Declaration From The Independent Republic of Orange Nations

[Letum]

I will agree that it would have been better to cancel the treaty beforehand. That is not in dispute. Hindsight is always 20/20. We made a mistake. I'm sure no one else has ever done the same. :

What the $&@! are you talking about? We negotiated with LoSS to get them off of NG. It is not our job to protect your entire coalition from the evil forces of LoSS or hell even to defend NG's other allies for that matter. Our job was to assist NG which we did through diplomatic means. The fact that our assistance was rejected is not our fault.

Okay, let's play this game.

LoSS peaces out with NG and deploys on front "B". Another alliance that would have gone to front B instead deploys on NG.

LoSS benefits from saving face for their ill-thought manner of entry. IRON benefits by having an excuse that they "did their part". NG still gets dogpiled just as much as it is now and sees zero benefit.

Is that seriously what IRON would consider being a good ally to work out as? Trying to broker a deal that gives zero benefit to your ally, and nothing but positive PR for their enemies?

[MagicalTrevor]

It just keeps getting better I swear.

 

 

Good luck to my friends.

[Sunny Side King]

It was more so you demanding them to peace out and agree to no re-entry... which is hilarious, given that you are in no position to make such demands.

You would think we would have a little pull when IRON is in the same room and has every right to activate our treaty against LoSS. That wasn't the case because LoSS came to us demanding "white peace with no re-entry between NG/LoSS." They knew at that point that IRON wasn't going to make a move against them, otherwise they would have been more inclined to negotiate.

 

And obviously we weren't going to accept their demands because it serves us no benefit.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sunny Side King

[Commander shepard]

Okay, let's play this game.

LoSS peaces out with NG and deploys on front "B". Another alliance that would have gone to front B instead deploys on NG.

LoSS benefits from saving face for their ill-thought manner of entry. IRON benefits by having an excuse that they "did their part". NG still gets dogpiled just as much as it is now and sees zero benefit.

Is that seriously what IRON would consider being a good ally to work out as? Trying to broker a deal that gives zero benefit to your ally, and nothing but positive PR for their enemies?

Is LoSS that much of a force that someone has to replace them on NG front?
And who would replace them on the NG front?
From the War map I can see LoSS being able to only enter on two fronts directly, ODN and TPF(which they're on). Edited November 17, 2013 by Commander shepard

[ChairmanHal]

By present world standards, that doesn't seem to matter much.

 

Doesn't your alliance..and in fact all of C&G have a treaty with NPO?  When they were getting dogpiled early on exactly where was ODN?

 

Point being this: everyone makes decisions based upon the treaties they hold in their hand for good or ill.  Those decisions have consequences and sometimes you end up in a part of fight perhaps you didn't want, but you fight anyway.  Some decisions though you make have outcomes that are predictable.  So while you and yours are casting stones in IRON's direction, remember that you too made decisions with regard to this conflict and ended up in a place isn't necessarily to the best benefit to all your allies.

 

You have a nice glass house, be a shame if it got cracked.

[Steve Buscemi]

People keep saying we didn't help out NG when they were attacked by LoSS. But we did, in fact, negotiate a white peace AND no re-entry offer from LoSS on NG and any of their allies. An offer which was immediately declined. How is that not helping?

 

Bolded is not true.  NG had one talk with LoSS and they would only take white peace, no re-entry on JUST each other.  Meaning they could hit our allies the next day.  This is the ONLY terms that were offered.  NG doesn't sell out our allies to take less damage.

 

There were two rounds of talks. In the second LoSS did in fact agree not to hit NG's allies either. That too was rejected.

NG was present for only one talk.  You are either misinformed or lying. 

 

Which speaks for the claim of IRON that there hasn't been any communication between the two parties. Is it IRON's responsibility to knock on NG's door and offer assistance? Most MDP's are worded and understood the other way round. If you need assistance, you ask your allies for help. So it's NG's problem if they didn't knew IRON's position on the matter.

 

If the plotting against the New Polar Order is considered an aggressive act, (that it was a defensive action can't be taken for granted), then it's IRON's right to choose whether to activate the optional Agression clause, or whether not to. 

We've had quite a bit of communication actually, both forums and IRC.  We still do.  And I was in constant communication with IRON's main FA person, Shah quite often for several months prior to this war.  Along with a few other IRON members and IRON gov.  So there was a normal level of comms for allies.

 

Current NG gov has never plotted to roll the NpO, a point that even Dajobo will acknowledge.  I get it, we must pay for past sins, but lets not use present tense when it's clearly past tense.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Steve Buscemi

[Robster83]

Okay, let's play this game.

LoSS peaces out with NG and deploys on front "B". Another alliance that would have gone to front B instead deploys on NG.

LoSS benefits from saving face for their ill-thought manner of entry. IRON benefits by having an excuse that they "did their part". NG still gets dogpiled just as much as it is now and sees zero benefit.

Is that seriously what IRON would consider being a good ally to work out as? Trying to broker a deal that gives zero benefit to your ally, and nothing but positive PR for their enemies?

 

I think the crux of this whole debate is that the relationship between IRON - NG had already broken down. Only those who chose to remain ignorant did not see it. It's clear that IRON should of cancelled the treaty, which they essentially saw as redundant anyway, and I am sure they agree with me -- albeit with the benefit of hindsight now. Let's not act like they are the only alliance around to let a treaty gather some dust... it's just extremely unfortunate for them that in this war, it had to become an issue with the whole LoSS debacle. 

 

However at the end of the day, this was a situation where whatever choice they made, they would seemingly be backing out of already made commitments. From this point onwards it was just a decision of who they would rather roll with. And clearly they made their choice...

[Baltus]

Glad to be finally fighting on the same side as IRON.

 

Welcome. o/

[Letum]

I think the crux of this whole debate is that the relationship between IRON - NG had already broken down. Only those who chose to remain ignorant did not see it. It's clear that IRON should of cancelled the treaty, which they essentially saw as redundant anyway, and I am sure they agree with me -- albeit with the benefit of hindsight now. Let's not act like they are the only alliance around to let a treaty gather some dust... it's just extremely unfortunate for them that in this war, it had to become an issue with the whole LoSS debacle. 
 
However at the end of the day, this was a situation where whatever choice they made, they would seemingly be backing out of already made commitments. From this point onwards it was just a decision of who they would rather roll with. And clearly they made their choice...

This is not the first time an alliance has to pick a side whilst having allies in both. Multiple commitments happen all the time. However, most alliances are able to navigate them without completely alienating half of their sphere.

IRON could have chosen a dozen different paths that still led them to fight on the winning side without bungling it *this* badly. Edited November 17, 2013 by Letum

[Varianz]

Yes, they had a treaty.

No one believes that lol. Like, no one. The fact that you have to pretend they do so you can at least maintain the pretense that you followed through at least a tiny bit on your obligations doesn't change the fact that there was no treaty.

[ccabal86]

 

 

 

Bolded is not true.  NG had one talk with LoSS and they would only take white peace, no re-entry on JUST each other.  Meaning they could hit our allies the next day.

This is the ONLY terms that were offered.  NG doesn't sell out our allies to take less damage.

 

 

NG was present for only one talk.  Please stop lying.

 

I'm not gov, don't know exactly in what shape of form they happened, but the fact is there was a second offer that you knew of, and also rejected.

 

But since we're discussing redeployments of LoSS on other fronts: Could someone please tell me why our treaty with NG implies we have some sort of obligation to defend other members of their coalition too?

Edited November 17, 2013 by ccabal86

[Robster83]

This is not the first time an alliance has to pick a side whilst having allies in both. Multiple commitments happen all the time. However, most alliances are able to navigate them without completely alienating half of their sphere.

IRON could have chosen a dozen different paths that still led them to fight on the winning side without bungling it *this* badly.

 

I don't disagree with you. IRON will themselves recognise that they made mistakes. Not cancelling the NG treaty being the prime one. However some people are really making it a bigger deal than it is, for obvious reasons.

[enderland]

The interesting implication, I suppose, is that anyone who hits IRON in defense of TLR will prevent them from activating their other treaties due to the same non-chaining clauses.

[Sunny Side King]

I doubt

 

 

I'm not gov, don't know exactly in what shape of form they happened, but the fact is there was a second offer that you knew of, and also rejected.

 

But since we're discussing redeployments of LoSS on other fronts: Could someone please tell me why our treaty with NG implies we have some sort of obligation to defend other members of their coalition too?

 

There was only one talk and that consisted of "white peace with no re-entry between NG/LoSS." With that being said, it serves us no benefit to white peace with LoSS when they're going to attack our allies who are taking pressure off of us. Speaking of which, thanks for putting more pressure on us via a oA.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sunny Side King

[AirMe]

Oh god. This is hilarious. 

[Pingu]

 
Doesn't your alliance..and in fact all of C&G have a treaty with NPO?  When they were getting dogpiled early on exactly where was ODN?
 
Point being this: everyone makes decisions based upon the treaties they hold in their hand for good or ill.  Those decisions have consequences and sometimes you end up in a part of fight perhaps you didn't want, but you fight anyway.  Some decisions though you make have outcomes that are predictable.  So while you and yours are casting stones in IRON's direction, remember that you too made decisions with regard to this conflict and ended up in a place isn't necessarily to the best benefit to all your allies.
 
You have a nice glass house, be a shame if it got cracked.

Even by your standards, this is weak. If any of C&G's allies at whose side we are fighting on several fronts thinks we are not pulling our weight or living up to our obligations, I haven't heard a whisper of it: nor, I suspect, have you. If C&G had engineered some weak excuse to attack NPO, rather than work with it, you might begin to have some kind of point.

[Nikolay]

I'm not gov, don't know exactly in what shape of form they happened, but the fact is there was a second offer that you knew of, and also rejected.

 

But since we're discussing redeployments of LoSS on other fronts: Could someone please tell me why our treaty with NG implies we have some sort of obligation to defend other members of their coalition too?

You have been lied to by your government. Not surprising. There was only one set of talks. LoSS offered whit peace on the condition that LoSS won't re-enter against NG and NG won't attack LoSS. NG countered with no LoSS re-entry against NG's allies. LoSS told NG to fuck off. That's the end of the story. Neither NG nor their allies including NPO have been involved in any second set of talks. 

[Lysistrata]

It's clearly a case of the In-Laws taking control of the divorce precedings.

"Our boy never should have married that lecherous whore".

"Our girl never should have married that no good bum of a two timing pig".

[Steve Buscemi]

I believe they did agree not to reenter period. 

 

This is also not true.

 

[21:39]    legion-x[LoSS]    the only no reentry clause im offering is on you
[21:39]    legion-x[LoSS]    *NG

 

[ccabal86]

You have been lied to by your government. Not surprising. There was only one set of talks. LoSS offered whit peace on the condition that LoSS won't re-enter against NG and NG won't attack LoSS. NG countered with no LoSS re-entry against NG's allies. LoSS told NG to fuck off. That's the end of the story. Neither NG nor their allies including NPO have been involved in any second set of talks. 

 

That's neither here or there, your word against mine, etc. But there's also this:

 

But since we're discussing redeployments of LoSS on other fronts: Could someone please tell me why our treaty with NG implies we have some sort of obligation to defend other members of their coalition too?

 

And don't tell me NG would've just been dogpiled by a bazillion others, this war is unlikely to expand much more.

Edited November 17, 2013 by ccabal86

[Steve Buscemi]

I'm not gov, don't know exactly in what shape of form they happened, but the fact is there was a second offer that you knew of, and also rejected.

No, there was no 2nd round of talks that the NG Triumvirate was apart of, so how could we reject them?

 

 

[Xavii]

I see no problems with this.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Xavii

[Devilyn Caster]

As if the world didn't need anymore proof of just how shit IRON was, this happened.

 

Burn em TLR.

[Rayvon]

That's neither here or there, your word against mine, etc. But there's also this:

Well, if you look around your posts to Steve's posts - it's more than Nikolay's word against yours.

edit: 'his' to 'Nikolay' for clarity Edited November 17, 2013 by Rayvon

[Facade]

IRON had plenty of time to do so, and they didn't.

I do hope that everyone understands that IRON needs(needed) NG in the future and likely had the intent of keeping that treaty for their gain post-war.

One can easily imagine a scenario in which IRON handled this situation in a much better manner, resulting in the NG-IRON relationship not being seemingly ruined, which I'm sure was their intention. Had that manifested, IRON would likely find themselves in a very different situation than they're in now.