IRON is the new ODN?

[Beauty]

What I'm finding refreshing about this topic is that we've all stopped pretending that this war was because NSO is super super evil super awesome mastermind alliance that could have single-handedly plotted the war against Polar (Dilber knows allllllllllll), and are tacitly admitting this was about getting to NG and we were the easiest way to do that. That one was getting silly. 

No. NG is like the phallus and NSO are the testicles that just hang around. When people mention rolling NG it also means to roll their lapdog as well. Sorry that no one has clarified that this far. Edited November 15, 2013 by Rotavele

[Varianz]

No. NG is like the phallus of CN and NSO are the testicles that just hang around. When people mention rolling NG it also means to roll their lapdog as well. Sorry that no one has clarified that this far.

You seem really obsessed with us since you got kicked out. Kinda like Tywin except you're into less ridiculous roleplay.

[Beauty]

You seem really obsessed with us since you got kicked out. Kinda like Tywin except you're into less ridiculous roleplay.

I left and was asked to come back before I finally cut all ties. I see another good bit of people left too. I'm not obsessed at all, I just am enjoying that I got you guys rolled and didn't even mean to.

[Prodigal Moon]

Further evidence that almost every alliance out there is completely careless, lazy, or disingenuous when it comes for foreign policy. It's been time to think beyond MDP's for about 6 years now.

[Varianz]

I left and was asked to come back before I finally cut all ties. I see another good bit of people left too. I'm not obsessed at all, I just am enjoying that I got you guys rolled and didn't even mean to.

Yes Rota, you got us rolled. It was all you. Ardus and Dajabo and whatnot had nothing to do with it. Right guys?

[Ardus]

What I'm finding refreshing about this topic is that we've all stopped pretending that this war was because NSO is super super evil super awesome mastermind alliance that could have single-handedly plotted the war against Polar (Dilber knows allllllllllll), and are tacitly admitting this was about getting to NG and we were the easiest way to do that. That one was getting silly.

IRON did not launch this war. Our allies in Polaris launched this war, alongside Paradoxia and Farkistan. Whatever IRON's intentions, they do not define the grounds for this conflict.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that I still find you lot charmingly malevolent.

[Beauty]

Yes Rota, you got us rolled. It was all you. Ardus and Dajabo and whatnot had nothing to do with it. Right guys?

I release logs and they are used to roll you. I just find it funny that it happened.

IRON did not launch this war. Our allies in Polaris launched this war, alongside Paradoxia and Farkistan. Whatever IRON's intentions, they do not define the grounds for this conflict.I suppose what I am trying to say is that I still find you lot charmingly malevolent.

Excuse you but it was Polaris, Paradoxia, Farkistan, and GGA. Edited November 15, 2013 by Rotavele

[Rebel Virginia]

I left and was asked to come back before I finally cut all ties. I see another good bit of people left too. I'm not obsessed at all, I just am enjoying that I got you guys rolled and didn't even mean to.

Who asked you to come back? I remember your announcement of departure. Most of us were celebrating.

 

Also, I find it hilarious that you are IRON's sole defender. That can't bode well for them.

[Beauty]

Who asked you to come back? I remember your announcement of departure. Most of us were celebrating.
 
Also, I find it hilarious that you are IRON's sole defender. That can't bode well for them.

Someone can't read.

[Rebel Virginia]

Someone can't read.

Yes, we know. There's no need to convince anyone anymore. We all believe you.

 

Also, how long do you suppose it will be before IRON finds someone else to defend their actions? Ardus, are you available?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Rebel Virginia

[Beauty]

Yes, we know. There's no need to convince anyone anymore. We all believe you.
 
Also, how long do you suppose it will be before IRON finds someone else to defend their actions? Ardus, are you available?

"No u"s went out of fashion awhile ago. I'm disappointed RV.

[HM Solomon I]

Ok, so I've been reading through all this, and what it comes down to for me is that IRON did in fact very clearly violate their treaty with NG.  Did they some good reasons for doing so?  Perhaps.  Could both NG and IRON have done a better job of communicating and working through their differences and issues to avoid this eventual violation?  Maybe.  Would an affirmative answer to either or both of those two questions change the fact that IRON violated the treaty?  No.  

 

All this boils down to IRON violating their treaty with NG.  The rest is just spin, excuses, and justifications; some of that can be persuasive, but none of it can change the fact of the violation.  In a court, all that spin might change the sentencing, but it wouldn't change the verdict.  What each individual and alliance takes away from that is their own prerogative.

Edited November 15, 2013 by HM Solomon I

[Unknown Smurf]

 
Just gonna say, that last bit you're trying to take it where IRON was hedging their bets by keeping the treaty doesn't really stand up too well. It's been clear for a while that NG didn't have a shot so while you could try to spin IRON's refusal to support NG in a variety of ways against them, saying that IRON was hedging its bets doesn't work very well. And judging from these logs alone, IRON was not supportive of NG for quite a while, with the treaty remaining for whatever reasons.

 

 

I think those "whatever reasons" is IRON hedging their bets. From NGs perspective, if they knew this war was coming (which the logs seem to imply) then they are keeping the IRON treaty to get as much strength on their side as possible; so keeping the IRON treaty makes sense for them. But from IRONs perspective, they have zero reason to keep the treaty unless they though for some reason they were going to either a) defend direct attacks on NG due to the MD nature (which obviously didn't happen), b) limit the attacks on their ally in the way FOK used to do for RnR (didn't happen), or c) so they could continue gathering information from NGs side (as evidenced by the last few lines of the logs) and potentially join their side if they saw an opportunity to swing the whole war in their favor. 

 

Also IRON probably doesn't want to hit LoSS because they are allied to DT who is in a bloc with GLOF (IRONs MDoAP partner); I don't reckon its any more then that. 

 

 

Ironically enough, NG (in a way) can be seen to be the one hedging its political bets a bit here. Not in regards to this war, but the next. They've been preaching about how the next war will be TOP taking aim at IRON, and have been making moralist claims against TOP (and constantly talking about Beerosphere as TOP's meatshield, a claim that the stats aren't showing just yet), while simultaneously trying to publicly shame IRON. The latter may be fairly legitimate, but if IRON's been saying for this long that they were not planning on defending NG for the war that they brought upon themselves, one could easily wager the outrage is mainly for show. Especially if NG isn't cancelling the IRON/Val ties in response to such a thing. As for the former... I mean, the irony of NG making moralist claims and trying to appeal to 

Beerosphere is just flat out funny.

 

 

Whenever an alliance is stuck with ties on both sides, it's a shitty position. Handling it requires a mutual understanding from all treaty partners, regardless of if the alliance with conflicting interests is electing to join the winning side or losing side. It seems from these logs that IRON communicated to NG well in advance what their intentions were, though apparently they either didn't do so very well, or people are just milking the hell out of this. Or NG thought that the LoSS bullshit may have created wiggle room to change something

 

There is a difference between being stuck with ties on both sides and actively ensuring that you are in the middle of both sides. IRON clearly knew that this war on their MDoAP partner, NG, was coming and they were actively planning to not be on NGs side. It only follows that they intentionally chose to be in the position they are in.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Unknown Smurf

[Beauty]

Ok, so I've been reading through all this, and what it comes down to for me is that IRON did in fact very clearly violate their treaty with NG.  Did they some good reasons for doing so?  Perhaps.  Could both NG and IRON have done a better job of communicating and working through their differences and issues to avoid this eventual violation?  Maybe.  Would an affirmative answer to either or both of those two questions change the fact that IRON violated the treaty?  No.  
 
All this boils down to IRON violating their treaty with NG.  The rest is just spin, excuses, and justifications; some of that can be persuasive, but none of it can change the fact of the violation.  In a court, all that spin might change the sentencing, but it wouldn't change the verdict.  What each individual and alliance takes away from that is their own prerogative.

It sounds like they need a counselor. That or we could make a lot of money and get a lot more nations in this world by making a soap opera.

[Stealthkill]

It sounds like they need a counselor. That or we could make a lot of money and get a lot more nations in this world by making a soap opera.

 

You act like we're not a soap opera already. Damn, you really are oblivious.

[Icewolf]

Ok, so I've been reading through all this, and what it comes down to for me is that IRON did in fact very clearly violate their treaty with NG.  Did they some good reasons for doing so?  Perhaps.  Could both NG and IRON have done a better job of communicating and working through their differences and issues to avoid this eventual violation?  Maybe.  Would an affirmative answer to either or both of those two questions change the fact that IRON violated the treaty?  No.  

 

All this boils down to IRON violating their treaty with NG.  The rest is just spin, excuses, and justifications; some of that can be persuasive, but none of it can change the fact of the violation.  In a court, all that spin might change the sentencing, but it wouldn't change the verdict.  What each individual and alliance takes away from that is their own prerogative.

Well first point to this is at it is a non-chaining treaty. Ok I know its not on the wiki (all thats there is an outdated ODP which was later upgraded-oops by some of the standards declared in this thread I guess it doesn't exist?) but it states clearly that it is no chaining. Non-Grata know that it is non-chaining, and they also know that if effectively renders it an Optional treaty when they go to war on the basis of a treaty with another alliance and are attacked on that basis. They are informed that IRON will not elect to enter on an optional treaty in this war several months ago. 

As for Loss, these standards of treaty existing debates are not something I have ever seen raised in the last two years so I really struggle to see how it can be said there is a community consensus on it. Cybernations treaties are not written to any level of detail (something that should change in my opinion) but it is heavily a matter of opinion as to whether the treaty is valid or not, and I suspect those that are screaming hardest that it is not valid would rapidly change their views if the situation was reversed. 

 

Be that as it may LoSS was immediately prepared to pull out of the war. It had agreed to leave both Non-Grata and Non-Grata's allies out of the war. What advantage is there then in IRON entering? We are told that it isn't fair to let them go off and attack other members of the coalition and Non-Grata won't do that to its other coalition members. Fair enough. But IRON is not attached to this coalition. We are not obliged politically or treatywise to those other members of the coalition. Their defence is not a reason for IRON to enter into the conflict. Non-Grata's decision to continue the war is based on its involvement in the conflict to which we only hold ODP obligations towards, and can be effectively characterised as acting in defence of their other treaty ties. I do not see how it can possibly be within the spirit of a treaty that is expressly non-chaining to say that IRON must fight for that coalitions entire defence for the entire war and must immediately commit all its resources to that coalition. 

[Caustic]

Well first point to this is at it is a non-chaining treaty. Ok I know its not on the wiki (all thats there is an outdated ODP which was later upgraded-oops by some of the standards declared in this thread I guess it doesn't exist?) but it states clearly that it is no chaining. Non-Grata know that it is non-chaining, and they also know that if effectively renders it an Optional treaty when they go to war on the basis of a treaty with another alliance and are attacked on that basis. They are informed that IRON will not elect to enter on an optional treaty in this war several months ago. 

As for Loss, these standards of treaty existing debates are not something I have ever seen raised in the last two years so I really struggle to see how it can be said there is a community consensus on it. Cybernations treaties are not written to any level of detail (something that should change in my opinion) but it is heavily a matter of opinion as to whether the treaty is valid or not, and I suspect those that are screaming hardest that it is not valid would rapidly change their views if the situation was reversed. 

 

Be that as it may LoSS was immediately prepared to pull out of the war. It had agreed to leave both Non-Grata and Non-Grata's allies out of the war. What advantage is there then in IRON entering? We are told that it isn't fair to let them go off and attack other members of the coalition and Non-Grata won't do that to its other coalition members. Fair enough. But IRON is not attached to this coalition. We are not obliged politically or treatywise to those other members of the coalition. Their defence is not a reason for IRON to enter into the conflict. Non-Grata's decision to continue the war is based on its involvement in the conflict to which we only hold ODP obligations towards, and can be effectively characterised as acting in defence of their other treaty ties. I do not see how it can possibly be within the spirit of a treaty that is expressly non-chaining to say that IRON must fight for that coalitions entire defence for the entire war and must immediately commit all its resources to that coalition. 

 

Stop lying. LoSS agreed to end it's conflict with NG. There was absolutely no deal reached, nor offered, on a full pullout with no reengagement. Why on earth would we let LoSS peace out with us only to declare on NSO? On NPO? No sane alliance leadership would accept that deal and you know it.

 

As for Loss, these standards of treaty existing debates are not
something I have ever seen raised in the last two years so I really
struggle to see how it can be said there is a community consensus on it.
Cybernations treaties are not written to any level of detail (something
that should change in my opinion) but it is heavily a matter of opinion
as to whether the treaty is valid or not, and I suspect those that are
screaming hardest that it is not valid would rapidly change their views
if the situation was reversed.

 

Wtf are you talking about. Treaty's are written in EXTENSIVE detail. They are worded very clearly for a reason so there can be no ambiguity about situations such as this. Again. Stop lying.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Caustic

[Sunny Side King]

On the other hand, act like jerks to everyone and then be surprised no one wants to help you.

We certainly have a certain swag to playing this game, but we honor our treaties. Plain and simple. In the last war we were in the same position and we did a great job minimizing damage to our allies on both sides. Alliances like AI were dogpiled while their brothers in NPO and IRON were allowed to hit Umbrella without counters. For us this is the nature of holding MD level treaty, if you cross a MD level ally, you better have peppered your angus. This is why Umbrella's side won us over, because someone attacked TLR.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Sunny Side King

[MCRABT]

The treaty should have been honored whether it was convenient or not, by failing to honor it the standing IRON Council is in breach of the IRON charter. The standing council has acted with general incompetence since the start of this conflict and is unfit to lead.

 

As a result IRON is up shit creak without a paddle and is now a sitting duck for its enemies who are already circling despite being involved in a sizable conflict.

 

It is hard to imagine how anybody could have handled this war worse than the IRON Council has.

[wes the wise]

First off, NG made their bed. I'm not even sure if NG will deny that. That said, If you have a treaty, honor it. If you don't like what your treaty partner is doing, and you don't want to be put on the line to stick up for them, you cancel the treaty. IRON kept the treaty despite knowing full well what was going to happen. If you keep the treaty, you had better put a stop to the coalition forces about to roll YOUR OWN ALLY. IRON didn't do that, instead they joined the coalition and actively participated in planning that would inevitably roll THEIR OWN ALLY.  It is absolute and complete betrayal...severe incompetence and lack of leadership  and common sense at best.  Saying you "support the other side" and "we told you so" is NOT EVER a valid reason to dishonor a treaty. Anyone defending IRON's actions have absolutely zero legs to stand on. It is completely indefensible. CCC had to defend Polaris for their screw up in Bipolar. We didn't like it, but we had a treaty so we did it, and our bond is stronger than ever, btw,

 

Furthermore, there are intel sharing obligations in treaties. So, IRON's mere presence in the coalition is a huge conflict in and of itself. IRON must have violated that portion of the treaty with NG as well. If they did honor that portion, then they violated the trust placed in them with the coalition, which is also awful. IRON should not have joined the coalition in the first place. If they hadn't this war would probably not be happening right now, because no one would know that IRON wasn't supportive of NG and lots of people are afraid of IRON.

 

I actually love IRON as an alliance. Many CCCers have forged longstanding friendships with members of IRON. I am personally shocked that IRON has put themselves into this position, they've always seemed above this. With that, I don't think IRON had any malicious intent whatsoever. I think IRON's pickle is due to hesitance, lack of strong and clear leadership (I know there are some transitions going on over there), and confusion at the most basic levels of what treaty obligations mean, which is almost worse than anything else. IRON's lack of clarity has also no doubt angered some of their coalition mates. I wont go into that here. It is a political disaster of epic proportions that will not soon be healed.

 

Sorry If I anger anyone with this post, but this is how I feel.

[Samus]

The treaty should have been honored whether it was convenient or not, by failing to honor it the standing IRON Council is in breach of the IRON charter. The standing council has acted with general incompetence since the start of this conflict and is unfit to lead.

 

As a result IRON is up shit creak without a paddle and is now a sitting duck for its enemies who are already circling despite being involved in a sizable conflict.

 

It is hard to imagine how anybody could have handled this war worse than the IRON Council has.

Wasn't all the embassy talk enough?

 

I'd have expected better from you

[Sunny Side King]

I'd have expected better from IRON

Fixed that for you. 

[MCRABT]

Wasn't all the embassy talk enough?

 

I'd have expected better from you

I'd love to have continued our discussion in the embassy but your government locked all of the discussion threads because it couldn't reconcile its position with the very charter and values they are responsible for protecting. The onus is now on IRON's membership to take the action required to do so.

 

I expected better from IRON so I guess we are both disappointed eh?

[HM Solomon I]

Well first point to this is at it is a non-chaining treaty. Ok I know its not on the wiki (all thats there is an outdated ODP which was later upgraded-oops by some of the standards declared in this thread I guess it doesn't exist?) but it states clearly that it is no chaining. Non-Grata know that it is non-chaining, and they also know that if effectively renders it an Optional treaty when they go to war on the basis of a treaty with another alliance and are attacked on that basis. They are informed that IRON will not elect to enter on an optional treaty in this war several months ago. 

As for Loss, these standards of treaty existing debates are not something I have ever seen raised in the last two years so I really struggle to see how it can be said there is a community consensus on it. Cybernations treaties are not written to any level of detail (something that should change in my opinion) but it is heavily a matter of opinion as to whether the treaty is valid or not, and I suspect those that are screaming hardest that it is not valid would rapidly change their views if the situation was reversed. 

 

Be that as it may LoSS was immediately prepared to pull out of the war. It had agreed to leave both Non-Grata and Non-Grata's allies out of the war. What advantage is there then in IRON entering? We are told that it isn't fair to let them go off and attack other members of the coalition and Non-Grata won't do that to its other coalition members. Fair enough. But IRON is not attached to this coalition. We are not obliged politically or treatywise to those other members of the coalition. Their defence is not a reason for IRON to enter into the conflict. Non-Grata's decision to continue the war is based on its involvement in the conflict to which we only hold ODP obligations towards, and can be effectively characterised as acting in defence of their other treaty ties. I do not see how it can possibly be within the spirit of a treaty that is expressly non-chaining to say that IRON must fight for that coalitions entire defence for the entire war and must immediately commit all its resources to that coalition. 

 

Yes, it is definitely a non-chaining treaty, but non-chaining doesn't mean there are no obligations once a war breaks out.  They mean that obligations under a particular treaty become optional when they arise out of obligations from another, separate treaty; there can still be obligations under treaties with non-chaining clauses when they don't arise in this way.  For example, in this case, since LoSS didn't have to attack NG, and for that matter, neither did VE, there are no separate treaty obligations at work here, just an attack, plain and simple.  Thus, IRON is obligated to defend NG against LoSS upon the request of NG; in the logs, NG requested, and IRON refused to honor said request, ergo a violation of the treaty occurred.  

 

For those interested, the current text of the IRON-NG MnDoAP can be found [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105352]here[/url].  The text says that the treaty is non-chaining, although it doesn't specify further on that front, but to interpret a non-chaining clause in the way some in this thread have interpreted them would go against both the spirit and the very point behind non-chaining clauses.  They're intended to prevent alliances from being bound by treaties which they didn't sign (through their obligations to one of the signatories), they're not intended to make MDP treaties optional.  There are still plenty of circumstances in which defense is mandatory even in treaties with non-chaining clauses, and these circumstances are one of them.

[Comrade Craig]

Further evidence that almost every alliance out there is completely careless, lazy, or disingenuous when it comes for foreign policy. It's been time to think beyond MDP's for about 6 years now.

This is the most accurate and succinct comment in the thread.

I would make one minor correction: "every alliance out there is completely careless, lazy, or and disingenuous"

-Craig Edited November 15, 2013 by Comrade Craig