Another Kaskus Annoucement

[dabigbluewhale]

As an immigrant from Planet Terra, I applaud any move towards a paperless and less cluttered political landscape. Good on ya guys.

[mmansfield68]

 

No alliance has exercised these options though. 

 

All three of Ivan's creations have.  The Moldavi Doctrine is instituted wherever its' namesake plants a flag.

[Spartacus1082]

Damn you Kaskus.  Stop making me like you.

[White Chocolate]

Okay, Kaskus.  So noted.

 

I have to admit, this makes me slightly curious in terms of the general "feel" of the community at this point.  IF some alliance decided to defend some other alliance without a treaty or without having made a statement like this and is not generally known for being paperless (looking at you Kashmir and FAN :D ), would other alliances care enough to "do something about it" on a military level?

[HM Solomon I]

Okay, Kaskus.  So noted.

 

I have to admit, this makes me slightly curious in terms of the general "feel" of the community at this point.  IF some alliance decided to defend some other alliance without a treaty or without having made a statement like this and is not generally known for being paperless (looking at you Kashmir and FAN :D ), would other alliances care enough to "do something about it" on a military level?

 

Probably not, but unwanted help could be met with hostility if an alliance believes its sovereignty is being challenged.

[Unknown Smurf]

Okay, Kaskus.  So noted.

 

I have to admit, this makes me slightly curious in terms of the general "feel" of the community at this point.  IF some alliance decided to defend some other alliance without a treaty or without having made a statement like this and is not generally known for being paperless (looking at you Kashmir and FAN :D ), would other alliances care enough to "do something about it" on a military level?

 

I'm sure the allied parties of the alliance that was "defended on" will "do something about it" regardless if a statement was made or not.

[White Chocolate]

 

I'm sure the allied parties of the alliance that was "defended on" will "do something about it" regardless if a statement was made or not.

I am sure of that as well, assuming the alliance defended has traditional treaty allies.  An alliance needs to consider allies of a potential alliance regardless when looking at going to war for any reason.

 

However, Kaskus decided to make this announcement and I'm sure various situations were discussed before doing so.  I've written charters before and have added similar statements because I can imagine situations where it might be a good option to have. 

 

The argument for making this clear in a charter or public statement is that (in theory) it is somehow is in the interest of the alliance making the statement to do so.  My question is at this point, what threat (if any) is being avoided in 2015 (as opposed to the "old school" thought in 2007) by making such statement(s)?

 

Are there still e-lawyers willing to argue the point who matter?  Would an alliance coming to the defense of another without a treaty cause enough outrage that the alliance would become the next target to get rolled?  Would an act like that flip the scale in a war to the point where the coalition that would of won is now in danger of losing?

 

Or is this just an old habit that we really don't need anymore?

 

(I really don't know the answer.  That's why I'm curious.) 

[saxasm]

I am sure of that as well, assuming the alliance defended has traditional treaty allies.  An alliance needs to consider allies of a potential alliance regardless when looking at going to war for any reason.

 

However, Kaskus decided to make this announcement and I'm sure various situations were discussed before doing so.  I've written charters before and have added similar statements because I can imagine situations where it might be a good option to have. 

 

The argument for making this clear in a charter or public statement is that (in theory) it is somehow is in the interest of the alliance making the statement to do so.  My question is at this point, what threat (if any) is being avoided in 2015 (as opposed to the "old school" thought in 2007) by making such statement(s)?

 

Are there still e-lawyers willing to argue the point who matter?  Would an alliance coming to the defense of another without a treaty cause enough outrage that the alliance would become the next target to get rolled?  Would an act like that flip the scale in a war to the point where the coalition that would of won is now in danger of losing?

 

Or is this just an old habit that we really don't need anymore?

 

(I really don't know the answer.  That's why I'm curious.) 

 

Well, coming into a war without a treaty was used as a "reason" to demand reparations after the fall of reparations as a general-use sort of thing. Perhaps one can hope that one, by warning people of the possibility, might not get harsher peace terms in case one loses such a war?

[Unknown Smurf]

I am sure of that as well, assuming the alliance defended has traditional treaty allies.  An alliance needs to consider allies of a potential alliance regardless when looking at going to war for any reason.

 

However, Kaskus decided to make this announcement and I'm sure various situations were discussed before doing so.  I've written charters before and have added similar statements because I can imagine situations where it might be a good option to have. 

 

The argument for making this clear in a charter or public statement is that (in theory) it is somehow is in the interest of the alliance making the statement to do so.  My question is at this point, what threat (if any) is being avoided in 2015 (as opposed to the "old school" thought in 2007) by making such statement(s)?

 

Are there still e-lawyers willing to argue the point who matter?  Would an alliance coming to the defense of another without a treaty cause enough outrage that the alliance would become the next target to get rolled?  Would an act like that flip the scale in a war to the point where the coalition that would of won is now in danger of losing?

 

Or is this just an old habit that we really don't need anymore?

 

(I really don't know the answer.  That's why I'm curious.) 

 

To echo sax, the reason someone enters usually has some bearing on peace talks. And us entering with this announced can't hurt. 

[Duderonomy]

The real question is if Kaskus's activism will finally free Franz.

[the rebel]

And us entering with this announced can't hurt. 

You say that now, but I can already predict the topic subject that will arise if it is used against you some time in the future.

[Unknown Smurf]

You say that now, but I can already predict the topic subject that will arise if it is used against you some time in the future.

 

Alas the issue of transparency. Once your cards are shown they do lose a bit of effectiveness, don't they? 

[White Chocolate]

 

Well, coming into a war without a treaty was used as a "reason" to demand reparations after the fall of reparations as a general-use sort of thing. Perhaps one can hope that one, by warning people of the possibility, might not get harsher peace terms in case one loses such a war?

So, taking this into account assuming it is a reason, in the case that one is on the winning side it doesn't matter.  Correct?

Edited March 26, 2015 by White Chocolate

[Unknown Smurf]

So, taking this into account assuming it is a reason, in the case that one is on the winning side it doesn't matter.  Correct?

 

The doctrine is for defending those that are attacked for no reason. I doubt that side will be the winning side. 

[YOLO SWAG]

I am sure of that as well, assuming the alliance defended has traditional treaty allies.  An alliance needs to consider allies of a potential alliance regardless when looking at going to war for any reason.
 
However, Kaskus decided to make this announcement and I'm sure various situations were discussed before doing so.  I've written charters before and have added similar statements because I can imagine situations where it might be a good option to have. 
 
The argument for making this clear in a charter or public statement is that (in theory) it is somehow is in the interest of the alliance making the statement to do so.  My question is at this point, what threat (if any) is being avoided in 2015 (as opposed to the "old school" thought in 2007) by making such statement(s)?
 
Are there still e-lawyers willing to argue the point who matter?  Would an alliance coming to the defense of another without a treaty cause enough outrage that the alliance would become the next target to get rolled?  Would an act like that flip the scale in a war to the point where the coalition that would of won is now in danger of losing?
 
Or is this just an old habit that we really don't need anymore?
 
(I really don't know the answer.  That's why I'm curious.) 

Replying to some of what you said here, AMAZON CINNABON. I don't claim to know the intentions of Kaskus, but speaking from experience, it is in the interest of Kaskus to post this announcement to let the world, their allies, and their current/potential membership know they're moving towards operating without formal treaties. Once Kaskus begins to be identified as one of the paperless alliances that you mentioned in your post, they can and probably will scrap this piece of paper too. Edited March 26, 2015 by YOLO SWAG

[Sigrun Vapneir]

No one has ever used it though.

 

 

No alliance has exercised these options though. 

 

 

I will just point out that we actually DID exercise precisely this option to join the 'losing' side in a global war previously, back in 2011.

 

But again, a good thing, and about time more people thought about it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[White Chocolate]

 

The doctrine is for defending those that are attacked for no reason. I doubt that side will be the winning side. 

For argument's sake only, I'll accept this statement as true.  However, then (if true) I have to ask, why bother making it and being concerned about peace talks if there is no doubt about being on the winning side in the first place? 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

For argument's sake only, I'll accept this statement as true.  However, then (if true) I have to ask, why bother making it and being concerned about peace talks if there is no doubt about being on the winning side in the first place? 

 

I think you must have misunderstood. It's precisely those that are on the 'losing side' that have to fear attempts to impose onerous terms - whatever the morality of the case that can be made, it's the victors that will be in a position to attempt to impose terms, not the other way around.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[White Chocolate]

 

I think you misunderstood something badly, It's precisely those that are on the 'losing side' that have to fear attempts to impose onerous terms - whatever the morality of the case that can be made, it's the victors that will be in a position to impose terms, not the other way around.

After rereading what smurf said, I believe you are correct in terms of his meaning.

 

It wasn't clear to me if "that side" in his statement was the side attacking or the side defending.  I get the point if "that side" is the one attacked in the first place, defending and also the losing side.

Edited March 26, 2015 by White Chocolate

[KenMorningstar]

Kaskus finally posting that they DONT need secret made up treaties anymore to try to be relevant? Say it isn't so. Regardless I'm sure your masters at NEW are happy to be able to get involved in things more easily by ghosting you whenever they feel like it after you blunder into something you can't handle.

[Tehmina]

Looks Good Kaskus!
o/ Smurfism

[Unknown Smurf]

Kaskus finally posting that they DONT need secret made up treaties anymore to try to be relevant? Say it isn't so. Regardless I'm sure your masters at NEW are happy to be able to get involved in things more easily by ghosting you whenever they feel like it after you blunder into something you can't handle.

 

Still butthurt I see.

 

We've never entered on a 'secret' treaty. Though we do hold a couple such arrangements. 

[Walshington]

 

Kaskus has ratified the moldavi doctrine (minus article 4 and 6). 

 

Whereas, it is the opinion of the New Sith Order Kaskus that all alliances possess naturally the right to act justly in the interests of themselves, their friends, and their allies and as such, optional defense and aggression treaties imply through their very existence that this right is guaranteed not by nature but by the treaties themselves, but recognizing that not all peoples in the Cyberverse yet realize the superfluity of optional defense and aggression treaties, we adopt this doctrine as our sovereign right.

 

Article I

The New Sith Order Kaskus shall retain the option, though not the obligation, to declare war in the defense of any alliance that finds itself the victim of foreign aggression. Reciprocally, the New Sith Order Kaskus acknowledges that all alliances retain the same option to defend it.

 

Article II

The New Sith Order Kaskus shall retain the option, though not the obligation, to declare war in the support of any alliance that has initiated warfare against another. Reciprocally, the New Sith Order Kaskus acknowledges that all alliances retain the same option to war in support of it.

 

Article III

The New Sith Order Kaskus shall retain the option, though not the obligation, to share intelligence critical to the security of another alliance with it. Reciprocally, the New Sith Order Kaskus acknowledges that all alliances retain the same option to share intelligence with it.

 

 

 

 

"You've had the power all along, my dear!"

 

We all have, but few will acknowledge it! Congrats to our allies in Kaskus -- this is a good move.  Not without risk of course -- the main reason SRA hasn't shed the same shackles (see the "For Policy Wonks Only section of our Lawyers, Guns and Money Doctrine announcement) is that while Moldavi-ing on the offense is easy and liberating, there is never a guarantee that others will Moldavi in for you on the defensive.

 

Congrats on donning the ruby slippers!

[YOLO SWAG]

 

[font='times new roman']"You've had the power all along, my dear!"[/font]

 

We all have, but few will acknowledge it! Congrats to our allies in Kaskus -- this is a good move.  Not without risk of course -- the main reason SRA hasn't shed the same shackles (see the "For Policy Wonks Only section of our Lawyers, Guns and Money Doctrine announcement) is that while Moldavi-ing on the offense is easy and liberating, there is never a guarantee that others will Moldavi in for you on the defensive.
 
Congrats on donning the ruby slippers!

Of course we will!

[Sephiroth]

Limitless Nexus / Kerberos Nexus has always had this policy, this was one of the things I agreed with Moldavi on. Those who cower at the thought of action without one of their allies to always lead them in the 'right' direction are pathetic.

 

War and politics are a constantly changing dynamic, no one is forced continued allegiance with an alliance doing things they don't like. No one is forced to sit out and watch when an alliance is getting hit for not having a lot of treaty ties.

 

Limitless Nexus rolls to war depending on what we find to be the right course of action. We value our allies and are more than willing to defend them, however treaty chains can't dictate our actions unless we choose to do it regardless. Why an ally is at war and whether your help counts as defending them against a curb stomp or bandwaggoning in to assist in a curb stomp makes a difference.

 

Even though we've mostly found ourselves in defensive wars since forming as Limitless Nexus, as Kerberos Nexus we came to the aid of many alliance who found themselves being rolled without reason. This policy has been in effect for a long time, however with an official announcement from Kaskus now also, no one can say they didn't get fair warning unprovoked aggression against the wrong people can result in an attack from Kaskus and allies. An example I can think of recently was when NPO was getting curb stomped by Pandora's Box, as I know we've exercised this option many times when going under Kerberos Nexus.

 

GOONS complain they can't follow a paper trail to track what Kaskus will do ahead of time, as GOONS attack whoever they want and don't even follow their own raid rules. Eventually things will catch up with them.

 

Just as some will attack whoever they feel like, others will defend whoever they feel like helping without needing a prior commitment to do so.

 

o/ Kaskus

 

I look forward to hitting those most deserving alongside you guys when you find a good situation to activate this. We the nations decide the course of history, not a few mostly retired has been leaders, who are mostly looking out for their own benefit and will leech onto whoever they think is the safest option to pledge loyalty to.