MHA Announcement

[NotYou]

Good call MHA. You were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Now I await the disbandenment thread of another historic alliance

[nutkase]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280799741' post='2399004']
In not so surprising news, MHA is scum of an alliance.
[/quote]

This post is gleaming with irony.

Come back when you have something intelligent and of substance.

[Crymson]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1280806066' post='2399066']
This post is gleaming with irony.

Come back when you have something intelligent and of substance.
[/quote]

I see you left MHA. Interesting.

[rapmanej]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1280806066' post='2399066']
This post is gleaming with irony.

Come back when you have something intelligent and of substance.
[/quote]

Breaking two treaties, with one of them specifically saying that no matter what happens, it cannot be broken.

Eternal = Eternal

For the definition of said word, we need to go to an official dictionary. I presume the oxford English dictionary would be a suitable reference.

A. adj.

1. a. Infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist: esp. of the Divine Being.

2. Infinite in past duration; that has always existed.

3. a. Infinite in future duration; that always will exist; everlasting, endless.


Now, how can the cyberverse exist within a given set of norms, have set rules of law, and not see this as breech of contract. Treaties are nothing but contracts. These contracts usually consist of a:

-Title
-statement of purpose
-body (what the treaty actually does/does not do
-a cancellation clause
-signage

Contrary to the rabble out there, this treaty does have a cancellation clause, and that clause specifically says that it cannot be canceled, for any reason.


Now, for people who want to make the rather childish argument "they just did" or "do something about it", their point is well-taken, but if we take that point at its face value, this will throw the cyberverse back into a "state of nature" which states that "anything goes" provided one has power. Lets take this argument to its logical extreme, if a group of Nazi alliances are the most powerful bloc and they decide to go after any nations with the Jewish religious choice, will players still claim the "do something about it" argument?

However, this argument fails the test of logic, because players cannot do what anything they want. We do live under certain rules and regulations as provided to us by the Admin(s).

This can all be summarized down to: Honoring commitments leads to impasses, which leads to deterrence, which leads to peace (for the most part).

Not honoring commitments leads to uncertainty and to a state of nature, which leads to anarchy, which leads to immorality.

Edited August 3, 2010 by rapmanej

[ironchef]

[quote name='Mad Mike' timestamp='1280789637' post='2398883']
MHA did not know of gremlins intentions on white peace.
once achieved:
MHA was nice enough to post there cancellation of the accords on the gremlins forums 10 minutes before posting it to the OWF. They at least posted a link to the forums post in our joint irc channel.

Gremlins did not know of an intention to cancel the accords before white peace was achieved. It was a total surprise to Gremlins.
[/quote]

Thank you MM

[nutkase]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280807714' post='2399082']
Breaking two treaties, with one of them specifically saying that no matter what happens, it cannot be broken.

Eternal = Eternal

For the definition of said word, we need to go to an official dictionary. I presume the oxford English dictionary would be a suitable reference.

A. adj.

1. a. Infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist: esp. of the Divine Being.

2. Infinite in past duration; that has always existed.

3. a. Infinite in future duration; that always will exist; everlasting, endless.


Now, how can the cyberverse exist within a given set of norms, have set rules of law, and not see this as breech of contract. Treaties are nothing but contracts. These contracts usually consist of a:

-Title
-statement of purpose
-body (what the treaty actually does/does not do
-a cancellation clause
-signage

Contrary to the rabble out there, this treaty does have a cancellation clause, and that clause specifically says that it cannot be canceled, for any reason.


Now, for people who want to make the rather childish argument "they just did" or "do something about it", their point is well-taken, but if we take that point at its face value, this will throw the cyberverse back into a "state of nature" which states that "anything goes" provided one has power. Lets take this argument to its logical extreme, if a group of Nazi alliances are the most powerful bloc and they decide to go after any nations with the Jewish religious choice, will players still claim the "do something about it" argument?

However, this argument fails the test of logic, because players cannot do what anything they want. We do live under certain rules and regulations as provided to us by the Admin(s).

This can all be summarized down to: Honoring commitments leads to impasses, which leads to deterrence, which leads to peace (for the most part).

Not honoring commitments leads to uncertainty and to a state of nature, which leads to anarchy, which leads to immorality.
[/quote]


With you're definition it then excludes this treaty as it can be broken. "As without end" A Alliance which sign this kind of document and then disbands at a future date makes the treaty void and thus at a end.

There is no such things as CN norms, rules of law. Alliances can do whatever they damn like within any capacity, there is no law or norms that restrict what they do or in what manner they act. There is only action and reaction. People might like to do a action but will not because they fear the reaction that it will cause.

Please still explain how you can to the conclusion that MHA is scum?

Thank you for actually making a contribution.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1280807026' post='2399076']
I see you left MHA. Interesting.
[/quote]

Ejay make a sexual offer I just could not refuse.

[rapmanej]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1280808787' post='2399100']
With you're definition it then excludes this treaty as it can be broken. "As without end" A Alliance which sign this kind of document and then disbands at a future date makes the treaty void and thus at a end.

There is no such things as CN norms, rules of law. Alliances can do whatever they damn like within any capacity, there is no law or norms that restrict what they do or in what manner they act. There is only action and reaction. People might like to do a action but will not because they fear the reaction that it will cause.

Please still explain how you can to the conclusion that MHA is scum?

Thank you for actually making a contribution.
[/quote]

1. Gre has not disbanded yet, therefore the treaty should still stand. Some people whine that "it's not the same Gre", but the treaty still says that even though some things will change, the treaty remains intact. However if Gre would disband, then the treaty would expire.

2. The treaty cannot be ended without violating its original purpose. It even says on the wiki page, that this is a dual-membership treaty. If this is the case, then the treaty was in fact meant to be something eternal, or until both alliances ceased to exist.

3. Norms can constitute action and reaction, however, when one's actions create a state of nature when it comes to treaty obligations, then this throws the whole entire treaty web into disarray, as alliances find it customary to bail.

I might have been over-exaggerating to call MHA scum, but I still believe MHA does not possess the power to stand up for any principles, and furthermore, they continue the disastrous trend of infra> friends, which will only make the current situation of bob more in dire straits.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280809600' post='2399110']
1. Gre has not disbanded yet, therefore the treaty should still stand. Some people whine that "it's not the same Gre", but the treaty still says that even though some things will change, the treaty remains intact. However if Gre would disband, then the treaty would expire.

2. The treaty cannot be ended without violating its original purpose. It even says on the wiki page, that this is a dual-membership treaty. If this is the case, then the treaty was in fact meant to be something eternal, or until both alliances ceased to exist.

3. Norms can constitute action and reaction, however, when one's actions create a state of nature when it comes to treaty obligations, then this throws the whole entire treaty web into disarray, as alliances find it customary to bail.

I might have been over-exaggerating to call MHA scum, but I still believe MHA does not possess the power to stand up for any principles, and furthermore, they continue the disastrous trend of infra> friends, which will only make the current situation of bob more in dire straits.
[/quote]

/me reads carefully

/me looks at Alliance Affiliation of the individual making said post



Stop. Now.

[rapmanej]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1280809999' post='2399119']
/me reads carefully

/me looks at Alliance Affiliation of the individual making said post



Stop. Now.
[/quote]

argumentum ad hominem much?

[Fallen Fool]

To be honest, I don't really see a need for all the MHA hate. At this point it should be self-evident that the structure of this treaty was a mistake, so what is the point in continuing to talk about it? Is it really that big a deal to see an empty treaty scrapped at a time when most people seem keen to rage about the evils of the treaty web?

Regardless, good luck in the future to both parties.

[Jocko Homo]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280810298' post='2399131']
argumentum ad hominem much?
[/quote]

ummmmm,

Let me help you out here. You see, he is looking at your AA which says "New Pacific Order" And then he is doing a facepalm, (like this ==> )

Then he is telling you to stop. now.

You see, he, like everyone else reading this thread (except apparently you) is aware that the NPO was the first alliance to break an unbreakable treaty. And that in doing so set the precedent.

You see, YOU are in the NPO, so you blabbering on about how wrong it is for anyone else to follow the precedent YOUR ALLIANCE set really, really, REALLY makes you look, ahem, foolish? yes, foolish.

So please. stop. now.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Jocko Homo

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Jocko Homo' timestamp='1280814017' post='2399237']
ummmmm,

Let me help you out here. You see, he is looking at your AA which says "New Pacific Order" And then he is doing a facepalm, (like this ==> )

Then he is telling you to stop. now.

You see, he, like everyone else reading this thread (except apparently you) is aware that the NPO was the first alliance to break an unbreakable treaty. And that in doing so set the precedent.

You see, YOU are in the NPO, so you blabbering on about how wrong it is for anyone else to follow the precedent YOUR ALLIANCE set really, really, REALLY makes you look, ahem, foolish? yes, foolish.

So please. stop. now.
[/quote]


I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that fact that the Ordnance of the Orders was 'unbreakable' is not mentioned to the newer folks like him. Go easy on him, he only knows what he's given.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1280816736' post='2399265']
I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that fact that the Ordnance of the Orders was 'unbreakable' is not mentioned to the newer folks like him. Go easy on him, he only knows what he's given.
[/quote]

According to the revisionist history I was taught when I was in NPO, it was NpO who broke the Ordinance, while Moo "merely cancelled" it.

Edited August 3, 2010 by James Dahl

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280809600' post='2399110']
1. Gre has not disbanded yet, therefore the treaty should still stand. Some people whine that "it's not the same Gre", but the treaty still says that even though some things will change, the treaty remains intact. However if Gre would disband, then the treaty would expire.

2. The treaty cannot be ended without violating its original purpose. It even says on the wiki page, that this is a dual-membership treaty. If this is the case, then the treaty was in fact meant to be something eternal, or until both alliances ceased to exist.

3. Norms can constitute action and reaction, however, when one's actions create a state of nature when it comes to treaty obligations, then this throws the whole entire treaty web into disarray, as alliances find it customary to bail.

I might have been over-exaggerating to call MHA scum, but I still believe MHA does not possess the power to stand up for any principles, and furthermore, they continue the disastrous trend of infra> friends, which will only make the current situation of bob more in dire straits.
[/quote]

[quote]
III. Härmlin is Heäring

Our union is so true that we two shall share our governmental archives and communication structures and recognize each other's leaders as observers and advisors to the other. Frequent communication shall allow our illustrious Alliances to foster greater integration and intensify our friendship so that all Härmlin may be of common thought, mind and purpose. Therefore, from this moment on, those of this Accord shall share a common public meeting place for all Härmlin and those seeking contact with them.
[/quote]

I don't see where Ramirus met with this section. For what I see in this thread (and I invite people to teach me wrong if it wasn't like this) he mostly ignored MHA in his action during the last months, and finally he made white peace without even informing MHA. gRAMlins seemed to consider this treaty as a given, as it was indeed theoretically uncancellable (and from an e-lawyering point of view your right here). But when does a treaty become void considering the ignoration of the treaty by one of the signature parties? How can MHA be expected to accept everything? I mean, as long as there is one nation flying under GRE AA, the alliance theoretically exists, and so would also Härmlins Accords. I think every alliance would have cancelled this treaty at some point (although many alliances would have been careful enough not to sign it in a first point).

[Hydro]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' timestamp='1280824784' post='2399310']
I don't see where Ramirus met with this section. For what I see in this thread (and I invite people to teach me wrong if it wasn't like this) he mostly ignored MHA in his action during the last months, and finally he made white peace without even informing MHA. gRAMlins seemed to consider this treaty as a given, as it was indeed theoretically uncancellable (and from an e-lawyering point of view your right here). But when does a treaty become void considering the ignoration of the treaty by one of the signature parties? How can MHA be expected to accept everything? I mean, as long as there is one nation flying under GRE AA, the alliance theoretically exists, and so would also Härmlins Accords. I think every alliance would have cancelled this treaty at some point (although many alliances would have been careful enough not to sign it in a first point).
[/quote]

The kicker is that it was not a treaty that was "breakable". In fact it was specifically supposed to not be breakable. Spirit of the treaty or not, this really only goes to show that MHA's word means squat. They made a unbreakable pact and they should have to suffer through the consequences, as was intended from the beginning should the !@#$ hit the fan.

[potato]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1280791597' post='2398906']
Who are these Grämlins you speak of? I know only of the Rämlins, an unimportant and insignificant micro-alliance led by deluded megalomaniacs.
[/quote]

It's the alliance that !@#$ on your closest ally and kept them at war for a long time while you sat on your $@! doing nothing.

[Hiro Nakara]

Few months ago people cried because they wouldn't cancel on Gremlins Now they do cancel people cry as much, You're damned if you do and damned if you don't

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1280834024' post='2399366']
It's the alliance that !@#$ on your closest ally and kept them at war for a long time while you sat on your $@! doing nothing.
[/quote]
Well, we had to pay reps to some alliances we just surrendered to, and those alliances said quite clearly that they wouldn't tollerate us turning to war. So we talked to IRON and came to the point that the best thing to do was to continue to pay our reps instead of restarting the whole war again.

Edit: To add also something on topic... When is a treaty void by its own? Can't we, if two alliances drift apart in order not to be friends any more, assume that cancelling a treaty that should seal such a friendship, is more a formality to end a treaty with no content? Would it be of better serve to both signatories to continue this treaty and e-lawyering themselves out of it each time it should apply? I stand at my point: if the bonds of Härmlins are broken, it's merely gRAMlins fault. And as a contract that rules the property of a non existing good is void, a contract that seals a non existing friendship should be void too.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Ojiras Ajeridas

[Azrael Alexander]

[quote]I might have been over-exaggerating to call MHA scum, but I still believe MHA does not possess the power to stand up for any principles, and furthermore, they continue the disastrous trend of infra> friends, which will only make the current situation of bob more in dire straits. [/quote]

I'm just guessing here but chances are that until the MHA is rolled people will continue to say this.

I have only ever written two treaties for my alliance the first being an NAP with the world task force and the second the treaty which is being cancelled here. My signiture is on that document and until grämlins disband if they call upon me i'll come. But the MHA being a representative democracy did what it's people asked of them. We kept the war with the help of our allies isolated to just the Grämlins, DAWN and IRON and fulfilled thier wish to leave them be. With the dust settled it was allways going to be up to the members to decide if they would keep the treaty. Would I have preferred we keep the treaty, of coarse. But our alliance is conditioned to to act upon our members wises.

En Taro Adun my brothers

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Azrael Alexander' timestamp='1280841589' post='2399426']
I'm just guessing here but chances are that until the MHA is rolled people will continue to say this.

I have only ever written two treaties for my alliance the first being an NAP with the world task force and the second the treaty which is being cancelled here. My signiture is on that document and until grämlins disband if they call upon me i'll come. But the MHA being a representative democracy did what it's people asked of them. We kept the war with the help of our allies isolated to just the Grämlins, DAWN and IRON and fulfilled thier wish to leave them be. With the dust settled it was allways going to be up to the members to decide if they would keep the treaty. [u]Would I have preferred we keep the treaty, of coarse. But our alliance is conditioned to to act upon our members wises.[/u]

En Taro Adun my brothers
[/quote]

And to ignore the treaties that it has voted to sign?

[Branimir]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1280809999' post='2399119']
/me reads carefully

/me looks at Alliance Affiliation of the individual making said post



Stop. Now.
[/quote]
Comrade is expressing his personal opinion. I believe this is the medium for it?

Thoughts about this among members of the Order which have various opinions diverge. I personally have no issue with the act of cancellation as such, just the timing. Some do, and probably therefore do not agree with what NPO did years ago (years, ago)-- but it was probably before their time and since then they probably find Order something they still want to be a part of despite that historical episode.

Deal with it.

[King Chill I]

I know this has been a tough process for MHA. You handled as well as anyone could have and did the right thing for your alliance.

Unlike lebubu i think this was just the right moment to cancel. Not much you can help Gre with. They should have warchests to rebuild and image is something that the MHA shouldn't have to nurse and take a hit for Gre.

And lol at all the NPO kids trollin MHA.
At least next time around MHA won't even have the dilemma of whether to suicide over an idiotic ally or at least try to keep them from being piled on by people they didnt directly pull into a war started with no declaration and during peace negotiations. Yeah, MHA were the bad guys in the scenario.

Edited August 3, 2010 by King Chill I

[shilo]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1280834024' post='2399366']
It's the alliance that !@#$ on your closest ally and kept them at war for a long time while you sat on your $@! doing nothing.
[/quote]
They were annoying, but they mostly $%&@ed with themselves and continue to do so now.
But really, someone with your AA isn't really in the position to bash our friends for something they were prevented from doing so by your very alliance and your friends.

[Qazzian]

"But NPOers, didn't you cancel OoO which didn't have a cancellation clause?"

Yes. Here's the difference though. When OoO was signed, [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=27273&view=findpost&p=724827]cancellation clauses were not standard[/url]. [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_World_Unity_Treaty]WUT[/url] had no cancellation clause, and similar wording, yet it's gone.

OoO had no cancellation clause (by convention), Härmlins specifically stated that it COULD NOT be canceled.