Adopting the Hymenbreach Position

[Prodigal Moon]

I think ODP's aren't really a bad idea in that they give you some flexibility in case your ally does something incredibly stupid without your knowledge that justifiably gets them rolled. You might notice most/all of the NSO's MDPs actually put into writing that the defense is contingent on one party being attacked unjustifiably. So an ODP lets the world know that you have a military-level relationship with an ally, but you don't know each other well enough to place total faith in their decisions.

The problem is, when wars do occur around here they typically seem to fall along broadly defined pre-arranged sides, where even MDP's can get glossed over when they come into conflict with the side an alliance falls on. So the actual military utility of ODP's is pretty dubious. I'd much rather see alliances just stick to their blocs when it comes to treaties, and intervene in small conflicts where they think it's warranted (as outlined in the neo-Moldavi Doctrine). No sense in signing treaties all over the political map, only to disregard them when an actual war makes them relevant.

[lordliam]

"Legally-binding" clauses are useless because there's never going to be a Cybernations World Court to punish people for disobeying a treaty. So why do we sign treaties? No idea, I guess some people just like the attention.

So that we can get some wars going without being accused of bandwagoning.

[Bird of Passage]

I am not averse to the Optional, however I do concur that it is, in reality, a rather useless gesture.

[heggo]

Actually, there are reasons for signing ODPs with specific alliances. I thought of them as follows:

1. You like them enough that you wish you could MDP them, but think them to be such fools that you wouldn't trust their judgment enough that you'd guarantee that you'd cover them.

2. People expect you to defend that alliance for some reason or other, but you're such a slime ball that you wanted to weasel out of the obligation and - voila - the ODP practically wrote itself.

3. You're afraid of commitment.

4. Your mind is still living under the shackles of the Hegemony Era and you haven't realized that you're yet free to have a real foreign policy.

5. You simply haven't gotten around to getting rid of your old ones yet.

Edited August 11, 2009 by heggo

[Shodemofi-NPO]

Actually, there are reasons for signing ODPs with specific alliances. I thought of them as follows:

1. You like them enough that you wish you could MDP them, but think them to be such fools that you wouldn't trust their judgment enough that you'd guarantee that you'd cover them.

Then you absolutely shouldn't have a treaty with them. If you can't trust them, your treaty means nothing anyways.

2. People expect you to defend that alliance for some reason or other, but you're such a slime ball that you wanted to weasel out of the obligation and - voila - the ODP practically wrote itself.

3. You're afraid of commitment.

Both obviously poor reasons to have a treaty. I stand by what I said, ODP's are useless, stupid, and spineless.

[heggo]

Then you absolutely shouldn't have a treaty with them. If you can't trust them, your treaty means nothing anyways.

Both obviously poor reasons to have a treaty. I stand by what I said, ODP's are useless, stupid, and spineless.

All those reasons are valid, they're just incredibly slimy.

[Doitzel]

I've always been a critic of the ODP and the mentality it was created to support. They're redundant with the natural sovereignty of alliances. Their usage arose out of the political bickering of the Great Wars regarding alliances that engaged without treaty obligations. This was mostly a defensive construct born of the NPO, who had been defeated in the first Great War by what was dubbed the "bandwagon" effect.

Hopefully with the old political order swept away we'll see less of this nonsense centered on legal technicalities rather than on intent.

[Haflinger]

If an MDP was really a "Mutual Defense Pact" there would be no cancellation clause. But because it has one, it's more like an "Optional Defense Pact with a possible 24/48/72 hour advance notice on whether we'll back you up or not."

Heh.

Just a note, Learz - not sure if you read it in detail, but you should go hit the Invicta-UPN MADP. It has a cancellation clause, but it spells out when requirements to fight stop.

I supported the idea behind the current Moldavi Doctrine long before the NSO even existed: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...p;showentry=200 I wish ODPs were completely unnecessary.

[SiCkO]

So that we can get some wars going without being accused of bandwagoning.

so true

my opinion, if your going to sign a treaty, make it one you intend to honor. canceling looks bad and shouldnt be used as way to avoid a curb stomp, either see the treaty through the war and then cancel or never sign it in the first place, allies are allies and should help each other

[Francesca]

There is no such thing as true love.

Oh yes there is.

ODPs arose out of the years-old claim that anyone getting involved in a war without a treaty was a bandwagoner or opportunist with no CB.

I agree with the Gopher.

[Bird of Passage]

Oh yes there is.

Apologies, but I must concur with ModusOperandi. Love is a fragile thing, at best. The smallest mishap can shake its foundations, especially in regard to politics. In people, it is fickle and misunderstood...though I suppose one cannot rightly cast blame on another for that, given that one cannot completely understand love. Such, however, only lends more truth to the nonexistence of true love.

Love can be strong...but it cannot hold infallible truth.

[Arcadian Empire]

MDP's are useless.

Yes, that's an "M" there.

Why? Well, it's a bit complicated, but here's my opinion.

The overarching premise: ODP's and MDP's are identical*.

Now, you're probably sitting there thinking "wtf? no they aren't!". Well, it's true. Think about it. The ONLY difference between the treaties is that MDP's "require" someone to defend, while ODP's are "optional". However, they BOTH have cancellation clauses. Now, I have to ask, why? Why does a MDP have a cancellation clause? If two alliances are bound together and intend to defend each other no matter what, why include a cancellation clause?

The answer, of course, is because MDP's do not "require" an alliance to defend one another; the defense is optional. Just like an ODP. The only minuscule difference is that ODP's have "instant" cancellation clauses (i.e., one party chooses to not fight), while MDP's have a slight cancellation clause, which is usually somewhere between 24-72 hours. And even then, that's not a guarantee; one alliance might just not honor the treaty -- or worse, "suspend" the treaty.

In other words, a MDP and an ODP are the same thing. The MDP simply offers the possibility of defense, with a slight heads-up notice. Which, in reality, is what an ODP also does. We've all seen what MDP's are right before a war: cancellations left and right. It's like they only have ODP's, and are just choosing to not defend. So what's the difference?

In fact, I'd trust an ODP more then a MDP. Because if you're smart, you'll only be signing ODP's with those you know will defend you. With a MDP, you've never quite sure... are they going to opt out of defending you, or not? At least with an ODP there's no BS'ing. You know right where you stand.

If an MDP was really a "Mutual Defense Pact" there would be no cancellation clause. But because it has one, it's more like an "Optional Defense Pact with a possible 24/48/72 hour advance notice on whether we'll back you up or not."

*Insomuch as they are designed.

I agree with the point here that MDPs = ODPs, pretty much.

The recent war showed us that MDPs and above were just thrown away, much like an ODP would. And this didn't happen in just once instance, it happened many times.

Times are a-changin'

[Francesca]

Apologies, but I must concur with ModusOperandi. Love is a fragile thing, at best. The smallest mishap can shake its foundations, especially in regard to politics. In people, it is fickle and misunderstood...though I suppose one cannot rightly cast blame on another for that, given that one cannot completely understand love. Such, however, only lends more truth to the nonexistence of true love.

Love can be strong...but it cannot hold infallible truth.

Love, in the non-romantic sense, is the basis of true friendships on Bob, and although they are rare, I have both seen and experienced deep friendships here. It is something that goes beyond the reaches of the politics and lies and filth on these forums.... to the point where two friends would happily put down their nations for one another, and spend time wondering how to meet in real life and having OOC conversations. It's rare. And often true friendship is mistaken for an ordinary relationship. But it's there.

[Bird of Passage]

Love, in the non-romantic sense, is the basis of true friendships on Bob, and although they are rare, I have both seen and experienced deep friendships here. It is something that goes beyond the reaches of the politics and lies and filth on these forums.... to the point where two friends would happily put down their nations for one another, and spend time wondering how to meet in real life and having OOC conversations. It's rare. And often true friendship is mistaken for an ordinary relationship. But it's there.

You are right...that is rare...but I suppose that I can agree with you in this context.

[Kroknia]

I really think the dislike of ODPs is ridiculous. I personally don't think anyone should be obligated to defend another alliance if that alliance deserves what it gets. It happens from time to time and I see nothing wrong with that as a contingent written into treaties. It also can allow a group of 5-6 alliances to not be steamrolled and not lose honor if the alliance being attacked asks them to stay out for whatever reason. Holding an MDP makes defense mandatory even if it is suicide and they don't want the help. It really has to do with the character of the alliance you are signing with. An ODP is probably more binding to some than an MDP is to others. I think MDPs are generally counterproductive to everyone in all honesty. MADPs are just madness.

[Severus Snape]

Moved to World Affairs. This is pretty clear-cut IC.

[shahenshah]

2 Words - political will.

[FreddieMercury]

You know, it'd really insult my honor if I told an alliance that I'd go to ZI for them, and they insisted that that needed to be put into writing. If the friendship and loyalty are real, neither one of them will need to publicize the agreement.

I suppose you aren't a fan of the institution of marriage then?

[Learz]

Heh.

Just a note, Learz - not sure if you read it in detail, but you should go hit the Invicta-UPN MADP. It has a cancellation clause, but it spells out when requirements to fight stop.

Yeah, I was glossing over a few things to make my point. There are some "true," binding MDP/MADP's out there (like the UPN-Invicta one, or the Harmlins one). But they are the exception rather then the rule.

Edit for clarity: by "true, binding MDP/MADP's" I mean those that will be honored no matter what, and are not considered pseudo ODP's by others.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Learz

[Starcraftmazter]

ODPs are to do with elawyering and nothing else. Remove elawyering from our world, and ODPs would become useless - but until then, they are not.

[Asriel Belacqua]

I really think the dislike of ODPs is ridiculous. I personally don't think anyone should be obligated to defend another alliance if that alliance deserves what it gets. It happens from time to time and I see nothing wrong with that as a contingent written into treaties. It also can allow a group of 5-6 alliances to not be steamrolled and not lose honor if the alliance being attacked asks them to stay out for whatever reason. Holding an MDP makes defense mandatory even if it is suicide and they don't want the help. It really has to do with the character of the alliance you are signing with. An ODP is probably more binding to some than an MDP is to others. I think MDPs are generally counterproductive to everyone in all honesty. MADPs are just madness.

I agree with this man here, and here are my reasons:

1: I treat ODPs like MDPs, always. I only ever sign them with people I would die 1,000+ times for, and when that check gets cashed, you better believe I'm there with the money. The reason I do ODPs instead of MDPs though, is let's say that you have a 300 member alliance that you signed an ODP with, 20 of them decide to go out and spy on everyone (including gov't) and "forget" to tell you. They of course get rolled, you look at the evidence, and know that they are in the wrong. Well, then, you don't HAVE to defend them for an unjust cause. Though you can still help with the aiding process after they are done getting rolled. It gives you an option, whereas an MDP gives you the option, but in the form of "hey, let's cancel and look like jerks."

Yes they are redundant with your sovereign rights as an alliance. I agree with that. But I think having it in paper for the world to see is a nice way of saying "Hey buddy, we got your back, and just to keep us honest, we're going to tell 28,000 leaders about this awesome friendship."

[Bob Janova]

You have the option to do whatever you want anyway, so yes, optional clauses are useless. An ODP doesn't protect you from MDP chaining, which would be the only good reason to have one.

[Mathias]

They're not useless, it just depends on who you sign them with.

[muffasamini]

Why do we go to so much trouble to manage who gets Founder, AOPs, SOPs, HOPs, and V in chans? Is it because we expect each rank to need to use their power? No, we go to these lengths to delineate the level of trust and importance we place on each individual. This is the same thing. Sure, really, all the pacts are the same, each one can be used to go to war, or excused to not need to, but, they are a clear delineation to the world of the strength of the alliance's friendship, and the magnitude or expectancy of denial or initiation of assistance to each other.

[Näktergal]

I've always assumed that ODP and OAP clauses exist mainly because the pedantic rules-lawyers in CN are far too quick to deem any attempt to enter a war to defend an ally or friend as bandwagoning unless you're treaty-forced into doing so.

"What's that? Your alliance is friendly with another one, and they just got attacked? Well, you can't defend them because you don't have an MDP with them! Huh? You say you've been friends with them for years, and feel obligated to come to their aid anyway? Too bad! You should have signed that MDP first! If you were really friends, you'd totally have gone in for an MADP long ago!"

That's crap. I've been friends with people in real life for years, and we've never felt the need to draw up contracts to delineate rights, duties, and obligations in our relationship. I wouldn't expect my best friend to sit and watch three people beating me up just because we never signed a mutual defense deal.

Plus, sometimes, the injustice of a situation is just so blatant that you feel the need to step in and get involved. If you know an alliance is getting rolled for garbage reasons, and you feel like you have the power to help them, and the inclination to step in and do so, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to get involved.

People still get bashed for stepping in without treaties on the line, though. So the ODP/OAP clauses allow an alliance to basically say "Look, we like these people, and we'll defend them when we feel they're being unfairly persecuted, and we'll join them in offensive war if we think their cause is just, but we won't be obligated to defend them or stand by their side if they do something incredibly stupid. If you need treaties or paper agreements to somehow "validate" friendship, here you go. Now shut up."