Would you refuse to defend an "ally"?

[astronaut jones]

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

Well, why would that be more difficult? Why do alliances tend to frown upon someone standing up for their ideals, and why do they expect people to simply blindly follow what they have been told?

When you think about it, and you're right, the notion that it's much more difficult on you (because it's made to be more difficult on you by others) to do what you think is right, then it is to do what you think is wrong, but you have been told to do it is a little more than absurd.

Without members, an alliance is nothing, but without an alliance, the members have no clout. If members don't like what an alliance is doing, and they leave en masse, then that alliance either changes or dies, we've all seen it before. So, if it's a mutually beneficial relationship, is it really a concern if one person out of 150 or 200 or 600 refuses to defend an ally of the alliance for their own reasons, if it's only that one ally?

Should it be so cut and dry that if it's said, it must be done?

[Valtamdraugr]

The word alliance keeps being thrown around as if it were a "thing", but it's not... in all likelihood, your alliance is a big group of your buddies.

Would you let your buddies throw-down and possibly get their butts handed to them while you sit on the sidelines and watch? No way... even if they were in the wrong. You'd fist-up and then deal with it afterwards.

[deSouza]

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?

Timed wars ftw

[astronaut jones]

The word alliance keeps being thrown around as if it were a "thing", but it's not... in all likelihood, your alliance is a big group of your buddies.

Would you let your buddies throw-down and possibly get their butts handed to them while you sit on the sidelines and watch? No way... even if they were in the wrong. You'd fist-up and then deal with it afterwards.

would you fight with your buddies even if your buddies were sticking up for someone who was clearly in the wrong, and is clearly a huge !@#$%^&, and you don't like them in the least? Or would you tell your buddies that that !@#$%^& has it coming and to let him take the beating he deserves, and if they decide to help out said !@#$%^&, that you're not going to be a part of it?

I like all the bravado coming from everyone, I'm sure everyone here is as macho as they're claiming to be, but the [ooc] real world [/ooc] has no place here on planet bob.

[SpoiL]

An enemy of my alliance is my enemy. I'd never refuse to fight someone that I'd allow my alliance fight.

[astronaut jones]

An enemy of my alliance is my enemy. I'd never refuse to fight someone that I'd allow my alliance fight.

That isn't in question.

The question was, in a more basic and roundabout way of saying it, does an ally of your alliance automatically mean you have to defend them, even if you can't stand them? Do you have the right to refuse?

Edited December 3, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Gn0xious Jr]

would you fight with your buddies even if your buddies were sticking up for someone who was clearly in the wrong, and is clearly a huge !@#$%^&, and you don't like them in the least? Or would you tell your buddies that that !@#$%^& has it coming and to let him take the beating he deserves, and if they decide to help out said !@#$%^&, that you're not going to be a part of it?

I like all the bravado coming from everyone, I'm sure everyone here is as macho as they're claiming to be, but the [ooc] real world [/ooc] has no place here on planet bob.

it depends on how honorable you are.

if you mutually agreed to protect your buddies and their buddies, no matter what, regardless if they brought it on themselves our not, then you'd better protect them. if, as you say in your example, you feel they were sticking up for someone in the worng, and feel your buddies shouldn't stick their neck out for someone who deserves it... then man-up and do the honorable thing. speak up, if they still go in, protect/defend, afterward, adjust your agreement to be more in-line with your comfort level.

if you mutually agreed to protect your buddies, and left them high and dry due to your own personal resentment to their cause, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. you may find that your buddies no longer trust you, and their respect for you may diminish...

"but the [ooc] real world [/ooc] has no place here on planet bob."

Agreed 100%, however, the actual consequences for helping out your buddies (who you've already sworn to protect) on bob is a loss of infra/tech (not all that serious). There are some similarities however, as you can easily build up your nation after battle, but it is hard to build back trust and respect.

edit: fixin' stuff

Edited December 3, 2009 by Gn0xious Jr

[Lord Razzia]

If "X" was getting rolled and Invicta decided to defend them, I'd only help Invicta if they were getting rolled too, and had no where else to go.

My for Invicta is somewhat greater than my hate for "X". Don't get me wrong; I'd help Invicta in any other situation.

see if you can guess who "X" is... >_>

Edited December 3, 2009 by Lord Razzia

[astronaut jones]

If "X" was getting rolled and Invicta decided to defend them, I'd only help Invicta if they were getting rolled too, and had no where else to go.

My for Invicta is somewhat greater than my hate for "X". Don't get me wrong; I'd help Invicta in any other situation.

see if you can guess who "X" is... >_>

I actually thank you for your honesty here.

[astronaut jones]

it depends on how honorable you are.

if you mutually agreed to protect your buddies and their buddies, no matter what, regardless if they brought it on themselves our not, then you'd better protect them. if, as you say in your example, you feel they were sticking up for someone in the worng, and feel your buddies shouldn't stick their neck out for someone who deserves it... then man-up and do the honorable thing. speak up, if they still go in, protect/defend, afterward, adjust your agreement to be more in-line with your comfort level.

if you mutually agreed to protect your buddies, and left them high and dry due to your own personal resentment to their cause, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. you may find that your buddies no longer trust you, and their respect for you may diminish...

"but the [ooc] real world [/ooc] has no place here on planet bob."

Agreed 100%, however, the actual consequences for helping out your buddies (who you've already sworn to protect) on bob is a loss of infra/tech (not all that serious). There are some similarities however, as you can easily build up your nation after battle, but it is hard to build back trust and respect.

edit: fixin' stuff

True, it's hard to build back up trust and respect, but it's been done. Though, as arcades057 has already pointed out, it is a lot harder to stick up for something you believe here, even if it's just on principle, then it is to merely fall in line and take whatever comes even if you don't agree with it. People will strip you of trust and respect even if you were doing what you felt was best. You can leave an alliance on principle, but, even if you were justified in leaving, even if defending them went against your principles for whatever reason, you often suffer and suffer dearly for sticking up for what you think is right.

As the rest of what you've said, I more or less agree, but I tend to believe that members make the alliance, and the alliance serves the members just as much as the members serve it, thus it shouldn't be a problem to not defend an ally of that alliance, if it's not a habit, based upon your own personal principles.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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.

I do have a mind of your own, as chance would have it, so you're in luck.

Let's say you're in the NPO,

Nope. See above.

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?

OK, let's say I was in Gremlins instead, and we were called on for an aggressive war by an ally I, personally, detested. That's how I wound up involved in the Q-NoV war. So that's not a hypothetical, it's an actual, and I kept my word to the letter. I would not have done so had I been able to see what was eventually posted to justify it - but in the time between receiving targets and that post I had no justification to disobey an apparently lawful order.

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?

Any circumstances is very broad. But yes, there are some circumstances. Circumstances equivelant to the War against Peace or the NoV war or attacking FAN while they were still demilitarised and under terms, with my alliance on the wrong side, and solid proof of that available in time, would justify civil disobedience and refusal to follow illegal orders. But not my personal feelings or hunches, that is not enough.

Have you ever thought about not defending an "ally" but did it anyway because it was asked of you?

No.

Just hypotheticals.

Not at all.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Haflinger]

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

I'd suggest that you're probably wrong.

Most alliance members, yeah, you're right. However these fora are populated by politicians mainly, and a lot of the posters here are heavily involved in the political game.

see if you can guess who "X" is... >_>

It's obviously UPN.

[lonewolfe2015]

Yes I would defend an ally, and yes I have already done that despite wishing against it. Yes was one of the decision makers in that as well.

[Gn0xious Jr]

but I tend to believe that members make the alliance, and the alliance serves the members just as much as the members serve it, thus it shouldn't be a problem to not defend an ally of that alliance, if it's not a habit, based upon your own personal principles.

i think again, it all comes down to talking things out with the leadership before taking your own action.

think of it on the flip side, do you have a right to defend your friend (in another alliance) from being raided by an alliance you despise? of course you do, however you shouldn't go in guns ablazin' without the support of your alliance. in doing good for your friend, you may put your alliance in danger. protecting your alliance should be at the forefront of your mind.

as you say,

members make the alliance, and the alliance serves the members just as much as the members serve it... i think it is safe to say that the reason WHY alliances serve their members is ultimately for protection. they provide guides on gameplay, AID for growth, and a community to call home. If you take and take and take from the alliance, and don't feel some sort of obligation to protect her from harm in return, regardless of the reason, i think its a bit selfish.

[astronaut jones]

i think again, it all comes down to talking things out with the leadership before taking your own action.

think of it on the flip side, do you have a right to defend your friend (in another alliance) from being raided by an alliance you despise? of course you do, however you shouldn't go in guns ablazin' without the support of your alliance. in doing good for your friend, you may put your alliance in danger. protecting your alliance should be at the forefront of your mind.

as you say,

members make the alliance, and the alliance serves the members just as much as the members serve it... i think it is safe to say that the reason WHY alliances serve their members is ultimately for protection. they provide guides on gameplay, AID for growth, and a community to call home. If you take and take and take from the alliance, and don't feel some sort of obligation to protect her from harm in return, regardless of the reason, i think its a bit selfish.

But I'm not arguing defending the alliance you're in, I'm talking about defending an alliance that your alliance is tied to, that you happen to feel strongly about.. negatively, of course.

Defending your own alliance is a no brainer.

[Lord Brendan]

But I'm not arguing defending the alliance you're in, I'm talking about defending an alliance that your alliance is tied to, that you happen to feel strongly about.. negatively, of course.

Defending your own alliance is a no brainer.

Most defensive treaties use the wording "an attack on one signatory is an attack on all signatories", or a similar variation. If defending your own alliance from attacks is a no brainer, and attacks on your ally are the same as attacks on yourself, then surely defending your allies from attacks is a no brainer as well?

[NoFish]

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?

I don't know about the alliances you have been in, but in GOD at least, that !@#$ does not fly. I have, admittedly, had members who have gone into peace without orders because of a specific reason they could not manage their nations' military at the time, usually personal reasons for which they must be inactive. However I've never seen a nation flat-out refuse to fight - in fact the far more common problem is when nations without a sufficient warchest declare more wars than I've told them to. I consider it, and I think most of GOD's members consider it an honor and a privilege to fight on behalf of the alliance. Our alliance, at the least, is a community and the members of it are more than just nation leaders... which is precisely why I've never had trouble getting someone to fight when the time came.

[wickedj]

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.

Best answer thus far. you can hate someone all you want but youll fight for your alliance or GTFO

[JBone]

That isn't in question.

The question was, in a more basic and roundabout way of saying it, does an ally of your alliance automatically mean you have to defend them, even if you can't stand them? Do you have the right to refuse?

Short answer, yes you have the right to refuse. But you also must accept the consequences that go along with making that choice.

All depends how leadership wants to handle it. It also depends on several other factors. Was this made know to leadership when application was made? Was it something not spoken about until the situation was in play?

Perhaps there are leaders out there who would make that deal if it was worked out up front. I, personally would not.

I know I don't want someone squadded up with me to all of a sudden dove mode out just because they don't like who we are defending, leaving your AA mates hanging, to me, is not an option.

I guess it boils down to how you view the game. I'm in an alliance with people I know would fight alongside me, some are friends, some I have never even spoken to.

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?

Peace mode should be used for strategic purposes only, not to voice your displeasure with allies or allies of allies.

During the Karma war TPF had some nations go peace mode, then leave, some were guys that I have played next to for almost 3 years and became friendly with.... I don't want them back in TPF, ever. That doesn't stop our friendship, I can always go chat them up on IRC or whatever medium is best.

Most times an alliance is both a safety net and a community. One brings you to it, the other keeps you there.

I loled. You, more than most, know there is room for disagreements between members. And yes, disagreements with allies is common as well, but best hashed out in private. When it comes time to saddle up it should be one for all and all for one, not selective fighting.

[Groucho Marx]

I'd never refuse to defend an ally regardless of the situation because I never run from a fight and I'm not a buster. If I sign an ODP or up with someone I intend to fight for them because regardless of the level of the treaty they're still an ally and what's the point in signing with someone if you're not willing to risk your precious infrastructure for them and how could you ever possibly expect them to return the favor when the tables turn?

[astronaut jones]

I'd never refuse to defend an ally regardless of the situation because I never run from a fight and I'm not a buster. If I sign an ODP or up with someone I intend to fight for them because regardless of the level of the treaty they're still an ally and what's the point in signing with someone if you're not willing to risk your precious infrastructure for them and how could you ever possibly expect them to return the favor when the tables turn?

It's one nation, not the alliance.

[Wabooz]

No, I wouldn't refuse. Wars aren't personal so if my Gov can't reach a diplomatic solution other than war..so be it.

[Ghuxalia]

I wouldn't attack in either case. I'd resign immediately and go to the hated alliance. Then, I'd slowly work my ways up the ranks, and eventually become the beloved leader of said hated alliance. And then I'd wreak havoc. I'd cancel all treaties, declare war on the world, and then hide in peace mode, and at the end of the war, disband the alliance. Then, I'd go back to my original alliance and be like "lol, mission accomplished bish!"

[Nick1a]

I'd defend NSO.

[Lord Razzia]

I actually thank you for your honesty here.

Yeah np. With all the jokers around, its about time someone said something they'd truly stand by.

It's obviously UPN.

hehe no way.

I'd defend NSO.

Now why in god's name would you wanna do that? fat cat rat?