An Announcement from the Imperial Assault Alliance

[TRON IX]

Seerow pretty much summed it up.



-Tron(next)ix

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1318011805' post='2819905']
I don't think I've disputed the tactical reasons for them staying out of the war. In fact I have noted that their motivation is entirely tactical. After the amount of crap Legion has been put through they deserve better though. Further, tactical or not, Polar and the rest of Legion's Ally's are cowards. No amount of strategy eliminates the fact that you are wetting yourself.

[b]I absolutely understand both in terms of numbers and strategy why Polar is doing what it's doing. I just think it's wrong.[/b]

Still not too sure whether we are baiting them or preempting them yet.
[/quote]

So you agree that our strategy is the best possible thing to do in our shoes, but you think it's wrong? Well we're sorry we've pissed off our enemies and haven't done what they think we should do.

As for 'deserving better,' how is it better for us to let our allies burn to the ground for no reason? As pointed out in many places, and acknowledged by yourself the mutual well-being of Legion and all of its allies is best done by our allies NOT entering the war. Therefore, our mutual defense agreement is being fulfilled, as our current actions are ensuring mutual defense.

Sorry we are using brains instead of brawn on this and it pisses you off. I find it hard to believe that a complaints and grievances member would go against everything its bloc originally stood for and advocate a curb-stomp.


[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1318013286' post='2819926']
No one wins an OWF argument. It's just beating your chest as loud as you can to outdo the other person. Only thing it accomplishes is if you know something the public doesn't or you're defending a friend.
[/quote]

Defriending a friend seems to be the case here, though I'm sad to say that its well deserved due to the fact that said friend is incompassionate to the trials and tribulations of the average person on this side of the web...

Edited October 7, 2011 by Unknown Smurf

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318018052' post='2820008']
Legion is in an offensive war. Correct. So no ally of yours is obligated to attack Tetris, since attacking Tetris was an offensive action.

However, you have since been attacked by other alliances. These other alliances, while entering as defense, is an attack on Legion, mandating your allies to defend you. This is especially true in the case of the IAA (whose DoW we're all supposed to be discussing), and BTA, since they represent alliances coming in off aggressive clauses.

Really how hard is it to understand, if you get attacked, allies are obligated to defend.


Right now the breakdown as I see it:
Legion->Tetris, agressive.
NSO&NsO->Legion, defensive (has defensive treaty with Tetris who was attacked by Legion)
IAA&BTA->Legion, offensive (has no treaty with Tetris, but has an offensive treaty with NsO which was activated)


Right now, if Polar decided to declare on Tetris, that would be using an aggressive clause, because Tetris hasn't actually attacked anyone. But declaring on any of the 4 other alliances would be using defensive, because they attacked Legion, even though two of them did so defensively.

Similarly, right now everyone on Tetris's side can only call in allies with aggressive clauses, because aside from Tetris, nobody's been hit. But when someone actually goes about attacking them, they start activating those defensive clauses, and the war will get bigger quickly. This is pretty much exactly why Legion's allies are trying to avoid attacking, because they don't want those defensive treaties to activate.

Given that every one of the alliances involved actually activated their treaties in the manner I described, I'd say the way I interpret it is actually a pretty common interpretation on Bob. But people like you try to confuse things by lumping sides together and saying "this whole side is aggressive" or "We're all just defending" which is bs. The way treaties are activated has pretty much always been relative.
[/quote]

That is called chaining and our MDoAPs do not have chaining clauses, (neither do a couple of the declaree's, but I'll save that for some other time).

In addition to that, I think you would do well to read Leet Guy's [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867]post[/url]

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1317947035' post='2819060']
Methrage, you have no idea what the stats of this fight are. Legion's already lost the mid-range war, which is the only relevant range thats being fought here.

Remember IRON-Gramlins? Yeah, its gonna wind up being like that, only at a far more accelerated pace due to Legions institutionalized lack of warchests.
[/quote]
While NSO might be holding up fine, in wars likfe these Legion needs to pick and choose which of the many alliances attacking them to focus on. Anyone can exercise the option of aggression at anytime, for IAA to be doing it here makes me think not everyone on your side is doing well. IAA has never struck me as the type to bandwagon onto the winning side just to hit someone while they are down for fun. Some on your side must of seen it as neccecary to get more help.

[Seerow]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318019041' post='2820022']
That is called chaining and our MDoAPs do not have chaining clauses, (neither do a couple of the declaree's, but I'll save that for some other time).

In addition to that, I think you would do well to read Leet Guy's [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867]post[/url]
[/quote]

That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering, just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments.

As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty).

[Banedon]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318019886' post='2820038']
That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering, just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments.

As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty).
[/quote]

If you have not, please look at Leet Guy's post. It's all there, nicely bolded for you.

In summary:

In order for the defensive component of the treaties to activate, we have to formally ask the other side to join us.
Until then, they can want to join us all they want, there is nothing requiring them to do so.
If we do ask for help, they don't have a choice, they must come in.
Currently we have not asked them to assist us, in fact we've asked them to stay out at this time.

[Seerow]

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1318020220' post='2820048']
If you have not, please look at Leet Guy's post. It's all there, nicely bolded for you.

In summary:

In order for the defensive component of the treaties to activate, we have to formally ask the other side to join us.
Until then, they can want to join us all they want, there is nothing requiring them to do so.
If we do ask for help, they don't have a choice, they must come in.
Currently we have not asked them to assist us, in fact we've asked them to stay out at this time.
[/quote]

I'm genuinely curious. Did you even read my post that you just quoted?


In fact, let me quote it again for you:

[quote]That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since [b]I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering[/b], just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments.
[/quote]

Edited October 7, 2011 by Seerow

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318019886' post='2820038']
That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering, just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments.

As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty).
[/quote]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here because I don't consider that defensive... considering we "started" the war.

EDIT: Though I see where you are coming from.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Unknown Smurf

[Banedon]

I was responding since you were asking about the chaining clauses.

They don't "chain" unless we make a formal request. There is no automatic activation so therefore, no chaining. At least, as I understand chaining. If I've misunderstood the main point of your question then my mistake.

There is nothing in any treaty specifically barring our allies from helping us. But at the same token, we're telling our allies not to jump in, and it would be pretty silly to ignore your ally's desires.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Banedon

[Seerow]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318020525' post='2820054']
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here because I don't consider that defensive... considering we "started" the war.

EDIT: Though I see where you are coming from.
[/quote]

While you started the war, they did declare on you. Now this is a case of chaining, so NpO and NADC are within rights to say "Sorry no not entering" since they have the chaining clause. They might be dicks for doing so if they did so when you really desperately needed them (which may not be now, but could happen down the line, especially as more of your members hit bill lock, which we both know is happening pretty quickly regardless of your OWF posturing), but they would be within their rights per your treaty.

Invicta and TLR however have no such clause, so if you ask, even though you started with an act of aggression, they are required to enter to defend you from those who attacked you. (So against anyone currently involved except Tetris). Unless there actually is a non-chaining clause involved in those two treaties I didn't see when checking earlier (which is possible, I have been known to miss details in the past, and will admit I'm wrong if you can point one out to me).


[quote]I was responding since you were asking about the chaining clauses.

They don't "chain" unless we make a formal request. There is no automatic activation so therefore, no chaining. At least, as I understand chaining. If I've misunderstood the main point of your question then my mistake. [/quote]

Okay, this is a case of a misunderstanding of what chaining is. You're saying the activation itself is a chain. That's not true. In the case of all of your treaties, all of them require a direct request to activate.

What the chaining clause is, is that clause in the polar treaty that says if you start with an act of aggression, Polar is within rights to deny to defend you for your aggression. So since you attacked Tetris, even though you're being attacked, if you requested help, Polar could say no, per that clause. Invicta and TLR don't have that clause though, so even though you started it aggressively, if you ask for help, they have to come.

That's the difference. Hope that makes it clearer.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Seerow

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1318013501' post='2819931']
I rest my case.
[/quote]

Lanore was far from one of the ones supporting the NSO drop. In fact, I remember very clearly Lanore talking about extreme dissent in our thread. A member of congress at the time suggested hitting Lanore for the OWF post. Of course that didn't happen though.

Lanore also was not in government when GATO left IAA to burn. With the exception of two people there isn't anyone in current GATO gov who supported either of those moves.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318018864' post='2820021']
Defriending a friend seems to be the case here, though I'm sad to say that its well deserved due to the fact that said friend is incompassionate to the trials and tribulations of the average person on this side of the web...
[/quote]

Who has defriended you?

Edited October 7, 2011 by Omniscient1

[Banedon]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318020894' post='2820059']
While you started the war, they did declare on you. Now this is a case of chaining, so NpO and NADC are within rights to say "Sorry no not entering" since they have the chaining clause. They might be dicks for doing so if they did so when you really desperately needed them (which may not be now, but could happen down the line, especially as more of your members hit bill lock, which we both know is happening pretty quickly regardless of your OWF posturing), but they would be within their rights per your treaty.

Invicta and TLR however have no such clause, so if you ask, even though you started with an act of aggression, they are required to enter to defend you from those who attacked you. (So against anyone currently involved except Tetris). Unless there actually is a non-chaining clause involved in those two treaties I didn't see when checking earlier (which is possible, I have been known to miss details in the past, and will admit I'm wrong if you can point one out to me).




Okay, this is a case of a misunderstanding of what chaining is. You're saying the activation itself is a chain. That's not true. In the case of all of your treaties, all of them require a direct request to activate.

What the chaining clause is, is that clause in the polar treaty that says if you start with an act of aggression, Polar is within rights to deny to defend you for your aggression. So since you attacked Tetris, even though you're being attacked, if you requested help, Polar could say no, per that clause. Invicta and TLR don't have that clause though, so even though you started it aggressively, if you ask for help, they have to come.

That's the difference. Hope that makes it clearer.
[/quote]


I can see what you're asking about, but just as people will dither, hem and haw about offensive vs. defensive wars and declarations, people can and will hem and haw about whether Tetris posting screenshots constitutes aggression. We say yes, and our allies agree. Tetris and their allies somehow disagree, though if Legion and Tetris were reversed we'd be on the wrong end of a huge dogpile right now. If NpO thought it wasn't an aggressive act they wouldn't have to support us I suppose. But I believe that clause is a hold over from Bi-Polar and the switch-a-roo they did then.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1318019134' post='2820024']
While NSO might be holding up fine, in wars likfe these Legion needs to pick and choose which of the many alliances attacking them to focus on. Anyone can exercise the option of aggression at anytime, for IAA to be doing it here makes me think not everyone on your side is doing well. IAA has never struck me as the type to bandwagon onto the winning side just to hit someone while they are down for fun. Some on your side must of seen it as neccecary to get more help.
[/quote]

Here's the issue with this argument, IAA is not the same alliance it was in the past, it has a completely different leader in James Wilson. Most of the Government is completely different and the culture is very much so different. In fact the only remaining member of government from the previous reign would be Grand Admiral Republic Loyalist. That said, this is not the same IAA.

[Lanore]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1318013286' post='2819926']
No one wins an OWF argument. It's just beating your chest as loud as you can to outdo the other person. Only thing it accomplishes is if you know something the public doesn't or you're defending a friend.
[/quote]
Ah good point Omni. I forgot why I don't post here often.

Back to work in my ministry, my alliance needs me.

About the IAA declaration, seriously guys stop saying it was baiting you. Our motives cannot be to bait AND preempt you at the same time. You need to decide which you think we are doing.

D34th, you cannot rest a case you don't have.

Notes:

When I say "we" I mean the "we" Legion & co. seem to think are against them. AKA everyone but SF and XX.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1318022163' post='2820085']
Here's the issue with this argument, IAA is not the same alliance it was in the past, it has a completely different leader in James Wilson. Most of the Government is completely different and the culture is very much so different. In fact the only remaining member of government from the previous reign would be Grand Admiral Republic Loyalist. That said, this is not the same IAA.
[/quote]
I guess it is true most of the familiar faces I knew from IAA aren't there anymore, those who still are there aren't the type to get involved with Gov. I wonder how long some of the old members who have been there since the start will stick around if the alliance has really changed as much as you make it sound like and their new government has completely different values from the old.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1317934519' post='2818855']
The CB or other reasons really don't play into our choice. IAA is our pal. For better or worse.
[/quote]
I feel like I'm back in 2008 listening to NPO talking about GGA.

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317938107' post='2818930']
oA's have always in my eyes been purely for bandwagoning, nothing else.
[/quote]
That's just plain silly. Bandwagoning is when you have 13M NS fighting 3M NS and a 2M alliance hops on. It has nothing to do with treaty clauses.

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1317946234' post='2819042']
I think NSO is the only alliance in the game with an ODoAP with every other alliance in the game.
[/quote]
We recognize the Moldavi Doctrine as well.

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318018052' post='2820008']
Legion is in an offensive war. Correct. So no ally of yours is obligated to attack Tetris, since attacking Tetris was an offensive action.

However, you have since been attacked by other alliances. These other alliances, while entering as defense, is an attack on Legion, mandating your allies to defend you. This is especially true in the case of the IAA (whose DoW we're all supposed to be discussing), and BTA, since they represent alliances coming in off aggressive clauses.

Really how hard is it to understand, if you get attacked, allies are obligated to defend.
[/quote]
Do you understand what a non-chaining clause is?

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318019886' post='2820038']
As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty).
[/quote]
Heh, I wrote the non-chaining clause in our treaty.

I don't write separate non-chaining clauses, I think they're foolish. I write the defense clause in such a way to make it not chain. Here it is.

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1258263988' post='1970491']
ARTICLE IV - Mutual Defense
Should either signatory alliance come under attack, they may request military assistance from the other signatory. Such assistance is mandatory except in the event that the attack has been launched due to the fulfillment of another treaty obligation. In that case it is up to the other signatory to decide whether or not to grant the request.
[/quote]

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1318020973' post='2820060']
Who has defriended you?
[/quote]

Walling.

[William Blake]

GATO sure does a lot of !@#$ talking these days, where does their bravado come from?

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='William Blake' timestamp='1318102735' post='2821019']
GATO sure does a lot of !@#$ talking these days, where does their bravado come from?
[/quote]

They just got into C&G

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='William Blake' timestamp='1318102735' post='2821019']
GATO sure does a lot of !@#$ talking these days, where does their bravado come from?
[/quote]

They now have good alliances protecting them.

[magicninja]

Our ties to CnG have been pretty solid for a long time now. I think what it really is, is a component of our democratic system. Sometimes you have people in gov who are more diplomatic and friendly (ie, Laserwolf) sometimes you have some people who like a little action. I like it that way. It kind of makes GATO unpredictable if you don't know the people in gov.

[letub]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1318120569' post='2821167']
Our ties to CnG have been pretty solid for a long time now. I think what it really is, is a component of our democratic system. Sometimes you have people in gov who are more diplomatic and friendly (ie, Laserwolf) sometimes you have some people who like a little action. I like it that way. It kind of makes GATO unpredictable if you don't know the people in gov.
[/quote]


Did somebody say action? Lock and load.

[Hereno]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1318113948' post='2821126']
They now have good alliances protecting them.
[/quote]

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96303]I will remember you. Will you remember me?[/url]

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1318121359' post='2821179']
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96303]I will remember you. Will you remember me?[/url]
[/quote]

You're silly if you think I wouldn't do stuff like that otherwise.

[Confusion]

Is it just me or did this thread also incline [i]you[/i] to believe that IAA will disband due to internal strife before this war is over?