Official Ronin Announcement

[Dracule Mihawk]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1314763817' post='2791431']
Considering you admitted just yesterday that Ronin could only muster a single nation for a single round of war against the last group of rogues to hit the NAAC AA in over a month's time, would it be a fair assessment to make that your alliance is fully incapable of dealing with threats to the NAAC AA? What then, is your reasoning for continuing the pseudo-protection of this abandoned alliance affiliation?
[/quote]

Because they have friends and allies who were and are prepared to assist them. And at least they tried. Better than your sorry showing, considering it took AirMe about 5 hours to fix what you guys gave up on.

-Drac

[Don Chele]

I have to say I agree with WorldConqueror and goldielax25, here. (Gasp, a Justitian agreeing with a Viridian.) To take the opposing interpretation of the effect of a protectorate treaty would defy logic in its reliance on semantic gamesmanship. If attacking a protectorate were to be a direct attack on the protector for the purposes of non-chaining treaties, then the protectorate would not exist at all as a sovereign entity, but rather only as an annex of the protector with a separate affiliation listed like an applicant "alliance affiliation". That, or it would require complete disregard for the meaning intended by the non-chaining treaty's signatories when they included the non-chaining clause.

That said, logic rarely seems as necessary around here in the interpretation of treaties or obligations as convenience does, so I suppose we should only look to whatever would be most convenient for the party complaining the loudest if we want the realistic interpretation.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314799821' post='2791595']
There's always been some give and take on the issue. However, if a protectorate treaty is worded such that an attack on the protectorate is legally interpreted as an attack on the protecting alliance, then the protecting alliance's allies can be drawn in without the non-chaining clause coming into play (particularly since most all non-chaining clauses involve an aggressive action that is countered).

As for the rest of your comments, do you really want a more stable world? Really?
[/quote]
I guess so, I just think that that part of the argument, that 'an attack on the protectorate is an attack on the protecting alliance' is a weird tradition to uphold. The only reason that attacks on protectorates are considered as such is because it's written into the treaties. And it seems odd that alliances would just accept the obligation to defend each others protectorates when most diplomatic links between ally and protectorate are limited by those same treaties.

And I'm not sure that it would create a more stable world. Protectorates would still screw up, but they and their protectors would be more liable to be rolled for it. Which would likely produce revanchism and rivalry between the alliances. I think it would lead to bigger, higher quality alliances being launched than many of the ones we get now, with few members and no purpose but to be someone's little fiefdom. Alliances being launched would have to bring something to the table to convince possible protectors that they are worth the risk, rather than simply being seen as NS assets that can be taken on with no risk, by slotting them into the protectors already existing defence arrangements.

Edited August 31, 2011 by WorldConqueror

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='Dracule Mihawk' timestamp='1314802973' post='2791612']
Because they have friends and allies who were and are prepared to assist them. And at least they tried. Better than your sorry showing, considering it took AirMe about 5 hours to fix what you guys gave up on.

-Drac
[/quote]

No, it took him the whole war minus 5 hours to really start using the resources at his disposal.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314800653' post='2791599']
I rather think WorldConqueror's interpretation of protectorates would lead to a less stable world, or at least a more rational one.[/quote]

My interpretation was that it would lead to fewer protectorates and those that did exist would attach themselves to large alliances with substantial treaties. I would see a more stable, solidly built system much like a woven cloth. If you are looking for action, you want loose cannon protectorates, those with ambiguous treaties, or treaties that pull in substantial NS...maybe. A messy weave with lots of loose threads. It's the picking at the loose threads that causes things to unravel.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314801002' post='2791604']
If an alliance enters a war through a treaty they have with another alliance, it does not obligate their other allies to enter as well. That is the definition of non-chaining. The treaty level you have with the person you go in to defend does not change the non-chaining nature of your other treaties. I don't see how one type of treaty can magically change that definition for all other treaties.[/quote]

This gets to the special nature of protectorates. They are alliances, but in some ways, not. They generally don't go out and negotiate MDPs and above, they don't become members of blocs unless that bloc is itself a protectorate. They are obligated to contact the "mother" alliance about anything significant unless they are "trusted" and the trust can evaporate completely with the next leadership change. They are expected to listen to the "advice" of their benefactor concerning internal matters and when they don't, they can be considered to be a "problem". There's more, but no, the normal "rules of treaty etiquette" regarding non-chaining do not necessarily apply.

[AirMe]

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1314804312' post='2791620']
No, it took him the whole war minus 5 hours to really start using the resources at his disposal.
[/quote]

This is completely inaccurate. And I will not get into it due to my gentlemens agreement with other parties. I also won't deny that this would have gotten cleared up a lot quicker if I hadn't been so busy for the last 10 weeks.

Edited August 31, 2011 by AirMe

[Schattenmann]

The simple fact of the matter is that an official peace was reached in about 5 seconds after Ronin stepped into the vacuum.

[Chief Savage Man]

righteous and honorable o/

[Goldie]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314804622' post='2791622']
This gets to the special nature of protectorates. They are alliances, but in some ways, not. They generally don't go out and negotiate MDPs and above, they don't become members of blocs unless that bloc is itself a protectorate. They are obligated to contact the "mother" alliance about anything significant unless they are "trusted" and the trust can evaporate completely with the next leadership change. They are expected to listen to the "advice" of their benefactor concerning internal matters and when they don't, they can be considered to be a "problem". There's more, but no, the normal "rules of treaty etiquette" regarding non-chaining do not necessarily apply.
[/quote]

When alliance A has a MDoAP to alliance B, then decides to protect alliance C, magic fairy pixie dust gets sprinkled on the original MDoAP and gives alliance B a MDoAP to alliance C, even without signing anything!

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1314804962' post='2791624']
This is completely inaccurate. And I will not get into it due to my gentlemens agreement with other parties. I also won't deny that this would have gotten cleared up a lot quicker if I hadn't been so busy for the last 10 weeks.
[/quote]

I took the 5 hours from the Drac's post (look below). I re-read your post (look below) and now know it was 12 hours, but my point stand, the resources that was avalible to Ronin did not get used until it was to late. Why did you not do this the very minute you was told NAAC was attacked? Or ask a other Ronin goverment member to do it, if you did not have the time (I too find that RL is more importen then CN).

[quote name='Dracule Mihawk' timestamp='1314802973' post='2791612']
Because they have friends and allies who were and are prepared to assist them. And at least they tried. Better than your sorry showing, considering it took AirMe about 5 hours to fix what you guys gave up on.

-Drac
[/quote]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1314766011' post='2791459']
Here we go.

Since I saw that you were dropping protection of the NAAC AA, I went and contacted my allies who had nuclear nations in range and asked for assistance. I also contacted a few other alliances I am not allied to and offered to hire them to help out. I also contacted Zombie Nation about what needed to be done for peace.

I had between 6 - 12 nuclear nations ready to hit them at update tonight, however peace was reached and the assistance was not needed. (<3 my allies for being on the ready.)

While you were typing that I went and looked at 1. JUST 1 of your allies, VE, has over 15 nations under 20k NS who are nuclear capable.I am sure they have more between 20k and 30k NS which is where these guys were when the war started? Why did you not ask them over the course of the war to help fill your holes?

Seriously, in 12 hours I was able to accomplish what you guys couldn't over the course of the war. As for our lack of assistance, we had one nation capable of fighting, which she did until I ordered her into peace mode. We also have tons of aid we can send but we need a target list to do so, a target list that was never sent.

Don't place the blame on me for you guys not asking for help or asking for the right amount of help. I had assumed you guys could handle 3 nations. But you know what they say about assumptions...now look at me.
[/quote]

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314807167' post='2791635']
When alliance A has a MDoAP to alliance B, then decides to protect alliance C, magic fairy pixie dust gets sprinkled on the original MDoAP and gives alliance B a MDoAP to alliance C, even without signing anything!
[/quote]

Why don't we just drop protectorates all together and end any silly arguments about whether protectorates chain or not.

[Timmmehhh]

If you don't have the activity or the firepower to protect NAAC but solely rely on allies you shouldn't be protecting them. Things would be a lot simpler if you just convince your allies to protect them. You look like incompetent fools if you can't get even one nation to defend the NAAC, but always talk big on the forums how you are "protecting them" with the firepower of your allies.

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314808403' post='2791643']
Why don't we just drop protectorates all together and end any silly arguments about whether protectorates chain or not.
[/quote]

You start

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1314808528' post='2791645']
You start
[/quote]
We (FOK) already did that, most micro alliances are useless. The nations residing in those alliances would be better of joining a top 100 alliance.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Timmehhh

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Elorian' timestamp='1314775238' post='2791530']
This announcement was to officially say that while Tetris cancelled their protection(for reasons their own I have no problems with, personally) of NAAC AA, Ronin will continue. How we protect the AA is our own business.

It's not about Tetris, it's about Ronin and NAAC. This thread could use less snide comments and hurt feelings - that was not the purpose with which it was posted.
[/quote]

Truthfully, as much as it was VE's and Tetris' own business on how they handle their matters, it is as much as their own business on how Ronin and NAAC goes on now, despite opinion.

Good luck, Ronin on continuing this protectorate, and apoligies if I came a bit blunt on what I said before.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Saniiro Matsudaira

[RandomInterrupt]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1314803119' post='2791613']
I have to say I agree with WorldConqueror and goldielax25, here. (Gasp, a Justitian agreeing with a Viridian.) To take the opposing interpretation of the effect of a protectorate treaty would defy logic in its reliance on semantic gamesmanship. [b]If attacking a protectorate were to be a direct attack on the protector for the purposes of non-chaining treaties, then the protectorate would not exist at all as a sovereign entity, but rather only as an annex of the protector[/b] with a separate affiliation listed like an applicant "alliance affiliation". That, or it would require complete disregard for the meaning intended by the non-chaining treaty's signatories when they included the non-chaining clause.

That said, logic rarely seems as necessary around here in the interpretation of treaties or obligations as convenience does, so I suppose we should only look to whatever would be most convenient for the party complaining the loudest if we want the realistic interpretation.
[/quote]
That is sort of the point, but you are taking it a step too far. The entire reason for holding a protectorate treaty versus a full "mutual" treaty is this distinction. I have always held the opinion that an attack on a protectorate is an attack on the protector. When I say "This alliance is under my protection" I am saying that I am taking certain ownership over their defense. There most certainly is an aspect of sovereignty that is surrendered by the protectorate, but that is done so in exchange for protection. It seems fair.

I've been a big fan of protectorate treaties and have personally arranged, signed, and managed quite a few (going back to early 2007). All of Polaris' protectorate agreements have been as I have described above. I have always believed that the major strength of a protectorate agreement was this change in normal defense sovereignty. As a protector I have a lot more options and can better defend an alliance when their defensive responsibilities are mine. This is also why we "graduate" protectorates eventually. An alliance asks us to defend us, they announce, they surrender a degree of sovereignty, we protect them with all of our resources, and then eventually when they are capable of being a fully equal mutual partner we remove the protectorate and establish a proper treaty.

If the defense of a protectorate is not a part of the protector then there is literally no benefit to holding a protectorate treaty over a mutual defense treaty. Also, as ChairmanHal has indicated, the view held by the two of us is one that has historically been accepted. Disagree if you will, but it's how most alliances have always handled it.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1314808528' post='2791645']
You start
[/quote]

I did already, when [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96376&st=0]we upgraded our final protectorate to a full MDoAP ally[/url] last December.

Your turn?

[JackSkellington]

This is even entertaining for me

Edited August 31, 2011 by JackSkellington

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314807167' post='2791635']
When alliance A has a MDoAP to alliance B, then decides to protect alliance C, magic fairy pixie dust gets sprinkled on the original MDoAP and gives alliance B a MDoAP to alliance C, even without signing anything![/quote]

Since my point is lost on you...

[img]http://michaeljlewis.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/162154__lost_l.jpg[/img]

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1314808663' post='2791647']
We (FOK) already did that, most micro alliances are useless. The nations residing in those alliances would be better of joining a top 100 alliance.
[/quote]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314810618' post='2791664']
I did already, when [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96376&st=0]we upgraded our final protectorate to a full MDoAP ally[/url] last December.

Your turn?
[/quote]

Ahhggg... You got me! We dont have any protectorate eighter, We are one of those worthless, no good protectorates
neh we are the best you can get

Edited August 31, 2011 by GoddessOfLinn

[Goldie]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314810965' post='2791667']
Since my point is lost on you...
[/quote]

Sorry, your magic fairy pixie dust can make chaining MDoAPs for you but not rational points.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314813334' post='2791684']
Sorry, your magic fairy pixie dust can make chaining MDoAPs for you but not rational points.[/quote]

So asserting that protectorates are an exception to the general rule on chaining is now "fairy pixie dust". Are confusing fairy pixie dust with angel dust? If so, that would explain a lot.

[Logan]

Good luck to Ronin in their continued protection of NAAC. I really don't understand the point of it, but I didn't really understand why we did it either.

[Goldie]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314814075' post='2791686']
So asserting that protectorates are an exception to the general rule on chaining is now "fairy pixie dust". Are confusing fairy pixie dust with angel dust? If so, that would explain a lot.
[/quote]

Because it very much makes sense that the both of us are obligated to defend University of Unity, an alliance I've never heard of.

[Don Chele]

[quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1314809303' post='2791656']
That is sort of the point, but you are taking it a step too far. The entire reason for holding a protectorate treaty versus a full "mutual" treaty is this distinction. I have always held the opinion that an attack on a protectorate is an attack on the protector. When I say "This alliance is under my protection" I am saying that I am taking certain ownership over their defense. There most certainly is an aspect of sovereignty that is surrendered by the protectorate, but that is done so in exchange for protection. It seems fair.

I've been a big fan of protectorate treaties and have personally arranged, signed, and managed quite a few (going back to early 2007). All of Polaris' protectorate agreements have been as I have described above. I have always believed that the major strength of a protectorate agreement was this change in normal defense sovereignty. As a protector I have a lot more options and can better defend an alliance when their defensive responsibilities are mine. This is also why we "graduate" protectorates eventually. An alliance asks us to defend us, they announce, they surrender a degree of sovereignty, we protect them with all of our resources, and then eventually when they are capable of being a fully equal mutual partner we remove the protectorate and establish a proper treaty.

If the defense of a protectorate is not a part of the protector then there is literally no benefit to holding a protectorate treaty over a mutual defense treaty. Also, as ChairmanHal has indicated, the view held by the two of us is one that has historically been accepted. Disagree if you will, but it's how most alliances have always handled it.
[/quote]

I think you misread my point, or I misunderstand you. Of course attacking a protectorate is like attacking the protector [i]for the purpose of defending the protectorate[/i], it simply should not be for the purpose of [i]non-chaining treaty clauses[/i]. Protectors have every right to ask an ally to help in protecting, and that ally has every right to provide help, but the ally should not have any [i]obligation[/i] to assist in defending the protectorate if the non-chaining clause is to be given its intended meaning and the protectorate is considered a separate entity from the protector.