Why what went around is not coming around

[Doug Falkner]

Well that's true. But what surprises me here is that NPO did not bother informing their allies that they would be declaring war.

If you are surprised, imagine how surprised we were. I can't speak for everyone on our side but I do know that the MCXA was a bit chaotic and scrambling to decide what our position was and then scrambling to try to organize a war that we had no clue was about to happen.

As for Kevin Cash's point about the Codex, I think he was referring to Citadel's failure to support OG not Citadel being upset by the putative poor handling of the OV negotiation and subsequent declaration.

[Detlev]

I couldn't say, I don't know what NPO was thinking, I was a part of GPA at the time. And, I'm not saying that what NPO did was right, I'm just saying that things aren't as cut and dried as they were made out to be. The GPA really was, despite it's declarations of neutrality, very anti-NPO. The general feeling there at the time was that NPO and it's allies were warmongers that were antithetical to all the principles of the GPA. It was quite clear that the GPA viewed itself as standing in opposition to NPO, even if the GPA was pacifistic. I could understand how NPO perceived a threat from the GPA, whether there really was a threat or not (and as I noted, I don't think there really was a threat).

GPA never declared war before and didn't have any war treaties. So how, exactly, was GPA a "threat" to NPO? GPA was a "threat" to NPO only insofar as it occupied the #1 spot. It was naked aggression on NPO's part. Period.

[Monster]

If I could just go start wars all willy nilly and count on all of my MDP and MDoAP partners to back me up when others strike back despite provisions being made in treaty texts for such situations, it'd be really stupid.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Nausea

[theArrowheadian]

MHA's treaty with NPO is non-chaining and they had no obligation to support NPO's aggression. Read the actual treaty texts before saying "people aren't honoring their treaties!!"

You know I think we can all learn to let some things like this go and just let them say whatever helps them sleep at night.

[Deruvian]

'non-chaining' is just a term used by cowards who dont want to honor their obligations to their friends

If you and a friend agree that you'll stick together and help each other out, then that friend gets in big trouble with the police and asks you to outright lie in court for him, would you do it? I for one, won't. Sometimes your obligations aren't as clear cut and non-chaining clauses are there for these circumstances. Plus, this way your friend learns his lesson and is made the better for it.

[Detlev]

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."

I know. It is disgusting, but such is the way of planet bob.

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.

I know. It is disgusting, but such is the way of planet bob.

[Kevin Cash]

I fail to see how indirectly supporting attacks during peace negotiations, or fighting a war based on a CB that could only have been procured through the same CB they were railing against, is against the codex.

its not against the codex.

however, what is, and what disgusts me, is that they left their friends in old guard to get pounded. i dont know why so many people think treaties contain invisible clauses that state 'if you dont agree with x event that happened outside the parties to this treaty you can ignore your obligations"

[Gruthenia]

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.

Starting a losing war tends to be counterproductive to whatever goals you may have.

[Monster]

its not against the codex.

however, what is, and what disgusts me, is that they left their friends in old guard to get pounded. i dont know why so many people think treaties contain invisible clauses that state 'if you dont agree with x event that happened outside the parties to this treaty you can ignore your obligations"

Citadel's treaty is non-chaining as well and all Citadel alliances were engaged.

[Kevin Cash]

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.

its rather obvious i think that they're simply using this as an excuse to rally people to the cause, when really its just a power play by the few in control of karma

why do you think they get in such a panic when you point out their obvious and numerous hypocrisies?

[bbrownso]

since everyone else seems to know the text of the NPO-MHA treaty and it's non-chaining clauses, can someone please furnish a link to the text of the treaty (preferably not to the MHA or NPO forums) as to enlighten everyone?

[Doug Falkner]

I believe this stemmed from the fact that all of them announced their cancellations in a single announcement thread. It also probably occurred because the announcement had poor timing as it happened when around a dozen or more alliances had already declared war. Finally, many "Hegemonists" supported, in voice anyway, NPO's side in the tense pre-war period and thus shocked everyone when it seemed like 1V and Q weren't entering.

There is a distinction to be made with supporting the NPO in some abstract sense and supporting the particular actions performed by the NPO leading up to the declaration on OV. I agree that the Hegemony did tend to side with NPO in some abstract sense in the previous couple of months when lines were being drawn but the NPO did succeed in alienating many of its allies by declaring on OV without giving folks the heads-up. We shouldn't have had to learn about the NPO's war with the OV from their public declaration.

That being the case, I think the initial reaction but many folks in 1V and Q was, "What?!?! The NPO are declaring on OV? They can't do that without even telling us before hand. They've overstepped the line."

When the initial shock passed, I think we realized that while we didn't agree with NPO's particular actions, we couldn't just abandon them to the wolves, which is what led us to be in the position that we're in.

[Kevin Cash]

and all Citadel alliances were engaged.

wait, they were all engaged in the war when og was attacked? what?

also see my prior comments on this idea of 'non-chaining treaties.'

[Prometheius]

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

Its kinda hard to honor a MDAP treaty with NPO when MHA has a MDoAP with them.

Order at the End of the Universe

An Eternal MDoAP

ninja'd

But first to post a link to the NPO-MHA MDoAP

Edited May 6, 2009 by Prometheius

[Doug Falkner]

GPA never declared war before and didn't have any war treaties. So how, exactly, was GPA a "threat" to NPO? GPA was a "threat" to NPO only insofar as it occupied the #1 spot. It was naked aggression on NPO's part. Period.

As was noted in my comment that you quoted, I said that I didn't think GPA was a threat. I said, I could see how the NPO perceived it to be a threat in terms of it being a huge alliance that was rather anti-NPO. You have to admit, that as a fighting force the GPA would have been a much larger threat than Vox was, and we all saw how excited NPO got over Vox. With that sort of mentality, I could understand why they viewed the GPA as a threat, even if it really wasn't one. And, people can only act on what they know and what they believe, you can't ask people to have perfect knowledge before they make their choices.

[Delta1212]

its rather obvious i think that they're simply using this as an excuse to rally people to the cause, when really its just a power play by the few in control of karm

The fact that you think people are in control of Karma is hilarious.

[Paradigm]

The general feeling there at the time was that NPO and it's allies were warmongers that were antithetical to all the principles of the GPA. It was quite clear that the GPA viewed itself as standing in opposition to NPO, even if the GPA was pacifistic. I could understand how NPO perceived a threat from the GPA, whether there really was a threat or not (and as I noted, I don't think there really was a threat).

No different than the GPA I joined on August 1st 2006.

The only threat GPA offered was taking the top spot in stats. Period.

[Deruvian]

also see my prior comments on this idea of 'non-chaining treaties.'

I believe a few of us commented on your opinion of 'non-chaining treaties'

If I could just go start wars all willy nilly and count on all of my MDP and MDoAP partners to back me up when others strike back despite provisions being made in treaty texts for such situations, it'd be really stupid.

If you and a friend agree that you'll stick together and help each other out, then that friend gets in big trouble with the police and asks you to outright lie in court for him, would you do it? I for one, won't. Sometimes your obligations aren't as clear cut and non-chaining clauses are there for these circumstances. Plus, this way your friend learns his lesson and is made the better for it.

[Doug Falkner]

No different than the GPA I joined on August 1st 2006.

The only threat GPA offered was taking the top spot in stats. Period.

I think I did a poor job making my point, I didn't say that GPA was a threat. I explicitly noted several times that GPA wasn't in fact a threat. I just said that I can understand, given the way the NPO approaches things that it is plausible that they believed that GPA was a credible threat and that you can't really demand that a person act only with perfect knowledge, people can only act on what they believe to be the case.

[Paradigm]

I think I did a poor job making my point, I didn't say that GPA was a threat. I explicitly noted several times that GPA wasn't in fact a threat. I just said that I can understand, given the way the NPO approaches things that it is plausible that they believed that GPA was a credible threat and that you can't really demand that a person act only with perfect knowledge, people can only act on what they believe to be the case.

Yeah - sorry I wasnt more clear - I was agreeing with you on the no threat part.

Oh and no - the GPA was on the to do list long before NPO made up that war.

[mykep]

I am glad the effort to try and convince the other side is, well, still an effort. However, they are pigheaded, and that is pretty much why they are where they are. So lets just call it a day, shall we? We have our respected views and there is no changing that.

Also, if this thread has taught me one thing it is that Kevin Cash should be fully ignored. Answering his posts would just be lowering your own IQ. Please, for the sake of yourself and the thread. Stop replying to him.

[Doug Falkner]

After just talking to Emperor Fu, I realized that perhaps I overstated something. Earlier I said the GPA viewed itself as in opposition to the NPO. That might not have been put well. I should note that there was no official position of opposition on the part of the GPA, merely that it seemed to me that many members of the GPA viewed themselves as in opposition to the NPO.

[Detlev]

As was noted in my comment that you quoted, I said that I didn't think GPA was a threat. I said, I could see how the NPO perceived it to be a threat in terms of it being a huge alliance that was rather anti-NPO. You have to admit, that as a fighting force the GPA would have been a much larger threat than Vox was, and we all saw how excited NPO got over Vox. With that sort of mentality, I could understand why they viewed the GPA as a threat, even if it really wasn't one. And, people can only act on what they know and what they believe, you can't ask people to have perfect knowledge before they make their choices.

I understand your point. I still disagree with it. NPO was aware (as was everyone else) that GPA never declared war before, was officially a hippie alliance, and had zero war treaties. I don't see how NPO could view GPA as any threat. And what does it matter that GPA membership didn't like NPO? Nobody likes NPO.

[Kevin Cash]

If you and a friend agree that you'll stick together and help each other out, then that friend gets in big trouble with the police and asks you to outright lie in court for him, would you do it? I for one, won't. Sometimes your obligations aren't as clear cut and non-chaining clauses are there for these circumstances. Plus, this way your friend learns his lesson and is made the better for it.

npo didnt ask their friends to commit a crime, they asked they asked them merely and in general terms 'help us.'

if i had a friend on trial for, even murder lets say, and it was far too early to figure out for myself exactly what happened, you'd bet i would defend him, and i wouldnt regret that decision no matter what the situation turned out to be in the end. thats the thing about friends, youre supposed to trust them. it is obvious that a number of alliances were so distrusting of their 'friends' that they were willing to assume the worst of them. that, to me, is despicable.

[Doug Falkner]

I understand your point. I still disagree with it. NPO was aware (as was everyone else) that GPA never declared war before, was officially a hippie alliance, and had zero war treaties. I don't see how NPO could view GPA as any threat. And what does it matter that GPA membership didn't like NPO? Nobody likes NPO.

I grant that the NPO might have overreacted. I'm just saying things aren't as simple and black and white as people make them out to be. I think that the demonizing of some people and the lionizing of others is largely what causes the problems on Planet Bob and I was just pointing out a case where I thought the demonizing wasn't entirely warranted.