astronaut jones Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Now, I am not talking about "would your ALLIANCE refuse to defend an ally" I'm asking would you refuse to defend an ally for whatever reason. I do know the standard answer will be something along the lines of "no, I do as my alliance tells me to" but I'm asking you to have a mind of your own here for a second, so let's speak in hypotheticals. Let's say you're in the NPO, and the NPO has a treaty with an alliance called the Death Dealers, and for argument's sake, let's say it's an MADP. You really, really, really hate the death dealers. Would you refuse to help them out if they were attacked by a third party? Would you refuse to go to war with them if they were the aggressors or if the reason they were attacked was their fault? Would you go to war with them, so long as you weren't fighting the same front as they were? Or would you defend them even though you cannot stand their alliance and cannot stand anyone in their alliance? Another hypothetical. Say the NPO has an MADP with an alliance called the Merchants Of Death, and you really like the Merchants of Death. Now, let's say the Merchants of Death have an MADP with an alliance called Soul Sistas, and you would love nothing more than to see the Soul Sistas wiped off the face of PB, and they were either attacked or they went on an aggressive war, and the treaties chained. Same questions, is there any circumstance that you would refuse to defend them? Have you ever thought about not defending an "ally" but did it anyway because it was asked of you? Just hypotheticals. Personally, as I've told many people, if Bel Air were to ever be attacked, I would refuse to help them in any way. They're allied to RoK which is an ally of CSN, and I've said I would refuse to help defend them, especially if they started the war. If they didn't, I would consider fighting, just not on the same front, because I don't want to be seen as defending them in any way. Again, just hypotheticals here. How about any of you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Just hypotheticals here. What if, one day, someone remembered to post IC threads in WA. (Moving.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Just hypotheticals here. What if, one day, someone remembered to post IC threads in WA. (Moving.) Then that would be a sad day indeed. Sorry about that, it's early . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Nothing to think about really, as long as I am a member of an alliance I will follow the orders given to me. If I find the orders so revolting I would invoke my free will and depart the alliance (unless already at war, at which time I would leave after the war) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) How about any of you? There are lots of individual people in alliances I am tied to through gramlins and citadel I dont like and would find it distasteful to defend. I am also someone who, when the mood strikes me, have no problem telling allies, allied government members and allied members to go screw themselves. However your standard answer "no, I do as my alliance tells me to" does trump it AJ. The ability to put the alliance, allies and the greater good above personal dislikes or opinions enables me at least to be given a longer leash to voice my strong dislike for said allies. It's a value an alliance should expect from its members, members should adhere to the alliance line in military matters. Im all for free speech, if someone is an $@!, lets call them one but my alliance and my allies rely on the fact that when war comes I'll give up the pixels for them, and I will, have and would. Even if i think a lot of them are piles of crap. edit: cleaned up some language Edited December 3, 2009 by Thorgrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Dox Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Let's say you're in the NPO, and the NPO has a treaty with an alliance called the Death Dealers, and for argument's sake, let's say it's an MADP. You really, really, really hate the death dealers. Would you refuse to help them out if they were attacked by a third party? Would you refuse to go to war with them if they were the aggressors or if the reason they were attacked was their fault? Would you go to war with them, so long as you weren't fighting the same front as they were? Or would you defend them even though you cannot stand their alliance and cannot stand anyone in their alliance? If you hate the Death Dealers, I would suggest that you cancel the treaty so this situation wouldn't happen. Treaty cancellations happen all the time due to alliances drifting apart. Can't really say what I would do as I cannot imagine having a treaty with an alliance I hated. Another hypothetical.Say the NPO has an MADP with an alliance called the Merchants Of Death, and you really like the Merchants of Death. Now, let's say the Merchants of Death have an MADP with an alliance called Soul Sistas, and you would love nothing more than to see the Soul Sistas wiped off the face of PB, and they were either attacked or they went on an aggressive war, and the treaties chained. Same questions, is there any circumstance that you would refuse to defend them? Voice your concerns to the Merchants of Death about the Soul Sistas; you realize that as NPO you have no say to whom they treaty with, but you would have to seriously look at downgrading the existing treaty to a MDoAP. This would allow you to continue support for the Merchants without being drawn into a chain due to actions of the Sistas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmacis Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Copyright infrigement! I'll defend whatever alliance NPO requires me to. Is my application accepted yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 If my alliance held a treaty to an alliance that I really really hated, then I would voice my opinion to those that have the power to make a change. If that doesn't work, and the treaty partner is attacked, and my alliance comes to their aid... I would fight for my alliance. After the war is over and any/all commitments by me to my alliance are over, I would again voice my concerns... If no change occurs I would find a new alliance more in line with my views/opinions. Same thing goes for the treaty chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Interesting. So no one, so far, will stand up for the individual rights of a nation, but rather blindly follow, or not so blindly follow orders that are given, because they are given. So, why do you give up your individual sovereign rights so easily? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I'd hate it, but I'd do it. I'm loyal to those closest to me, my alliance, and will serve that. Boring but true, sorry but that's just how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Interesting. So no one, so far, will stand up for the individual rights of a nation, but rather blindly follow, or not so blindly follow orders that are given, because they are given.So, why do you give up your individual sovereign rights so easily? If you don't want to give up your 'individual sovereign rights' don't join an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmacis Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) Interesting. So no one, so far, will stand up for the individual rights of a nation, but rather blindly follow, or not so blindly follow orders that are given, because they are given.So, why do you give up your individual sovereign rights so easily? Political games on an inter-alliance scale are complex enough to worry about each of your member's sensibility. In a world full of Astronaut Jones, alliances would be terrified to initiate a war, because no government would be foolish enough to make a move that would potentially cut it's membership count by half. In a world full of Astronaut Jones, boredom would prevail. If I follow orders, it's just because I care about the strength of my alliance. Edited December 3, 2009 by Salmacis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator Hades Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 When you join an alliance, you are making an agreement to protect that alliance's sovereignty in return for them protecting your nation. Backing out on that agreement isnt to be taking lightly. If you want to be an individualist then have fun being techraided. Mutual protection is the name of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 When you join an alliance, you are making an agreement to protect that alliance's sovereignty in return for them protecting your nation. Backing out on that agreement isnt to be taking lightly. If you want to be an individualist then have fun being techraided. Mutual protection is the name of the game. Ahh, here we go, a good argument for defending allies regardless of your own feelings. How much of your sovereign rights must you give up though, for your alliance to feel as though you've "paid in full" for, what some would call the privilege of being in an alliance. If you're expected to defend everyone your alliance is treatied to, that's one thing. But voicing your displeasure at their choice of allies if often seen as insubordination, and is often met with some very harsh consequences. Not all alliances, but a good number of them expect you to never voice displeasure at any ally, so, if you risk equal damage to your nation (or your reputation) if you voice your opinions about an ally, as you do if you refuse to defend them.. how much of your rights do you get to keep? And before you or anyone says "if you don't like it, leave" there are many reasons that people stay in an alliance, often times the least of which is because of it's political stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 This has actually come up for me more than once. When you join an alliance, you agree to honour its agreements. I think you should obey said agreements even if your alliance government does not, or does not require you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Interesting. So no one, so far, will stand up for the individual rights of a nation, but rather blindly follow, or not so blindly follow orders that are given, because they are given.So, why do you give up your individual sovereign rights so easily? As i said, i would try to prevent by using my individual right to raise concern to my government. If that doesn't work, and war breaks out, i pledged to protect my alliance and her allies by joining. once things are worked out, i'd likely have to find a new home if i was still in disagreement with my alliance's choice in allies. I suppose that this also stems from there being little/no consequence for putting your nation in the line of fire. the cost of infra is minimal compared to you cutting and running when your alliance needs you most. IRL, if a friend asks me to do something i do not agree with or like, i refuse. it's not worth the RL consequences and risk to my future to do anything stupid/illegal/etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Honestly, yes, i would defend said alliances regardless of my own feelings. This is simply because i am loyal to the alliance i am in. My loyalty to IAA far outweighs my dislikes of either our allies or our allies' allies. Why don't you answer the question AJ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 If you have such knowledge of other alliances and strong political opinions, then you should likely be in some sort of government position even if only on at the bottom end of an alliance hierarchy or as an advisor and so you should be able to impress your views upon your superiors more strongly than a base member could. Failing that, if they don't listen, find another alliance who is more in line with your views or at the very least one who will take note of what you say. It's kind of hard for me personally to not defend an ally because to a certain degree I choose who we are allied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I would be happy to put my nation on the line for any of our current allies. One or two of our allies' allies, not so much, but if our allies defend them, I'd have no qualms defending our allies from any counter attacks. In your hypothetical situations up top I'd have to agree pretty much 100% with Gn0xious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator Hades Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) well..if your alliance does have allies and you dont like any of them. Then you should leave But voicing your displeasure at their choice of allies if often seen as insubordination, and is often met with some very harsh consequences Im known to be pretty vocal in how I feel about certain allies, always have been. Im in gov right now and even though I may not always think highly of certain allies, political necessity is a whole other matter. Like the saying goes, you dont have to be friends with someone to get along with someone. Now, treaties should be built on friendship and the key component in a friendship is loyalty. Edited December 3, 2009 by Imperator Hades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think you can voice all the displeasure you want (internally) about allies, but when it comes down to it, by flying an alliance's affiliation, you are agreeing to fight for and with the rest of your alliance, and if that means coming to your allies' aid, then thats what it means. I do feel that there is an obligation there when it comes to allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Why don't you answer the question AJ? He already did Personally, as I've told many people, if Bel Air were to ever be attacked, I would refuse to help them in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) Your allies are your allies, even if you don't like them or even hate who they're allied with there's the principle of the thing. The time to quibble about their affiliation with you, however indirect, is before they or you are forced to activate it. Call me old fashioned, but when I sign something I mean to uphold what I signed Edited December 3, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I have heard that several alliances are strict about what their general membership can and cannot say. I can see how voicing concern/dislike about an ally would be met by frustration or considered insubordination by un-elected government structures. While I prefer the general membership be free to voice their thoughts/concerns to the government and have a vote in how the alliance is run, it again may not be the best way to govern an alliance. But this is going into another discussion around government structures, etc... Personally, if I were in an alliance where I was unable to voice my opinion or concerns without facing persecution, then it certainly is NOT the alliance for me. I would search for an alliance where the structure and community is more in-line with my own beliefs. More often than not, the political views/goals will be more in-line with my own, and the ally relationship in-line as well. If not, then I would search yet again. I feel that making a commitment to an alliance is a very important decision. I would not recommend joining an alliance without researching first, as you are expected to give up a bit of your individual sovereignty to defend your alliance and her allies from harm... If you join the military and make a commitment to defend your country, but don't agree with who you end up fighting, it is NOT okay to bring a loaded weapon into a room full of unarmed soldiers and start blasting away. If you couldn't handle the commitment and the possibilities of bringing harm to another country you love, in defense of your own, you should have made that consideration instead of drooling over the free education and the pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 So, why do you give up your individual sovereign rights so easily? To transcend from a state of nature to that of order. For in the state of order is where one finds true prosperity and growth, nay salvation. 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.