Trouble at the MCXA?

[Owned-You]

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?

I could not resist

But I agree...too much pointless drama.

[pezstar]

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.

I disagree. In fact, I can't think of a single alliance that signs treaties, but has a Charter mandate that forces them to decide whether or not they feel like acting on them. You already made that decision when you signed!

Why bother signing, if your participation and defense isn't a guarantee?

[sammykhalifa]

But I agree...too much pointless drama.

I don't know--the third biggest alliances just lost most of its leaders and a giant chunk of membership. Seems like pretty big news to me.

[Fallen Fool]

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

Chicken

I was very tired

I think we've all been there.

Still doesn't stop me from correcting you though

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.

Was it GWIII where we didn't even post a DoW and instead just started pounding people?

[King Srqt]

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.

if you sign a treaty with someone you should trust that they wont do those things and since every war started ever has some type of CB of spying or poaching or something else that may or may not be true and will undoubtedly be denied by the attacked party regardless you should only be signing with someone who you will trust. If I trust someone enough to sign with them then I trust them enough to believe them when they say they do not deserve to be attacked and I do not need an extra clause in the treaty to stop me from defending them.

You may call it stupid or "supporting aggressive actions" but I call it trust and loyalty which is why I know I can count on my allies to put themselves on the line unconditionally for me the same way I would for them. And even if my allies do screw up I am not going to bail on them just because they make a stupid mistake, I am going to stand by them and help them through their tough time even if the price for doing so is steep.

You say that unconditional support makes an MDP a de-facto MADP but I say that conditional support makes an MDP a de-facto ODP since no alliance has ever been militarily attacked (save maybe ICP 2.0) without some claim of a covert aggressive action. Your motivation for that clause may not be cowardice but it certainly undermines the trust of the relationship between two treaty partners.

Edited February 24, 2009 by KingSrqt

[Owned-You]

I don't know--the third biggest alliances just lost most of its leaders and a giant chunk of membership. Seems like pretty big news to me.

That's an internal issue...and people are arguing about it as if they have a say in the matter. And even then, it is a big deal. I am simply pointing out all the arguments...they serve no purpose and change nothing. It's essentially just arguing to argue at this point. Not to mention...it's gone off-topic as of late.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Owned-You

[Luis Quezada]

as of late... more like since the 2nd page....

This are people who just feel all righteous and !@#$, they have no information or say in the matter, its basically trolling.

This community makes me sad.

[Bodvar Jarl]

I disagree. In fact, I can't think of a single alliance that signs treaties, but has a Charter mandate that forces them to decide whether or not they feel like acting on them. You already made that decision when you signed!

Why bother signing, if your participation and defense isn't a guarantee?

All alliances that does not have a charter mandate explicitly saying that MDP activations will automatically mean war with no person or body having to determine whether it is legit or not has a charter mandate that forces them to decide whether or not they feel like acting on it. That is the theory.

In reality, almost any alliance out there, including TOP, already made that decision when the MDP was signed, and the participation and defense is guaranteed for the duration of the treaty.

[Atlas]

Knock off the "Zomg people must be bored" comments. That's nothing but spam.

[RandomInterrupt]

Was it GWIII where we didn't even post a DoW and instead just started pounding people?

I think so. Actually I think there were a few wars where we didn't bother with DoWs or any of that nonsense. Polar upheld their treaties, and there was no vote, or conference, or discussion, or question that we would join our allies in war. Yes, our military officials had to order the proper preparations and target assignments to the general membership, but that is not at all the same thing as committing to the war itself.

If you are in a situation where you feel an ally might enter or create a war that you may not want to take part in, and you feel the need to create a mechanism internally to prevent going to war due to a misguided ally, then you have a poor and misguided FA department. When I signed an MDP (and god knows I signed a few) there was never any question that Polar would go to war to defend every last one of them.

Normally I'd tell the alliance that just announced they are protected by a group that has to vote to actually protect anyone that they should be worried, but in this case I feel pretty okay about the arrangement.

[Electron Sponge]

All alliances that does not have a charter mandate explicitly saying that MDP activations will automatically mean war with no person or body having to determine whether it is legit or not has a charter mandate that forces them to decide whether or not they feel like acting on it. That is the theory.

No matter how long you hammer on that square peg it isn't going to fit into the round hole.

Every MDP has a clause in it that says that an attack on one alliance will be considered an attack on the other signatory or signatories. If your government has already decreed that an attack on your MDP partner is an attack on your own alliance, then there is no reason for any decision making process. You have been attacked and you are at war.

In reality, almost any alliance out there, including TOP, already made that decision when the MDP was signed, and the participation and defense is guaranteed for the duration of the treaty.

No, in reality TOP takes its sweet little time deciding if it is going to approve each and every move its allies make with respects to war and in doing so annoy the everloving crap out of everyone sworn to defend them. Things might be a little different now (I doubt it) but it was a running joke in the Initiative.

[Frozenrpg]

No, in reality TOP takes its sweet little time deciding if it is going to approve each and every move its allies make with respects to war and in doing so annoy the everloving crap out of everyone sworn to defend them. Things might be a little different now (I doubt it) but it was a running joke in the Initiative.

I can confirm this, I remember having to vote right before GW2 on if we were going to honor the WUT treaty or not. I also do remember some individuals being quite perturbed that we were voting before the events played themselves out; thus voting in sort of a hypothetical fashion.

[Suvorov]

I can confirm this, I remember having to vote right before GW2 on if we were going to honor the WUT treaty or not. I also do remember some individuals being quite perturbed that we were voting before the events played themselves out; thus voting in sort of a hypothetical fashion.

Those were the days. Fun discussions...

[Frozenrpg]

Those were the days. Fun discussions...

So in TOP you get the horrible democractic processes of WAE and the pixel loving, treaty dodging neurtral nature of the Neutral Menace.

I think I just came up with their new recruitment message.

[Ejayrazz]

if you sign a treaty with someone you should trust that they wont do those things and since every war started ever has some type of CB of spying or poaching or something else that may or may not be true and will undoubtedly be denied by the attacked party regardless you should only be signing with someone who you will trust. If I trust someone enough to sign with them then I trust them enough to believe them when they say they do not deserve to be attacked and I do not need an extra clause in the treaty to stop me from defending them.

You may call it stupid or "supporting aggressive actions" but I call it trust and loyalty which is why I know I can count on my allies to put themselves on the line unconditionally for me the same way I would for them. And even if my allies do screw up I am not going to bail on them just because they make a stupid mistake, I am going to stand by them and help them through their tough time even if the price for doing so is steep.

You say that unconditional support makes an MDP a de-facto MADP but I say that conditional support makes an MDP a de-facto ODP since no alliance has ever been militarily attacked (save maybe ICP 2.0) without some claim of a covert aggressive action. Your motivation for that clause may not be cowardice but it certainly undermines the trust of the relationship between two treaty partners.

And being our ally means respecting our rules, as well as us respecting theirs. Having a clause merely stating we do not support spying in any shape or form doesn't mean it is not trusting your ally, it means it goes against the individual alliances' morals and they are establishing an agreement. Just because an alliance claims the counter initiated spying without exclusive evidence doesn't mean we shall drop em'. We have never really had a problem with our treaty obligations, but having a "no spying clause" isn't cowardice, in my opinion once an ally begins spying they no longer have our trust either, they broke our treaty first, and they no longer represent what they formerly represented.

Merely having the clause doesn't make it an ODP.

And even if my allies do screw up I am not going to bail on them just because they make a stupid mistake, I am going to stand by them and help them through their tough time even if the price for doing so is steep.

Entirely subjective. I would rather have a clause to deem what we see appropriate rather than put myself in a situation where we may fight for the wrong side merely because we feel the need to keep our word. Truth is, we will always keep our word, therefore I would rather be conservative, put the clause in, and go from there. Each situation has its own mitigating circumstances.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Feanor Noldorin]

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?

The people must be entertained?

/me shrugs

[Dr. Dan]

No, in reality TOP takes its sweet little time deciding if it is going to approve each and every move its allies make with respects to war and in doing so annoy the everloving crap out of everyone sworn to defend them. Things might be a little different now (I doubt it) but it was a running joke in the Initiative.

Actually, we have a legislative body now that we didn't during the Initiative that consists of 7 members. This does help to expedite things greatly, but we do still do discuss much of what we do with the general assembly ahead of time. It's part of a democracy, which isn't for everyone, but it has worked out well for us so far. Although, I still do find the joke "Moving at TOP speed" to be somewhat enjoyable.

To Frozen: I'm sorry that you feel so bitter, but I understand. I find your characterizations of us to be false, but I don't expect you know much about TOP anymore.

[Bodvar Jarl]

So in TOP you get the horrible democractic processes of WAE and the pixel loving, treaty dodging neurtral nature of the Neutral Menace.

I think I just came up with their new recruitment message.

Heh, you failed to notice that we pulled off a reform or two rectifying that?

That voting thing was good enough in our youth, then we changed it when it was clear (mostly to ourselves) that it no longer served us well.

[Frozenrpg]

To Frozen: I'm sorry that you feel so bitter, but I understand. I find your characterizations of us to be false, but I don't expect you know much about TOP anymore.

You are right, ever since TOP sold out its roots at the Paradox forums where we origionally hailed from in order to further its in game statistics I do not understand the creature that bore me into CN. I am thankful that Ivanelterrible (hurricanehunter on the forums) messaged me that one fateful December day and asked me if I would partake in a new Paradoxian community. Too bad that spirit and sense of unity; of belonging and fraternaty that was associated with a group of uniqueindividuals who share a similar background and interest has long since died out. I do miss that. I do miss many of my brothers from that era. And I am estatic about the relationships that I have developed with many of my fellow Paradoxians past and present. Were you around when myself and some of my fellow copatriots came under fire after the TOP diaspora for claiming we were some of the true Paradoxians? It was the spirit of that age that many of us took with us when we left. This Paradoxian fire that lived inside us all spread to the many alliances we were successful in. All of which were highly successful or still are when under the helm of Paradoxians. Look at Genesis where many of my copatriots once ended up. Or Polaris where Ski and Lynn call home. Zenith his become highly succesful where Suvorov dwells and lastly Universalis, a shining beacon for the days of old. So you are right Dr. Dan, I am unfamiliar with what TOP has become. But I am quite familiar with her roots and the morals she was founded upon.

Signed,

Frozen-rpg

One of the Last of the True Paradoxians

In Memorum

Ivanelterrible

Lemeard

Tachi

WhiteHojo

Felissilvestris

Litigator

Johann

Ugly Guy

Squeak

Chopper

Polar Mongoose

Jonti/Knut (13:16 Knut and where the feck am I? )

And the many others who once were the heart and soul of TOP. Whom I am honored to call my friends. I tilt my glass in honor to you good sirs, and I know you are successful whatever your current endeavors

Edited February 24, 2009 by Frozenrpg

[ponken]

I can confirm this, I remember having to vote right before GW2 on if we were going to honor the WUT treaty or not. I also do remember some individuals being quite perturbed that we were voting before the events played themselves out; thus voting in sort of a hypothetical fashion.

The reason we had that vote had more to do with the fact that only three months earlier we had been an isolationist alliance, and that a lot of people were not happy with being in the initiative, the marginal in the original vote was just 2 votes (with 40 pages of debate). Even our grand master at the time was against WUT and IIRC we had like 4 votes on leaving the treaty before GWII. Once GWII begun we fought like the rest of the initiative.

I though agree on the point that those were the days

[Incitatus]

You are right, ever since TOP sold out its roots at the Paradox forums where we origionally hailed from in order to further its in game statistics I do not understand the creature that bore me into CN. I am thankful that Ivanelterrible (hurricanehunter on the forums) messaged me that one fateful December day and asked me if I would partake in a new Paradoxian community. Too bad that spirit and sense of unity; of belonging and fraternaty that was associated with a group of uniqueindividuals who share a similar background and interest has long since died out. I do miss that. I do miss many of my brothers from that era. And I am estatic about the relationships that I have developed with many of my fellow Paradoxians past and present. Were you around when myself and some of my fellow copatriots came under fire after the TOP diaspora for claiming we were some of the true Paradoxians? It was the spirit of that age that many of us took with us when we left. This Paradoxian fire that lived inside us all spread to the many alliances we were successful in. All of which were highly successful or still are when under the helm of Paradoxians. Look at Genesis where many of my copatriots once ended up. Or Polaris where Ski and Lynn call home. Zenith his become highly succesful where Suvorov dwells and lastly Universalis, a shining beacon for the days of old. So you are right Dr. Dan, I am unfamiliar with what TOP has become. But I am quite familiar with her roots and the morals she was founded upon.

Signed,

Frozen-rpg

One of the Last of the True Paradoxians

In Memorum

Ivanelterrible

Lemeard

Tachi

WhiteHojo

Felissilvestris

Litigator

Johann

Ugly Guy

Squeak

Chopper

Polar Mongoose

And the many others who once were the heart and soul of TOP. Whom I am honored to call my friends. I tilt my glass in honor to you good sirs, and I know you are successful whatever your current endeavors

Unfortunately for you, this post has landed you on my "Watch for this guys' posts" list.

That was one heck of a post and I have no idea how Dr Dan could respond to that.

[Rafael Nadal]

Actually, we have a legislative body now that we didn't during the Initiative that consists of 7 members. This does help to expedite things greatly, but we do still do discuss much of what we do with the general assembly ahead of time. It's part of a democracy, which isn't for everyone, but it has worked out well for us so far. Although, I still do find the joke "Moving at TOP speed" to be somewhat enjoyable.

To Frozen: I'm sorry that you feel so bitter, but I understand. I find your characterizations of us to be false, but I don't expect you know much about TOP anymore.

Does this mean a majority of this 7 man legislative body agreed to sell us out and coerce harsher terms for us from Legion, all the while still holding our MDoAP? Is this what I am to believe?

And then having the audacity to come to us after the war and canceling on us? Though, I guess that last point doesn't truly matter in the end, since you only beat us to the punch to cancel.

[avernite]

Just for giggles, I will cite our first-ever MDP, the non-treaty treaty:

Article V

This pact will not trigger reciprocal defense obligations in the event that a signatory has engaged in espionage, extreme provocation of another party, or otherwise conducted its foreign affairs in such a way as to bring the conflict upon itself. If one party to this pact calls upon the other party to provide assistance in a time of war, and the second party believes that reciprocal defense is not appropriate for the reasons stated in this article, the second party shall notify the first that no assistance shall be forthcoming. This notification will also automatically terminate the pact.

Ergo, in fact, our MDP's have functioned exactly as signed, or at least exactly as the first MDP signed.

Furthermore, from the Lux Aeterna:

Direct Aggression: Actual or attempted military action or economic sanctions by a party against a second party, except in the following circumstances:

i) When the first party is responding to military action or unjustified economic sanctions initiated on them by the second party; or,

ii) When the first party is responding due to the activation of a mutual defense clause with a third party where the second party initiated military action or unjustified economic sanctions upon said third party.

iii) Actual or attempted acts of espionage.

Thus, here again, this principle is adhered to. An MDP means that if you engage in other than direct military agression you may still be the agressor.

Finally, since the Charter only explicitly defines the need to defend in case of an attack on a TOP member, and otherwise requires a declaration of war, an MDP as per the interpretation suggested here (which, I might add, I have seen very little of except in cases where the war had been seen coming for so long that TOP, too, was well prepared for war) would thus be a charter amendment.

Finally, our system works for us, yours works for you. The system we use is not an issue for anyone except our allies, who have all known this fact since the articles on war and defense have been effectively unchanged since the first ratification of our charter (the exception being the institution of the Heptagon, but I believe that even for treaties older than that we hold a treaty of mutual defence with any alliance that had their treaty with us before this event).

[Frozenrpg]

Ergo, in fact, our MDP's have functioned exactly as signed, or at least exactly as the first MDP signed.

Avernite I have the upmost respect for you, but I want to ask how the FOK MDP fits into this during the UJW? They were attacked by GATO, NTO, and -AiD- correct?

I know we at UNION honored our MDP and were engaged with -AiD-. Between FOK and ourselves we recieved the only surrender from the ~ side in the war. Where was TOP?

[Virillus]

Avernite I have the upmost respect for you, but I want to ask how the FOK MDP fits into this during the UJW? They were attacked by GATO, NTO, and -AiD- correct?

I know we at UNION honored our MDP and were engaged with -AiD-. Between FOK and ourselves we recieved the only surrender from the ~ side in the war. Where was TOP?

TOP admitted to breaking treaties in the UJW a long time ago. It doesn't stop them from lambasting others for doing the same, though.