Terminator Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 o/STA o/NV ITs great to have you all as allies NV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilla Island Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 What took you guys so long to upgrade? Za'Sibir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Invicta, followed by BAPS.EZI for all! Damnit! Now that you've exposed our dastardly plan we'll be pre-emptively REZI'd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 You both suck, especially hizzy & tyga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 What took you guys so long to upgrade? Za'Sibir! They actually don't like us that much. They're just using us as a way to tie themselves to Polaris, and then by building better bridges with us they're hoping I'll introduce them to NPO so that they can start the process of getting them to join Frostbite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Congrats to two fine alliances on the upgrade. I do have a quick question: I am pleased to announce the upgrade of the Mutual Defence Pact between the Siberian Tiger Alliance and Nueva Vida to a Mutual Defence/Optional Aggression Pact. Nueva Vida have been solid allies of the STA for some time and this upgraded treaty will allow both the STA and Nueva Vida greater scope to defend each other from this point onwards. The upgraded treaty has been posted below for the public record. See the bolded above. How does the addition of an Optional Aggression Clause to a previously held Mutual Defense Pact make it easier to 'defend' your partner? I would think the MDP alone would cover that just fine - unless I'm missing something, which could be the case. Again, congratulations to you both on this upgrade. Regards, EmperorVIcious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinoceros Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 awesome /STA & Nueva Vida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Congrats to two fine alliances on the upgrade. I do have a quick question: See the bolded above. How does the addition of an Optional Aggression Clause to a previously held Mutual Defense Pact make it easier to 'defend' your partner? I would think the MDP alone would cover that just fine - unless I'm missing something, which could be the case. Again, congratulations to you both on this upgrade. Regards, EmperorVIcious Because the optional aggression clause opens up the opportunity to assist NV if they are defending an ally of theirs whereas the basic MDP does not. What the STA found in the recent war was that our basic MDP treaties allowed others to attack allies of our allies to draw them into the war without us having a treatied means to assist them. Sure, we could have just left it as-is and gone in anyway and waded our way through the e-lawyering and bandwagonning accusations. But, we decided to make it public and save everyone the time and hassle of mounting the legal cases whenever the next war comes around. In short, as was stated in the OP, it gives us greater flexibility to be better able to defend our allies in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Because the optional aggression clause opens up the opportunity to assist NV if they are defending an ally of theirs whereas the basic MDP does not. What the STA found in the recent war was that our basic MDP treaties allowed others to attack allies of our allies to draw them into the war without us having a treatied means to assist them.Sure, we could have just left it as-is and gone in anyway and waded our way through the e-lawyering and bandwagonning accusations. But, we decided to make it public and save everyone the time and hassle of mounting the legal cases whenever the next war comes around. In short, as was stated in the OP, it gives us greater flexibility to be better able to defend our allies in future. Oh great job Tyga, now we dont get to have fun with seeing how we are starting the next big war with these announcements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 We better get started pre-appointing some viceroys. I like to be prepared. Dibs on BAPS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Because the optional aggression clause opens up the opportunity to assist NV if they are defending an ally of theirs whereas the basic MDP does not. What the STA found in the recent war was that our basic MDP treaties allowed others to attack allies of our allies to draw them into the war without us having a treatied means to assist them. Ok, I can understand where you're coming from, however, I did take a look at the previous incarnation of the this treaty, and specifically, I was drawn to Article III, reprinted below for your convenience. ARTICLE IIIThe two respective parties recognize that an armed attack on either party's nations and/or territories under administrative authority, at the time of the attack, is dangerous to the peace of both alliances. The assisting party will act to meet the common danger in accordance to its charter/constitutional process. Said parties should maintain open communication with one another to decide the best suitable action to take when the defense of one of the parties is in dire need of help. Nations need not ask for military or financial aid. If defense is self sustaining, allied party should let it be known that help is available if needed and will be received upon a request for it. This pact recognizes that both parties have the duty and responsibility to their own safety first and allows any present conflicts to be resolved/put under control before any assistance is given. The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary. Now, I certainly see your point that the following situation can happen: STA is MDP'd to NV. NV is MDP'd to alliance X. Alliance Y attacks Alliance X. So, there are two potential outcomes: (three, actually NV could cancel the MDP with Alliance X, but I don't think that's their style from what I've seen) NV's MDP with alliance X is activated. Therefore, NV is now engaged in a defensive action (especially if the wording is 'an attack on one is an attack on both' as is common in most MDP's) to assist Alliance X. Another school of thought is that NV is engaged in an aggressive action to 'defend' Alliance X (a school I don't ascribe to, but so I'm clear I'll address it) in which case your MDP, paragraph 3 of Article 3, would still cover. Sure, we could have just left it as-is and gone in anyway and waded our way through the e-lawyering and bandwagonning accusations. But, we decided to make it public and save everyone the time and hassle of mounting the legal cases whenever the next war comes around.In short, as was stated in the OP, it gives us greater flexibility to be better able to defend our allies in future. Now, you have added an Optional Aggression clause. Forgive my long-windedness, but how exactly does an 'Optional' i.e. 'voluntary' aggression clause provide any more flexibility to defense than the bolded section of the previous version of this upgraded treaty cited above? I'm not trying to be obstinate, really. Ultimately, I see Article III as covering any anticipated situation quite well (I actually really like the way it's written), and I am failing to see how an 'optional aggression clause' adds any flexibility to the situation especially in light of Article III. However, that being said, it is certainly the prerogative of both NV and STA to change the wording of an existing treaty to better reflect their true relationship and I wish you both well. If I have any further questions, I'll try to find you on IRC and I can stop mucking up this celebratory thread! Za' Sabir VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 With all these upgrades, does anyone else fear a global war happening almost immediately after the Karma war? Nah. We just decided to add oA clauses to all of our treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maicke Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 another one? congratz to STA and NV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) Ok, I can understand where you're coming from, however, I did take a look at the previous incarnation of the this treaty, and specifically, I was drawn to Article III, reprinted below for your convenience.Now, I certainly see your point that the following situation can happen: STA is MDP'd to NV. NV is MDP'd to alliance X. Alliance Y attacks Alliance X. So, there are two potential outcomes: (three, actually NV could cancel the MDP with Alliance X, but I don't think that's their style from what I've seen) NV's MDP with alliance X is activated. Therefore, NV is now engaged in a defensive action (especially if the wording is 'an attack on one is an attack on both' as is common in most MDP's) to assist Alliance X. Another school of thought is that NV is engaged in an aggressive action to 'defend' Alliance X (a school I don't ascribe to, but so I'm clear I'll address it) in which case your MDP, paragraph 3 of Article 3, would still cover. Now, you have added an Optional Aggression clause. Forgive my long-windedness, but how exactly does an 'Optional' i.e. 'voluntary' aggression clause provide any more flexibility to defense than the bolded section of the previous version of this upgraded treaty cited above? I'm not trying to be obstinate, really. Ultimately, I see Article III as covering any anticipated situation quite well (I actually really like the way it's written), and I am failing to see how an 'optional aggression clause' adds any flexibility to the situation especially in light of Article III. However, that being said, it is certainly the prerogative of both NV and STA to change the wording of an existing treaty to better reflect their true relationship and I wish you both well. If I have any further questions, I'll try to find you on IRC and I can stop mucking up this celebratory thread! Za' Sabir VI The part you bolded was intended as a non-chaining clause, not as an optional aggression clause, although it certainly could be interpreted that way (and similar clauses have been). The original treaty was signed with the spirit and intent of a pure MDP, and that's how we interpreted it. As we have found that the old treaty limited our ability to support our allies, we determined it appropriate to fashion a codicil clarifying our new intent. Edited June 25, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 What's this about an optional hypertension clause? That means they can get frustrated with us if one of our announcements is being trolled? I think that's fantastic and- Aide whispers in Zzzptm's ear... Oohhhhhhhhh... optional AGGRESSION... Well, even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 This pleases me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 That is half of Frostbite, NV, almost there. The Polar government would like to extend an official thanks to you for observing Nueva Vida's manipulations and machinations and bringing them to the attention of the Polar government. This new evidence will certainly demand a reconsideration of our ties to our friends Nueva Vida, now that it is clear they are...trying to...supplant us? Join our awesome bloc? It's a treaty upgrade dude. Relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 W00T!!! o/ STA o/ NV Congrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Screw you Nueva Vida, nobody speculated about ulterior motives when we upgraded with STA Also congrats to both of our allies on strengthening their bonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceArutha Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I love that Tyga guy. grrr baby, very grr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Screw you Nueva Vida, nobody speculated about ulterior motives when we upgraded with STA Also congrats to both of our allies on strengthening their bonds. That's cause you're impotent, whereas everyone knows Nueva Vida is a weapon of most awesome power! Also, VI; In your scenario, you're somewhat neglecting a case where an enemy of ours (hypothetically we'll go with Nueva Vida, everyone hates us anyways) attacks one of our allies who is much smaller than they are. This would bring us to war. Now, assuming this enemy is also much larger that Nueva Vida, this attack that they launched on our partner allows them to take us out without activating a treaty partner. In such a case, being able to ride in with friends without having to wait for technicalities is really the best course of action. I have no doubt that STA would be reliable in this case regardless of what was on paper if Nueva Vida had found herself in such a position, but this simply buries any "legality" issues that people just LOVE to talk about as if e-lawyering ever actually solved anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikking Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 yay this awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 o/ NV o/ STA...Za Sibir' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnLimited Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Congrats to NV and STA o/ To friendship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 MK beats NV to the punch. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.