FOK announcement

[kriekfreak]

Or maybe this is utterly wrong and this whole thing actually is a misunderstanding.

Your hypothesis is that ODN decided that in order to shake the image of an unreliable ally, ODN must betray its allies. Even if I didn't know it to be false, I would be disinclined to take such a bizarre argument seriously.

Why did you betray FOK then if it wasn't related to shaking of the bad image that is haunting you for like forever? Or are you now trying to ignore the fact that you were trying to set up your own orange power bloc consisting of all LEO signatories except FOK?

Edited December 24, 2009 by kriekfreak

[Pingu]

Why did you betray FOK then if it wasn't related to shaking of the bad image that is haunting you for like forever? Or are you now trying to ignore the fact that you were trying to set up your own orange power bloc consisting of all LEO signatories except FOK?

The 'fact' is not a fact. See my earlier discussion of decision-making procedures in ODN and the context and status of the private conversations that started this sorry episode.

[Vespassianus]

Misunderstanding my $@!. You guys intentionally tried to weaken FOK by forming your own orange bloc with all the signatories of LEO except one, FOK. I'm not sure exactly why you would do such thing since FOK was still allied to you and kinda wanted to improve the relationship. Well, I have an idea though. Maybe you knew that being in a bloc together with FOK would not make you the ringleader, you so desperately want to be. Maybe it has something to do with how the public sees you (Optional Defense Network), and you want to disprove them so hard you are even willing to backstab and betray your allies.

Well, I got news for you ODN. You are doing it wrong. If you want to get a better public image, you should not betray nor backstab your allies but you should stand by them. And keep doing that, even if war looms and you will have to face awful odds.

I must agree with a Stickmen guy, CSN defend a CDT alliance against trolls, what will be the next step?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I am really !@#$@#$ confused by this. All I've heard from ODN about FOK is "Better relations, better relations, better relations" and now this. Good luck to two of my favorite alliances none the less.

[kriekfreak]

The 'fact' is not a fact. See my earlier discussion of decision-making procedures in ODN and the context and status of the private conversations that started this sorry episode.

It weren't the actual talk between Joracy and Arsenal that I'm hinting at. If you don't know what I'm hinting at I guess you aren't a very good senator or the people in charge of ODN don't tell you !@#$.

Edited December 24, 2009 by kriekfreak

[Pingu]

It weren't the actual talk between Joracy and Arsenal that I'm hinting at. If you don't know what I'm hinting at I guess you aren't a very good senator or the people in charge of ODN don't tell you !@#$.

I'm not sure what understanding your hints has to do with being a good senator. The people in charge of ODN include me. I understand the reasons that led FOK to the conclusions they reached and to the decision to terminate the treaty. The fact remains that the policy is not as you described it above. Nevertheless, I recognize that you and many others have no interest in believing that, so we'll have to agree to differ and walk away.

Season's greetings to you and yours.

[Alterego]

I am really !@#$@#$ confused by this. All I've heard from ODN about FOK is "Better relations, better relations, better relations" and now this. Good luck to two of my favorite alliances none the less.

So how well do you know your allies and how often to they lie to/mislead to C&G alliances.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

So how well do you know your allies and how often to they lie to/mislead to C&G alliances.

Or how inactive has Stumpy been for the last month?

[Alterego]

Or how inactive has Stumpy been for the last month?

Ok so its all you heard from ODN about Fok over a month ago. Thats some change in ODNs policy towards Fok in a month.

[Soccerbum]

ODN never had a change in policy. Why is this so hard to understand?

Again, best of luck to FOK in the future. Happy Holidays!

[Cataduanes]

Ciao FOK, this whole mess is a real real shame.

And keep doing that, even if war looms and you will have to face awful odds.

And you think that worries some of us?, I will be waiting if you ever fancy dealing out those awful odds one day

[Stumpy Jung Il]

ODN never had a change in policy. Why is this so hard to understand?

Again, best of luck to FOK in the future. Happy Holidays!

Thats kind of what I was getting at with my first post.

[Banksy]

Why did you betray FOK then if it wasn't related to shaking of the bad image that is haunting you for like forever? Or are you now trying to ignore the fact that you were trying to set up your own orange power bloc consisting of all LEO signatories except FOK?

You are basing this conclusion on the line of one person, several months ago. I do not even believe he was even in government at the time. Not a single bad word of FOK has been discussed on our forums in recent memory. We cannot "ignore facts" if those facts never existed. Any orange bloc that the ODN hypothesised contained FOK.

It weren't the actual talk between Joracy and Arsenal that I'm hinting at.....

So it seems you have read the Arsenal and Joracy logs. The logs between Joracy and Arsenal further my point as they clearly state that FOK would be in the bloc- did you not read the much commented on portions regarding power sharing and MDPs?

EDIT: Pretty heavily edited the second part- see the post below for the original.

Edited December 24, 2009 by jamesdanaher

[President Obama]

The logs between Joracy and Arsenal are

1) a private conversation and have no bearing on government policy

2) clearly state that FOK would be in the bloc- did you not read the much commented on portions regarding power sharing and MDPs?

I don't get why you said this in response to a quote saying that it wasn't about the logs that he was referring to...

[Banksy]

I don't get why you said this in response to a quote saying that it wasn't about the logs that he was referring to...

No- but he brought up the Arsenal-Joracy logs, which I assumed meant that he must have read them. If that is the case I struggle to see why he thinks we would have been excluding FOK from any bloc- i'll edit the post to avoid confusion.

Edited December 24, 2009 by jamesdanaher

[joracy]

I don't get why you said this in response to a quote saying that it wasn't about the logs that he was referring to...

Those logs directly contradict what he is stating. People cannot seem to make their mind up. One page we were planning to form a new bloc with the intention of controlling FOK's FA, the next we intended to make a bloc with the sole goal of excluding FOK. Logic tells me we cannot make a bloc that A, includes FOK and B, excludes FOK at the same time. There really is a fairly simple explanation that has been communicated on a number of occasions(which some people accept, some people quasi-accept and some people outright deny, leading to this mess of contradictory accusations) that is really quite logical if one reads the logs, understands the context, and looks at the two specific incidents. I cannot spoon feed it for an indefinite amount of time however. Those that have not been predisposed to form a negative opinion and ignore reason have ignored what we've said, and ignored the offers to talk to me, and others about the incidents. However, those that have come and talked to me have generally had a good discussion about what happened, and came out with a better understanding of what we did, and why.

[Bob Janova]

All this 'my door is open' nonsense is silly. If you are prepared to put forward your version of events to anyone who asks you, why not just do it in a public post in the first place? This is not particularly a dig at ODN, it is annoyingly common lately.

Sure, Arsenal and Joracy might not have been making official policy (I'm sure no alliance would have an official policy which is 'have subservient allies'; even NPO never did that and I think it's pretty much universally acknowledged that at least some of their allies were treated with exactly that policy in the past). But they are two senior figures and they were making breathtakingly cynical positions about the role of various alliances (including FOK) within the alternative ODN masterplan.

You claim that every alliance will have talks like this, but I've been a senior member or government member with the top access to Continuum and Citadel for many months, and I've never seen anyone making plans that involve pushing current or future treaty partners ('allies' is a bit strong for a PIAT if you ask me) into a subservient role. (For all its faults, the Hegemony generally treated its treaty partners well.)

[Ejayrazz]

I am really !@#$@#$ confused by this. All I've heard from ODN about FOK is "Better relations, better relations, better relations" and now this. Good luck to two of my favorite alliances none the less.

Don't ask.

TheThirdMark might bite you. It brings his name out.

[Taget]

Given how annoying the argument "next door" is I find this drama refreshing. I'd like to thank both FOK and ODN for starting this.

As for who is wrong or right. Doesn't matter. When relations are that bad cancellation is always the correct move.

[Strahd]

Sure, Arsenal and Joracy might not have been making official policy (I'm sure no alliance would have an official policy which is 'have subservient allies'; even NPO never did that and I think it's pretty much universally acknowledged that at least some of their allies were treated with exactly that policy in the past). But they are two senior figures and they were making breathtakingly cynical positions about the role of various alliances (including FOK) within the alternative ODN masterplan.

I agree. Let us not forget the ODN is a democracy, they vote for their leaders. They have a great community there, in the Network, and I look forward to the next election announcements. Only then, I will be able to really judge the ODN's recent actions.

o/ ODN

FOK

Edited December 24, 2009 by Strahd

[Shan Revan]

All this 'my door is open' nonsense is silly. If you are prepared to put forward your version of events to anyone who asks you, why not just do it in a public post in the first place? This is not particularly a dig at ODN, it is annoyingly common lately.

Sure, Arsenal and Joracy might not have been making official policy (I'm sure no alliance would have an official policy which is 'have subservient allies'; even NPO never did that and I think it's pretty much universally acknowledged that at least some of their allies were treated with exactly that policy in the past). But they are two senior figures and they were making breathtakingly cynical positions about the role of various alliances (including FOK) within the alternative ODN masterplan.

You claim that every alliance will have talks like this, but I've been a senior member or government member with the top access to Continuum and Citadel for many months, and I've never seen anyone making plans that involve pushing current or future treaty partners ('allies' is a bit strong for a PIAT if you ask me) into a subservient role. (For all its faults, the Hegemony generally treated its treaty partners well.)

I can only agree. Brushing it off as hypothetical talks that every alliance participates in, is not only insulting, but a grossly cynical perception of the world, and a mostly inaccurate one.

regardless I wish you all the best in moving on from this split and perhaps may relations be restored. A moderately united orange again would bring me much joy.

[kriekfreak]

Those logs directly contradict what he is stating. People cannot seem to make their mind up. One page we were planning to form a new bloc with the intention of controlling FOK's FA, the next we intended to make a bloc with the sole goal of excluding FOK. Logic tells me we cannot make a bloc that A, includes FOK and B, excludes FOK at the same time. There really is a fairly simple explanation that has been communicated on a number of occasions(which some people accept, some people quasi-accept and some people outright deny, leading to this mess of contradictory accusations) that is really quite logical if one reads the logs, understands the context, and looks at the two specific incidents. I cannot spoon feed it for an indefinite amount of time however. Those that have not been predisposed to form a negative opinion and ignore reason have ignored what we've said, and ignored the offers to talk to me, and others about the incidents. However, those that have come and talked to me have generally had a good discussion about what happened, and came out with a better understanding of what we did, and why.

Well gee.. that sounds very logical. Too bad you forgot one important aspect. And that is time. Ofcourse you can't have A and B simultaneously but the one can occur before the other. In this case, it did. You first tried to exclude FOK, and when that didn't work out the way you planned, you tried the other way.

I still haven't got a good enough answer on my first question though. Are you denying that those talks about forming a bloc, with LEO signatories except FOK, took place?

And penguin you can try to spin this all you want but the fact remains that Arsenal and Joracy were 'plotting' against the interest of both RnR and FOK. These weren't normal gov discussions, at least not from my standpoint (and by the looks of it many more). If one of iFOK's allies would do this, we would give them the sack right away. This is not how I view 'being allied'. Now you can claim that Arsenal and Joracy aren't the supreme rulers of ODN since there is still your senate thing, but discarding what they were doing isn't exactly fair either. By not making them resign, you condone (and therefor agree with) their actions.

[Banksy]

I still haven't got a good enough answer on my first question though. Are you denying that those talks about forming a bloc, with LEO signatories except FOK, took place?

Okay- a little clarity please. You could be saying two things here. Yes- talks occurred with LEO signatories (but not FOK). Seeing as those other signatories were our allies (at the time)- R&R and INT it's not exactly damning. We talked to our allies about a possible change in the ODN's FA policy. Wow.

No- The ODN never tried to make a bloc without FOK in it. The ODN had a discussion, with it's orange allies, about the possibility of it joining LEO. Two of those allies were in LEO, one was not. It was decided that joining LEO outright, in it's current state (with the wording of the treaty), was unfeasible. I could swear we've already said this on several occasions.

And penguin you can try to spin this all you want but the fact remains that Arsenal and Joracy were 'plotting' against the interest of both RnR and FOK. These weren't normal gov discussions....

Exactly. They were not government discussions.

Furthermore- it was not plotting against the interests of anyone. If you actually read the logs properly, which it appears you have not, you would see that the discussion was about the concessions R&R and FOK would have to make for the ODN to still want the bloc. Because these concessions were obviously too great- the ODN stopped pursuing the orange bloc idea. So how exactly are we plotting against FOK if we decide to ditch our idea and leave the status quo alone?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Exactly. They were not government discussions.

Furthermore- it was not plotting against the interests of anyone. If you actually read the logs properly, which it appears you have not, you would see that the discussion was about the concessions R&R and FOK would have to make for the ODN to still want the bloc. Because these concessions were obviously too great- the ODN stopped pursuing the orange bloc idea. So how exactly are we plotting against FOK if we decide to ditch our idea and leave the status quo alone?

I think people should read this post.

[Sabioviejo]

FOK

I so expected this, and still FOK doesn't disappoint me