Win Declarations and NA's

Greetings to all in the Empire Room,

This question is directed to all, but more particularly to people who
have made win declarations while engaged with NA's (Non-agression
agreements) with non-alliance members.

In recent years, the "standard" NA has been of the 1-3 rolling update
variety.

My question is, what happens to non-aggression agreements when a
declaration is made? The three main possibilities are 1) the win
declaration is the equivalent of giving notice that the NA agreement
will expire in the agreed time frame, 2) that the NA agreement is no
longer valid and no parties are bound to it, or 3) the NA is still a
valid agreement and if one of the parties wants to cancel the NA that
it has to be done explicitly.

My personal feeling is that as the declarator, # 3 makes the most
sense. But as I have not been in either situation before (make the
declaration or reacting to a declaration while an NA is in place) I am
not sure the best way to proceed. # 1 isn't bad, in that the spirit
and adherence of the NA by both parties does not preclude a challenge
to the declaration by the non-declaring country, and they do not have
to specifically say they are canceling the NA. The second possibility
exists in this discussion because I wanted to cover all the bases.

So, let me and everyone else know what you think.

Thanks

{name withheld by request}

"taodnt" <taodnt.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3021ff81-188c-4223-a45f-9f0141e0dbae@k62g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings to all in the Empire Room,
>
> This question is directed to all, but more particularly to people who
> have made win declarations while engaged with NA's (Non-agression
> agreements) with non-alliance members.
>
> In recent years, the "standard" NA has been of the 1-3 rolling update
> variety.
>
> My question is, what happens to non-aggression agreements when a
> declaration is made? The three main possibilities are 1) the win
> declaration is the equivalent of giving notice that the NA agreement
> will expire in the agreed time frame, 2) that the NA agreement is no
> longer valid and no parties are bound to it, or 3) the NA is still a
> valid agreement and if one of the parties wants to cancel the NA that
> it has to be done explicitly.
>
> My personal feeling is that as the declarator, # 3 makes the most
> sense. But as I have not been in either situation before (make the
> declaration or reacting to a declaration while an NA is in place) I am
> not sure the best way to proceed. # 1 isn't bad, in that the spirit
> and adherence of the NA by both parties does not preclude a challenge
> to the declaration by the non-declaring country, and they do not have
> to specifically say they are canceling the NA. The second possibility
> exists in this discussion because I wanted to cover all the bases.
>
> So, let me and everyone else know what you think.
>
> Thanks
>
> {name withheld by request}

All diplomatic agreements in Empire are "gentlemen's agreements".
They are no more and no less than what both parties make of them. (Most
players are honorable.) If you have a question about an existing NA,
ask the other party. They should be able to give you their perspective
and you can give yours. The agreement can be modified or clarified.
In the future, you should ask that question before agreeing to it. It
can be A, B or C depending on the agreement of the parties.

However, getting too legalistic tends to irritate some players. They
want to go with basic intent - not many legal limitations

Tom