In Response to Recent Drama

[Aurion]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1282143758' post='2421586']
He still deceived Congress into believing that there was still an imminent threat to GATO so long as that treaty still existed between us.
[/quote]

GATO didn't do the right thing here by any definition, but I don't think it would be especially difficult to argue that NSO not informing GATO about their latest escapades constituted a threat to GATO's security, and would continue to pose a threat in the future.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Aurion

[Chris Pearson]

Where is the proof he lied, all I've been seeing is you pretty much talk out your $@! while not showing any shred of proof you say you posted it else where, then where is the elsewhere?

[TehChron]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1282144742' post='2421598']
GATO didn't do the right thing here by any definition, but I don't think it would be especially difficult to argue that NSO not informing GATO about their latest escapades constituted a threat to GATO's security, and would continue to pose a threat in the future.
[/quote]
And once again we come to the timeline issue, as well as the perspective issue, and the implied demand to prove that something did not happen.

All of which have been discussed ad nauseum, and proven that for the first, ridiculous. The second? Obvious. The latter? Absurd.

Moreover, GATO has been aware of our style of...diplomacy all along. Including our desire to not see our allies burn over our own mishaps. GATO was never under any threat, a cursory inquiry by someone other than Omniscientone would have confirmed this, but even though Omniscientone did know, he decided to not inform Congress and was content with letting them go forward under the impression we intended to drag GATO into an unwinnable war.

Laserwolf especially knew better than to assume we'd let GATO get hit over a mere 6 million.

You're right that it isn't difficult to argue that about the NSO, but you'd still be wrong in any case.
[quote]
Where is the proof he lied, all I've been seeing is you pretty much talk out your $@! while not showing any shred of proof you say you posted it else where, then where is the elsewhere?[/quote]I'm really not a library, there are other announcements pertaining to this matter where I posted said evidence. Feel free to look them up so you can get a more complete understanding of what happened.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282145157' post='2421603']
Where is the proof he lied, all I've been seeing is you pretty much talk out your $@! while not showing any shred of proof you say you posted it else where, then where is the elsewhere?
[/quote]

He lied by omission. Ask the Congressional members to see if Omni told them about us not asking for help. It's that simple.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1282146554' post='2421636']
And once again we come to the timeline issue, as well as the perspective issue, and the implied demand to prove that something did not happen.

All of which have been discussed ad nauseum, and proven that for the first, ridiculous. The second? Obvious. The latter? Absurd.

Moreover, GATO has been aware of our style of...diplomacy all along. Including our desire to not see our allies burn over our own mishaps. GATO was never under any threat, a cursory inquiry by someone other than Omniscientone would have confirmed this, but even though Omniscientone did know, he decided to not inform Congress and was content with letting them go forward under the impression we intended to drag GATO into an unwinnable war.

Laserwolf especially knew better than to assume we'd let GATO get hit over a mere 6 million.

You're right that it isn't difficult to argue that about the NSO, but you'd still be wrong in any case.
[/quote]

Fair enough, then.

I suppose the justifications for GATO's actions aren't as important as the actions themselves anyways. It mildly pains me to say it but good luck. No one deserves this.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1282147552' post='2421651']
Fair enough, then.

I suppose the justifications for GATO's actions aren't as important as the actions themselves anyways. It mildly pains me to say it but good luck. No one deserves this.
[/quote]
Heh, thanks for that.

Well, we'll all just take our lumps and keep on doing what we do, just like always.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1282146554' post='2421636']
And once again we come to the timeline issue, as well as the perspective issue, and the implied demand to prove that something did not happen.

All of which have been discussed ad nauseum, and proven that for the first, ridiculous. The second? Obvious. The latter? Absurd.

Moreover, GATO has been aware of our style of...diplomacy all along. Including our desire to not see our allies burn over our own mishaps. GATO was never under any threat, a cursory inquiry by someone other than Omniscientone would have confirmed this, but even though Omniscientone did know, he decided to not inform Congress and was content with letting them go forward under the impression we intended to drag GATO into an unwinnable war.

Laserwolf especially knew better than to assume we'd let GATO get hit over a mere 6 million.

You're right that it isn't difficult to argue that about the NSO, but you'd still be wrong in any case.
I'm really not a library, there are other announcements pertaining to this matter where I posted said evidence. Feel free to look them up so you can get a more complete understanding of what happened.
[/quote]

So, what you're saying is NSO is going to purposely piss people off from time to time and you'll get beat up from time to time for it but you don't need to tell us about everything because you'd never request help in those situations anyway and we should know that?

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282146807' post='2421641']
He lied by omission. Ask the Congressional members to see if Omni told them about us not asking for help. It's that simple.
[/quote] While I wanted him to include that bit it really wasn't relevant to whether there was a communication gap or not was it? The only thing the info would have served was to assure congress they could take their time making a decision.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282161062' post='2421890']
So, what you're saying is NSO is going to purposely piss people off from time to time and you'll get beat up from time to time for it but you don't need to tell us about everything because you'd never request help in those situations anyway and we should know that?

While I wanted him to include that bit it really wasn't relevant to whether there was a communication gap or not was it? The only thing the info would have served was to assure congress they could take their time making a decision.
[/quote]

Are you now lying to me as well? Or are you giving some !@#$%^&* ad hoc reasoning. You just told me last week that it would have made a big difference. You said that if we weren't asking for aid, that would have negated the treaty and therefore negated the necessity for us to inform you of anything. Magic, you sure have changed in the past few weeks, and none of it was for the good.

GATO your leadership is weak and cowardly. I've seen the entirety of the logs of the discussion between members of your Congress and Omniscient and over half of your Congress are just sniveling weasels who seek to hide behind your treaties. Many people have been talking about how GATO are cowards and that's not far from the truth from what I've seen in the logs. GATO, you need to consider who you put in your government because they are ripping your alliance to shreds right now.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jrenster

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282161722' post='2421906']
Are you now lying to me as well? Or are you giving some !@#$%^&* ad hoc reasoning. You just told me last week that it would have made a big difference. You said that if we weren't asking for aid, that would have negated the treaty and therefore negated the necessity for us to inform you of anything. Magic, you sure have changed in the past few weeks, and none of it was for the good.

GATO your leadership is weak and cowardly. I've seen the entirety of the logs of the discussion between members of your Congress and Omniscient and over half of your Congress are just sniveling weasels who seek to hide behind your treaties. Many people have been talking about how GATO are cowards and that's not far from the truth from what I've seen in the logs. GATO, you need to consider who you put in your government because they are ripping your alliance to shreds right now.
[/quote]

I indeed did say that but even I don't know how much truth it actually held. It was just going to be some kind of e-lawyering maneuver to get congress to go back on their vote. I never actually had to use it though. The counter to that would probably have been well we didn't know they weren't going to call us in until way after they should have told us to begin with. Which is true as well I guess. So, whether I could have even pushed that line or if I was just making !@#$ up to help you is another question.

Our leadership right now is neither weak or cowardly. More likely they are young and naive. The older members who were in gov the previous year or so saw these youngins and thought they had the ambition and the activity to be decent leaders. Maybe they weren't ready for the adversity. Us old guys are still around so you don't need to worry about us. Worry about yourselves.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282162569' post='2421924']
I indeed did say that but even I don't know how much truth it actually held. It was just going to be some kind of e-lawyering maneuver to get congress to go back on their vote. I never actually had to use it though. The counter to that would probably have been well we didn't know they weren't going to call us in until way after they should have told us to begin with. Which is true as well I guess. So, whether I could have even pushed that line or if I was just making !@#$ up to help you is another question.

Our leadership right now is neither weak or cowardly. More likely they are young and naive. The older members who were in gov the previous year or so saw these youngins and thought they had the ambition and the activity to be decent leaders. Maybe they weren't ready for the adversity. Us old guys are still around so you don't need to worry about us. Worry about yourselves.
[/quote]

So basically you were being a sniveling weasel by manufacturing an excuse to give to me, rather than telling me the truth.

Thanks for the concern, but I think our internal stability is doing just fine right now. We may be shedding pixels, but our will is just as strong as ever. I do have doubts about your GATO leadership. You've probably seen the same logs I've seen, and there is absolutely no way you can defend them after some of the blatant display of cowardice they've shown. Come next election, I am going to love shoving those words of yours down your throat, because I can guarantee you at least Omniscient won't keep his position.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jrenster

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282162818' post='2421928']
So basically you were being a sniveling weasel by manufacturing an excuse to give to me, rather than telling me the truth.

Thanks for the concern, but I think our internal stability is doing just fine right now. We may be shedding pixels, but our will is just as strong as ever. I do have doubts about your GATO leadership. You've probably seen the same logs I've seen, and there is absolutely no way you can defend them after some of the blatant display of cowardice they've shown. Come next election, I am going to love shoving those words of yours down your throat, because I can guarantee you at least Omniscient won't keep his position.
[/quote]

Well in my defense I was being a weasel at the time, if that is what I was being, [i]for[/i] the NSO. I mean honestly man would you buy the line that "hey they weren't gonna ask for help anyway so they didn't need to tell us there was trouble?" Seems kinda weak looking back but I had to think of something fast considering how quick things were moving and that line seemed as good as the next.

I think there will be a pretty vast change in gov as well. At least I hope there is. I don't disagree that we need to get back to what we had a few months ago when GATO was moving along great. I never said mistakes weren't made. You guys are trying to make it something it's not. I will gladly agree with you when there is something to agree with. You know that. If I see a misconception or obvious spin I will correct it.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282163581' post='2421944']
Well in my defense I was being a weasel at the time, if that is what I was being, [i]for[/i] the NSO. I mean honestly man would you buy the line that "hey they weren't gonna ask for help anyway so they didn't need to tell us there was trouble?" Seems kinda weak looking back but I had to think of something fast considering how quick things were moving and that line seemed as good as the next.

I think there will be a pretty vast change in gov as well. At least I hope there is. I don't disagree that we need to get back to what we had a few months ago when GATO was moving along great. I never said mistakes weren't made. You guys are trying to make it something it's not. I will gladly agree with you when there is something to agree with. You know that. If I see a misconception or obvious spin I will correct it.
[/quote]

I bought it because it seemed just like the thing e-lawyer types would say. And I'd rather have an honest enemy, than a dishonest friend. Just saying.

And what would those mistakes you speak of be? I get a feeling that they're more or less the same type of mistakes we're thinking of.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jrenster

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282164038' post='2421957']
I bought it because it seemed just like the thing e-lawyer types would say. And I'd rather have an honest enemy, than a dishonest friend. Just saying.

And what would those mistakes you speak of be? I get a feeling that they're more or less the same type of mistakes we're thinking of.
[/quote]

Well mistake #1 was how quick this was done. I don't believe it was Omni's fault as you guys do. He never told congress to get it through in any time frame. This has been the one thing most people are pissed off about. Especially me. I never had a chance to offer my input on what to do. The guy I do feel responsible for why it went so quick has left GATO after a bit of pressure. You will notice I am absent from those logs you were talking about a few posts back. I think if some discussion had occurred then this whole affair may have been avoided or at least the cancellation would have come at a better time. Which brings me to mistake #2. There is absolutely no reason why this should have been posted when it was. That was god awful timing and the one thing I am truly sorry for. I realize pouring salt in an open wound is something you don't do to people who a few days before were as good as friends as any. Was moving to cancel a mistake in the first place? I wouldn't have done it. I would've been hurt you didn't tell us right away that there was a problem and technically that is a violation of the treaty. Maybe not one many people would care to cite but it was there. Unfortunately Omni apparently has high standards and we elected him to make that decision. If people are not happy with his decision making like you said he probably won't be trusted to do that job again.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282165141' post='2421979']
Well mistake #1 was how quick this was done. I don't believe it was Omni's fault as you guys do. He never told congress to get it through in any time frame. This has been the one thing most people are pissed off about. Especially me. I never had a chance to offer my input on what to do. The guy I do feel responsible for why it went so quick has left GATO after a bit of pressure. You will notice I am absent from those logs you were talking about a few posts back. I think if some discussion had occurred then this whole affair may have been avoided or at least the cancellation would have come at a better time. Which brings me to mistake #2. There is absolutely no reason why this should have been posted when it was. That was god awful timing and the one thing I am truly sorry for. I realize pouring salt in an open wound is something you don't do to people who a few days before were as good as friends as any. Was moving to cancel a mistake in the first place? I wouldn't have done it. I would've been hurt you didn't tell us right away that there was a problem and technically that is a violation of the treaty. Maybe not one many people would care to cite but it was there. Unfortunately Omni apparently has high standards and we elected him to make that decision. If people are not happy with his decision making like you said he probably won't be trusted to do that job again.
[/quote]

Your alliance has always been notoriously slow in decision making by virtue of the government system, so it's of no surprise that you would be caught off-guard by how fast the situation went past. But what I don't understand is how it can not be Omni's fault? Who's fault is it then? And how is it not Omni's fault for omitting the part where we weren't going to ask for aid? And what about him prancing around the OWF telling people that we betrayed them?

Your second mistake is something we both can agree on.

What I still do not understand is how you can literally just sit there trying to argue that you believe cancellation was appropriate for this scenario. We didn't tell you what was going on because of how fast everything went. And yet you are so unforgiving in your attitude. Your opinions seem disingenuous to me, given these circumstances. And after seeing the logs, I fully believe that there was an ulterior motive and you guys were just using this as an excuse to cancel. The logs reflect that.

As a matter of fact, I believe the only reason you even changed your opinion, magic, is because you felt personally offended last week. There are still elements within GATO that truly believe that any sort of cancellation was inappropriate, with or without the timing. You are just doing this out of spite.

[heggo]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282165141' post='2421979']
<apologetic stuff....> I would've been hurt you didn't tell us right away that there was a problem and technically that is a violation of the treaty. Maybe not one many people would care to cite but it was there. Unfortunately Omni apparently has high standards and we elected him to make that decision.
[/quote]
Not enough admission of guilt. I'll settle when you admit that no sensible interpretation of the treaty would require immediate notification of potential threats before they've even been confirmed as legitimate.

[Heft]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282165141' post='2421979']
Well mistake #1 was how quick this was done. I don't believe it was Omni's fault as you guys do. He never told congress to get it through in any time frame. This has been the one thing most people are pissed off about. Especially me. I never had a chance to offer my input on what to do. The guy I do feel responsible for why it went so quick has left GATO after a bit of pressure. You will notice I am absent from those logs you were talking about a few posts back. I think if some discussion had occurred then this whole affair may have been avoided or at least the cancellation would have come at a better time. Which brings me to mistake #2. There is absolutely no reason why this should have been posted when it was. That was god awful timing and the one thing I am truly sorry for. I realize pouring salt in an open wound is something you don't do to people who a few days before were as good as friends as any. Was moving to cancel a mistake in the first place? I wouldn't have done it. I would've been hurt you didn't tell us right away that there was a problem and technically that is a violation of the treaty. Maybe not one many people would care to cite but it was there. Unfortunately Omni apparently has high standards and we elected him to make that decision. If people are not happy with his decision making like you said he probably won't be trusted to do that job again.
[/quote]
The issue is that if there was any violation of the treaty, it was an extremely technical and minor violation that almost no one would actually consider a violation and if they did they would almost certainly not think it worth canceling the treaty. And that's still a big "if" considering that GATO knew more than we did for a longer period than the length of time that we knew more than they did.

The whole "they didn't tell us soon enough" line is so much self-absorbed !@#$%^&* that it's just incredibly baffling that you would expect anyone to take it seriously.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282165894' post='2421992']
Your alliance has always been notoriously slow in decision making by virtue of the government system, so it's of no surprise that you would be caught off-guard by how fast the situation went past. But what I don't understand is how it can not be Omni's fault? Who's fault is it then? And how is it not Omni's fault for omitting the part where we weren't going to ask for aid? And what about him prancing around the OWF telling people that we betrayed them?

Your second mistake is something we both can agree on.

What I still do not understand is how you can literally just sit there trying to argue that you believe cancellation was appropriate for this scenario. We didn't tell you what was going on because of how fast everything went. And yet you are so unforgiving in your attitude. Your opinions seem disingenuous to me, given these circumstances. And after seeing the logs, I fully believe that there was an ulterior motive and you guys were just using this as an excuse to cancel. The logs reflect that.

As a matter of fact, I believe the only reason you even changed your opinion, magic, is because you felt personally offended last week. There are still elements within GATO that truly believe that any sort of cancellation was inappropriate, with or without the timing. You are just doing this out of spite.
[/quote]

Well it isn't Omni who has to cancel the treaty. By our law he can't. That falls to congress. The person who is ultimately responsible for how much discussion takes place and when the vote goes up is the congressional speaker. Omni never told the speaker to rush the vote. The speaker did that all on his own. Would Omni telling them that you didn't ask for help maybe slow the process? Sure, I like to think so. Did it make a difference in if there was a communication issue to begin with? Not really. That is probably why Omni didn't tell congress to begin with.

Good that we agree on something.

I said I wouldn't have moved to cancel. What more can I say? However, the bit of the treaty that was cited as anyone who reads it knows is open for wide interpretation. How fast is fast enough? Well anyone would say it has to be fast enough not to piss off the other guy. In this case it wasn't fast enough for Omni and that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean I agree with it. I'm just telling you the facts here man. I really haven't seen any other motive to cancel. If it wasn't to avoid war, which of course it wasn't, then what else could it be?

I've never changed my opinion.My opinion is what it is. I'm just not going to let the facts get away from you or anyone.

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1282166926' post='2422018']
Not enough admission of guilt. I'll settle when you admit that no sensible interpretation of the treaty would require immediate notification of potential threats before they've even been confirmed as legitimate.
[/quote]

Anyone reading the logs of that convo clearly sees Hoo's threats as legitimate. If you're trying to cover up ineptitude with stupidity then hey go for it.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282168282' post='2422044']
The issue is that if there was any violation of the treaty, it was an extremely technical and minor violation that almost no one would actually consider a violation and if they did they would almost certainly not think it worth canceling the treaty. And that's still a big "if" considering that GATO knew more than we did for a longer period than the length of time that we knew more than they did.

The whole "they didn't tell us soon enough" line is so much self-absorbed !@#$%^&* that it's just incredibly baffling that you would expect anyone to take it seriously.
[/quote]

And I've said repeatedly that I would not personally have moved on it. The fact remains that yes technically there was a violation. The article leaves so much for interpretation that technically if we didn't notify each other [i]instantly[/i] it could be seen as a violation. In the eyes of the person elected to execute our treaties it is an overnight and half the next day thing and I guess that is enough for him.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282169015' post='2422058']
I said I wouldn't have moved to cancel. What more can I say? However, the bit of the treaty that was cited as anyone who reads it knows is open for wide interpretation. How fast is fast enough? Well anyone would say it has to be fast enough not to piss off the other guy. In this case it wasn't fast enough for Omni and that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean I agree with it. I'm just telling you the facts here man. I really haven't seen any other motive to cancel. If it wasn't to avoid war, which of course it wasn't, then what else could it be?
[/quote]

Some members of your current Congress did not like us to begin with. One of the biggest things I saw in the logs was that some people didn't like being tied to IRON. Hell, I didn't like being tied to Athens, ODN, and VE all at the same time, but we dealt with it. My point is that some of you guys just didn't like us, and they used this opportunity as an excuse to cancel your ties with us. Other Congressional members did it because of cowardice. I believe one of them openly admitted to that in this thread, which I can respect the honesty. Others, are less open about their opinions. Omni, for example, is the biggest two faced weasel in your government right now.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1282169981' post='2422073']
Some members of your current Congress did not like us to begin with. One of the biggest things I saw in the logs was that some people didn't like being tied to IRON. Hell, I didn't like being tied to Athens, ODN, and VE all at the same time, but we dealt with it. My point is that some of you guys just didn't like us, and they used this opportunity as an excuse to cancel your ties with us. Other Congressional members did it because of cowardice. I believe one of them openly admitted to that in this thread, which I can respect the honesty. Others, are less open about their opinions. Omni, for example, is the biggest two faced weasel in your government right now.
[/quote]

There was only one member of congress in those logs. Gulag I believe. Most of them aren't even gov. Just guys that have been around awhile. Lanore is a fairly new member both to CN and gov. Pretty active though and good on internal things. He had no vote on the matter and with all due respect to him his opinion really didn't effect things much. You guys had more support than you guys know or probably even care to acknowledge and I assure you that dislike for you was not the reason this was canceled. Believe it or not the reason stated is the reason. I haven't seen anything to show otherwise.

[Bob Janova]

Is this still going?

Actually I have a question (answer elsewhere if you prefer), why didn't you just vote to cancel it via the normal cancellation clause? As NSO had already stated they wouldn't activate the defence clause, that would have had the same effect and been a much less easy target for criticism.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282172067' post='2422128']
Is this still going?

Actually I have a question (answer elsewhere if you prefer), why didn't you just vote to cancel it via the normal cancellation clause? As NSO had already stated they wouldn't activate the defence clause, that would have had the same effect and been a much less easy target for criticism.
[/quote]

Cancel just to cancel? The way the treaty is worded is what brought about the way this was handled. GATO is a stickler to the letter of the law. Ask anyone who has been in GATO or has had to deal with GATO in that regard. In this case the article stated the treaty is voided if a signatory is found to be in violation. Cancellation....voided...same thing really. End result is the same and I doubt it would have stemmed NSO's or anyone else's criticism. Most of the criticism has been misplaced as it is.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282172067' post='2422128']
Is this still going?

Actually I have a question (answer elsewhere if you prefer), why didn't you just vote to cancel it via the normal cancellation clause? As NSO had already stated they wouldn't activate the defence clause, that would have had the same effect and been a much less easy target for criticism.
[/quote]

They had no legitimate reason to cancel so they took the easy (and stupid) way out and voided on a technicality.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282174755' post='2422206']
Cancellation....voided...same thing really.[/quote]

Not so much. Voiding a treaty is when the party-at-fault knowingly / ignorantly engaged in an action which was against the wording and the spirit of the treaty in question. Cancellation is when one of the signatories elects to end a treaty on the grounds that they no longer wish to be a part of it.

MN, while I like you, the repeated contention that the NSO voided the treaty by not communicating is just plain moronic and has, I think, been shown to be less than true. At the end of the day, while GATO would have been entirely within its rights to cancel, going so far as to attempt to pin the entire precipitant for the cancellation on them was a real blunder. As a result, the course of action chosen comes off as a cheap shot and a poorly executed attempt at a PR victory, one which has come to make GATO look cowardly and inept. You're not going to be gaining any real traction at this point with more words, much less accusatory ones, and in the process you're actually hurting your alliance more. Out of this disaster GATO has lost two treaties and a protectorate as well as taken a drubbing on the OWF the likes of which even \m/ is having a hard time surpassing.

Take a breather, walk away from the OWF and perhaps lead the way inside GATO to a time where you have the chance to reconsider what has happened and how it will affect your alliance's pursuit of affairs in the future. Thankfully, there is always the chance for reform and alteration of behavior. Perhaps some introspection would serve well to ensure that the next time GATO steps onto the world stage this doesn't happen again.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1282180783' post='2422341']
Not so much. Voiding a treaty is when the party-at-fault knowingly / ignorantly engaged in an action which was against the wording and the spirit of the treaty in question. Cancellation is when one of the signatories elects to end a treaty on the grounds that they no longer wish to be a part of it.

MN, while I like you, the repeated contention that the NSO voided the treaty by not communicating is just plain moronic and has, I think, been shown to be less than true. At the end of the day, while GATO would have been entirely within its rights to cancel, going so far as to attempt to pin the entire precipitant for the cancellation on them was a real blunder. As a result, the course of action chosen comes off as a cheap shot and a poorly executed attempt at a PR victory, one which has come to make GATO look cowardly and inept. You're not going to be gaining any real traction at this point with more words, much less accusatory ones, and in the process you're actually hurting your alliance more. Out of this disaster GATO has lost two treaties and a protectorate as well as taken a drubbing on the OWF the likes of which even \m/ is having a hard time surpassing.

Take a breather, walk away from the OWF and perhaps lead the way inside GATO to a time where you have the chance to reconsider what has happened and how it will affect your alliance's pursuit of affairs in the future. Thankfully, there is always the chance for reform and alteration of behavior. Perhaps some introspection would serve well to ensure that the next time GATO steps onto the world stage this doesn't happen again.
[/quote]

I'm not saying I wouldn't have voided/canceled again. The truth of the matter is the article is left to wide interpretation over what constitutes a violation. There is no minimum or maximum time limit. Therefore the executor of the treaty, in our case Omni, can decide when he feels that article is violated regardless of the time. Get it yet? The damn article doesn't even go based on an fact of the matter. The article is left up to interpretation and opinion of the people who enforce it. Again that is Omni. Technically, the damn thing is void if Omni says they took too much time to inform us and congress agrees. That is just how the treaty is written. That is a fact that no one can deny. Did Omni absolutely have no choice? No. He could have overlooked it and went about having the treaty. I would have as would have many people in GATO. We were not the authority on it. If you want to ask Omni why his standards for communication are so high ask him. I'm not accusing NSO of anything other than they cannot come to terms with what is an obvious direct threat from Hoo. I don't understand how they can keep saying they didn't think that was legitimate. I'm just trying to straighten out the facts.

Let's try again.

1. Hoo gives an obvious and legitimate threat to NSO.
2. NSO knows (though they deny recognizing the threat) but doesn't tell us til the next day.
3. Omni talks to people about various things and decides NSO should have said something earlier.
4. The treaty wording states the treaty is void if NSO doesn't communicate trouble to us. It gives no minimum or maximum time to do so leaving the guy in charge to decide what time is enough time. Omni felt NSO did not meet his standards.
5. Omni gives the info to congress. He neglects to tell congress that NSO doesn't want help because it's not part of his reasoning for canceling. He does not give congress a specific timeline on when to complete their vote.
6. The congressional speaker feels that if we are going to void/cancel we should do it before we are asked to help someone who may have violated our treaty. Therefore the vote goes up and at the time this thread was posted all 7 votes were in at a unanimous to void/cancel.
7. I come in on Monday and see what has went down and because of my love for NSO and because I didn't think congress did what was done right I call for the congress to re-evaluate with all information in hand. I thought the rule was 24 hours before it was official. This results in a majority of congress taking back the yes vote and reinstating the treaty.
8. Due to an oversight on my part and on the part of congress a rule was overlooked that shows that the vote was official as soon as all 7 people voted. The taking back of the votes was illegal at that point and had to be tossed out.
9. I inform NSO of the unfortunate outcome as we had been discussing the possibility of the vote being reversed and they were waiting on the info. Instead of a thanks for trying I get harassed.
10. Omni knew that NSO wouldn't be requesting help so canceling to avoid war is not the reason and GATO cannot be said to be cowards.

That's pretty much it. If anyone wants to attack those facts be my guest but those are the facts. You can have an [i]opinion[/i] that the reason was weak. Fine but it is still a legit reason and we don't interpret your treaties. Don't do it to us. You can say we threw salt in NSO's wounds by posting this as they were getting attacked. I agree and have apologized. Anyone in GATO will tell you there is no love lost between Omni and I. I would love a legit chance to pin something solely on him and rub his face in it. This was not that chance. While I do not agree with what he did. He did do it by the book and as far as I can tell had no other motive than that stated to cancel/void.

[Heft]

If we "violated" the treaty, then so did GATO when they didn't immediately contact us about the threats they heard towards us.