Why what went around is not coming around

[Big Z]

well then i implore you to bring up the relevant sections of those treaties as well.

Fark-Gre MDoPDP

Citadel Announcement

[Kevin Cash]

oh man am i an idiot, all this time i was thinking 'the codex' was 'the citadel'

damn people since when do you talk about peoples charters like that? here i was assuming it was a treaty

brb, banging head against wall

[Big Z]

oh man am i an idiot, all this time i was thinking 'the codex' was 'the citadel'

damn people since when do you talk about peoples charters like that? here i was assuming it was a treaty

brb, banging head against wall

I linked the Citadel treaty but allow me to highlight the specific non-chaining clause in Citadel

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.

Article 4 - Defense

i) Notwithstanding Article 3, all members shall immediately provide adequate military and financial assistance in defense against direct aggression against a signatory, unless the attacked signatory expressly waives such assistance, or under the circumstances detailed in Article 4, paragraph (ii).

[Deruvian]

oh man am i an idiot, all this time i was thinking 'the codex' was 'the citadel'

damn people since when do you talk about peoples charters like that? here i was assuming it was a treaty

brb, banging head against wall

Then let me quote the Citadel TREATY

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.

Article 4 - Defense

i) Notwithstanding Article 3, all members shall immediately provide adequate military and financial assistance in defense against direct aggression against a signatory, unless the attacked signatory expressly waives such assistance, or under the circumstances detailed in Article 4, paragraph (ii).

edit: okay I wasn't fast enough

Edited May 6, 2009 by Deruvian

[Commisar Gaunt]

so you accuse mha of dishonesty when they signed on to that treaty, which clearly and multiple times states its intent to last, and i quote, 'until the end of the universe'

good to know... but i give mha more credit than that. not much more though.

No. Just no. You obviously didn't comprehend anything of what I had written. If anything, MHA was just naive to think NPO wouldn't pull a stunt like this.

Keep on churning out the spin--your clear bias is doing a great job of stripping you of credibility.

[Demonic]

if karma doesn't give harsh terms to new pacific order how can they be called karma? i mean they are only giving what is long past due (and even at that it won't make up for the harsh terms pacific order gave out in it's time as "leader" of CN)

note these are only my opinions not the opinions of my alliance.

[Doug Falkner]

I realise you are just trying to be reasonable but you couldnt possibly be more wrong.

I was there and I was in a position to know.

I must admit, I don't know what was going on in NPO at the time. I was simply arguing for a bit of charity for one's opponent rather than to immediately assume the worst. So your point is well taken.

[Deruvian]

so you accuse mha of dishonesty when they signed on to that treaty, which clearly and multiple times states its intent to last, and i quote, 'until the end of the universe'

good to know... but i give mha more credit than that. not much more though.

The Mostly Harmless Alliance would like to announce that due to recent events, we must clarify our Defensive obligations. We'd like to make it clear to all of Planet Bob that as a mostly peaceful alliance, MHA supports peace over war, honor over convenience, diplomacy over conflict, and defense over aggression.

MHA does not support the war initiated by the New Pacific Order and The Order of Righteous Nations.

We made our position clear to them regarding the possible implications of war, and our general dissatisfaction with the whole mess. We said it then, we're saying it again. MHA is choosing to do what is right, and it is choosing to not support the actions taken on behalf of those treaty partners. We will not be activating the Aggression portions of the those treaties, nor shall the Defense portions of those treaties be activated. To do so would be to support actions that are fundamentally against the MHA's way of life and our Chartered policies.

There might have been that clause, but MHA aren't dogs to be led around by the NPO. They told the NPO what would have happened and either the NPO tried to drag them into a mess or outright didn't care. IMO that violates the treaty much more than limiting the defensive clause. As you might have noticed MHA defended the NPO from two alliances trying to jump on the bandwagon.

[Kevin Cash]

It was actually their codex which overrides their treaties.

ok, back, with a headache as well.

i will agree that this does in fact justify the gremlins... but what about the other members of the citadel who did not defend old guard? they were not bound by gremlins charter as they were not members of the gremlins.

for reference, from the lux aeterna (which actually is the citadel agreement)

[...]

Outside Treaty Partners (OTPs): Any nation, alliance, or block of alliances who has agreed to any treaty requiring mutual or unilateral defense from aggression with one or more members.

[...]

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.

[...]

Article 3 - Aid

i) Any signatory may request aid from other signatory for any reason. Such requests shall include the rationale for the aid request and the nature of the aid required. Provision of such aid is strictly voluntary unless withholding aid would cause a violation of Article 3, paragraph (ii), and the signatory providing the aid shall determine the nature and amount of any aid they provide. Such aid may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the provision of troops, financial assistance, diplomatic measures, or military assistance not otherwise covered by Article 4.

ii) In times of war or reconstruction after war, such aid is mandatory to comply with mutual defense conditions.

Article 4 - Defense

i) Notwithstanding Article 3, all members shall immediately provide adequate military and financial assistance in defense against direct aggression against a signatory, unless the attacked signatory expressly waives such assistance, or under the circumstances detailed in Article 4, paragraph (ii).

ii) Should a party with whom signatories hold diplomatic treaties (OTPs) initiate direct aggression against a signatory, signatories shall immediately provide official notice of cancellation of said treaties to the aggressor(s). Signatories shall only be required to provide assistance in accordance with Article 4, paragraph (i) after the notice of cancellation period for said treaties has elapsed.

article 3 included to show that i am accounting for everything, the main focus is on article four

unless og waived assistance (which is a possibility), umbrella, fcc, and top were obligated to defend og when they were attacked... but there is an issue, the treaty only covers for 'direct aggression' against old guard

i draw you to the cornerstone of the whole debacle, a pivot in the confounding terms of the treaty: under the definition of 'direct aggression' subsection (ii), which provides a partial list of conditions which void the condition of 'direct aggression.' it reads:

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.

remove the sections not relevant to this scenario and replace terms with the relevant meanings to bring clarity:

When [people who attacked og] are responding due to the activation of a mutual defense clause with [people og attacked] where [old guard] initiated military action upon [people og attacked].

the one word to focus on is the word 'initiated' and although the writers of the lux aeterna made a commendable effort to avoid ambiguity, nobody is perfect. there are two possible interpretations of this clause:

-old guard 'initiated' the individual conflict between itself and those whom it attacked;

-old guard did not 'initiate' this global conflict (with that role being taken by the npo who 'initiated' hostilities against ov)

...so what do we make of this? we cant until a clear (and unbiased) interpretation of what exactly it means to 'initiate' this conflict. as i am not a signatory to this treaty, it is not my place to debate what i feel it means, but i think this issue should be addressed. a representative of the citadel is required to relay the results of such a decision. what i have established is that it is possible that some signatories violated their part of the treaty, but that we don't know for sure.

...uhhh, yeah, i had something going, then i read into it more, and then it got reeeeeally interesting. make of it what you will.

[Kevin Cash]

There might have been that clause, but MHA aren't dogs to be led around by the NPO. They told the NPO what would have happened and either the NPO tried to drag them into a mess or outright didn't care. IMO that violates the treaty much more than limiting the defensive clause. As you might have noticed MHA defended the NPO from two alliances trying to jump on the bandwagon.

if i made it clear to someone irl that i was going to punch them in the face, it does not justify the act of then punching them in the face. mha was in the wrong to ignore its treaty obligations, and they have zero excuse for violating their written word.

[Kevin Cash]

No. Just no. You obviously didn't comprehend anything of what I had written. If anything, MHA was just naive to think NPO wouldn't pull a stunt like this.

Keep on churning out the spin--your clear bias is doing a great job of stripping you of credibility.

lets be honest, a karma supporter views a 'hegemony' supporter with zero credibility and vice versa. lets not play games around that shall we?

i am reading the letter of the treaties and making my judgment there. the fact is, your treaty is your word, and if you break your word you have broken the treaty. breaking one tiny clause in a treaty also is not grounds for the other party to ignore their obligations, unless it is stated so in the treaty, or the clause broken serves to greatly undermine the position of the other signatory (not informing the parties of war does not fall under that later stipulation, but depending on the treaty may fall under the former)

i, my friend, am dealing in facts, and you cannot, no matter where you stand, disregard hard fact just because you dont like it. in this thread more than once i have had to suck it up and admit some of my points were wrong; however, many of them remain strong.

[Cataduanes]

Oh and lets add another: GATO. Warred for a month before individual peace terms were offered. Viceroys, insane reps, perma and eternal ZI. NPO's record of brutality and hubris is long and clear.

It was longer than a month, from April 26 — July 21, 2008 ....otherwise i agree

Edited May 6, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Deruvian]

for reference, from the lux aeterna (which actually is the citadel agreement)

the one word to focus on is the word 'initiated' and although the writers of the lux aeterna made a commendable effort to avoid ambiguity, nobody is perfect. there are two possible interpretations of this clause:

-old guard 'initiated' the individual conflict between itself and those whom it attacked;

-old guard did not 'initiate' this global conflict (with that role being taken by the npo who 'initiated' hostilities against ov)

...so what do we make of this? we cant until a clear (and unbiased) interpretation of what exactly it means to 'initiate' this conflict. as i am not a signatory to this treaty, it is not my place to debate what i feel it means, but i think this issue should be addressed. a representative of the citadel is required to relay the results of such a decision. what i have established is that it is possible that some signatories violated their part of the treaty, but that we don't know for sure.

...uhhh, yeah, i had something going, then i read into it more, and then it got reeeeeally interesting. make of it what you will.

Both Big Z and I already explained this in previous posts (one right after the other... right after you saying you were going to bang your head against the wall that's probably why you missed it)

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.

Article 4 - Defense

i) Notwithstanding Article 3, all members shall immediately provide adequate military and financial assistance in defense against direct aggression against a signatory, unless the attacked signatory expressly waives such assistance, or under the circumstances detailed in Article 4, paragraph (ii).

Therefore your explanation of

When [people who attacked og] are responding due to the activation of a mutual defense clause with [people og attacked] where [old guard] initiated military action upon [people og attacked].

Directly falls within the EXCEPTIONS of the definition of Direct Aggression.

edit: I was confused by that at first as well.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Deruvian

[Kevin Cash]

Both Big Z and I already explained this in previous posts (one right after the other... right after you saying you were going to bang your head against the wall that's probably why you missed it)

Therefore your explanation of

Directly falls within the EXCEPTIONS of the definition of Direct Aggression.

ah perhaps i was quick to judge the writers... the word 'upon' clarifies the intent beyond the word 'initiated,' i missed that in my initial examination.

so yeah, in other words citadel isnt a very powerful treaty unless you start a war against one of them out of the blue...

however, i will note, the fact that not a single signatory of citadel opted to defend their 'ally' in og still says a lot about their character, even if i concede that there was no technical violation of the treaty. one can still make an argument about the spirit of the friendship that treaty is supposed to represent, but at that point, it becomes a rather ugly mess of opinions with no backing facts from either side... and i am not especially adept at that so i will refrain from exploring it any further.

edit: I was confused by that at first as well.

lets just agree that the lux aeterna is the most confounding treaty ever written, intentionally or not, and move on to another topic Edited May 6, 2009 by Kevin Cash

[Bellisus]

The simple fact of the matter is that when everyone is treatied to everyone, and alliance X declares on alliance Y, decisions have to be made by everyone regarding their treaties with everyone.

Meaningless treaties are to blame for your frustrations Kevin Cash.

[HellAngel]

On the whole Citadel treaty interpretation:

OG knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into when they signed with NPO. They also knew they wouldnt get any support for aggressive actions of NPO. While one can argue that OG getting attacked activates defense treaty clauses, it is our understanding that getting attacked when yourself supporting an aggressive action does not activate defense clauses. Because, you know, its not an MADP.

And besides, there were a approx. a dozen of our other allies fighting on the other side. War is a dirty game. It polarizes the world into two sides and makes friends fight each other.

[Deruvian]

lets just agree that the lux aeterna is the most confounding treaty ever written, intentionally or not, and move on to another topic

agreed

The simple fact of the matter is that when everyone is treatied to everyone, and alliance X declares on alliance Y, decisions have to be made by everyone regarding their treaties with everyone.

Meaningless treaties are to blame for your frustrations Kevin Cash.

I believe that, with the treaty web as tangled as it was, treaties (not all, though) served more as a light outline of true relationships. An unfortunate situation, but one that should hopefully be amended in the future.

[Tomcat]

you are a slow one arent you?

do you know what the word 'coincidence' means? these issues were running long before gpa was a few points above npo in the rankings... this notion you have that npo went on red alert the instant gpa peeked over them in the rankings as if its the only thing in the world they were worried about, well, it makes you look foolish.

NPO seems to have a long history of "coincidences" where they just so happened to find a reason to declare war on an alliance that was growing in power.

I wonder how many on the Karma side participated in the "many" obviously NPO-led atrocities that happened. Further, I wonder how they came to hold those views and why they get a free pass besides the obvious answer of "well we couldn't win without them, so who cares."

Finally, why is there now such a groundswell of opposition? Apparently, the NPO has been doing this for years and no one did anything until now. There would appare to be two conclusions that can be reached. Either everyone cared for their infra far too much to bother or they were confused as to what constitutes "good" and "bad" behavior.

Nobody has been doing anything about it? What about Great War 2? What about Great War 3? What about Vox Populi?

People have been standing up to the NPO for a long time now. This is simply the first time that the cyberverse truly woke up and realized that having the choice of being an NPO meatshield or getting curbstomped by them wasn't much of a choice and wasn't really a free or fun game to play.

[D34th]

A lot of cybernation rulers argue that the coalition known as "Karma" is no better than NPO if it dictates harsh terms to its enemies, and some even seem to argue this simply because of the war. Both assertions are nonsense.

What went around:

NPO plays a cut throat game. NPO slashes its way to the top and bullies to stay there. Two examples of its dirty play come to my mind: FAN and GPA.

snip.

Oh and lets add another: GATO.

Do you noticed that some of major alliances on KARMA side helped NPO to cut FAN and GPA throats right? Just as example for you remind it. You can find others reading CN wiki.

Continuum-GPA War:

FOK, VE and Umbrella supported it.

While this doesn't make NPO look less worse, don't make KARMA side look better either, so better you use examples where NPO acted alone or without some KARMA alliances support.

Edited May 6, 2009 by D34th

[Tomcat]

Do you noticed that some of major alliances on KARMA side helped NPO to cut FAN and GPA throats right? Just as example for you remind it. You can find others reading CN wiki.

Continuum-GPA War:

FOK, VE and Umbrella supported it.

While this doesn't make NPO look less worse, don't make KARMA side look better either, so better you use examples where NPO acted alone or without some KARMA alliances support.

Because they were NPO sponsored wars and at that time the NPO still had a culture of fear permeating the cyberverse and disagreeing with their agenda would have gotten said alliances kicked out of the continuum or worse.

[raptorix]

NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO

That's not true, since a lot of Alliances who are now in war with NPO had also threaties with MHA/SPARTA/CO, so in that case they would be neutral.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

After two years of a terrorist regime, everyone has a little blood on their hands. I think that's at least one reason there is so much willingness to let most everyone go with light terms whenever they get tired of it. And really that's healthy. Those that were just a little slow moving and got stuck where they didnt want to be will appreciate it and move on. If anyone is just using it as a ruse... so what? That will just make the game more interesting next month and next year.

[enderland]

lets be honest, a karma supporter views a 'hegemony' supporter with zero credibility and vice versa. lets not play games around that shall we?

Speak for yourself.

I tend to judge posts by what they say, not who said it, and I don't care if you are in the Hegemony or Karma or neutral.

[Mogar]

The interesting thing is that many of those people excoriated the 1V and Q alliances for doing the same thing.

Well duh, then there'd be less slots and less tech and land stolen for the Karma side, we cant have a war without people benefiting from it silly.

[Cataduanes]

Do you noticed that some of major alliances on KARMA side helped NPO to cut FAN and GPA throats right? Just as example for you remind it. You can find others reading CN wiki.

Surely the fact that these communities took a decision to reject this sort of curbstomp culture in the end must count for something right?

After two years of a terrorist regime, everyone has a little blood on their hands.

Speak for yourself . some of us have either been victims or observers to the actions of 'Pax Pacifica'.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Cataduanes