Jump to content

IRON is the new ODN?


D34th

Recommended Posts

Oh come on. That is one hell of a double standard. Plotting against NSO means you are by extention plotting against NG, but plotting against Polar doesn't mean you're plotting against FARK? Just get out of this Rayvon, you're smarter than this.

Again, I hope IRON and NG fix their roblems and move forward from here on out, but this entire thread is riddled with half truths and misconceptions.

NG was honest with IRON about what NG was doing. This is where I'm trying to draw the line in the difference. I've already acknowledged there's no difference in the backroom politicking. Honesty between signed allies shouldn't be tempered and weighed against politicking though. That's what the intelligence clause is all about.

Metallurgy is an art form, different additions change the structure and properties of a material. As such, to ensure that the structure and material remains strong and undamaged the signatories agree to share wisdom when it pertains to each other's structures.

IRON flat out worked with the other coalition, and maintained a relationship with NG to the affect of keeping them in-line while they also worked with TOP-Polar (and Fark) to step in on us. Again, Fark being the oA here. IRON turns it's back on NG because it won't "chain in" to defend. But it chained on with Fark's OPTIONAL AGGRESSION.

There's a lot of spaghetti strings through the discussion thread here, but that's what it comes together as.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NG was honest with IRON about what NG was doing. This is where I'm trying to draw the line in the difference. I've already acknowledged there's no difference in the backroom politicking. Honesty between signed allies shouldn't be tempered and weighed against politicking though. That's what the intelligence clause is all about.IRON flat out worked with the other coalition, and maintained a relationship with NG to the affect of keeping them in-line while they also worked with TOP-Polar (and Fark) to step in on us. Again, Fark being the oA here. IRON turns it's back on NG because it won't "chain in" to defend. But it chained on with Fark's OPTIONAL AGGRESSION.There's a lot of spaghetti strings through the discussion thread here, but that's what it comes together as.

Sure, but what makes you think IRON was not honest with NG. Hell, the logs are literally them being blunt as hell with honesty.

No, IRON did not turn their back on NG. People work with treaty partners on opposite sides all the time. Hell, last war NG done it. It's a non-issue. Edited by Omniscient1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be subjective on whether they was attacked out of the blue or attacked following a hard to find treaty/contract/agreement. If you are on the latter then IRON are simply using the non-chaining clause.

 

The non-chaining clause wouldn't apply even if VE and LoSS really do have a treaty.  I'm going to present an analysis of the situation that takes the specific alliances out of it, it's just a general scenario, and it could happen with any alliances; hopefully this will take the emotions out of the current situation.

 

It goes like this: we have 6 alliances, A, B, C, D, E, and F.  Alliance A has an M-level treaty (with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance B, and Alliance B has an M-level treaty (also with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance C.  Alliance D, which has no treaty with any of the previous three alliances, attacks Alliance C.  Alliance B, per the terms of their treaty with Alliance C, attacks Alliance D.  Alliance A is not required to also attack alliance D because of the non-chaining clause in their treaty with Alliance B.  Alliance E, which has an M-level treaty with Alliance D, attacks Alliance B in retaliation; Alliance A is also not required to attack Alliance E because Alliance E is only attacking because of a treaty with Alliance D, which would only have been activated in this way because of Alliance B's attack on Alliance D, and thus Alliance A not attacking is again covered by the non-chaining clause.  Now Alliance F, which holds no treaty with any of the other alliances, attacks Alliance B.  In this case, Alliance A would be required to attack Alliance F per the terms of their treaty (assuming Alliance B requests such assistance) with Alliance B because the non-chaining clause doesn't apply here.  No treaty of Alliance B with a third party made it necessary for Alliance F to attack Alliance B; Alliance F attacked Alliance B because they wanted to, there was no treaty either requiring or encouraging it.

 

That's the only way I can see to interpret a non-chaining clause, particularly one that has been left ambiguous, because the above scenario is functionally equivalent to one in which we have 3 alliances, A, B, and F.  Alliance F attacks Alliance B, requiring Alliance A to attack Alliance F (also assuming Alliance B requests such assistance); this scenario is one in which everyone would agree Alliance A is required to attack Alliance F.  An argument has been made in this thread that these two scenarios are not equivalent because Alliance F is on the same side as Alliances D and E and thus Alliance F is motivated by Alliance B's attacks on Alliances D and E in attacking Alliance B.  However this cannot be because if it is then any treaty can have an exception based merely on the motivations of third parties, which would, in effect, allow any alliance to legitimately excuse themselves from any obligation whenever they want.  Maybe we want this, but if we're going to live in a world with treaties, then we actually need to follow them, and that isn't what following them looks like.  We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
The non-chaining clause wouldn't apply even if VE and LoSS really do have a treaty.  I'm going to present an analysis of the situation that takes the specific alliances out of it, it's just a general scenario, and it could happen with any alliances; hopefully this will take the emotions out of the current situation.
 
It goes like this: we have 6 alliances, A, B, C, D, E, and F.  Alliance A has an M-level treaty (with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance B, and Alliance B has an M-level treaty (also with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance C.  Alliance D, which has no treaty with any of the previous three alliances, attacks Alliance C.  Alliance B, per the terms of their treaty with Alliance C, attacks Alliance D.  Alliance A is not required to also attack alliance D because of the non-chaining clause in their treaty with Alliance B.  Alliance E, which has an M-level treaty with Alliance D, attacks Alliance B in retaliation; Alliance A is also not required to attack Alliance E because Alliance E is only attacking because of a treaty with Alliance D, which would only have been activated in this way because of Alliance B's attack on Alliance D, and thus Alliance A not attacking is again covered by the non-chaining clause.  Now Alliance F, which holds no treaty with any of the other alliances, attacks Alliance B.  In this case, Alliance A would be required to attack Alliance F per the terms of their treaty (assuming Alliance B requests such assistance) with Alliance B because the non-chaining clause doesn't apply here.  No treaty of Alliance B with a third party made it necessary for Alliance F to attack Alliance B; Alliance F attacked Alliance B because they wanted to, there was no treaty either requiring or encouraging it.
 
That's the only way I can see to interpret a non-chaining clause, particularly one that has been left ambiguous, because the above scenario is functionally equivalent to one in which we have 3 alliances, A, B, and F.  Alliance F attacks Alliance B, requiring Alliance A to attack Alliance F (also assuming Alliance B requests such assistance); this scenario is one in which everyone would agree Alliance A is required to attack Alliance F.  An argument has been made in this thread that these two scenarios are not equivalent because Alliance F is on the same side as Alliances D and E and thus Alliance F is motivated by Alliance B's attacks on Alliances D and E in attacking Alliance B.  However this cannot be because if it is then any treaty can have an exception based merely on the motivations of third parties, which would, in effect, allow any alliance to legitimately excuse themselves from any obligation whenever they want.  Maybe we want this, but if we're going to live in a world with treaties, then we actually need to follow them, and that isn't what following them looks like.  We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Interestingly, this is the only treaty text I can find:

Article IV: Sharing Might and Armour

There are times when it will be needed to lend a hammer or a shield forged from this treaty. If one signatory decides they need assistance it is encouraged, however the other can accept or deny without foul.

So really unless this is the un-upgraded version and the treaty was actually re-written (I belive this began as an ODP so that's likely) your post is irrelevant.

Anyway, done with the thread.I hope IRON and NG good luck with their situation. As always IRON we got your backs no matter what. Edited by Omniscient1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who used 'an attack on one is an attack on all' to take a blatantly easy way out of hard decisions grousing about potential legal improprieties happening during this conflict just thrills me.

 

I always detest these kinds of arguments because a) they're just ad hominem, plain and simple and b) anyone whose ever been in an alliance that's been around for more than a few years can pretty much always be called out for it in just about any situation.  Also, this situation is nothing like Eq; for one thing, afaik nobody in Eq violated an M-level treaty and nobody made-up a treaty to join in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, this is the only treaty text I can find:

So really unless this is the un-upgraded version and the treaty was actually re-written (I belive this began as an ODP so that's likely) your post is irrelevant.

Anyway, done with the thread.I hope IRON and NG good luck with their situation. As always IRON we got your backs no matter what.

 

Just fyi, the current text of the treaty of can be found [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105352]here[/url].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically treat allies and their allies like dirt, shocked when they won't let you pull at the straws you reach for. NG dug its own grave with regard to their allies. The only one that cares about them is the one that has no one else, in NoR. NG, to its other allies, isn't worth defending when they ride in to defend someone of the class of NSO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is suppossed to be one of Polar/TOP's (our) coalition leaders.

 

I'd be so happy if we did a bipolar and hit your alliance instead.

 

I don't see that working out well for IRON either in the short, or long term after this thread. Lets hope MCRABT and others are wrong and your Council isn't as incompetent as the recent couple of months worth of actions has shown them to be.  :popcorn:

 

 

Also, the perception of Leadership quality tends to come with the capability of pulling your weight. FYI. It doesn't actually make you a leader by any means, nor have I seen Chim, or anyone else from MI6 proclaim to be one.

Edited by DeathAdder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

be careful friend, they label you a traitor and ban you for life for such talk.....

loooooooooooooooooooooool you've lost it.

 

you're talking like RAB wasn't part of the council that banned you for life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't see that working out well for IRON either in the short, or long term after this thread. Lets hope MCRABT and others are wrong and your Council isn't as incompetent as the recent couple of months worth of actions has shown them to be.  :popcorn:
 


This is getting ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~words~

 

 Maybe we want this, but if we're going to live in a world with treaties, then we actually need to follow them, and that isn't what following them looks like.  We can't have our cake and eat it too.

 

Sure it makes sense what you say objectively, but again its the real world where its subjective.

 

This isn't the first time something like this has happened in a treaty between alliances and won't be the last time. Even before wars when alliances go around telling other allies they will end up on opposite sides from each other or end up in opposite sides/coalitions due to a war is in a sense breaking their treaty with one and other, you can say its common accepted practice but if we want to live in a world where we follow treaties then we need to follow them (see BiPolar when a treaty did get followed to the letter against common accepted practice).

 

But it all boils down to what the treaty wordings means between the two parties and any e-lawyering by outsiders means nothing because the rebuttal is paramount to "we signed this and ultimately know what it means above anyone else" so If one party says they aren't breaking the soul of the treaty, the other either agrees or disagrees - its a private issue between them and no one else.

Edited by the rebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to your statement that I quoted nothing else. What you did for most of your time in IRON was awesome and earned my respect. Your accomplishments, along with the rest of IRON council were many.  I disagree with some of your actions lately but that does not lessen your earlier accomplishments. I have my opinion, You have yours.

 

 

I find it strange that you didn't feel that way the numerous times, when you were on IRON council and IRON's president, that you failed to honor the IRON - R&R MDP. That treaty did not have a non-chaining clause at all. According to your quote above you feel IRON should have. So you and IRON council were in breach of the IRON charter, in your opinion, how many times? I lost track but quite a few. There was always some discussion in IRON whenever IRON and R&R ended up on opposite sides of a war. Which was every war.

 

RnR never once activated the treaty, just like we never when we were on the loosing side, so neither party ever breached the obligation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it makes sense what you say objectively, but again its the real world where its subjective.

 

This isn't the first time something like this has happened in a treaty between alliances and won't be the last time. Even before wars when alliances go around telling other allies they will end up on opposite sides from each other or end up in opposite sides/coalitions due to a war is in a sense breaking their treaty with one and other, you can say its common accepted practice but if we want to live in a world where we follow treaties then we need to follow them (see BiPolar when a treaty did get followed to the letter against common accepted practice).

 

But it all boils down to what the treaty wordings means between the two parties and any e-lawyering by outsiders means nothing because the rebuttal is paramount to "we signed this and ultimately know what it means above anyone else" so If one party says they aren't breaking the soul of the treaty, the other either agrees or disagrees - its a private issue between them and no one else.

 

IRON and NG are free to do all of the "interpretation" of their treaty that they wish... and the rest of us are free to "interpret" that IRON is a pile of garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that working out well for IRON either in the short, or long term after this thread. Lets hope MCRABT and others are wrong and your Council isn't as incompetent as the recent couple of months worth of actions has shown them to be.  :popcorn:

 

 

Also, the perception of Leadership quality tends to come with the capability of pulling your weight. FYI. It doesn't actually make you a leader by any means, nor have I seen Chim, or anyone else from MI6 proclaim to be one.

 

Your not in a much better boat than IRON.  Half your coaition is plotting your blocs fate already.  Not suprising to you I am sure but, while you will wait till post war to start to worry about it they are all ready flirting with parts of the coalition your fighting against for later.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

NoR would have been the easiest way to get to NG. I can assure you that hitting NG, while a bonus for many in the coalition, was not the purpose of this war. While everyone may have a different dog in this fight, our one and only goal was backing Polar against NSO. NSO put themselves in their current position with their own stupidity, and it's unfortunate that so many good alliances are being dragged to your defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These logs and neither surprising, nor revealing. IRON had all the potential to be a big player, but always is underachieving. I believe that this time they lost their last chance and their fate will be the one of Legion. Concerning the topic title question: I was not a fan of ODN for some time (sine my early days as GATO in 2006), but I believe that the last 2-3 years (time is fuzzy when you have signifcant distance from the world politics) they learnt from their past and they built a consistent character, which is the only way to exist as a relevant alliance in planet Bob. A lesson that IRON should have learnt (and I am saying it as a sympathizer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The ODN of 5-7 years ago was never so bad. They ignored treaties when they found it beneficial to do so, yes, but never did they actively conspire against an ally.

 

As always IRON we got your backs no matter what.

 

What, you mean all three of you who are still active?

Edited by Crymson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not in a much better boat than IRON.  Half your coaition is plotting your blocs fate already.  Not suprising to you I am sure but, while you will wait till post war to start to worry about it they are all ready flirting with parts of the coalition your fighting against for later.   

 

And who would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ODN of 5-7 years ago was never so bad. They ignored treaties when they found it beneficial to do so, yes, but never did they actively conspire against an ally.
 

 
What, you mean all three of you who are still active?


Agreed. ODN nature is to ignore some treaties over others. This is why they still deserve the "optional" reputation. However, to be fair, I never heard ODN plotting against allies.
In fact, regarding C&G, they are a faithfull and respectable ally. The problem Is that all treaties outside of C&G will always be optional no mattter what they say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...