Official Ordo Mechanicus Announcement

[Jay Kay]

Well....that was something...

[Galerion]

3 hours ago, Marcvs said:

I did not want the intervention of CotM and the help of other players who wrote to me on Discord. Maybe I had to accept but it was not honorable for me, to ask or receive for help.

As far as OM is concerned, we are an alliance with less than 100 days of life and our nations are all newbie. We have a long way to go, I think our yield is not a drama

 

You may feel that way but the purpose of protectorate treaties is for the protector to intervene in your affairs until you're in a position where the treaty can be upgraded and you're more capable at fending off threats for yourself.

[Vortagre]

3 hours ago, Marcvs said:

I did not want the intervention of CotM and the help of other players who wrote to me on Discord. Maybe I had to accept but it was not honorable for me, to ask or receive for help.

As far as OM is concerned, we are an alliance with less than 100 days of life and our nations are all newbie. We have a long way to go, I think our yield is not a drama

I feel you should have requested CoTM's help in military and diplomatic areas. They are liable to help u guys out even at a state of dishonour. In any case its not abt the honour or dishonour of CoTM, what matters is saving ur allies from attacks from an experienced and powerful opponent, it should been ur only priority. 

 

Its always better to keep one guy at CoTM in the loop at all time while you are doing diplomacy/threats with or against other sovereigns. Anyways these incidents teaches u things. 

[Blackatron]

9 hours ago, White Chocolate said:

 

A Protectorate is not an extension of their protector anymore than a child is an extension of a parent or a pet is an extension of it's owner.  What this means is for whatever reason (ask them) CotM did not get involved.  I'm sure if Ordo Mechanic is concerned they will be looking for a different protector.  If they are not concerned (maybe they wanted to deal with it on their own) that's their choice too.

This, I am sure CotM could and would have helped if they had been made aware of what was going on. Even if they themselves lacked the fighting nations in the appropriate range, I'm sure they had allies that would be willing to lend a hand if required.

[Mogar]

10 hours ago, Galerion said:

 

You may feel that way but the purpose of protectorate treaties is for the protector to intervene in your affairs until you're in a position where the treaty can be upgraded and you're more capable at fending off threats for yourself.

Ever think sometimes the protector has to let their protectorate learn a lesson?

[Galerion]

31 minutes ago, Mogar said:

Ever think sometimes the protector has to let their protectorate learn a lesson?

 

I would say there is a fundamental problem with the relationship or teaching methodology if your letting a 2 man AA gain a victory over your protectorate.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Galerion

[Mogar]

As an alliance that refuses to ever call in allies if there is a risk of a loss, I'd think you'd be well aware that sometimes the best choice is to just bite the bullet and take a loss.

[Galerion]

14 minutes ago, Mogar said:

As an alliance that refuses to ever call in allies if there is a risk of a loss, I'd think you'd be well aware that sometimes the best choice is to just bite the bullet and take a loss.

 

I am but we are not a protectorate nor do we currently have any protectorates, we favour ODoAP because it gives that kind of flexibility and the relationship requirements are different. If your not willing to live up to your responsibilities under a protectorate agreement then you shouldn't making those kind of agreements in the first place, use O or M levels instead.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Galerion

[Noctis Lucis Caelum]

5 minutes ago, Galerion said:

I am but we are not a protectorate nor do we currently have any protectorates, we favour ODoAP because it gives that kind of flexibility and the relationship requirements are different. If your not willing to live up to your responsibilities under a protectorate agreement then you shouldn't making those kind of agreements in the first place, use O or M levels instead.

We had already agreed with OM we would finish the current round of war with neither of us pulling in allies. So regardless of who you think might have started this war and whether a protectorate agreement would even come into effect for them under the circumstances; the agreement we came to with OM made their protector getting involved unneeded. Although the war is over, so I think arguing with you over whether their protectorate should have come into play had we not made that agreement pointless. However I think my original announcement regarding this war makes pretty clear I considered this a defensive war. (Had we never been attacked, there never would have been a war with them.)

 

Seeing the Aevum Mechanicus War Stats, it became clear to OM they were losing without needing to have the entire round of war play out & decided they'd rather just admit defeat than take the losses an entire round of war would have brought them.

[Galerion]

4 minutes ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

We had already agreed with OM we would finish the current round of war with neither of us pulling in allies. So regardless of who you think might have started this war and whether a protectorate agreement would even come into effect for them under the circumstances; the agreement we came to with OM made their protector getting involved unneeded. Although the war is over, so I think arguing with you over whether their protectorate should have come into play had we not made that agreement pointless. However I think my original announcement regarding this war makes pretty clear I considered this a defensive war. (Had we never been attacked, there never would have been a war with them.)

 

Seeing the Aevum Mechanicus War Stats, it became clear to OM they were losing without needing to have the entire round of war play out & decided they'd rather just admit defeat than take the losses an entire round of war would have brought them.

 

To be clear my motivation isn't to make you, OM or CotM look good or bad, my motivation for posting in this thread is that there have been a number of events happening with protectorates which really shouldn't be happening in my opinion. This then leads me to believe that people are blindly creating these agreements and ending up in situations that are unfair on one or both parties.

[Noctis Lucis Caelum]

57 minutes ago, Galerion said:

To be clear my motivation isn't to make you, OM or CotM look good or bad, my motivation for posting in this thread is that there have been a number of events happening with protectorates which really shouldn't be happening in my opinion. This then leads me to believe that people are blindly creating these agreements and ending up in situations that are unfair on one or both parties.

There isn't just one way a Protectorate Agreement needs to work, one party conceding some of their sovereignty isn't needed.

 

"Protectorate, in international relations, the relationship between two states one of which exercises some decisive control over the other. The degree of control may vary from a situation in which the protecting state guarantees and protects the safety of the other, to one that is a masked form of annexation."

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/protectorate-international-relations

You seem to view the correct way for a protectorate agreement to work as closer to a masked form of annexation. However our agreement with Non Grata for example is one where the only form of control they have over us is under which situation they would guarantee our protection. (The bare minimum level of control)

Edited July 21, 2017 by Noctis Lucis Caelum

[Galerion]

23 hours ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

However our agreement with Non Grata for example is one where the only form of control they have over us is under which situation they would guarantee our protection. (The bare minimum level of control)

 

So your either saying your protection isn't guaranteed and therefore optional or NG have a constant level of control over you. If your implying that their control is only in relation to war, then that would include your public speaking and FA direction should they desire to exert that control as those could be a factor in war breaking out. 

[Noctis Lucis Caelum]

16 minutes ago, Galerion said:

 

So your either saying your protection isn't guaranteed and therefore optional or NG have a constant level of control over you. If your implying that their control is only in relation to war, then that would include your public speaking and FA direction should they desire to exert that control as those could be a factor in war breaking out. 

If I were to start a war without the expectation of them assisting, I could do so without violating any agreement. That is what I meant.

 

Any treaty or agreement could technically be cancelled if the FA paths of both parties were to diverge enough, so if the possibility of cancellation suggests some level of control; that applies to every type of treaty.

[Galerion]

1 hour ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

Any treaty or agreement could technically be cancelled if the FA paths of both parties were to diverge enough, so if the possibility of cancellation suggests some level of control; that applies to every type of treaty.

 

It's not quite the same, their control places them in a position of being able to tell you not to form agreements with certain people if they consider it a war risk and if you then go and do so you are the one violating the treaty. Where as with other treaties no one has a right to tell you what to do, only to respond to what you do.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Galerion

[Noctis Lucis Caelum]

1 minute ago, Galerion said:

 

It's not quite the same, their control places them in a position of being able to tell you not to form agreements with certain people if they consider it a war risk and if you then go and do so you are the one violating the treaty. Where as with other treaties no one has a right to tell you what do to, only to respond to what you do.

If that were part of the agreement, then maybe there would be a violation. Although in our case, there would be no violation. If I signed with someone they didn't like, whether they would want to keep the agreement or we would be on our own if we were to activate that treaty would be an open question (Assuming I were to do so without communicating with them first).

 

So while it makes sense for me to keep them in the loop on what is going on, there is no requirement for me to do so. Although if I don't keep them in the loop and sign with an alliance they dislike; there would be a risk of a negative response. (As with any other treaty or agreement)

[Randalla]

I rarely feel the need to visit this particular area of Planet Bob anymore, but since we were mentioned, I thought I'd clarify a thing or two for anyone who cares enough to read this far down.

 

The manner in which I handle our protectorates is determined on a case-by-case basis. No two people are alike, no two alliances are alike. Some of our protectorates have required quite a lot of hands-on instruction and very close monitoring. Others have a better feel for things and only need the blanket protection from raiders a protectorate agreement offers. The level of meddling I do in our protectorates' affairs depends on their needs or wishes, as well as my own observations. I'm well aware of what a fledgling alliance we've taken under our wing needs in any given incident. Occasionally, even a bit of fisticuffs provide an appropriate enough lesson for both sides, as long as it remains controlled, contained, and it is not a disproportionate reaction for only a minor offense. I encourage diplomacy and self defense, never bullying.

Sometimes I think in our old age and the condition Planet Bob is currently in, we forget the valuable lessons that are best learned when young and wee little, rather than later, smack in the middle of a complicated treaty web. Let the younguns stretch and exercise their wings, give them the chance to make their own decisions and learn from an occasional scraped knee. We're so accustomed to the tiniest conflict blowing out of proportion to the point of triggering the next Great War that their youthful enthusiasm is smothered and trolled to death. Weren't we all in their shoes once upon a time?

 

While I have absolutely no need to convince anyone else of my own actions on behalf of CotM where our protectorates are concerned, I will briefly point out that my attention was indeed directed toward this incident in question, and I did indeed step in to find out what I could of the other party's grievance. It was determined at that time that the wars would simply expire, so my role then shifted to offering monetary assistance to those who found themselves in the midst of the scuffle. While my counsel would have favored simply allowing the wars to expire as previously agreed, a different decision was made (obviously), which he felt would make it easier to clean house and make some positive changes in his alliance. 

 

I can't speak for other protectorates, but our protectorates are not our tech farms, their leaders are not my clones or servants. We do our best to show them what we know, what we've learned, advise as best we can, keep them as safe as possible, and give them the room, patience and opportunity they need to flourish, if they in fact have the drive and desire themselves to do so. 

 

I hope that satisfies anyone's morbid curiosity and puts to rest any lingering questions about their protectorate agreement or our part in it. 

Cheers, all.

 

 

[General Kanabis]

36 minutes ago, Randalla said:

I rarely feel the need to visit this particular area of Planet Bob anymore, but since we were mentioned, I thought I'd clarify a thing or two for anyone who cares enough to read this far down.

 

The manner in which I handle our protectorates is determined on a case-by-case basis. No two people are alike, no two alliances are alike. Some of our protectorates have required quite a lot of hands-on instruction and very close monitoring. Others have a better feel for things and only need the blanket protection from raiders a protectorate agreement offers. The level of meddling I do in our protectorates' affairs depends on their needs or wishes, as well as my own observations. I'm well aware of what a fledgling alliance we've taken under our wing needs in any given incident. Occasionally, even a bit of fisticuffs provide an appropriate enough lesson for both sides, as long as it remains controlled, contained, and it is not a disproportionate reaction for only a minor offense. I encourage diplomacy and self defense, never bullying.

Sometimes I think in our old age and the condition Planet Bob is currently in, we forget the valuable lessons that are best learned when young and wee little, rather than later, smack in the middle of a complicated treaty web. Let the younguns stretch and exercise their wings, give them the chance to make their own decisions and learn from an occasional scraped knee. We're so accustomed to the tiniest conflict blowing out of proportion to the point of triggering the next Great War that their youthful enthusiasm is smothered and trolled to death. Weren't we all in their shoes once upon a time?

 

While I have absolutely no need to convince anyone else of my own actions on behalf of CotM where our protectorates are concerned, I will briefly point out that my attention was indeed directed toward this incident in question, and I did indeed step in to find out what I could of the other party's grievance. It was determined at that time that the wars would simply expire, so my role then shifted to offering monetary assistance to those who found themselves in the midst of the scuffle. While my counsel would have favored simply allowing the wars to expire as previously agreed, a different decision was made (obviously), which he felt would make it easier to clean house and make some positive changes in his alliance. 

 

I can't speak for other protectorates, but our protectorates are not our tech farms, their leaders are not my clones or servants. We do our best to show them what we know, what we've learned, advise as best we can, keep them as safe as possible, and give them the room, patience and opportunity they need to flourish, if they in fact have the drive and desire themselves to do so. 

 

I hope that satisfies anyone's morbid curiosity and puts to rest any lingering questions about their protectorate agreement or our part in it. 

Cheers, all.

 

 

 

Well said.

 

o/

[Captain Enema]

I think Randalla encapsulates my thinking on protectorates quite well. It might sting to have Methrage force his nuts down your throat, repeatedly, and then make you admit you were wrong for not tickling his taint while he's plunging his wee nubbings past your front teeth. However, the sting of that sort of thing is nothing like the sting of something else that is much more violent and forcible. 

 

Little harsh lessons pay big dividends down the road, well for some they do. Others not so much. 

[General Kanabis]

6 hours ago, Captain Enema said:

It might sting to have Methrage force his nuts down your throat, repeatedly, and then make you admit you were wrong for not tickling his taint while he's plunging his wee nubbings past your front teeth. 

 

Lololol

[The Big Bad]

So an alliance with 17 members, a protector and a ODP gets defeated the publicly humiliated by two nations?  Two?  You might as well disband right now.  That is just embarrassing.  Used to be letting a protectorate get beaten up would have been unthinkable and allowing it a sure sign of weakness.  TWO nations?  Two? Planet Bob in 2017, taking the protect out of protectorate.  

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by The Big Bad

[Diego]

Not to throw a spanner into the works of the mess that is micro alliance drama - but this surrender wasn't mutually agreed by the other members of the triumvirate at OM.

 

Admitting defeat to a 2 man alliance that we're more than capable of dealing with is a mistake in my opinion.

 

That said for the time being we are willing to stand by Marcvs' decision, even if a little brash, as I respect him as a player and as a person.

[Lord Hitchcock]

I wouldn't worry about it too much... OM will get over it in about 3-5 years

[James Spanier]

5 hours ago, Diego said:

Not to throw a spanner into the works of the mess that is micro alliance drama - but this surrender wasn't mutually agreed by the other members of the triumvirate at OM.

 

Admitting defeat to a 2 man alliance that we're more than capable of dealing with is a mistake in my opinion.

 

That said for the time being we are willing to stand by Marcvs' decision, even if a little brash, as I respect him as a player and as a person.

 

Apparently not enough respect to spare this nugget of public embarrassment, which I'll add serves no FA purpose seeing as you aren't going to override the decision "for the time being". Granted Marcvs seems to have handled embarrassing themselves all on their own regardless.

[Diego]

1 hour ago, James Spanier said:

 

Apparently not enough respect to spare this nugget of public embarrassment, which I'll add serves no FA purpose seeing as you aren't going to override the decision "for the time being". Granted Marcvs seems to have handled embarrassing themselves all on their own regardless.

It absolutely serves FA purpose. Context into a bad decision by a single party - it doesn't and shouldn't represent OM's competency as a whole. It would be foolish to overrule this decision now and renew a war which was completely unnecessary in the first place.

 

Theres nothing wrong with a little transparency. It's a new micro alliance, mistakes are going to be made. We're still shaping our alliance and government. 

[James Spanier]

14 minutes ago, Diego said:

It absolutely serves FA purpose. Context into a bad decision by a single party - it doesn't and shouldn't represent OM's competency as a whole. It would be foolish to overrule this decision now and renew a war which was completely unnecessary in the first place.

 

Theres nothing wrong with a little transparency. It's a new micro alliance, mistakes are going to be made. We're still shaping our alliance and government. 

 

Call me a political novice, but I don't believe pointing to your alliance owner and 'respected' Triumvir peer and calling their competence into question publicly is going to improve peoples opinion of an AA that just surrendered to a two man AA they allegedly are more then capable of dealing with. Also yes, it would be foolish, which is why it was foolish to bring up and inform everyone that this was a unilateral "mistake" and "bad decision" which was promptly adopted as a position and will thus still serve as your legacy. Of course you did get to throw in that foreboding "for the time being" as if you were going to do something about it later. 

 

Transparency to save face is best left for friends and allies behind closed doors, not aired as dirty laundry, regardless of how much febreze labeled "respect" you spray on it.