Would you refuse to defend an "ally"?

[SpacingOutMan]

In an ideal world, you only sign treaties with those whom you are actually very close with. In a realistic world, most treaties are signed for survivalist means. Machiavelli would be damn proud to see what this world has come to [OOC: I am assuming that Machiavelli existed as a precursor to the CN world we know and love].

[Haflinger]

I may be wrong, but didn't you cancel on NpO along with all the other alliances?

NpO is the closest we come to fitting the OP's specifications. We did cancel on NpO, and wound up participating on the other side due to the invocation of the Purqua MADP.

However, we didn't cancel on NpO on the eve of war. We cancelled months earlier, specifically over the IRC log release incident (UPN cancelled at the same time for the same reason).

Maybe we shouldn't have (eh, a time travel machine would sure come in handy sometimes), but we didn't cancel either to save our infra or on the eve of war.

No, but they did request that an ally drop another ally so they wouldn't have to lose infra by hitting them. Does that count?

You really have no idea what happened that day, do you, Hoo.

Your grudge against Legion was being exploited. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and we were able to resolve that situation without anyone's allies getting killed, except Universalis, who clearly didn't want to continue anyway. Which was the whole goal from the start.

[Iotupa]

By being in an alliance you agree to be bound by the treaties signed by the alliance. If you feel you cannot follow the treaties that are signed by your alliance, you should not be a member. It's a fairly simple concept.

[Groucho Marx]

So then, since everyone seems to be in agreement that you stick by your allies no matter what, even if they're in the wrong...

How many of you have ever been in an alliance that has canceled a treaty on the eve of war? How many of you have stood up for your allies regardless of the canceled treaty, as they were most definitely canceled as a means to avoid war and destruction?

Have any of you actually backed up your claims here, or is this mere posturing on your part? I mean, as many of you have stated, an ally is an ally, even if they're in the wrong.. so how many of you have practiced what you're preaching here? Or do those canceled treaties not count, as those were "bad allies" for whatever reason?

I've had to reroll twice because I keep my word. Every alliance I've been in honored its treaties during the time I was there and I've fought on the wrong side of global conflicts more often than not. I can't say I've ever had any "bad" allies aside from a few instances back in 07 during the war, though we never canceled on them.

[Leftbehind]

I have refused to fight a friend when we were in different alliances but other then that I would fight for my alliance.

[Chalaskan]

For the record I didn't read a post other than the OP. I did this cause I didn't want to be swayed. The "I do as my alliance tells me to" is definitely my answer. I will do what TOP tells me. I have made a commitment to her. Now if I was pissed after said war, I would be looking for a new alliance once peace was obtained.

It would have to be something uber messed up for me to leave on the eve of war. Something beyond comprehension.

[Stefano Palmieri]

I'd always defend an Ally. You sign treaties for a reason, if you dont want to defend them then Dont sign the treaty, simple. They only time I wouldn't is if it were an ODP and the alliance in question deserved to get rolled.

[Hymenbreach]

Private discussion: Public acceptance.

Obedience is a species of bravery.

When the Legion went to war with the Karma, Karma Comedians (sorry, always wanted to use that joke) we gave anyone with a long term lingering loathing of NPO permission to sit out the war. But for individuals? "Shut up and the enemy is that way".

[astronaut jones]

So, since everyone is still on the "treaty is a treaty, fight or leave" even though everyone's been in an alliance, for the most part, that has left another alliance high and dry when it was most convenient for them, and least convenient for the other party...

Under what circumstance would you deem it acceptable to not defend an ally? And again, this isn't a discussion of your alliance not defending an ally, this is a discussion about you, within your alliance, not defending an ally. Or you, within your alliance, wishing not to fight on the same front as an ally for personal reasons, or an ally of one of your allies. So, one man out of 100, or 200, or 300, or however many people happen to be in your alliance.

Should personal opinion, personal feelings, personal accountability come into play? Or do personal opinions, feelings, and accountability not have a place within an alliance, once you've joined?

Edited December 6, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Taget]

So, since everyone is still on the "treaty is a treaty, fight or leave"

Maybe we had special lattitude because we were on the periphery and were fairly close and united. But in Sssw18 before each war we gave countries with any objections the opportunity to become banks rather than fight. Vast majority fought (for many of the reasons given here) but those with special objections were given a way to both contribute and follow their beliefs.

[Valtamdraugr]

Under what circumstance would you deem it acceptable to not defend an ally?

There are none. If I hated that much, it would resolve after the conflict was over. Once called to action, you act.

Should personal opinion, personal feelings, personal accountability come into play? Or do personal opinions, feelings, and accountability not have a place within an alliance, once you've joined?

Those things do apply, but not when it has already come down to the wire. Once the ball is rolling, you chase it till it stops.

As Rampage3 stated... To do less than all I could, would put my alliance brothers and sisters at risk. The nuke I am not there to take, flies to someone else. My soldiers that live means the soldiers of my brethren die. This is something I am not willing to trade.

My friends are my friends, but my brothers and sisters come first.

Bacon>Rok>Rokkers>boobs>self

edit: for clarity

Edited December 6, 2009 by Valtamdraugr

[astronaut jones]

There are none. If I hated that much, it would resolve after the conflict was over. Once called to action, you act.

Those things do apply, but not when it has already come down to the wire. Once the ball is rolling, you chase it till it stops.

As Rampage3 stated... To do less than all I could, would put my alliance brothers and sisters at risk. The nuke I am not there to take, flies to someone else. My soldiers that live means the soldiers of my brethren die. This is something I am not willing to trade.

My friends are my friends, but my brothers and sisters come first.

Bacon>Rok>Rokkers>boobs>self

edit: for clarity

You're assuming that the only useful thing you can do for your alliance is be a meat shield, and if that's the case, then I would argue you're not very useful at all to anyone.

If all you're good for is to be a number, then you're no more valued to RoK than you would be anywhere else. If you're just a body, you're just a body, and anyone can be a body. So while it's nice that you and yours may say rok>whatever, you should try to be something more, otherwise if your alliance were a living entity, I doubt it would value you as highly as you value it.

just something to think about.

Edited December 6, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Iotupa]

So, since everyone is still on the "treaty is a treaty, fight or leave" even though everyone's been in an alliance, for the most part, that has left another alliance high and dry when it was most convenient for them, and least convenient for the other party...

Under what circumstance would you deem it acceptable to not defend an ally? And again, this isn't a discussion of your alliance not defending an ally, this is a discussion about you, within your alliance, not defending an ally. Or you, within your alliance, wishing not to fight on the same front as an ally for personal reasons, or an ally of one of your allies. So, one man out of 100, or 200, or 300, or however many people happen to be in your alliance.

Should personal opinion, personal feelings, personal accountability come into play? Or do personal opinions, feelings, and accountability not have a place within an alliance, once you've joined?

I'm trying to think of a time when I've remained in an alliance that abandoned an ally, and I can't for the life of me think of a single time. Feel free to correct me if you know of anything, but I wouldn't stick around in an alliance that treated their allies in that manner.

There is no time I can think of that I would not honor a treaty my alliance holds. If I felt that I couldn't honor a treaty my alliance had signed, I would leave the alliance.

Honestly, the fact that you have told your alliance you would refuse to fight in a war and they haven't kicked you out boggles my mind. You can't take the good in an alliance and not the bad. That's called being a leech.

[astronaut jones]

I'm trying to think of a time when I've remained in an alliance that abandoned an ally, and I can't for the life of me think of a single time. Feel free to correct me if you know of anything, but I wouldn't stick around in an alliance that treated their allies in that manner.

There is no time I can think of that I would not honor a treaty my alliance holds. If I felt that I couldn't honor a treaty my alliance had signed, I would leave the alliance.

Honestly, the fact that you have told your alliance you would refuse to fight in a war and they haven't kicked you out boggles my mind. You can't take the good in an alliance and not the bad. That's called being a leech.

Right, because me not defending an alliance that they hold no treaty with directly is of a concern to them.

And I'm sure your alliances of the past dropped treaties so said alliance could be rolled. You were in GGA, no? There you go.

[Hydro]

This wouldn't happen to me, because if my alliance signed a treaty with someone I hated or they let someone I hated into the alliance, I'd leave. No point in making commitments you can't keep.

[Iotupa]

Right, because me not defending an alliance that they hold no treaty with directly is of a concern to them.

And I'm sure your alliances of the past dropped treaties so said alliance could be rolled. You were in GGA, no? There you go.

Sure, it's not a direct tie, but you laid out a specific instance to them where one of their allies would be engaged in a war and you would refuse to help that ally due to another treaty that ally held. That's hardly what I would consider a good member.

I was in GGA, yes, but just because the GGA after my time did it doesn't mean that they did it while I was there. That was a behavior that GGA picked up after I was kicked out.

[astronaut jones]

Sure, it's not a direct tie, but you laid out a specific instance to them where one of their allies would be engaged in a war and you would refuse to help that ally due to another treaty that ally held. That's hardly what I would consider a good member.

I was in GGA, yes, but just because the GGA after my time did it doesn't mean that they did it while I was there. That was a behavior that GGA picked up after I was kicked out.

How very convenient for you.

[Iotupa]

How very convenient for you.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. It wasn't very convenient being kicked out and I can hardly be held accountable for things they did when I was no longer in the alliance. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean here?

Edited December 6, 2009 by Jonathan Brookbank

[astronaut jones]

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. It wasn't very convenient being kicked out and I can hardly be held accountable for things they did when I was no longer in the alliance. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean here?

No, I don't like you, and I'd really rather not interact with you any further.

That being said, I'm sure GGA under your control canceled treaties to make it easier for you and your allies to wage wars. And that being said, I'm not sure how that is any different than me saying there's one specific alliance I would refuse to defend, while my alliance isn't directly allied with them. In fact, i'm sure dropping treaties under the guise of "they did bad!" and maybe even a little "a bee bit my bottom! now my bottom's big!" so as to isolate and destroy is a whole lot worse.

Edited December 7, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Mergerberger II]

No, I don't like you, and I'd really rather not interact with you any further.

That being said, I'm sure GGA under your control canceled treaties to make it easier for you and your allies to wage wars. And that being said, I'm not sure how that is any different than me saying there's one specific alliance I would refuse to defend, while my alliance isn't directly allied with them. In fact, i'm sure dropping treaties under the guise of "they did bad!" and maybe even a little "a bee bit my bottom! now my bottom's big!" so as to isolate and destroy is a whole lot worse.

Quite frankly, if someone who is an ally does something that truly warrants a treaty cancellation, then it is beyond your gross oversimplification of 'they did bad'. If you refuse to defend an ally, then it is probably because of something like them betraying you, or them committing an offensive action that you don't like. There are few allies of Polaris that I would ever refuse to defend under any circumstances, and we are very fortunate to be among such fantastic allies.

[astronaut jones]

Quite frankly, if someone who is an ally does something that truly warrants a treaty cancellation, then it is beyond your gross oversimplification of 'they did bad'. If you refuse to defend an ally, then it is probably because of something like them betraying you, or them committing an offensive action that you don't like. There are few allies of Polaris that I would ever refuse to defend under any circumstances, and we are very fortunate to be among such fantastic allies.

And I'm certain that all treaties ever cancelled that were done so to isolate and destroy were done so for actually legitimate reasons. I'm certain that absolutely no planning went into any of them, and there was absolutely no co-ordination at all between other alliances in order to isolate and destroy.

[Iotupa]

No, I don't like you, and I'd really rather not interact with you any further.

That being said, I'm sure GGA under your control canceled treaties to make it easier for you and your allies to wage wars. And that being said, I'm not sure how that is any different than me saying there's one specific alliance I would refuse to defend, while my alliance isn't directly allied with them. In fact, i'm sure dropping treaties under the guise of "they did bad!" and maybe even a little "a bee bit my bottom! now my bottom's big!" so as to isolate and destroy is a whole lot worse.

Well, that's very unpleasant of you, but I suppose that puts you in a fairly large group of people.

If you want to continue throwing baseless accusations at me, that's fine, but that's not something that happened while I was in the GGA and especially not while I was running the GGA. You are welcome to your opinion, but there is hardly any reason to make up lies about me.

[Lord Brendan]

Well, that's very unpleasant of you, but I suppose that puts you in a fairly large group of people.

If you want to continue throwing baseless accusations at me, that's fine, but that's not something that happened while I was in the GGA and especially not while I was running the GGA. You are welcome to your opinion, but there is hardly any reason to make up lies about me.

Wasn't your signature on the DoW against VE?

You can say whatever you like about how you held little power, having your name on the declaration makes you as involved as anyone else in GGA government at the time. I believe you also went on to become a Triumvir?

[Iotupa]

Wasn't your signature on the DoW against VE?

You can say whatever you like about how you held little power, having your name on the declaration makes you as involved as anyone else in GGA government at the time. I believe you also went on to become a Triumvir?

My name was on it but I had nothing to do with the decision. It was a decision made by the people then in the Triumvirate. Also, there was no "cancellation of treaties to make waging a war easier," which is what I was saying didn't happen during my time. VE had previously canceled all of its own treaties.

And, yes, I did go on to become a Triumvir, but I'm not sure what that has to do with that either.

[John Diesel]

In my book, a treaty is meant not as a symbol of friendship between two leaders or governments, but as a physical representation of "I completely respect and trust this entire alliance." If they in turn treaty someone of whom you disprove, then you should talk with your ally. If you do not wish to support your allies, downgrade or cancel the treaty. Otherwise, respect that bond, regardless of who it links you to.

Edited December 7, 2009 by John Diesel