Zoomzoomzoom Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I wish the best of luck to my former opponents. o/ peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x8BitL0gic Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Glad to finally see an end to this conflict. Good fighting towards both parties, may you rebuild swiftly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somedude Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300062231' post='2663633'] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? [/quote] Is it so hard to believe that we [i]are not[/i] just the biggest group of super my idols ever to walk Bob? Edited March 14, 2011 by Somedude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300062231' post='2663633'] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? [/quote] You know why nobody is going to care if you disband because you don't want to pay us reps? Stuff like this, right here. You are wrong, nobody on any side reads it like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 E-lawyering makes my head hurt. Good to see peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArneS Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300062231' post='2663633'] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? [/quote] Oh !@#$, HoT saw right through it. The man's a genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1300062709' post='2663660'] E-lawyering makes my head hurt. Good to see peace. [/quote] Glad you could fight along side us Hoo. o/ Edited March 14, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingivitis Khan Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Nice warring with you vickib Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) So you're telling me that these are the terms PB came up with for NpO? [i]Very[/i] reasonable. Hats off to you guys, I'm surprised by your honor. I'm just amused that the core front of the war came to such a reasonable conclusion considering some of the idiocy that went on outside it. Well done folks, I wish you well in your rebuilding [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300062684' post='2663659'] You know why nobody is going to care if you disband because you don't want to pay us reps? Stuff like this, right here. You are wrong, nobody on any side reads it like that. [/quote] Well, technically he's right, but then he'd have to provide a motive to show why PB would want to commit diplomatic suicide for screwing a surrendered alliance on an agreement. Didn't really work out for NPO, doubt it'd work for them. In other words, you're completely right Sardonic. HoT might be on to some nuances... but it would be utterly impractical... Edited March 14, 2011 by MaGneT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 These look like really good terms. Way to hang in there, Polaris. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakos Raanb Dorou Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Grats on a war hard fought, and a peace hard won, Polar. Not many could deserve it more. And kudos to PB for some nice terms. The New Hegemony shows its benevolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Novel terms to conclude the well fought front of our current global calamity. Congratulations. I don't understand why you all have not yet blocked HoT as I have. Edited March 14, 2011 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congratulations on peace Polaris. iFOK and FOK! it was interesting and not boring. Also, i need to get me a WRC someday.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300060036' post='2663500'] I can't believe Polaris would sign something like this. They just signed on to being an eternal tech farm. [/quote] That would actually be a deliciously fitting term. There's always next war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='ArneS' timestamp='1300062729' post='2663662'] Oh !@#$, HoT saw right through it. The man's a genius. [/quote] It's readily apparent by this point that it is illiteracy and not malice that resulted in a multitude of errors in the writing of these terms. There are a few other mistakes that other people noted. So lets see, Article 1 only forbids the sending of aid. Since you are all now asserting that Article 2 is optional, am I to believe that Polaris has the option of not receiving other external aid, or is Article 2 in full a requirement that Polaris cannot receive other external aid? Either Article 2 is eternal or Polaris is allowed to receive aid. Make up your mind, which is it? This is why you don't let morons draft terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Glad to see things finally wrapping up. Why is HoT flipping out? It's pretty obvious what the terms mean. Edited March 14, 2011 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1300062013' post='2663628'] Quick question. Article 1 only mentions that NpO may not [b]send[/b] foreign aid, it does not say anything about receiving it, yet article 2, which is coined as an exception to article 1, mentions that the only foreign aid the New Polar Order may send [b]or receive[/b] will be between members of the New Polar Order and the Victorious Alliances... So my question is, is it an oversight that article 1 does not mention receiving aid or is it a mistake that article 2 seemingly imposes an additional restriction on NpO? EDIT: Oh and congrats on peace everyone [/quote] The word was accidentally omitted this afternoon when we made some small last minute wording changes. While it is implicit in Art. 2 and has been fully assented to by Polaris, I have corrected the OP to reflect the actual wording of Art. 1 as "send and receive". This correction was made with the consent of Random. (Also, thanks for pointing it out) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 It was a fun war until my warchest ended after 1 month and 14 days of incessant fight. Congrats to FOK and iFOK you are by far the best opponents that I ever fought, you both gained my respect. After all we are still here and I would like to say thank you for my fellow brothers and sisters in Polaris and to all my allies who supported us. I am Polar, see my scars and behold my commitment. Polaris o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1300063305' post='2663702'] The word was accidentally omitted this afternoon when we made some small last minute wording changes. While it is implicit in Art. 2 and has been fully assented to by Polaris, I have corrected the OP to reflect the actual wording of Art. 1 as "send and receive". This correction was made with the consent of Random. (Also, thanks for pointing it out) [/quote]OK, why don't you also go back and quickly add in a line that Article 2 also expires in a month, which I'm sure Random would consent to? Seems like an easy fix to another error in the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not letting aid be sent out to potentially bill-locked nations is kind of dumb, but I guess tech deals can be arranged to fix that. Overall, way more honorable than I expected, for certain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300063220' post='2663695'] ... This is why you don't let morons draft terms. [/quote] no, this is why you don't let morons read terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Gofastleft' timestamp='1300063715' post='2663726'] no, this is why you don't let morons read terms. [/quote] Can't even capitalize your sentences, were you by any chance on the writing committee for these terms? This is an important document and it should be free of errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300063605' post='2663720'] OK, why don't you also go back and quickly add in a line that Article 2 also expires in a month, which I'm sure Random would consent to? Seems like an easy fix to another error in the terms. [/quote] They're going to force it to be held into perpetuity, duh Edited March 14, 2011 by Voytek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerland Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300063899' post='2663737'] Can't even capitalize your sentences, were you by any chance on the writing committee for these terms? This is an important document and it should be free of errors. [/quote] It is. Article 2 pertains to Article 1 and therefore expires when it does. Why are you the only person that doesn't get this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300063899' post='2663737'] Can't even capitalize your sentences, were you by any chance on the writing committee for these terms? This is an important document and it should be free of errors. [/quote] You know, HoT, arguing about this is destroying whatever credibility you may have had. You are not helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.