TPF MADP Treaties

[Augustus Autumn]

Also, I'm all about some civil discussion, but that's not what this is about. This is a witch hunt that many have turned into a crusade. Fact is, all those that are complaining are on the other side of this conflict or are uninvolved.

Consider this your sword-swing. The points that have been made concern the treaties that The Phoenix Federation holds, the common perception of whether or not they should/will be honored and why this is an issue. As for me being on "the other side" I'm not sure what side that particularly is. If you're implying that I somehow have some sort of love for Athens, Ragnorok, \m/ or the Global Order of Darkness then you're absurdly wrong. If you think I have some major standing issue with any of the alliances that should have come to the aid of The Phoenix Federation then you're also wrong. This subject has brought up an issue from the last war which I don't think was every really addressed - when is it actually alright to honor a treaty and when is it alright to declare that the spirit of the treaty has been violated and not pursue it?

In this instance you have an alliance which has essentially been caught launching a covert operation. They got attacked because they got caught. Now others might have to defend them. All of the alliances being asked to defend would, I'm sure, have reacted in an outraged manner like Athens and Ragnorok did. Can they actually defend The Phoenix Federation when they would have reacted poorly otherwise? Can they justify it to their member nations? Isn't this setting some sort of double standard?

Ultimately this war will come down to two camps as far as this issue is concerned. The first will be the alliance who don't step in to protect The Phoenix Federation and call those who did short-sighted and stupid. The second will be those who do defend and call the first camp cowards and the like. At the end of the day the first camp will keep its infra and lose credibility while the second will keep its credibility (maybe) and lose its infra. It won't be pretty either way as I see it.

[JWConner]

Consider this your sword-swing. The points that have been made concern the treaties that The Phoenix Federation holds, the common perception of whether or not they should/will be honored and why this is an issue. As for me being on "the other side" I'm not sure what side that particularly is. If you're implying that I somehow have some sort of love for Athens, Ragnorok, \m/ or the Global Order of Darkness then you're absurdly wrong. If you think I have some major standing issue with any of the alliances that should have come to the aid of The Phoenix Federation then you're also wrong. This subject has brought up an issue from the last war which I don't think was every really addressed - when is it actually alright to honor a treaty and when is it alright to declare that the spirit of the treaty has been violated and not pursue it?

In this instance you have an alliance which has essentially been caught launching a covert operation. They got attacked because they got caught. Now others might have to defend them. All of the alliances being asked to defend would, I'm sure, have reacted in an outraged manner like Athens and Ragnorok did. Can they actually defend The Phoenix Federation when they would have reacted poorly otherwise? Can they justify it to their member nations? Isn't this setting some sort of double standard?

Ultimately this war will come down to two camps as far as this issue is concerned. The first will be the alliance who don't step in to protect The Phoenix Federation and call those who did short-sighted and stupid. The second will be those who do defend and call the first camp cowards and the like. At the end of the day the first camp will keep its infra and lose credibility while the second will keep its credibility (maybe) and lose its infra. It won't be pretty either way as I see it.

Ok, so you wanted to have a legitimate discussion. That took me off-guard. Sorry, I was used to the "TPF's allies are the devil because they didn't honor their treaty" comments. My apologies.

As for this whole instance, I think it boils down to whether or not you believe what happened occurred before or after peace was given to TPF from the Karma War. If you believe that peace was given THEN TPF came up with this plan and put it into place, then sure, that could be understood to be a very wrong thing and a valid CB.

However, if you're in the mindset that TPF enacted this plan while still at war, with unfair and unattainable surrender terms like what NPO was being offered, and they used this as a means of warfare while still engaged in a war, and launched these attacks against members of the opposing forces (Karma as they are to be known)...then you could definitely view the CB as complete BS and want to side with TPF.

If you viewed the circumstances the first way, then canceling the treaty would be agreeable. If you viewed it the 2nd way, then you could very well be going to war this evening, or in 10 minutes, or New Years Eve, or Next Monday. Who knows?!?!

[Augustus Autumn]

Ok, so you wanted to have a legitimate discussion. That took me off-guard. Sorry, I was used to the "TPF's allies are the devil because they didn't honor their treaty" comments. My apologies.

Apology accepted.

As for this whole instance, I think it boils down to whether or not you believe what happened occurred before or after peace was given to TPF from the Karma War. If you believe that peace was given THEN TPF came up with this plan and put it into place, then sure, that could be understood to be a very wrong thing and a valid CB.

The timeline is largely irrelevant unfortunately. The issue at hand is that The Phoenix Federation launched a covert operation against Athens with whom they were never officially at war. The agents they sent out, for reasons already covered extensively, decided to sell out mhawk to Athens a few days ago. Athens responded in kind by declaring war and bringing in others. If anything, Zero Hour contrived to drag the issue out and may or may not have been entirely clear on when things happened. Certainly the issue of whether or not information was passed and/or continued to be passed is contested.

That all being said, the issue at hand is whether or not the allies are compelled/will come to defend.

However, if you're in the mindset that TPF enacted this plan while still at war, with unfair and unattainable surrender terms like what NPO was being offered, and they used this as a means of warfare while still engaged in a war, and launched these attacks against members of the opposing forces (Karma as they are to be known)...then you could definitely view the CB as complete BS and want to side with TPF.

Spying is bad, no matter which way you paint it. The fact that The Phoenix Federation lost the war just means they can be punished for it. Attempting to justify slipping people into another alliance with the intent to cause harm isn't really something that is well received in general, no matter who it is. Do recall the opening days when Vox Populi reformed.

If you viewed the circumstances the first way, then canceling the treaty would be agreeable. If you viewed it the 2nd way, then you could very well be going to war this evening, or in 10 minutes, or New Years Eve, or Next Monday. Who knows?!?!

And that is the heart of the issue. It seems that you're asserting that "mandatory" treaties may, in fact, not be honored if the spirit of the treaty is in question or has been violated. Is this correct?

[Bob]

I don't think you guys aren't going to go in, but how much is TPF going to be hurt before you are willing to go in?

And at what point does that become too much?

[JWConner]

And that is the heart of the issue. It seems that you're asserting that "mandatory" treaties may, in fact, not be honored if the spirit of the treaty is in question or has been violated. Is this correct?

What I'm saying is, if you deem that TPF has violated a clause of your treaty, you have the right to view the treaty null. That is your right. If you deem they didn't violate the clause because you believe the "spying" occurred during a war and spying is part of war, then you should be looking to attack and follow through.

That's what I'm saying.

I don't think you guys aren't going to go in, but how much is TPF going to be hurt before you are willing to go in?

And at what point does that become too much?

Well, I guess you'd have to ask TPF that question.

[Augustus Autumn]

What I'm saying is, if you deem that TPF has violated a clause of your treaty, you have the right to view the treaty null. That is your right. If you deem they didn't violate the clause because you believe the "spying" occurred during a war and spying is part of war, then you should be looking to attack and follow through.

That's what I'm saying.

I think we're on the same page here.

[JWConner]

I think we're on the same page here.

WOOHOO!! About time

[Bob]

Well, I guess you'd have to ask TPF that question.

That is fair enough, but why did mhawk post requesting the aid of everyone (before he went on vacation) if he didn't want your help then and there?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[JWConner]

That is fair enough, but why did mhawk post requesting the aid of everyone (before he went on vacation) if he didn't want your help then and there?

Honestly, couldn't tell ya. I wasn't around (OOC: Christmas) when this all went down and when I returned he was gone.

[Duncan King]

Well, I will say that your statutory interpretation leaves much to be desired.

The espionage clause in Zenith's MADP with TPF is

Article IV: Marketability

In order to keep title marketable, neither party shall engage in espionage against other alliances as this would render title unmarketable.

The treaty was written by Great Lakes Union and myself. We are both law students and wrote the treaty in the style of the property law questions that we were both dealing with at the time. What the specific clause means that if either party engages in espionage (spying) against another alliance, the treaty is void. So if either TPF or Zenith were to engage in a spy operation and be attacked for it, then the treaty itself would be void.

However, that's not what happened here. Sure the plan that TPF made poses serious problems as to our treaty with them, but the fact that no spying actually occurred means that the treaty is still valid. Once you take that into account, consider this part of Zenith's Charter

B. Decisions that have a more lasting impact on the future of the alliance shall be made by the membership of Zenith as a whole.

1. Types of Legislation Requiring a Member Vote

a. Signing and canceling treaties.

b. Issuing formal declarations of war.

c. Proposing and accepting surrender terms.

d. Amending the Charter

e. Disbanding the alliance

2. The Voting Process

a. The member who is proposing the legislation posts a thread in Zenith’s private discussion chamber.

b. The member answers questions about the legislation they are proposing and explains why it would be a good path for the alliance to take.

c. After a discussion period of two days (48 hours), a two day (48 hour) voting period begins.

d. All members of Zenith have the opportunity to vote and if a sufficient number of Zenith members that voted were in favor of the legislation, the policy is enacted. If a member fails to cast his or her vote, the vote shall be treated as an abstention and the votes shall be tallied as if the members who did not vote did not exist.

In most cases, it takes us four days to declare war. We do, however, have an emergency procedure that combines the voting and discussion periods into one process that takes 48 hours. Either way, you all are confusing a lack of visible action with a lack of actual action. Even if we were going to go to war, it would take us at least 2 days to actually attack anyone.

So the motto is, don't jump to conclusions about an alliance that you don't understand.

[Rob Holmes IIi]

Well said Duncan King, well said. I tried to explain this earlier but your skill with words far surpasses my own.

[Dochartaigh]

Well, I will say that your statutory interpretation leaves much to be desired.

The espionage clause in Zenith's MADP with TPF is

The treaty was written by Great Lakes Union and myself. We are both law students and wrote the treaty in the style of the property law questions that we were both dealing with at the time. What the specific clause means that if either party engages in espionage (spying) against another alliance, the treaty is void. So if either TPF or Zenith were to engage in a spy operation and be attacked for it, then the treaty itself would be void.

However, that's not what happened here. Sure the plan that TPF made poses serious problems as to our treaty with them, but the fact that no spying actually occurred means that the treaty is still valid. Once you take that into account, consider this part of Zenith's Charter

In most cases, it takes us four days to declare war. We do, however, have an emergency procedure that combines the voting and discussion periods into one process that takes 48 hours. Either way, you all are confusing a lack of visible action with a lack of actual action. Even if we were going to go to war, it would take us at least 2 days to actually attack anyone.

So the motto is, don't jump to conclusions about an alliance that you don't understand.

okay, so you specifically wrote into your charter that you will allow your allies (i.e. the ones you are obligated by treaty to defend against aggressive attacks) to be beatdown for a minimum of 2 days before actually entering?

i honestly wonder why do you have any treaties that read as obligatory if you have to vote on whether you go in or not? doesn't that kind of render the whole obligation bit null and thus makes every obligatory treaty you have essentially optional?

so essentially no alliance should even bother with anything above an ODoAP with Zenith as their charter disallows any sort of obligation for war..... how quaint.

[SpacingOutMan]

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.

Then why not sign an optional defense pact? To make a mutual defense pact optional is, in every sense of the word, moronic.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

As for this whole instance, I think it boils down to whether or not you believe what happened occurred before or after peace was given to TPF from the Karma War. If you believe that peace was given THEN TPF came up with this plan and put it into place, then sure, that could be understood to be a very wrong thing and a valid CB.

However, if you're in the mindset that TPF enacted this plan while still at war, with unfair and unattainable surrender terms like what NPO was being offered, and they used this as a means of warfare while still engaged in a war, and launched these attacks against members of the opposing forces (Karma as they are to be known)...then you could definitely view the CB as complete BS and want to side with TPF.

It is just incredibly frustrating to try and have a legitimate discussion about the situation when people keep repeating the same FLAT OUT LIES as if they were truth, over and over again.

TPF and Athens were NOT at war at the time! How many bloody times are you going to repeat that lie?!?

The only threat of 'eternal war' that TPF faced was one their own leadership cooked up to keep their own people fighting. TPF fought just as long as TPFs leaders insisted on fighting, and as soon as they were willing to accept peace they got it.

Furthermore the tactics in question were not simply acts of war. They were tactics so far beyond the pale that they are widely considered war-crimes, EVEN were the rest of this fantasy true. These are tactics which the TPF had EXPLICITLY promised in treaty after treaty not to use. "Neither alliance may directly participate in espionage of any type, regardless of situation and target." How can you possibly think you can spin that away? How could you possibly have so little self-respect that you would even try?

The treaty was written by Great Lakes Union and myself. We are both law students and wrote the treaty in the style of the property law questions that we were both dealing with at the time. What the specific clause means that if either party engages in espionage (spying) against another alliance, the treaty is void. So if either TPF or Zenith were to engage in a spy operation and be attacked for it, then the treaty itself would be void.

Thank you for that clarification. As I wrote, I used the minimal assumption for my own analysis. Having your statement that you did, indeed, intend for violation of this clause to immediately void the treaty is far stronger than my logical argument that it must, at minimum, have been intended to free the non-spying partner from obligation to defend the other from attacks directly triggered by the spying. Your post strengthens my conclusion that Zenith has absolutely no obligation to intervene here, in fact under this interpretation Zenith no longer has a treaty with TPF at all.

[Augustus Autumn]

It is just incredibly frustrating to try and have a legitimate discussion about the situation when people keep repeating the same FLAT OUT LIES as if they were truth, over and over again.

TPF and Athens were NOT at war at the time! How many bloody times are you going to repeat that lie?!?

It's been propogated a fair amount. I won't fault it.

The only threat of 'eternal war' that TPF faced was one their own leadership cooked up to keep their own people fighting. TPF fought just as long as TPFs leaders insisted on fighting, and as soon as they were willing to accept peace they got it.

That would depend on who you listened to and when, not that it in any way justifies attempted sabotage. The fear was very valid, both because of the desire from some camps to impose a VietFAN-style scenario on Pacifica and mhawk's desire to keep The Phoenix Federation in the war.

Furthermore the tactics in question were not simply acts of war. They were tactics so far beyond the pale that they are widely considered war-crimes, EVEN were the rest of this fantasy true. These are tactics which the TPF had EXPLICITLY promised in treaty after treaty not to use. "Neither alliance may directly participate in espionage of any type, regardless of situation and target." How can you possibly think you can spin that away? How could you possibly have so little self-respect that you would even try?

He's being passionate. I can respect that.

Then why not sign an optional defense pact? To make a mutual defense pact optional is, in every sense of the word, moronic.

Mutual Defense Pacts are more exciting and theoretically more intimidating. Or they used to be. People still like them for some reason which defies my understanding.

[steodonn]

I have huge respect for NEW they fought well in the karma war . They are well on the way to losing that. I would really expect them to DoW this update anyway I dident have them down as cowards

[Sigrun Vapneir]

He's being passionate. I can respect that.

Passion I can respect, but denying facts while staring straight at them I do not.

[Duncan King]

okay, so you specifically wrote into your charter that you will allow your allies (i.e. the ones you are obligated by treaty to defend against aggressive attacks) to be beatdown for a minimum of 2 days before actually entering?

i honestly wonder why do you have any treaties that read as obligatory if you have to vote on whether you go in or not? doesn't that kind of render the whole obligation bit null and thus makes every obligatory treaty you have essentially optional?

so essentially no alliance should even bother with anything above an ODoAP with Zenith as their charter disallows any sort of obligation for war..... how quaint.

Because we also have this section:

Article Three: The Zenith Doctrine

Section One: Treaty Obligations

A. Fealty: Zenith shall endeavor to honor its treaties to the fullest extent possible. In the event of a treaty conflict, the leadership of Zenith shall do whatever it can to ensure that the alliance does not face its allies or the closest allies of its allies in armed conflict.

B. Currency: To ensure that the diplomatic agreements of Zenith are as intimate and current as possible, the leadership of Zenith shall conduct a review of its treaties every three months. Treaties shall be evaluated to ensure that the relationship between Zenith and the allied alliance reflects the treaty that it holds with them. If, as a result of the review, the relationship between Zenith and the ally is found to no longer reflect the treaty, the leadership of Zenith shall work with the other alliance to determine the best path to take, whether it be increasing communication or considering other diplomatic options. If the relationship is seriously lacking, the treaty may be canceled, however, cancellation of treaties shall never be used to avoid a conflict that honor demands Zenith participate in.

Before making any unfounded attacks, perhaps you should consider reading our entire Charter. We are a direct democracy because our members wanted more input in the governing of the alliance, but to make sure that our government did not degrade into total anarchy, we have sections of our charter dealing with member rights, member obligations, and Zenith's obligations as an alliance. We still stand by our allies and you could say that our allies now mean more to us because treaties are reevaluated every three months by the members and can only be passed or canceled with member consent.

Thank you for that clarification. As I wrote, I used the minimal assumption for my own analysis. Having your statement that you did, indeed, intend for violation of this clause to immediately void the treaty is far stronger than my logical argument that it must, at minimum, have been intended to free the non-spying partner from obligation to defend the other from attacks directly triggered by the spying. Your post strengthens my conclusion that Zenith has absolutely no obligation to intervene here, in fact under this interpretation Zenith no longer has a treaty with TPF at all.

Whether or not the treaty is canceled or not under this clause depends on whether or not we consider what TPF did as being spying. In my personal opinion, TPF came very close to voiding the treaty with spying but the fact that they had a falling out with ZH before any info was actually passed from Athens to TPF. I don't see what they did as spying, so in my interpretation, TPF didn't violate the treaty.

[Dochartaigh]

Before making any unfounded attacks, perhaps you should consider reading our entire Charter. We are a direct democracy because our members wanted more input in the governing of the alliance, but to make sure that our government did not degrade into total anarchy, we have sections of our charter dealing with member rights, member obligations, and Zenith's obligations as an alliance. We still stand by our allies and you could say that our allies now mean more to us because treaties are reevaluated every three months by the members and can only be passed or canceled with member consent.

neither of those have anything to do with what i stated. i stated that if you had an MDP, MDoAP, or MADP with an alliance, and still have to conduct a vote which is what you stated here:

"In most cases, it takes us four days to declare war. We do, however, have an emergency procedure that combines the voting and discussion periods into one process that takes 48 hours. Either way, you all are confusing a lack of visible action with a lack of actual action. Even if we were going to go to war, it would take us at least 2 days to actually attack anyone."

which means that should your membership vote no, you cannot go to war. thus, your obligatory defense is essentially optional.

so instead of quoting stuff from your charter that has very little to do with what i posted, how about a response to what i actually stated?

you gave me stuff about treaty conflicts and treaty reviews..... what does that have to do with the fact that you have to vote on whether you will defend an ally when you hold a treaty that demands obligatory defense?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Whether or not the treaty is canceled or not under this clause depends on whether or not we consider what TPF did as being spying. In my personal opinion, TPF came very close to voiding the treaty with spying but the fact that they had a falling out with ZH before any info was actually passed from Athens to TPF. I don't see what they did as spying, so in my interpretation, TPF didn't violate the treaty.

Your contortions are amusing but completely unconvincing. Concentrating on information being passed is a red-herring, the conspiracy by all accounts was never about information. It was about infiltration and sabotage. If I infiltrate your country with the intention of committing acts of sabotage the fact that I sent my employer no information back is utterly besides the point. This is no better than the chewbacca defense.

[Augustus Autumn]

Passion I can respect, but denying facts while staring straight at them I do not.

Unfortunately, as with many things in the 'verse, people will beleive what they will and will ignore what they don't like. The issue of the validity of the cassus belli used by Athens et al has become largely moot. We now stand on Day Four of this conflict waiting for the masses coming to the defense of The Phoenix Federation. That would be the more pregnant issue I think.

Your contortions are amusing but completely unconvincing. Concentrating on information being passed is a red-herring, the conspiracy by all accounts was never about information. It was about infiltration and sabotage. If I infiltrate your country with the intention of committing acts of sabotage the fact that I sent my employer no information back is utterly besides the point. This is no better than the chewbacca defense.

While I respect your opinion and your passion on this issue, I fear that attempting to badger Zenith into some sort of course of action won't pan out, much the same as attempts to do the same to Veritas Aquitas have failed. These alliances will do what they will and there's not a thing we can do about it except remember how and why they acted the way they did. The same applies as much as to Nordreich, the PYSAS or any other alliance taking some sort of part in this conflict.

[Baden-Württemberg]

An interesting analysis which will undoubtedly be ignored by the people shouting the loudest. This is exactly why it's important to write treaties carefully and make sure the obligations enshrined in them are what you actually want to be obliged to do.

So I assume you wrote this one.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

While I respect your opinion and your passion on this issue, I fear that attempting to badger Zenith into some sort of course of action won't pan out, much the same as attempts to do the same to Veritas Aquitas have failed. These alliances will do what they will and there's not a thing we can do about it except remember how and why they acted the way they did. The same applies as much as to Nordreich, the PYSAS or any other alliance taking some sort of part in this conflict.

I am afraid you have managed to completely misunderstand me. Completely.

As I wrote previously, I am not addressing what they *should* do, or what they *will* do, simply clarifying the issue of *whether or not they have a choice.*

[Aratar]

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

Not sure what you're talking about. As I said, I'm not allied to any side of the current conflict, so there's no reason for me to get up for update.

[JWConner]

I am afraid you have managed to completely misunderstand me. Completely.

As I wrote previously, I am not addressing what they *should* do, or what they *will* do, simply clarifying the issue of *whether or not they have a choice.*

Yes but your assumption on whether or not they have a choice goes to whether you believe that was done was against their treaty. I, for one, don't believe that what was done violates our treaty. You continue to claim that you're unbiased, but your basis for your evaluations of the treaty is that what occurred was spying, and not form of war while under attack.

This is where the line skews, and this is where your unbiased evaluation contains bias.