FOK announcement

[youwish959]

In case someone attacks one of our MDP (or higher) partners we declare war on them regardless of so called sides someone is on. In case an ally declares on an ally we will be likely to remain neutral in that instance.

Isn't this a hypocrisy? On one side you are saying you will attack your allie's attackers no matter who they are, but on the other side if your ally attacks your ally it's cool with you?

[MadScotII]

I think it will only become hypocrisy if say an ally attacks an ally and FOK does nothing and then iFOK attacks/is attacked by an ally and they back iFOK up.

Edited December 31, 2009 by MadScotsman

[erikz]

Isn't this a hypocrisy? On one side you are saying you will attack your allie's attackers no matter who they are, but on the other side if your ally attacks your ally it's cool with you?

Mediation bro. Have you heard of that?

[dejarue]

To those claiming we will be fighting both sides: This isn't true. Read the announcement again. FOK will always fight at one side. One side alone. The side of our allies. Don't attack any of our allies and we will just smoke some weed on the sidelines. Be foolish enough to attack any, or even all, of our allies and !@#$ will hit the fan. It's really that simple.

Your allies are on multiple sides.

Look, guys, I understand what you're trying to do here, I really do. And this whole announcement sounds great, and it sounds staunch and principled, but completely unpractical. You get the pleasure of everyone saying "noble stance!" and "that's how you stand by your allies", but in reality, to your allies this is completely unhelpful, and they're left wondering what they have to do to actually win your treaty-level support when the blows start flying, and further, wondering if you're going to be a liability by fighting with them while simultaneously undermining their efforts and helping the opposing side. I realize that you guys are in a difficult position; I'm just trying to call this a little more like it is.

If one of my allies made a public decision like this, I would be totally sketched out.

Edited December 31, 2009 by deja

[Penkala]

Isn't this a hypocrisy? On one side you are saying you will attack your allie's attackers no matter who they are, but on the other side if your ally attacks your ally it's cool with you?

Reading isn't your strongpoint is it?

[jonte]

Your allies are on multiple sides.

You get the pleasure of everyone saying "noble stance!" and "that's how you stand by your allies", but in reality, to your allies this is completely unhelpful, and they're left wondering what they have to do to actually win your treaty-level support when the blows start flying, and further, wondering if you're going to be a liability by fighting with them while simultaneously undermining their efforts and helping the opposing side.

If one of my allies made a public decision like this, I would be totally sketched out.

It's a mutual defense pact between the two alliances involved. Not between the whole side that your treaty partner is fighting on. You will help your ally by fighting the alliance that is attacking them. What goes on in the other corner of the universe has really nothing to do with the treaty you have signed.

Talking about being undermined five or six steps away from the conflict you're treaty bound to is more philosophical than practical.

[Mr Rosenberger]

Very Well Said FOK o/

[wickedj]

I am certian this has and will bring some headaches but you are good folks and we wish you well should you-know-who ever get around to making this a war

[Ejayrazz]

$%&@ yea fok, stick up for your allies man. that is how sociery needs to be. i am glad you made this decision and amen to al of you.

[oinkoink12]

Isn't this a hypocrisy? On one side you are saying you will attack your allie's attackers no matter who they are, but on the other side if your ally attacks your ally it's cool with you?

Not really, first of all we urge our allies to not attack each other. Second of all we will be LIKELY to stay neutral cause choosing between allies is not cool. If we have to pick a side than we prolly wont pick the agressors side. Cause they choose to attack one of our ally's the defenders dont.

[oinkoink12]

Your allies are on multiple sides.

Look, guys, I understand what you're trying to do here, I really do. And this whole announcement sounds great, and it sounds staunch and principled, but completely unpractical. You get the pleasure of everyone saying "noble stance!" and "that's how you stand by your allies", but in reality, to your allies this is completely unhelpful, and they're left wondering what they have to do to actually win your treaty-level support when the blows start flying, and further, wondering if you're going to be a liability by fighting with them while simultaneously undermining their efforts and helping the opposing side. I realize that you guys are in a difficult position; I'm just trying to call this a little more like it is.

If one of my allies made a public decision like this, I would be totally sketched out.

First of all, we have an MDoaP with someone, not with their "Coalition".

If one of my allies would ask if I want to help them kill 4 of my other allies on the other side. How can you actually think we would help kill 4 of our treatypartners.

If one of our treatypartners on the agressive side thinks its not cool? They should have thought of that before they wanted to kill 35% of our treatypartners.

[Rush Sykes]

I, for one, love FOK, and can understand this.

[HalfEmpty]

Yes, we are not the folks to do a dogpile. Also, we know this will cost us our infra, tech, whatever.... we value our friends over our infra.

Can't we nationalize Rosetter Stome?

For what itn worth

0/FOK Bringer of the best update rush ever

also: OOC... hopin youz get the big skate this year, it's looking good.

[AvengerNL]

Your allies are on multiple sides.

Look, guys, I understand what you're trying to do here, I really do. And this whole announcement sounds great, and it sounds staunch and principled, but completely unpractical. You get the pleasure of everyone saying "noble stance!" and "that's how you stand by your allies", but in reality, to your allies this is completely unhelpful, and they're left wondering what they have to do to actually win your treaty-level support when the blows start flying, and further, wondering if you're going to be a liability by fighting with them while simultaneously undermining their efforts and helping the opposing side. I realize that you guys are in a difficult position; I'm just trying to call this a little more like it is.

If one of my allies made a public decision like this, I would be totally sketched out.

These 'allies' should have considered this BEFORE joining a coalition that did not contain several of our other allies.

Don't blame us for honouring our treaties deja.

[kriekfreak]

These 'allies' should have considered this BEFORE joining a coalition that did not contain several of our other allies.

Don't blame us for honouring our treaties deja.

What? Both groups of allies did this remember?

[Soccerbum]

I do not envy your position, FOK. Best of luck in the next few days!

[Micheal Malone]

These 'allies' should have considered this BEFORE joining a coalition that did not contain several of our other allies.

Don't blame us for honouring our treaties deja.

To be honest here, your allies were all at one time on one side... Maintaining those bonds, then blaming your allies for the change in political climate, that isn't something I'd expect from you Avenger.

[Timberland]

This is the same position we were in during Karma war, having allies on both sides. I can only second what others have said. I do not envy your position though I do know what you're going through.

[Gofastleft]

These 'allies' should have considered this BEFORE joining a coalition that did not contain several of our other allies.

Don't blame us for honouring our treaties deja.

Now this makes sense, if you are allied to FOK you have to be sure that ALL of their treaty partners are on board to get support. come on Avenger.

[Toraoji]

pretty standard stuff. I'd have been surprised if this wasn't the case.

[CheeKy]

FOK forever.

Edited January 2, 2010 by CheeKy

[Bob Janova]

To be honest here, your allies were all at one time on one side... Maintaining those bonds, then blaming your allies for the change in political climate, that isn't something I'd expect from you Avenger.

FOK's allies include TOP and MK. I don't think those two alliances have ever been on the same side (unless you count Karma, which I don't think TOP would). Before Karma, they included NPO and MK. Certainly in this war it is not FOK that has put its allies on different sides (though none of them are actually engaged at the moment).

[oinkoink12]

Now this makes sense, if you are allied to FOK you have to be sure that ALL of their treaty partners are on board to get support. come on Avenger.

What he means is that One group of ally's can't demand from FOK that they abandon the other group of ally's.

Edited January 2, 2010 by oinkoink12

[tamerlane]

This is a very reasonable position for FOK to take and I, for one, applaud it. It honors agreements while ensuring a reasonable amount of impartiality in the conflict. May this be a future template for those who find themselves in similar situations.

Edited January 2, 2010 by tamerlane

[youwish959]

Not really, first of all we urge our allies to not attack each other. Second of all we will be LIKELY to stay neutral cause choosing between allies is not cool. If we have to pick a side than we prolly wont pick the agressors side. Cause they choose to attack one of our ally's the defenders dont.

Thank you for explaining that.