An announcement from ADI

[Canik]

It was not a mistake if we are talking about epeen "business as usual."

It was a mistake since these two apparently do have real affection for each other.

ADI is too much of a n00b to understand their place as part of a bloc.

Ragnarok assumed ADI was smarter in foreign policy than they are.

Surely, somewhere, some way, someone could see that neither of these mistakes in judgment automatically means this should be the end of the world as they knew it.

ADI is a capable alliance, but they are new to Foreign Affairs though, this is true. They got little to no experience in TDO, and TDO was exactly a great place to learn good FA.

Alliances have been in this situation before and declared neutrality. ADI simply made a mistake in the approach. They held no ill-will towards, RoK, I assure you. Their intentions were honorable.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Canik

[JerLow]

They were mislead by Ragnarok, who promised them there won't be treaty conflicts. Now, they have two MDoAP level treaties in direct opposition of each other. They're going neutral as exactly what they should've done at the start. They made a mistake as a new alliance because they were lied to by RoK, which is vastly more excusable if they had forsaken their other treaties and gone with RoK.

Funny I read here that you say ADI was mislead,lied to Once again you people must have read only what you wanted to.... You should really think before you use words like that there were no lies or misleading here.. What Happend here was a sheer act of lazyness on ADI's behalf to not look up theses things before saying they would have our back.. Hoo said he was not sure therefore Warbuck should have looked into it further before blasting off that he had our backs.. If anyone was mislead and lied to it was US.. Now face the consequences COWARDS

[alyster]

A good statement from ADI.

/me likes

[Obiwan]

ADI asked RoK. RoK answered. RoK wasn't required to answer. They could have asked ADI to do it. However, RoK answered and answered wrong. It is RoK's fault.

so its Rok's fault that when ADI discovered the conflicting treaty obligations that they back out of their commitment to Rok via a OWF post? I'd like my treaty partners to at least inform me that they are changing their minds after already promising to have my back no matter what.

I was unaware that "no matter what" had exceptions to it. I know to never treaty ADI now. unfortunate, I thought you were cool dudes. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the hippy tree.

[eyriq]

Bad pawn, ADI! Bad pawn.

This faux outrage is fun though.

[Bob Janova]

I was unaware that "no matter what" had exceptions to it

'Defence' has exceptions, notably when you attack someone. Certainly, this thread was a poor way to notify people of their intentions, but ADI backed out of nothing. If you read the OP, you'll see that they're even prepared to go to bat for Ragnarok (in their aggressive war) if the other side refuses reasonable negotiations. An MDP doesn't mean that you have to be a meatshield for aggression.

[Obiwan]

ADI backed out of nothing.

false, they gave their word, then backed out

If you read the OP, you'll see that they're even prepared to go to bat for Ragnarok (in their aggressive war) if the other side refuses reasonable negotiations.

that is an "honorable" stance, however that exception is not written into the treaty nor did they say that up front in this situation. I refuse to argue whether or not this is an aggressive war because we will have to agree to disagree on that point, plus that is irrelevant given the circumstance

[Lord Boris]

'Defence' has exceptions, notably when you attack someone. Certainly, this thread was a poor way to notify people of their intentions, but ADI backed out of nothing. If you read the OP, you'll see that they're even prepared to go to bat for Ragnarok (in their aggressive war) if the other side refuses reasonable negotiations. An MDP doesn't mean that you have to be a meatshield for aggression.

In some ways it's a good thing not everyone uses logic the way you have mastered it, Bob. Planet Bob would be a boring place if it were full of clones of your level head.

[Bob Janova]

The exception certainly is in the treaty. Here it is:

If either Ragnarok or ADI/AzN wants to go bust some heads, and the other likes the idea, they may also join.

They can, but they don't have to.

i.e. optional aggression.

The MDP part states:

Any outside party attacks Ragnarok or ADI/AzN, and it will be considered as an attack on the other.

Ragnarok was not attacked. Therefore, it does not trigger (i.e. it's not a 'defensive war' in the scope of this treaty). That's not irrelevant at all, it's the entire difference between an obligation and an option.

[Gecko]

Way to stand up for what's right, ADI

[Tulafaras]

'Defence' has exceptions, notably when you attack someone. Certainly, this thread was a poor way to notify people of their intentions, but ADI backed out of nothing. If you read the OP, you'll see that they're even prepared to go to bat for Ragnarok (in their aggressive war) if the other side refuses reasonable negotiations. An MDP doesn't mean that you have to be a meatshield for aggression.

True to some extent but also too far simplified.

Frankly Rok doesn't need em as backup against TPF and never did. If the threat was such that they did need backup there would still be other MADP partners left to back em up so why should they need to activate oA clauses?

The only case where Rok might need them is in their defence if they are counter-declared by a large number of alliances, that is the situation where the treaty becomes active and in that case it is NOT optional.

Frankly aside from the treaty definition, what i got from this threat was that ADI behaved in a most insulting manner, utterly unbefitting of an ally. That might be my personal opinion, but flipflopping in your answers isn't really the way diplomacy is done. It's even worse if you flipflop via public announcement instead of conveying your concerns in private. So frankly ADI your behaviour sucked.

[Obiwan]

The exception certainly is in the treaty. Here it is:

If either Ragnarok or ADI/AzN wants to go bust some heads, and the other likes the idea, they may also join.

They can, but they don't have to.

i.e. optional aggression.

The MDP part states:

Any outside party attacks Ragnarok or ADI/AzN, and it will be considered as an attack on the other.

Ragnarok was not attacked. Therefore, it does not trigger (i.e. it's not a 'defensive war' in the scope of this treaty). That's not irrelevant at all, it's the entire difference between an obligation and an option.

I'm glad you know what the treaty states and are familiar with MDoAP's. congrats! However, once the leader gives his word to "have your back no matter what" that kinda supersedes the treaty and means he has already chosen to join the optional aggression and/or the obligatory defense. therefore, irrelevant

[President S O]

Good work ADI.

o/

[Fighter26]

Gotta say, this announcement is full of win. About time someone used their brain before posting on OWF with a war dec.

[Bob Janova]

Obiwan, you made me look back through the thread to find it. Here's what was in those logs

[13:26] <Warbuck[ADI]> I'm not changing my mind on defending you.

[13:26] <Warbuck[ADI]> I WILL defend you

He never went back on that and still hasn't, even though RoK have issued notice on the treaty. There isn't an explicit chaining clause, so interpretation of what happens when RoK reap the whirlwind from TPF's treaty partners is up to the partners, but non-chaining is the precedent for treaties with no explicit clause, so ADI won't be obliged to do anything (and since RoK cancelled on them it's unlikely they'll do so now).

The only case where Rok might need them is in their defence if they are counter-declared by a large number of alliances, that is the situation where the treaty becomes active and in that case it is NOT optional.

I disagree as explained in the previous paragraph about treaty chaining where it is not explicit.

Frankly aside from the treaty definition, what i got from this threat was that ADI behaved in a most insulting manner, utterly unbefitting of an ally

Definitely, although I think it was inexperience under pressure rather than malice that led to that.

[Starcraftmazter]

I can see this treaty being canceled soon.

[Gofastleft]

...

Frankly aside from the treaty definition, what i got from this threat was that ADI behaved in a most insulting manner, utterly unbefitting of an ally

Definitely, although I think it was inexperience under pressure rather than malice that led to that.

And it was that insulting manner that led to the cancellation of the treaty. What ADI still fails to understand is if they had talked in private to ROK there would have not been an issue. At this point there was no war for ADI to enter since ADI offered to enter via the oa part and ROK turned them down because they were not needed. They would have only been required to act if ROK was attacked, instead before that happened they publicly state that they will not do that unless ROK meets their demands.

[Obiwan]

Obiwan, you made me look back through the thread to find it. Here's what was in those logs

[13:26] <Warbuck[ADI]> I'm not changing my mind on defending you.

[13:26] <Warbuck[ADI]> I WILL defend you

He never went back on that and still hasn't

apparently you didn't read the OP, for he added a condition to the obligatory defense:

Should RoK make a true and real attempt to negotiate terms with TPF and company, and those talks fail, it will be at that point that ADI will defend RoK to the death. However, without such an attempt at diplomacy over the matter, ADI will not get involved on either side of the conflict.

[Bob Janova]

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of 'defend'

[Obiwan]

nor you of the word "is" j/k

[Rampage3]

Everyone can e-lawyer and posture and bicker all you want but this all comes down to one thing: having the DECENCY to speak to your allies man-to-man about your concerns.

I have seen Warbucks on our IRC channels before and have spoken to him on more than a few occasions. At least one member of Ragnarok's RC is on almost all of the time. He thought about his position in this conflict TWO DAYS and decided that writing this on the OWF was preferable to speaking to his allies in private, voicing his concerns, stating his alliance's position.

His viewpiont on the CB is irrelevant to the core issue, his approach to this situation was reprehensible. That this treaty needed cancelling became a matter of necessity because Warbucks decided to grandstand rather than speak to us who he sees all of the time. I could not take this more personally.

ADI, we have stood by you no matter what, when it was popular and when it wasn't and we never blinked. Any issue we may have had was handled in-house with you. You could have come to us and you didn't. You instead preferred to drag our name through the mud with name-calling while making demands on how we should conduct ourselves in this matter with TPF.

The treaty is ultimately worthless now because you did not treat us as a treaty partner. If you want friendship, you should have been a friend. Instead, you were turncoats, smiling in our faces and making private assurances while apparently deciding to post....THIS GARBAGE here.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Rampage3

[Mixoux]

I do think some of the actions taken by ADI were quite low. Nobody is saying that RoK was forcing them to come to their defense due to conflicting treaties, hell, RoK themselves even said it.

Claiming that Hoo purposefully lied to you about the FEAR-TPF treaty is taking it way too far man. From the looks of it, he named off the treaties he knew of and expected you to do your own researching to double-check. And hell, you have a treaty with FEAR, why didn't you just ask them yourselves? Hoo was in no way attempting to feed you false information, that would just be silly and a waste of time given that the information is public in several places.

I can understand if you don't agree with the CB, but don't drag your former ally's name in the mud when they haven't done anything wrong to you.

[Lord Tri]

By all means this is an honorable move.

o/ ADI!

[kingly]

Not all relevant information has been made public or will be made public at this time, so i ask that you stop jumping to conclusions without knowing everything, that is all.

[Tygaland]

Common propaganda back in the GWIII era.

I follow my treaties as written. If I don't want them to chain, I write that into the treaty. If I say I'll defend someone who comes under attack without clarifying circumstances, then I'm obligated to do it. If you are concerned about defending people in select situations, you need to write those situations into your treaty.

I have no idea what ADI's treaty looks like and I'm not particularly concerned. They can do what they want, but "treaties are assumed to be non-chaining" is rather silly.

Thanks for saving me having to type that all out.

And no, I haven't read the entire discussion yet, just wanted this noted.