Hypocrites: The Political Entanglement

[Ejayrazz]

I wish to advocate something I said earlier;

When your ally is being attacked, whether right or wrong, you're bound by your word. Allying is suppose to represent friendship, friendship exists even when your ally is wrong. We as inhabitants of Bob are meant to make mistakes, no one is perfect. If you feel otherwise, you mine as well stamp on your forehead "we're your friend when you are right, but not when you are wrong."

The problem is, too many alliances complain about the political entanglement, yet are apart of it. They complain how MDPs no longer represent, politically or symbolically, what they once were mounted as, yet they are apart of it. This is the problem in which YOU all are apart of and contribute to. Because of the political entanglement and mass-treatying, we, as a collective group, no longer stress the friendship alliances once had. Because people have so many treaties they are incapable of holding their word because alliances have so many obligations and ultimately need to remain uninvolved. Yeah, in the old days this happened once in a blue moon, but now it is expected in every war. It is more likely two friends are on opposite sides these days than one remaining uninvolved.

Before, an MDP was "Home plate" of the relationship. In today's society, get drunk once and play finger tag and...BOOM! We have a treaty. See the difference? Use balloons and stop the mass-production.

In the end, what is this? This makes you unreliable. An unreliable friend. Worthless to helping those who would help you in your biggest time in need. Some might try the psychoanalysis's defense mechanism of rationalization, or maybe even denial, but we need to stop pretending this is alright. The treaty system should be similar to a serious relationship; don't cheat on your spouse, be true to your word, and only have one. Or two if she/he digs that sort of thing.

Let me tell you: This is The Ninjas' perspective. We are allied to VE as of now since they are our protectors. Anyone who declares on them..even if they spied...even if they OOC attacked you...even if they DDoS'd the hell out of you...we will be there to defend our brothers. We will 'rethink our friendship', if need be, AFTER the conflict...not before or during it.

That is the path of The Ninja. That is the path of friendship. That was the path we all once ventured on, but too many people got intoxicated with lust and fell off the path.

Anyone worried about the technicality of treaties - you're part of the problem.

Anyone who values stone over spirit - you're part of the problem.

Disagree or agree, I hope some people out there constantly complaining can see the light.

[TehChron]

I wish to advocate something I said earlier;

Anyone worried about the technicality of treaties - you're part of the problem.

Anyone who values stone over spirit - you're part of the problem.

Disagree or agree, I hope some people out there constantly complaining can see the light.

For the most part I agree with you.

Except I greatly value having stones.

[Kubla Khan]

Living up to these ideal is something all Alliances should strive for, but in most wars there is gray area that treaties and pacts do not/can not cover. Heathy passionate debate is nessiary for all wars and war should never be rushed into with out seeing the context surrounding it.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Kubla Khan

[Augustus Autumn]

Anyone worried about the technicality of treaties - you're part of the problem.

Anyone who values stone over spirit - you're part of the problem.

Disagree or agree, I hope some people out there constantly complaining can see the light.

Except that the proverbial seeing-of-the-light would bring to an end the dance that is 'verse politics. The fun and drama the masses desire comes from seeing if people will actually stick to their word these days.

[Ejayrazz]

Which is pathetic.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Ejay, you know I you, and you are half right.

But you are also half wrong.

While treaties should ultimately reflect real relationships, you are confusing yourself by trying to pretend they always do. There are plenty of "shoulds" and usually they just arent.

Ultimately a treaty is a contract. An honourable person keeps their contracts. Regardless of whether the other party is a friend or not. But you are going way beyond that. Your argument seems to be that, if we have a treaty, never mind that the treaty explicitly lays out our obligations and what you want us to do is NOT in there, we still have to do it, because if we have the contract we are friends (not necessarily true) and friends always support each other no matter what (also not true.)

Sometimes your friends do the wrong thing. Sometimes they have to take their spanking and get on with life. And jumping in to 'defend' a friend from his own bad karma doesnt help him, or you, in the long run.

Sometimes a treaty was signed at gunpoint. Sometimes it was because of friendship. Sometimes the friendship wanes but the treaty remains. Sometimes there is a strong friendship but no one signs a treaty about it. Sometimes it's even all perfect and you have a treaty and a friendship both. By your logic, it's the friendship that matters, not the actual words that were agreed to? Then anyone can suspend, cancel, or disregard any and all treaties, as they wish, simply by deciding the friendship isnt there anymore. This is not what you say or want to see, but it is still a logical consequence of accepting your argument. In the end it eats itself.

No matter which the situation is, the treaty obliges you to do what the treaty obliges you to do. No less and no more. I dont care if you hate your treaty partner and were never friends - you still do what the treaty requires until it is cancelled. And likewise, no matter how much you like them, if your treaty doesnt require you to charge into battle *to defend their spying* then you dont.

Alliances are sovereign, and their leadership must treat the well-being of their own alliance as their paramount duty, before they start honouring treaties that dont exist, or non-existent clauses in treaties that do exist.

[Ch33kY]

All treaties would be exactly the same if they meant the same. But they're not, which is why they have different wording. One of the great things in CN is the semi-legal technicalities of treaties and documents. It inspires the best - and worst - of our fellow players skills. This is the same for alliance charters and documents.

There are treaties in the current political conflict that have specific clauses stating that if spying and espionage is committed then the aliance is not obliged to defend them. It would be hypocritical to ignore these specific clauses because what you believe a treaty to be does not add up with its wording.

Ejay, I respect your arguement, but we would be denying an important part (for better or worse) of that game that attracts some of the finest skills people have to offer if we said all treaties and documents mean the same thing.

I do thoroughly agree about the abundance of treaties out there. I think they tend to devalue the more meaningful treaties.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Ch33kY

[Ejayrazz]

Ejay, you know I you, and you are half right.

But you are also half wrong.

While treaties should ultimately reflect real relationships, you are confusing yourself by trying to pretend they always do. There are plenty of "shoulds" and usually they just arent.

Ultimately a treaty is a contract. An honourable person keeps their contracts. Regardless of whether the other party is a friend or not. But you are going way beyond that. Your argument seems to be that, if we have a treaty, never mind that the treaty explicitly lays out our obligations and what you want us to do is NOT in there, we still have to do it, because if we have the contract we are friends (not necessarily true) and friends always support each other no matter what (also not true.)

Sometimes your friends do the wrong thing. Sometimes they have to take their spanking and get on with life. And jumping in to 'defend' a friend from his own bad karma doesnt help him, or you, in the long run.

Sometimes a treaty was signed at gunpoint. Sometimes it was because of friendship. Sometimes the friendship wanes but the treaty remains. Sometimes there is a strong friendship but no one signs a treaty about it. Sometimes it's even all perfect and you have a treaty and a friendship both. By your logic, it's the friendship that matters, not the actual words that were agreed to? Then anyone can suspend, cancel, or disregard any and all treaties, as they wish, simply by deciding the friendship isnt there anymore. This is not what you say or want to see, but it is still a logical consequence of accepting your argument. In the end it eats itself.

No matter which the situation is, the treaty obliges you to do what the treaty obliges you to do. No less and no more. I dont care if you hate your treaty partner and were never friends - you still do what the treaty requires until it is cancelled. And likewise, no matter how much you like them, if your treaty doesnt require you to charge into battle *to defend their spying* then you dont.

Alliances are sovereign, and their leadership must treat the well-being of their own alliance as their paramount duty, before they start honouring treaties that dont exist, or non-existent clauses in treaties that do exist.

My subject made one clear stance on those allying for mutual business beneficial purposes; it defies what it MDPs initially stood for -- which has been added to the ongoing political problem.

Sometimes your friends do the wrong thing. Sometimes they have to take their spanking and get on with life. And jumping in to 'defend' a friend from his own bad karma doesnt help him, or you, in the long run.

There are many instances in which this is true. You can support someone in terms of defense, but show resentment for said actions in other ways. If your child kissed another boy's girlfriend who was much bigger than him, will you let him get jumped? Someone hooks up with the Godfather's unfaithful wife, will you let them get touched (killed?). (I admit, that is extreme, but so are curb stomps.)The problem is we, as alliances, let those people get their 'spankings' way too much BECAUSE their treaties are not signed due to friendship. Sometimes the LEADERSHIP screws up, but not the membership. Yes, the leadership is responsible for the entire alliance, but you do not sign treaties with the leadership, you sign treaties with the general membership as well. If you only signed with leadership -- you're doing it wrong. For you to abandon friends because their leader may or may not have made a mistake, in my opinion, is foolish and inconsiderate to the general mass. Furthermore, this also depends on how much your 'ally' screws up. How often does it take for your friend to screw up so the argument of "Letting them get spanked and move on" comes into play?

By your logic, it's the friendship that matters, not the actual words that were agreed to? Then anyone can suspend, cancel, or disregard any and all treaties, as they wish, simply by deciding the friendship isnt there anymore. This is not what you say or want to see, but it is still a logical consequence of accepting your argument. In the end it eats itself.

Though friendship is recorded on stone, its the spirit that counts. Yes, anyone without the stone, in Bob, is not technically required to defend you. I get that, however my subject was more so covering those that ARE on stone, but though on stone, its the spirit behind the stone that matters more than the stone itself -- paper, for those of you not following. I am not saying everyone must go around with no treaties and merely have "Faith", I know damn well the political system will never function this way. What my ideal stresses is if and once it is in stone, to not only read it, but to embellish it. To feel it.

The main problem with your rebuttal is the acceptance of 'mutual business partners'. It is never okay to sign at gunpoint, it is never okay to sign merely for beneficial gain, but rather for friendship. If you wish to use it for tactical purposes -- well, that argument is either way, nor here or there, but don't make it permanent. Even so, that is a technicality in itself, but I really do not wish to venture on this argument.

Eating off that last paragraph, your rebuttal was accurate in most aspects in identifying all treaty types where mine were purely for friendship only -- which should be the case in ALL aspects, because if it isn't, wallah! We have the current political entanglement which was adopted somewhere along the drunkenness of Bob's inhabitants.

As I stated, it is a social norm for things to be written, but for true friends, those terms shouldn't be technically analyzed, but spiritually understood. I do not approve of spying, however if my ally did it without informing me -- I'd be thoroughly upset, but I wouldn't curse my ways. I would understand I was betrayed, or maybe it was a circle in the alliance which acted alone -- but I understand a few making irrational choices isn't everyone I have become friends with.

If everyone feels they can bail out, people will no longer stop the mass treatying. People need to accept responsibility, need to accept the risks and dangers of signing treaties, only then will Bob turn into an honorable place once again and stop the brutal e-lawyers from doing whats right. Once again, you sign a treaty with membership; not just leadership. If you are, you're doing it wrong.

Also, I miss you too, babycakes.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Earogema]

Ejay, you know I you, and you are half right.

But you are also half wrong.

While treaties should ultimately reflect real relationships, you are confusing yourself by trying to pretend they always do. There are plenty of "shoulds" and usually they just arent.

Ultimately a treaty is a contract. An honourable person keeps their contracts. Regardless of whether the other party is a friend or not. But you are going way beyond that. Your argument seems to be that, if we have a treaty, never mind that the treaty explicitly lays out our obligations and what you want us to do is NOT in there, we still have to do it, because if we have the contract we are friends (not necessarily true) and friends always support each other no matter what (also not true.)

Sometimes your friends do the wrong thing. Sometimes they have to take their spanking and get on with life. And jumping in to 'defend' a friend from his own bad karma doesnt help him, or you, in the long run.

Sometimes a treaty was signed at gunpoint. Sometimes it was because of friendship. Sometimes the friendship wanes but the treaty remains. Sometimes there is a strong friendship but no one signs a treaty about it. Sometimes it's even all perfect and you have a treaty and a friendship both. By your logic, it's the friendship that matters, not the actual words that were agreed to? Then anyone can suspend, cancel, or disregard any and all treaties, as they wish, simply by deciding the friendship isnt there anymore. This is not what you say or want to see, but it is still a logical consequence of accepting your argument. In the end it eats itself.

No matter which the situation is, the treaty obliges you to do what the treaty obliges you to do. No less and no more. I dont care if you hate your treaty partner and were never friends - you still do what the treaty requires until it is cancelled. And likewise, no matter how much you like them, if your treaty doesnt require you to charge into battle *to defend their spying* then you dont.

Alliances are sovereign, and their leadership must treat the well-being of their own alliance as their paramount duty, before they start honouring treaties that dont exist, or non-existent clauses in treaties that do exist.

And almost all treaties with a Defense clause read: "An attack on A is an attack on B"

In fact, all of them do. It's pretty much the shell of what a treaty is.

They you go. That's their obligation.

[Electric Mango]

I'm so glad we have another thread that will turn into the exact same thing the other 14 things turned into.

Thanks Ejay!

[New Frontier]

We get it, you're self-righteous.

[Ejayrazz]

Electric Mango: This is more of a message to everyone, not just IRON and them to get involved, though I apologize for the timing.

New Frontier: Yeah, I get it, you have nothing constructive to add and therefore must go for the low blow. Anyone who posts their opinions are self-righteous, attention whores, or moralists, or whiners.

I get it. You do nothing to help. Carry on.

[New Frontier]

New Frontier: Yeah, I get it, you have nothing constructive to add and therefore must go for the low blow. Anyone who posts their opinions are self-righteous, attention whores, or moralists, or whiners.

I get it. You do nothing to help. Carry on.

You don't post your opinion. You post your opinion again and again and again and keep pointing out how great you are for having that opinion. All the while being in a tiny alliance that really doesn't affect change one way or another.

[Ejayrazz]

You don't post your opinion. You post your opinion again and again and again and keep pointing out how great you are for having that opinion. All the while being in a tiny alliance that really doesn't affect change one way or another.

Please refrain if you have nothing to contribute to said statements. Go get attention elsewhere, this isn't the place.

KAII, Danny...ALL of them were right about you. God I am a !@#$@#$ fool.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Prime minister Johns]

I agree, treaties are made and broken too easily these days.

Having a MDP treaty should really mean something.

And dishonouring a treaty devalues the rest of the treaties that party has signed and given their word on.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[astronaut jones]

SImple solution: If you're in a bloc, cancel all outside treaties except for protectorates. If you're not in a bloc, look to sign no more than 3 or 4 treaties so as not to get too tangled into this mess.

The web is still ridiculous, everyone knows that.

Also, if you're going to go after Ejay for posting his opinion, New Frontier, then you have to go after about a dozen people in your own alliance, probably another dozen just from other frostbite alliances, bobby j, and just about anyone who is strongly opinionated in one way or another.

So, yeah.. fix your own house first.

Edited December 30, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I agree with you, Ejay. That said, any winning side (I'm not pointing you out, but others) is always all too willing to point out that the other camp is dishonourable scum, reneging on treaties and what not.

Yet, at the same time, they are also quick to point out that, should those same allies join in the fray, they are supporting the actions of their colleagues.

Also, it is rather ironic to see people faulting TPF's allies for not honoring the "mutual defense" part of their treaties while, at the same time, lambasting them for following the "anti espionage" clause (which voids the MD part, most of the time) of those same treaties. You either believe in your CB or you don't.

In this case, if you accuse TPF of espionage and TPF's allies (with a no espionage clause) accept your accusations as the truth, faulting them for not defending TPF is the high of hypocrisy.

That said, treaties are the problem. They were designed to be political tools; stalwart friends don't need paper to express their loyalty to each other.

[Jack Diorno]

Also, it is rather ironic to see people faulting TPF's allies for not honoring the "mutual defense" part of their treaties while, at the same time, lambasting them for following the "anti espionage" clause (which voids the MD part, most of the time) of those same treaties. You either believe in your CB or you don't.

In this case, if you accuse TPF of espionage and TPF's allies (with a no espionage clause) accept your accusations as the truth, faulting them for not defending TPF is the high of hypocrisy.

That said, treaties are the problem. They were designed to be political tools; stalwart friends don't need paper to express their loyalty to each other.

TPF's allies are refuting the CB, so from their point of view TPF is the defender in this battle and have a responsibility to defend TPF.

It's not the Athens side that doubts the CB, they are just expecting from TPF's allies what they would do for their own allies in this situation.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Jack Diorno

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

TPF's allies are refuting the CB, so from their point of view TPF is the defender in this battle and have a responsibility to defend TPF.

It's not the Athens side that doubts the CB, they are just expecting from TPF's allies what they would do for their own allies in this situation.

Aside from ADI - who adopted a rather ambiguous position - TPF's allies have been silent. Don't confuse official positions with a few OWF posts.

Also, I was mostly speaking from a theoretical point of view.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Inferno]

I love Ejay.

but i will not read a wall of text. You can type what u need or want say in 4 lines?

Thx Ejay

[Ejayrazz]

@astronaut jones: I agree with your bloc theory. GUARD had the ideal, but lacked internally elsewhere. If you're in a bloc, be dedicated to the bloc. Too many people have treaties in and outside of blocs, telling them all they're equally important..which can only go so far.

@Yev: I agree. If their is an "Anti-espionage" clause, I usually consider it along the lines of "We're friends when you're right, but not when you're wrong." The reason I am not a fan on this is because we sign treaties with the alliance; that being the leaders AND the general membership. If the leaders screw up, their membership pay the consequences. Though leaders rule their alliances, the spirit behind the logic is that the members themselves had no part in it, therefore I'd protect them and deal with leadership after the problem occurred. However, I acknowledge those with different opinions as we all would run alliances differently.

@Inferno: 4 lines:

Only ally true friends

Once you do, follow them

You sign treaties with the entire alliance, not just the leadership; even if they represent the alliance and screw up, their members, who are friends, shouldn't be abandoned. Among other things

[Kalabac]

MDPS exist for when your ally really really needs you. Not for when your ally is curbstomping a guy or when your ally is attacked by an insane alliance with half their NS. This is the example of a situation that is the impetus for the existence of defense agreements themselves.

just like free speech doesn't exist for cake recipes and talk about the weather but for offensive things that people hate to hear, MDPs exist for situations that you and/or your allies do not want to be in.

[Ejayrazz]

It really depends. Some feel the support in itself is what truly matters, not only when you're winning. Though, this is on a whole different level.