MHA Announcement

[shilo]

Any of you who thinks a treaty cannot be canceled, please go ahead and sue MHA for violating international law at the International Court at... oh right, there's neither international law nor an international court.
The outrage is cute I admit, but unless alliances stopped being sovereign entities at some point, any alliance can pretty much do what ever the hell they want.

[Branimir]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1280847314' post='2399489']Any of you who thinks a treaty cannot be canceled, please go ahead and sue MHA for violating international law at the International Court at... oh right, there's neither international law nor an international court.
The outrage is cute I admit, but unless alliances stopped being sovereign entities at some point, any alliance can pretty much do what ever the hell they want.[/quote]
I agree. Though to add, there is always the "public court" as this things stick to an AA to be used against it by not friendlies. I would know.

The outrage I suppose has various angles. Honestly saying, talking about it for some NPOers, I believe its miss channeled bad feelings lingering from how our treaty with MHA went a year ago. And then there are those that actually stick to the principle of the wording. Anyway in regards to that as said, I am more on your side.

No more "eternal" treaties thats for sure, heh.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Branimir

[shilo]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1280847732' post='2399491']
I agree. Though to add, there is always the "public court" as this things stick to an AA to be used against it by not friendlies. I would know.

The outrage I suppose has various angles. Honestly saying, talking about it for some NPOers, I believe its miss channeled bad feelings lingering from how our treaty with MHA went a year ago. And then there are those that actually stick to the principle of the wording. Anyway in regards to that as said, I am more on your side.

No more "eternal" treaties thats for sure, heh.
[/quote]
Oh, I definitely get where they are coming from.
Obviously, being able to do whatever can be done within existing boundaries does not exclude anyone from all the possible consequences of those actions. Those however are two pairs of shoes.

So anyone arguing about a supposed "legality" of the cancellation really has no clue, everyone however can judge said action as they please.

As you, I think the only thing of some relevance coming from this thread is that eternal treaties are stupid, and that the will of your ally to defend you is the only thing that will ultimately get that ally to defend you.

[Xerxer]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1280847314' post='2399489']
Any of you who thinks a treaty cannot be canceled, please go ahead and sue MHA for violating international law at the International Court at... oh right, there's neither international law nor an international court.
The outrage is cute I admit, but unless alliances stopped being sovereign entities at some point, any alliance can pretty much do what ever the hell they want.
[/quote]

While not justifying the nature of this war, I would argue that with the signing of the 'eternal treaty' they lose a bit of their sovereignty to the party they signed with. The Harmlin Accords is worded almost as if the two alliances were merging, but staying separate at the same time. All the talk of 'dual-membership' and 'Harmlin counterparts'... they became sister alliances.

[shilo]

[quote name='Xerxer' timestamp='1280848321' post='2399499']
While not justifying the nature of this war, I would argue that with the signing of the 'eternal treaty' they lose a bit of their sovereignty to the party they signed with. The Harmlin Accords is worded almost as if the two alliances were merging, but staying separate at the same time. All the talk of 'dual-membership' and 'Harmlin counterparts'... they became sister alliances.
[/quote]
And then still, the almost merger (not even talking about the "spirit" of the treaty, where I hear some MHAers would argue it was broken a long time ago), eternity, brotherhood, it all ends the moment one of the two parties wants to end it.
Treaties are and will always be promises. Promises should not be broken, but they can, and they will be. The reasons for breaking a promise are endless, I do understand some of them even if I may not like it.
All I am talking about is the absurdity of trying to make treaties into anything resembling legal contracts we know from other realms. They simply are not, they are many things, but definitely not a legal contract.

[Jocko Homo]

[quote name='Qazzian' timestamp='1280847128' post='2399486']
"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.
[/quote]

Your protests are cute but pretty far off the mark.

Article 1 of the Ordinance of the Order
"This pact will be in effect immediately and unto perpetuity."

Perpetuity is defined by Merriam Webster as "ETERNITY"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetuity

Second, and far more damning to the credibility of the NPO drones is this public NPO/NpO "Joint Imperial Decree" made by your emperor on June 24th, 2008:
[quote name='TrotskysRevenge']
"Our relationship is unique among all other alliances in this game - the ties that bind us are not just words on a treaty."
"Hell will freeze over before the Ordinance of Orders is cancelled"
[/quote]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=26368

But only 11 days later (ELEVEN DAYS!!!!! )
[quote name='TrotskysRevenge']
Your actions have left me with little choice. You have acted neither like a comrade nor an ally. With the deepest regret, I hereby dissolve the Ordinance of Order. [/quote]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=27273

That was some major league lying, backstabbing, disloyalty, dishonesty, scumbaggery, teabaggery, douchebaggery and all other -baggeries I can't think of right there. And yet you NPO drones continue to wobble in here and spout off how the OoO was different and not eternal and other such garbage.

Please just squirm back under your rocks.

[Branimir]

While our haters are free to hate us, it could be seen as off the subject matter. Subject about OoO while connected to this, is already been covered a lot and now it seems just steers this discussion off its mark as posts are happening that just covers it then in any way the current announcement.

If you want to you are free to open a thread about OoO and attempt at hating there. But as a hint, I dont really believe anybody among us cares enough about the childish insulting comments to give them much time of the day.

MHA did what they deemed best course of action for them, being that its a sticky situation, unfortunately not all will be pleased about the way it was handled but whatyagonnado. Thats just life.

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Jocko Homo' timestamp='1280851480' post='2399545']
Your protests are cute but pretty far off the mark.

Article 1 of the Ordinance of the Order
"This pact will be in effect immediately and unto perpetuity."
[/quote]

As I said before, similar wording in WUT, and that treaty is also gone.

[Harry Dresden]

Let's keep this on topic. We're not taking about NPO or the OoO. Anyone that does after this post will be warned.

[Crymson]

[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]

Haha. Nice try, bud. You know better.

[SynthFG]

Harmlins was dead the moment Gre allowed Ram's ego to lead them in an insane move not in there own interests let alone those of MHA
I'm just surprised MHA didn't wash there hands earlier

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' timestamp='1280824784' post='2399310']and finally he made white peace without even informing MHA.[/quote]
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.

[rapmanej]

[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]

So you are still at war, no?

Edit: and better yet, why don't you have your top 3 nations declare some offensive wars to prove it?

Edited August 3, 2010 by rapmanej

[Lord Boris]

[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]


So you wish to go back to being ritualistically slaughtered courtesy of your amazingly thick, yet paradoxically empty skull? Have fun with that.

[HisK Owns You]

[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]

Was it fun killing The Grämlins?

[lebubu]

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1280866709' post='2399854']
So you are still at war, no?
[/quote]

I assume it was a 2-1 conclave decision to end the war.

[Jocko Homo]

[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]

Wow, MHA did right by kicking you loose. You're crazier than a cat in a bag full of squirrels.

[Kindom of Goon]

I said before treaties without cancellation clauses are actually less of a commitment than your standard treaty, since all it means is you're not tied down by a cool off period or whatever.

[Earogema]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1280848563' post='2399504']
And then still, the almost merger (not even talking about the "spirit" of the treaty, where I hear some MHAers would argue it was broken a long time ago), eternity, brotherhood, it all ends the moment one of the two parties wants to end it.
Treaties are and will always be promises. Promises should not be broken, but they can, and they will be. The reasons for breaking a promise are endless, I do understand some of them even if I may not like it.
All I am talking about is the absurdity of trying to make treaties into anything resembling legal contracts we know from other realms. They simply are not, they are many things, but definitely not a legal contract.
[/quote]
I disagree. You sign a treaty that specifically says what you will and will not do. It is a contract, and like all contracts, it must be followed. Granted, there is no court or authority by with the contract will ever be enforced. Its essentially like when you sign a contract with a friend who owes you $20 and doesn't pay you back. Sure you could take him to court, but that's just going to be stupid. You have to just hope your friend honors the contract.

MHA can do what it wants, sure, but don't sign a piece of paper with all your government members saying, "Yep, this is what we're gonna do." A promise would be more like a paperless route. If you sign a piece of paper saying you're going to do something, with absolute obligations, then it's a contract.

[quote name='Qazzian' timestamp='1280855381' post='2399609']
As I said before, similar wording in WUT, and that treaty is also gone.
[/quote]
WUT couldn't be destroyed. Instead
[quote]V. Membership After the initial ratification of this treaty, further signatories may be added by consent of all the signatory alliances. Signatory alliances may be removed from this treaty by an affirmative vote of 67% of existing signatory alliances. All membership votes must last a minimum of 72 hours and be preceeded by 48 hours of discussion before votes may be cast. [/quote]
Obviously if an alliance wanted to leave WUT, all the signatories would allow them to leave, because of the massive problems of allowing somebody to remain in WUT when they don't care for it. They were technically ejected I suppose, but because they wanted to be. Nobody would go "NO POLAR, YOU CAN'T LEAVE WUT EVEN IF YOU WANT TO."

EDIT: Though I suppose
[quote]VIII. Conclusion
We, the signatory alliances, therefore undertake this agreement without reservation or deception, and bind ourselves in alliance with each other in perpetuity. [/quote]
Does kinda contract that. You can't be united in perpetuity when you actively allow somebody to be removed.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Earogema

[AirMe]

[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]

Ok...tell us now. Are you P_C? Seriously......you're an idiot.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Kindom of Goon' timestamp='1280867661' post='2399879']
I said before treaties without cancellation clauses are actually less of a commitment than your standard treaty, since all it means is you're not tied down by a cool off period or whatever.
[/quote]
If you're willing to break a treaty the consequences of breaking any post-cancellation clauses on a normal treaty is the comparable scenario. Generally speaking the post-cancellation clauses involve some sort of NAP, so that breaking them involves war, but then direct comparison would be breaking an eternal treaty and declaring war. The main difference is that with an eternal treaty you're guaranteed to upset people as much as possible while normal treaties provide some secondary option in addition.

[Kindom of Goon]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1280868218' post='2399891']
If you're willing to break a treaty the consequences of breaking any post-cancellation clauses on a normal treaty is the comparable scenario. Generally speaking the post-cancellation clauses involve some sort of NAP, so that breaking them involves war, but then direct comparison would be breaking an eternal treaty and declaring war. The main difference is that with an eternal treaty you're guaranteed to upset people as much as possible while normal treaties provide some secondary option in addition.
[/quote]

In terms of breaking the treaty, sure. I was talking about in practice rather than in principle.

The point I'm trying to get at is, if an alliance gets to the point where it wants to cancel a treaty, no clause telling them they can't is going to stop them from cancelling it, as proven by all these eternal treaties that have proven to be not so eternal. So in the end of the day it's basically like every other treaty except without the post-cancellation clauses.

[Zangmonkey]

I have no ill will towards MHA and indeed GRE repeatedly explained to them that we did not consider the paper to be what bound us together.

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

After considering that throughout our "paperless" transition I decided it was unnecessary to do so just to appease those individuals who could not separate a commitment from a piece of paper.
I know there are MHA members I can count on and who can count on me without the accords.

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.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Heft]

[quote name='Kindom of Goon' timestamp='1280869138' post='2399909']
In terms of breaking the treaty, sure. I was talking about in practice rather than in principle.

The point I'm trying to get at is, if an alliance gets to the point where it wants to cancel a treaty, no clause telling them they can't is going to stop them from cancelling it, as proven by all these eternal treaties that have proven to be not so eternal. So in the end of the day it's basically like every other treaty except without the post-cancellation clauses.
[/quote]
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.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280711333' post='2397691']
I don't know. Nobody should ever sign treaties with anyone - they should take a page from NSO's book and make a Moldavi Doctrine, allowing them to defend whatever alliance for whatever reason.
[/quote]


I seem to recall this being said about this conflict by somebody

Defense, Aggression, Brotherhood, Friendship... these things are not created or expired by pieces of paper.

[quote name='Matt Miller' timestamp='1280763235' post='2398427']
Interestingly, both Ram and MPK have all their wars with IRON/DAWN still active two days after this war was declared over. I know they usually check in to their nations every day, so I wonder what their plans are.
[/quote]

I was out of the office when these announcements surfaced.[OOC]I was away on a trip from Friday until Tuesday morning[/OOC]


[quote name='majorddf' timestamp='1280785477' post='2398814']
There was no ultimatum, we indeed cancelled once and only once White Peace was achieved.
[/quote]

This is true.
Also, GRE repeatedly requested MHA publicly announce that they would not support us in this endeavor; as it was not our desire to see them "victimized" by our intractability.
To their credit they refused to take that easy way out.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Matthew PK