Ahriman Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 As of 1600 server time on March 24,2017 the People's Accord as defined below is signed and in effect. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wJODcYi2T0H_V3Ard4QTxbHQ_QP32PKTfO_CQ-IIHS4/edit?usp=drivesdk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Congrats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 You could literally have just written "MDP between USRGC and IR" in that google doc and it would have amounted to the same thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander XIV Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Ty You could literally have just written "MDP between USRGC and IR" in that google doc and it would have amounted to the same thing. Whats the fun in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Glad this worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidude45454 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Anyone here remember the good old days of IR trying to act significant but failing miserably, then going completely silent for the next year and a half? Good times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) You could literally have just written "MDP between USRGC and IR" in that google doc and it would have amounted to the same thing. How edgy of you to say. I personally appreciate it when someone puts actual effort into something they do. Edited March 24, 2017 by Pride 3 Quote Superbia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander XIV Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Anyone here remember the good old days of IR trying to act significant but failing miserably, then going completely silent for the next year and a half? Good times. New days, new leadership, and activity How edgy of you to say. I personally appreciate it when someone puts actual effort into something they do. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunky Monkey Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Who puts a treaty in a google doc? I shouldn't have to click more than once to read a treaty I don't actually care about. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 How edgy of you to say. I personally appreciate it when someone puts actual effort into something they do. There's a difference between effort and just trying to be an elawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wulfharth Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 o/ USRGC o/ IR 1 Quote FKA Wulfharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvia Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) Congrats. --------------- Most people here will not bother to read the treaty. If that's what you wanted (or you don't care) announcing it this way was brilliant. However I'm odd, so I'm going to point out a few areas that are a bit different if for no other reason than maybe it will give some others a few ideas. 1, 30 day notice to withdraw from treaty. 2. There are specifics for individual nation(s) (as opposed to the entire alliance which (I think) are needed in order to trigger the treaty. For instance, "The nation(s) being attacked must not be able to succeed without intervention outside their alliance" (See Article VI B 1) 3. It seems to suggest that it would just take just one of the alliances leader's to decide to DoW someone to automatically commit both alliances to war. (See Article V1 C) 4. It forms a "security council" which "may ignore any other treaties outside of the People's Accord with unanimous consent." (See Article VI C 2 f) I'm assuming this is basically a supremacy clauce (i.e. this treaty is more important than any of the others we may sign with other people) but I'm not sure. 5. Article VII talks about trade between the two alliances being under market value. Edited March 24, 2017 by Sylvia 5 Quote https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4526736.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahriman Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) Congrats. --------------- Most people here will not bother to read the treaty. If that's what you wanted (or you don't care) announcing it this way was brilliant. However I'm odd, so I'm going to point out a few areas that are a bit different if for no other reason than maybe it will give some others a few ideas. 1, 30 day notice to withdraw from treaty. 2. There are specifics for individual nation(s) (as opposed to the entire alliance which (I think) are needed in order to trigger the treaty. For instance, "The nation(s) being attacked must not be able to succeed without intervention outside their alliance" (See Article VI B 1) 3. It seems to suggest that it would just take just one of the alliances leader's to decide to DoW someone to automatically commit both alliances to war. (See Article V1 C) 4. It forms a "security council" which "may ignore any other treaties outside of the People's Accord with unanimous consent." (See Article VI C 2 f) I'm assuming this is basically a supremacy clauce (i.e. this treaty is more important than any of the others we may sign with other people) but I'm not sure. 5. Article VII talks about trade between the two alliances being under market value. This is the difference between critiquing and whining. I did not intend for it to be easy not hard to read and I really don't care either way, I wanted a functional agreement with clearly defined mechanisms. For anyone it doesn't apply to, I wouldn't bother reading it. Even lower ranking people within the alliances mostly probably wouldn't bother reading most of it it. I hope this clears up the rest of your post. Thanks for the thoughtful response. 1. I originally had a much shorter one but this was requested by leadership. 2. It would. There's a split mechanism depending on if it's small scale battles between nations or full scale alliance warfare. MDP ONLY applies when it's on a large scale, otherwise it's ODP. 3. Yes, there's trust on both ends that there's no rash decisions, but no side ever has unilateral control over anything. 4. The entire reason I included that was in the cases of being backstabbed in the middle of a massive war, there's no debate on the matter if there's consensus with the security council. I could see that being interpreted as a supremacy clause though. I do expect if this were ever invoked that two of the people sitting on the council would be the highest ranking leaders of both the alliances. I hope it's never even invoked honestly. 5. Yes, in between our alliances we give big discounts to encourage growth and shore up defenses with smaller nations. The smaller nations are expected to give more as they're able to. Edited March 25, 2017 by Ahriman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaakopu Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Odd/irrelevant treaty is odd/irrelevant 1 Quote wait this isnt black knights forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 commies gonna commie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ripper Posted March 27, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) Sorry for skipping some previous treaties (I will come back to them), but I couldn't resist anymore... All of my P&W balls comics here. Episode 16: "Down with the System!" Edited July 19, 2017 by Ripper 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) Who puts a treaty in a google doc? I shouldn't have to click more than once to read a treaty I don't actually care about. then why did you ? - shrugs / yawns - Anyone here remember the good old days of IR trying to act significant but failing miserably, then going completely silent for the next year and a half? Good times ' trying to act significant ' ' failing miserably ' someone alittle salty its all good laff@hidude45454 Edited March 27, 2017 by Winter Soldier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I have waited years to say this but lol commies. Grats. 1 Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeTCB Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Congratulations comrades, lets hope to further unity on the leftside! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaakopu Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Who Quote wait this isnt black knights forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Name Here Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Welp, Ripper's comic says it all: my alliance is gonna get rolled by MSNBC and International Resolution. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) Welp, Ripper's comic says it all: my alliance is gonna get rolled by MSNBC and International Resolution. guess the ' elite ' around here don't joke about their game. Edited March 28, 2017 by Winter Soldier 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.