Bodvar Jarl Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 It had a prototype oA clause, oA clauses in MDP's was rather unusual around the time of writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Forgive me if it has been answered, but how is a MDoAP => MDoAP an upgrade?The only change I can see immediately is the removal of the bit about taking a Senate seat being an act of war against both parties. For that, I do commend you. The Orange Team Senate is officially open again. And of course, congratulations to both of you. Four pages of hailing and finally someone actually takes the time to read the thing. Can't say I bothered to myself; I usually just rely on the OP. o7 TOP and IRON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Four pages of hailing and finally someone actually takes the time to read the thing. Can't say I bothered to myself; I usually just rely on the OP. o7 TOP and IRON I believe that people read it and decided that it was just so wonderful that they would hail it. Hence the 4 pages of hails you happened to come across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 o\ Hailz Gratz to all of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Forgive me if it has been answered, but how is a MDoAP => MDoAP an upgrade?The only change I can see immediately is the removal of the bit about taking a Senate seat being an act of war against both parties. For that, I do commend you. The Orange Team Senate is officially open again. And of course, congratulations to both of you. Four pages of hailing and finally someone actually takes the time to read the thing. Can't say I bothered to myself; I usually just rely on the OP. o7 TOP and IRON A clear case of connotation versus denotation. In the parlance of our times "upgrade" has come to refer to an escalation of commitment or the inclusion of articles of aggression. The more commonly accepted definition of "upgrade" (and the one being employed here) is that the treaty has had its quality improved. This is a subjective evaluation on our part, of course, and I can understand if you do not share these sentiments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necAnt Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The Ants love there iron brothers, so they decided to swarm them each sommer, and we hope that you like our show of love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booter Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Congrats to our friends in IRON and TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worrgames08 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I believe that people read it and decided that it was just so wonderful that they would hail it. Hence the 4 pages of hails you happened to come across. Nonsense. People didn't read it because Astronaut Jones told them about it months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordd Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Some things change, some always stay the same. Whilst I congralute the parties on their renewed friendship, I find it quaint that we still state the obvious in treaties like this. II. Either signatory may request monetary aid from the other signatory at any time. Neither signatory is obligated to grant such a request, however it is encouraged to unless it is either unable to grant it, or it feels that fulfilling the request would defy the spirit of the treaty. Yes it is true that any time a treaty signatory could make a request of another signatory, and it is also true that a signatory is not obligated to do something unless the treaty specifies that they are. That whole "old" style clause of treaties like this could really be cut down to merely "Signatories are encouraged to grant aid requests where feasible". That would not change that section one bit really. The last part of the sentence "it feels that fulfilling the request would defy the spirit of the treaty" is easily covered under being not feasible, or whatever similar word anyone wants to use. Call me a nit-picker, but I would have maybe thought that renewing such an old treaty as this would present an opportunity to do away with all the old style legal clauses and express it in more true terms that demonstrate the fact that without trust and friendship agreements like this wouldn't exist anyway, so a lot of the actual clauses become somewhat reduntant in that case, the one I highlight being a prime example in my opinion. I would point to the Härmlins agreement signed by Grämlins and MHA last year as an example of two alliances that have been friends for a long time renewing a treaty in a more realistic and imaginative way than just repeating the old tired wording with minimal tweaking. <insert random 2 cents statement here> Edited October 12, 2009 by Mordd 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.