MHA Announcement

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280707482' post='2397590']
Whether you like it or not. You did follow. [b]This treaty should have been canceled months ago.[/b]
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]

It shouldn't be canceled period. You don't break treaties. If you do you're cowardly traitorous scum.

When you give someone your word you should honor it. Because without your word all you have is empty stats.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Little Fame Monster]

Well... now the MHA alliance icon is really awkward...

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280708659' post='2397617']
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
[/quote]
If it is at peace I would have no problem with it. If the treaty had a cancellation clause, I would have no problem with it.

This treaty didn't have a cancellation clause and they have also shown in the past that they will ignore a treaty, or only honour certain parts of it, when they see fit.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280708831' post='2397623']
If it is at peace I would have no problem with it. If the treaty had a cancellation clause, I would have no problem with it.

This treaty didn't have a cancellation clause and they have also shown in the past that they will ignore a treaty, or only honour certain parts of it, when they see fit.
[/quote]

Every treaty has a cancellation clause. I believe that there is a precedent for "unbreakable" treaties being broken, isn't there?

Making a treaty without a cancellation clause is stupider than canceling it when it comes time to do so. The MHA of now isn't the same MHA of late 2008, and neither are the Gramlins. If the majority of the members of MHA choose to break the treaty, then why shouldn't they? It isn't like this was signed yesterday or a month ago.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280708673' post='2397619']
It shouldn't be canceled period. You don't break treaties. If you do you're cowardly traitorous scum.

When you give someone your word you should honor it. Because without your word all you have is empty stats.
[/quote]

No treaty is unbreakable regardless of the wording. Its the lead up to canceling a treaty that everyone will remember.
I will remember this as a pointless cancellation designed to win some PR for MHA, it will fail.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1280708763' post='2397622']
Well... now the MHA alliance icon is really awkward...
[/quote]
Was thinking the same thing. Guess they have to make a new one.

[TypoNinja]

[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]

So an if an alliance acts completely !@#$% nuts they might get canceled on? What a terrible precedent, what will CN do if retarded people don't have the backing of major powers!

You may not like MHA but so far all they've done is cancel a treaty and decide not to take their Optional Aggression, sure harmlins was supposed to be eternal, but dude, Ramlins are the poster child of weapons grade stupid and I'm having a hard time working up hate for anybody trying to get away from that.

Besides, go look up Sovereign Immunity, a treaty doesn't need a cancellation clause to be cancelable.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280708965' post='2397625']
No treaty is unbreakable regardless of the wording. Its the lead up to canceling a treaty that everyone will remember.
I will remember this as a pointless cancellation designed to win some PR for MHA, it will fail.
[/quote]

Of course any treaty can be broken. That doesn't make it [i]right.[/i]

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1280708338' post='2397610']
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.[b] Right or wrong, that was our decision and we stand by it. [/b][/quote]

Right or wrong, MHA stands by their decisions.

But not, evidently, their allies.




And not when those decisions inconvenience them, like an eternal treaty, for example.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280708922' post='2397624']
Every treaty has a cancellation clause. I believe that there is a precedent for "unbreakable" treaties being broken, isn't there?

Making a treaty without a cancellation clause is stupider than canceling it when it comes time to do so. The MHA of now isn't the same MHA of late 2008, and neither are the Gramlins. If the majority of the members of MHA choose to break the treaty, then why shouldn't they? It isn't like this was signed yesterday or a month ago.
[/quote]
Precedent doesn't mean jack. (OOC: For a time there was a precedent of hunting people across rerolls using OOC information to do so, that isn't something we would like to see in the game at present, would we?)

For what it's worth, I agree, "unbreakable" treaties are incredibly stupid, that doesn't negate the gact that it was signed with mutual consent by both parties.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280708922' post='2397624']
If the majority of the members of MHA choose to break the treaty, then why shouldn't they? It isn't like this was signed yesterday or a month ago.
[/quote]

...what? That's not how treaties "work" as far as I can tell.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280709103' post='2397630']
Precedent doesn't mean jack. (OOC: For a time there was a precedent of hunting people across rerolls using OOC information to do so, that isn't something we would like to see in the game at present, would we?)

For what it's worth, I agree, "unbreakable" treaties are incredibly stupid, that doesn't negate the gact that it was signed with mutual consent by both parties.
[/quote]

It does when someone says you can't break an unbreakable treaty, as it has been done before.

Are both Gramlins and MHA the same alliances they were almost two years ago? Are they both made up of the same members, do they have the same foreign policy, do they share the same spirit of brotherhood and unity? Newer members to MHA and Gramlins did not sign the Harmlins treaty or have a say in it, so why hold them to the standards of the people who preceded them? If the directions of the alliances change and they grow apart, why must they stand together when they might not wish to? Yes, honoring your word is important, but there has been a dramatic change since the signing of this treaty.

edit @leet guy: It's how democracy works.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Sargun

[Rush Sykes]

The word disgusting comes to mind.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280709042' post='2397628']
Of course any treaty can be broken. That doesn't make it [i]right.[/i]
[/quote]

Considering the alliance went completely insane, yes MHA is right and can and has canceled a worthless treaty. I don't give a damn of the eternal language in the treaty. What gives me a bad impression is that they chose to do it after the war ended, when the feeling in MHA was what it is today long ago. They fueled the insanity by not canceling. An earlier cancellation could have prolly led to peace sooner. Damsky, we see it differently. You're wrong.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Fernando12

[wickedj]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1280705494' post='2397522']
I wonder which is worse being treatied to MHA or treatied being to Gremlins, either way you both are just awful.
[/quote]
Honestly, if Gre got a leader with alot less crazy then id be down to treaty them. A group of 19 nations kept IRONs top tier in peace mode for months because they knew the beating they would take so yeah, boot Ram and bring in some good people and Gremlins can easily rebound

[Wilhelm the Demented]

It's unfortunate that your bond with GRE has come to this from where it began, and I know that this has to be hard on each of you - I wish you both the best.

[Quinoa Rex]

So, in case I missed it while I was slogging through old announcements, what exactly was the intended course of action had one signatory of the Härmlin Accords violated the treaty? (Not cancelled, mind you, [i]violated[/i].) Did you not write anything of that nature into the treaty?

Regardless, cancelling an eternal treaty does not work. For all intents and purposes, your treaty still exists. It's no one's fault but yours that you didn't think ahead.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280709303' post='2397634']
edit @leet guy: It's how democracy works.
[/quote]

Treaties with democratic alliances are not to be trusted as they can be broken and dishonored by a simple vote. Got it.

[jeff barr]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1280703788' post='2397467']
It's not a hard decision to cancel on someone after the months and months of acting crazy. The real decision would have been canceling on Gremlins right when the stupidty of "Unconditional Surrender" began and Gremlins refused to listen to common sense by MHA. Much more of a political statement.
[/quote]
I'm sorry their course of action didnt please you.

[Banksy]

A soverign alliance can cancel whatever it wants. A treaty is not superior to a charter.

The only thing constraining MHA is the norms of CN. Signing an 'eternal' treaty is !@#$@#$ stupid, and the short term thinking coming from Gremlins/MHA was, clearly rather embarrassing. But they can do what they want.

[James IV]

Congrats to the Gramlins. While people may not like you, yall will at least stand for something.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1280709646' post='2397643']
Treaties with democratic alliances are not to be trusted as they can be broken and dishonored by a simple vote. Got it.
[/quote]
Time to expel ODN.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1280709646' post='2397643']
Treaties with democratic alliances are not to be trusted as they can be broken and dishonored by a simple vote. Got it.
[/quote]

Would you rather democratic alliances [b]not[/b] listen to their members?

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280709503' post='2397638']
Considering the alliance went completely insane, yes MHA is right and can and has canceled a worthless treaty. I don't give a damn of the eternal language in the treaty. What gives me a bad impression is that they chose to do it after the war ended, when the feeling in MHA was what it is today long ago. They fueled the insanity by not canceling. An earlier cancellation could have prolly led to peace sooner. Damsky, we see it differently. You're wrong.
[/quote]

When you put your name on a document that can't be canceled you're bound to it. Permanently. You honor that obligation no matter what because you agreed to it.

That's how treaties work.

[Artigo]

Good one MHA, third times the charm eh?

Congrats Gre, that little escapade was annoying, but I can at least respect someone that stands by their goals

Edited August 2, 2010 by Artigo