GOD Treaty Announcement

[NLights]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1302628576' post='2689539']
But don't you understand, Xiph?! By signing an ODP we're destroying the foundations of society and ruining Planet Bob for everyone!
[/quote]

Hehe priceless reaction!

[Aurion]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1302628576' post='2689539']
But don't you understand, Xiph?! By signing an ODP we're destroying the foundations of society and ruining Planet Bob for everyone!
[/quote]

Ruining the world by signing ODPs?

I'm not sure even GOONS can match that.

[Fyfe XIV]

This is dumb and because I think that this is dumb, this must be my RL reaction right now:

[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lidav23EqI1qcymtb.gif[/img]

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1302628081' post='2689531']
This lacks images ganked from VGcats, and it's not like we don't find the OWF's reaction to things amusing to begin with.
[/quote]

Too be fair, this announcement lacks any images

[Aurion]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1302629955' post='2689555']
Too be fair, this announcement lacks any images
[/quote]

It's better that way, trust me.

[Ardus]

I knew about this six mo... wait.

[i]What?[/i]

[NoFish]

[quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1302627951' post='2689529']
The alliance version of how LittleRena reacts to going so far in the WPE contest. Well done, guys - best of luck to you both.
[/quote]
No, I believe that would be Legion's response to having won the WAE contest.

[flak attack]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1302627882' post='2689528']
It's amazing how you instantly become uncool nowadays and people start to criticize your posts if you point out their amazingly clear hypocrisy or any other flaw in their behavior. MK is making school I guess.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with whether or not I like GOD. My annoyance at this, however, is about them signing with an objectively terrible alliance.

Come to think of it, if I wasn't at least neutral on them, I wouldn't care.

[D34th]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1302648823' post='2689694']
This has nothing to do with whether or not I like GOD. My annoyance at this, however, is about them signing with an objectively terrible alliance.

Come to think of it, if I wasn't at least neutral on them, I wouldn't care.
[/quote]

I think you missed my point.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1302604430' post='2689344']
Can't say I'm happy to see this..


Hmm, doesn't afraid of anything indeed...
[/quote]

You disappoint me Skippy

[quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1302606641' post='2689356']
Got it pretty much right.

Though I like SOS I am very confused with this treaty.
[/quote]

Yea I'm always right.

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1302589002' post='2689265']
Next step, forming a bloc with Jamahiriya.
[/quote]
Allah's Weeaboo Jihad Accords.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eOThecFRKFQ/SmJkfB6502I/AAAAAAAAD2s/q1P6A55nfTU/s400/Anime+Jihad.jpg[/img]

[CheeKy]

These alliances deserve eachother.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1302615662' post='2689396']
So now that is ok? Because according to the party line its not OK to activate an ODP as its seen by at minimum your close ally to be oppurtunistic and there for should be punished. If you dont ever expect them to honor it then why even include it, make it a piat instead.
[/quote]
If you choose to hit someone you don't try and back out before the party you're helping backs out. I'm sure SOS or GOD wouldn't leave the other ones to fend for themselves if they choose to use the military clause.

[Charles Stuart]

I wish both parties good luck, I have the feeling you will need it with certain powers.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Charles Stuart

[Chuck Normis]

Congrats on the treaty guys. (I wasn't that surprised)

o/ GOD and stuffz

[Elorian]

Ugh, congratulations, I guess. The scary of GoD is trembling.

[Jacapo Saladin]

bwah. bwahah. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Truly hilarious.
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/2439946013_aa82d4979f.jpg[/img]


oh harry, you silly willy, look what you've done.

[Avakael]

We admit we were not expecting the Harry Potter anime onslaught.

[Sephiroth]

I've disliked some of the stuff GOD has done in the past, but SOS Brigade are good people and GOD has already got rid of most of their treaties linking them to bad alliances, so I wish you both luck and hope good will come of this.

Edit: Also I don't know why anyone is surprised or confused by this treaty, RIA already has an MDoAP with SOS Brigade, that GOD is signing this treaty with SOS Brigade just shows that GOD plans to stick with RIA should anyone mess with SOS Brigade.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Methrage

[CheeKy]

[img]http://www.danielyerelian.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Harry_potter_anime_2.jpg[/img]
I guess this will be their flag.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1302628382' post='2689535']
Well, since you took the time to write out all this junk, I'll take the time to address it. "Xiph flat out said he doesn't like ODPs and wouldn't enter on one" - Not what I said, I said if you enter on an ODP then you're looking for an [b]excuse[/b], which would indeed be the case if SOS or GOD ever came into a war on the basis of the OP.[/quote]

In other words, it's ok to sign them, but they are a flimsy (all but unjustifiable) excuse to enter a war, even if you feel convicted for some reason (morally, ethically, diplomatically) to help your ally. Why did you bother signing this one then? Public image damage control? Wanting to get your name in the paper? The ONLY difference between a MDP and a ODP the quasi legal obligation one alliance has to come to another alliance's defense. It's not an "excuse". Entering a war through a ODP is as equally legitimate as entering a war through a MDP, just entering a war through a MDoAP is equally as valid as entering one through a MADP.

[quote]"thinks it's a crime to do so" - again, not really what I said either. I stated that attacking via an ODP - an excuse - and [i]expecting[/i] or even demanding white peace is just patently ridiculous, and frankly it is. When you DoW, you endanger the security of another alliance, and if your reasoning for doing so is a joke - then your terms should be quite harsh.[/quote]

Wrong. As stated above, an ODP has the same validity as a MDP for purposes of war declaration. Yes, anytime you enter a war you run the risk that you will lose, and if you square off with someone who insists on being a total richard about the peace negotiations and you do lose, white peace may not even come up in those negotiations. However, just because someone declared war on another alliance through a ODP is absolutely no justification for giving harsher terms. None.

[quote]"Im pretty sure if GOD gets in trouble and SOS doesnt come in they will bear the wrath of your leader." If this was an MDP, you'd be right. More to the point, I'd expect a hellstorm to come down on me if I didn't defend an MDP partner, either. They're MDPs - they have to be taken seriously. If you put your word to it, follow your word. But the words in the OP are simply a baby step in SOS-GOD relations, a statement of less hostility than there's been in the past. This is the traditional function of ODP/PIATs, and that is the function of this one; not military.[/quote]

Then why is it called, "A Tale of Two Gods, A Treaty of Optional Defense and Aggression"? Lulz? Did SOS know they were signing what you consider to be a joke treaty? If it is a "serious" treaty and it is a PIAT as you suggest, why not call it that? Especially in light of your stated belief that ODPs are a "joke"?

[quote]And if you wish to call BS on this, that's alright, but I'll call BS on the faux outrage over a totally inconsequential treaty.[/quote]

Damn right I'll call b.s. I genuinely believe SOS is blameless here--they simply thought they were getting a lower level treaty that had some military potential down the road (I bet they don't consider it "inconsequential" either, but given your attitude, they are likely having second thoughts). You on the other hand need to stop holding other people to standards that you refuse to follow yourself and if you didn't expect to get called on it loud and long after such a short period of time since the CSN mess, then you as oblivious as you are arrogant.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1302707031' post='2690050']
In other words, it's ok to sign them, but they are a flimsy (all but unjustifiable) excuse to enter a war, even if you feel convicted for some reason (morally, ethically, diplomatically) to help your ally. Why did you bother signing this one then?[/quote]

Convictions are the mother of excuses, that's what you don't really get. I feel [i]morally[/i] obligated to roll x y z and my ODP partners feel [i]morally[/i] obligated to help me, it's still an excuse. There's no [i]obligation[/i] to action. As to why I signed it, I've already said - it's a baby step in GOD-SOS relations, much the function PIAT/ODPs have always served. "I won't attack you, I'll keep an ear out for your safety, and maybe roll with you or rebuild you."

[quote]The ONLY difference between a MDP and a ODP the quasi legal obligation one alliance has to come to another alliance's defense.[/quote]

No, not in the slightest. MDP's carry the implication of a much higher degree of trust, and a much closer relationship being involved. You're putting everything you have on a contractual obligation to that other alliances well being. That is [i]significantly[/i] different in both wording, intent and motive behind it than an ODP.

[quote] It's not an "excuse". Entering a war through a ODP is as equally legitimate as entering a war through a MDP[/quote]

It is an excuse, simply because you can just as easily choose not to. It's your excuse to justify your actions. Someone with an MDP can say they have no recourse; that they have to honor what they've signed. Someone coming in on an ODP made a conscious choice to do so, but rather than simply DoW, they have to cite an excuse - they have no other basis to justify their decision, for the simple reason that no one wants to argue the validity of their reasoning with the public at large. It's a lot easier to just say "We had an ODP, they're an ally!" than say "The person we hit was in the wrong" or "An alliance we like needed us." Instead we get the, as you put it, quasi-legal run around.

[quote]just entering a war through a MDoAP is equally as valid as entering one through a MADP.[/quote]

Once again, no. You're conflating optional pacts with obligatory pacts, they're not the same. If the same degree of trust and such existed for every optional pact in the world, it'd be an obligatory one.

[quote]Damn right I'll call b.s. I genuinely believe SOS is blameless here--they simply thought they were getting a lower level treaty that had some military potential down the road [/quote]

Great thing they have you watching their backs, then. Inspector Hal, ensuring all actions taken by GOD or SOS are legitimate and honest. Honestly, I find the implication that GOD signed this for "PR Reasons" [which is hilarious considering both alliances know full well we're not hugely liked] or the implication that SOS was 'conned' here by someone totally outside the entire treaty process to be significantly more arrogant and condescending than anything either alliance itself has done.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1302709267' post='2690060']
Convictions are the mother of excuses, that's what you don't really get. I feel [i]morally[/i] obligated to roll x y z and my ODP partners feel [i]morally[/i] obligated to help me, it's still an excuse. There's no [i]obligation[/i] to action. As to why I signed it, I've already said - it's a baby step in GOD-SOS relations, much the function PIAT/ODPs have always served. "I won't attack you, I'll keep an ear out for your safety, and maybe roll with you or rebuild you."[/quote]

Conviction and morality are never [i]excuses[/i], they are [i]justifications[/i], which are of a higher order. "I will not eat a hamburger because eating meat is morally wrong" vs. "I will not eat a hamburger because I'm in the mood for fish". But in the case of a ODP, we're going even a step beyond that, backing a belief that someone should be defended with a document that gives [i]legal justification for intervention[/i] to that belief. You are implying that ODPs are mere PIATs and that is simply not the case at all. PIATs carry no legal justification for intervention.

[quote]No, not in the slightest. MDP's carry the implication of a much higher degree of trust, and a much closer relationship being involved. You're putting everything you have on a contractual obligation to that other alliances well being. That is [i]significantly[/i] different in both wording, intent and motive behind it than an ODP.[/quote]

It is the difference between having a legal obligation to do something versus having a legal justification for doing something. In the former, you must act barring extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a conflicting treaty) whereas in the latter you have the option to do so. So indeed a MDP is a higher order of treaty, but that in no way invalidates the legal justification for intervention that the ODP grants.

[quote]It is an excuse, simply because you can just as easily choose not to. It's your excuse to justify your actions. Someone with an MDP can say they have no recourse; that they have to honor what they've signed. Someone coming in on an ODP made a conscious choice to do so, but rather than simply DoW, they have to cite an excuse - they have no other basis to justify their decision, for the simple reason that no one wants to argue the validity of their reasoning with the public at large. It's a lot easier to just say "We had an ODP, they're an ally!" than say "The person we hit was in the wrong" or "An alliance we like needed us." Instead we get the, as you put it, quasi-legal run around. 2[/quote]

Having an option to do something isn't the same as it being a mere excuse to do something. Can you create a scenario where someone used the option to do something as an excuse to do it? Of course. But once again, that in no way invalidates the legal justification for it.

[quote]Once again, no. You're conflating optional pacts with obligatory pacts, they're not the same. If the same degree of trust and such existed for every optional pact in the world, it'd be an obligatory one. [/quote]

Once again with feeling...an ODP is not a MDP and I never stated that it was otherwise.

[quote]Great thing they have you watching their backs, then. Inspector Hal, ensuring all actions taken by GOD or SOS are legitimate and honest. Honestly, I find the implication that GOD signed this for "PR Reasons" [which is hilarious considering both alliances know full well we're not hugely liked] or the implication that SOS was 'conned' here by someone totally outside the entire treaty process to be significantly more arrogant and condescending than anything either alliance itself has done.[/quote]

Nice attempt at blowing smoke. You say this isn't a PR stunt, fine. Once again...if what you wanted was a PIAT, if all you consider this treaty is a PIAT, why is it called "A Tale of Two Gods, A Treaty of Optional Defense and Aggression"? Why speak so disparagingly of ODPs or OAODPs (which is what this would actually be)?

[NoFish]

You sound pretty upset about this, Hal. Might I ask what your stake in it is if GOD and SOS want to sign a treaty with an OADP clause? Did our OADP clause burn down your house and kill your dog?

[chefjoe]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1302723495' post='2690137']
You sound pretty upset about this, Hal. Might I ask what your stake in it is if GOD and SOS want to sign a treaty with an OADP clause? Did our OADP clause burn down your house and kill your dog?
[/quote]

Nope its just Hal, he just likes to point out hypocricy when and where he sees it...