Never-before-heard Grämlins tell-all itt

[Lennox]

Thanks for pioneering this, NSO. 9_9

No problem. Just doing what we can for you.

[Bob]

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

Believe what you want to believe.

I believe in my friends and allies in Gremlins.

[Bob Janova]

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

The right side is not necessarily the larger side. You are old enough to remember GW3 so you know your point misses the mark.

[kriekfreak]

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

Is this the best the 'new' NPO can do? I sure as hell hope not. Please try harder Bilrow.

[WcaesarD]

I am most certainly a FAN of this kind of move, grats on your new direction Gramlins.

[Veneke]

Saber - I agree with Kriekfreak, Shamshir, Hizzy.

Spaarlaamp - I'm not particularly familiar with the history of alliances doing exactly that in general, as I said I only ever participated in such an exercise once. I did so while I flew the flag of the Hegemony of Periphery States (a tiny Maroon alliance at the time) during the Hyperion war. Shattered Star Exiles did the same in the same conflict. I sincerely doubt that we are the only two alliances to have done so.

[Achilles]

Smart political move. We've seen what treaties mean in the last year or two. Keep the treaties that have weight and let the others know that you still value their friendship. No sense in getting pulled into a war you don't agree with, or having to back out on a treaty partner because you don't agree with their CB. Good show.

[Zangmonkey]

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Whilst it could be seen as noble or honourable you make this move. How many of your ex treaty partners do you expect to come to your aid in a time of war should you need it. Now they are no longer obligated to do so? Friendship is a rare thing to find on planet Bob and somehow I see this as only screwing yourself over.

Token answer to the haters in MHA that think i shouldn't post my views on the OWF, eat it.

Are you saying that nobody will defend us if we need it and are not in the wrong?

In that case, I think we'll have proven something about the nature of people, don't you?

Nonetheless, it's a risk that we're all willing to take for a different direction.

[SirWilliam]

I'm late here, but good luck Gramlins as you set out on the path you've chosen. No hard feelings from our end of course.

[Zangmonkey]

Treaties define what is a defensive or aggressive war, nothing else. Just the same as you define your members by your charter and not some globally understood definition of the term.

Nonsense.

If your definition of aggression depends on what a piece of paper says rather than your own moral compass then you've resigned yourself to the robots.

[Lord Brendan]

There's no such thing as a treaty that can't be canceled. Either you get both sides to agree to drop it (which should have been easy if you're really that tight), or you say "haha we cancel the uncalleable treaty, suck it noobs!"

[Zangmonkey]

LM - Quite the contrary. You presuppose that it was impossible to cut the tie. This is not the case (unless you are somehow saying that you are physically incapable of doing so). They tie "could" have been cut, it would have cost Gramlins significantly, but it could have been done. A simple call to MHA explaining the situation would likely have taken most of the hurt out of it, particularly when you explain the situation and your new direction to them. I'm not saying it would be the smartest move going, and as I've repeatedly said it would not be a move I'd have done in their position, but it is within the realm of possibility.

As I stated earlier, MHA was involved in this discussion to move forward with this and echoed our sentiments.

The treaty remains because it cannot be dissolved without disbanding.

Disbanding and reforming solely for the reason of eliminating all treaties has been discussed in the past as well.

Nonetheless, we and MHA agreed that even without a treaty nothing would change.

[Zangmonkey]

Which without a treaty would still be considered bandwaggoning by the rest of Planet Bob as the rest of Planet Bob doesn't care what you call it, they only care what they call it and since the beginning of Planet Bob the entrance of a war without a treaty has been called bandwaggoning. It's just as simple as that.

Fair enough, but it stands to reason that we wouldn't care what the rest of Planet Bob would call it either.

[Zangmonkey]

Call it bandwagonning or not vast majority of alliances would see declaration without defensive clause as offensive war. Be it on side that is being pummeled or not.

Just because others proclaim "legality above all else" doesn't mean that we should.

[hizzy]

I am most certainly a FAN of this kind of move, grats on your new direction Gramlins.

HAW HAW HAW

I GET IT

[Baden-Württemberg]

If MK and C&G were to attack say GATO and GATO were getting curbstomped and we jumped in to help MK, yes then we would be bandwagoning.

If say NpO and co were slamming MK and C&G and NpO and co were the stronger side we would defend MK and would NOT be bandwagoning.

But, this is how simple it is. Attack our friends and we will defend them. Attack us, our friends will defends us.

Why did you cancel all the treaties then? I mean, if you have friends, and if you are willed to defend them, why not sign a treaty? And if nothing changed, why cancel all these treaties? To be independent?

[MikeTheFirst]

Good luck, Gramlins.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I'm pretty sure several people of "Planet Bob" have said that what you just defined as Bandwagoning is not, and by your logic any alliance that defends an alliance that is getting curb stomped is "bandwagoning"

Which is simply not true. It was defined pretty well earlier.

Also do people just skip over my posts? There have been so many statements about the MHA treaty in this thread. I'll put it simply.

1. It is uncancellable.

So amend the treaty and then cancel it.

2. Even if it were canceled the exact same brotherhood would still be there, as if the treaty was still there.

Isn't that the same with the other five(?) alliances that were canceled on? You've stated that you are still friends with the other alliances, but you're just not using a treaty. Why not the same with MHA?

[rabonnobar]

It is ridiculous to (consider) disbanding and reforming to get out of a treaty, when you're so close to the other party. Simply jointly agree to dissolve it. Kind of like when two alliances agree to waive cancellation periods (48 hour period waived etc.) for mutual benefit. Not cancelling it due to it supposedly being uncancellable is, ironically enough, binding yourself to legal-ese. Even crazier when it's so easily avoided. Or, if it is uncancelalble now, then simply agree with the other party to amend it so it can be cancelled. Then, cancel it.

I mean really.

Other than that, not sure what I think of this. Good luck though I suppose.

Edited January 17, 2010 by rabonnobar

[Hyperbad]

So every time Athens wants to raid a small alliance they need to ask every alliance on Bob whether they're friends and will defend them?

They also have the option of either just doing it or not doing it. They could go based on no knowledge of support or with that of those who condone such behavior. Otherwise maybe they'll have competent ambassadors that keep factbooks on the alliances they are responsible for and profiles on their leaders with all pertinent data to avoid such "misunderstandings". There is no question of "need" here; only a question of acceptable risk.

Any treaty can be amended, and therefore cancelled, by the mutual consent of all parties, so if MHA were to agree, the paper could be discarded. (The precedent for this is the OoO, which had fairly similar wording.)

I expect the purists view the treaty not having any amendment clauses (at least that I could tell) making an amendment impossible.

(Now using your quote to transition into my thoughts)

Truth be told the quickest way to be done with the treaty is to state their no longer considering it relevant thereby cancelling it, voiding it or breaking the treaty. Use which ever term one prefers. The only use a cancellation clause has ever had is by providing a "get out" option with the party wanting out keeping their "honor" intact. Otherwise having a "perpetual" clause is a method that can be used to guarantee the closest of relations or simply maintain them but the treaty might end up being redundant if it isn't already. Nothing inherently wrong with that though, merely observing. If the state of affairs between the two signatories would be maintained if the Accords were done away with - like that of those other treaties - then I don't see why it's being used as a defense (unless I'm misreading people) to keeping the Accords. It comes off as a view running contrary to what was stated elsewhere in this thread.

On a tangent, I have absolutely no clue what the majority of Harmlins think and feel and it is conceivable that there's a detail in the Gramlin's newest FA philosophy which doesn't apply to the Accords. I won't pretend to know anything about that. I am interested though as to how they will evolve after this and if there are any other changes we might anticipate.

Edit to add the bolded above

Edited January 17, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Stetson76]

Also do people just skip over my posts? There have been so many statements about the MHA treaty in this thread. I'll put it simply.

1. It is uncancellable.

2. Even if it were canceled the exact same brotherhood would still be there, as if the treaty was still there.

I know the feeling. You seem to have done the same thing.

As quoted before:

We the undersigned Alliances have come forth in a show of complete brotherhood and unity, binding ourselves now and forevermore to the fate of the other and the ideals of these Accords.

The only thing unable to be canceled is the bond and the ideals of the Accords. Go ahead and dissolve them. No where in the Accords does it say they are cannot be canceled.

"Bandwagoning"

People will complain about anything these days. If they feel the cause is right, go for it. I don't care about technical absurdity, I'll always stand up for what is right, so long as my alliance decides to follow my footsteps. Of course, this depends on certain mitigating circumstances and the current events present during that time, but regardless: DO what YOU feel is right.

I look forward to seeing these exact words when a "friend" who has slipped from the ranks of "allies" become indefensible based on some completely arbitrary set of criteria.

Nonsense.

If your definition of aggression depends on what a piece of paper says rather than your own moral compass then you've resigned yourself to the robots.

No, I've consigned myself to the ranks of those who give my word for all to see and don't rely on how I'm feeling that particular day.

[Veneke]

As I stated earlier, MHA was involved in this discussion to move forward with this and echoed our sentiments.

The treaty remains because it cannot be dissolved without disbanding.

Disbanding and reforming solely for the reason of eliminating all treaties has been discussed in the past as well.

Nonetheless, we and MHA agreed that even without a treaty nothing would change.

Even were I to accept your argument that the treaty could not have been cancelled (which I really think is nothing more than e-lawyering, making this move highly ironic), none of this takes from my point in that it could have been done. However, you have stated just there that it could have been done (I put it in bold for you to refer to), which is all I was getting at.

I'm actually quite interested in how these discussions between Gramlins and MHA went down, particularly how their respective FA teams thought this move would be received. Gramlins makes a call to dissolve all of her treaties. MHA (or MHA and Gramlins, whichever) say that this might not be the smartest move ever made, so here's your (our) insurance policy. Then their response to the continued presence of the treaty revolves around "Whether this treaty exists or not the bond is the same." This to me seems idiotic, unless I'm missing some backroom stuff - which is quite likely. If the fact of the treaty exists with or without it, why wasn't the treaty merely cancelled with the rest to give this move the strongest impact that it could possibly have? MHA would still have your backs, and Gramlins would be the first large alliance to take the rest of CN forward into this new era of treatyless FA plans. The other "damage control" (though its debatable if that's the right phrase for it in this instance) aspect of it belongs to the school of thought that it cannot be dissolved, which is highly ironic considering one of the main knock-on effects of this move is an attempt to remove e-lawyering from FA. We've also clearly established that it could in fact have been dissolved, look at any of the suggestions non-MHA/Gramlins people have posted. Everybody is pretty much agreeing that with or without the treaty, MHA will defend Gramlins and Gramlins will defend MHA (or even move offensively with each other), so the need for the treaty is what, exactly?

You could argue, convincingly, that the departure this represents is not the one many think (a complete dissolution of all treaties for all alliances etc) but rather the more moderate version of what would have followed had Gramlins cancelled the MHA treaty. In short, a largely treatyless alliance. This holds considerable merit (though as I've stated earlier doesn't negate the fact that it weakens the move), but I have yet to see even a single Gramlins or MHA person (or anyone for that matter) advance this kind of thinking. It's certainly better than the "This treaty cannot be cancelled" line that's coming out.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Veneke

[SynthFG]

I'm sure you would like to know what was said,

but I'm not going to tell you

We and MHA consult on anything that will impact the other and alot more besides, if you want to know more about how it works you could always apply for membership of either,

For now simply accept that Harmlins represents a greater bond than any other in CN history, including OoO and that where it matters both alliances move as one

[Lord Brendan]

For now simply accept that Harmlins represents a greater bond than any other in CN history, including OoO and that where it matters both alliances move as one

Don't you think that's a bit conceited? "We're better friends than anyone else, ever"?

Order at the End of the Universe, remember that one?

[jerdge]

We're living in interesting times, indeed!

Bold move there, my dear Härmlins, and thanks for the honour you made us by keeping the Härmlin Accords. May our friendship last forever.

About the possibility of cancelling a treaty, I will have to disagree with some of the friends that are saying that the Härmlin Accords can't be cancelled. The legitimacy of a treaty derives from the sovereignty of the people signing it, and the treaty can't therefore overrule said sovereignty. Any institution can always amend or cancel its participation in any policy that same institution created or agreed to.

The difficulties of cancelling a treaty lie in the political repercussions of cancelling it - whereas "political" includes but is not limited to PR and safety - not in the legal possibility to do so.

Cancelling a treaty without respecting its letter is allowed. The real problem is that many people will then become sceptical about one's ability to keep one's word.

All of this said, I think that the benefit of having very few treaties (if any) is that you are more independent and free to choose when it comes to warfare. I don't think that The Grämlins could ignore this simple fact when they decided to take this path, and this makes me think that they agree with us that the MHA and their freedom can't conflict (while their freedom and their bonds with their other former signatories most probably would never conflict). This is just my opinion on this matter, anyway.

If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who is on the right side and who clearly needs our help, it's unlikely that any future war we enter could or would be considered bandwaggoning

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

Your intent to just provoke a reaction by stating something offensive, while carefully avoiding any precise reference, is quite clear there, Bilrow. I've always thought that you're good at inflaming the audience but not that good at looking like you weren't doing it. I must say that I'm disappointed by your lack of progress in that direction.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that you probably don't care at all about my disappointment!