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.:



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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The honour, trust and integrity of the signing parties are what a treaty built upon and without these virtues a treaty is essentially worth less than the bit of pretend paper it is written on.

Only a fool would sign an agreement that lacks these essential elements.

A good treaty is one that announces what is already known to the world, that two alliances enjoy a close relationship based on mutual trust and have compatible world-views.

A ideal situation would be for an alliance to have only a few treaties that are of great value rather than being surrounded by false friends where it is impossible to tell if they will stick with you when it becomes inconvenient.

And it would be infinitely preferable for an alliance to be close friends with another alliance without having to formalise it in a treaty rather than have a mass of worthless treaties with various alliances that they have little in common with.

You know, it'd really insult my honor if I told an alliance that I'd go to ZI for them, and they insisted that that needed to be put into writing. If the friendship and loyalty are real, neither one of them will need to publicize the agreement.

ODPs arose out of the years-old claim that anyone getting involved in a war without a treaty was a bandwagoner or opportunist with no CB.

Bandwagoning is a construct , opportunism is a motive . All treaties do is state what an alliance CAN'T do.

A treaty is useless if friendship actually exists. A legally binded one is one that should state they are indeed your friends. ODPs are there to test if they are ready to be your friends.

I think ODP's aren't really a bad idea in that they give you some flexibility in case your ally does something incredibly stupid without your knowledge that justifiably gets them rolled. You might notice most/all of the NSO's MDPs actually put into writing that the defense is contingent on one party being attacked unjustifiably. So an ODP lets the world know that you have a military-level relationship with an ally, but you don't know each other well enough to place total faith in their decisions.

The problem is, when wars do occur around here they typically seem to fall along broadly defined pre-arranged sides, where even MDP's can get glossed over when they come into conflict with the side an alliance falls on. So the actual military utility of ODP's is pretty dubious. I'd much rather see alliances just stick to their blocs when it comes to treaties, and intervene in small conflicts where they think it's warranted (as outlined in the neo-Moldavi Doctrine). No sense in signing treaties all over the political map, only to disregard them when an actual war makes them relevant.

So that we can get some wars going without being accused of bandwagoning.

I am not averse to the Optional, however I do concur that it is, in reality, a rather useless gesture.

Actually, there are reasons for signing ODPs with specific alliances. I thought of them as follows:

1. You like them enough that you wish you could MDP them, but think them to be such fools that you wouldn't trust their judgment enough that you'd guarantee that you'd cover them.
2. People expect you to defend that alliance for some reason or other, but you're such a slime ball that you wanted to weasel out of the obligation and - voila - the ODP practically wrote itself.
3. You're afraid of commitment.
4. Your mind is still living under the shackles of the Hegemony Era and you haven't realized that you're yet free to have a real foreign policy.
5. You simply haven't gotten around to getting rid of your old ones yet.

Then you absolutely shouldn't have a treaty with them. If you can't trust them, your treaty means nothing anyways.



Both obviously poor reasons to have a treaty. I stand by what I said, ODP's are useless, stupid, and spineless.

All those reasons are valid, they're just incredibly slimy.

I've always been a critic of the ODP and the mentality it was created to support. They're redundant with the natural sovereignty of alliances. Their usage arose out of the political bickering of the Great Wars regarding alliances that engaged without treaty obligations. This was mostly a defensive construct born of the NPO, who had been defeated in the first Great War by what was dubbed the "bandwagon" effect.

Hopefully with the old political order swept away we'll see less of this nonsense centered on legal technicalities rather than on intent.

Heh.

Just a note, Learz - not sure if you read it in detail, but you should go hit the Invicta-UPN MADP. It has a cancellation clause, but it spells out when requirements to fight stop.

I supported the idea behind the current Moldavi Doctrine long before the NSO even existed: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...p;showentry=200 I wish ODPs were completely unnecessary.

so true


my opinion, if your going to sign a treaty, make it one you intend to honor. canceling looks bad and shouldnt be used as way to avoid a curb stomp, either see the treaty through the war and then cancel or never sign it in the first place, allies are allies and should help each other

Oh yes there is.



I agree with the Gopher.

Apologies, but I must concur with ModusOperandi. Love is a fragile thing, at best. The smallest mishap can shake its foundations, especially in regard to politics. In people, it is fickle and misunderstood...though I suppose one cannot rightly cast blame on another for that, given that one cannot completely understand love. Such, however, only lends more truth to the nonexistence of true love.

Love can be strong...but it cannot hold infallible truth.

I agree with the point here that MDPs = ODPs, pretty much.

The recent war showed us that MDPs and above were just thrown away, much like an ODP would. And this didn't happen in just once instance, it happened many times.

Times are a-changin'

Love, in the non-romantic sense, is the basis of true friendships on Bob, and although they are rare, I have both seen and experienced deep friendships here. It is something that goes beyond the reaches of the politics and lies and filth on these forums.... to the point where two friends would happily put down their nations for one another, and spend time wondering how to meet in real life and having OOC conversations. It's rare. And often true friendship is mistaken for an ordinary relationship. But it's there.

You are right...that is rare...but I suppose that I can agree with you in this context.

I really think the dislike of ODPs is ridiculous. I personally don't think anyone should be obligated to defend another alliance if that alliance deserves what it gets. It happens from time to time and I see nothing wrong with that as a contingent written into treaties. It also can allow a group of 5-6 alliances to not be steamrolled and not lose honor if the alliance being attacked asks them to stay out for whatever reason. Holding an MDP makes defense mandatory even if it is suicide and they don't want the help. It really has to do with the character of the alliance you are signing with. An ODP is probably more binding to some than an MDP is to others. I think MDPs are generally counterproductive to everyone in all honesty. MADPs are just madness.

Moved to World Affairs. This is pretty clear-cut IC.

2 Words - political will.

I suppose you aren't a fan of the institution of marriage then?

Yeah, I was glossing over a few things to make my point. There are some "true," binding MDP/MADP's out there (like the UPN-Invicta one, or the Harmlins one). But they are the exception rather then the rule.

Edit for clarity: by "true, binding MDP/MADP's" I mean those that will be honored no matter what, and are not considered pseudo ODP's by others.

ODPs are to do with elawyering and nothing else. Remove elawyering from our world, and ODPs would become useless - but until then, they are not.

I agree with this man here, and here are my reasons:

1: I treat ODPs like MDPs, always. I only ever sign them with people I would die 1,000+ times for, and when that check gets cashed, you better believe I'm there with the money. The reason I do ODPs instead of MDPs though, is let's say that you have a 300 member alliance that you signed an ODP with, 20 of them decide to go out and spy on everyone (including gov't) and "forget" to tell you. They of course get rolled, you look at the evidence, and know that they are in the wrong. Well, then, you don't HAVE to defend them for an unjust cause. Though you can still help with the aiding process after they are done getting rolled. It gives you an option, whereas an MDP gives you the option, but in the form of "hey, let's cancel and look like jerks."

Yes they are redundant with your sovereign rights as an alliance. I agree with that. But I think having it in paper for the world to see is a nice way of saying "Hey buddy, we got your back, and just to keep us honest, we're going to tell 28,000 leaders about this awesome friendship."

You have the option to do whatever you want anyway, so yes, optional clauses are useless. An ODP doesn't protect you from MDP chaining, which would be the only good reason to have one.

They're not useless, it just depends on who you sign them with.

Why do we go to so much trouble to manage who gets Founder, AOPs, SOPs, HOPs, and V in chans? Is it because we expect each rank to need to use their power? No, we go to these lengths to delineate the level of trust and importance we place on each individual. This is the same thing. Sure, really, all the pacts are the same, each one can be used to go to war, or excused to not need to, but, they are a clear delineation to the world of the strength of the alliance's friendship, and the magnitude or expectancy of denial or initiation of assistance to each other.

I've always assumed that ODP and OAP clauses exist mainly because the pedantic rules-lawyers in CN are far too quick to deem any attempt to enter a war to defend an ally or friend as bandwagoning unless you're treaty-forced into doing so.

"What's that? Your alliance is friendly with another one, and they just got attacked? Well, you can't defend them because you don't have an MDP with them! Huh? You say you've been friends with them for years, and feel obligated to come to their aid anyway? Too bad! You should have signed that MDP first! If you were really friends, you'd totally have gone in for an MADP long ago!"

That's crap. I've been friends with people in real life for years, and we've never felt the need to draw up contracts to delineate rights, duties, and obligations in our relationship. I wouldn't expect my best friend to sit and watch three people beating me up just because we never signed a mutual defense deal.

Plus, sometimes, the injustice of a situation is just so blatant that you feel the need to step in and get involved. If you know an alliance is getting rolled for garbage reasons, and you feel like you have the power to help them, and the inclination to step in and do so, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to get involved.

People still get bashed for stepping in without treaties on the line, though. So the ODP/OAP clauses allow an alliance to basically say "Look, we like these people, and we'll defend them when we feel they're being unfairly persecuted, and we'll join them in offensive war if we think their cause is just, but we won't be obligated to defend them or stand by their side if they do something incredibly stupid. If you need treaties or paper agreements to somehow "validate" friendship, here you go. Now shut up."