Jump to content

Supernova X Imperial Decree


Recommended Posts

How precisely are you interpreting protection?

 

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids. It does not obligate the protector to intervene in normal wars in any fashion whatsoever - and should not. It's a protectorate, not a farm-team. (Some protectorates are actually farm teams, but you should find language reflecting that in the agreement in that case, it has to be spelled out because it's not inherent or implied in the concept.) So it is supposed to have an independent foreign policy and be able to take actions and face the consequences of those actions without interference. A mandatory defense clause, if it existed, would arguably defeat the purpose of the protectorate entirely, and at any rate is certainly not inherent or implied in one.

 

Also I just remembered something odd that I noticed earlier, and confirmed again now. Sovereign Order claims to protect Sons of Anarchy in their alliance bio. If they can protect another alliance, then they have outgrown their own protectorate, and it was overdue to either be cancelled or upgraded anyway. 

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids. It does not obligate the protector to intervene in normal wars in any fashion whatsoever - and should not. It's a protectorate, not a farm-team. (Some protectorates are actually farm teams, but you should find language reflecting that in the agreement in that case, it has to be spelled out because it's not inherent or implied in the concept.) So it is supposed to have an independent foreign policy and be able to take actions and face the consequences of those actions without interference. A mandatory defense clause, if it existed, would arguably defeat the purpose of the protectorate entirely, and at any rate is certainly not inherent or implied in one.

 
Ignoring the fact that you just invented your own interpretation of what a protectorate is, I'll break this down:
 
2. The Sovereign Order will be under the protection of Supernova-X
 
Protection is defined as:
 
1.
the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm.

 

So, please explain how protection from outside aggression is not covered under a treaty of protection? Where does it state, anywhere, that this (or any other slew of protectorate agreements that have or haven't gone honored for that matter) that it's null if it's not a raid? That protectorate seems really cut and dry, technically there shouldn't even be wiggle room for SNX to not have immediately declared war. But that's an unrealistic expectation, and likely not the case. Just like this is not the case that it's protection only from raids.

 

But please, SNX, do come out and clarify: does SNX not protect protectorates from alliance wars under any circumstance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay - best wishes to both parties, etc.

 

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids. It does not obligate the protector to intervene in normal wars in any fashion whatsoever - and should not. It's a protectorate, not a farm-team. (Some protectorates are actually farm teams, but you should find language reflecting that in the agreement in that case, it has to be spelled out because it's not inherent or implied in the concept.) So it is supposed to have an independent foreign policy and be able to take actions and face the consequences of those actions without interference. A mandatory defense clause, if it existed, would arguably defeat the purpose of the protectorate entirely, and at any rate is certainly not inherent or implied in one.

Just so there is no confusion for anyone.  This is NOT how Doom Kingdom defines our agreement when it comes to alliances who we have agreed to sign a protection treaty with at any time.  If we agree to protect a group, it's not just against raids.  If we think the group is a potential problem (i.e. if we think THEY may act in a unprofessional way) the agreement will not happen in the first place or it will get dropped long before something actually happens. 

 

I personally have never defined "protectorate" in the above fashion.

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids.
 

TSO was the target of a mass raid by MI. By your definition, protectorate agreements only defend from raids. Therefore, TSC's protector is... not obligated to defend? While ignoring what we just said in order to twist the facts to suit the storyline may be something that is a given for you, I'm afraid those of us using logic aren't as well versed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay - best wishes to both parties, etc.

Just so there is no confusion for anyone.  This is NOT how Doom Kingdom defines our agreement when it comes to alliances who we have agreed to sign a protection treaty with at any time.  If we agree to protect a group, it's not just against raids.  If we think the group is a potential problem the agreement will not happen in the first place (or it will get dropped long before something actually happens)

 

I personally have never defined "protectorate" in the above fashion.

 

It is not how anyone defines it outside of SNX.  From the wiki:

 

Protectorate Treaty is where a large alliance agrees to defend a smaller one from attack. It differs from aMutual Defense Pact in that the larger alliance does not generally require help from the smaller one in the event the larger alliance is attacked. It is essentially a "one-way MDP".

 

If your protectorate means something different from " one-way MDP", THAT is what should be specified in the treaty, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is not how anyone defines it outside of SNX.

 

To be fair, we don't have an actual definition from SNX on this issue. Sigrun pulled it out. We'll have to wait for an SNX representative or an expert in SNX affairs before anything can be called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay - best wishes to both parties, etc.

Just so there is no confusion for anyone.  This is NOT how Doom Kingdom defines our agreement when it comes to alliances who we have agreed to sign a protection treaty with at any time. 

 

So your protectorates are *all* actually farm teams? Good to know I suspect at least one or two of them do not realize this fact. You should probably be more explicit about it.

 

Edit: Also, Walshington, a wiki definition? The wiki was never that great and it's suffering bit rot as well. We have no idea who wrote the entry that you quoted or why, but when I have this anonymous and poorly written document from the wiki on the one hand, and 8+ years of experience on the other, I'm going to feel free to call BS on the wiki.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids. It does not obligate the protector to intervene in normal wars in any fashion whatsoever - and should not. It's a protectorate, not a farm-team. (Some protectorates are actually farm teams, but you should find language reflecting that in the agreement in that case, it has to be spelled out because it's not inherent or implied in the concept.) So it is supposed to have an independent foreign policy and be able to take actions and face the consequences of those actions without interference. A mandatory defense clause, if it existed, would arguably defeat the purpose of the protectorate entirely, and at any rate is certainly not inherent or implied in one.

 

Also I just remembered something odd that I noticed earlier, and confirmed again now. Sovereign Order claims to protect Sons of Anarchy in their alliance bio. If they can protect another alliance, then they have outgrown their own protectorate, and it was overdue to either be cancelled or upgraded anyway. 

 

As to the first point, quite honestly I have never seen anyone define a protectorate this way.

 

As to the second point, yes it was overdue but this was probably the worst way possible of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Also, Walshington, a wiki definition? The wiki was never that great and it's suffering bit rot as well. We have no idea who wrote the entry that you quoted or why, but when I have this anonymous and poorly written document from the wiki on the one hand, and 8+ years of experience on the other, I'm going to feel free to call BS on the wiki.

Yes, we have no idea who wrote the wiki, so we don't know if this a reliable source or not, but we know who wrote your definition: you, and that is the least reliable source so far. In fact, judging by your logical reasoning so far, you calling something BS is almost a form of validation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who think a protectorate's sole purpose is to defend from raids and nothing more : Sigrun.

 

People who think protecting a protectorate is a broad series of help, guidance, economy and military : Everyone else who has ever played CN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So your protectorates are actually farm teams? Good to know I suspect at least one or two of them do not realize this fact. You should probably be more explicit about it.

 

 

No.  We define them as one way MDP with a ODP on their end to us.  Sometimes there is either a written or spoken agreement involving tech (i.e. tech deal with us first) but that is hardly unusual.  In fact, that's exactly the deal I made WAY WAY back when I first came to Planet Bob and found out that as a small alliance leader it was a good idea to find a larger one who would agree to protect us.  Oh, and at that time the "protectorate" agreements we were offered read more like a regular MDP does today.  They included military obligations both ways.  But that was WAY back :P  Now they usually do not.

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  We define them as one way MDP with a ODP on their end to us.  Sometimes there is either a written or spoken agreement involving tech (i.e. tech deal with us first) but that is hardly unusual.  In fact, that's exactly the deal I made WAY WAY back when I first came to Planet Bob and found out that as a small alliance leader it was a good idea to find a larger one who would agree to protect us. 

 

That's exactly what I would call a farm-team then.

 

And there is nothing wrong with running farm teams, and it's also perfectly normal for a farm-team to be a protectorate (in the same way it's common for a car to have a windshield, without car and windshield becoming synonyms.) 

 

People being basically selfish I do not doubt that that is the most common use of protectorate in fact, so I can certainly understand the confusion. It may be appropriate in cases where the smaller alliance is also very inexperienced and actually *want* that sort of relationship, although I do fear that in many cases the smaller alliance winds up being used as a pawn, willingly or unwillingly, but as long as everyone involved understands what's going on *shrugs* My point is very narrow - your protectorates are not minimal protectorates, but relationships that involve a protectorate agreement with extensions, strings, additions beyond that. 

 

It's probably a fair argument whether the more common usage or the more correct one was intended here, but I really dont want to argue. It's good enough to simply understand where we are all coming from for now I think.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this annoucement, I have a sudden craving for chicken and I don't know why.

 

Regardless of my food interests, you're a bunch of cowards, you should have honoured your defensive treaty clause then when the war is over, drop it if you disagreed with the action. If you weren't prepared to protect another alliance, you shouldn't have signed the papers.

 

I hope someone declares on you for this action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can hardly call it abandonment. TSO had an opportunity to de-escalate and chose to do the opposite. They have plenty of new friends jumping in to help them and do not want or need help from their former protector, whose counsel they have obviously spurned.

 

Now if no one else was helping them, and if MInc was not willing to make a reasonable peace, and SNX did this - in THAT case it would be abandonment, sure. But that's just not what's going on here.

 

Now beyond that - TSOs wrongful use of sanctions would spark me to cancel any treaty I hold with them regardless. That's an egregious violation at least an order of magnitude greater than anything MInc has done.

 

If TSO wants to fight then they should fight. Calling for outside help and using sanctions instead is not admirable behavior, it's despicable behavior, and everyone who is encouraging and enabling it should be ashamed of themselves.

 

ITT, all allies of CA now know that they can cancel their treaty with CA, should CA get aggressively hit and not choose to send reps as a way out of war. Don't even need to defend CA at all, just up and cancel the treaty and Sigrun here, will support your decision fully. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ITT, all allies of CA now know that they can cancel their treaty with CA, should CA get aggressively hit and not choose to send reps as a way out of war. Don't even need to defend CA at all, just up and cancel the treaty and Sigrun here, will support your decision fully. 

 

 

No one would need to cancel anything. Our military treaties deliberately omit all mandatory language. And that is intentional.

 

The last thing I would try to do is drag an ally into something they preferred to stay out of. 

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably a fair argument whether the more common usage or the more correct one was intended here, but I really dont want to argue. It's good enough to simply understand where we are all coming from for now I think.

 
You took it out of the realm of "probably" when you said:
 

So it didnt apply here anyway, just like I thought. Thanks.

 
You see, the reason this is is that you attempted to state a basic fact, when instead you did not do so. The text SNX provided did not confirm anything that you said it did, and considering not a single person has come in here and shared your view on protectorates at all, it seems that instead you have a misconstrued notion of what a protectorate is and are trying to force that definition on SNX as a justifiable cause. SNX has not come out in support (or denial) of your purported definition that nobody else here has heard of. But above statements like yours are my issue with a lot of this overall discussion: the made up facts.

 

Remember when this war was an internal matter because Monsters Inc was in TCA (when they were not and never had been)?

Remember when it was "just a few wayward members" who declared and not government sanctioned (when LH was the first of the first wave)?

Remember when it was Monsters Inc offered to pay reps (when the reps they offered were to be paid to them by TSO)?

 

All of these alleged "reasons" for things are simply made up with the hope that they might be correct, when a quick looking into proves them baseless. Now I will admit I'm wrong on this notion of SNX's intention if SNX comes in here and asserts that your view on this particular protectorate treaty was accurate, but I'm betting they will not. If they do, it'll be another can of worms, if they don't, just another grouping of hollow words with well hoped intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
You see, the reason this is is that you attempted to state a basic fact, when instead you did not do so.

 

And this is the wonderful thing about solving problems via diplomacy rather than war. I did indeed overstate the case, though I stated it honestly as it appeared to me at the time. The same can be said for those who thought the exact opposite. Through discussion we have learned it's not as clear a case as either thought.

 

Anyway I really feel like I have posted more than enough in SnXs thread and will attempt to be quiet for a bit. Thanks to all who have given me food for thought here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Through discussion we have learned it's not as clear a case as either thought.

 

 

Actually, Sigrun -- and I like you -- the case seems to be pretty clear. When you use the word "protectorate", it means something.  That something is defined by the wiki, and it is what everybody means when they say "protectorate".  If you mean something else, you should call it something else.

 

It doesn't help when the official SNX explanation:

 

Now, I want to sort of explain a situation to you all. When you have a history plagued with scandal and your last remaining devoted, very active members leave, how would you respond? Would you disband or would you fight for the survival of the alliance?

Now consider this, you've only been around for a week when you see numerous old friends jump ship because they don't want to be around if you disband. Shortly after their departure, you get your new forums. You're left with no charter, no knowledge of current treaties, no new nation guides, no academy, nothing. You now have an opportunity to disband or recreate the face of the alliance.

This is exactly what I have gone through. We didn't lose the forums for a month, per say. We lost them for a couple weeks and then took two weeks to recreate them from scratch. Now if you don't consider that we've been through a complete restructure of forums, restructure of government, completely new government, implementing a new charter, defense revamp, internal affairs rebuilding, and foreign affairs revamp all in the past five days as contextually relevant, then our calculated dropping of TSO isn't going to make sense. I understand that timing could have been better but talks of canceling began when I took an interim MoFA position almost two weeks ago. Recent events sparked the furnace to move on it and their complete disregard for our counseling was the straw that broke the camel's back. Honestly, this could have waited until after the war or at least the 48 hour clause. However, this was a long time coming.

 

kind of contradicts the OP:

 

 

.Do not misconstrue this announcement with us running from these recent events.

 

"We're not running from recent events, but recent events are the straw that broke the camel's back."

 

Would like to hear TSO's transgressions -- even if in PM.  If there is another side of the story, it should be told, because right now things look pretty disfavorable for SNX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "normal" protectorate means protection from raids. It's a near-necessity for a small alliance in this world to get a chance to do something other than fend off raids. It does not obligate the protector to intervene in normal wars in any fashion whatsoever - and should not. It's a protectorate, not a farm-team. (Some protectorates are actually farm teams, but you should find language reflecting that in the agreement in that case, it has to be spelled out because it's not inherent or implied in the concept.) So it is supposed to have an independent foreign policy and be able to take actions and face the consequences of those actions without interference. A mandatory defense clause, if it existed, would arguably defeat the purpose of the protectorate entirely, and at any rate is certainly not inherent or implied in one.
 
Also I just remembered something odd that I noticed earlier, and confirmed again now. Sovereign Order claims to protect Sons of Anarchy in their alliance bio. If they can protect another alliance, then they have outgrown their own protectorate, and it was overdue to either be cancelled or upgraded anyway.


As someone who has signed a number of protectorates I'll just say that I've always considered protection to be general and more or less equivalent to a defensive clause (but that it is mandatory only for the protector and perhaps encouraged for the protected). You might disagree with that philosophy, but given that SNX felt it was necessary to cancel the treaty, I'd say it is likely their interpretation is closer to mine than to yours (otherwise there would have been no need for them to involve themselves at all).

As rush said, a good protectorate relationship is like being a good parent. You're taking responsibility for a small new alliance and giving them the resources/support and safety necessary to develop. It's much broader than the minimal assistance you outlined. Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why either has to be wrong.

 

SNX may have made the wrong decision morally/from Bob standards but from a long term perspective it was (without the benefit of hindsight) the best move they could've made. A war would have been very bad for them when you take into all of the factors at play (rebuilding/no forums/structure/large group of active players just left/a few allies recently cancelled)

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then they could've just said "nah, we'll get you other assistance but we need to sit this out in case it blows up on us"

As of right now, it looks like they're trying to avoid a thumping by a micro and doing anything they can to get out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...