Jump to content

What's the oldest, still active, Treaty in CN?


Neuromancer7

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 March 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1267752394' post='2214344']
Unless I see mhawk saying "Muahhahaha we're going to roll PC one day so we put this clause in. THEY'LL NEVER SEE IT COMING *evil laugh here*" then your argument is terrible and you're a fool.

Also it's a Non Aggression Pact you don't honor a [b]NON[/b] Aggression Pact by being aggressive.
[/quote]
Might want to wipe some of that froth off your mouth.

[quote]
Article 3: Cancellation
Either Party may cancel this agreement. Once one party notifies the other with their intent to cancel, the Pact stays in effect for 10 days. If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.[/quote]
Is that last sentence something you've seen in any other treaty of any sort? Why would it be there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Choader' date='04 March 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1267752678' post='2214347']
Is that last sentence something you've seen in any other treaty of any sort? Why would it be there?
[/quote]

Doesn't mean it was written by TPF to roll you. Also doesn't mean that it justifies your opportunistic actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='04 March 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1267752678' post='2214347']
Might want to wipe some of that froth off your mouth.


Is that last sentence something you've seen in any other treaty of any sort? Why would it be there?
[/quote]

Because you can commit aggresion without a DoW. If PC attacked a TPF ally the terms of the treaty would be broken and TPF could attack and not have to wait 10 days to defend its ally. They did not trust you so they needed that term so PC would not try and use the NAP as a weapon. In the end they were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vanguard/Ragnarok treaty will reach three years of age in the middle of this year. Certainly not the oldest, but it's definitely up there as far as treaties with obligatory defence go.

Edited by Denial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Raunchero' date='04 March 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1267752002' post='2214339']
I vividly remember signing the Blue Steel Accords way back in the day. Furytear was awesome. It was something that was a fairly big deal in those days, especially since it was with IRON. It's still hard to believe that is the oldest continuously active defense treaty in BOB today. However odd it may seem to me, it is definitely something I'm proud of and is real interesting to look back on things.
[/quote]

The GOD-Halsa MDP is older, but I guess yours is still the oldest MADP treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='05 March 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1267753735' post='2214365']
Because you can commit aggresion without a DoW. If PC attacked a TPF ally the terms of the treaty would be broken and TPF could attack and not have to wait 10 days to defend its ally. They did not trust you so they needed that term so PC would not try and use the NAP as a weapon. In the end they were right.
[/quote]

It was TPFs fault for forcing them to sign it in the first place. If TPF put any stock at all in that treaty, they were, at best, very misguided. But, you and I both know that the only reason TPF ever !@#$%*ed about the way that treaty was cancelled is because they were out manuevered, very simply and very easily, by an alliance they viewed as inferior.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 March 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1267747130' post='2214208']
Stop trying to e-lawyer, you just look like a fool. You didn't follow the spirit of the treaty and in my mind that's essentially all that matters.
[/quote]

Even if that were the case, implying that they're a bad ally (which is what you were initially implying) because they broke a treaty that was forced on them by an alliance that hated them is laughable.

Looking at everything else they've done, backing up IS when half of CN wanted to kill them over the CG incident as well as defending \m/ from NpO when it looked like no one else would come in on their side, I'd say they're as good an ally as you can get.

Edited by LegendoftheSkies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lennox' date='04 March 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1267760045' post='2214480']
NSO-NPO treaty which has existed since the early 18th century.
[/quote]
I concur. The vernacular has changed a bit since then, but it's still a great read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='05 March 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1267751851' post='2214332']
The NAP had two methods of cancellation. One was a waiting period, one was a DoW. The NAP was specifically written (by TPF) to provide for that clause to be used in the future and PC happened to use it first.
[/quote]
A Non-Aggression Pact which is considered legally canceled by a Declaration of War. Um, are you kidding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 March 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1267757711' post='2214445']
It was TPFs fault for forcing them to sign it in the first place. If TPF put any stock at all in that treaty, they were, at best, very misguided. But, you and I both know that the only reason TPF ever !@#$%*ed about the way that treaty was cancelled is because they were out manuevered, very simply and very easily, by an alliance they viewed as inferior.
[/quote]

While I agree it was regretful TPF forced PC to sign any treaty (through whatever circumstances), bottomline is that Poison Clan gave their word they would not attack TPF without holding a period of notice and they revealed their word is without value. It might have been advantageous to them, they might have given their word in unfair circumstances, but they did it, and by their own choice they withdrew all the value from it.

And anyway, I thought someone forced to sign treaties (such as surrender terms, though that NAP fits like a glove) while being pushed around made those treaties acceptable because they were signed and accepted by the alliance in question :rolleyes:

Edited by Lusitan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='President Kent' date='04 March 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1267764128' post='2214555']
A Non-Aggression Pact which is considered legally canceled by a Declaration of War. Um, are you kidding?
[/quote]

Isn't that going against the spirit of the treaty, thereby defacto cancellation? I'm not looking to pick a fight here, I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='soccerbum879' date='05 March 2010 - 06:26 AM' timestamp='1267770600' post='2214664']
Isn't that going against the spirit of the treaty, thereby defacto cancellation? I'm not looking to pick a fight here, I'm just curious.
[/quote]

Does the marriage end because you break the contract by cheating on your wife? You have to actually fill the divorce afterwards.

EDIT: Or she does. Whatever :P

Edited by Lusitan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='soccerbum879' date='05 March 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1267770600' post='2214664']
Isn't that going against the spirit of the treaty, thereby defacto cancellation? I'm not looking to pick a fight here, I'm just curious.
[/quote]
Indeed. Most NAPs have been voided that way, which is why they're so worthless. But the vibe I was getting was that the PC-TPF NAP could be legally, as in, not defacto, cancelled by a DoW. Essentially treatying the idea that "we agree not to act aggressively towards each other unless one of us declares war on the other". Lol. Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='President Kent' date='05 March 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1267771163' post='2214670']
Indeed. Most NAPs have been voided that way, which is why they're so worthless. But the vibe I was getting was that the PC-TPF NAP could be legally, as in, not defacto, cancelled by a DoW. Essentially treatying the idea that "we agree not to act aggressively towards each other unless one of us declares war on the other". Lol. Someone please tell me I'm wrong.
[/quote]

I would consider any attack by an MDP partner on an alliance as them breaking the treaty, thereby nullifying it. I don't know why anyone would think of it any other way. Same goes for NAPs.

Edited by soccerbum879
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='soccerbum879' date='05 March 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267771922' post='2214679']
I would consider any attack by an MDP partner on an alliance as them breaking the treaty, thereby nullifying it. I don't know why anyone would think of it any other way. Same goes for NAPs.
[/quote]
But that attack would be illegal, since it would be prohibited by the non-aggression clause still in effect at the declaration, until the declaration. Again, my point is that the PC declaration was apparently legal because the treaty apparently included a cancellation clause which specifically said that the treaty would be legally cancelled upon any declaration beween signatories. Not a de facto, 'we're not non-agressioning anymore so the treaty is void" cancellation. A legal one. Or at least that's what I got out of the initial post. Again, hopefully someone will correct me. But you're not, because this differs from a normal NAP in that normal NAPs are written with the idea in mind that any declaration between signitories would be illegal under the treaty. As I said, apparently PC and TPF thought differently. How novel of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Neuromancer7' date='04 March 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1267732505' post='2213913']
The FCC has a SISTER Treaty with LOSS that dates from 11 November 2006.

I was just wondering if there are any older treaties, that are still active, out there in CN.
[/quote]

Too bad I'm only catching this on the fifth page of the thread. I was the one from LOSS who worked with Natergal to get this treaty written. It ended up being used as the template for FCC's later treaties.

I take credit for jumping up and down a lot to encourage moving it along. But it was Natergal who did most of the writing. She was the one who wrangled with what FFC leadership wanted restricted or allowed. Then I dragged it over to LOSS and said just sign it as is. I knew good prose when I saw it.

Yah, I doubt it is the oldest treaty in CN. I imagine there are quite a few actually. But it has endured more than 3 years and most other CN treaties have died before it.

I'm happy that effort has endured all this time. I'm very happy my name and Natergal's sigs endure on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Eric Cantona' date='04 March 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1267749928' post='2214279']
You don't have to insult each other in every single thread, you know...
[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure you're correct, sir.


Anyway, looking over the discussion so far, I've learned that PC and TPF are jerks for, respectively, breaking and having a treaty (which, incidentally, we can all agree isn't the oldest one). A pity, because if it were, that'd be germane to the conversation at hand. I don't know why I bother having idle curiosity. I should know it all ends in flames, by now. ;)

Edited by Vhalen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lusitan' date='05 March 2010 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1267767537' post='2214631']
While I agree it was regretful TPF forced PC to sign any treaty (through whatever circumstances), bottomline is that Poison Clan gave their word they would not attack TPF without holding a period of notice and they revealed their word is without value. It might have been advantageous to them, they might have given their word in unfair circumstances, but they did it, and by their own choice they withdrew all the value from it.

And anyway, I thought someone forced to sign treaties (such as surrender terms, though that NAP fits like a glove) while being pushed around made those treaties acceptable because they were signed and accepted by the alliance in question :rolleyes:
[/quote]

So, you're saying that things said under duress, when you have no other choice but to say those things and sign whatever they put in front of you, must be upheld.

Please see my other statements in regards to the kind of person who would be appalled at the cancellation of such a treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='04 March 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1267752678' post='2214347']
Might want to wipe some of that froth off your mouth.


Is that last sentence something you've seen in any other treaty of any sort? Why would it be there?
[/quote]
This is ridiculous, for several reasons.

First of all, it specifically says "If either party BREAKS the treaty..." Do I need to make that any clearer? You still broke the treaty. It was a year ago and all, but at least call it what it is.

Second, if TPF had intended that clause as a loophole, they probably wouldn't have specifically stated that the attacker is breaking the treaty.

Third, while I have admittedly never seen such a clause used elsewhere, it's really common sense. When one side starts attacking the other, I'd say the treaty is torn to shreds and no longer exists at that point. PC may be different, but if TOOL were attacked by a treaty partner, I highly doubt that our milcom would tell us not to fight back until the cancellation clause ran out. Do you honestly believe that an alliance is still bound by a treaty once its treaty partner starts attacking it?

-Bama

EDIT:

[quote name='President Kent' date='05 March 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1267776249' post='2214705']
But that attack would be illegal, since it would be prohibited by the non-aggression clause still in effect at the declaration, until the declaration. Again, my point is that the PC declaration was apparently legal because the treaty apparently included a cancellation clause which specifically said that the treaty would be legally cancelled upon any declaration beween signatories. Not a de facto, 'we're not non-agressioning anymore so the treaty is void" cancellation. A legal one. Or at least that's what I got out of the initial post. Again, hopefully someone will correct me. But you're not, because this differs from a normal NAP in that normal NAPs are written with the idea in mind that any declaration between signitories would be illegal under the treaty. As I said, apparently PC and TPF thought differently. How novel of them.
[/quote]
You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is.

-Bama

Edited by BamaBuc
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...