To all the people ~callingout~ Legion allies such as Polar

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Legio Frigidum']Article III: Mutual Defense

[b]In the signing of this pact, both sides agree to defend and aid one another in times of war [i]when requested by the other signatory alliance[/i].[/b] Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources. In the event that outside treaties come into conflict, they will be treated with a case by case basis.

To request assistance in a time of war, the alliance which is in need must first send a request to the other signatory alliance. That alliance then has 24 hours, or one day, to fully prepare for the shift from peace to war for maximum war efficiency. If one alliance commits a warranted act of aggression and requests assistance from the other signatory alliance, that alliance is not required to grant the request. However, the other signatory is still highly encouraged to offer their assistance. Let it be known that this treaty provides all signatories with full legal justification to enter a conflict that concerns the other, if they so choose.[/quote]

The treaty plainly states that Polar only needs to enter should Legion request such assistance. And given the people they're fighting, it's clear they don't feel they need assistance. I know others may write their MDoAP's to state mandatory military defense when an ally comes under attack (or defense, I don't want this to devolve into an argument about whether Legion is Aggressive or Defensive here), but this treaty plainly states that defense is only required when asked for. The same goes for Invicta and NADC as well.

[quote name='Invicta']ARTICLE IV - Mutual Defense
Should any of the signatories come under the attack of any third party, [b]they may request assistance[/b] by the other signatory to repel said attack. Both signatories must obey said request for assistance with financial aid and/or military action.[/quote]

[quote name='NADC']IV-Mutual Defense
In the signing of this pact, both sides agree to defend and aid one another in times of war [b]when requested[/b] by the other signatory alliance. Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources. In the event that outside treaties come into conflict, they will be treated with a case by case basis.[/quote]

Basically, shut the $%&@ up and let these alliances duke it out, which is clearly what they wanted anyways. I'm sure you can spin this to make a comment about how it's a rather lame way to word your treaties if these are your friends you're talking about, but I suggest you look at treaties closer before making yourselves look like idiots as many of you have been in the countless topics this week. I know some of my treaties are based on request as well, but some are instant-mandatory defense too

[Daimos]

Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP?

[potato]

For the record, MK is behind the wording of the treaty too. Yes, we're evil like this.

[Mompson]

Thank you. People are just finding a reason in nothing to try and harass NpO. If you want to harass us, find a real reason.

[Teddyyo]

While I do dislike NpO, giving them crap for not coming in is silly and ignorant of how wars on Bob work.

[EpsilonPhoenix]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1318001006' post='2819709']
For the record, MK is behind the wording of the treaty too. Yes, we're evil like this.
[/quote]
You devious !@#$%^&* have your hands in everything!

[Jack Straw]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318000991' post='2819707']
Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP?
[/quote]
Aid is required when requested.

[supercoolyellow]

I'm agreeing with leet guy :3

[Beau Vine]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318000991' post='2819707']
Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP?[/quote]

Oh ffs, he quoted the exact paragraphs for you already.

[quote]Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, [b]the other is required to[/b] come to its assistance with its full strength and resources. [/quote][quote][b]Both signatories must obey said reques[/b]t for assistance with financial aid and/or military action.[/quote]
[quote]Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other[b] is required to[/b] come to its assistance with its full strength and resources. [/quote]

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1318000553' post='2819698']
The treaty plainly states that Polar only needs to enter should Legion request such assistance. And given the people they're fighting, it's clear they don't feel they need assistance. I know others may write their MDoAP's to state mandatory military defense when an ally comes under attack (or defense, I don't want this to devolve into an argument about whether Legion is Aggressive or Defensive here), but this treaty plainly states that defense is only required when asked for. The same goes for Invicta and NADC as well.





Basically, shut the $%&@ up and let these alliances duke it out, which is clearly what they wanted anyways. I'm sure you can spin this to make a comment about how it's a rather lame way to word your treaties if these are your friends you're talking about, but I suggest you look at treaties closer before making yourselves look like idiots as many of you have been in the countless topics this week. I know some of my treaties are based on request as well, but some are instant-mandatory defense too
[/quote]

Why would you want to disprove Polar's delusions? The rest of us were pretty entertained by Polar thinking it was all about Polar.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Charles Stuart

[Daimos]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318000991' post='2819707']
Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP?
[/quote]

I think I got the answer to my own question.

With an Optional treaty, you have the option to refuse a request. With this treaty, you do not.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Daimos

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318002121' post='2819729']
With an Optional treaty, you have the option to refuse a request. With this treaty, you do not.
[/quote]

Correct, and the point is that even when attacked the request is still necessary for defense.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318002121' post='2819729']
I think I got the answer to my own question.
[/quote]

It's not answering your own question when a person answered it for you already...

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318000991' post='2819707']
Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP?
[/quote]


EDIT: I was beat to it

Edited October 7, 2011 by Unknown Smurf

[WarriorConcept]

Stay classy, leet guy
















(not sarcasm)

[wickedj]

Except Invicta is going to be flamed forever. They were coming in and then suddenly lost their backbone(not surprising really, have you seen how incompetent they are?)

[Rush Sykes]

Personally, I have never "called out" a Legion ally.

That being said, that they bastardize the meaning and spirit of what mutual defense is, underscores the reasons that they are unable to gain any traction in global respect. The whole thing stinks of stat hugging. As I said in a blog reply earlier, it is why alliances in the C&G sphere have risen to prominence in the game, we did not fear our beatdowns, because at the end of the day, we knew we were better than the other side. These guys fear a beatdown, because they know they are not what we were, and lack the capability to recover from beatings and return to or gain in prominence.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Rush Sykes

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318005912' post='2819790']
Personally, I have never "called out" a Legion ally.

That being said, that they bastardize the meaning and spirit of what mutual defense is, underscores the reasons that they are unable to gain any traction in global respect. The whole thing stinks of stat hugging. As I said in a blog reply earlier, it is why alliances in the C&G sphere have risen to prominence in the game, we did not fear our beatdowns, because at the end of the day, we knew we were better than the other side. These guys fear a beatdown, because they know they are not what we were, and lack the capability to recover from beatings and return to or gain in prominence.
[/quote]

You're really reaching there. I don't think any reasonable person can fault Legion for not calling in their allies when 1) They don't need them and 2) it would just got them and their friends massively crushed instead of fighting a relatively even war.

I know you're trying to bait them into all getting crushed, but try to be less obvious about it.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318005912' post='2819790']
Personally, I have never "called out" a Legion ally.

That being said, that they bastardize the meaning and spirit of what mutual defense is, underscores the reasons that they are unable to gain any traction in global respect. The whole thing stinks of stat hugging. As I said in a blog reply earlier, it is why alliances in the C&G sphere have risen to prominence in the game, we did not fear our beatdowns, because at the end of the day, we knew we were better than the other side. These guys fear a beatdown, because they know they are not what we were, and lack the capability to recover from beatings and return to or gain in prominence.
[/quote]

False.

Mutual defense is epitomized here. If Legion's allies were to enter this war, they would be decimated, there is no doubt about it. People talk about Fark/XX/SF in there too evening out the sides, but there is only an ODP that ties us to them and it is very unlikely they would be on our side considering one of the first big guns from Tetris' side (if this escalated) would be Ragnarok. Ours would be Polaris. Why would Fark bring in XX/SF if they are MDoAP'd to RoK?

So for the [b]mutual defense[/b] of all the collective allies of ours and of ourselves long term, our best bet is to not have them go to war.

[Rush Sykes]

You are both more proving my point than disproving it. Yes they would get decimated. The point is, they CARE that they would get decimated. Fear of your enemies is my point about the difference between them now and us (back then). We didnt fear our enemies. We didnt cleverly word treaties so that one of us could be the sacrificial lamb and protect everyone else until they could get a "better political position. We took every beating presented to us, we got better for them, and outplayed those who beat us all those years. Do you think you guys are capable of that? I dont. Hence the reason for all this clever wording.

[Schattenmann]

It seems to me it's the business of Legion and its allies to decide the terms of their relationships, and it seems further to me that it's the braking effect on everyone's plans for Polaris that that "clever wording" has that is what upsets you, not the actual terms of Legion's relationships.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318007787' post='2819820']
You are both more proving my point than disproving it. Yes they would get decimated. The point is, they CARE that they would get decimated. Fear of your enemies is my point about the difference between them now and us (back then). We didnt fear our enemies. We didnt cleverly word treaties so that one of us could be the sacrificial lamb and protect everyone else until they could get a "better political position. We took every beating presented to us, we got better for them, and outplayed those who beat us all those years. Do you think you guys are capable of that? I dont. Hence the reason for all this clever wording.
[/quote]

There is no sacrificial lamb here. The war is even (something that never happens here) and Legion's ally's are prepared to roll in (at least NpO) should someone on the opposite side come in to tip the scales too much. Playing it this way is way more viable to overturn the current political scale against them rather than "taking every beating presented." They're playing it as smart as they can and there really is nothing to fault them for it except that it doesn't let the rest of us enter.

[Cornelius]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318007787' post='2819820']
You are both more proving my point than disproving it. Yes they would get decimated. The point is, they CARE that they would get decimated. Fear of your enemies is my point about the difference between them now and us (back then). We didnt fear our enemies. We didnt cleverly word treaties so that one of us could be the sacrificial lamb and protect everyone else until they could get a "better political position. We took every beating presented to us, we got better for them, and outplayed those who beat us all those years. Do you think you guys are capable of that? I dont. Hence the reason for all this clever wording.
[/quote]
Maybe, but remember that Legion has a decent chance of winning this war as it is (and a decent chance of losing it too, it is fairly even). But if they call in their allies, they're very likely to lose. The situation now is somewhat favorable, but more importantly it is extremely favorable compared to if they call in their allies. Not only for themselves, but also for their allies. Why would they turn a winnable war (where they take some damage and their allies take none) into a nearly certain loss (where they and all of their allies are destroyed)? They have no obligation to call in their allies for the entertainment of everyone else, so why should they?

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1318008145' post='2819827']
There is no sacrificial lamb here. The war is even (something that never happens here) and Legion's ally's are prepared to roll in (at least NpO) should someone on the opposite side come in to tip the scales too much. Playing it this way is way more viable to overturn the current political scale against them rather than "taking every beating presented." They're playing it as smart as they can and there really is nothing to fault them for it except that it doesn't let the rest of us enter.
[/quote]

Please dont feed me nonsense about the war being even. DO YOU NOT SEE THE OUTRAGE THAT zOMG its 5 alliances on 1! SIZE DOES NOT MATTER! Or something. As for your argument that they are choosing the most viable path to overturn the political scale against them, its a difference of opinion, and to be honest, neither of us can present it as fact one way or another. But I do have a history on my side. Nobody has ever improved their political position by sitting around waiting for a better time. Ask NPO how well that approach works. Ask TOP(to a lesser degree, but still semi-similar) how well that worked. The issue with Polar-Legion... is respect. Nobody respects them. That they avoid conflict does not win them respect. That they want to sit and wait till a better position appears, wont win them respect. Either way, thats my view on it.

[Unknown Smurf]

EDIT: Wow I missed 7 posts while typing that up and its now irrelevant... (said above).

Ignore this.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Unknown Smurf