[Hymenbreach]

Ok, so I'm like discussing this within my own AA and I thought, let's get it out there among the masses and see what they think.

Do you agree with the following statement.:

Quote

"Optional clauses are essentially useless. Either you like someone enough to defend them or you trust someone's judgement enough to go all aggressive with them - or you don't."

Now, the major argument I've heard so far is the 'But we need something between PIAT and MDP! " To that I say... no we don't. Not really. Just don't sign a treaty and wait a little longer or use a little imagination and think of a treaty stepping stone if you must.

I'm aware that my own AA has one of these things, so save yourself some research time. I hope we can convert that into a proper MDP at the right time. Oh and needless to say, this is a personal position and not necessarily shared by my alliance.

This post has been edited by Hymenbreach: 10 August 2009 - 12:23 PM

[James Dahl]

Most ODPs are attached to things that weren't built with military purposes in mind, such as colour unity treaties or PIATs, and are worded essentially as "And hey, if you want to defend us in wartime as well, that's cool too".

I don't see anything wrong with ODPs at all, and I don't see why a colour unity treaty where people want to toss in a mutual defense clause should be honour bound by an MDP for something they signed mostly for free trade and senate voting.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

"Legally-binding" clauses are useless because there's never going to be a Cybernations World Court to punish people for disobeying a treaty. So why do we sign treaties? No idea, I guess some people just like the attention.

[James Dahl]

Stonewall Jaxon, on Aug 10 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

"Legally-binding" clauses are useless because there's never going to be a Cybernations World Court to punish people for disobeying a treaty. So why do we sign treaties? No idea, I guess some people just like the attention.

Treaties are essentially written promises. If you break your promise to someone that you were going to defend them in war, they are obviously going to be pissed off at you, and it will harm the relationship between your two alliances. Also, it does put a black mark on the 'honor' of an alliance, which is the only real tangible asset other than raw power than an alliance has.

[Emperor Nigel]

I'd say yeah, ODP's are good if you want something a bit stronger in writing to go by with your allies, but just waiting it out till something else comes up would probably be better. That is unless of course you anticipate a war soon and need as many bro's on your side as possible.

[Vanadrin Failing]

When signing a treaty with an alliance, you are showing faith in the leadership of that alliance to do the Right Thing in matters of war and diplomacy. That much is generally agreed upon.

What happens when the government of an Alliance changes? If you've got a 'mandatory' Defense/Aggression pact, you just automatically throw your support behind a potentially unknown new ruler or withdraw the pact, right?

An Optional pact gives an ally's new government time to settle in and find its footing while still providing that 'safety net' for your own alliance to opt out of any ill-advised decisions during that period of acclimation.

[Epik High]

You trust the other party enough to allow them to make their own judgment call on whether to defend them or not. ODP's are the strongest pacts in the game, true story

[King Xander the Only]

Optional clauses are indeed useless, which is why I use them as much as possible. The Hymenbreach position is always a fun one.

[Tron Paul]

Optional treaties are really only a political tool. Take this example:

Alliance X has membership in a color bloc, and MDP+ with several alliances. Global War starts, ensnaring both the color bloc and their other treaties. Does Alliance X roll with the color bloc or one of the individual alliances tied to them?

Optional defense pacts are needed to aid alliances who are trapped with multiple MDP+ treaties and a color bloc, or other blocs.

[bzelger]

You're looking at it wrong. The ODP has no influence on what the signatory alliances can or should do (other than the normal accompanying NAP). An ODP is fair warning to other alliances that they ought to keep you in mind when making war plans. A treaty has defensive merit simply by being public record; an alliance is less likely to be attacked over petty affairs if they have allies.

This post has been edited by bzelger: 10 August 2009 - 01:36 PM

[Captain Flinders]

While I agree that optional clauses are largely useless, the precedent has been set that you may indeed need one if you intend to successfully defend someone. Look at the Karma war. MHA declared that they would attack anyone who bandwagoned into the war against the NPO. In this instance an alliance would be putting theira alliance at risk if they did not hold an ODP with the participants.

[Learz]

MDP's are useless.
Yes, that's an "M" there.
Why? Well, it's a bit complicated, but here's my opinion.

The overarching premise: ODP's and MDP's are identical*.
Now, you're probably sitting there thinking "wtf? no they aren't!". Well, it's true. Think about it. The ONLY difference between the treaties is that MDP's "require" someone to defend, while ODP's are "optional". However, they BOTH have cancellation clauses. Now, I have to ask, why? Why does a MDP have a cancellation clause? If two alliances are bound together and intend to defend each other no matter what, why include a cancellation clause?

The answer, of course, is because MDP's do not "require" an alliance to defend one another; the defense is optional. Just like an ODP. The only minuscule difference is that ODP's have "instant" cancellation clauses (i.e., one party chooses to not fight), while MDP's have a slight cancellation clause, which is usually somewhere between 24-72 hours. And even then, that's not a guarantee; one alliance might just not honor the treaty -- or worse, "suspend" the treaty.

In other words, a MDP and an ODP are the same thing. The MDP simply offers the possibility of defense, with a slight heads-up notice. Which, in reality, is what an ODP also does. We've all seen what MDP's are right before a war: cancellations left and right. It's like they only have ODP's, and are just choosing to not defend. So what's the difference?

In fact, I'd trust an ODP more then a MDP. Because if you're smart, you'll only be signing ODP's with those you know will defend you. With a MDP, you've never quite sure... are they going to opt out of defending you, or not? At least with an ODP there's no BS'ing. You know right where you stand.

If an MDP was really a "Mutual Defense Pact" there would be no cancellation clause. But because it has one, it's more like an "Optional Defense Pact with a possible 24/48/72 hour advance notice on whether we'll back you up or not."

*Insomuch as they are designed.

[FreddieMercury]

I don't particularly see the point in transitioning into an ODP after a PIAT, unless under special circumstances like two old enemies warming up to each other and want to take it slow.

Though I do see a value in ODPs, while I don't expect our own ODP partners (or ourselves even) to hop into to their deaths in a sucide missions over an ODP, I think in most cases, and ODP will be honored.

And Hymen I assume you're refering to the ODP between NADC and Legion, in that case, there was no PIAT before hand. Just straight into an ODP.

Quote

"Legally-binding" clauses are useless because there's never going to be a Cybernations World Court to punish people for disobeying a treaty. So why do we sign treaties? No idea, I guess some people just like the attention.

There's a thing called reputation, people break their word and are skewered for it. Future potential treaty partners bid adieu. Just look ODN or LoSS.

[CptGodzilla]

The ODP is when you want to sign a treaty with someone, but you hate their guts so much you don't want to go to war for them.

It achieves 2 goals. 1. it advances your relations with said alliance 2. It saves your alliance's $@! when they $%&@ up

win-win

[Floatsam]

I find that the Hymenbreach position is quite the agreeable one.

The only opinions that would find it objectionable are those who believe that a treaty is necessary to enter a conflict. Aside from being a convenient casus belli, I believe that the ODP is just a weakly indecisive way to link yourself to another alliance.

This post has been edited by Floatsam: 10 August 2009 - 02:29 PM

[Shodemofi]

I disagree. I think ODP's are stupid and useless and show a lack of spine, however MDoAP's are useful. MADP's can lead to a lack of control over your alliance's own military, it allows other people to use it for causes you may not support. I trust all of the STA's allies, certainly, but it's certainly possible that we have a difference of opinion regarding an issue, and I wouldn't want us forced to enter an offensive war we didn't support.

[ModusOperandi]

We have many close friends but if any of them intentionally start !@@$ to !@#$ us up than we have been intelligent enough to include an escape clause; we have also created legislation to prohibit us from running away from any fight with our tail between our legs.

We have integrity.

We make sure that our friends have integrity.

We are not perfect and if we become close friends with manipulative traitors..

We have an effective measure to watch our own back.

There is no such thing as true love.

[Machiabelly]

I think that Learz has the way of it. i think it is a little sad, but for many alliances, the M in MDP stands for Maybe.

There are exception of course, but most of the alliances that are exceptions would be among the first to honour the Optional part of an ODP as they don't treaty left and right...so they would go to bat for their ODP friend.

[WalkerNinja]

ODPs protection from allegations of being a band-wagonner. That's all.

NSO just showed us all how to do it right. Remember folks, once upon a time, treaties were the exception rather than the rule.

[Lord Brendan]

WalkerNinja, on Aug 10 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

ODPs protection from allegations of being a band-wagonner. That's all.

Umm... not really. If an alliance enters into a winning war via ODP, they're almost always accused of bandwagonning.

Of course, it's pretty stupid to enter a losing war via optional clause. The only time ODPs are useful are on the rare occasion that a single alliance will tip the scales of a conflict.