Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 518
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You clearly stated that you would not defend an ally  with whom you held a non-chaining defense treaty if that ally was on the losing side of the war.


Except, I didn't say that. You misconstrued it from something I said. I said I may not want to burn for everyone my ally wants to burn for, I didn't say anything about being on the winning or losing side. If it's someone we don't want to burn for, we may not help even if they're on the winning side.
 

No, I meant what I said. Why a non-chaining clause would be activated. Not activating a non-chaining clause would be when you would go to war to assist an ally despite that ally going to war via another treaty. That is, chaining in.

 
This is what you said -

There are a number of valid reasons why a non-chaining clause might be activated. Other treaty obligations, your ally may already be at war on the opposing side so unable to assist you or you may be at war with their other allies so they sit the war out to name but a few reasons. But declining because you don't want to be on the losing side isn't one I'd consider to be valid at all.


Why do you end the paragraph with "But declining because".. it sure makes it seem like the reasons before were 'valid' reasons for declining, but the following one, 'to avoid the losing side' wasn't.
 

Where you and I differ is that a treaty between my alliance is more than just the clauses on the treaty itself. It is a sign of friendship and respect as well as a defensive treaty. You, on the other hand, treat them much differently and see them more as something to enact when it suits you and ignore when it doesn't. But that is just me and my non-mainstream crazy-talk.


Nope, we don't differ there. We are either misunderstanding each other, or we differ on the purpose of non-chaining clauses. I believe the main purpose is when alliances want to defend each other, because they are friends, but they don't necessarily want to defend all their friend's friends. If you're fine with defending all your friend's friends, upgrade to chaining, why not?
 

There is nothing in what I said that makes an optional clause mandatory. What I said bases itself on the fact that the alliance you signed the treaty with has enough respect for you that they would exercise that option only in situations where their hands were tied.


I think I see now, you see a non-chaining clause as expecting an ally to chain but having the option not to. I see it as they probably won't chain in, but they have the option to if they choose. Both interpretations are probably acceptable, the important part is you & your ally should be on the same page about it. Edited by Big Ego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, I didn't say that. You misconstrued it from something I said. I said I may not want to burn for everyone my ally wants to burn for, I didn't say anything about being on the winning or losing side. If it's someone we don't want to burn for, we may not help even if they're on the winning side.

 

The word you used was "lose", not "burn". It is pretty clear what lose means.

 

 
This is what you said -

Why do you end the paragraph with "But declining because".. it sure makes it seem like the reasons before were 'valid' reasons for declining, but the following one, 'to avoid the losing side' wasn't.

 

It is obvious my use of the term "declining" is referring to declining to assist not declining to enact the non-chaining clause. The reasons I posted were some valid reasons for enacting the non-chaining clause. Avoiding defeat was the one example I provided as a non-valid reason for enacting the non-chaining clause.

 

 

 

Nope, we don't differ there. We are either misunderstanding each other, or we differ on the purpose of non-chaining clauses. I believe the main purpose is when alliances want to defend each other, because they are friends, but they don't necessarily want to defend all their friend's friends. If you're fine with defending all your friend's friends, upgrade to chaining, why not?

 

That may be one reason but you emphasised "lose" in your initial comments which lends me to conclude you'd be happy to chain in on the winning side regardless of who your friend's friends are.

 

Upgrading to chaining removed all the other possibilities which may lead an alliance to want to activate the non-chaining clause. Saying that if I do not agree with you then the non-chaining clause is useless is incorrect.

 

 

 

I think I see now, you see a non-chaining clause as expecting an ally to chain but having the option not to. I see it as they probably won't chain in, but they have the option to if they choose. Both interpretations are probably acceptable, the important part is you & your ally should be on the same page about it.

 

Correct, when I sign a defensive treaty with another alliance my default setting is to defend them when they are in need. The non-chaining aspect comes in when something else occurs that may mean we, as an alliance, will not defend that ally. I mentioned a couple of scenarios earlier and there are probably more.

 

If you let a new ally know that you won't defend them if they are going to lose and they are OK with that then no problem. I can't fathom ever agreeing to such a treaty but then again I'm not mainstream.

 

When the STA and TPF signed a treaty we both specified at the time that if the STA went in defending NpO or the TPF went in defending the NPO then neither party was obligated to defend the other. As of now those treaties between the STA and NpO and TPF and the NPO no longer exist so it doesn't come into consideration anymore. The reason I raise this is because I'm perfectly fine with these agreements before the treaty is agreed and signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you let a new ally know that you won't defend them if they are going to lose and they are OK with that then no problem. I can't fathom ever agreeing to such a treaty but then again I'm not mainstream.

 

 

I can think of a few cases (and have anticipated them in treaty language before.)  Declarations in the past have been done strategically, and careful treaty language can remove some of those opportunities. If alliance A hits alliance X in order to force Y to defend X and activate A's treaty with C, who is more powerful than A's entire bloc, the smart move has always been to decline to request assistance. Some treaties have specified auto-activation which removes that option (and makes it possible/easy depending on who you ask for a pre-emptive attack to be justified as well.) Others go in the other direction by for instance explicitly requiring activation or using language that gets qualified as optional. 

 

Unfortunately too much of the diplomatic subtlety is missed too much of the time but it does still exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word you used was "lose", not "burn". It is pretty clear what lose means.


Ha, damn. So I did. However I didn't say I wouldn't join because of losing. It would be because of who it's for, so lose, burn, it doesn't really make much difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can think of a few cases (and have anticipated them in treaty language before.)  Declarations in the past have been done strategically, and careful treaty language can remove some of those opportunities. If alliance A hits alliance X in order to force Y to defend X and activate A's treaty with C, who is more powerful than A's entire bloc, the smart move has always been to decline to request assistance. Some treaties have specified auto-activation which removes that option (and makes it possible/easy depending on who you ask for a pre-emptive attack to be justified as well.) Others go in the other direction by for instance explicitly requiring activation or using language that gets qualified as optional. 

 

Unfortunately too much of the diplomatic subtlety is missed too much of the time but it does still exist.

 

Yes, I didn't really get onto the topic of situations where your ally specifically requested you do not activate the treaty because it never really came up.

 

If my ally asked we not assist them then I would honour that request. I understand there is a lot of diplomatic subtlety, there always has been to some extent. Most of the subtlety is to manipulate wars and some of the subtlety is about a subtle as a sledgehammer but it is there.

 

I think the word or value of a treaty is no longer held in any regard. They can be dismissed, ignored or twisted to a shape they were never meant to hold in order to justify or facilitate a certain action at a certain time. Ghost-chains being one of the more obvious manifestations of this.

 

But, I realise I'm old-fashioned so am content to sit back and watch as the "new ways" roll on across the Cyberverse with a sentimental eye to the past when a treaty was an agreement between two alliances that genuinely swore to uphold that treaty rather than it being a cog in a larger machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, damn. So I did. However I didn't say I wouldn't join because of losing. It would be because of who it's for, so lose, burn, it doesn't really make much difference.

 

It makes the difference I referred to in my last reply to you. It states your main concern is losing not so much the alliances you are chained to in that war. As I said, it implies that you would chain in on the winning side for the same alliances you profess to loathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes the difference I referred to in my last reply to you. It states your main concern is losing not so much the alliances you are chained to in that war. As I said, it implies that you would chain in on the winning side for the same alliances you profess to loathe.


If I had said burning, you could still say our main concern is burning and not the alliances we chained in the war for. So I maintain there is not much difference.

In either case, you're reading too far into it. FTW in it's former incarnations have joined plenty of losing wars, and I'm sure there are more losing wars in our future. Wars we could avoid, if we really wanted to. If it were really our main concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had said burning, you could still say our main concern is burning and not the alliances we chained in the war for. So I maintain there is not much difference.

In either case, you're reading too far into it. FTW in it's former incarnations have joined plenty of losing wars, and I'm sure there are more losing wars in our future. Wars we could avoid, if we really wanted to. If it were really our main concern.

 

I was only responding to what you actually said. You said lose which is quite clear in its meaning so don't get upset with me for your poor choice of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only responding to what you actually said. You said lose which is quite clear in its meaning so don't get upset with me for your poor choice of words.


Heh, okay. Fitting we end this discussion on yet another misunderstanding I suppose. See you around, Tyga. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually be happy if this were serious.  I would like nothing better.

 

However it won't because Roquentin is a stat hugger.

 

Inb4 Petro tells Roq what you said because of an Intelligence clause.

 

Don't laugh, he actually did it a few months ago.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Inb4 Petro tells Roq what you said because of an Intelligence clause.

 

Don't laugh, he actually did it a few months ago.

 

That was a funny incident.  Mi6 shows hostility towards our allies and then acts hostile that gets relayed.   

 

 All part of that charm offensive that slowly made even those alliances that didn't care about mi6 hate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That was a funny incident.  Mi6 shows hostility towards our allies and then acts hostile that gets relayed.   

 

 All part of that charm offensive that slowly made even those alliances that didn't care about mi6 hate them.

 

"hostility" The literal quote was "being allied to umb is bad for your health" referring to the fact that Umbrella decided to attack MI6 immediately after cancelling. Oh hart, you can play this game all you want but at least tell the truth baby cakes. 

Edited by TheListener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"hostility" The literal quote was "being allied to umb is bad for your health" referring to the fact that Umbrella decided to attack MI6 immediately after cancelling. Oh hart, you can play this game all you want but at least tell the truth baby cakes. 

 

Well, I can see why thats not hostile by mi6 standards...

 

'Sure we approached Sengoku, told them that being allied to Umbrella was bad and went on to imply that Umbrella would roll them, but frankly we were outraged that they then shared this information with Umbrella.'

Edited by hartfw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"hostility" The literal quote was "being allied to umb is bad for your health" referring to the fact that Umbrella decided to attack MI6 immediately after cancelling. Oh hart, you can play this game all you want but at least tell the truth baby cakes.

To be fair, with or without knowing what it's a reference to that quote seems pretty hostile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Well, I can see why thats not hostile by mi6 standards...
 
'Sure we approached Sengoku, told them that being allied to Umbrella was bad and went on to imply that Umbrella would roll them, but frankly we were outraged that they then shared this information with Umbrella.'

Done in a random conversation between our former DMoFA (who wasn't even around last year) and Petro. Such a wicked move on our part. Edited by Gibsonator21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I can see why thats not hostile by mi6 standards...

 

'Sure we approached Sengoku, told them that being allied to Umbrella was bad and went on to imply that Umbrella would roll them, but frankly we were outraged that they then shared this information with Umbrella.'

Having been the MoFA of MI6 for most of the last year, I can tell you that since my return to the game (because honestly who keeps up with a game they used to play?) nothing negative has been said about you (Sengoku) until you made it that way. In fact, as far as I can tell you were pretty well liked before you suddenly decided to get all hostile up in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, what you guys considered "hostile" was literally talking to our own allies.

I honestly couldn't have given a good goddamn about you guys before yall decided that was worth harassing Petro over. Following that up with daring D_T to post logs proving yall'd been less than trustworthy to us in the past over and over pretty much led to this outcome in a direct 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...