Trouble at the MCXA?

[Heft]

You know, it's also worth noting that not every CB leads to war...

Indeed. It's certainly conceivable that if MCXA really, really wanted to push the issue and attack TSO, they probably could, and it wouldn't exactly be difficult to justify. But doing so, especially right now, would involve tussling with allies in order to get them to go along with it (many of whom probably have close friendships with TSO), then having MCXA members attack nations that, until last week, were their long-standing leaders and alliance-mates, and would probably make the internal MCXA situation more chaotic, when right now what they surely want is to get things back on track and calmer and steady.

Looking back over the new pages since I came back from class, this post stood out. If MCXA declared war on TSO for recruiting, TOP would not be allowed to defend TSO due to the Mobius Accords. Recruiting is a viable CB, and the Mobius Accords doesn't protect against those.

Of course, it wouldn't play that way, I know from experience that TOP can and will "interpret" that particular way.

I like you Dr. Dan, but you might want to ask Crymson for a clarification on that.

For a moment I thought you had found some hidden away line that I'd forgotten about, so I went and checked, but no. The only conceivable way you could justify this would be to try and spin TSO as "attacking" MCXA, and no sane person would buy that. So long as someone has a treaty with a Q signatory which obligates that Q signatory to defend them, there is no legal way for any other Q signatory to attack that alliance, regardless of whether or not they have a "viable CB." Again, it's not particularly relevant because I don't see MCXA pushing the issue regardless, at it just isn't worth the trouble, and also because the Continuum upper echelons don't decide actions based on legal wrangling, but on communication and personal relationships and general diplomacy (otherwise, Q wouldn't have lasted this long).

[Dr. Dan]

Looking back over the new pages since I came back from class, this post stood out. If MCXA declared war on TSO for recruiting, TOP would not be allowed to defend TSO due to the Mobius Accords. Recruiting is a viable CB, and the Mobius Accords doesn't protect against those.

Of course, it wouldn't play that way, I know from experience that TOP can and will "interpret" that particular way.

I like you Dr. Dan, but you might want to ask Crymson for a clarification on that.

I believe this should cover it:

G – Signatories shall not engage in offensive military action against any alliance which a fellow signatory is obligated by treaty to defend.

We are obligated currently, by treaty, to defend TSO. I suppose you're stating that this would be a defensive action? I don't think that would fly after we were given permission by MCXA to proceed with the protectorate.

[deth2munkies]

Well that's something the GA needs to take up with their current government then for their lack of transparency because they knew it was happening the first weekend it was being planned.

Already trying to sow the seeds of dissension in your old alliance?

Huh, amicable breakup my shiny posterior.

[Bob]

Since I believe that some things need to be officially stated and clarified I am posting this.

First of all, The Order of the Paradox will protect and defend The Sweet Oblivion against any foreign threat. Same applies for MCXA and any other ally of TOP. Mess with one of our allies, and you mess with us.

This is something that should never be doubted is TOP's commitment to its treaty obligations, but yet at the same time, if one treaty obligates you to do one thing and another a different thing, what do you do? That's the point that is being brought up in terms of the Mobius Accords and the wording on them and MCXA, your ally possibly attacking TSO in the hypothetical situation.

I am sure that TSO and MCXA will develop a great working relationship very fast, as instead of two groups fighting each other to get their way, both can focus on being the best they can. I'll take a slight history turn now, TOP a long time ago, in early days of WUT was an alliance with two major "political" groups. One side wanted TOP that is isolationistic, neutral, with little to no interference in global politics. Other side wanted TOP that is part of the world, non neutral, with treaties with people we considered friends (NPO, ...). At that time most of our time and energy was spent fighting internally to get one way or another. We were much less efficient then we could have been and our internal stability was questionable. With time we found one side weakening (isolationistic side), so much that today it's almost non existant. TOP nowadays is relatively strongly united in our views how TOP should proceed politically, and this means that we are much more efficient and stable alliance. Always a great characteristic of democratic alliance.

I feel that TSO-MCXA split will do the same for both alliances. Instead of having one alliance with two bodies/groups, they will have two alliances which can do their thing but still remain friends.

Take your first point here first, I think there will be a good deal of mistrust by the MCXA members on TSO and what they are doing but I don't doubt that they will stay close: after all, they share a common ally.

I don't quite get the relationship here, because you have one side being destroyed in your example over time, not two groups doing their own thing and staying friends. While I don't disagree with what you are saying, the example you have chosen to use I don't quite understand the connection.

This is not some great conspiracy by TOP and TSO to screw over MCXA. We have talked with MCXA before, we have talked with MCXA after this announcement as well and we will continue to talk in the next weeks as well. We have no wish to hurt our relations with our ally MCXA, nor would have we helped TSO out if we thought MCXA is going to bring TSO up on charges.

I don't see anyone claiming that it was to screw over MCXA, just that it had that effect. When 20-30 of your active members leave out of the 60 that vote (number that was quoted either on in the thread) it kinda has that effect on the alliance.

I must say that I feel that many people here are trying to stir drama. Most of them would love to see TOP, MCXA, TSO or Continuum in an internal struggle and conflict and jumped on this opportunity. Be assured, your attempts will not succeed. Communication within Q, and other allies of TOP is very good and will remain so. Drama queens on these forums will not endanger any of our relations. But, in doing so you are removing mask from your face. Thank you for that. I can see clearly now (the rain is gone).

I understand what you are saying and do believe that is a part of it, but some of us are just shocked by the bluntness of people to admit that they poached members from an alliance. I remember TPF's statement a few days back regarding the member poaching from Zenith and figured that we weren't going to see something like that again soon, especially not this blatant.

Thank you.

Thank you, for giving a needed reply from TOP government that covered most of the issues involved.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Rafael Nadal]

Indeed. It's certainly conceivable that if MCXA really, really wanted to push the issue and attack TSO, they probably could, and it wouldn't exactly be difficult to justify. But doing so, especially right now, would involve tussling with allies in order to get them to go along with it (many of whom probably have close friendships with TSO), then having MCXA members attack nations that, until last week, were their long-standing leaders and alliance-mates, and would probably make the internal MCXA situation more chaotic, when right now what they surely want is to get things back on track and calmer and steady.

For a moment I thought you had found some hidden away line that I'd forgotten about, so I went and checked, but no. The only conceivable way you could justify this would be to try and spin TSO as "attacking" MCXA, and no sane person would buy that. So long as someone has a treaty with a Q signatory which obligates that Q signatory to defend them, there is no legal way for any other Q signatory to attack that alliance, regardless of whether or not they have a "viable CB." Again, it's not particularly relevant because I don't see MCXA pushing the issue regardless, at it just isn't worth the trouble, and also because the Continuum upper echelons don't decide actions based on legal wrangling, but on communication and personal relationships and general diplomacy (otherwise, Q wouldn't have lasted this long).

You're right, I don't see MCXA pressing the issue either. If this hadn't been brought up earlier, I would have never said anything about it.

I believe this should cover it:

We are obligated currently, by treaty, to defend TSO. I suppose you're stating that this would be a defensive action? I don't think that would fly after we were given permission by MCXA to proceed with the protectorate.

I know what the wording of the article is. I also know how it's been applied in the past, by your own alliance even.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Delta1212]

Saber, you are painting a rather diverse group of people talking in this thread with a very broad and extremely silly brush. You will always have the typical trouble makers and muck rakers that like stirring up drama in everything they see, but that makes up a considerably smaller fraction of the current commentators than is usual.

I, for example, could care less about TOP's role in this or how MCXA goes on to handle things. I'm far more interested in the fact that the person who created this topic says that the original plan for the creation of this alliance was to be secret, and involved them slipping away a few at a time. The fact that, contrary to the initial story, the news was only broken to the general membership by a disenfranchised conconspirator who is apparently in the wrong for telling people about it, and that the revelation caused them to break away quickly rather than attempting to ensure a smooth transfer of power, which they had initial kept repeating that they had done. Since the two stories are mutually exclusive and come from the same person, he is lying somewhere.

I'm not interested in this because I want to see anyone's downfall. I'm interested because knowledge of how an alliance acts determines how I feel about them and how I will approach them politically. In the case of TOP, I have a great respect for the alliance. In the case of TSO, based on what I have read so far in this thread, not so much. As such, I don't know that'll I'll bother persuing any kind of relations.

It has nothing to do with any conspiracy to overthrow Continuum and everything to do with getting to the heart of the matter so that I can form an accurate opinion of this new rather controversial alliance.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Delta1212

[twodivine]

Just because an alliance chooses to start a war over something doesn't mean it should be repeated, the CB isn't even the real reason for the war some of the times. There would be almost constant war if people used every previous CB in order to start new ones with every opportunity.

Recruiting secretly member from within your own current alliance has been grounds for war or high reps over the years in CN. A failure to recognize that and to push it aside saying it's no big deal and everyone is ok with it will lead to more of these out comes because people will say well this alliance and that alliance did it. Why is it not ok for us to do it?

Sorry but the social norm of actions taken on this kind of stunt should be taking place. And not having one of the strongest alliances in CN going their government said it was good. Well they were the government and their members didn't know about at you keep trying to say they did.

[Dr. Dan]

I know what the wording of the article is. I also know how it's been applied in the past, by your own alliance even.

Oh, I see, it was meant to point out some hidden truth I didn't see and not to be an honest question.

I'm not cynical enough, apparently.

[Nizzle]

I'm not sure any of this sits well.

Perhaps, the existence of Q was the reason for the protectorate? We are talking about active and well-known members of MCXA's government, after all.

I wonder, as I sit here and read this, if MCXA initially wanted to go after TSO. I wonder, perhaps, if the current controversy surrounding treaties and the written word of Q wasn't planned...na. There's no way TSO would go to their friends asking for a protectorate to get protection from Q for going against probably the only moral code every alliance can agree on: Don't poach members.

[Innerspeaker]

This is not some great conspiracy by TOP and TSO to screw over MCXA. We have talked with MCXA before, we have talked with MCXA after this announcement as well and we will continue to talk in the next weeks as well. We have no wish to hurt our relations with our ally MCXA, nor would have we helped TSO out if we thought MCXA is going to bring TSO up on charges.

Thank you.

I just want to point out that if you talked to MCXA before, would the people you talked to find their homes in TSO now, or MCXA? Because people from TOP and TSO continue to repeat this line, however it makes no sense to me when the entire MCXA general assembly is saying that they had no idea this was going on. So therefore TOP spoke to MCXA government members who would eventually become TSO, and therefore never made any mention of it to the other 700 MCXA members, and that is, in effect, plotting against the alliance MCXA. At least that's how it seems.

And then there's the statement that TOP has spoken to the current MCXA government, and things are just great, big hugs, no hard feelings, ect ect. Looking from the perspective of the other 29000 people who play this game, I think it's logical to assume that, in the same way that Polaris sucked up to the NPO after the war (No hard feelings, love for each other, lets sign an MDP), no one wants conflict when there's anarchy in the living room. In the same way that Polaris said "Let's move on, quick" right after their curbstomp, perhaps the MCXA government has decided that the best course of action is forward, not towards TSO (which I can only assume is meta-backwards), that there are bigger fish to fry.

And, finally, I have an issue with saying that MCXA was never going to bring up charges on TSO. The presence of TOP is enough of a deterrent, so much so that I'm sure MCXA immediately threw away any notion of revenge the second they found out TOP was protecting TSO. Or perhaps they were so damn depleted of leadership that charging their former alliance mates with treason was simply not an option, not because friendship between the alliances exists, but because there are no means of prosecuting any TSO member for crimes. Especially when they've got several beatsticks who go by names like TOP, Citadel, Continuum, ect ect.

[Grinder]

Already trying to sow the seeds of dissension in your old alliance?

Huh, amicable breakup my shiny posterior.

I spent the better part of the last year and 2 months (in fact...all but 2 months of the last year and 2 months) in MCXA's HC where many of the MCXA members you see posting here routinely cried for transparency from us and accused us of lying to them repeatedly.

That gets old, so I left. I can't speak for TSO or its membership. But I, personally, have no interest in acting as an elected servant for people that are just going to sit there and not do what is expected of them as members to contribute and serve the alliance and just accuse me of lying to them and not telling them all of the sensitive topics of discussion going on in the government...especially when none of them ever even asked us...they ust called us liars.

I left MCXA prior to TSO. Yes, I originally was supposed to have a part in TSO, but I opted not to take it. if I decide to leave an alliance or not join another alliance, that is my business and has no part in any of this. The point is the same people crying for transparency are still crying at the same people even though they told the current government about their intentions well before they went public with the whole affair.

So you can go ahead and put me down if you want, make negative remarks about my character, call me a backstabber: you were never there. So who cares what you think? Are you going to start a war on TSO? MCXA? TOP? Me? No? Then mind your own business and shut up if you're not going to do anything about it. People like you and the few crybabies in this thread whining about the GA not being told never have gotten it and you never will: you're not told about these things because you never have anything significant to say or important to add.

So go sit off in the corner somewhere with the other people with sore feelings and sulk and call people liars and traitors and two-faced and whatever else you want...those of us that like to act like adults will sort this whole thing out, mk?

I really could care less what happens within MCXA anymore. Gopher and Fresh are good guys, so it should be just fine...but the point is I'm not a member anymore, so it's not my concern if it is fine or not unless it affects NADC.

But at this point it doesn't. But I just think it's cute when people only gripe at one group of people that had the information the feel they should have been told and not the group that actually has some sort of obligation to them anymore as if ONLY TSO could have told the MCXA's General Assembly and not either of the 2 new chancellors.

That's not to say whether the chancellors should or shouldn't have. That's their call to make for their alliance, and I won't question their decision to not make it public because I've been there: Gopher and Fresh wouldn't withhold that kind of info or any kind of info unless they felt it was for the betterment of the MCXA.

But everyone crying about such transparency would be better suited to look inward for opportunities to make HC and ensure that transparency instead of griping about it like they always have. I hear they have a few openings with less competition for those spots these days.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Grinder

[Rafael Nadal]

Oh, I see, it was meant to point out some hidden truth I didn't see and not to be an honest question.

I'm not cynical enough, apparently.

No, it was definitely a jab towards a prior leader of yours and whomever agreed with his assessment and actions.

Blunt enough?

[theArrowheadian]

Let's just say MCXA has it's work cut out for it and cannot bother with a conflict over this at the moment.

[tekken]

TOP, please don't betray MCXA

TOP, please don't betray TSO

:lol:

[youwish959]

I just want to point out that if you talked to MCXA before, would the people you talked to find their homes in TSO now, or MCXA? Because people from TOP and TSO continue to repeat this line, however it makes no sense to me when the entire MCXA general assembly is saying that they had no idea this was going on. So therefore TOP spoke to MCXA government members who would eventually become TSO, and therefore never made any mention of it to the other 700 MCXA members, and that is, in effect, plotting against the alliance MCXA. At least that's how it seems.

And then there's the statement that TOP has spoken to the current MCXA government, and things are just great, big hugs, no hard feelings, ect ect. Looking from the perspective of the other 29000 people who play this game, I think it's logical to assume that, in the same way that Polaris sucked up to the NPO after the war (No hard feelings, love for each other, lets sign an MDP), no one wants conflict when there's anarchy in the living room. In the same way that Polaris said "Let's move on, quick" right after their curbstomp, perhaps the MCXA government has decided that the best course of action is forward, not towards TSO (which I can only assume is meta-backwards), that there are bigger fish to fry.

And, finally, I have an issue with saying that MCXA was never going to bring up charges on TSO. The presence of TOP is enough of a deterrent, so much so that I'm sure MCXA immediately threw away any notion of revenge the second they found out TOP was protecting TSO. Or perhaps they were so damn depleted of leadership that charging their former alliance mates with treason was simply not an option, not because friendship between the alliances exists, but because there are no means of prosecuting any TSO member for crimes. Especially when they've got several beatsticks who go by names like TOP, Citadel, Continuum, ect ect.

This is exactly what I was about to post up. I couldn't have said it better. Thank you for saving me all of that typing.

[Dr. Dan]

I just want to point out that if you talked to MCXA before, would the people you talked to find their homes in TSO now, or MCXA? Because people from TOP and TSO continue to repeat this line, however it makes no sense to me when the entire MCXA general assembly is saying that they had no idea this was going on. So therefore TOP spoke to MCXA government members who would eventually become TSO, and therefore never made any mention of it to the other 700 MCXA members, and that is, in effect, plotting against the alliance MCXA. At least that's how it seems.

We talked to both now TSO and MCXA government (See: Dr. Fresh). This point was addressed earlier.

[Delta1212]

TOP, please don't betray MCXA

TOP, please don't betray TSO

:lol:

Ok, TOP, just sit perfectly still and don't move. It's the safest thing for everyone.

[Heft]

Recruiting secretly member from within your own current alliance has been grounds for war or high reps over the years in CN. A failure to recognize that and to push it aside saying it's no big deal and everyone is ok with it will lead to more of these out comes because people will say well this alliance and that alliance did it. Why is it not ok for us to do it?

Sorry but the social norm of actions taken on this kind of stunt should be taking place. And not having one of the strongest alliances in CN going their government said it was good. Well they were the government and their members didn't know about at you keep trying to say they did.

As Sponge said, not even Polar during your time there immediately pursued these sorts of alliances (CIN). Not every situation is the same, and it's perfectly understandable why MCXA wouldn't be letting the hounds loose, regardless of whether or not the "transition" was botched.

I'm not sure any of this sits well.

Perhaps, the existence of Q was the reason for the protectorate? We are talking about active and well-known members of MCXA's government, after all.

I wonder, as I sit here and read this, if MCXA initially wanted to go after TSO. I wonder, perhaps, if the current controversy surrounding treaties and the written word of Q wasn't planned...na. There's no way TSO would go to their friends asking for a protectorate to get protection from Q for going against probably the only moral code every alliance can agree on: Don't poach members.

You're reading into things way too much. The reason for the protectorate is the same as it always is in comparable scenarios. It gives TSO a protective umbrella to rest under while they organize themselves internally and figure out what TSO is really going to be without having to worry about foreign aggressors taking advantage of what is essentially a naturally vulnerable state. It also gives TOP and others time to assess what TSO will be and whether they should pursue further treaties or higher level relations. It's been made clear that TOP would not have signed this if MCXA had told them not to, and there's no rational reason to claim otherwise. It's also been made clear countless times now from plenty of people on both sides that MCXA doesn't want to go after TSO, and their reasoning for that decision has been supported by plenty others from various, even sometimes conflicting, camps.

[Nizzle]

We talked to both now TSO and MCXA government (See: Dr. Fresh). This point was addressed earlier.

I mean, gosh Dr. Dan, you know I love you...but this just doesn't smell like roses.

[Gurney Halleck]

With this situation, only the following is relevant to me:

1. The new MCXA government knew of TSO and were okay with them leaving and forming a new alliance.

2. The new MCXA government knew of TSO becoming a protectorate of TOP and were okay with it.

3. If #1 did not exist, TOP would not have considered #2.

If #1, #2, and/or #3 were not the case, then this thread would be deserving of its 30 pages. With them, not so much, IMO.

As a general note, one must remember that a separation can be therapeutic, if not amicable. Someone earlier offered an example if Saber (et al) left to form a new alliance, how would the rest of TOP feel. No doubt some would be angry, but most would would support their leaving if our paths became too divergent for our continued and mutual growth.

I wish MCXA and TSO success and prosperity in every endeavor.

[Rafael Nadal]

Let's just say MCXA has it's work cut out for it and cannot bother with a conflict over this at the moment.

Which the more cynical members of PB might conclude to be a side tactic of leaving all at once. MCXA has bigger issues, like filling their government up, than to aggressively pursue TSO. By the time MCXA could realistically recover from this internal turmoil and prepare itself, it would be too after the fact to strike while the iron is hot.

Of course, only the most cynical of PB would think that might actually be an employed tactic, but it's food for thought.

[hizzy]

I spent the better part of the last year and 2 months (in fact...all but 2 months of the last year and 2 months) in MCXA's HC where many of the MCXA members you see posting here routinely cried for transparency from us and accused us of lying to them repeatedly.

And y'all certainly showed them how transparent everything was, right?

[Dr. Dan]

I mean, gosh Dr. Dan, you know I love you...but this just doesn't smell like roses.

I have logs? How are we ever going to get over our trust problems if you keep doubting me?

[Saber]

This is something that should never be doubted is TOP's commitment to its treaty obligations, but yet at the same time, if one treaty obligates you to do one thing and another a different thing, what do you do? That's the point that is being brought up in terms of the Mobius Accords and the wording on them and MCXA, your ally possibly attacking TSO in the hypothetical situation.

MCXA has informed us that this will not drive a wedge between our alliances and as per that information we have decided to protect and help establish group we have got to know and respect.

Take your first point here first, I think there will be a good deal of mistrust by the MCXA members on TSO and what they are doing but I don't doubt that they will stay close: after all, they share a common ally.

I don't quite get the relationship here, because you have one side being destroyed in your example over time, not two groups doing their own thing and staying friends. While I don't disagree with what you are saying, the example you have chosen to use I don't quite understand the connection.

The connection is quite obvious. In case of MCXA, they no longer have two groups that fight each other but rather one group with a relatively unified view of future MCXA should have. This is effectively the same as what happened in TOP. Only difference (radical one I admit) is that this is artificial change in MCXA, and a sudden change, while in TOP it was a natural progression.

However I'd say that if we keep our heads cool and talk things through rather than throw big words we can realize that in the long run this will be good for all parties involved.

I don't see anyone claiming that it was to screw over MCXA, just that it had that effect. When 20-30 of your active members leave out of the 60 that vote (number that was quoted either on in the thread) it kinda has that effect on the alliance.

In the end they are just members. You cannot expect that they put MCXA above their life and in the end their own enjoyment. I realize that the game can be less than fun if you need to constantly struggle to do things and I can't see any way in which MCXA could have stopped dissatisfied group from leaving. Should have it been handled better and with less controversy sure. But results would have been the same. TSO and MCXA.

Thank you, for giving a needed reply from TOP government that covered most of the issues involved.

Some of our government have already posted. I have decided to help clear few misconceptions.

[Sephiroth]

Recruiting secretly member from within your own current alliance has been grounds for war or high reps over the years in CN. A failure to recognize that and to push it aside saying it's no big deal and everyone is ok with it will lead to more of these out comes because people will say well this alliance and that alliance did it. Why is it not ok for us to do it?

Because its not that great of a reason and more often than leading to war it doesn't. MCXA chose not to start a war, so now TOP has a treaty with both, which is further reason not to in this situation.