Trouble at the MCXA?

[Denial]

No difference between that and the MHA trium or Moo deciding to not uphold a treaty, there are very few alliances that does not have some form of mechanism that can be used to waive treaty obligations. It is a question of trusting that those mechanisms will work as promised.

Indeed, TOP not upholding a binding treaty would be no different than MHA or NPO not upholding a binding treaty; each choice would be equally dishonourable and ignominious. However, what is interesting is that you are suggesting that two of your allies would consider not honouring their agreements, and have designated internal mechanisms through which this is achievable. Is this sentiment widespread throughout the Continuum bloc? I must admit, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the Pacifican and Mostly Harmless charters, so perhaps we can gain some clarification from the aforementioned alliances' respective governments and discover whether your claims are indeed correct. On your assertion that "very few" alliances are without methods of avoiding their obligations, I beg to differ, and direct you towards Vanguard's collection of current allies. Either through actions or words, these alliances have proven that they will consistently follow their treaties, in both letter and spirit. The same could be said for some of TOP's own allies; I highly doubt admirable and stalwart alliances such as FOK or Umbrella would utilise loopholes or government procedure to avoid their commitments.

The key condition was that MCXA (incoming gov) had no objections towards us granting them a protectorate. CEN's problem was that they just packed their things and left, leaving us to uncover the details of what transpired after it happened, that was a major factor in our decision way back then.

So, an underhanded operation where a sizeable portion of an alliance's leadership plots to abandon its alliance, recruits as many fellow members as possible to the cause, departs said alliance in the midst of a governing term, and then openly flaunts this process in public is more acceptable than a quick, relatively silent departure?

I can see why the uninformed, the bored and the malicious are typing those words, yes.

Or, perhaps TOP and TSO are not beyond criticism and are capable of imprudent policy and poor decisions? Perhaps people are informed, and rather than posting out of boredom or malice, post because they hold a different perspective on issues and choose to voice said perspective?

We had our qualms concerning CEN, it was not a decision taken lightly, but it was the right decision to make, it is possible that another splinter from TOP would be treated the same way, or we could have decided to let it go, it all depends on the circumstances. Yes, MCXA could have reacted in a similar fashion as we did, and if so, we would right now be horrible allies and hypocrites. They did not, and that is what matters.

No, what matters is that TOP has and, as you have mentioned, will likely continue to persecute any Paradoxian-based splinter alliances, whether innocent or not, while being more than willing to bestow impunity to those off-shoots forming from the membership of other alliances. Even if those off-shoots publicly provide substantial evidence towards their own malevolent origins and actions, and the numerous objections from the remaining constituents of the metropole - as can be seen through the postings of TSO members and MCXA members, respectively.

TOP doesn't give MDP's to brand new alliances, period, thus we went for a short term protectorate, in a month, TSO will likely have managed to establish themselves as an entity that we and others can establish more permanent agreements with. 2mill is nothing in CN if you are alone.

That is an understandable policy, yet you must admit that a protectorate status has only been sought by TSO and bequeathed by TOP due to the controversial actions and guilty conscience of the former. Had TSO formed under more honest and respectable circumstances, I highly doubt an alliance of well-established nations, totalling over 2 million strength and armed with several hundred nuclear weapons, would require protection from another alliance in such a commanding political position. Overall, as shown by the title of this announcement, this is nothing other than one more assembly of reprobates escaping justice by hiding behind a well-connected, well-armed protector and asking "What are you going to do about it?"

[King Srqt]

tbh Srqt, this sentence didn't make much sense.

I was very tired

[Dr. Dan]

Blah blah blah

We'd vote even if our alliance was directly under attack.

/exits thread since everything else has already been answered adequately.

Edit: Which is why Universalis wasn't attacked when 14% of their membership attacked us .

Edited February 24, 2009 by Dr. Dan

[MercyFallout]

This is true. I do me some Polaris and ex Polaris /me looks at FF, Mori, Mercy, myworld, sigma, szezine, grub, assypoo, hannah, firefox, dajobo, Ski, and all the rest of you. <3

I heard my name. >___>

What are you dragging me out here for Chicken?

Also, this is a very interesting development. Wonder how long it'll go before the mods lock 'er up.

[ROMMELHSQ]

Who are you good sir?

...Oh wait... thats right, you were around for maybe 2-3 months at most when the CEN debacle occured so you obviously knew how much time and effort those whom you persecuted had put into the alliance. Do you remember how you and those in your generation treated lynn for example? Completely and utterly disrespectfully. I certainly do hope you have changed since then seeing as you are (or where?) in government.

WOW....never thought I'd see the "who are you?" comment here again.......

I don't care if those guys have put years of their lives in the alliance. If an old time member goes nuts and do something wrong and harmful to the alliance, their old services shouldn't always mean they are forgiven.

and btw, I'm not in TOP government currently, not even in TOP anymore :lol:

oh, and another "WOW" goes to Revanche.

I really thought you are a little bit smarter than this. Almost all MDPs have something that goes along the line of "defense obligation is triggered if it wasn't a result of spying, provoking, etc, etc". A voting body like the Heptagon in TOP, is the one to decide if there was spying, provoking or if the MDP should trigger. Same for gov to decide on in Gremlins.

But I'm sure this isn't the case in Vanguard anyway....

[Xiphosis]

Almost all MDPs have something that goes along the line of "defense obligation is triggered if it wasn't a result of spying, provoking, etc, etc"

... not really. I don't think I have any that have clauses like that, actually.

[Denial]

Edit: Which is why Universalis wasn't attacked when 14% of their membership attacked us .

Instead, they and their allies were instead reprimanded via backchannel manipulation and scheming whilst they were defending themselves against The Legion.

Nevermind the fact it was an ex-member of Universalis, taking on a different AA after resigning from the alliance, who attacked TOP.

oh, and another "WOW" goes to Revanche.

I really thought you are a little bit smarter than this. Almost all MDPs have something that goes along the line of "defense obligation is triggered if it wasn't a result of spying, provoking, etc, etc". A voting body like the Heptagon in TOP, is the one to decide if there was spying, provoking or if the MDP should trigger. Same for gov to decide on in Gremlins.

But I'm sure this isn't the case in Vanguard anyway....

You are correct, it is not the case in Vanguard. When we sign on the dotted line at the bottom of an obligational treaty with another alliance, we take the good with the bad. We are binded to an ally and must defend them against any breach of their sovereignty, even if they have arguably provoked said breach. The exception to this is a clear and blatant OOC attack. The key is to only sign agreements with upstanding, honourable alliances that you share a strong friendship with and trust will not make such mistakes.

Edit: Typo fix and slight revision.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Revanche

[ROMMELHSQ]

... not really. I don't think I have any that have clauses like that, actually.

I'm used to TOP MDPs wording, which actually have...

[ROMMELHSQ]

You are correct, it is not the case in Vanguard. When we sign on the dotted line at the bottom of an obligational treaty with another alliance, we take the good with the bad. We are binded to an ally and must defend them against any breach of their sovereignty, even if they have arguably provoked said breach. The exception to this is a clear and blatant OOC attack.

Edit: Typo.

If your treaties aren't worded that way, then that's your treaties. I know most of TOP treaties have clauses about provoking and so on and TOP try to uphold each part of the treaty included in it.

Trying to aim at TOP honor over it, fails.

[King Srqt]

... not really. I don't think I have any that have clauses like that, actually.

this

You are correct, it is not the case in Vanguard. When we sign on the dotted line at the bottom of an obligational treaty with another alliance, we take the good with the bad. We are binded to an ally and must defend them against any breach of their sovereignty, even if they have arguably provoked said breach. The exception to this is a clear and blatant OOC attack. The key is to only sign agreements with upstanding, honourable alliances that you share a strong friendship with and trust will not make such mistakes.

and this. You sign a treaty, you defend your ally, period. Adding conditions is just a way to find loopholes if you do not want to stick by your friends.

Edited February 24, 2009 by KingSrqt

[Frozenrpg]

Edit: Which is why Universalis wasn't attacked when 14% of their membership attacked us .

Ah good ol'e Hojo. You have to admit that was pretty funny. I believe he still had some qualms over the CEN issue that he wished to settle before he left this world for good.

I miss my Hojo

Edited February 24, 2009 by Frozenrpg

[Frozenrpg]

I'm used to TOP MDPs wording, which actually have...

Doesnt that make them more like ODPs?

...Just saying.

Edit:

Also I am reminded of when FOK was attacked by GATO during the UJW.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Frozenrpg

[Haflinger]

When we sign on the dotted line at the bottom of an obligational treaty with another alliance, we take the good with the bad. We are binded to an ally and must defend them against any breach of their sovereignty, even if they have arguably provoked said breach. The exception to this is a clear and blatant OOC attack. The key is to only sign agreements with upstanding, honourable alliances that you share a strong friendship with and trust will not make such mistakes.

Many alliances feel this way.

However, all alliances are sovereign. There are mechanisms inside each alliance that must be followed before a declaration of war is issued. With Invicta, President Jorost must declare war; with NPO, Emperor Revenge must authorize the war; with the MHA, the triumvirate has to do it; and with TOP, the membership must vote on the matter.

Just because a sovereign alliance has a mechanism whereby alliance wars must be authorized does not mean that they will not honour their treaties, though.

[Syzygy]

and this. You sign a treaty, you defend your ally, period. Adding conditions is just a way to find loopholes if you do not want to stick by your friends.

No, its not. Its stupid not to make very clear that you only protect someone as long as he does not run around punching others into the face. If someone calls for trouble, he does not deserve the least bit of assistance when it comes his way. Especially I am of the opinion that this "unconditional support" de facto makes MDPs = MADPs (because basically your MDP partner may provoke a war he wants to have in which you 'have' to defend him anyway) and that is not the purpose of an MDP. Your pseudo-honourable philosophy of "we have to defend them no matter what" just leads to more bullying at all because everyone knows he can act like can idiot and will STILL get your protection should something come to him.

There is nothing honourable in that. Thats only lending a hand to &#33;@#&#036;%^&amp;.

And we do it differently not because we are afraid of "losing our pixels" or "wanting to have a backdoor" but because we have realized that one way of stopping violence is to stop giving support for aggressive actions.

[jer]

A simple solution to your problem Syzygy would be to only sign with alliances you trust completely not to go around punching people in the face. Then you have no need for caveats or conditional clauses.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Electron Sponge]

Many alliances feel this way.

However, all alliances are sovereign. There are mechanisms inside each alliance that must be followed before a declaration of war is issued. With Invicta, President Jorost must declare war; with NPO, Emperor Revenge must authorize the war; with the MHA, the triumvirate has to do it; and with TOP, the membership must vote on the matter.

It was my opinion while I was running an alliance that the very presence of a mutual pact (either defensive or offensive) removed the necessity for me to actually have to authorize the war. I authorized it with my signature to the treaty. I remember NPO and GOONS holding this same belief, as well as just about every other member of Initiative except TOP.

Just because a sovereign alliance has a mechanism whereby alliance wars must be authorized does not mean that they will not honour their treaties, though.

It doesn't mean they will honor their treaty as well.

And we do it differently not because we are afraid of "losing our pixels" or "wanting to have a backdoor" but because we have realized that one way of stopping violence is to stop giving support for aggressive actions.

[ooc]Yes this makes for a great game. Wake me when they shut the server off. Seriously, this attitude is why this game sucks now. Why the hell are you trying to stop wars?[/ooc]

People with this philosophy have no business signing an MDP. They should be signing an optional pact because that's exactly what they are doing anyway. When you sign an MDP you're signing an agreement that doesn't allow for wiggle room and 'maybe'. That would be an ODP. The secret is to pick your friends carefully.

[Fulgrim]

A simple solution to your problem Syzygy would be to only sign with alliances you trust completely not to go around punching people in the face. Then you have no need for caveats or conditional clauses.

What is this problem that you think Syzygy has? I for one cannot see that he or his alliance have any?

[Ejayrazz]

A simple solution to your problem Syzygy would be to only sign with alliances you trust completely not to go around punching people in the face. Then you have no need for caveats or conditional clauses.

This game can be deceptive. Us Grämlins have no problem with trusting our alliances - we sign with those we feel and know are responsible and not drama whores, however, other alliances within the cyberverse are different, especially during the GWII era. Democratic alliances can change within a month, internal strife can change an alliance, etc. As selfish as it sounds, every alliance needs to not only worry about allies, but themselves as well. Especially when in a heated situation, some of the most experienced members in Cyberverse have cracked and flipped, thus causing a war. VincentXander is a prime example.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Haflinger]

Many alliances feel this way.

However, all alliances are sovereign. There are mechanisms inside each alliance that must be followed before a declaration of war is issued. With Invicta, President Jorost must declare war; with NPO, Emperor Revenge must authorize the war; with the MHA, the triumvirate has to do it; and with TOP, the membership must vote on the matter.

It was my opinion while I was running an alliance that the very presence of a mutual pact (either defensive or offensive) removed the necessity for me to actually have to authorize the war. I authorized it with my signature to the treaty. I remember NPO and GOONS holding this same belief, as well as just about every other member of Initiative except TOP.

Even so, you've pre-authorized the war declaration for certain people. If someone attacks your alliance's MDP partner, Joe Newbie isn't allowed to launch random wars against that alliance.

It still has to go through your government. I would hope.

Just because a sovereign alliance has a mechanism whereby alliance wars must be authorized does not mean that they will not honour their treaties, though.

It doesn't mean they will honor their treaty as well.

Quite true. However, the time to criticize them is when an alliance decides not to honour a treaty. Any sovereign alliance can decide to violate a treaty; that's what sovereignty means.

[jer]

What is this problem that you think Syzygy has? I for one cannot see that he or his alliance have any?

I was referring to the hypothetical situation he outlined regarding whether caveats should be included in treaties, and that's all. Apologies if that was unclear.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Bodvar Jarl]

Indeed, TOP not upholding a binding treaty would be no different than MHA or NPO not upholding a binding treaty; each choice would be equally dishonourable and ignominious.

-snip-

"What are you going to do about it?"

Any alliance have some sort of mechanism that can be used to not honor a treaty, one of your very own allies that you imply is "better", ODN, have the exact same mechanism as TOP does (at least according to charter), does that mean that their dedication is questionable, too?

I say misinformed, because anyone that actually know the facts of both situations will recognize the critical components of them as very much different, as explained here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1292000

Yes, perhaps MCXA tolerates more than we did that time, and I do not believe we would tolerate a CEN split more than the original one today, you can argue all you like of the morality of it, but to us, we have a right to do what we did, MCXA, and anyone else, has a right to do the same, we are not infringing on that right as MCXA explicitly renounced such rights prior to us even considering to take them under the graces of our protection.

If MCXA determined that STO should receive punishment of some form, disbandment, reps or whatever, and informed us of that instead of telling us that they where fine with us granting a protectorate, then this thread would not contain a treaty between TOP and STO.

[Bob Janova]

I'm pretty sure that a Grämlins signature on a document will be treated as legally binding and if you provoke a war, and it strikes you down before we have the chance to cancel on you, we would defend you, unless the treaty specifically excludes such cases from the meaning of defence (which I don't think they do).

If someone actually starts a war and then expects 'defence' from the allies of their target, then under the explicit wording of our treaties or the precedent of treaty chaining that would not count as an obligation to assist them.

Of course, we do only sign with people who we don't think are going to provoke a war so we don't have this problem in anything except e-lawyering matches

[VIdiot the Great]

Wow, a lot of hate in this thread.

From what I've seen, TOP cleared this with their allies, as well as MCXA. I don't really get what all the drama is about, I guess things must be that slow to engender such a show of indignity.

I wish my fellow protectorate TSO luck in their future endeavors, as well as MCXA. They appear to have remedied their issues and are moving forward, I would suggest the rest of us do the same.

Good luck to all parties.

Regards,

EmperorVIcious

[WorldConqueror]

Christ people, I know nothing much has happened for a while, but 35 pages of this? Over a DoE and Protectorate? A bit silly, dont you think?

Also,

[fupresti]

I helped lead the MCXA to a decisive military defeat of you. I

ROFLMAO.

I would think that the NpO defeat had more to do with the steamroll of TOP, Gramlins, Umbrella, RnR and others who have skills at war. The only skill during war MCXA has shown in the past is recruiting from alliances on the other side and membership complaints about pixel loss and your elected leaders begging for terms so that they can go about collecting taxes and paying bills.

Some alliances can brag about their military might. You, not so much.