TPF MADP Treaties

[Dochartaigh]

Frankly I give it a 50/50 - coming to the rescue now is dumb, especially with the possibility of this whole mess turning into some sort of stupid SF/CnG/FB beatdown on Citadel and the Hegemony leftovers. Nobody really wants a global war over something this dumb, especially with all the 'verse-irrelevant (read: OOC) garbage tossed in. Just put the Phoenix back in the oven and be done with it.

honestly, what "verse-irrelevant" garbage has been tossed in? the relevant facts laid out by ZH have been confirmed by TPF. all those actions were IC. thus, the whole "verse-irrelevant" crap posted by ZH, TPF, Shuru are inconsequential and matter very little to the reason for this war. the falling out between ZH and TPF was a catalyst for this war, but by no means does that make it relevant enough to even be considered at all. all that Shuru said basically comes to a net sum of -1 in matters of importance. the only people who place any relevancy on it seem to be TPF and their allies.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Thanks for the wall of text, but it really summed down to you think that TPF's allies don't need to come and it is your opinion they won't.

You obviously didnt read what I wrote, because that is NOT what I said. Not even close.

[Rob Holmes IIi]

Zenith is a direct democracy by the members, who are all allied to one another by choice and friendship, and being as such any treaty that Zenith is entered into must be voted on by its members. This essentially leaves the language of the treaty up to the interpretation of the members of those about to honor it. The downside to this is that, according to Zenith's charter, it will take at least 48 hours to vote on any such matter, which heavily delays action for or against an ally. Democracy has it's downsides, but it is the path that Zenith has chosen to follow, but make no mistake, Zenith values its allies. A delay to act should not be taken as a sign of laziness or hesitation, but rather as a garuntee that we do things by the book, our charter being the highest law of our allegience to one another, followed by our treaties to those others to whom we hold friendships.

[Augustus Autumn]

honestly, what "verse-irrelevant" garbage has been tossed in? the relevant facts laid out by ZH have been confirmed by TPF. all those actions were IC. thus, the whole "verse-irrelevant" crap posted by ZH, TPF, Shuru are inconsequential and matter very little to the reason for this war. the falling out between ZH and TPF was a catalyst for this war, but by no means does that make it relevant enough to even be considered at all. all that Shuru said basically comes to a net sum of -1 in matters of importance. the only people who place any relevancy on it seem to be TPF and their allies.

I'm referring to the massive now-nonexistent discussion concerning Zero Hour's supposed motivations for giving the information to Athens and Ragnorok as displayed by Shurukian and all the drama that followed. That was all rather irrelevant to the central issue, that being that The Phoenix Federation engaged in an operation designed to destabilize another alliance. Because of that mess I doubt that any other alliance leader would want to touch this disaster for fear of looking like either 1) they were condoning that nonsense or 2) were condoning sabotage.

The issues brought up here rotate around honoring treaties. The discussion seems to have polarized: if you honor them with someone who did something stupid them you're an idiot and should cancel -or- if you don't honor them then you're a coward. Basically, the only way to come out looking good is if you honor a treaty with the victim party. As The Phoenix Federation has been painted as the aggressor here Zenith, the Independent Republic of Orange Nations and all the others need to consider how badly they'll suffer both publicly and in terms when they lose this war. And yes, they will lose this war - the numbers indicate as much unless there is a major shift in alignments very quickly.

Do you take your alliance in knowing that you're potentially defending someone for doing something stupid and irresponsible? Can you justify that to your alliance? Will they actually follow you or will bringing your alliance to battle under these circumstances break them? These are important questions that should be considered. I'd hope that's what is keeping people from jumping in right now - actually thinking for once rather than acting like lemmings.

Zenith is a direct democracy by the members, who are all allied to one another by choice and friendship, and being as such any treaty that Zenith is entered into must be voted on by its members. This essentially leaves the language of the treaty up to the interpretation of the members of those about to honor it. The downside to this is that, according to Zenith's charter, it will take at least 48 hours to vote on any such matter, which heavily delays action for or against an ally. Democracy has it's downsides, but it is the path that Zenith has chosen to follow, but make no mistake, Zenith values its allies. A delay to act should not be taken as a sign of laziness or hesitation, but rather as a garuntee that we do things by the book, our charter being the highest law of our allegience to one another, followed by our treaties to those others to whom we hold friendships.

Thank you, Zenith, for actually validating my hopes. It's nice when that happens.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni

[Rob Holmes IIi]

Nevermind you seem to have read what I wrote.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Rob Holmes IIi

[Augustus Autumn]

Again, Zenith votes as a membership on war no matter the treaty. If we were to hypothetically commit suicide by entering this war, we would do it of our own accord, and every member entering would approve.

Hence my amended comment concerning Zenith.

[Rob Holmes IIi]

Hence my amended comment concerning Zenith.

I saw that and thought, "he will probably quote me and make me look like an idiot as I'm amending this." lol. Thank you for the recognition. We are usually a quiet little alliance (and no I'm not a gov't member to those wondering, just a regular joe) but we truly do value our allies.

[Augustus Autumn]

I saw that and thought, "he will probably quote me and make me look like an idiot as I'm amending this." lol. Thank you for the recognition. We are usually a quiet little alliance (and no I'm not a gov't member to those wondering, just a regular joe) but we truly do value our allies.

I've actually been quite fond of Zenith for a long time, starting from back during the days leading up to the Karma War. While actually getting input from your alliance is often seen as time consuming and stupid, considering that people all to often assume that being in an alliance is anything but voluntary it gives some authority back to the population. By all means, march into hell guns blazing but at least know that you're doing it.

[Nintenderek]

I don't care what the treaties say. Friends are friends no matter what, and you defend them when they need help. That's just how it is.

[Augustus Autumn]

I don't care what the treaties say. Friends are friends no matter what, and you defend them when they need help. That's just how it is.

Not in this 'verse, unfortunately. Then again, treaties never really mean friends. It's not like I create a document every time I go out to the local drinking establishment and meet some cool folk who I end up hanging out with repeatedly.

[Roadie]

What matters is: Where are their allies?

They're precisely where they should be.

[Bob Janova]

I don't care what the treaties say. Friends are friends no matter what, and you defend them when they need help. That's just how it is.

'Friends' and 'treaty partners' mean something different. Most treaties are strategic.

[Kalabac]

Not in this 'verse, unfortunately. Then again, treaties never really mean friends. It's not like I create a document every time I go out to the local drinking establishment and meet some cool folk who I end up hanging out with repeatedly.

So, clearly the metaphor breaks down between online fictional nations and IRL interpersonal relationships.

[Augustus Autumn]

So, clearly the metaphor breaks down between online fictional nations and IRL interpersonal relationships.

What is this IRL you're referring to? National rulers get to go out to the bar once in a while, especially when they only lord over 59 other people.

[SpacingOutMan]

I'm sorry, but if you sign an obligatory treaty with someone, and then back out of that treaty because of a technicality, you deserve absolutely no respect as an alliance. If TPF's allies lawyer their way out of this, they are absolutely pathetic. [Rehash] To even make an obligatory treaty optional is downright stupid. [/Rehash]

[Aratar]

That's Hyperbole. 3 days in the context of a war is very little. It's actually quite amusing watching you and others whining about the lack of a response, and losing sleep each night that passes. It will or won't happen, not when you choose, but when we choose.

If I was a direct ally of Athens, GOD, Ragnarok or \m/, I'd seriously consider a preemptive strike on BAPS on next update after reading this.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Aratar

[Augustus Autumn]

I'm sorry, but if you sign an obligatory treaty with someone, and then back out of that treaty because of a technicality, you deserve absolutely no respect as an alliance. If TPF's allies lawyer their way out of this, they are absolutely pathetic. [Rehash] To even make an obligatory treaty optional is downright stupid. [/Rehash]

Again, welcome to the 'verse. Not that this is a bad thing. Maybe people will get a close and the word "mandatory" will start getting dropped from treaties.

[SpacingOutMan]

Again, welcome to the 'verse. Not that this is a bad thing. Maybe people will get a close and the word "mandatory" will start getting dropped from treaties.

It's frustrating to see as a former foreign affairs head to watch allies just drop out of the mix because they want to protect their precious [OOC: pixels]. I've signed quite a few treaties during my two terms, and every single one when I put mutual defense or mutual aggression (or both), I knew for a fact that if something should happen to them, we would be fighting for their cause.

I would have thought this would have been a lesson learned a while ago from the Karma War, but apparently not. So I will air it once more.

DON'T SIGN MUTUAL DEFENSE OR AGGRESSION TREATIES WITH ALLIANCES THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT WITH. Because in the end, when you duck out of that war when you were supposed to come to their aid, you just look like chicken!@#$.

[Kalabac]

I'm sorry, but if you sign an obligatory treaty with someone, and then back out of that treaty because of a technicality, you deserve absolutely no respect as an alliance. If TPF's allies lawyer their way out of this, they are absolutely pathetic. [Rehash] To even make an obligatory treaty optional is downright stupid. [/Rehash]

/every thread

[Augustus Autumn]

It's frustrating to see as a former foreign affairs head to watch allies just drop out of the mix because they want to protect their precious [OOC: pixels]. I've signed quite a few treaties during my two terms, and every single one when I put mutual defense or mutual aggression (or both), I knew for a fact that if something should happen to them, we would be fighting for their cause.

Understandable.

I would have thought this would have been a lesson learned a while ago from the Karma War, but apparently not. So I will air it once more.

Actually, the Karma War taught people to be careful about honoring their treaties and how they went about it. As I noted before, if you're going to be on the losing end it's all about presenting your commitment as being honorable and above reproach - waiting more than one update, attempting to negotiate and that sort of reasonable stuff tends to make you look like a pansy trying to wriggle out, then coming in after makes you look like you were shamed into it.

If you're on the winning side, awesome, hop on and make your bullets count. If you're on the losing side then you'll be rewarded with recriminations, name-calling and lots of other fun things followed by being tech-farmed and generally stomped on while being shoved aside in favor of the bigger kids. Oh, and if you're the leader you'll probably be blamed for losing.

DON'T SIGN MUTUAL DEFENSE OR AGGRESSION TREATIES WITH ALLIANCES THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT WITH. Because in the end, when you duck out of that war when you were supposed to come to their aid, you just look like chicken!@#$.

Maybe it comes down to people actually either 1) being more careful about who they sign with or 2) writing better treaties. Frankly, not including a pretty clear definition of the words "defend" and "defense" in an mandatory defense treaty is pretty stupid. Also, people still chase the day when an MDoAP/MDAP was actually scary. Now they're just moronic.

[Branimir]

E-lawyering treaties can be fun if you are bored as !@#$.

You can always find a way to weasel yourself out of them, as well as, activate them. People will always have a opinion about the path you take. In the end its all about strategy and friendship. I am not fully up to date with TPF's treaties and their allies actions, I am not in the loop with the latest irc rumors, but TPF asked for military help from its allies and if they are friends and true partners of theirs-- they will help, meaning they do have a obligation. That is, as I so perceive it, the general consensus and views of people about such things, and thus, the reaction seen also accumulated by certain people waiting in the wings to jump in and curbstomp some more people then just TPF.

You can waste your time with e-lawyering treaties all you want, its ultimately irrelevant. Majority considers that in such case there is a obligation, no matter how you spin that !@#$.

I am sure most of us wanted certain big alliance to join, so to make this curbstomp more interesting but unfortunately it will remain an old fashioned gangbang of the weakest political opponent you can find--- so to not lose too much infra. Which is not that interesting to observe or to take a part of.

[Alterego]

If I was a direct ally of Athens, GOD, Ragnarok or \m/, I'd seriously consider a preemptive strike on BAPS on next update after reading this.

The lack of sleep is making you lot paranoid. Get the coco on boys it could be another slow one tonight

[White Chocolate]

Now hear is a thread that I can sink my teeth into. Lander Clan requires all head's of state to be legally trained, you know. (OCC: I am in real life.)

Perhaps it would be a good time to announce my treaty writing business

Anyway, to the question at hand. I did actually read the treaties.

NEW is obligated. I don't see anything there that they could arguably use as an excuse.

FEAR

FEAR, if you stretch it, has an argument. Yes they have a statement saying spying is bad but nothing stating there is an automatic cancellation if it's done. I'd call the statement "aspirational" and not "self-canceling." This is based on the theory that IF they wanted it to be anything more than aspirational or applying to the act between their own alliances only, then they would have actually spelled it out. Also, I think if they are going to use this point, then they are obligated to look at the evidence, without taking into account their own infra on this matter, and make a decision as whether or not they sincerely believe the charges. If they don't, they are obligated to help defend.

Zenith

Given the general level of treaty writing in CN, I rather like their Article IV "Marketability" clause and I think they have the best argument (again - assuming they sincerely believe the charges) to refrain from being involved.

However, I'd like to point out Article I which includes an arbitration clause which says that if there are issues the parties "agree to seek arbitration." Now, I'm not sure if the leadership understood what that means, but arbitration involves both parties making their argument to a neutral 3rd party and then the 3rd party deciding what the end result will be. Thus - it isn't something that would be decided by either alliance but someone from an uninvolved alliance (one that doesn't have ANY ties to either side and I'd include the treaty web in that just to be totally fair.) Also, and this is the bigger issue most likely - arbitration means that the parties WILL and SHALL follow the decision of the arbitrator. In other words, a neutral 3rd party would decide and both parties need to follow whatever decision is made. The person who takes the arbitrator role would literally decide if Zenith defends TPF in this case.

meh - don't think I'm going into the arbitration business. Seems like it would be too risky for the leader of an alliance my size. Unless The International would be willing to - um - provide protection from any CN style expressions of displeasure of anyone I ruled against or otherwise disagreed with my decision, and then only maybe

Even taking all that into account, there are also the legal concepts of "good faith" and also judging contracts based on how a "reasonable person" (in other words, not someone legally trained - i.e. don't be a rules lawyer) would read and understand them.

Seems to me that as a general rule, a "mutual" anything on CN is generally seen as "thou shalt" regardless of the individual articles. Sure, some alliances have tried to say otherwise but that has generally been met with scorn, at least in the court of public opinion.

Here is my opinion: unless we want to start paying experienced and thoughtful treaty writers to write our treaties, IF an alliance does not want to be obligated to come to the defense of another regardless of the reason - then sign ONLY Optional Defense Pacts. That is exactly why we (as an alliance) use them. If you make it mutual, you are committed.

Edited December 29, 2009 by White Chocolate

[Dochartaigh]

Do you take your alliance in knowing that you're potentially defending someone for doing something stupid and irresponsible?

quite frankly, if i lead an alliance and we signed a treaty that was MDP, MDoAP, or MADP with any alliance, it does not matter how hugely they mess up, the defensive clauses are fairly clear and i would defend them. if i signed those level of treaties with an alliance, they damn well will be considered friends and friends just don't leave friends hanging. i would take whatever $@!-whooping came my way and deal with whatever terms were handed down (if i do not like the terms, i would continue to fight until i got better terms).

it should always be as simple as that. the only alliances who should actually have to consider anything are those with OD clauses. period.

[Bob Janova]

I'm sorry, but if you sign an obligatory treaty with someone, and then back out of that treaty because of a technicality, you deserve absolutely no respect as an alliance.

If the treaty says 'We'll defend each other except in situation X', and then situation X occurs, backing out of defence is not 'a technicality'. It means that you are agreeing to back the other alliance up unless they do something so stupid that they deserve to be rolled, essentially. So any 'no spying' clause is not a technicality, it is a primary part of the treaty. It's not 'e-lawyering' in the sense of trying to find a hole in the spirit of the treaty if it was intentionally written into the treaty.