Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
You need to come up with better argumentation than that. In this instance I was suggesting that it would be specifically included that it would be a land tick not a launch tick. You would know this, we would know this. Exactly as it should be. It would not be breaking the agreement, it would be making a better agreement that nicely specifies things.
When it is not specified you should not use your own assumptions as to norms to assume that others take the same assumption. If you do you are the one making a mistake. What would you do if there were a completely new alliance who did not follow any of these norms and conventions? It is fully within everyone's capability to specify which they mean rather than using sloppy language. Once you do everyone is much better bound. If we take what you just said "we are napped until tick 900" if that was the sum of what was said then I think you need to define napped - is this an ingame nap? if so this makes things much easier, you physically can't launch until tick 900. If not then what does it mean? No launching, no landing, not being on raids, are we just talking about hostile fleets, what about conspiring to get others to hit that alliance? Some could consider that to be the 'aggression' from non aggression pact. Specifics in the long run makes everyone happier because they know where they stand.
I am not a lawyer, or scholar of legal history, but I am sure that this is why legal agreements become long and tedious. Specificity means that both sides know exactly what they are getting rather than having something resting on unstated assumptions.
|
If 2 countries have a ceasefire and one starts attacks before it is over, you are breaking a deal. "No Aggression Pact" clearly if you have one of those, unless your "NAP" stands for something different. You are breaching the "No Aggression Pact", since clearly you agreed to not being aggressive untill a certain time.