John Warbuck Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 In the beginning stages of ADI's development, RoK was there for us. Like a big brother, they gave us guidance and they protected us. We at ADI feel deeply indebted to our brothers at Ragnarok. When this whole situation developed, we saw the CB and we voiced our support for Ragnarok. We have brothers on the other side of this however. Our brothers on the other side are also likely to suffer immense damage, which may crush them for a great and long time. ADI is a typical democracy, but in times of war, the Lord High Sentinel assumes all authority, and this decision that I am about to make is my decision, and it is being made with ADI's membership and allies in mind. It is truly the most difficult decision that I've ever needed to make. For anyone that thinks running an alliance is easy- it is not. This is one of the worst parts of running an alliance and making decisions. As things have developed, ADI has noticed that what was once an airtight CB is becoming shaky. We were also told in the beginning that our friends at FEAR would not be involved with this. Due to a blunder by me personally, I did not investigate. I took RoK for their word, and TPF had a MADP with FEAR that I soon found out about. This puts ADI in a huge conflict of interest in which we have needed to choose. RoK claims that ADI must defend them, however, since RoK made the first move, this falls under Optional Aggression. In order for me to make a Declaration of War in favor of RoK, I need to see more reason to do so. FEAR attempted to have ADI mediate between the two sides, and RoK did not want to come to the table. ADI will continue to offer themselves as an unbiased mediator. Should RoK make a true and real attempt to negotiate terms with TPF and company, and those talks fail, it will be at that point that ADI will defend RoK to the death. However, without such an attempt at diplomacy over the matter, ADI will not get involved on either side of the conflict. We cannot support wiping out an entire group of alliances over a personal vendetta. It goes against what we stand for. It is why we gave peace to TDO and did not go to war. It is the same reason that we will sit this one out unless diplomacy fails. I would like no hard feelings with RoK- we still owe you a LOT, and you are still our brethren. I just cannot, in good conscience support this. I've been going back and forth over this for the past two days, and I really didn't want to be a disappointment to RoK. However, I also do not want to be a disappointment to my own members. They've been asking questions lately that I cannot give solid answers to. I cannot ignore their concerns. Their concerns are my concerns as well. Should RoK wish to mediate with TPF, ADI will be there to help. We wish to be there first hand to see if TPF is as stubborn as the claims people make indicate. If that is the case, ADI will have a just and true reason to go to war. But at the moment, we do not. I know this decision will be met with skepticism and many will begin to flame on this thread. That's fine. I don't care what people think of me- I only care what I know to be true and just. Signed for the Aqua Defense Initiative, Lord High Sentinel John Warbuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 W00T. Nice announcement heh. o/ ADI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The OP is a pretty good model for a definition of honourable conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwthegreat Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Good Luck to ADI o/ Peacemakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The OP is a pretty good model for a definition of honourable conduct. This. Good luck to you, ADI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Good show, ADI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Interesting op and I wish you the best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 RoK claims that ADI must defend them, however, since RoK made the first move, this falls under Optional Aggression. In order for me to make a Declaration of War in favor of RoK, I need to see more reason to do so. Lord High Sentinel John Warbuck Well, no. Unless your treaty has a non chaining clause, you 100% have to defend them should they come under attack. Say whatever you want, the real reason your posting this is your scared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Best of luck or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Way to see that this CB is not good. o/ ADI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny N Karl Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 +1 ADI Seems after Xmas, no one wants to attempt the civil way of mediation, then you guys come along. Honorable move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 A most honorable decision, good luck to ADI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobogoobo Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 What is right is what must be done. Good luck to all. o/ RoK o/ ADI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railic Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 o/ I agree with this. Stupid wars are stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Well, no. Unless your treaty has a non chaining clause, you 100% have to defend them should they come under attack. Say whatever you want, the real reason your posting this is your scared. Treaties are assumed not to chain anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Well, no. Unless your treaty has a non chaining clause, you 100% have to defend them should they come under attack. Say whatever you want, the real reason your posting this is your scared. Exactly. Once RoK comes under fire, ADI must go in. Oh, those shiny pixels.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borimir Resurrected Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I have a lot of respect for you, ADI. Good show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Well, no. Unless your treaty has a non chaining clause, you 100% have to defend them should they come under attack. Say whatever you want, the real reason your posting this is your scared. Are you kidding me? It took a pair of steel to stand up for what they believe in, instead of just falling in line with RoK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Treaties are assumed not to chain anyway. By who? I don't assume this. In fact, I built some non-chaining clauses into my treaties specifically because treaties ARE chaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Exactly. Once RoK comes under fire, ADI must go in.Oh, those shiny pixels.... And when FEAR comes under attack ...? btw, hai Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearHead Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Good show, ADI. You guys have got some balls, heh. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) By who? I don't assume this. In fact, I built some non-chaining clauses into my treaties specifically because treaties ARE chaining. Common knowledge back in the GWIII era days. Edited December 28, 2009 by Aeternos Astramora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Considering your treaty doesn't have a no-chain clause, you're obligated to defend RoK regardless. Not to mention, RoK helped you from your very beginning and this is how you repay them? How pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 too honorable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Populi Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I don't envy you having to make this decision but it's the right one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.