An announcement from ADI

[Valtamdraugr]

Athens and RoK were undeniable operating for Karma and TPF operating for Hegemony. Therefore they were in a state of hostility. Once Karma allowed TPF off with the surrender terms the state of hostility ended.

Statements like this WILL come back to haunt everyone.

The next global conflict to erupt will see sides facing off, and then a free for all with no individual fronts.

If it is truly to be believed that there was only 1 front during the Karma/Hegemony, there would have been no need for MHA to announce their position on bandwagons, as there would have been none. It's good to know that the era of treaties is over.

Also good to know that hostility=war. By this argument, anything that can be considered "hostile", could also be considered a reasonable CB.

[KahlanRahl]

The OP is a pretty good model for a definition of honourable conduct.

I'll [insert number that's next]nd this.

ADI knows how to walk a hard line. Way to stick to your guns, Warbuck, honorable move.

[Bob Janova]

The next global conflict to erupt will see sides facing off, and then a free for all with no individual fronts.

Fronts have major strategic benefits, so I doubt that this will be the case. Your point about bandwagons is not accurate; a new alliance 'joining Karma' and attacking an alliance in Hegemony would still have triggered treaties. However, alliances which are already engaged in a war can reasonably be expected to be engaged by the MDP partners of their target which is already fighting in the war. For example, I would have had no complaints if other BLEU alliances had chosen to target Grämlins in the BLEU war once we had engaged Polar.

[scutterbug]

Any respect i had for RoK which was very little to begin with has gone out the window.

Yes ADI perhaps went about this the wrong way, but they aint a mindless puppet you control. You dont just throw your toys out the pram when they think for themselves and do the right thing in going neutral.

Its about damn time the smaller alliances stood up for whats right in a time of war and not follow the mindless blood hungry super powers.

ADI i still think you guys are awesome and there are still things ya guys need to learn, but people learn from making mistakes. If only RoK could see it that way instead of having a childish tantrum.

[Affluenza]

For example, I would have had no complaints if other BLEU alliances had chosen to target Grämlins in the BLEU war once we had engaged Polar.

Ofcourse Gramlins would not have minded...I doubt many in BLEU would have wanted to volunteer...

[m3g4tr0n]

o/ to you. ADI has been put in a very difficult situation. I congratulate you on choosing diplomacy first. Hopefully this conflict can be resolved quickly.

[Valtamdraugr]

They told us one thing and then did the opposite, adding stipulations to our treaty with them that were not present.

They broke the treaty by adding such conditions.

Thus broken, the treaty was meaningless.

Tantrum? Hardly.

[scutterbug]

They told us one thing and then did the opposite, adding stipulations to our treaty with them that were not present.

They broke the treaty by adding such conditions.

Thus broken, the treaty was meaningless.

Tantrum? Hardly.

Hoo told them one thing only for ADI to find out the other. Point being? Tantrum still stands

Edited December 29, 2009 by scutterbug

[Tulafaras]

Hoo told them one thing only for ADI to find out the other. Point being? Tantrum still stands

Did you even bother to read the thread?

Since when is it called a tantrum when you cancel a treaty if the other side treats you like !@#$?

I have no problem with them backing out of the war, honestly that is their decision, but their conduct has been unacceptable.

[scutterbug]

Did you even bother to read the thread?

Since when is it called a tantrum when you cancel a treaty if the other side treats you like !@#$?

I have no problem with them backing out of the war, honestly that is their decision, but their conduct has been unacceptable.

If a treaty meant anything to RoK they woulda given ADI a spanking and talked about it, instead they decided to straight up cancel because ADI wouldnt bow to their supreme master RoK. Bigger alliances need to stop forcing smaller alliances to do their bidding.

[Valtamdraugr]

Hoo told them one thing only for ADI to find out the other. Point being? Tantrum still stands

We've been over that already.

ADI was not obligated to assist in RoK retaliation against TPF, and Hoo told them that was not necessary.

They were obligated to defend Rok against a counter attack, they said they would in private, then told the world they would not.

It was rude, inconsiderate, underhanded, and demonstrated a complete disregard for the folks that were willing to lose much for them when the shoe was on the other foot.

[scutterbug]

We've been over that already.

ADI was not obligated to assist in RoK retaliation against TPF, and Hoo told them that was not necessary.

They were obligated to defend Rok against a counter attack, they said they would in private, then told the world they would not.

It was rude, inconsiderate, underhanded, and demonstrated a complete disregard for the folks that were willing to lose much for them when the shoe was on the other foot.

ADI have not said they wouldnt defend RoK against a counter attacl, they just stated they will not go in via the optional aggresion part that your leader wants them to. They refuse to be the puppet RoK want them to be so get their treaty cancelled. Its funny really, your leadership tries to control the smaller alliances they are tied to, but dont dare try touching one the size of MHA.

Edited December 29, 2009 by scutterbug

[welshgazza1992]

ADI have not said they wouldnt defend RoK against a counter attacl, they just stated they will not go in via the optional aggresion part that your leader wants them to. They refuse to be the puppet RoK want them to be so get their treaty cancelled. Its funny really, your leadership tries to control the smaller alliances they are tied to, but dont dare try touching one the size of MHA.

Spying is an aggressive action... you know that, right?

[scutterbug]

Spying is an aggressive action... you know that, right?

A weak RoK CB is getting weaker ya know that right?

[Rampage3]

If a treaty meant anything to RoK they woulda given ADI a spanking and talked about it, instead they decided to straight up cancel because ADI wouldnt bow to their supreme master RoK. Bigger alliances need to stop forcing smaller alliances to do their bidding.

You are being ridiculous. The reason they were dropped is because they told us one thing and then instead of coming BACK to us, you silly person, they came to the OWF and said the opposite. Instead of coming to US with their concerns, they decided to do this.

If you have a bone to pick with us, then pick it. But at least be accurate in your attacks.

[Lurunin]

the way i see it is this: (sorry to the mods but some parts easiest to explain it OOC)

- ADI has conflicting treaties, they choose neutrality and diplomacy over breaking either treaty and try to resolve this conflict

- to their treaty with ROK, they had an obligation to defend ROK yes, but not to fight every aggressive war they do, correct?

- (OOC) to those saying that TPF and ROK/Athens were not technically at war with one another, i ask you to look at WWII with the Axis powers fighting the Allies. One attack on their ally would result in an attack on themselves. From wat i've come across so far, that looks exactly to what has happened in this instance.

- As for this war, imo: should TPF be given a lesson for spying? YES...should they be sentenced to PermaZI? NO...there is a huge difference in both and i believe there should be talks to try and resolve this and find out just how long of a lesson is needed...

- Now i have to admit that this announcement could've been made a bit better(sorry Warbuck), but it still stands that ADI has chosen a diplomatic side, and if diplomacy fails then they enter the war on ROK's side...they still pledged their loyalty to ROK, they just wanted to see if they could possible resolve the conflict fast as possible. they were in no way backing out of their treaty in this sense

- ROK dropping ADI....gotta say this bit is $%&@ed up lol...everytime i've read through this thread i've found numerous ADI members pledging to their treaty partner while at the same time defending themselves from the same people. and ROK immediately dropping ADI not going in on the aggressive part of the war, imho, sounds liike they are trying to strong-arm people

i realize this post is going to get tore up but oh well it's my first real post in the OWF anyway ...though i am curious as to see which parts people will be picking at

Edited December 29, 2009 by Lurunin

[ChairmanHal]

Hmm...

Posting this OP took courage, assuming it was done with the full knowledge of what the consequences might be. Clearly ADI holds its treaty partner to a higher standard when it comes to the use of force. From the information I gathered reading this thread, it is understandable why. Honestly though, ADI, you should have put that into the wording of the treaty. This is why non-chaining clauses were invented.

The OP is correct--ADI is under no obligation to attack anyone just because Hoo says so or because it is convenient for Rok. On the other hand, the treaty is pretty unambiguous as to what should happen if Ragnarok is attacked. Aid is obligatory.

My suggestion to ADI...this ship having now sailed so to speak...would be to work out the details of a treaty cancellation with Ragnarok as soon as possible. Ragnarok obviously does not care about your objections and intends to prosecute this war to the fullest extent possible. I believe that you will easily find other alliances that will be willing to treaty with you instead, so long as you make your desire for a non-chaining clause clear in any negotiations.

I wish you well ADI, now and into the future.

[Tulafaras]

the way i see it is this: (sorry to the mods but some parts easiest to explain it OOC)

- ADI has conflicting treaties, they choose neutrality and diplomacy over breaking either treaty and try to resolve this conflict

- to their treaty with ROK, they had an obligation to defend ROK yes, but not to fight every aggressive war they do, correct?

- (OOC) to those saying that TPF and ROK/Athens were not technically at war with one another, i ask you to look at WWII with the Axis powers fighting the Allies. One attack on their ally would result in an attack on themselves. From wat i've come across so far, that looks exactly to what has happened in this instance.

- As for this war, imo: should TPF be given a lesson for spying? YES...should they be sentenced to PermaZI? NO...there is a huge difference in both and i believe there should be talks to try and resolve this and find out just how long of a lesson is needed...

- Now i have to admit that this announcement could've been made a bit better(sorry Warbuck), but it still stands that ADI has chosen a diplomatic side, and if diplomacy fails then they enter the war on ROK's side...they still pledged their loyalty to ROK, they just wanted to see if they could possible resolve the conflict fast as possible. they were in no way backing out of their treaty in this sense

- ROK dropping ADI....gotta say this bit is $%&@ed up lol...everytime i've read through this thread i've found numerous ADI members pledging to their treaty partner while at the same time defending themselves from the same people. and ROK immediately dropping ADI not going in on the aggressive part of the war, imho, sounds liike they are trying to strong-arm people

i realize this post is going to get tore up but oh well it's my first real post in the OWF anyway ...though i am curious as to see which parts people will be picking at

going by your points in order:

1) If ADI had simply said they want to remain neutral nothing would have happened. Rok might have been disappointed but that would probably be it. Instead they said they had Rok's back and then did a flipflop and posted this thread.

2) they were never asked to support the attack on TPF directly (frankly there wouldn't even be any slots for them if they wanted to)

3) we do not use OOC examples as a rule. In your example there were a number of nations who were at war with one part of the axis coalition but not involved at all on another front. The seperation of fronts during Karma was real and accepted at the point. There were a number of heated discussions regarding specific surrenders where alliances were not satisfied with the result, if they had had a voice (as you imply) those would not have happened.

4) Who said anything about PermaZI?

5) it is well and good to say "could you please try diplomacy" but if Rok's reply is "No" (which wasn't even the case, Hoo talked to TPF the day this was posted) then you can either accept that or not. You are still missing the point, that being that Rok pretty much raised and protected ADI from nothing and now instead of repaying that friendship they choose to treat them badly to say the least.

6) Frankly no matter how fast they backpeddle an action such as this OP is not something your diplomacy can easily survive. The reason you see "private channels ftw" posted that often, is because it is generally accepted that if you have a problem with your allies conduct during wartime you convey such problems in private. Once you have started to feed the trolls nothing can be done to stop it.

[Valtamdraugr]

ADI have not said they wouldnt defend RoK against a counter attacl, they just stated they will not go in via the optional aggresion part that your leader wants them to. They refuse to be the puppet RoK want them to be so get their treaty cancelled. Its funny really, your leadership tries to control the smaller alliances they are tied to, but dont dare try touching one the size of MHA.

You quoted me but did you not read what I wrote?

Hoo TOLD them they were not needed for what you consider an aggression and what we consider a response to aggression.

They said they would have our backs in private and then renegged.

They broke the treaty, and we canceled.

Control? No.. expect them to honor the word and spirit of the treaty? Wow.. yeah, that's way outta line.

[welshgazza1992]

Hmm...

My suggestion to ADI...this ship having now sailed so to speak...would be to work out the details of a treaty cancellation with Ragnarok as soon as possible.

Ragnarok has cancelled the treaty with ADI. The logs were posted a while back... you've not read the whole topic... you've therefore not got the whole story.

[ChairmanHal]

Ragnarok has cancelled the treaty with ADI. The logs were posted a while back... you've not read the whole topic... you've therefore not got the whole story.

Meh...that post took way too long to compose...I was in and out of the room quite a bit.

But yeah, if the treaty is done it is probably for the best of all concerned. The rest of my recommendations stand, as does my desire that ADI find allies that understand their special concerns.

We can't all roll tanks on the drop of the hat...that takes talent.

EDIT: Back to work...I have a desk to attack IC and OOC

Edited December 29, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[HalfEmpty]

We wish to be there first hand to see if TPF is as stubborn as the claims people make indicate.

Nope, we're nothing if not reasonable folks, we are remaking ourselves in the image of AJ that there might be plenti of peanut butter cookies.

sRSLY

Strong OP tho. Hang tough.

[Mathias]

E-lawyering or not, it's pretty lame that you won't defend your allies in a war, regardless of what the treaty says. RoK doesn't need a mediator, they need friends they can rely on through thick and thin.

Poor show ADI.

[Lurunin]

going by your points in order:

1) If ADI had simply said they want to remain neutral nothing would have happened. Rok might have been disappointed but that would probably be it. Instead they said they had Rok's back and then did a flipflop and posted this thread.

2) they were never asked to support the attack on TPF directly (frankly there wouldn't even be any slots for them if they wanted to)

3) we do not use OOC examples as a rule. In your example there were a number of nations who were at war with one part of the axis coalition but not involved at all on another front. The seperation of fronts during Karma was real and accepted at the point. There were a number of heated discussions regarding specific surrenders where alliances were not satisfied with the result, if they had had a voice (as you imply) those would not have happened.

4) Who said anything about PermaZI?

5) it is well and good to say "could you please try diplomacy" but if Rok's reply is "No" (which wasn't even the case, Hoo talked to TPF the day this was posted) then you can either accept that or not. You are still missing the point, that being that Rok pretty much raised and protected ADI from nothing and now instead of repaying that friendship they choose to treat them badly to say the least.

6) Frankly no matter how fast they backpeddle an action such as this OP is not something your diplomacy can easily survive. The reason you see "private channels ftw" posted that often, is because it is generally accepted that if you have a problem with your allies conduct during wartime you convey such problems in private. Once you have started to feed the trolls nothing can be done to stop it.

1- i agree that ADI did not conduct this announcement in the best way possible(i believe that i even stated that in my post). in one sense it can be said they did do a flipflop, in another you can also say that ADI never did. Warbuck even states in the OP that after diplomatic talks, if they fail, ADI will jump in on ROK's side and "defend RoK to the death". yes it could look like a slap in the face for not immediately jumping into the fray but reread everything and they state they will jump in soon as diplomacy fails

2/4- i have come across a few posts that stated such, in other words though...i'll try and find them when i have more time on my hands

3- i realize that but it was the best way i could make my point. you are right that there are some nations did not declare war on all parties other than a few, but you can also argue that that was done out of ability for them to even send a military force to another front line. (also the Tripartite Treaty signed by a number of the Axis powers stipulated that they were to come to the aid of their ally if their ally was attacked, this would include why one nation could be at war with another and not also a 3rd)

5- yes Rok aided and protected ADI from the start, in turn ADI continually pledge to Rok. ADI stated that they would like to me a mediator in talks between the involved parties, Rok might have had talks with TPF but from the sound of it ADI was not present to witness how those talks went. and nowadays it seems that noone is willing to trust screenshots nor logs anymore

6- i do realize that this announcement hurt diplomatic relations between ADI and Rok, but that would have been done even if ADI had talked to Rok a week straight about the matter from the look of it.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Congratulations ADI membership. Way to go. You are a diplomacy right? Each and everyone of you is responsible for this attempt to tar and feather those that held out their hand to you, stood by you. Go right ahead, reach down, hack up a bigger better loogie and let it fly in our face again. Go ahead, do it again. Why not do it to me, instead of the whole of Ragnarok, after all i am the guy that admitted you into Ragnablok in the first place, so its all my fault anyways.

I would like to wish you luck in your future endeavors, i am sure you will understand why i cant do that, not anymore.