George Clooney Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) The NAC and UPN are proud to announce... tl;dr and for the serif impaired: MDoAP (non-chaining) with an optional mutual protectorate protection clause Signed for NAC, George Clooney, Chairman of the Board Edited January 13, 2016 by George Clooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Truchev Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) It has been a long time coming! Signed for the UPN Govenrnment, Emmad - Primarch Victor Truchev - Equerry/Reclusiarch Pangui - Equerry/Warsmith Kevin D - Chief Librarian Aenir - Master of the Forge Kelson - Chooser of the Slain Jakeman4 - Lord Inquisitor It was an excellent time working with you on this, George! Edited January 13, 2016 by Victor Truchev Contact me if you have questions, concerns, or just want to chat. I have an open door policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmad Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Welcome to the family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Glad to see this. NAC have been friends for a very long time and it's good to formalise it. Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangui Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Finally got it done o/ UPN o/NAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Armstrong Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Congratulations to you both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelson Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Good job everyone. o/ NAC o/ UPN https://i.imgur.com/Jg0gWBo.mp4 You're actually reading this?"Trade-ever trade and the increasing of their fortunes- seems to have occupied their minds above all else."[/center] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 o/ UPN o/ NAC -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorsaiwolf Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Glad to see our friendship formalized. o/ UPN o/NAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutwa Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Good things will come on the back of this. o/ UPN o/ NAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormrideron Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 O/ NAC O/ UPN Commander-in-Chief of Svalbard Island Badassery Rating: 100% / Popularity Rating: 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Quite odd that the King's would need assistance to protect their protectorates. One would think that if you could not protect your protectorates that you should simply not have any protectorates. 2 He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Is Voltron being formed yet between Paragon and Covenant? 1 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin D Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Glad to get this done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Truchev Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Quite odd that the King's would need assistance to protect their protectorates. One would think that if you could not protect your protectorates that you should simply not have any protectorates. It isn't about "not being able to protect" them. Its about ensuring greater destruction of those who would seek to do us harm in one way or another. Contact me if you have questions, concerns, or just want to chat. I have an open door policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaC16 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) It isn't about "not being able to protect" them. Its about ensuring greater destruction of those who would seek to do us harm in one way or another. I tend to see this as the answer that leads to greater levels of enjoyment pour moi. Edited January 13, 2016 by AlphaC16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Well done, NAC and Puppet second Dear Leader Emmad! :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The South will rise again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Quite odd that the King's would need assistance to protect their protectorates. One would think that if you could not protect your protectorates that you should simply not have any protectorates. This is because people like to play the treaty game, and hit protectorates of an alliance to force the protector alliance to defend the protectorate, which in turn would not trigger the protector's allies defense clause, and instead would then trigger the defense clause of the alliance that hit the protectorate, which would be bad for the protector and the protectorate. So with this clause, if you hit a protectorate, you are not activating the defense clause of all the protector's treaties. I have no idea if any of that made any sense, and I hate political loophole shenanigans. That being said, its great to see our former protectorate NAC going out and making some friends with our buddies and mutual allies in UPN. So congrats to both of you guys! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm finding it amusing that you have to add in a optional clause for protecting a protectorate. "If you hit my protectorate, we MAY retaliate" Protectorate signings is the dumbest thing - either sign them as Mutual Defense or don't sign at all. 2 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Fifths Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm finding it amusing that you have to add in a optional clause for protecting a protectorate. "If you hit my protectorate, we MAY retaliate" Protectorate signings is the dumbest thing - either sign them as Mutual Defense or don't sign at all. oh we want to like do our thing but still not face the consequences of doing our thing. so like if anything bad happens. big brother may or may not invoke a shadow treaty. 4 "In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labor; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst, is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto." - Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts Green Enforcement Agency will rise again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm finding it amusing that you have to add in a optional clause for protecting a protectorate. "If you hit my protectorate, we MAY retaliate" Protectorate signings is the dumbest thing - either sign them as Mutual Defense or don't sign at all. It's not a hard concept to understand -- we're not going to outright outright pledge and promise to defend any protectorates NAC sign, because 1) We may not of been involved in the decision of the treaty and do not wish to compromise our sovereignty in that regard, 2) We can't predict the circumstances of the attack, so will judge it on a case-by-case basis -- and in the event if the protectorate was at fault, we would reserve the right to not enter. It's moreso aimed at the e-lawyers out there who like to talk about various technicalities, which as a whole is pretty silly, so I agree with you. And SRD covered the remaining points well. 1 Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm finding it amusing that you have to add in a optional clause for protecting a protectorate. "If you hit my protectorate, we MAY retaliate" Protectorate signings is the dumbest thing - either sign them as Mutual Defense or don't sign at all. if it makes you feel better, Mensa is basically the reason for this clause to be necessary. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmad Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Twas only a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts