A Brief Announcement from the Orange Defense Network

[Choader]

I don't really get why NAPs, PiATs or ODPs are passé. These treaties should all be based on friendships, which makes them everything but passé and completely relevant.

I specifically said NAPs. I see some value in ODPs and PIATs for others even though my alliance doesn't sign them currently out of principle, but NAPs are truly worthless. Anyone who'd cite a NAP as a reason to not defend a MDP/+ ally should be run off the face of the planet in my opinion.

[zimmerwald1915]

In fact, NAPs are not based on friendships. The contract made there is "I won't attack you, you won't attack me". This treats purely strategic considerations. A PIAT is based on a deeper level of trust: "We'll share our knowledge and stuff, m'kay?" ODPs are again not based so much on friendships as strategy (unless you're an alliance which can't or won't sign binding defense treaties). MDPs and higher are based on friendship and trust.

[Baden-Württemberg]

I sense that lines are being drawn and war is imminent. Or.. perhaps.. ODN is trying to align itself with one side (the same side it was on last time and has been obviously leaning towards..) to prevent repeating past mistakes. Thank you for pointing this out, its glad to see our efforts do not go unnoticed.

EDIT: You don't see the FOK PIAT canceled because... stick with me here... its not canceled. Kudos.

Of course it isn't canceled. I mean, you still need a justification to back out of the next war. Makes sense to me

[erikz]

I specifically said NAPs. I see some value in ODPs and PIATs for others even though my alliance doesn't sign them currently out of principle, but NAPs are truly worthless. Anyone who'd cite a NAP as a reason to not defend a MDP/+ ally should be run off the face of the planet in my opinion.

Well, you should never even consider choosing between allies. I can completely see NAPs as a start of building friendships, so, yes I see the value of a NAP, although I do understand why people'd disagree with me.

In fact, NAPs are not based on friendships. The contract made there is "I won't attack you, you won't attack me". This treats purely strategic considerations. A PIAT is based on a deeper level of trust: "We'll share our knowledge and stuff, m'kay?" ODPs are again not based so much on friendships as strategy (unless you're an alliance which can't or won't sign binding defense treaties). MDPs and higher are based on friendship and trust.

Again, why not start making a friendship or a trusting relationship official with a NAP? I don't see any problems there, as long as both alliances signing the NAP see the value of such an agreement. I, myself, would btw never sign an ODP with someone I'm not friendly with. Whats the use of signing any kind of treaty without friendship? I also don't get why MDPs (in your story) would be signed based on friendship and ODPs not. If you sign a treaty there will always be excuses not to honour them, as we all know, but that shouldn't be the case unless you're caught between conflicting treaties.

Trust & Friendships should be the only two values a treaty should be signed for (imho)

[Valerius]

Congratulations to our friends in ODN on the clean-up. The air is fresher already.

[Mathias]

Why would anyone want to do that? You're neither IRON or ODN

Did you really not get that joke, or was that sarcastic?

[HeroicDisaster]

Of course it isn't canceled. I mean, you still need a justification to back out of the next war. Makes sense to me

Yes, we look for reasons to back out of war. And you look for another reasons to pull this crap.

On a side note, I'm sad that the Argent treaty was canceled, I liked you guys. (except dio)

[BamaBuc]

Let me state this with absolute certainty: The ODN has been an unwavering friend of INT, and of the CPCN which preceded us. I have no doubt in my mind that the ODN would commit itself fully to our defense if we were to come under attack -- and ODN has no doubt of INT's reciprocal commitment.

If you don't think it's the truth, here's my nation's link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=125982

Do your best and wait for the response.

-Craig

If that's how you feel, I respect that. You certainly know them better than I do. But as an observer who's seen them back out the last three times they had an ally in a losing war, at this point I want to see something to show that they've changed before I believe it.

-Bama

[Diomede]

Eh, not worth it. I'll stab a couple people privately instead.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Diomede

[Cataduanes]

If that's how you feel, I respect that. You certainly know them better than I do. But as an observer who's seen them back out the last three times they had an ally in a losing war, at this point I want to see something to show that they've changed before I believe it.

-Bama

We are well aware that we also need to step up in deed not just word, we knew that before all you critics decided to preach from on high. And when the day comes to prove our worth we will be there....and christ i hope on that day i never have read another ODN related post from none of y'all.

[Haflinger]

Excuse me.... are you referring to the cancellation of ODN's ODP with MCXA? Because I can state here and now that MCXA was not interested in relations with ODN at that time. I sincerely doubt that has changed.

No, he's talking about the suspension of six MDPs the ODN held (IRON, Legion, UPN, CON, GGA, and Invicta) here.

Hilariously, CON got suspended, and didn't even fight.

[Hell Scream]

Most people are quite fascinated by ODNs abilities to seemingly ignore treaties which they hold. *cough* Remember April? *cough*

B)

lolThisIsComingFromAMemberOfTheCowardCoalition.

We didn't defend IRON because of principles, you decided to defend NPO because you received negative reputation.

ODN inviting someone to do something about it? And people complain that the Karma war didn't change anything

If you don't intend to do anything other than cry, what is the point of crying?

[Uncle Stalin]

Wow, nice to see someone finally start cleaning out the treaty web. I wish more alliances would do this.

Congrats ODN. o/

[scutterbug]

Wow i was informed 72 hours was the grace period before cancellation went up, you guys done it in exactly. 34 hours from the time i was informed till your announcement went up.

but anyway wish ODN all the best o/

Edit: clarifying it a bit better, also correcting my times had noted the time i posted not from the announcement D:.

Edited September 25, 2009 by scutterbug

[Il Principe]

Wow, nice to see someone finally start cleaning out the treaty web. I wish more alliances would do this.

Congrats ODN. o/

Actually a lot of alliances have been doing this during and after the last war.

Before the war MHA had an average number of treaties and now we are one of the alliances with the most foreign responsibilities, even though our number of treaties also became smaller.

[Zessa]

Have fun, guys. I'll see you around.

We canceled on Otter?

ffffff

[Voodoo Nova]

lolThisIsComingFromAMemberOfTheCowardCoalition.

We didn't defend IRON because of principles, you decided to defend NPO because you received negative reputation.

If you don't intend to do anything other than cry, what is the point of crying?

Then why did you even hold treaties with those that do not have the same principles as you and why did you not cancel them long beforehand?

Edited September 25, 2009 by Voodoo Nova

[mattski133]

Let me state this with absolute certainty: The ODN has been an unwavering friend of INT, and of the CPCN which preceded us. I have no doubt in my mind that the ODN would commit itself fully to our defense if we were to come under attack -- and ODN has no doubt of INT's reciprocal commitment.

If you don't think it's the truth, here's my nation's link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=125982

Do your best and wait for the response.

-Craig

Does this mean we have to do stuff too?

Best wishes to all parties involved. I see some good, some bad, and a ton of ugly.

On a sidenote, what's wrong with a little war?

[Lord Brendan]

Well, you should never even consider choosing between allies. I can completely see NAPs as a start of building friendships, so, yes I see the value of a NAP, although I do understand why people'd disagree with me.

You should never need to consider it because the situation should never arise. Any alliance worth it's salt makes sure that there are no possible conflicts in their treaty list. If you ever get to the point where you can't honor a treaty because you have a conflicting one, you've failed as an alliance.

I'll agree with Voodoo above me that ODN should have canceled some of their treaties long before the war. However, the same goes for NpO, MHA, TOP, Sparta, Old Guard, etc. This topic here suggests to me that ODN has taken the lesson to heart at least.

[erikz]

You should never need to consider it because the situation should never arise. Any alliance worth it's salt makes sure that there are no possible conflicts in their treaty list. If you ever get to the point where you can't honor a treaty because you have a conflicting one, you've failed as an alliance.

I'll agree with Voodoo above me that ODN should have canceled some of their treaties long before the war. However, the same goes for NpO, MHA, TOP, Sparta, Old Guard, etc. This topic here suggests to me that ODN has taken the lesson to heart at least.

And what if two of your allies, two of your closest friends come to dislike each other. Should you pick sides, maybe after you have been facilitating talks between them to try to solve any problems?

I can't wait for your answer.

I personally, would not pick sides and try anything I could in my power to make them "unhate" eachoter. If that wouldn't work, I would let them fight it out and aid the both of them after the conflict would end.

[Cataduanes]

Then why did you even hold treaties with those that do not have the same principles as you and why did you not cancel them long beforehand?

Transition, those of us in ODN who possessed a clear anti-1V agenda in the weeks prior to the Karma war had been building consensus and support, in a democracy a u-turn does not occur overnight. The fact that we made a decision prior to the war and prior to the Coward coalition speaks volumes of our efforts to be on the ball at the time but yeah i suppose that does not amtter to the haters.

This topic here suggests to me that ODN has taken the lesson to heart at least.

Yes we have but as you can see via the haters, we still have alot of work to do.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Delta1212]

And what if two of your allies, two of your closest friends come to dislike each other. Should you pick sides, maybe after you have been facilitating talks between them to try to solve any problems?

I can't wait for your answer.

I personally, would not pick sides and try anything I could in my power to make them "unhate" eachoter. If that wouldn't work, I would let them fight it out and aid the both of them after the conflict would end.

Did you ask someone from CSN that question on purpose or by hilarious accident?

Anyway, for myself, I take my obligations seriously. If my treaty doesn't say anything about declaring neutrality, then I can't. If a situation arises where one defensive obligation is likely to conflict with another, then one of them needs to go. I have fought opposite friends on several occasions. Luckily, most of my friends aren't the type to take that personally.

While it would be nice to sign treaties with everyone you are friends with, that just isn't politically feasible. I'd have to declare neutrality in basically every conflict and then who am I helping? You need friendship and at least some level of political compatibility to sign a good treaty. It is a lesson I've learned very well.

[zimmerwald1915]

I personally, would not pick sides and try anything I could in my power to make them "unhate" eachoter. If that wouldn't work, I would let them fight it out and aid the both of them after the conflict would end.

When talking about ODN, it should be kept in mind that they used to have exactly this policy: if their friends (treaty partners) got into a fight, they wouldn't choose sides but would instead be neutral and maintain both friendships after the war. This policy led to less-than-optimal results for the ODN following GWII and [iIRC] the Dove War. Among other things it led to diplomatic isolation and trolling that makes the current crop of ODN-haters look like Lullaby League ballerinas.

By the time of WotC, the policy had become a weird hybrid of "have friends and treaty partners on both sides and be neutral if they fight" and "align with one side of the web". It had become "have friends everywhere and then align with one side if they fight". The fact that people are having this conversation shows that this schizophrenic policy was made of a large amount of dense, concentrated fail.

By now their policy has by and large evolved to the commonly accepted "align with one side of the web", as far as I can tell. Three out of their eight military treaties (MDP/MDoAP) are with either CnG or their friends on Orange, said friends on Orange being by and large linked with each other or with CnG (INT-RnR, INT-TR, Van's in CnG). Out of those three, two, the MDoAP with UPN and the MDP with GGA are on a side of the web on which the ODN was not during the Karma War.

EDIT: Delta

Edited September 25, 2009 by zimmerwald1915

[Lord Brendan]

And what if two of your allies, two of your closest friends come to dislike each other. Should you pick sides, maybe after you have been facilitating talks between them to try to solve any problems?

I can't wait for your answer.

I personally, would not pick sides and try anything I could in my power to make them "unhate" eachoter. If that wouldn't work, I would let them fight it out and aid the both of them after the conflict would end.

Give me some examples, I'm having trouble imagining the situation. We talking similar to say, the NpO-FIST war? If I was VE in that situation I would have canceled on NpO. FIST was technically in the wrong too, but Polar brought it to a whole new level by declaring on an ally's ally.

I didn't really mean my statement in the sense of two allies fighting 1v1, but that in a large global war, all your allies should be on the same side. Otherwise, what's the point? Your treaty is worthless if you never get to honor it. Neutrality betrays both sides. Your stance seems to be that Friendship -> Treaty. I don't necessarily agree. There are several alliances that I consider myself friendly with and yet I would never consider a treaty with them; it would be illogical for both of us.

edit: goddamnit Delta, you've said everything I wanted to and made it look better, and you did it in less time

Edited September 25, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[zimmerwald1915]

edit: goddamnit Delta, you've said everything I wanted to and made it look better, and you did it in less time

Delta's cool that way [/shameless Deltaflattery]