MHA Announcement

[Zangmonkey]

-snip- dbl post

Edited August 3, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

-snip- dbl post

Edited August 3, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I absolutely personally would have supported amending the accords to permit cancellation for nothing more than ease of transition.

...

Much love, MHA.

EDIT: And, personally, had I the authority and a serious concern about paper I would have supported disbanding GRE and reforming solely to release MHA from this obligation; but, again, such measures are absolutely stupid when they are devised solely to appease the OWF rather than serve those groups bound[/quote]
And there you have it. Sanity again from MPK! I can hope that that will put an end to the MHA bashing by e-lawyers, but considering which forum I'm on, I guess it's probably too much to hope for. And on a personal note, now that you're not forced to publically defend the indefensible any more, I hope you can start making sense again and remind everyone of the old MPK.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1280878744' post='2400106']
And there you have it. Sanity again from MPK! I can hope that that will put an end to the MHA bashing by e-lawyers, but considering which forum I'm on, I guess it's probably too much to hope for. And on a personal note, now that you're not forced to publically defend the indefensible any more, I hope you can start making sense again and remind everyone of the old MPK.
[/quote]


My position was always well founded; it's just that the OWF is more motivated by jabs than by discourse.

For the few posters who actually progressed the dialogue we typically came to the impasse of them saying "But what you're doing won't work" and me seeing no point in replying; as that discussion is outside the scope of what I intended to prove.

[President Obama]

Good luck to MHA and the Gremlins in the future. Looking forward to what the new pip will look like.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1280846030' post='2399472']
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.
[/quote]
If they wanted to assist you they could have decided not to sign the terms when they did.

[LokiLockpicker]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1280877049' post='2400067']
This treaty wasn't like any other treaty because, as I understand it, this treaty specifically said it could not be canceled and as far as I'm aware no other treaty has that clause. However, that clause was always bug$%&@ retarded and no reasonable person could ever have expected that clause to ever actually be followed.

Generally, all a cancellation clause does is establish a procedure for leaving the treaty. The lack of such a clause does not in any way prevent an alliance from canceling a treating.

In this case, the presence of an explicit "cannot be canceled" clause does technically prevent MHA from canceling it in a strict legal sense, but, again, that clause was basically meaningless superfluous rhetoric that never belonged in the treaty in the first place. It's utterly silly to demonize MHA for "breaking" such a ridiculous clause. If people are going to mock them it should be for signing the thing in the first place, not finally breaking it when it clearly no longer had any proper meaning for anyone involved.

The mistake was in the creation, not the canceling.
[/quote]
Typically any contract with sections that are impossible to perform or that require something illegal from one of the parties to it, can be declared to be null and void without much fuss.

Forcing a party (or multiple parties) to be tied together forever, would seem to be at the least something that could be considered illegal, if you compared it to typical contracts.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280879487' post='2400119']
My position was always well founded; it's just that the OWF is more motivated by jabs than by discourse.
[/quote]

And you're back to being irrational. Applause. That took all of 30 minutes.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Crymson

[Damaen]

Was there a better way for us to handle this situation? I cant for certain say there wasnt - 20+ pages in and despite some trolling there is good discussion in here - but i think we did the best we could of a terrible situation. I have been in MHA for just under 1000 days. I LOVED GRE. I remember all the awesome times. But it seems over the last while we have been anchored to a group that is no longer a functional alliance, has goals and intentions (stated or otherwise) that we have zero in common with, led by people we have zero in common with, who largely dont consider their actions in relation to us... Should we have signed an eternal treaty? Seemed wonderful at the time. Others made this mistake, we made it, everyone hugged at the time and i dont blame any alliance when they have to get out of it. this lasted YEARS, and i find pride in that, just like the Orders should. CN Politics be crazy, yo. But the Accords have become a joke, almost shameful, and if this thread is what i have to read as punishment so be it. I read every single post. Maybe now i will speak up next time a treaty is up for debate.

I read a lot on the OWF, and dont post, but i have to say that people trolling us and suggesting we arent honest or trustworthy, please. Clearly we sign treaties we believe in and we wish to make them work. We always back up our friends in wars, we protect them when it seems likely bandwagoners will jump them, we aid, and we only leave when things become untenable. [b]I am proud to be in MHA[/b]. Bold text proud.

edit: On re-read i realize i dont really add much to this discussion but maybe you enjoy member's perspectives. Or whatever.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Damaen

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280884078' post='2400205']
If they wanted to assist you they could have decided not to sign the terms when they did.
[/quote]
And having IRON continue to be hammered by whole SG? I don't think the situation would have been better for both IRON and DAWN. After all, this whole thing was annoying, but brought much less damage to IRON and DAWN than the war before. And, seen in hindsight, the damage would have been less also for GRE if we greatly outnumbered them in each tier. They would have signed white peace earlier without loosing almost all of their members.

I don't want to critizise your alliance for not allowing us to go back to war with gRAMlins. But I'd find it fair if you didn't critizise us for ending this war. If we came to this situation, it wasn't our fault, it wasn't your fault, it wasn't IRON's fault and it wasn't MHA's fault. It was gRAMlins fault in trying an impossible thing. They wanted to bring "something new" to the game without realizing that not everything new does work.

I really don't know if that changed something for MHA tough. I don't know when the decision to cancel Härmlins was taken. But I'm rather sure in one thing: TOP had nothing to do with that decision.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280879487' post='2400119']
My position was always well founded; it's just that the OWF is more motivated by jabs than by discourse.
[/quote]
Yes, that's true. You're not innocent on that count though.

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280879487' post='2400119']
For the few posters who actually progressed the dialogue we typically came to the impasse of them saying "But what you're doing won't work" and me seeing no point in replying; as that discussion is outside the scope of what I intended to prove.
[/quote]
You apparently missed all the people who said "But what you're doing cannot be allowed to work, as it scares the crap out of us."

[pigsticker]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' timestamp='1280865962' post='2399837']
You can rest assured, I had nothing to do with the so-called "white peace", and did not authorize my signature being used by Peron.
[/quote]
I had never supported the decision to cancel the Accords and up till now, I still don't.
However, seeing posts like there one quoted does make me understand why our Triums and my fellow hitchhikers voted to cancel the treaty.

I can only second what Damean said and what Sham posted. I will fight to defend Gre.
Hell may freeze over one day, but no way will I ever fight to support Ramirus.

[Iotupa]

You are extremely bad at following your treaties. This is the second "eternal" treaty you have cancelled.

[caligula]

Unproductive post.

Edited August 4, 2010 by caligula

[mdnss69]

MHA must have been very naïve originally to state an "unbreakable" clause. However, the Harmlin accords were a thing of beauty and I think MHA are right to cancel the treaty. If an alliance changes everything to which it is, with only the name remaining, then it is not the same alliance. The Gramlins are not the same alliance as they were a year ago, that much is blatantly obvious.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='pigsticker' timestamp='1280948045' post='2400887']
I had never supported the decision to cancel the Accords and up till now, I still don't.
However, seeing posts like there one quoted does make me understand why our Triums and my fellow hitchhikers voted to cancel the treaty.

I can only second what Damean said and what Sham posted. I will fight to defend Gre.
Hell may freeze over one day, but no way will I ever fight to support Ramirus.
[/quote]


A government official having his signature added to an agreement without his consent doesn't offend you?

[Damaen]

My job is boring, so i apologize in advance for another comment of questionable value.

Considering the length of the Accord, and the fact we were close for some time before that, this treaty worked out really well for both us and GRE. It ended, the fallout sucks, but it had a net gain I suppose. I don't want to ever let this happen again as I said but I dontreally regret it. Say what you want, and you have, but MHA takes it's lumps where warranted. We broke a treaty, sort of technically kinda whatever, but arguing this is habit forming? Luls. The trolling we will just dismiss out of hand, it's not like we are going to lose sleep that people who don't like us continue to do so vocally.

Hrm. Can't decide if I am trying to whitewash, derail or reenvision this topic.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280950872' post='2400921']
A government official having his signature added to an agreement without his consent doesn't offend you?
[/quote]
This is something you may want to take up with Ertyy and MadMike.

[Damaen]

Sorry, apparently iPhones don't allow me to quote or edit.

PK, why would Ram's sig being "abused" matter to anyone but Ram and some within GRE? MHA has very valid concerns about GRE's leadership and gov, Bob as a world consider GRE a failed state... I don't think a lot of people consider GRE and alliance anymore. I know that's jumping the gun but this is how I at least read current sentiment. To be shocked that people aren't enthralled by your daily operations seems sort of arrogant. That sounds really confrontational but I'm not trying to insult you. While I am just happythe war ended, and don't care how, I know this is an important issue for you. If someone jast tacked on WCR's name to something I would be pissed. But GRE needs to focus elsewhere. I may not want to defend you but I don't want to see you jumped like everyone is predicting.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280950872' post='2400921']
A government official having his signature added to an agreement without his consent doesn't offend you?
[/quote]

I know that in your eyes, the matter qualifies as an affront to your deity. However, others may not take it quite so seriously, given that being a dissenter in a government vote that passes anyway usually does not lead to one's name being excluded from the document.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Damaen' timestamp='1280954883' post='2400972']
Sorry, apparently iPhones don't allow me to quote or edit.

PK, why would Ram's sig being "abused" matter to anyone but Ram and some within GRE? MHA has very valid concerns about GRE's leadership and gov, Bob as a world consider GRE a failed state... I don't think a lot of people consider GRE and alliance anymore. I know that's jumping the gun but this is how I at least read current sentiment. To be shocked that people aren't enthralled by your daily operations seems sort of arrogant. That sounds really confrontational but I'm not trying to insult you. While I am just happythe war ended, and don't care how, I know this is an important issue for you. If someone jast tacked on WCR's name to something I would be pissed. But GRE needs to focus elsewhere. I may not want to defend you but I don't want to see you jumped like everyone is predicting.
[/quote]


I agree. The signature issue is between Ram and Peron.
I was simply questioning Pigsticker's use of that quote as a justification for the MHA trium mentality.
I'm sure they have a multitude of valid reasons which are completely separable from a quote about not supporting white peace and an inappropriate use of a signature.


[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1280958089' post='2401010']
I know that in your eyes, the matter qualifies as an affront to your deity. However, others may not take it quite so seriously, given that being a dissenter in a government vote that passes anyway usually does not lead to one's name being excluded from the document.
[/quote]

Not relevant.
The validity of the agreement has nothing to do with whether or not Ram signed it; as his signature was not required for it to be official.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Damaen]

Gotcha, PK. Thanks for the clarification.

Thread is slowing down, why wasn't I this bored earlier in the week? 0_O

[silentkiller]

Pretty much the right decision by MHA. I just hope this marks an end to "eternal treaties".

[crushtania]

Furthermore, in a more abstract and theoretical viewpoint the signatures on the accord - or any treaty for that matter must have the consent of the current government for it to be made relevant and binding. MHA and GRE at the signing of the accord (point 1) is not MHA and GRE now (point 2.) However on the road traveled from point 1 to point 2, every successive elected government (and Hitchhiker's Assembly) has given the Harmlin Accords a fresh mandate upon the recitation of the Triuvmir's oath, etc. etc.

As the MHA is by and large a democratic entity with a due process of law according to our charter, we hold elections with regularity to allow all to reach the upper tiers of government to keep it accountable. To my mind - and I speak of myself here - there was not one Triumvir Candidate that ran on a platform to "dissolve the GRE treaty", even though it was a perfectly valid view to hold at any point. Wouldn't have won anyone an election though. The Harmlins Accords was not merely "common sense" it was ingrained into the ethos and operation of the Mostly Harmless Alliance.

As the current Triumvirate and Hitchhikers Assembly takes office, it was their prerogative to withdraw or renew the mandate for the Harmlins Accords. Based on our ethics, our interests and our outlook on the world. The current GRE government made it untenable to uphold the spirit in which the Harmlins Accords were signed.

Although many hands are on the pen, it still prints one signature on the page. The will of the many outweighs the needs of the few or one in MHA and the people have spoken.

[Bob Sanders]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280950872' post='2400921']
A government official having his signature added to an agreement without his consent doesn't offend you?
[/quote]
It is completely standard, any decision that is made according to the rules of governance for an alliance is presented in public signed by the entire gov no matter their individual vote or opinion on that particular matter. That is just how its done on Planet Bob.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Bob Sanders