Jump to content
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    23
  • views
    2,940

Optional Aggression


Poyplemonkeys

400 views

 Share

Hey go easy on me and try to ignore the horrible writing style and concentrate on the horrible things I'm saying instead. I'm not like Doitzel/Schatt/Archon who can actually write, make sense and ensure people enjoy reading it regardless of content. That's why this is my first attempt, I've tried to avoid inflicting this upon you until now ^_^

This is something that has reared its head in recent times due to the NEW situation that’s going on. Now I’ve seen people write things like these, avoiding mentioning specific names, in the hopes that they can inspire objective debate on the subject at hand, but it always devolves into debating the current situation that has inspired the question so I’m not even going to try. I’m talking about this because of NEW, PC, iFOK and whoever else is involved by now. The main thing I’ve been thinking about is the ‘e-lawyering’ that goes on regarding which clause people are using to enter a war, specifically whether you consider the war as a whole, or each individual front when judging whether your declaration would fall under the ‘aggression’ clause or the ‘defence’ clause of your treaty.

Personally I believe, and I also think that precedent supports this opinion, that each front should be taken as a separate entity. It seems to me that this being how things were widely regarded in the Cyberverse was the main motivation behind the large number of ‘non-chaining’ clauses in treaties today. The way the vast majority of the optional aggression clauses that I’ve come across are written states that the alliances have the choice to join the treaty partner in an aggressive war that they declare, joining onto the war declaration basically. This seems to fall down when no war is declared by the ‘aggressive’ alliance such as when alliances join in on the other, defensive , side of the war.

To tie this back to the current situation, NEW launched an undeclared and aggressive war against the remnants of DF (henceforth known as DF for ease) and it is quite clear that on the NEW/DF front anyone joining the war would be using the optional aggression clause. Again on the other side it’s quite clear that INT and TPE have entered in defence of DF in declaring war on NEW. Due to the non-chaining clauses iFOK and PC have no obligation to defend NEW and I doubt many people will claim they do, however I’ve seen several people defending their decision by saying the treaty calls for optional aggression and they have chosen not to activate that clause.

This implies that NEW are in an aggressive war against anyone defending DF which simply doesn’t hold any water for me. You can declare a war on NEW by activating a defensive clause, you can declare a war on NEW because they were the original aggressors, but you are declaring war against them, it is a defensive front as far as NEW are concerned. This is the exact situation the non-chaining clauses are written for, to ensure you’re not obligated to go to war in situations like this and, as stated above, the majority, if not all, optional aggression clauses in treaties I’ve seen don’t legislate for when an alliance isn’t actually declaring a war.

You don’t have people later in the war, five or six fronts removed from the original declaration, activating their optional aggression clauses to come to the defence of their ally who chained in to defend their ally against someone who chained in to defend their ally against someone who…. You get the point. Would things be different if PC and iFOK were one front removed from the main war? If NEW and FEAR were in reversed situations would they be saying they weren’t activating their optional aggression clause against ODN because they would be on the same ‘side’ as the original aggressors even if it was ODN declaring war?

The only way I can envisage that working would be to see the ‘sides’ of a war as a single entity. NEW were the original aggressors, regardless of the situation anyone declaring on that side of the war is declaring an aggressive war and anyone declaring on the other side is declaring a defensive war. Difficult though because you’re still going to have to break it down to individual alliances rather than declaring war against a ‘side’ otherwise you’ve hundreds of broken NAPs/NA clauses littered about the place.

$%&@ this !@#$, my writing is a mess and so this is incredibly difficult to follow no doubt. Unless treaty activations are based on individual fronts I’m of the opinion we will end up with !@#$%* micro wars going forwards, restrained to only a few fronts, and that’s as good a reason as any to avoid it right? Besides, the treaty web is way more likely to explode this way, and everyone has the option to do whatever they like “obligated” via treaty or not.

PS: Poison Clan needs better treaty writers (I enjoy the irony of my criticising someone's writing after this mess as much as you no doubt will), obviously the spirit of the treaty is what matters and so the non-chaining clause would apply, but it was written stupidly and this is the 2nd time PC have broken a treaty on a technicality because they were written inadequately.

 Share

11 Comments


Recommended Comments

YAWWWWWWWWW. I had trouble reading that, but it's probably down to me not reading English to great, plus I really don't care. It's war, People whine enough about being bored. Be happy and stop evaluating things. Just do it. I really don't care about E-lawyering or "is it a valid CB or not".

It's Christmas, we have war. People get to whine and laugh at others poor war performance. Everyone that is fighting should be happy and everyone that's trying to evaluate/E-lawyer should relax and think of things of worth.

Obligatory <3 Poyples

Link to comment

We didn't write the TPF NAP, they did right before they forced us to sign it. We also followed it to the letter and have it on good authority it was purposely written in that matter so they could do the same to us in reverse.

And anyone calling us cowards can try being in our situation. In order to defend a friend over their own foolish mistake we would have had to slap our other friends in the face by attacking their friends when we weren't obligated to do so.

We declared on Polar in the last war thinking it would mean us all going to ZI because that was a clear cut situation. Can you really not see the awful position ourselves and iFOK were put in? I think those criticizing us are either completely blind or just disappointed they don't get to see the people they hate the most blow each other apart.

Link to comment

Non-chaining is regarding wars caused by a signatory following another treaty. This iFOK/PC thing has nothing to do with anti-chaining clauses. I'll explain.

An anti chain clause comes into effect when an ally follows a treaty partner into war, and is counter attacked as a result of this. For argument's sake, we'll consider these treaties as MDPs.

So, if you have three alliances: Alliance A, B, and C. Alliance B is allied to both A and C, but Alliance A is not allied to C. Alliance A goes to war for whatever reason. Let's just say this alliance is defending his ally. Alliance A gets counter attacked and Alliance B joins in defense of Alliance A. Now, Alliance C's MDP with Alliance B has an anti chain clause. As a result of this clause, their defense of their ally (B) is regarded as optional because Alliance B is only involved in the war because of treaty chaining (this is where the name of the clause comes from :P ).

So as you can see, this situation does not apply here, as NEW's involvement had nothing to do with any of its other treaty partners - it was completely on its own accord.

Now, whether iFOK and PC's claim of NEW's war being aggressive is legit or not, that's a completely different argument that I won't get into. One could even argue that even though their attack on DF was aggressive, PC and iFOK are still required to back them up if counter attacked, since the oA clauses do not specify if the signatories should be obligated to be involved in this situation. There are different viewpoints on it and some would not view what happened as acceptable. This is evident in the fact that FEAR and WFF declared war in defense of NEW, while iFOK and PC sat out due to not wanting to partake in the Aggression clause. Personally, I probably would have called it Aggression too, and told NEW to pay up or shut up, but that may just be me. Edit: Actually, I probably wouldn't have been this harsh, or probably wouldn't be able to weasel out of it either, but I will tell you one thing: I wouldn't sign with an ally so stupid to put me in such a situation in the first place.

Hope I helped clear some stuff up.

Link to comment

We didn't write the TPF NAP, they did right before they forced us to sign it. We also followed it to the letter and have it on good authority it was purposely written in that matter so they could do the same to us in reverse.

And anyone calling us cowards can try being in our situation. In order to defend a friend over their own foolish mistake we would have had to slap our other friends in the face by attacking their friends when we weren't obligated to do so.

We declared on Polar in the last war thinking it would mean us all going to ZI because that was a clear cut situation. Can you really not see the awful position ourselves and iFOK were put in? I think those criticizing us are either completely blind or just disappointed they don't get to see the people they hate the most blow each other apart.

Friends of friends are not your friends. For instance, you may be treatied to alliance x but not alliance y, if alliance y is treatied to alliance x, alliance y does not magically become your friend and your treaty partner.

You disgraced a longstanding friend and ally in NEW with your inaction. You've lost sight of what's important, you've become something that PC was never meant to become, and was started in a very clear attempt to get away from. You've become a puppet of politics.

NEW deserves better than what you've given them.

Link to comment

Alliances will act in their own self-interest. No amount of e-lawyering is going to change that. Aggression and Defense in most cases are mere illusion, smoke and mirrors used to enable an alliance to do exactly what they want to at a given moment.

If you want to predict an alliance's action, or change the way that they act, identify first what they value and manipulate it to your own end.

Link to comment

Friends of friends are not your friends. For instance, you may be treatied to alliance x but not alliance y, if alliance y is treatied to alliance x, alliance y does not magically become your friend and your treaty partner.

You disgraced a longstanding friend and ally in NEW with your inaction. You've lost sight of what's important, you've become something that PC was never meant to become, and was started in a very clear attempt to get away from. You've become a puppet of politics.

NEW deserves better than what you've given them.

C'mon greenacres. I know you're upset about Derwood kicking you out but you don't have to troll every thread/blog posted on this war.

They may not be our friends who attacked NEW but it would have meant slapping several of our very close friends in the face over the mistake of another friend. Derwood did what he honestly believed was the right thing to do. Either path available to him would have ended with some people upset. I think it's clear he made the right decision when the main opponents of the decision are people who could be described as enemies of PB.

Everyone seems to be making out like NEW were attacked without provocation and PC/iFOK just decided not to honour a treaty because we're scared of losing infra.

Link to comment

C'mon greenacres. I know you're upset about Derwood kicking you out but you don't have to troll every thread/blog posted on this war.

They may not be our friends who attacked NEW but it would have meant slapping several of our very close friends in the face over the mistake of another friend. Derwood did what he honestly believed was the right thing to do. Either path available to him would have ended with some people upset. I think it's clear he made the right decision when the main opponents of the decision are people who could be described as enemies of PB.

Everyone seems to be making out like NEW were attacked without provocation and PC/iFOK just decided not to honour a treaty because we're scared of losing infra.

I quit, derwood didn't kick me out. If I'm going to be mad about anything, it would be my behaviour that lead to me quitting in the first place, (because I don't lie, I'm never ashamed of my behaviour, and I know I was a dick, but there was a reason for it) but I'm not mad about my behaviour. And you should know me better than to think I'm trolling you, I'm genuinely disappointed at the decision, and I've stated that from a strictly political standpoint, I understand why it was done.

What I'm upset about is that NEW is deserving of better from an ally that, if the tables were turned, wouldn't have hesitated for a moment to defend you. Maybe you don't realize how long it took for that treaty to finally get signed, or how close NEW and PC were, and how, quite literally, we were told on numerous occasions to basically stop all contact with NEW, which we pretty much disregarded. NEW isn't some run of the mill alliance whose friendship is in question. NEW isn't VE, NEW was never about politics or political gain, they always had your back and always would have your back, and I don't know what happened, maybe people forgot what NEW was like, maybe there's no one there now who remembers how long in the making that treaty was, but NEW deserved your best.

You didn't give it to them, and that's a disgrace. Again though, I don't know why this decision was made, or why these things were either forgotten or disregarded, but it's disappointing. That's all I've said, if you think saying "I can understand why this decision was made, and it's disappointing that this was the decision that was made" is trolling, stay off the OWF. That's about the nicest disagreement you'll ever see there.

Also, as I've stated, I have no qualms with iFOK over their decision, because they don't have the history that PC and NEW have. NEW deserved better from PC, you're playing politics too much these days, you've forgotten who your true friends are.

Link to comment

Alliances will act in their own self-interest. No amount of e-lawyering is going to change that. Aggression and Defense in most cases are mere illusion, smoke and mirrors used to enable an alliance to do exactly what they want to at a given moment.

This is what it boils down to for me. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree with PC and iFok's interpretation of their treaties. What I find so hilarious is that these two hurrdurr-bringit alliances and their pals who spend half their posts on "lol you're an e-lawyer fine gentleman" and would enter this war at the drop of a hat given a different set of allies for DF are now hanging their CN School of Treaty Law degrees on their walls. It's really just amusing to watch. PC and iFok and their backers really just dropped the ball on this one, and for all their "the war is coming, pray for reps" crap they spout we see what their real game is.

Link to comment

This is what it boils down to for me. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree with PC and iFok's interpretation of their treaties. What I find so hilarious is that these two hurrdurr-bringit alliances and their pals who spend half their posts on "lol you're an e-lawyer fine gentleman" and would enter this war at the drop of a hat given a different set of allies for DF are now hanging their CN School of Treaty Law degrees on their walls. It's really just amusing to watch. PC and iFok and their backers really just dropped the ball on this one, and for all their "the war is coming, pray for reps" crap they spout we see what their real game is.

It's amazing how alliances will act one way when they have nothing to lose. Once they have something to lose they promptly forget the tools that they used to get it in the first place.

Link to comment

Personally I believe' date=' and I also think that precedent supports this opinion, that each front should be taken as a separate entity.[/b'] It seems to me that this being how things were widely regarded in the Cyberverse was the main motivation behind the large number of ‘non-chaining’ clauses in treaties today. The way the vast majority of the optional aggression clauses that I’ve come across are written states that the alliances have the choice to join the treaty partner in an aggressive war that they declare, joining onto the war declaration basically. This seems to fall down when no war is declared by the ‘aggressive’ alliance such as when alliances join in on the other, defensive , side of the war.

As to the bolded line, I disagree. Look at how wars are being fought nowadays. They are coalition wide wars, where alliance leaders do everything in their power to bend their treaties to their wish so they have an entry point into the global war where they desire to be or are requested to wage war. It is never a seperate entity.

As for the rest of your text, I mostly agree. I personally don't see a reason to put no-chaining clauses in treaties, for one because it is only a formal thing to do to shut the e-lawyers up (although as we are now witnessing, it sparks debate also, see next point) and second since they are often poorly written. Besides, the non-chaining clauses aren't being used that much anyway.

[...]

You don’t have people later in the war, five or six fronts removed from the original declaration, activating their optional aggression clauses to come to the defence of their ally who chained in to defend their ally against someone who chained in to defend their ally against someone who…. You get the point. Would things be different if PC and iFOK were one front removed from the main war? If NEW and FEAR were in reversed situations would they be saying they weren’t activating their optional aggression clause against ODN because they would be on the same ‘side’ as the original aggressors even if it was ODN declaring war?

As said before, it is this messy because some people have abused (and are abusing) the concept of chaining, and other people not understanding what chaining really is.

In response to the bolded question, do you mean that FEAR would have attacked DF? If so, then the whole conflicting treaty part wouldn't be present for iFOK/PC at this point.

That would have come in at the moment NEW would attack TPE/INT/FARK. (Check the wiki for treaty references.)

The only way I can envisage that working would be to see the ‘sides’ of a war as a single entity. NEW were the original aggressors, regardless of the situation anyone declaring on that side of the war is declaring an aggressive war and anyone declaring on the other side is declaring a defensive war. Difficult though because you’re still going to have to break it down to individual alliances rather than declaring war against a ‘side’ otherwise you’ve hundreds of broken NAPs/NA clauses littered about the place.

Wars wouldn't be able to escalate to a global level anymore, unless alliances choose to do so (optional defense). Furthermore, the wars that do erupt will be on a small scale and fairly unbalanced. But it's not like that isn't the case nowadays, or is it? :P
Link to comment

It's amazing how alliances will act one way when they have nothing to lose. Once they have something to lose they promptly forget the tools that they used to get it in the first place.

Another joke aspect of the whole thing is that a lot of these alliances are preparing for the "last war." Well, here it is. Best opportunity that will come for a while and slowly backed away from it.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...