majorddf Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote] So MHA is a whole new alliance now then? Possibly where treaties mean something?[/quote] It has been this way for some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1280706314' post='2397562'] Giving MHA a hard time for this is the cheap and easy thing to do, I suppose. [/quote] You forgot right and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Cristof Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 MHA does something that can't be done. Talk about doing the impossible. Still congratulations I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutilius Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='majorddf' timestamp='1280706557' post='2397570'] It has been this way for some time now. [/quote] Except in this example where this treaty was meant to be forever binding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='majorddf' timestamp='1280706557' post='2397570'] It has been this way for some time now. [/quote] Oh the irony. Treaties mean something, except if the members of MHA vote to cancel or ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1280705750' post='2397533'] In hindsight MHA probably should have just waited for gre to disband, won't be that much longer. Also MHA thank you for now violating two major treaties. [/quote] We have violated zero. We have cancelled one, so points for you. I'm really going to have a hard time sleeping at night because of this post though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdcchn Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 best wishes MHA, this was clearly a hard decision for you guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280706785' post='2397576'] Oh the irony. Treaties mean something, except if the members of MHA vote to cancel or ignore it. [/quote] Well yeah, that's kind of how we work. We vote on treaties too. In this instance the executive thought it was in the best interest of the alliance to make a statement now, and they did so. I dare say the rest of it supports their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 (edited) [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280706804' post='2397578'] We have violated zero. [/quote] You didn't honor your obligations to NPO or Q and you canceled a treaty that can't be canceled. You violated two. [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280706916' post='2397581'] Well yeah, that's kind of how we work. [/quote] So you cancel treaties when you feel like it and ignore them? Edited August 1, 2010 by Mr Damsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timtacious Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 Excellent. Hopefully there will still be someone to raid in a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280706916' post='2397581'] Well yeah, that's kind of how we work. We vote on treaties too. In this instance the executive thought it was in the best interest of the alliance to make a statement now, and they did so. I dare say the rest of it supports their opinion. [/quote] So you admit that what is meant to be a binding treaty can become meaningless through a vote. Tell me, why sign anything other than a ODP if this is the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDe Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280707018' post='2397583'] You didn't honor your obligations to NPO or Q and you canceled a treaty that can't be canceled. You violated two. [/quote] We had already informed Q of our withdrawal and the cancellation period had expired before the war started. 2 - 1 = 1 NPO failed to inform us of military action as required by our MDoAP with them. However we were still prepared to step in against people without a treaty who attacked. 1 - 1 = 0 We violated neither of those treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280707018' post='2397583'] You didn't honor your obligations to NPO or Q and you canceled a treaty that can't be canceled. You violated two. [/quote] I've already answered the first and object to it in my previous posts. In the second we protected the Gramlins after we had secured a peace we thought would suffice in the war and then were asked not to assist them in further efforts, we went above and beyond and protected them from other alliances who...despite what you think...were very willing to attack them. And the post you quoted... all accounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280706916' post='2397581'] Well yeah, that's kind of how we work. We vote on treaties too. In this instance the executive thought it was in the best interest of the alliance to make a statement now, and they did so. I dare say the rest of it supports their opinion. [/quote] Caligula, a bit of friendly advice - you may just want to let this thread take its course and accept the damage that comes with it, if your main defence is telling the rest of your treaty partners that your alliance may spontaneously decide not to honour that treaty the next time it's called upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1280702781' post='2397435'] [center][img]http://www.mostlyharmlessalliance.com/styles/hermes/imageset/MHA.jpg[/img][/center] Sadly, the Grämlins recently embarked on a path in which we were unwilling to follow. [/quote] Whether you like it or not. You did follow. This treaty should have been canceled months ago. You in effect supported them their agenda. You waiting to cancel after the "war" is over is no great thing. There isn't much left of that alliance, so no one really cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) edited: No point, Haters gonna hate. Edited August 2, 2010 by caligula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='AndyDe' timestamp='1280707248' post='2397587'] We had already informed Q of our withdrawal and the cancellation period had expired before the war started. 2 - 1 = 1 NPO failed to inform us of military action as required by our MDoAP with them. However we were still prepared to step in against people without a treaty who attacked. 1 - 1 = 0 We violated neither of those treaties. [/quote] Sorry I put Q in there as an extension of the NPO. You pussied out on Q but didn't technically break the treaty. The "treaty that can't be canceled" that I was referring to was Harmlins. When you cancel a treaty that can't be canceled you break it. It's pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1280707354' post='2397589'] Caligula, a bit of friendly advice - you may just want to let this thread take its course and accept the damage that comes with it, if your main defence is telling the rest of your treaty partners that your alliance may spontaneously decide not to honour that treaty the next time it's called upon. [/quote] I answered one of...tens of questions, if it's taken out of context so beit. Edited August 2, 2010 by caligula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280707520' post='2397591'] edited: No point, Haters gonna hate. [/quote] I'm no hater, I just can't stand to see an alliance with a treaty with one of my allies sit there and claim that there is a chance they won't honor it. [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280707653' post='2397594'] I answered one of...tens of questions, if it's taken out of context so beit. [/quote] I don't need to take that quote out of context to show the terrible attitude towards treaties you apparently have. Edited August 2, 2010 by Ryuzaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) Best of luck to GRE in your hard times, you can't keep a gremlin down. Edited August 2, 2010 by Muddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cable77 Posted August 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280707482' post='2397590'] Whether you like it or not. You did follow. This treaty should have been canceled months ago. You in effect supported them their agenda. You waiting to cancel after the "war" is over is no great thing. There isn't much left of that alliance, so no one really cares.[/quote] You might be right. Maybe we should have canceled sooner and left them to the wolves or left Fark to defend them alone. We preferred to wait until after they got peace. Right or wrong, that was our decision and we stand by it. No amount of trolling is going to change our minds. Those who wish to speak privately are welcome to PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertyy Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) nvm. Edited August 2, 2010 by Ertyy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1280705167' post='2397513'] We did the same, we threatened bandwagoners, iirc.. You went to war without telling us anything and expected us to commit suicide with no regard to us whatsoever. Same result [/quote] You knew what you got with Pacifica when you allied to them and signed with the year long cancellation clause. You never had a problem with aggressive action as long as NPO was coming out on the winning side. This "expected us to commit suicide" stuff sounds to me like "you put our pixels in harms way, so we are just going to ignore the treaty while you take a pounding." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280706785' post='2397576'] Treaties mean something, except if the members of MHA vote to cancel or ignore it. [/quote] As long as the treaty isn't being activated when it is being cancelled, there should be absolutely no problem with this. If a majority of the voting members of MHA wish to see a treaty end, then what's the point of keeping it? edit: lol haters gonna hate on MHA Edited August 2, 2010 by Sargun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 Congratulations Gramlins. You can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts