative.

One's perception of reality is a matter of choice. Many people don't realize that there are equally valid viewpoints beside just their own and that to find compromise in an entrenched battle of opinions they have to adopt the view point of each party. Adopting TPF's viewpoint shows that the money is not the issue, preserving self-respect is. The battle has been lost and they know that if they want to see peace soon, they'll have to pay some reps, but the last thing they want to do is go out throwing away their sense of dignity by kissing the feet of a perpetrator that did them so much wrong.

Seeing the opposite side of that set of feelings about the situation is rather easy since you've told me all about it. Coming from your stance, a lot of the things you say are quite logical, I don't disagree with many points. Now can you step out of your viewpoint to see another? When trying to see a solution to entrenched opposing camps, they key is to be able or at least try to understand the motivations of each party.

Whether or not you personally agree with the stances of another party is not really important towards getting that party to move in the way you want.

If they want reps out of TPF then they will have to re-negotiate or do something else to change their mind. If they would rather to continue warring then there's nothing more to discuss.

Those terms are a slap on the wrist.

No, they are a slap in the face.

At least according to TPF. It's not about the money.

There are lots of facts, you just haven't been paying attention.

I've read every page and understand the situation implicitly.

The problem here is their sticking point, There is no need for a new carrot and stick (lovely btw) becuase TPF isnt holding it up based on something that is changeable, they are not arguing duration, not arguing amount, they are trying to get out of paying all together (to one alliance at least) The problem with that is that the people who they don't want to pay, have no motive what so ever to accept TPF's demand about them not getting anything. They are not asking for a crazy amount, so theres no upswell of public support to change pubic opinion in a way that might influence their policy, they are prefectly happy beating TPF into an even finer pulp than it is now, and TPF doesn't have the ability to prevent more beatings.

Sure, but for how long?

PC is faced with some important questions now. Assuming that TPF absolutely will not concede that one point:

1. Continue to war with them until they convince TPF to change their mind? Which if TPF does not, then how far will PC go to punish them? Indefinitely? Is that even possible? If they keep fighting until every nation of TPF is ground to 0 infrastructure will they stop? Will they just let them go after a few more weeks of asskicking? Will it be worth the effort? They might think so, and may get satisfaction out of it, but it will cost them in the end. Spending energy holding down an opponent is foolish when they could just do the honorable thing and grant them white peace which will give PC a better name and enhance their reputation, something much more imporant than any amount of tech.

They'll also have to consider how long their allies will support them in this instead of just peacing out individually or without them.

2. Give up after they realize that they can't get blood from a stone.

3. Go back to the table and try to find a work-around solution, an alternative, that satsifies all parties?

I'm advocating for number three. I don't want to see TPF held down and I'd like the victors of this war to be able to walk away with a clean honest victory. Not a dirty protracted guerilla war.

If both parties do want peace then they will probably have to make some more compromises, or find an entirely different arrangement. That's where creativity comes in.

Oh the argument for it is pretty straight forward, I've repeated it dozens of times. Holding out for better terms only works when the terms are worse than continuing the war, otherwise its still a net loss, If terms go down 200 million but you took another 400 mil in damage while being stubborn you have won NOTHING. Stalling as a negotiating tactic for the losing party only works if you have managed to secure a ceasefire while negotiating terms, something that almost never happens on Planet bob. Stalling without the ceasefire just ensures the further destruction of the alliance.

If all you're seeing is numbers or power then what you say makes sense, but people as a whole have many different motivations in life.

Those who feel their self-respect and honor are more important than the size of their nations will gladly go to 0 infrastructure and beyond to stand for what they believe in. They may be cutting of their nose to spite their face, but they are also the ones who have to sleep with themselves at night.

I hope it does not go to that.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[BamaBuc]

How did PC break the treaty?

Like this:

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

That's your supposed loophole. Furthermore, in your DoW, PC basically said "yeah, we broke it, so what?" And let's be honest... You and me both know that the idea of an NAP is that the alliances not kill each other. A badly written clause doesn't change that. Besides, it doesn't matter if it's an NAP or an MADP... You showed the world what your word is worth.

-Bama

[RKANYZ]

The fact is there were two ways outlined in that treaty to render it null and void. One was to attack the other party, and the second was to give notice.

How hard is it for you understand that if someone breaks a treaty it's null and void?

Edited August 1, 2009 by RKANYZ

[JBone]

...exactly what I was trying to say 10 pages ago. Srqt spot on as usual.

Whether or not TPF should be hung up on this point is another matter...

We are not.

Why, pray tell is no one listening?

We, TPF, MK, PC, CCC and GR, are IN THE FARKING MIDTS of negotiations.

Speculate all you will, argue amongst yourselves, pontificate, postulate, theorise, make wild guesses and accusations. Continue this circle jerk ad nauseum but please leave us out of it.

Progress is being made, all involved have been most gracious and accommodating.

Now carry on, talk about NAPs, reasonable terms, dictating, honor and all the other crap that has been tossed about for the past ten days.

Have a ball.

See youn on the other side.

[astronaut jones]

Like this:

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

That's your supposed loophole. Furthermore, in your DoW, PC basically said "yeah, we broke it, so what?" And let's be honest... You and me both know that the idea of an NAP is that the alliances not kill each other. A badly written clause doesn't change that. Besides, it doesn't matter if it's an NAP or an MADP... You showed the world what your word is worth.

-Bama

It is a loophole, and it was in the treaty. If the treaty is broken, it's nullified. Easiest way to get out of it? Break it. Duh.

[BamaBuc]

It is a loophole, and it was in the treaty. If the treaty is broken, it's nullified. Easiest way to get out of it? Break it. Duh.

Of course a treaty is nullified if it's broken. But it was still... Y'know... Broken.

-Bama

[Kzoppistan]

We are not.

Why, pray tell is no one listening?

We, TPF, MK, PC, CCC and GR, are IN THE FARKING MIDTS of negotiations.

Speculate all you will, argue amongst yourselves, pontificate, postulate, theorise, make wild guesses and accusations. Continue this circle jerk ad nauseum but please leave us out of it.

Progress is being made, all involved have been most gracious and accommodating.

Now carry on, talk about NAPs, reasonable terms, dictating, honor and all the other crap that has been tossed about for the past ten days.

Have a ball.

See youn on the other side.

Heh heh. Well, that's that.

On that note, I'm stepping out of this one.

Good debate TypoNinja.

Good luck to the parties involved.

[astronaut jones]

Of course a treaty is nullified if it's broken. But it was still... Y'know... Broken.

-Bama

and it was still, y'know, written into the treaty as such.

[King Srqt]

and it was still, y'know, written into the treaty as such.

which basically just saved PC and TPF the trouble of canceling it the right way after PC broke it.

Like I said before, it couldn't be rendered null and void unless it was broken and it couldn't be broken unless PC did something that was not legal by the terms of the treaty. Therefore PC did not follow the letter of the treaty which is what caused that clause to be activated.

[b3x]

Of course a treaty is nullified if it's broken. But it was still... Y'know... Broken.

-Bama

Lets take a hypothetical situation ... you sign a lease and the lease says you can get out of the lease by giving notice or moving out. Are you breaking the lease if you move out? well, if you consider "breaking" to mean ending it, then yes. However, ending an agreement doesn't always mean "breaking" it, and in this case it was explicitly noted that by simply attacking the other party, the agreement would end. Thus one concludes that the agreement was "ended" or "broken" within the terms of the agreement.

I realize that logic does not back your agenda, so it is easy to dismiss what is obvious to all , but the fact remains that it was an option open to both parties to end the agreement.

someone please lock this thread ...

[King Srqt]

Lets take a hypothetical situation ... you sign a lease and the lease says you can get out of the lease by giving notice or moving out. Are you breaking the lease if you move out? well, if you consider "breaking" to mean ending it, then yes. However, ending an agreement doesn't always mean "breaking" it, and in this case it was explicitly noted that by simply attacking the other party, the agreement would end. Thus one concludes that the agreement was "ended" or "broken" within the terms of the agreement.

I realize that logic does not back your agenda, so it is easy to dismiss what is obvious to all , but the fact remains that it was an option open to both parties to end the agreement.

someone please lock this thread ...

I notice how you completely ignored my post and the wording of the treaty in order to continue with your agenda.

If the lease said "moving out breaks the lease" then moving out would break the lease.

Just like the treaty said it had to be broken to be rendered null and void. don't let facts get in the way of your party line though.

[Vanadrin Failing]

I notice how you completely ignored my post and the wording of the treaty in order to continue with your agenda.

If the lease said "moving out breaks the lease" then moving out would break the lease.

Just like the treaty said it had to be broken to be rendered null and void. don't let facts get in the way of your party line though.

However if one moved out to break a lease, they'd generally be held responsible for the rent that would have been paid through the time that the lease would have naturally terminated. It doesn't suddenly absolve one of all responsibility.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing

[b3x]

I notice how you completely ignored my post and the wording of the treaty in order to continue with your agenda.

If the lease said "moving out breaks the lease" then moving out would break the lease.

Just like the treaty said it had to be broken to be rendered null and void. don't let facts get in the way of your party line though.

giving notice would also break the nap ... so your saying there is no legitimate way to end the agreement?

[Kryievla]

"If you break the treaty, you didn't really break the treaty because it says that if you break it you broke it".

I believe that's known as a 'lolwut?'

If you attack your MADP partner, that breaks the treaty, whether or not there's an explicit clause in there that says 'hey, if you attack us, our madp is OFF!'. If you attack your NAP partner, you're still breaking the treaty, clause or no. If you *break* the treaty, you broke the treaty. I'm torn between face-palming and snickering over the fact that this has even become an argument. Actually I'm not really torn, more like doing both. >.>

Anyways, I am glad to see cooler heads appear to be prevailing here. Good luck in your negotiations, guys.

[King Srqt]

giving notice would also break the nap ... so your saying there is no legitimate way to end the agreement?

Cancelling a treaty is not the same as breaking a treaty. Breaking the treaty means that you did something not legally allowed by the terms of teh treaty, which is what PC did.

PC did not follow the terms of the treaty which I have already proven and you seem to refuse to refute since it is not convenient for your argument or because you can't.

Edited August 1, 2009 by KingSrqt