TPF MADP Treaties

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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.

Please, get new material, this stuff is shot. I have given a set of clear, rational reasons to reject this bizarre argument over and over in numerous threads here and neither you nor anyone else has given any rational counter to it. For your convenience, I will recap yet again;

1. TPF and Athens WERE NOT AT WAR.

This is a simple matter of public record, as anyone interested can quickly check. It's a fact. They werent at war.

2. The tactic has never been acceptable regardless. Even when the Hegemony had the firepower to do whatever they wanted, they STILL had the decency to hide crimes of this magnitude rather than claiming it as a legitimate tactic, as you now appear to be doing. And there is a very good reason that this sort of tactic is so verboten. OOC tactics like this bypass all IC defenses and would effectively nullify all other considerations were they to be tolerated.

3. EVEN IF they had been at war, EVEN IF we were to accept the tactic as a legitimate "form of war," the treaty still explicitly forbids it in very clear language. There is no interpretation needed to see that, it's stated in black and white. "In order to keep title marketable, neither party shall engage in espionage against other alliances as this would render title unmarketable."

Would you like to attempt to make a serious argument that forming a covert operations team tasked with infiltrating and destroying another alliance from within is not "espionage?" That would be hilarious, I will certainly wish you good luck in any such attempt. But this endless bit of "just repeat it again and again, hurr hurr hurr" isnt just painfully boring and stupid it's insulting to the reader as well.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[civiclove]

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

Thanks bro !!! love u

We`ll not..thats a promise..!!!

we just still enjoy our holiday .. B)

could some one please pick another time to play firework

[Bob Janova]

So I assume you wrote this one.

What? I don't even know what angle you're approaching that from, unless it's a cheap shot. That treaty obliges nothing, but it is relatively clear, so it doesn't go against what I said at all.

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

You should sign a pact which is what you want to sign. To sign something which might bind you to a disadvantageous course of action is not a good idea. In general, a mutual defence pact with no exceptions is a mistake, because you're effectively relying on your ally not to do something so stupid you wouldn't support it, and then forcing you to defend them from the consequences. (An MADP is, of course, worse.)

The reason we sign MDPs is because of the conventions of treaty chaining, which in essence say that entering a war through a MDP does not cause a chain, but entering through an ODP does. (I.e., if you have an option and choose to enter a war, the consequences are worse.) Without this convention, non-binding statements of friendship would have the same power as a binding treaty, without restricting your movement. But because of this, it's important to craft the obligation in such a way that it protects you from being taken advantage of, by exempting certain situations where the other alliance brings trouble upon itself, for example through espionage.

Including exceptions does not make the treaty optional, the defence is still mandatory – just not mandatory in all situations.

[Lord Emares]

2. The tactic has never been acceptable regardless. Even when the Hegemony had the firepower to do whatever they wanted, they STILL had the decency to hide crimes of this magnitude rather than claiming it as a legitimate tactic, as you now appear to be doing. And there is a very good reason that this sort of tactic is so verboten. OOC tactics like this bypass all IC defenses and would effectively nullify all other considerations were they to be tolerated.

I'd just like to point out that while the act of sending a splinter alliance to spy on, and disrupt the community of, may be an intolerable act by the current standards it is not an OOC tactic. The alliance exists as an IC entity not an OOC one, and thus disrupting the bonds from within that alliance using an IC splinter alliance is an IC act, provided that OOC actions are not resorted to (such as DDoS attacks/violations of the ToS/hacking/multis/etc). Just because an action bypasses the defences set up by the alliance to protect itself does not make it an OOC act, it simply makes them a particularly effective act, if one that most find abhorrent.

tl;dr spying is seen as a bad bad action, it is not however an OOC action, but merely a particularly hard to defend against IC action.

EDIT: Apparently I was having a "bad spelling/grammer" day

Edited December 31, 2009 by Lord Emares

[Blacky]

Why does this remind me of the "goading" that was experienced by GR when GGA/Valhalla declared on Hyperion? We knew we were coming in and did so the following update (fortunately we had plenty time to plan ahead of time as we all saw it coming), but regardless of that fact what business is it of yours if somebody chooses not to defend an ally?

[Bob Janova]

Why does this remind me of the "goading" that was experienced by GR when GGA/Valhalla declared on Hyperion?

I was thinking of the goading of GATO's allies in the 1V-GATO war, personally, but the noCB war was a similar thing at times. It reminds you of it because it's exactly the same, and just as distasteful.

[zzzptm]

Indeed. But we are willing to learn in our new world. These lessons will take time. Don't criticize a teacher if his students are still children.

[Augustus Autumn]

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.*

I was simply commenting on the tone being taken and the implications of your stance. Repeatedly stating to another sovereign power that they must do something and attempting to educate them on the standards of their own treaties and/or charter can very much be seen as badgering. Your points have been extremely well made - I'm sure that Zenith will digest what has been said and take action as they will.

[K1L1O]

I disagree that NEW is under an obligation to come in.

There's no reason to suggest that NEW has rejected TPF's request to enter the war (Article 4). I know we've seen mhawk call for help in public, but who says he hasn't withdrawn that privately?

Clearly TPF's attempted espionage falls under Article 5 - it is undoubtedly an organized offensive maneuver. But there is no wording in there to suggest NEW must come in immediately or even that TPF must tell NEW (as it certainly doesn't fall under Article 2), just that NEW may be given 72 hours of notice. If TPF fails to request military aid, NEW is under no obligation to provide it.

NEW-TPF MADP

I don't expect NEW to e-lawyer their way out of this way, by the way.

Don't worry my friend, we won't do any e-lawyering

[gantanX]

I disagree that NEW is under an obligation to come in.

There's no reason to suggest that NEW has rejected TPF's request to enter the war (Article 4). I know we've seen mhawk call for help in public, but who says he hasn't withdrawn that privately?

Clearly TPF's attempted espionage falls under Article 5 - it is undoubtedly an organized offensive maneuver. But there is no wording in there to suggest NEW must come in immediately or even that TPF must tell NEW (as it certainly doesn't fall under Article 2), just that NEW may be given 72 hours of notice. If TPF fails to request military aid, NEW is under no obligation to provide it.

NEW-TPF MADP

I don't expect NEW to e-lawyer their way out of this way, by the way.

we cant afford lawyers..

they're too expensive

[Canik]

Please, get new material, this stuff is shot. I have given a set of clear, rational reasons to reject this bizarre argument over and over in numerous threads here and neither you nor anyone else has given any rational counter to it. For your convenience, I will recap yet again;

1. TPF and Athens WERE NOT AT WAR.

This is a simple matter of public record, as anyone interested can quickly check. It's a fact. They werent at war.

2. The tactic has never been acceptable regardless. Even when the Hegemony had the firepower to do whatever they wanted, they STILL had the decency to hide crimes of this magnitude rather than claiming it as a legitimate tactic, as you now appear to be doing. And there is a very good reason that this sort of tactic is so verboten. OOC tactics like this bypass all IC defenses and would effectively nullify all other considerations were they to be tolerated.

3. EVEN IF they had been at war, EVEN IF we were to accept the tactic as a legitimate "form of war," the treaty still explicitly forbids it in very clear language. There is no interpretation needed to see that, it's stated in black and white. "In order to keep title marketable, neither party shall engage in espionage against other alliances as this would render title unmarketable."

Would you like to attempt to make a serious argument that forming a covert operations team tasked with infiltrating and destroying another alliance from within is not "espionage?" That would be hilarious, I will certainly wish you good luck in any such attempt. But this endless bit of "just repeat it again and again, hurr hurr hurr" isnt just painfully boring and stupid it's insulting to the reader as well.

For point #2; Guess maybe we shouldn't have removed NPO from power then?

As for the rest of it. It was done while TPF was at war, and for that SAME war, terms were already agreed and TPF honorably paid those reps. This is double jeopardy. They are paying for the same war, twice.

[zzzptm]

For point #2; Guess maybe we shouldn't have removed NPO from power then?

As for the rest of it. It was done while TPF was at war, and for that SAME war, terms were already agreed and TPF honorably paid those reps. This is double jeopardy. They are paying for the same war, twice.

No. They're not.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

As for the rest of it. It was done while TPF was at war, and for that SAME war, terms were already agreed and TPF honorably paid those reps. This is double jeopardy. They are paying for the same war, twice

No. TPF was not at war with Athens at the time, and hadnt been for many months.

[Dochartaigh]

For point #2; Guess maybe we shouldn't have removed NPO from power then?

As for the rest of it. It was done while TPF was at war, and for that SAME war, terms were already agreed and TPF honorably paid those reps. This is double jeopardy. They are paying for the same war, twice.

TPF never owned up to the crime and never paid a dime to Athens as punishment for the crime. there is no double jeopardy if TPF was never charged with the crime in the first place. that is where ya'll need to stop using these analogies as they are absolutely useless in defending TPF.

regardless of whether Athens/TPF were or weren't at war, these are war crimes that TPF covered up and were never punished for. just because TPF paid for most of their crimes, does not exclude this one from having consequences.

again, had TPF come clean during the peace talks and paid reps to Athens, you would have a point. but then again, had that happened, this war would not be taking place right now.

so face it, ya'll have no point. TPF's crime was hidden, thus they could not actually pay for it. the reps and the terms were for what was known, hence why Athens never had anything to do with the peace treaty.