Jump to content

Härmlin Announcement


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You wanna e-lawyer? Then check the !@#$@#$ article. Prohibiting from initiating "Aggressive" action. What we are doing is Defensive. Maybe if IRON and TOP hadn't aggressively joined the opposite side of a coalition to attack our friends, we wouldn't have had to attack IRON. But ya did, so this is the consequences.

Edited by Working_Class_Ruler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wanna e-lawyer? Then check the !@#$@#$ article. Prohibiting from initiating "Aggressive" action. What we are doing is Defensive. Maybe if IRON and TOP hadn't aggressively joined the opposite side of a coalition to attack our friends, we wouldn't have had to attack IRON. But ya did, so this is the consequences.

You keep missing that interpretation clause. If TOP sees it as aggression on your part, the treaty seems void... Do they? I don't know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOP and IRON declared on C&G, who had nothing to do with this conflict at the time. MHA is defending their ally MK)well i thought they were allies, at least). Gre is helping its friend MHA, as well as Fark and MK. We're all friends :)

Edited by tobbogon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep missing that interpretation clause. If TOP sees it as aggression on your part, the treaty seems void... Do they? I don't know...

And what a useless treaty it would be if TOP could just willy nilly redefine aggression and defense to justify their own actions. If they think they can actually do that, then they (like you) are sadly mistaken. But you're the one coming in here making a fuss about treaty violations and conveniently ignoring TOP's actions. I understand you're on the opposite side and wish to make some kind of point, but by all means find a correct one next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what a useless treaty it would be if TOP could just willy nilly redefine aggression and defense to justify their own actions. If they think they can actually do that, then they (like you) are sadly mistaken. But you're the one coming in here making a fuss about treaty violations and conveniently ignoring TOP's actions. I understand you're on the opposite side and wish to make some kind of point, but by all means find a correct one next time.

You're friends in Gremlins see the right to redefine aggression and defense as they need. It's part of their Codex. Silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o/ harmlins

Good luck, IRON. I'll see you on the battlefield.

o/ Härmlins

o/ Aqua

o/ Deja Vu

Have fun IRON, see you on the other side.

Thank you for the kind words in a sea of blood lust, I hope to bring you a good fight should you come to the shores of Uller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o/ Harmlins o/ C&G lets get this game on now! We fought IRON once with less of a force and won, now with 8 others in on the action IRON will be nothing!

As to the haters in TOP that have an issue ya know where to cancel the treaty. Some might say it would do us a favour as Crymson these last few days has loved trying to force who we can/can't fight or whatever to fit his regime. I consider TOP to be no ally of mine.

Also for TOP in the harmlin accords

b. Should any alliance or group which has a treaty with any Härmlin, plan or perform aggressive action towards another Härmlin, the pact with the foreign party will be made null and void and all Härmlin will stand united in repelling the aggressor.

In conspiring with an enemy you conspired against us.

^

Personal opinion only but hey.

Edited by scutterbug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what a useless treaty it would be if TOP could just willy nilly redefine aggression and defense to justify their own actions. If they think they can actually do that, then they (like you) are sadly mistaken. But you're the one coming in here making a fuss about treaty violations and conveniently ignoring TOP's actions. I understand you're on the opposite side and wish to make some kind of point, but by all means find a correct one next time.

By all means, read your treaty before you start saying that you couldn't have possibly breached it. Just look at Article IV of "The Harmless Paradox Treaty", it says that the treaty is open to interpretation. So yea, TOP can pretty much define your actions however they see fit, according to the treaty that you both hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means, read your treaty before you start saying that you couldn't have possibly breached it. Just look at Article IV of "The Harmless Paradox Treaty", it says that the treaty is open to interpretation. So yea, TOP can pretty much define your actions however they see fit, according to the treaty that you both hold.

Yep, read it mate. That does not entitle TOP to accuse us of violating the treaty because they have moved the goal posts on aggression and defense after declaring war. That's ridiculous. That article is clearly meant to ensure proper discussion on the events and actions, not for some half-witted know-it-all with a clear bias to run around screaming "VIOLATION!!!"

I'm also amazed at the double standard you are perpetrating here. I do hope you have likewise gone to TOP's thread to insist that they look at their own treaty and suggest that MHA can "define your actions however they see fit." Should I even waste my time looking to see if you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, read it mate. That does not entitle TOP to accuse us of violating the treaty because they have moved the goal posts on aggression and defense after declaring war. That's ridiculous. That article is clearly meant to ensure proper discussion on the events and actions, not for some half-witted know-it-all with a clear bias to run around screaming "VIOLATION!!!"

I'm also amazed at the double standard you are perpetrating here. I do hope you have likewise gone to TOP's thread to insist that they look at their own treaty and suggest that MHA can "define your actions however they see fit." Should I even waste my time looking to see if you have?

They only hate us because we wouldn't be the puppets they wanted us to and do what they wanted. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a secret clause of the treaty, or just supposed to be unwritten but understood?

It's actually directly written in the Harmlin Accords. This is a supremacy clause if I've ever seen one:

b. Should any alliance or group which has a treaty with any Härmlin, plan or perform aggressive action towards another Härmlin, the pact with the foreign party will be made null and void and all Härmlin will stand united in repelling the aggressor.

o/ Harmlins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did neither plan nor perform agression against any Härmlin.

You also don't seem to have an MDP with MK.

Thus, you ARE in violation of the treaty, even though grämlins isn't. Unless you wish to argue your Grämlins MDP is triggered by Grämlins declaring war on IRON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

article 2.5:

5. Both signatories are prohibited from initiating offensive action against any MDP/MADP partners of the other signatory. This clause will not apply should an MDP/MADP partner of either signatory initiate any hostilities that lead to activation of an MDP by either signatory.

IRON is an MDP partner of TOP, and the second sentence clearly indicates what offensive action means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...