GearHead

I have many good friends in NADC and I wish them nothing but the best as we continue on our separate roads in the future. o/ NADC o/ TFD

I was actually half-expecting the fabled OoO 2.0, and then I opened the link and took another breath. Gratz and all.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1293641665' post='2557384'] Should have surrendered to WFF, just for the lulz. [/quote] This right here.

Cool story bro.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1293414872' post='2554851'] We passed Athens again? Oh this will never end [/quote] We can't seem to get away from each other!! [img]http://foreigndivision.org/Smileys/default/killphil.gif[/img]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293386387' post='2554439'] I'm not sure what you're trying to argue then. Yes, I am pro anti-chaining clauses. But if someone hits one of my friends, there's a fat chance I'll be there to make them pay. But that's just me, I guess. I didn't intend to take a shot at NATO: as I said in the beginning, I understand NATO's logic. I just disagree with their decision. [/quote] I don't really understand why one would say they are pro-anti-chain clauses, but against the use of them. But maybe I just misinterpreted. But yes, if you just disagree with their decision not to activate the ODP, then fair enough. Also, this topic is well past its time, and most of the war is already over - time to go celebrate peace and kick and scream in announcements we don't like. ...until next time... o/

I'll echo Lusitan on this one, and it's similar to PnL: Sad to see the work go down the drain, but it's for the best. Good luck to our Blood Brothers and the other signatories too. o/

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293378929' post='2554387'] Oh I've been in this long enough that I know how things work. I was criticizing you or your allies. Just stating the obvious and adding a bit of commentary. I could be off base: even if I understand NATO's thought process, I - personnally - don't agree with it. But yeah, I do have this habit of saying things bluntly instead of dancing around the issue. PS: I'm not sure who you're talking to with your edit though. I have never been in LSF or GPA. [/quote] Oh what the heck...when I copied the link to the treaty, I accidentally missed a letter. Here's the link I *meant* to put into the edit: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95905 Perhaps you'll better understand what I'm getting at then.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293309765' post='2553749'] I get it. I understand it was a difficult decision for you. But, no matter your reasons, legitimate or not, in the end, you're letting an ally get destroyed. It doesn't really matter if FEAR are right or wrong for defending NEW, they're still getting destroyed and you're not moving a finger. [/quote] That's putting it bluntly. It's a two level treaty: MDP/ODP. In this situation it's effectively an ODP. I've never seen anybody get criticized for not following an ODP. And it's mutual too: something that was agreed upon and is made aware to both signatories upon signing. Take TFD/NATO for example. Suppose TFD went to war through chaining for NATO. All our other treaties are effectively ODPs in that case, and if none of our allies followed us in, I'd call it fair enough, because it was the agreement we made beforehand. I suppose I should also state the obvious here: people are becoming less and less attached to each other and making themselves more independent to do their own thing. MDAPs are becoming rarer and rarer and anti chain clauses are becoming more and more popular. People are realizing that signing their sovereignty away is so 2007 and are actually beginning to think for themselves. And in the case of anti chaining, as I said before, it's really another type of treaty altogether. It's an MDP/ODP dual level treaty, and when you sign one, it's generally because you don't trust your ally's ally. It's just good politicking to be aware of your obligations when you sign a treaty and, for example, insert clauses accordingly to avoid dangerous second degree ties. [quote] But I guess this is all commentary and speculations. The only thing that really matter is what FEAR feel about your statement and how they react to it. If I was them, the main part that would offend me is the TFD bit. It does look like a middle finger to the rest of your allies: "if you're not TFD, we'll think about coming to help when you're in trouble." Ah well. I'm not FEAR... [/quote] Indeed, you're right, in a sense, albeit again very bluntly. Although, from what I understand, and without trying to speak for anybody else but myself, pretty much all of NATO's allies save for Hydra were cool with the entire thing. Obviously this was discussed in the backchannels in length way before this was published on the OWF. Edit: With all that in mind, I can fully understand anybody who is against the spirit of anti chain clauses altogether. I remember when they first started being signed, there were many people against the idea simply because it seemed like a negative mutation of the original MDP. I'm aware that there are still those out there today who continue to hold the same view, and I can't fault anybody for that. But I will say that if one is against the idea of it being used (such as in this case), then one must also be against the idea of it being signed (such as in 80% of the treaties announced today), as I don't see why somebody would insert a clause in the treaty if they were against the idea of using it. As such, I can only assume you are not one of the people who are against the idea of anti chain treaties or the use of them, as I can see your signature clearly on this one [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95905]here[/url]. Edit2: Fixed ze stupid link.

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1293294015' post='2553606'] So, you decide to put your tail between your legs and run based on the notion that you have to have respect and all that stuff for all of your allies, then you immediately identify the obvious truth that you do, in fact, prioritize one of those allies far more than you would any of your other ones. This makes this announcement seem more as though it's intent was to be a giant waiving of a particular finger or finger-shaped appendage at some of your allies. On the bright side, still not the worst decision you've ever made, disturbingly enough. Nobody has denied that NEW got a bit stubborn, sure. In the case of FEAR, though, while an e-lawyer would try to make the case that they did not need to get involved, FEAR and NEW have a fairly long history, and it's damn refreshing seeing that not everyone on Planet Bob sees the need to try to e-lawyer everything to death. FEAR told NEW that they'd have their backs if needed, and they kept their word. [/quote] Look, I don't think you really need to over analyze it...it's actually very simple: NATO's main reason for staying out of the conflict is because their pacts tying them to it have anti-chain clauses. In case you're not familiar, an anti chain clause replaces the mandatory defense with optional defense if the opposite signatory is involved due to their treaty ties. The main point is not potentially conflicting treaties, even if that's icing on the cake. As such, NATO has declared non-aggression in this conflict and has announced it plans not to enter based on its treaties with anti-chain clauses. As NATO's treaty with TFD is a chaining treaty, they made sure to clear up any misconceptions by stating openly that any involvement regarding TFD they will follow up with, as they are legally obligated to. If you want to really make it simple, they basically said they aren't activating any optional clauses to get in on this war, but as always, will uphold their mandatory clause. On a side note, I do agree with you on the note that I admire FEAR for their willingness to defend their ally no matter the circumstances - and I wouldn't have really thought any less of them if they called NEW's attack "aggression" and thus e-lawyered their way out of it. But I'll definitely defend NATO's decision to use the anti chain clauses that were installed for situations such as these. It is their right, as the clause was put there to be used if the need arose.

That right there just made my day. I applaud your humility to post of your experiences and also your talent to at least not make yourself look like a complete fool in front of everybody else. *cheers* Encore!

Wow, talk about overkill. Have fun out there, Sparta, and good luck on the battlefield to our ODoAP partners in Europa. We'll be cheering you on from the sidelines!

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1292996796' post='2549400'] I see nothing wrong with the use of non-chaining clauses to refrain from entry into a war you think is pathetic and stupid. It's one thing to say no when your allies are getting beaten down for a reasonable reason. In this case? Well. NEW deserves it, and the side beating on them doesn't look like they're going to need much help. I think that this was a good move for NATO. [/quote] This. ^ And you've got it exactly right.

o/ NATO. A tough decision, but I have no doubt it is the right one.

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 ). 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.

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1292819419' post='2545522'] Oh you! [/quote] [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1292819955' post='2545546'] ITT, Gearhead is a warmonger! [/quote] GearHead: Causing controversy and chaos on Open World Forums since 2010. ...yes, I am quite the warmonger. They tell me my job is to ensure peace and prosperity for TFD, but they don't know who they're dealing with! [img]http://foreigndivision.org/Smileys/default/ninpir.gif[/img]

Bye bye NE....ohwai-

Indeed, some nice refreshment of rationale on the OWF. Good show, boys and girls.

[quote name='hellsign' timestamp='1292697102' post='2542851'] Hei Gearhead..Sir Williams.. Shut Up... Find your own threads will you..we dont need your blablabla here.. more words u said less brain u have [/quote] Back on topic: Sad story about DF, my condolences. NEW is bad. GOONS not so much anymore apprently. And the man with the big brain has great grammar. I think I summed it all up quite nicely. Edit: and with that I'll give you a break from my blablabla. It's past Gearie's bedtime. And I can be a sarcastic chump sometimes. If you're a non native English speaker, don't let my words offend you.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292696443' post='2542834'] I was speaking personally, not for GOONS. The incidents you refer to were before my time in GOONS. [/quote] Oopers. My bad. [quote] (Either way, quite some time ago. As has been demonstrated such imprudent raiding has since ceased.) [/quote] Round 2. I'll try to respond to this one less vaguely this time. Since I don't recall any stark recent examples of this, even when GOONS were given the opportunity when PnL disbanded (and with other recent disbandments, for the record), this statement might be able to be taken for truth.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292695554' post='2542823'] Not sure what you're referring to, as I've had little interaction with TFD or PnL/protectorates. It's all neither here nor there though I suppose. [/quote] I suppose your memory is as poor as mine then. I remember many times GOONS raiding PnL protectorates and diplomats having to go over to solve the situation. I believe the most clear event in my mind was when Zenith was raided after their disbanding/merging. In pretty much every situation, though, GOONS was cooperative and diplomatic when confronted, unlike NEW who seem pretty proud of what they've done. And, I suppose comparing NEW to GOONS doesn't give GOONS much justice in the fact that I don't recall GOONS ever conducting 16 wars (not raids - it's a war when you do it so blatantly) on a recently disbanded alliance. And I'm not sure what vOv is so I'll leave that one... Edit: My first two sentences contradict each other quite ironically. Oh well.

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1292694110' post='2542801'] NEW has been around longer than GOONS, and raiding longer than GOONS. [/quote] Indeed, but I don't remember them doing something of this magnitude before. [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292694756' post='2542811'] Credit is not needed for paying all of zero attention to PnL and protectorates. Kudos for bringing us up though when we had nothing to do with the original situation to begin with - you're an astute one. Perhaps take your hard-on elsewhere. Just a thought. [/quote] You seem to have paid alot of attention to them before. I remember having to deal with you folk a few times a month there for a little while. And it was meant more in jest, by the way. I'm more getting at NEW, if you didn't notice. I'm not the one that got his panties tied in a knot over a simple example. Get off.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292693709' post='2542795'] Hey now, imprudent raids are a thing of our past. [/quote] Ah, changed your ways, have you? I guess I will give you a tiny sliver of credit for not raiding all our PnL protectorates when the bloc dissolved. Granted, they were clearly still protected, but it's not like you guys regarded that before. NEW: trying to be the new GOONS since 2010. Somebody had to take their place when GOONS cleaned up.

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1292693388' post='2542787'] I actually think it is quite a nice thing to see NEW pissing all over Dark Fist's grave; they sure didn't deserve flowers. :V [/quote] Good thing I have a poor memory and don't hold grudges if I can't remember why I'm holding them, then. In other words, I don't recall anything particularly bad done by DF, especially towards me, but this incident brought up by NEW surely isn't looked at in a good light in my eyes.

NEW, you know if GOONS didn't do the raid, it is definitely off-limits. Poor show. That said, it's sad to see an established alliance being put to rest, but even more sad to see people like NEW swooping in like vultures with no regard for anyone but themselves - especially after receiving prior warning.