Homefront Declaration of Existence

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299499692' post='2655336']
i'm afraid i don't see how that changes things. we believe they have broken terms, this breach will be taken into account when they surrender.
[/quote]

Ok, then say you want to give them harsh terms because you want to give them harsh terms, not because you think they broke an agreement you refuse to understand.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1299499872' post='2655337']
Ok, then say you want to give them harsh terms because you want to give them harsh terms, not because you think they broke an agreement you refuse to understand.
[/quote]

You really are desperate aren't you.

They violated surrender terms by re-entering the war on the NPO front, something they explicitly agreed to [b]not[/b] do.

[Heft]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299499324' post='2655332']
we seem to be missing something in your extract. what can that be?

"[b]The parties of ... CD, ... agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO.[/b] These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted."

For us to believe this tripe, we have to first say that the nso's involvement in this war had nothing to do with the npo. by the way, you are. for someone who claims to be an upholder of cn literacy standards, i would have assumed you would have read the second sentence in its context as part of the entire clause. mk sees this as a breach of terms, and so cd can expect that this will be taken into account when they ask for surrender terms.
[/quote]
I think I'll just answer you with one of your alliance-mates.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1299498895' post='2655327']
Hahaha. Really?! That's got to be up there in the "worst e-lawyering" ranking.
[/quote]

[Heft]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299500046' post='2655338']
You really are desperate aren't you.

They violated surrender terms by re-entering the war on the NPO front, something they explicitly agreed to [b]not[/b] do.
[/quote]
It truly is like everyone (edit: well, actually just MK and Umbrella so far, "coincidentally") read the first sentence of that clause and then suddenly lost all literacy before they could continue to the second sentence.

A fascinating psychological phenomenon.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Heft

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299500046' post='2655338']
You really are desperate aren't you.

They violated surrender terms by re-entering the war on the NPO front, something they explicitly agreed to [b]not[/b] do.
[/quote]

Are you dumb? No, seriously, are you?

Their violation of terms didn't happen because they entered the NPO front, it happened because they DoWed MK. The terms didn't forbidden them from entering the NPO front as long as it was in defense of an attacked partner. That was the agreement, Sparta was aware of this, MHA was aware of this and FARK was aware of this when this was signed. I am sorry you cannot understand that, but it's how it happened.

If you want to look smarter try go looking at the dates the attacks on NSO by MK started and then start talking about term violation.

[Monster]

Argument of NSO being hit post-signing holds little water as MK attacks on NSO began as soon as NSO declared. See: WorldConqueror complaining about MK getting in the way in their DoW and GOONS being aided before the agreement was signed.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299499324' post='2655332']
we seem to be missing something in your extract. what can that be?

"[b]The parties of ... CD, ... agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO.[/b] These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted."

For us to believe this tripe, we have to first say that the nso's involvement in this war had nothing to do with the npo. by the way, you are. for someone who claims to be an upholder of cn literacy standards, i would have assumed you would have read the second sentence in its context as part of the entire clause. mk sees this as a breach of terms, and so cd can expect that this will be taken into account when they ask for surrender terms.
[/quote]

Let me point out what has already beeb pointed out.

[i]These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs [b](or equivalent)[/b] against their treatied allies after these terms are posted.[/i]

MK didn't post a DoW.
Conflict then become MK&Co. - NSO

You created a diffrent conflict by not posting your DoW.

Although this has already been said, you're just reading what you want to read.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Congrats on breaking surrender terms. I wonder attacking MK would be worth going back on your word [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img]

[Heft]

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1299500639' post='2655346']
Congrats on breaking surrender terms. I wonder attacking MK would be worth going back on your word [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Okay we can add this guy to the list of selective illiterates too.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1299500549' post='2655345']
Let me point out what has already beeb pointed out.

[i]These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs [b](or equivalent)[/b] against their treatied allies after these terms are posted.[/i]

MK didn't post a DoW.
Conflict then become MK&Co. - NSO

You created a diffrent conflict by not posting your DoW.

Although this has already been said, you're just reading what you want to read.
[/quote]

It doesn't really matter. MK and NSO were at war before terms were signed. It's still a breach of terms, just not because of the reasons they say.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299500735' post='2655347']
Okay we can add this guy to the list of selective illiterates too.
[/quote]

If it makes you feel better.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1299500549' post='2655345']
Let me point out what has already beeb pointed out.

[i]These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs [b](or equivalent)[/b] against their treatied allies after these terms are posted.[/i]

MK didn't post a DoW.
Conflict then become MK&Co. - NSO

You created a diffrent conflict by not posting your DoW.

Although this has already been said, you're just reading what you want to read.
[/quote]

Okay, so I can sort of see where their coming from considering the wording of the surrender terms, but to suggest that MK-NSO is a separate front is beyond silly.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[neneko]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299498784' post='2655326']
I'm interested to know how our argument is somehow more convoluted than the argument that "These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted" doesn't explicitly and obviously allow CD to hit MK (or Umbrella, if they so choose).
[/quote]
I'd say that's mainly due to the fact that we hit NSO prior to those terms being signed thus making this a very clear breach of the surrender terms.

Now don't get me wrong I'm just arguing this because I can't resist an argument that's easy to win not to make the people that signed those surrender terms help us with CD. While I can't speak for MK for obvious reasons I'd prefer if nobody not already in this front had to have a say when we decide what CD will pay us for doing this.

Delicious blood tech. Who can resist it?

Edited March 7, 2011 by neneko

[Xavii]

We see this as breach of terms and will act accordingly regardless of how CD & friends wants to spin it.

[Heft]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299501029' post='2655353']
Okay, so I can sort of see where their coming from considering the wording of the surrender terms, but to suggest that MK-NSO is a separate front is beyond silly.
[/quote]
Nobody ever suggested that.

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1299501151' post='2655356']
I'd say that's mainly to the fact that we hit NSO prior to those terms being signed thus making this a very clear breach of the surrender terms.

Now don't get me wrong I'm just arguing this because I can't resist an argument that's easy to win not to make the people that signed those surrender terms help us with CD. While I can't speak for MK for obvious reasons I'd prefer if nobody not already in this front had to have a say when we decide what CD will pay us for doing this.

Delicious blood tech. Who can resist it?
[/quote]
There were assorted individual actions and acts of war prior to the terms being signed, but the NSO did not consider itself to be in a state of war until we made our announcement, which was in response to actions which occurred subsequent to the CD surrender. At no point prior to our announcement did MK ever indicate a belief that they were in a state of war with the NSO, and in fact seemed to indicate the opposite.

What you are claiming now would run directly counter to that.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299501465' post='2655358']
Nobody ever suggested that.
[/quote]

Really...

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1299500549' post='2655345']
MK didn't post a DoW.
Conflict then become MK&Co. - NSO

You created a diffrent conflict by not posting your DoW.
[/quote]

...so can we add you to the list of selective illiterates?

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299501029' post='2655353']
but to suggest that MK-NSO is a separate front is beyond silly.
[/quote]

Atleast I'm not illiterate

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299501465' post='2655358']
Nobody ever suggested that.
[/quote]

I kind of did because I'm silly

Edited March 7, 2011 by LittleRena

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1299501871' post='2655361']
I kind of did because I'm silly
[/quote]

Don't feel bad, I say silly things like that all the time

[AngelOfLight]

What I see happening here is that most of the guys from MK just rage and spew venom without making any effort to justify why the feel we broke the terms. That apart, these surrender terms DID NOT INVOLVE MK, so MK cannot claim to hold CD responsible for violating these terms. These terms were signed in conjunction with MHA and others, and thereforei t is only THEY who can concur or differ on whether or not it constitutes a breach of terms.

If I have an agreement with a firend tomorrow and another third person comes along and threatens dire consequences saying I broke the agreement, then he's not justified in making that decision. As long as the two original partners in the agreement have not mutually agreed that there has been a breach, the third party is not part of the agreement at all.

If MK seriously wants to resolve this dispute through dialogue instead of threatening consequences without attempting to sit and talk like mature adults (or mature children in the case of some), then initiate a diplomatic dialogue involving MHA and CD and discuss this in a civil manner.

It takes little to pull a trigger to fire a gun. It takes a lot of maturity and sense to talk open mindedly and hold back on the trigger until diplomacy has taken it's full course. If MK just pounds its fists and rants and raves, they will be looked upon as the NPO of 2011, regardless of how well they win. MHA is way stronger thank MK, but their alliance members are still so polite and civil to talk to. They gain respect, even from their enemies, because their behaviour is admirable and their gaming spirit is something we can all learn to respect. They don't rant, rave and threaten dire consequencies. They're the single-most powerful alliance in the game and yet remain polite and courteous, which is more than what I can see happening in this thread with the MK members. Remember, this is a game, and to be so angry and vengeful over a simple browser-based game shows that you take this way too seriously. If you seriously want CD to believe they have broken the terms, then initiate a discussion between MHA and CD and talk things through. You can't convince someone they're wrong by putting a gun to their heads. You need to have patience and maturity to debate your point of view in a diplomatic and civil fashion.

DISCLAIMER: These are my personal views and do not represent the views of any alliance, including my own.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299501964' post='2655362']
Don't feel bad, I say silly things like that all the time
[/quote]

I don't feel bad, I only ever say silly things, it's more fun.

[crushtania]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299500396' post='2655344']
Argument of NSO being hit post-signing holds little water as MK attacks on NSO began as soon as NSO declared. See: WorldConqueror complaining about MK getting in the way in their DoW and GOONS being aided before the agreement was signed.
[/quote]

Unless CD didn't even read what they were signing, this is very poor form at the very least. I definitely agree it's a breach of terms. My two other colleagues will confer as to whether it is as well.

Quite frankly, if CD were genuine in their overtures of diplomacy I would have been more than open to discuss their re-entry under the purview of the signed peace agreement. But as it turns out...they didn't.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Crushtania

[Heft]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299501807' post='2655359']
Really...



...so can we add you to the list of selective illiterates?
[/quote]
I skipped that post.

[quote name='AngelOfLight' timestamp='1299501978' post='2655363']
What I see happening here is that most of the guys from MK just rage and spew venom without making any effort to justify why the feel we broke the terms. That apart, these surrender terms DID NOT INVOLVE MK, so MK cannot claim to hold CD responsible for violating these terms. These terms were signed in conjunction with MHA and others, and thereforei t is only THEY who can concur or differ on whether or not it constitutes a breach of terms.

If I have an agreement with a firend tomorrow and another third person comes along and threatens dire consequences saying I broke the agreement, then he's not justified in making that decision. As long as the two original partners in the agreement have not mutually agreed that there has been a breach, the third party is not part of the agreement at all.
[/quote]
This is also correct. It is clear by now that certain elements of Doomhouse are willing to grab on to anything they can in order to justify exacting harsher terms than would otherwise be warranted, and this is just the latest evidence of this increasingly common trend.

The terms are not MK or Doom House's to enforce. I do not believe any breach has occurred, clearly neither does CD. If MK genuinely disagrees, and is not simply trying to spin this to gain another pound of flesh, then I expect we will see some form of dialogue with those who actually wrote the terms and are in a position to enforce them, rather than continued spewing here.

[Haflinger]

CD is pretty awesome. I like this.

If you didn't want them to have the freedom to declare war in defense of their allies down the road, you should not have explicitly included a clause permitting them to do so.

[Monster]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299502743' post='2655370']
I skipped that post.


This is also correct. It is clear by now that certain elements of Doomhouse are willing to grab on to anything they can in order to justify exacting harsher terms than would otherwise be warranted, and this is just the latest evidence of this increasingly common trend.

The terms are not MK or Doom House's to enforce. I do not believe any breach has occurred, clearly neither does CD. If MK genuinely disagrees, and is not simply trying to spin this to gain another pound of flesh, then I expect we will see some form of dialogue with those who actually wrote the terms and are in a position to enforce them, rather than continued spewing here.
[/quote]

Actually, I signed them and consider it a violation.

[Heft]

[quote name='Crushtania' timestamp='1299502192' post='2655366']
Unless CD didn't even read what they were signing, this is very poor form at the very least. I definitely agree it's a breach of terms. My two other colleagues will confer as to whether it is as well.

Quite frankly, if CD were genuine in their overtures of diplomacy I would have been more than open to discuss their re-entry under the purview of the signed peace agreement. But as it turns out...they didn't.
[/quote]
NSO recognized hostilities with MK (and Umbrella) on February 24 - two and a half weeks after CD's surrender - and did so in response to actions taken primarily since that surrender. Prior to that announcement, neither us nor them recognized any state of war as existing.

That is the historical record. What we are seeing in this thread is a revision of historical facts which are not even two months old.

Nevertheless, if MHA (or any signatory of those terms) takes issue with this declaration, I am sure CD would be willing to discuss the matter.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Heft