Would you refuse to defend an "ally"?

[Imperator Hades]

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.

Lies..I gave up my rights because Sparta told me I will get cheaper alcohol...

[NoFish]

The only times I would consider it acceptable for a member of an alliance (any alliance, not only my own) would be if they had discussed the matter openly and were granted permission to do so. i.e. Goose presumably knows about Mr. Jones's refusal to fight on behalf of Bel Air and has not expelled him from membership so the matter seems settled between them.

An alliance can be viewed as an MADP between all the nations of it, thus when a treaty brings them to war it brings all of them to war. I make the analogy because I liken both alliances and MADP's to what I call the "bar fight principle". If you're at a bar with a friend and he gets into a fight, you back him up because you don't want to see him get hurt, even if you think he was in the wrong. Maybe you can stay friends with him after that, maybe you can't, but that's something you think about after the fight's over.

[D34th]

If NpO were treatined with TSO I wouldn't defend them

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Lies..I gave up my rights because Sparta told me I will get cheaper alcohol...

That would also be a good case in point, if only, i was not the one making the best mead in Ragnarok.

An alliance can be viewed as an MADP between all the nations of it, thus when a treaty brings them to war it brings all of them to war. I make the analogy because I liken both alliances and MADP's to what I call the "bar fight principle". If you're at a bar with a friend and he gets into a fight, you back him up because you don't want to see him get hurt, even if you think he was in the wrong. Maybe you can stay friends with him after that, maybe you can't, but that's something you think about after the fight's over.

You get it. +1 for you.

[Caesar833]

Depends if im in a position to change things or not. When i was in Element we were being turned away when we asked our allies if they needed help. So a bunch of us left and made a new alliance then signed a treaty with the opposing side and entered the war. We did this because we wanted to fight for the side we felt was right. Technically we didnt abandon allies tho since we left the alliance and they didnt want our help anyway

[Litha Riddle]

I'd follow orders and obey, like I promised the day I joined.

If I have friends in an opposing alliance they would still be my friends regardless of sides, and if they snubbed me then they weren't good friends anyway.

As for not liking alliances that are friends of allies, well if you care about your friend, then it shouldn't matter who they hang out with.

You don't have ownership over friends, so you should accept who they want as friends and respect that.

[astronaut jones]

To everyone saying, more or less, "if you don't like it, leave" (that's a paraphrase, a number of you have said something similar) are you under the assumption that you're in the alliance you're in, strictly because of their politics? And if you did not like something they were doing, even so much as who one of their treaty partners would be, you would leave?

Are you not in the alliances you call home for other, much more important reasons? Or are you merely where you are now because you agree 100% with their internal and external politics?

I'd guess that a vast majority of you are where you are now, for anything and everything BUT their politics.

So, if you're there for everything but, would you yourselves give up your home, and probably a community/member nations that you enjoy/are your genuine friends?

Edited December 3, 2009 by astronaut jones

[astronaut jones]

I'd follow orders and obey, like I promised the day I joined.

If I have friends in an opposing alliance they would still be my friends regardless of sides, and if they snubbed me then they weren't good friends anyway.

As for not liking alliances that are friends of allies, well if you care about your friend, then it shouldn't matter who they hang out with.

You don't have ownership over friends, so you should accept who they want as friends and respect that.

I do believe you're thinking small, as in "my friend is here and there and I don't want to fight him blah blah blah." That had nothing to do with what I said. I asked if you didn't like an alliance, for whatever reason, that your alliance was allied to, would you under any circumstance refuse to defend them?

[Bilrow]

I would voice my concern to those who are responsible and still fight as is my responsibility for joining an alliance. However, if the war that I am having to fight was something I pointed out that would come by being allies to some people, then I would make my opinion known after the war showing how I had brought it up and even warned of a potential short falling. From there would be some soul searching on the best route for me personally based upon the response.

[astronaut jones]

The only times I would consider it acceptable for a member of an alliance (any alliance, not only my own) would be if they had discussed the matter openly and were granted permission to do so. i.e. Goose presumably knows about Mr. Jones's refusal to fight on behalf of Bel Air and has not expelled him from membership so the matter seems settled between them.

An alliance can be viewed as an MADP between all the nations of it, thus when a treaty brings them to war it brings all of them to war. I make the analogy because I liken both alliances and MADP's to what I call the "bar fight principle". If you're at a bar with a friend and he gets into a fight, you back him up because you don't want to see him get hurt, even if you think he was in the wrong. Maybe you can stay friends with him after that, maybe you can't, but that's something you think about after the fight's over.

Then I ask of you, why is there a peace mode? Is it not somewhat common for nations to go to peace mode when it is time to fight, sometimes, quite frequently actually, without being ordered to? How often are those nations reprimanded, or even removed from their alliances? I know it's happened before, but not very frequently.

I ask because, really, I want to know whether people consider an alliance more of a safety net, and if that's the case then any alliance would do, or do they view an alliance as a community, and the members of said alliance as more than just other nation leaders.

Can an alliance be more than just "we give you a home, you follow blindly." Are they not mini communities? And if they are, is there not room for disagreements between members, or between members and certain allies?

[Litha Riddle]

I do believe you're thinking small, as in "my friend is here and there and I don't want to fight him blah blah blah." That had nothing to do with what I said. I asked if you didn't like an alliance, for whatever reason, that your alliance was allied to, would you under any circumstance refuse to defend them?

And I wouldn't refuse to defend them. When you join an alliance, you make a promise to stand by them no matter what, and if they should ever have to defend someone you hate, then you should do it. Otherwise whats the point in making promises like that if you aren't willing to follow through?

[Bob Janova]

Joining an alliance is a two way deal. The alliance grants you protection, aid and political capital, and in return you provide your nation and your skills to further the aims of the alliance. So if the alliance goes to war, you are obliged to help the war effort in whatever way your alliance requires – even if it means fighting against friends (sorry IRON) or alongside those you do not like. If that possibility is too much for you to contemplate, yes, you should leave. For most people it is not, and we will happily fight those we would rather not as part of the deal of being part of a good alliance.

There is plenty of space for disagreement, discussion and making of policy in peacetime, and in fact a good alliance will have lots of that. But once the alliance decides to enter a war (or another alliance-wide operation, like an aid drop), via the due process of government that the members agree is the best way to choose a path, all the members are obliged to follow through with it. If the alliance as a whole doesn't want to help, then it won't choose to enter in the first place, and won't sign treaties requiring it to – for example TOP, Sparta and MHA not helping the Hegemony in the last war and not having signed MADPs that would have required them to do so.

[Caesar833]

Then I ask of you, why is there a peace mode? Is it not somewhat common for nations to go to peace mode when it is time to fight, sometimes, quite frequently actually, without being ordered to? How often are those nations reprimanded, or even removed from their alliances? I know it's happened before, but not very frequently.

I ask because, really, I want to know whether people consider an alliance more of a safety net, and if that's the case then any alliance would do, or do they view an alliance as a community, and the members of said alliance as more than just other nation leaders.

Can an alliance be more than just "we give you a home, you follow blindly." Are they not mini communities? And if they are, is there not room for disagreements between members, or between members and certain allies?

Your questions do not have solid answers. Alliances suit peoples needs differently. Some join to be safe and some join to be in the community. And of course within the community there is room for disagreement. But alliances have leaders for a reason and if your disagreement turns into disobedience then you need to find a new community. Its pretty simple really man

[Gn0xious Jr]

To everyone saying, more or less, "if you don't like it, leave" (that's a paraphrase, a number of you have said something similar) are you under the assumption that you're in the alliance you're in, strictly because of their politics? And if you did not like something they were doing, even so much as who one of their treaty partners would be, you would leave?

Are you not in the alliances you call home for other, much more important reasons? Or are you merely where you are now because you agree 100% with their internal and external politics?

I'd guess that a vast majority of you are where you are now, for anything and everything BUT their politics.

So, if you're there for everything but, would you yourselves give up your home, and probably a community/member nations that you enjoy/are your genuine friends?

I've been saying that you need to stand up for your beliefs. If you've voiced your opinions/concerns, AND the alliance you are in does not listen or care, then you may need to rethink your commitments. If your own personal beliefs on defending your alliance, her membership, and her allies from harm do not coincide with your alliance, then only YOU can decide to stay and fight or refuse and either face the consequences and/or leave.

[Alterego]

If you dont like who your alliance has treaties with you are in the wrong alliance. I would roll for any ally or by order gentle nudge...hell I just like to roll.

[Gn0xious Jr]

Then I ask of you, why is there a peace mode? Is it not somewhat common for nations to go to peace mode when it is time to fight, sometimes, quite frequently actually, without being ordered to? How often are those nations reprimanded, or even removed from their alliances? I know it's happened before, but not very frequently.

I ask because, really, I want to know whether people consider an alliance more of a safety net, and if that's the case then any alliance would do, or do they view an alliance as a community, and the members of said alliance as more than just other nation leaders.

Can an alliance be more than just "we give you a home, you follow blindly." Are they not mini communities? And if they are, is there not room for disagreements between members, or between members and certain allies?

Those who volunteer or are ordered to peace mode are either stocking up to rebuild the alliance post-war, or preparing for a 2nd blitz/later round. If a nation cowardly moves into peace mode without direction or even speaking their mind, then it is pretty obvious that their commitment is to solely their nation and not the alliance. I would hope that they are pressured to help rebuild and send AID post war, and/or face reprimand for their action. Many alliances have judiciary procedures in place to determine the severity of the act for punishment.

i.e.

an active nation going peace because they JUST got to 4999.99 infra and didn't want to drop versus

an active nation going on vacation and going peace because they could not access while away versus

an inactive nation that doesn't check forums or in-game PMs and doesn't have a clue what is going on

As you've stated,

Alliances are mini-communities and there is room for disagreement. You have also stated that many alliances reprimand the practice of individual thought or speaking your mind. If your alliance does not allow for disagreement or individual voicing of opinions/suggestions/concerns, is it really a community you want to be a part of?

*the most important aspect of this game is communication. In many cases, simply speaking with your alliance leadership will allow for exceptions. If you refuse to defend an ally because you hate them, negotiate NOT to fight, but instead rebuild after, offer to send "x" AID packages to your INTERNAL alliance membership to help with damages. If you refuse to fight, AND refuse to help your alliance post war... then it is pretty clear that the only nation you care for is your own, and there isn't much anyone else can do about that...

[Valtamdraugr]

My obligation would be to defend the interests of my alliance down to the last pixel if necessary, regardless of my own opinion of the issue or the parties involved. If the situation really left that bad of a taste, I would consider finding a new home only after it's resolution. And even then, I probably would not as I believe all my pixels belong to RoK.

Valtamdraugr,

RoK Grunt

edit:clarification

Edited December 3, 2009 by Valtamdraugr

[Arcades057]

Twice during my time here I've been conflicted about defending an alliance--the problem was, it was my own.

OOC: I try to adapt my IC persona here to the alliance I'm with at the time. Usually it comes out pretty much the same, with the exception of now where I'm an Imperialist no-goodnik with a taste for war and BBQ'd babies; in real life I like my babies sauted with a hint of garlic, served over toast.

In real life if I'm hanging with a few friends and my best buddy decides he wants to take a swing at another friend, I'll tend to err in his favor; unless I know what's brought on the desire to pop the guy is not worth it, underhanded, or fabricated. Then I have to listen to that little cricket on my shoulder and follow his advice, which is usually along the lines of "@#%, mother$%@*, don't get involved and let that %#$@ fight on his own!" which I do.

I've learned here that following your conscience and not going down for a cause you don't believe in is far more difficult in the long run than blindly following the marching band and going to ZI because your leaders lied to you, or following the orders of a guy making jokes about another player's terminal disease. To those of you who still harbor resentment because I did neither of those things, I can't really say that I'm sorry.

/OOC

I can see why people would choose not to defend allies, even when ordered. Most alliances worth their salt would allow you to send aid to those at war instead of fighting--I think.

The better question is, Astronaut Jones, how does war affect a John Lennon-listening peacenik such as yourself?

edited cuz I can't spell

Edited December 3, 2009 by Arcades057

[Locke]

To everyone saying, more or less, "if you don't like it, leave" (that's a paraphrase, a number of you have said something similar) are you under the assumption that you're in the alliance you're in, strictly because of their politics? And if you did not like something they were doing, even so much as who one of their treaty partners would be, you would leave?

Are you not in the alliances you call home for other, much more important reasons? Or are you merely where you are now because you agree 100% with their internal and external politics?

I'd guess that a vast majority of you are where you are now, for anything and everything BUT their politics.

So, if you're there for everything but, would you yourselves give up your home, and probably a community/member nations that you enjoy/are your genuine friends?

No, people aren't there for the politics. Not always, anyway. But if the politics are important enough to you that you can't stand doing what you should, then you shouldn't be there. You stand for your alliance no matter what, and if you can't do that, for any reason, you should leave.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Locke

[Tick1]

Well I can't answer this question for the time being since I like all of the alliances we currently hold a treaty with, but I do have another hypothetical question that slides along side this.

If your alliance began the cancellation of an MDAP which has lets say 48 hours until it's considered null. The alliance you have a treaty with decide to declare war upon another alliance within the 48 hours. Do you also follow them into battle or would you sit it out?

[Gn0xious Jr]

Well I can't answer this question for the time being since I like all of the alliances we currently hold a treaty with, but I do have another hypothetical question that slides along side this.

If your alliance began the cancellation of an MDAP which has lets say 48 hours until it's considered null. The alliance you have a treaty with decide to declare war upon another alliance within the 48 hours. Do you also follow them into battle or would you sit it out?

Seek diplomatic resolve quickly (i.e. that day). if war rages and there is no way to bring peaceful resolution, honor the treaty, and be glad when things are over.

[OberstKrieger]

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.

Another personality switch?

[Tick1]

Seek diplomatic resolve quickly (i.e. that day). if war rages and there is no way to bring peaceful resolution, honor the treaty, and be glad when things are over.

I do agree with your thinking Gn0x, but I would be extremely mad after the war was over.

[Gn0xious Jr]

I do agree with your thinking Gn0x, but I would be extremely mad after the war was over.

oh no doubt about it. part of the reason why you should only sign MADPs with those you are ready to go to ZI for. If you have a cancellation clause of 48 hours, and one ally starts a war, no one is forcing you to do anything... I feel the honorable thing to do is to defend per your argreement. I'd be pissed after the war is over, but learn from it and move on...

[astronaut jones]

No, people aren't there for the politics. Not always, anyway. But if the politics are important enough to you that you can't stand doing what you should, then you shouldn't be there. You dtand for your alliance no matter what, and if you can't do that, for any reason, you shouldn't leave.

What if it goes beyond simple politics, though? What if you just plain don't like the other alliance?

Is it not possible to be in an alliance for the community, for the members, for the camaraderie, and think of the politics only in passing? What if you make it known ahead of time, at the time you joined, or at the time the treaty was signed that you don't like (hate, whatever you want to call it) the alliance in question and you won't lift a finger to help them?

Could you not help your alliance in other ways if anything ever came to that?

How much personal space and opinion should an alliance give a member, does it depend on how useful that member is, or are all members treated equally and they're not given much leeway at all?

Edited December 3, 2009 by astronaut jones