An announcement from ADI

[Stilgar]

1) They didn't say they wouldn't defeand you, they said they wouldn't go in and attack for you.

11[13:23] <VanHooIII[RoK]> Yes

[13:23] <Warbuck[ADI]> Did you know that FEAR had a MADP with TPF?

11[13:24] <VanHooIII[RoK]> Yes

[13:24] <Warbuck[ADI]> Why didn't you tell me? sad.gif

11[13:24] <VanHooIII[RoK]> I figured you knew that?

11[13:25] <VanHooIII[RoK]> You gotta look up a Wiki when war looms, dude tongue.gif

[13:25] <Warbuck[ADI]> I asked who their allies were- you gave me a list- TPF wasn't on it

11[13:25] <VanHooIII[RoK]> I listed the ones off the top of my head

[13:25] <Warbuck[ADI]> I asked if this would conflict with FEAR, you said we'd just end up staying away from each other

11[13:25] <VanHooIII[RoK]> Yes, stay away from eachother

11[13:25] <VanHooIII[RoK]> If RoK is hit, you're obligated to defend

11[13:26] <VanHooIII[RoK]> If FEAR goes on the offensive in defense of TPF, you don't need to come with them

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

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

11[13:26] <VanHooIII[RoK]> I know, I am just laying it all out for you wink.gif

[13:26] <Warbuck[ADI]> RoK is the priority in all our treaty partners

Just in case you missed this one the last thousand times it was posted . As far as I know, Ragnarok's main issue with ADI is that the privately expressed support for us, saying they WILL defend us, then suddenly posted this on the OWF. Not only are we hurt by the sudden turnaround, but the fact that they did not come to us to talk about it stings too.

[Valtamdraugr]

I'll take this in order.

1) They didn't say they wouldn't defeand you, they said they wouldn't go in and attack for you.

*We* told them they weren't needed in our response to TPF aggression, and if you think that wanting my alliance destroyed from the inside is *not* aggressive... then i cannot help you with the rest...but... they stated in private that they *would* defend...and then.. this,

(snip)

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.

(snip)

I stand corrected, they "publicly" added stipulation to the defense portion of the treaty... hanging defense over our heads in return for their mediation in talks between Rok and parties they were not allied to. And *we're* supposed to be the big baddies...sure.

2) You attacked TPF, that is agression. I don't care if you want to sugar coat it, but they are not obligated to attack with you.

See above, bolded...(this is getting old) Our attack on TPF was in response to...oh eff it!!

3) Yes meat sheld, they said we have your back. In public they say they won't go to war with you in agression and how they feel about it, you in return cancel the treaty, yea you wanted a meat sheild and a tool, they are neither so you canceled the treaty, wow thats sticking it to them.

see above, I think I covered it.

Skip my point if you will, but Rok don't need meat-shields...ever.

[Beauchamp]

lol. bye ADI.

o/ RoK

Edited December 31, 2009 by Beauchamp

[Canik]

lol. bye ADI.

o/ RoK

Heh, where is ADI going? Did I miss a DoW somewhere? I'm pretty sure ADI is neutral. XD

[juanveldez]

maybe I am being thick here but I dont see how arguing the point is going to change things. ADI got canceled on because they tried to make the defese part of their treaty optional RoK doesnt need that crap plain and simple we threw them out with yesterdays garbage.

[Confusion]

[The Manbearpig]

A wise decision ADI.

Big shoutout to Nugs and Handles!

[DragonMage018]

Athens provides a legitimate CB for this war, ROK follows in step... You should go check that out, i'll even link you to the announcement. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=76885

Logs prove it. Even though Londo has a history of faking logs >.>

Edited December 31, 2009 by DragonMage018

[King Wally]

See you later ADI... I dont want people like you within 50 foot of one of our treaty's.

Words are cheap, actions tell the true story.

Edited December 31, 2009 by King Wally

[Starbuck]

*We* told them they weren't needed in our response to TPF aggression, and if you think that wanting my alliance destroyed from the inside is *not* aggressive... then i cannot help you with the rest...but... they stated in private that they *would* defend...and then.. this,

I stand corrected, they "publicly" added stipulation to the defense portion of the treaty... hanging defense over our heads in return for their mediation in talks between Rok and parties they were not allied to. And *we're* supposed to be the big baddies...sure.

See above, bolded...(this is getting old) Our attack on TPF was in response to...oh eff it!!

see above, I think I covered it.

Skip my point if you will, but Rok don't need meat-shields...ever.

I'll simply leave it that we disagree on the nature of this war, and that ADI never said they would't defend you should you come under attack, only that they wouldn't defend you against TPF unless you tried to be peaceful. Now you cancell, your right yes, but it is what people do when meat sheilds don't work for them.

maybe I am being thick here but I dont see how arguing the point is going to change things. ADI got canceled on because they tried to make the defese part of their treaty optional RoK doesnt need that crap plain and simple we threw them out with yesterdays garbage.

Again, a meat sheild stood up for themselves and you didn't like it

Athens provides a legitimate CB for this war, ROK follows in step... You should go check that out, i'll even link you to the announcement. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=76885

Logs prove it. Even though Londo has a history of faking logs >.>

You make a nice point, RoK attacked TPF, ADI isn't required to help in that.

See you later ADI... I dont want people like you within 50 foot of one of our treaty's.

Words are cheap, actions tell the true story.

That is true, so where were you when NPO needed you in their lossing war, oh thats right it's only cowardise when it's done to you.

[Bob Janova]

our response to TPF aggression, and if you think that wanting my alliance destroyed from the inside is *not* aggressive... then i cannot help you with the rest

I don't think you're really stupid enough to believe this. Even for Athens, they declared a war where there was none before – that makes them aggressors. But there never was anything done to Ragnarok, so even if you (incorrectly) think that starting a war with a good CB (note: I'm not saying that Athens have a good CB, see the various other threads) would make you defenders, that argument doesn't apply to RoK.

Since the ADI treaty had an explicit no chaining cause, at no time during this war would ADI ever be obliged to 'defend' you. They may have made a mistake by posting this thread instead of telling you that directly, but they have not backed out of anything, and it says in the OP that they would have joined your side if you act reasonably in the war, despite not being obliged to do so.

There is significant bad behaviour on both sides of this dispute, and a most un-Aqua hostility in the air in here.

[juanveldez]

I don't think you're really stupid enough to believe this. Even for Athens, they declared a war where there was none before – that makes them aggressors. But there never was anything done to Ragnarok, so even if you (incorrectly) think that starting a war with a good CB (note: I'm not saying that Athens have a good CB, see the various other threads) would make you defenders, that argument doesn't apply to RoK.

Since the ADI treaty had an explicit no chaining cause, at no time during this war would ADI ever be obliged to 'defend' you. They may have made a mistake by posting this thread instead of telling you that directly, but they have not backed out of anything, and it says in the OP that they would have joined your side if you act reasonably in the war, despite not being obliged to do so.

There is significant bad behaviour on both sides of this dispute, and a most un-Aqua hostility in the air in here.

Bob dont think I am calling you out or anything, yours was the first post and I didnt feel like sifting through hundreds of em to quote each one.

My issue lies with not so much that ADI decided to grow a backbone I have no issue with that at all its their AA more power to them. The issue here goes to a couple of key points that everybody keeps stepping around.

1. they made what they call a "resonable demand" that RoK seek peace with TPF. Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong but if you went to any of your allies and demanded that they do what you like without you knowing the entire story I am pretty sure that they will laugh in your face.

2. nobody here is questioning the fact that ADI had the right to back out and not defend it is their right what has been questioned is the method in which they chose to back out. Of course which ended in their treaty being canceled and now of course the ensuing baw fest.

Edited December 31, 2009 by juanveldez

[Bob Janova]

If I am an MDP partner, and my ally starts an aggressive war with no diplomacy, apparently no understanding of the potential treaty implications (the potential breakdown of SF/C&G vs Citadel/ex-Hegemony) and no attempt to consult me first, I would certainly place conditions on putting my neck on the line for them. To back up any action taken by a treaty partner is not friendship, it is subservience and it enables unjustified aggression. (See many actions taken by the Hegemony for examples of that.)

Essentially, friends are there to ensure that friends don't get hurt by others. They're not there to insulate each other from the consequences of their own stupidity.

The 'baw fest' was started by Ragnarok in this very thread, and the cancellation was essentially an institutional 'baw'. Yes, ADI's method of making their point was bad – they're an inexperienced alliance, and this is their first major international incident. They've been 'brought up' by RoK who have (at least on the outer face) a robust approach to international affairs (for example, Hoo's other thread) and have made an error in their application of that style.

[juanveldez]

okay then that being said I think it was established that attempts had been made to diplomatically solve this between RoK and TPF prior to the onset of the current hostilities they went no where. but ADI never asked that question. I agree they are inexperienced when it comes to international affairs, they did make the mistake. but the simple fact remains that the hostilities were started, and again I agree that if they felt that it was necessary to stop RoK from making a mistake then it was their responsibility to seek the proper channels. the continuation of people making RoK out to be the big bad wolf in all this is pure conjecture at this point. nobody here can honestly say that if a friend had gone and said yep we got your back, then before coming to you in private and that is the key there they went here to the OWF first, and saying, hey we really dont think you should do this. I do not see the fault in the resulting action which was the cancellation of the treaty. it is obvious that the 'friend' is at that point only out to embarrass you further raither than to attempt to save your neck.

[Bob Janova]

I think it was established that attempts had been made to diplomatically solve this between RoK and TPF prior to the onset of the current hostilities

I don't think it has ... the story I'm aware of has intel being given to Athens on the 25th, preliminary planning taking place on the 26th and the attack being moved forward to just after the update of the 26th/27th due to an apparent leak, with no diplomacy taking place.

[juanveldez]

you are correct in that talks had not taken place until after the war had started, I had it in my head that it was prior so I was incorrect in that however talks had taken place prior to the cancellation of the treaty as pointed out here in this post by Hoo.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2061243