Guru Order Announcement

[Deadshot]

you are one to talk about !@#$%* timing...my my....

so what have you learnt thro trial and error

Not to cancel on NV before a war, duh

[supercoolyellow]

Obviously backing out on a partner who is allied with TPF.

I'll add you to the list of alliances I would never bother signing a treaty with as obviously they mean nothing to you.

[WorldConqueror]

Heh, you just suddenly realised that the relationship had deteriorated to the point where you needed to cancel? How convenient.

[Tushar Dhoot]

I know this sounds childish; but congrats for failing your comprehensive reading exam.

My, my, what a class act you are.

[mdnss69]

Lay any eggs when you were pooping in your pants at the thought of loosing your infra?

[Remaliat]

Either way we did not violate any part of this treaty,

I would like to point out that this treaty had a 72 hour cancellation clause... You violated that part of the treaty, either that or this treaty is still valid for another two and a half days. Your call Mentor.

I will say one other thing, when we signed your protectorates, the alliances of Trident worked extremely hard to ensure that you had a safe area to grow and to excel. NATO were just as committed to your success as Fark was. Next time you cancel a treaty at least talk to them about the difficulties or concerns you are having.

I know NATO they would have been receptive and cordial to you and would have worked to find a solution that did not make you look like a bunch of cowards by cancelling within days of war.

[WorkingClassRuler]

I will say one other thing, when we signed your protectorates, the alliances of Trident worked extremely hard to ensure that you had a safe area to grow and to excel. NATO were just as committed to your success as Fark was. Next time you cancel a treaty at least talk to them about the difficulties or concerns you are having.

I know NATO they would have been receptive and cordial to you and would have worked to find a solution that did not make you look like a bunch of cowards by cancelling within days of war.

It's a bit hard to find a solution when the problem is a fundamental difference in position, and not just for the first time either. While I personally have found Anu's comments (namely this one here) regarding the current situation to be perfectly reasonable and I know NATO would never attack fellow Aqua alliances, obviously GO feels the difference of position is too much to resolve. And with war looming, it's best to decide these things sooner rather than later.

Still, it's a shame to see the cancellation and I hope that GO and NATO can find some level of friendship again in the future, if nothing else but for the sake of Aqua love.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I cant seem to find the full text of this treaty anywhere, nor is there any mention of it on the CN wiki. Does anyone have a link to it?

[circlewood]

I smell chicken

I smell something as well... a great big steaming pile of it.

[JmanofAus]

I cant seem to find the full text of this treaty anywhere, nor is there any mention of it on the CN wiki. Does anyone have a link to it?

Here you go: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63646

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Here you go: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63646

Thank you.

This appears to have been intended as an MDoAP. However the wording of Article I is particularly odd, and at a glance appears to effectively convert it into a MADP, in direct contradiction of Article II.

Regardless of your intentions otherwise, I would say cancelling this is a good move for that reason alone. Self-contradictory treaties are a recipe for disaster.