So I was just wondering......

[Sup4l33t3ki11a]

Concerning the recent events, it brings to light the issue of "Can I trust my own MDoAP partners?"

Discus. I'm 99.9% sure I can trust mine.

[Mustakrakish II]

Its basically saying "we like you enough that we will defend you, and if you ask, we might join up in an attack if we agree with your decision"

[Sandwich Controversy]

Trust no one.

[Kzoppistan]

MDoAP

The point is to have a treaty with an alliance one is comfortable enough to know that they have their back, and common enough views that there is a chance they will join in on an aggressive venture.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[lonewolfe2015]

The definitions are going to be consistent, but why not bring up if there is any point to them? I think signing a MDP should mean that you don't need to set aggressive clauses because if you wanna go in you should be able to without e-lawyers bothering you.

But regardless, the masses sign it to avoid any stipulations (such as ourselves)

[Chief Savage Man]

We trust all of our allies.

[VincentV27]

The point is that it allows the alliance to aid if they see the need. There seems to be such a disdain for alliances that declare war in support of alliances they are not officially allied with that any treaty, including a MDoAP is necessary for an alliance to keep it's honor should it wish to enter war.

On the other hand, most treaties are optional in their effectiveness, such being the case, the point of signing the stupid treaty in the first place is questionable.

I think we should do away with treaties and just let alliances do as they please. The treaties obviously mean nothing. The vast majority are only signed for security anyway, and if they don't give you what you want, why bother?

[hizzy]

It's actually funny... back in the day almost nobody had MDoAP's... MDP was the solid treaty. But then weird !@#$ started happening. Wars would break out, A would attack X, Y would counter against A, B would hit Y, Z would hit B.... etc. Now as we all know, the internet contains the highest percentage of people aspiring to be lawyers, so they consistently !@#$ all over our metaphorical carpet of good times by playing the word game with just about anything.

Eventually the argument comes up: "hey, how can you activate your mutual DEFENSE pact with someone who is engaged in offensive war, and simply got hit in return?" "Hold on a second there Susan, even if Johnny there did something mean to Patrick, that doesn't mean going to war is a defensive action, you can't help him with just an MDP!"

So I presume in an effort to shut all the lawyers up (the effort to launch them all into the sun wasn't too practical), people began adding the 'oA' to their treaties... this freed them from the constraints of having to justify their actions and arguing about what constitutes "defense" and "offense". It went so far that some people began to explicitly state in their treaties that if someone gets punched in the jaw for reading little Darla's diary, then they're on there own and not covered by an MDP.

Of course, the biggest flaw in this theory is the fact that people actually felt like they had to justify something that they did in a text-based game to a bunch of pretentious jackasses on the internet.

[Xiphosis]

Trust no one.

Pretty much this, yeah. Love people, like people, mingle, but don't leave your neck open.

[Druss the Legend]

I'm 100% sure I can trust mine.

[Bob]

I offer a different thesis then babyjesus.

Trust only yourself.

[mythicknight]

For the most part.

[Ogaden]

A treaty is like a rare and precious gem, in that they are valuable precisely because they are rare. The more there are, the less valuable yours is.

Some people cause what I like to call "treaty inflation" by devaluing their treaties by signing a dozen of them with people they barely know.

Edited December 28, 2009 by James Dahl

[Fantastico]

Concerning the recent events, it brings to light the issue of "Can I trust my own MDoAP partners?"

Discuss. I'm 99.9% sure I can trust mine.

Wise men put their trust in ideas and not in circumstances.

(stolen from Emerson)

Also, aren't you allied to the Sith?

[Delta1212]

I offer a different thesis then babyjesus.

Trust only yourself.

Eventually, even you will betray you.

[Omniscient1]

I trust all of GATO's current MDoAP partners because we have none

[Lord Boris]

Pretty much this, yeah. Love people, like people, mingle, but don't leave your neck open.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Xiphosis on this topic. Somebody shoot me now.

But anyways, I'm of the opinion that MDoAPs don't mean much these days largely for the reason that too many treatied relationships these days start at this level. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see PIATs/ODPs building up eventually into MDPs, rather than immediately signing MDPs for the hell of it.

[Canik]

FEAR trusts her allies to do what's right and we wouldn't ask them otherwise.

Also, as of all our partners right now, I trust them to defend us completely.

[Dr Roflcopter]

It depends on the alliance, yo. Some MDoAP partners are better than others.

[Sup4l33t3ki11a]

Wise men put their trust in ideas and not in circumstances.

(stolen from Emerson)

Also, aren't you allied to the Sith?

A lovely Irony. I can't say I would let my babies wander over there and expect them to come back jedi's.

[Tushar Dhoot]

It's actually funny... back in the day almost nobody had MDoAP's... MDP was the solid treaty. But then weird !@#$ started happening. Wars would break out, A would attack X, Y would counter against A, B would hit Y, Z would hit B.... etc. Now as we all know, the internet contains the highest percentage of people aspiring to be lawyers, so they consistently !@#$ all over our metaphorical carpet of good times by playing the word game with just about anything.

Eventually the argument comes up: "hey, how can you activate your mutual DEFENSE pact with someone who is engaged in offensive war, and simply got hit in return?" "Hold on a second there Susan, even if Johnny there did something mean to Patrick, that doesn't mean going to war is a defensive action, you can't help him with just an MDP!"

So I presume in an effort to shut all the lawyers up (the effort to launch them all into the sun wasn't too practical), people began adding the 'oA' to their treaties... this freed them from the constraints of having to justify their actions and arguing about what constitutes "defense" and "offense". It went so far that some people began to explicitly state in their treaties that if someone gets punched in the jaw for reading little Darla's diary, then they're on there own and not covered by an MDP.

Of course, the biggest flaw in this theory is the fact that people actually felt like they had to justify something that they did in a text-based game to a bunch of pretentious jackasses on the internet.

This is probably the best post I have read on the OWF this whole year. Well done.

[gantanX]

i trust nobody,

not even myself

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I dislike the notion that optionals need to be made into treaties as well. I'd be perfectly happy to make it an MDP and leave it at that, so far as I am concerned we all have ODAPs with everyone else by default anyway. BUT, I can defend it nonetheless, it's not totally senseless.

Given that sovereignty implies we have a right to engage in these actions at our discretion anyway, which concept I will refer to as GODAP for short hand. The effects of signing an MDP are two - it transforms the universal option to defend those who are attacked into a contractual obligation, for each party, in regards to the other. It also, importantly, serves notice on all other parties of that obligation. After observing the game for quite some time I have come to the conclusion that it is the second, not the first, of these effects which is really most important. Given the unfortunately high number of players who profess to find peactime boring and are therefore constantly angling for wars, signing formal treaties and announcing them makes sense primarily as a way to give those players fair warning of defensive arrangements, to reduce the whining that occurs when a band of warmongers run into more opposition than they expected and get a real war instead of the one-sided "fun" they wanted. I am not sure it works, there is sure plenty of whining even so, but to be fair it does seem to have some effect - there does seem to be generally more whining when there has been less notice via treaty, even if whining at one level or another is a constant.

So, we sign an MDP to reduce whining when we decide to defend a friend from attack. We might then (and some do) go further and sign an MAD-Pact to reduce whining when we decide to aid a friend in war, even though he wasnt exactly subject to an unprovoked attack which would properly trigger an MDP.

But the problem with MAD-Pacts are numerous. Although they always seem to have a 'sovereignty clause' they still contradict sovereignty, first off. If you will always fight when your friends fight, never make your own decision on the matter, why dont you just merge and make one alliance? Seriously.

Also while very few people would really have a problem coming to the aid of an ally unjustly attacked, or even joining our friends in a situation that might be a little less clear-cut, but where we do feel they are in the right nonetheless, not everyone thinks it is in any way honourable to jump into war supporting someone who started a war without need, just for lulz or the like. If you are in that camp, it seems even less honourable to sign a peace of paper saying you will do so, as that will only encourage such behaviour from your allies. They might think twice about smashing x-random-alliance for kicks if they have to wonder whether their allies will support them, where they would have no second thoughts with a bunch MAD-Pacts obligating support from those allies regardless. So signing a MADP in and of itself can be seen as an immoral act, unecessarily tempting your friends to get in trouble without cause.

So develops the MDoAP. It serves the purpose of warning potential whiners of your interest, and the likelihood you will stomp them if they go to war against your friends, regardless of how or why, without actually signing over your own sovereignty, or giving an ill-advised guarantee to back aggressive actions of any kind at any point which might encourage your friends to go around acting like jackasses when they otherwise would be more sensible.