Announcement from the Orange Defense Network

[berbers]

Grats ODN!!

[Garion]

Surprise!

[Vosegus]

Congratulations to the new gov of ODN!

[Kurdanak]

Good Luck ODN!
 
Sign my DoN  :ehm:

^ how can you say no to that pretty face?

Congratulations to the new/returning government of ODN! :)

[Lysistrata]

Best of luck Shinn, you deserve it Sir.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

Congratulations, ODN!

[dvdcchn]

looking forward to working with OS again....

[Eumirbago]

Nice gov lineup :D

[Steve Buscemi]

You're rather special, aren't you?


We are pleased to accept good wishes and congratulations on our democracying. Complaints and grievances may be addressed to the usual receptacle.

I was just thinking this too.

 

Congrats to the newly elected.  Glad to see OsRavan is still on there though....at some point he keeps a permanent position right?  Like make him "King" of ODN or something where he has to go to all your parades and wave at people.

[YOLO SWAG]

I for one welcome our new Overlord Shinnra overlord.

[The Warrior]

Congratulations to OS and all of ODN on your new government!

[Elorian]

I can only say that it is always a pleasure to deal with ODN and its government, be it lead by OS or Os. Rock on, folks!

[Omniscient1]

Sweet, congratulations to you ShinRa. Glad to see Os and Hobbies up there as well.

[Groucho Marx]

Congratulations, bud. I'm looking forward to seeing ODN achieve great things and move on from the missteps in their direction these last several months to something better.

[Gibsonator21]

'Grats to my friends in ODN. Like Os.

[Schattenmann]

Here's hoping Shinra has more depth to his thinking than friends>infra.

[Cataduanes]

Here's hoping Shinra has more depth to his thinking than friends>infra.

Not sure what the problem is with having such outlook as friends>infra. Especially in the context of ODN who can be argued have good historical reasons for steadfastly adhering to such an outlook (in my humble opinion the Polar cancellation in WotC and regret over that cast a long shadow over ODN). Would you prefer they were more gutless and pliable (or optional if you prefer :D ) when it came to allies? Edited January 10, 2014 by Cataduanes

[Schattenmann]

Not sure what the problem is with having such outlook as friends>infra. Especially in the context of ODN who can be argued have good historical reasons for steadfastly adhering to such an outlook (in my humble opinion the Polar cancellation in WotC and regret over that cast a long shadow over ODN). Would you prefer they were more gutless and pliable (or optional if you prefer :D ) when it came to allies?

"Friends over infra" is a propaganda campaign from a war that predates OsRavan's existence, which is perhaps why he never realized that it is not a foreign policy.
As a PR campaign it was brilliant, as a foreign policy it is a fool's errand. A treaty is not required for a sovereign alliance to exercise the tool of warfare in defense of a friend (the sacrifice of infra on the altar of friendship), but treaties signed as expressions of friendship are prophecies foretelling broken promises and hurt feelings.
Treaties and war are political tools. Alliances have global ambitions, and they count upon their treaties to aid them in effecting their goals, and for defense when their ambitions conflict with another alliance's. Friendship between alliances does not stop global competition in pursuit of goals between third party friends. When these political conflicts come to a head, the binding nature of a compulsory ("mutual") treaty trips and trumps friendship in practice--when two friends are at odds, an alliance can only sacrifice its infra for one friend.
People like OsRavan who insist upon a foreign policy of treaties as huggles never recognize their own failures as friends, and thus the failure of their policies. The examples are numerous: NPO-NpO-GOONS, NpO/NPO-new GOONS, ODN-Sparta-TLR, NPO-C&G-NATO,Citadel-Continuum, the entire Equilibrium War, IRON-NG-Valhalla. Over and over again. Wherever politics collides with friendship, politics wins because war is political and that means a friend loses. In these instances of conflicting treaties, the expression of friendship is to stand next to one friend to make it possible for him to beat the other friend bloody by kicking the losing friend's other friends, and proclaiming, "see what a friend I am, I'm not attacking you I'm attacking these guys over here" which only facilitates the beating your friend is getting. When this happens, friendship is tested and it is always the losing friend who is deemed to be the bad friend for failing to avoid his own beating, or for failing to accept the treaty partner's political decision.
That is psychopathy, not friendship. And while OsRavan is far from alone in the friends>infra boat, he excels in its psycopathy.

Compulsive-vs-optional treaties is a separate but intertwined issue.
First let's address your opinion that optional treaties are gutless. For a friends foreign policy, compulsive ("mutual") treaties are the height of expressing friendship. Nothing says friendship like unquestioning loyalty. Optional treaties, for the friendly psychopath, demonstrate doubt. Thus comes your judgement that optional=gutless, and it follows that compulsory=brave, altruistic, honorable, and so on. And now you have forced me to point out that you are wrong by ODN's very own record: for while ODN has been a prolific signer of these manly mutual pacts, your reputation for failing to honor them gained your reputation as the gutless Optional Defense Network. While that moniker has faded in recent years, it is still a comfortable old sweater to pull on while letting your friends Sparta take a beating, or standing opposite your friends in NPO.
So we know that the types of treaties an alliance signs has nothing to do with its character, and that signing a compulsive treaty doesn't guarantee its activation even for a friend.
Optional treaties are preferable to compulsory treaties because they recognize basic reality: That alliances are sovereign and should not sign away the decision-making in the process of declaring war, and that everything an alliance does is not something its allies want to or will participate in. They recognize the reality of treaties: That they are political tools. They recognize that foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum, it is an extension of an alliance's internal character and values.
Optional treaties engage governments and alliance members in the decision to declare war or not, while compulsory treaties have led to the greatest offenses of excessive violence, persecution, and war. Ambitious, aggressive alliances do not get to PZI people by accident, they do not get to exact reps by accident, they do not get to install viceroys or ban people from governments by accident. They do so by the mindless consent of compulsory treaties.
Bravery is an alliance exercising its own sovereignty in its foreign affairs and making it perfectly clear to its allies that mutual defense (which an optional treaty does not preclude) is one thing, but that yes-man acquiescence is another.
Gutlessness is aiding an ally in actions that you yourself would not initiate on principle.

OsRavan once claimed that this mindset was doing "irreparable damage" to the planet. He was wrong only in a pedantic sense, since this philosophy is not the one in global practice. But he was correct in the sense that if it were it would do irreparable damage to the world; it is antithetical to his own inherently OOC philosophy which ignores the Digiterran implications of his pursuit to make real friends, and put in practice it would destroy the immature and rotten, stale environment we have now. And thank God if Shinra knows it.

[Cataduanes]

"Friends over infra" is a propaganda campaign from a war that predates OsRavan's existence, which is perhaps why he never realized that it is not a foreign policy.
As a PR campaign it was brilliant, as a foreign policy it is a fool's errand. A treaty is not required for a sovereign alliance to exercise the tool of warfare in defense of a friend (the sacrifice of infra on the altar of friendship), but treaties signed as expressions of friendship are prophecies foretelling broken promises and hurt feelings.
Treaties and war are political tools. Alliances have global ambitions, and they count upon their treaties to aid them in effecting their goals, and for defense when their ambitions conflict with another alliance's. Friendship between alliances does not stop global competition in pursuit of goals between third party friends. When these political conflicts come to a head, the binding nature of a compulsory ("mutual") treaty trips and trumps friendship in practice--when two friends are at odds, an alliance can only sacrifice its infra for one friend.
People like OsRavan who insist upon a foreign policy of treaties as huggles never recognize their own failures as friends, and thus the failure of their policies. The examples are numerous: NPO-NpO-GOONS, NpO/NPO-new GOONS, ODN-Sparta-TLR, NPO-C&G-NATO,Citadel-Continuum, the entire Equilibrium War, IRON-NG-Valhalla. Over and over again. Wherever politics collides with friendship, politics wins because war is political and that means a friend loses. In these instances of conflicting treaties, the expression of friendship is to stand next to one friend to make it possible for him to beat the other friend bloody by kicking the losing friend's other friends, and proclaiming, "see what a friend I am, I'm not attacking you I'm attacking these guys over here" which only facilitates the beating your friend is getting. When this happens, friendship is tested and it is always the losing friend who is deemed to be the bad friend for failing to avoid his own beating, or for failing to accept the treaty partner's political decision.
That is psychopathy, not friendship. And while OsRavan is far from alone in the friends>infra boat, he excels in its psycopathy.

Compulsive-vs-optional treaties is a separate but intertwined issue.
First let's address your opinion that optional treaties are gutless. For a friends foreign policy, compulsive ("mutual") treaties are the height of expressing friendship. Nothing says friendship like unquestioning loyalty. Optional treaties, for the friendly psychopath, demonstrate doubt. Thus comes your judgement that optional=gutless, and it follows that compulsory=brave, altruistic, honorable, and so on. And now you have forced me to point out that you are wrong by ODN's very own record: for while ODN has been a prolific signer of these manly mutual pacts, your reputation for failing to honor them gained your reputation as the gutless Optional Defense Network. While that moniker has faded in recent years, it is still a comfortable old sweater to pull on while letting your friends Sparta take a beating, or standing opposite your friends in NPO.
So we know that the types of treaties an alliance signs has nothing to do with its character, and that signing a compulsive treaty doesn't guarantee its activation even for a friend.
Optional treaties are preferable to compulsory treaties because they recognize basic reality: That alliances are sovereign and should not sign away the decision-making in the process of declaring war, and that everything an alliance does is not something its allies want to or will participate in. They recognize the reality of treaties: That they are political tools. They recognize that foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum, it is an extension of an alliance's internal character and values.
Optional treaties engage governments and alliance members in the decision to declare war or not, while compulsory treaties have led to the greatest offenses of excessive violence, persecution, and war. Ambitious, aggressive alliances do not get to PZI people by accident, they do not get to exact reps by accident, they do not get to install viceroys or ban people from governments by accident. They do so by the mindless consent of compulsory treaties.
Bravery is an alliance exercising its own sovereignty in its foreign affairs and making it perfectly clear to its allies that mutual defense (which an optional treaty does not preclude) is one thing, but that yes-man acquiescence is another.
Gutlessness is aiding an ally in actions that you yourself would not initiate on principle.

OsRavan once claimed that this mindset was doing "irreparable damage" to the planet. He was wrong only in a pedantic sense, since this philosophy is not the one in global practice. But he was correct in the sense that if it were it would do irreparable damage to the world; it is antithetical to his own inherently OOC philosophy which ignores the Digiterran implications of his pursuit to make real friends, and put in practice it would destroy the immature and rotten, stale environment we have now. And thank God if Shinra knows it.

 

I guess I asked for that :) and yeah  I am forced to concede to the too many points of your analysis, and I agree that there many alliances (not just ODN) have been guilty of acquiescence on occasions. I further agree that as political tools treaties are liable to manipulated by individuals to suit a certain agenda at times but can ODN in particular be deemed to be guilty of this on every occasion? or should I specifically say is OsRavan guilty?. As there is an emphasis on OsRavan for whom I cannot answer, knowing neither his motivations or his inner beliefs....that torch will need to be picked up and carried by someone within ODN better informed on those than myself.
 

PS: Also you do realize I have not been an ODNista in absolute years right?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Cataduanes

[Yawoo]

Electing Peaches and Shinnra? ODN just keeps getting more and more insane. 

 

Edit: Congrats, old friends. 

Edited January 11, 2014 by Yawoo

[SirWilliam]

Schattenmann is still obsessed with all things ODN and OsRavan, go figure.

 

 

Congrats and good luck, ODN.

[Overlord Shinnra]

Electing Peaches and Shinnra? ODN just keeps getting more and more insane. 

 

Edit: Congrats, old friends. 

 

There is a sight for sore eyes :)

[Schattenmann]

Schattenmann is still obsessed with all things ODN and OsRavan, go figure.
 
 
Congrats and good luck, ODN.

Oh, yes, go figure that a discussion of ODN policy over the past 3 years in centered around the only person who has been Secretary General for the past 3 years. 

Ho ho ho, very clever, Will; got me there. Crazy ol' Schatt discussing politics and the politicians who enact them in the Alliance Politics forum. Cynics like you claim the OWF is a cesspool, dead. Cynics like me make you look silly.
 

Electing Peaches and Shinnra? ODN just keeps getting more and more insane.
Edit: Congrats, old friends.

I voted Sunstar.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Master Holton]

Schattenmann is still obsessed with all things ODN and OsRavan, go figure.

 

 

Congrats and good luck, ODN.

 

I guess he needs a hobby now that he's sold out his morals.

[SirWilliam]

Oh, yes, go figure that a discussion of ODN policy over the past 3 years in centered around the only person who has been Secretary General for the past 3 years. 

Ho ho ho, very clever, Will; got me there. Crazy ol' Schatt discussing politics and the politicians who enact them in the Alliance Politics forum. Cynics like you claim the OWF is a cesspool, dead. Cynics like me make you look silly.

 

Oh pardon me, Schattenmann, I simply inferred from your 800-word mini-treatise, in conjunction with the salient points involving ODN made here and here, that you were doing more than saving the OWF with your musings. Here I thought you clearly have an agenda that is at least partly obsessive in nature and take every opportunity to bring it up. But your posts certainly don't indicate that. Silly me indeed.