CN:TE Temporary Holiday Cease-fire.

[bunnet]

[quote name='Stelios' timestamp='1293174013' post='2552503']
As we talked about this on IRC... before this was posted... dont really see why it needed to be posted but. I was confused because i thought WAPA was protected, therefore when they raided the RE guy. If we defended would that go against the cease fire.
[/quote]

We protect ourselves my good man we don't do poofy treaties. Come and have a go with the wapa aggro

[Ferrie]

Alliance added to the list.

Salute!

[Confusion]

Am I the only one who finds it funny Never Take Orders decided to merge into Gay Rollers instead of going solo?

It's probably because Gay Rollers is in the truce and Never Take Order isn't...oh the joy. This will be fun.



Confusion.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote]

-Synergy(?)-- If thats indeed what Sir Pwnage was implying. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[/quote]

This is correct, we all agree to a cease fire.

[Ferrie]

G-6 has been taken off the list to avoid complications. They're at war.

Salute!

Edited December 30, 2010 by Ferrie

[Confusion]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293705275' post='2558192']
G-6 has been taken off the list to avoid complications. They're at war.

Salute!
[/quote]


Awesome.


So if another alliance joins the war (Who's currently in the truce)....they'll also be taken off the list?

Just making sure.


Edit: I saw this coming btw, it only seems fair.

Confusion.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Confusion

[Room21]

'if you clearly abide by the rules of the cease fire we will remove you'

dont forget to add this disclaimer

Edited December 30, 2010 by Room21

[MrMuz]

Only sounds fair. The truce is only there to keep people from getting stressed out from checking TE every day during the holidays. If an alliance and its gov agrees to go on the offensive (and actually manages a blitz with 50% of its members), it should no longer be protected by everyone else, since everyone else is on vacation.

Same logic should go for any future aggression from cease fire members or any further cease fires in following rounds

[Clash]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293705275' post='2558192']
G-6 has been taken off the list to avoid complications. They're at war.

Salute![/quote]
Yepp I guess they used it long enough

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1293717027' post='2558260']
Yepp I guess they used it long enough
[/quote]

so you are a multiple thread whiner. awesome job. keep up the good work of making your alliance look even more pathetic.

[Ferrie]

[quote name='Room21' timestamp='1293706386' post='2558199']
'if you clearly abide by the rules of the cease fire we will remove you'

dont forget to add this disclaimer
[/quote]

Anyone who has any sense knows that you guys just exploited a loop-hole in the cease-fire. Sorry if it doesnt sit well with you, but its the right thing to do.

[dogbite]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293751556' post='2558670']
Anyone who has any sense knows that you guys just exploited a loop-hole in the cease-fire. Sorry if it doesnt sit well with you, but its the right thing to do.
[/quote]
I have to agree but i think we all saw the loop hole.

[Einer]

So it's a loophole that alliances who don't participate in a treaty, uh, aren't participating in the treaty?

This could revolutionize international relations in SE.

[Einer]

And just to clarify with some token non-snark, I thought the rules stated that signatories wouldn't attack signatories, but everyone else could attack anyone else. If TW had hit anybody, tough luck for them, but there should have been no casus belli for anyone else. This should definitely be the case for any future truce.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293751556' post='2558670']
Anyone who has any sense knows that you guys just exploited a loop-hole in the cease-fire. Sorry if it doesnt sit well with you, but its the right thing to do.
[/quote]

so you meant your truce to include not being able to attack non-signatories which means that basically you don't need to sign a truce but you have to abide by it or else? or if you sign the truce, you now have to recognize the fact that you can't attack a non-signatory despite the truce never stating such a clause?

thing is, that is not a loop-hole as there was never any clause in there stating anything about non-signatories other than the fact that non-signatories would be hit should they attack a signatory. but hey, tis kewl by me. i likez war and will leave the e-lawyering to the likes of you, Clash, and memoryproblems while i head back to DT errrrr G-6... dang, almost forgot this was TE and not SE with so many suits running around now.

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1293751504' post='2558668']
so you are a multiple thread whiner. awesome job. keep up the good work of making your alliance look even more pathetic.
[/quote]

Wow and that quote wouldn't reflect bad at you or at your alliance at all right? [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293751556' post='2558670']
Anyone who has any sense knows that you guys just exploited a loop-hole in the cease-fire. Sorry if it doesnt sit well with you, but its the right thing to do.
[/quote]

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img].

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1293752969' post='2558699']
I have to agree but i think we all saw the loop hole.
[/quote]

You can see it all you want it just shows the attitude of the alliance who pulls it off.

[dogbite]

This is a War game right?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1293761003' post='2558798']
This is a War game right?
[/quote]

well i am guess it is for most but for Warriors it appears to be:

[img]http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/images/crying_game-title.jpg[/img]

[Mikeyrox]

Yes technically any signatory can attack any non-signatory as per the wording of the treaty - but if you think about it this could not really have been the intent because it causes a hell of a lot of problems.

You guys are members of the treaty, you attacked the warriors, now what? You are technically still apart of a treaty that says that any acts of war against you will be punished by all signatories. Can tW and WAPA retaliate? They clearly have already, and now that puts the rest of the treaty in a sticky situation. Do they have to defend you? It causes more problems than it solves.

I personally don't see anything wrong legally speaking with joining the treaty and then later on declaring war, but you have to admit it makes sense and makes for a lot fewer headaches if you are removed once you start a war.

[Ferrie]

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1293772483' post='2558969']
Yes technically any signatory can attack any non-signatory as per the wording of the treaty - but if you think about it this could not really have been the intent because it causes a hell of a lot of problems.

You guys are members of the treaty, you attacked the warriors, now what? You are technically still apart of a treaty that says that any acts of war against you will be punished by all signatories. Can tW and WAPA retaliate? They clearly have already, and now that puts the rest of the treaty in a sticky situation. Do they have to defend you? It causes more problems than it solves.

I personally don't see anything wrong legally speaking with joining the treaty and then later on declaring war, but you have to admit it makes sense and makes for a lot fewer headaches if you are removed once you start a war.
[/quote]

Thank you Mikey.

Granted, it could have been written up as to cover every base, but we'll know that for next year. It's a learning experience. Lets just keep in mind that this is about having fun.

[dogbite]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1293773204' post='2558983']
Thank you Mikey.

Granted, it could have been written up as to cover every base, but we'll know that for next year. It's a learning experience. Lets just keep in mind that this is about having fun.
[/quote]
Im having fun. Thanks

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1293772483' post='2558969']
Yes technically any signatory can attack any non-signatory as per the wording of the treaty - but if you think about it this could not really have been the intent because it causes a hell of a lot of problems.

You guys are members of the treaty, you attacked the warriors, now what? You are technically still apart of a treaty that says that any acts of war against you will be punished by all signatories. Can tW and WAPA retaliate? They clearly have already, and now that puts the rest of the treaty in a sticky situation. Do they have to defend you? It causes more problems than it solves.

I personally don't see anything wrong legally speaking with joining the treaty and then later on declaring war, but you have to admit it makes sense and makes for a lot fewer headaches if you are removed once you start a war.
[/quote]

you do realize the fact that because we attacked them, Warriors nor WAPA attacked us. this means that if we were still part of the treaty, no other signatory has to do anything. if that is what was complicated... sorry but that was quite simple. We hit Warriors and WAPA not the other way around and thus, they are more than capable of defending themselves without any other signatory getting involved.

so again, i am not sure where the problems are unless you are somehow trying to e-lawyer the hell out of a 2 line agreement.

[Room21]

'hi guys im ferrie im going to change the rules of the agreement on the fly because some people did things i dont like'

Edited December 31, 2010 by Room21

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1293773945' post='2558994']
you do realize the fact that because we attacked them, Warriors nor WAPA attacked us. this means that if we were still part of the treaty, no other signatory has to do anything. if that is what was complicated... sorry but that was quite simple. We hit Warriors and WAPA not the other way around and thus, they are more than capable of defending themselves without any other signatory getting involved.

[/quote]

I am not arguing that they cannot defend themselves, however from my interpretation the treaty [i]could [/i] still potentially require that other signatories retaliate against the warriors.

[quote]Also, any act of war against any alliance signed will be considered an act of war against ALL signatories, and will be squashed like a bug. [/quote]

You may have been the ones to declare war, them defending against you could still count as an act of war, which could potentially require them to assist you and RE in crushing them.

I am not saying that that is what it absolutely set in stone out right says - it depends on your interpretation of the meanings. But you can see how, based on different peoples interpretations, it could cause some confusion. When a WAPA guy raided a member of RE, we mistakenly thought they were part of the treaty, and we werent sure if we could retaliate without be dog-piled. As it turns out, we could have, but there was still some uncertainty there - the same uncertainty that would be caused by you staying apart of the treaty. Did you do anything explicitly wrong or illegal under treaty rules? No and I don't believe I said you did. What I did say, and am saying, is that removing you at this point makes the most sense, and provides for the least confusion to all involved.

I dont see why any of you are even so angry over this anyway? Both confusion and dogbite have said they agreed with the decision, and I dont see how it negatively impacts you at this point.

[Ferrie]

[quote name='Room21' timestamp='1293774136' post='2558996']
'hi guys im ferrie im going to change the rules of the agreement on the fly because some people did things i dont like'
[/quote]


Glad to have a new personality on the forums. Welcome.