Statement of Friendship

[Iosif]

ATHENS SHOWING ITS TRUE COLOURS ITT HURR DURR

[Uncle Stalin]

That NPO/Invicta thread really must have struck a nerve if you have to come out with this. There are no coincidences BTW.

OMG GUYS HE'S RIGHT, THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE SIMILAR TO THE NPO/INVICTA THREAD. derp derp

Congrats on your treaty Athens and PC.

[Leigon]

Hmm, I've seen a treaty with a clause like this one before...*tries to remember where*. Something about it was planned by one to back stab and attack the other...couldn't have been badly written, must have been on purpose....I just can't remember where. Maybe it will come to me later/

The difference is that only the wronged party has a right to dissolve the treaty, whereas in your case it automatically got voided by breaking it.

All in all it looks like a perfectly good treaty to me.

Congrats to Athens and Poison Clan.

[Skippy]

I didn't expect to see this treaty, or see Jgoods' signature due to his absence, someone drag that Canadian out from his bunker.

[Mussolandia]

Wow sileath that was uncalled for mate. go elsewhere.

He pitifully tried to rejoin the alliance a week ago. Ignore him, he's history.

[Totila]

I like this.

[Kilkenny]

The difference is that only the wronged party has a right to dissolve the treaty, whereas in your case it automatically got voided by breaking it.

All in all it looks like a perfectly good treaty to me.

Congrats to Athens and Poison Clan.

Should Articles 1 or 2 be violated, with no chance of a diplomatic solution that allows for the continuation of these accords, this treaty may be canceled immediately by the affected party, thereby releasing both signatories from all the obligations set out in this treaty at the moment cancellation notice is given.

I would think that both alliances would be affected by a war, not just the wronged one. And I am sure that the e-lawyers could even argue that the aggressor was "Wronged" and therefore can dissolve the treaty by attacking. Given all the drama, I would think more attention would be paid to that clause....unless it was written that way on purpose

[Alterego]

OMG GUYS HE'S RIGHT, THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE SIMILAR TO THE NPO/INVICTA THREAD. derp derp

I just hope it was only the heading and name of the treaty that appeared in 22 hours between the two threads and not the rest of the treaty, although Athens dont always read what they sign anyway.

Our sigs may have been put on those terms, but I never even saw the final version of those terms before they were announced.

Best of luck to you both...

[dwthegreat]

Copying NPO = fail

But it wasn't the first time Athens has done that right?

[Neo Uruk]

Copying NPO = fail

But it wasn't the first time Athens has done that right?

This joke wasn't supposed to be obvious, guys. It's just in a public area right after NPO did it.

As to copying NPO, I'm fairly sure you have no idea as to what you're talking about.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Rey the Great

[Sileath]

He pitifully tried to rejoin the alliance a week ago. Ignore him, he's history.

I accept your apology.

[Hell Scream]

Go friendship...i guess?

[Uncle Stalin]

I just hope it was only the heading and name of the treaty that appeared in 22 hours between the two threads and not the rest of the treaty, although Athens dont always read what they sign anyway.

Well, considering Londo has more sense than to compulsively sign an MDoAP with any alliance who asks, and there's no reason to write up and sign a new treaty within 24 hours of NPO and Invicta saying they like each other, I think it's safe to assume that scenario is highly unlikely.

[pooksland]

I would think that both alliances would be affected by a war, not just the wronged one. And I am sure that the e-lawyers could even argue that the aggressor was "Wronged" and therefore can dissolve the treaty by attacking. Given all the drama, I would think more attention would be paid to that clause....unless it was written that way on purpose

Fine I will give you a better answer if you didnt like his. One of the treaties was signed out of friendship and trust. The other was signed out mistrust and a deep seeded urge for revenge lingering in out hearts. One of those treaties we value very much, the other we really didnt value it for the pixels it was written on and quite frankenly never even trusted the alliances that we signed with to hold up their end of it anyways. Can you guess which is which?

But back on topic, o/ Athens this was a long time in the making and glad to see it has finally been posted.

P.S. The Pookie Hungers

[potato]

I accept your apology.

YOU had to pay 1K tech?

[Kilkenny]

Fine I will give you a better answer if you didnt like his. One of the treaties was signed out of friendship and trust. The other was signed out mistrust and a deep seeded urge for revenge lingering in out hearts. One of those treaties we value very much, the other we really didnt value it for the pixels it was written on and quite frankenly never even trusted the alliances that we signed with to hold up their end of it anyways. Can you guess which is which?

But back on topic, o/ Athens this was a long time in the making and glad to see it has finally been posted.

P.S. The Pookie Hungers

Yet, the same type of cancelation clause is there. And you could have canceled with us if you wanted, you were given the opportunity, yet didn't.

Everything is all well and good for now, and good luck Athens, but watch your back. You know how much PC loves to e-lawyer those cancelation clauses.

Not trustworthy is not trustworthy.

[Londo Mollari]

I like how this treaty was a subtle way at making the NPO's announcement look like a breach in terms.

Sure is, but then they couldn' take the subtle jabs at NPO and Invicta.

Congrats to Athens and PC on a nice looking treaty.

Copying NPO = fail

But it wasn't the first time Athens has done that right?

This joke wasn't supposed to be obvious, guys. It's just in a public area right after NPO did it.

As to copying NPO, I'm fairly sure you have no idea as to what you're talking about.

The really, side splittingly funny thing here is that that announcement was INVICTA's announcement, not NPO's announcement. Or was it? Talking about aping NPO's announcement or copying NPO's announcement when it was clearly INVICTA's announcement does tend to lend a hand to the "new puppet" charge. Please, for the love of Planet Bob, let's not go there.

TBH I named the treaty and titled this announcement as a bit of lighthearted jest, and it wasn't necessarily directed at Invicta and NPO, even. Stop and think about it for a bit.

I just hope it was only the heading and name of the treaty that appeared in 22 hours between the two threads and not the rest of the treaty, although Athens dont always read what they sign anyway.

This treaty is probably around 5-6 months in the making. It got put off by the Karma war. And I'm so tempted to post your sig on something without telling you and then talk about how Alterego doesn't always read what he signs.

Also to everyone in the thread calling PC treaty breakers: PC has a MADP with Dark Templar and had a NAP with TPF. When DT declared on TPF and asked PC for help, PC had the choice of honoring their MADP with DT, which mandates aggression, or honoring their NAP with TPF, which mandates non aggression. Are you honestly surprised that PC honored a MADP over a NAP? Would people be bashing PC today if they had chosen to honor their NAP with TPF (an alliance they admittedly really didn't like) over an MADP with their former protectorate? After all, they would be treaty breakers then, too, wouldn't they. Give it a rest.

[Sileath]

YOU had to pay 1K tech?

Members of Athens paid the tech, and I paid them for doing so. In this, I did not literally pay the technology myself, but the full expense of the operation was mine. I have screenshots available if MK still doubts this concept.

[Newhotness]

Sup PC. took you long enough to announce this. lol. Grats to PC and Athens. Athens welcome to the world of pink. Im sure we will become friends soon.

[potato]

Members of Athens paid the tech, and I paid them for doing so. In this, I did not literally pay the technology myself, but the full expense of the operation was mine. I have screenshots available if MK still doubts this concept.

Why does it always have to be about MK with you? Really, your fascination with us is quite flattering but, as I've told you already, it's not mutual.

I don't recall you funding the whole 1K tech though.

[kevin32891]

Why does it always have to be about MK with you? Really, your fascination with us is quite flattering but, as I've told you already, it's not mutual.

I don't recall you funding the whole 1K tech though.

To be fair potato your leader was and is the voice of Karma, so its quite possible things might come back to your alliance.

On a side note I'll lol the day PC rolls Athens.

[potato]

To be fair potato your leader was and is the voice of Karma, so its quite possible things might come back to your alliance.

No matter what Archon did or didn't do, I don't see the link between this treaty, the NSO-Sileath trouble and MK. But I'm willing to be enlightened.

Edited August 8, 2009 by potato

[Seer]

Just a reminder, this topic is not about PC's treaty habits, nor Sileath's terms.

[BamaBuc]

Also to everyone in the thread calling PC treaty breakers: PC has a MADP with Dark Templar and had a NAP with TPF. When DT declared on TPF and asked PC for help, PC had the choice of honoring their MADP with DT, which mandates aggression, or honoring their NAP with TPF, which mandates non aggression. Are you honestly surprised that PC honored a MADP over a NAP? Would people be bashing PC today if they had chosen to honor their NAP with TPF (an alliance they admittedly really didn't like) over an MADP with their former protectorate? After all, they would be treaty breakers then, too, wouldn't they. Give it a rest.

Or they could've, y'know, used that handy-dandy cancellation clause. Exhibit A: We attacked an ally of STA, who was bound to us by the SNOW NAP. What to do? Simple: Cancel the NAP. Besides, PC made it pretty clear that they were breaking it because they could, not because they felt bad about having to wait a few days to honor their treaty.

-Bama

EDIT: Sorry Seer, posted this before I saw your post.

Edited August 8, 2009 by BamaBuc

[Kilkenny]

The really, side splittingly funny thing here is that that announcement was INVICTA's announcement, not NPO's announcement. Or was it? Also to everyone in the thread calling PC treaty breakers: PC has a MADP with Dark Templar and had a NAP with TPF. When DT declared on TPF and asked PC for help, PC had the choice of honoring their MADP with DT, which mandates aggression, or honoring their NAP with TPF, which mandates non aggression. Are you honestly surprised that PC honored a MADP over a NAP? Would people be bashing PC today if they had chosen to honor their NAP with TPF (an alliance they admittedly really didn't like) over an MADP with their former protectorate? After all, they would be treaty breakers then, too, wouldn't they. Give it a rest.

Never said that they would value the NAP over a MADP, in fact would expect them to choose as they did. The problem that I had was this: (and I will use a proper example) STA had a NAP with us as well through SNOW. When it came about that we became involved with a treaty partner of STA's did they immediately attack us?? NO, they canceled the NAP and was waiting out the cancelation period before launching. As things worked out, that part of the war ended and we never had to face them. And I think it is safe to say that Pezstar and tyga weren't fans of that given their dislike of TPF. PC could have done the same thing, but didn't, they broke the treaty, thus are treaty breakers. Also, don't pretend that DT's offensive war against us was anything other than a way so that PC could "legitimately" attack us. DT declared 1 offensive war with us, that is all 1. Some offensive blitz huh. But this also tells of the planning that went into it, thus PC had plenty of time to cancel the NAP, but didn't thinking I guess that we would be caught by surprise. Too bad they suck at OPSEC. Anyway, goood luck with this yourself. I mean they now have an option to attack you if DT gets involved, casue a MADP outranks a MDoAP.