Fantastico Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 What are these 'law-yers' you speak of, we just have judges and people with rotten tomatoes.We are not so sophisticated and fancy pants here in Ogaden as you are. Thanks for reminding me of an old joke once popular here in Baldor: What do you call a lawyer gone bad? Your honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 B. is the obvious choice. When you sign a defensive (or even offensive) treaty with another alliance, you trust that alliance to behave in a manner that you would approve of as an ally. If they do not act in a manner that behooves you, then you should never have signed the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 B. is the obvious choice. When you sign a defensive (or even offensive) treaty with another alliance, you trust that alliance to behave in a manner that you would approve of as an ally. If they do not act in a manner that behooves you, then you should never have signed the treaty. Does this mean you disagree with your alliance's doctrine on alliance sovereignty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepiB Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Consistency is important. The prime CB (The CB posed as the reason for the first DoW on the CN forums) is not as important as your own alliance's reason for entering the war, as an alliance should not accept terms until it's own reasons for entering the war are resolved. If you entered war to support an ally, you should stay until that ally gets peace from those you are fighting. In short, you should know why you are waging war, and not compromise that reason. People don't enter war just because some stranger did something stupid to some other stranger, they do it because they have a direct interest in it, be it by having strong ties to their allies, by fearing or holding a grudge against part or all of the opposing side, by wanting to profit from loot or reparations, or even by being bored out of their skulls and wanting to boost activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'll have you know that e-lawyering is a terrible crime here in the great nation of Ogaden, and violators of our sacred land are stripped naked and pelted with rotten tomatoes. Funny, thats what the people of my nation do on a Friday night Anyway, there is no treaty we hold we wouldnt honor if called upon. those who wiggle their way out of wars and treaties by citing stuff like "friends on both sides" or start arguing what is aggressive and whats defensive clearly had no intentions of honoring this treaty/these treaties and thus should be sent to the great nation of Ogaden to suffer their punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 You can also mix the cancellation with your DoW for extra emphasis. i think that would be quite amusing to read and would be pretty effective at getting the message across as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Funny, thats what the people of my nation do on a Friday nightAnyway, there is no treaty we hold we wouldnt honor if called upon. those who wiggle their way out of wars and treaties by citing stuff like "friends on both sides" or start arguing what is aggressive and whats defensive clearly had no intentions of honoring this treaty/these treaties and thus should be sent to the great nation of Ogaden to suffer their punishment Are you suggesting that an alliance with conflicting treaties should wiggle their way out of that just so they can go to war? Maybe you are more A) than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Are you suggesting that an alliance with conflicting treaties should wiggle their way out of that just so they can go to war? Maybe you are more A) than you think. I think what he's saying is that "friends on both sides" should never be used as if it was some sort of legitimate excuse for not honoring your treaties. IMO, an alliance that ends up in a "friends on both sides" situation has failed as an alliance and should seriously reconsider how they conduct their foreign affairs. If you can't guarantee that you'll be able to honor your side of a bargain when the time comes, your word is worth nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 i think that would be quite amusing to read and would be pretty effective at getting the message across as well. I seem to recall it has happened before. In the 1V-GATO war CSN canceled on GATO but defended them anyways as the attacks were before the treaty expired, which isn't quite the same, but I swear in some war this has happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I seem to recall it has happened before.In the 1V-GATO war CSN canceled on GATO but defended them anyways as the attacks were before the treaty expired, which isn't quite the same, but I swear in some war this has happened. we must be getting old as i am not sure which war it happened in either but i have a faint glimmer of a memory of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 B. When requested, you roll. Like others have said, don't sign it if you don't mean it. And if requested, there is no such thing as a treaty conflict, if it is defensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'd say the closest answer to what Dark Fist would do is B. At the end of the day we believe in helping our allies above all else. If for some reason they were to do something so horrible that it violated our core beliefs we would deal with it after defending / supporting them in a conflict. With that in mind, this is the reason that we have very few treaties. We make damn sure before becoming aligned with somebody that there is very very little chance of us ever being on different sides of the ethical fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) B. When requested, you roll. Like others have said, don't sign it if you don't mean it. And if requested, there is no such thing as a treaty conflict, if it is defensive. i have always been amused by the treaty conflict excuse. more often than not, an alliance is hit by multiple alliances thus giving a choice of who to hit to defend your treaty partner. if only two alliance partner's attack one another, i would assume the aggressor* is at fault thus voiding the treaty in my opinion. aggressor does not always mean the attacking party, as espionage and other reasons are valid reasons for attacking an alliance. Edited January 13, 2010 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinus Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'll have you know that e-lawyering is a terrible crime here in the great nation of Ogaden, and violators of our sacred land are stripped naked and pelted with rotten tomatoes. Kinky! But, doesn't that explode your population on Thursdays?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave93 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 This qualification you make is what I'd like to know more about, since it could mean A. well you see if say hypothetically MK was gonna be attacked for an IC action, I wouldn't hesitate too defend them, but if they had deliberately attacked an alliance and its members in an OOC way I would have to have a good long hard think as too what my position on the matter will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Friends > CB. Know your friends, love and support them, and deal with family problems in private while you still do your duty for/with them, ok? Is that B? Please tell me, I feel a need to enshrine my option via vote button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Balfour Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) I'd be happy with the leaders on these forums not straining to come up with disingenuous objections for or against the CB because they don't like the alliance making the DoW or are allied (or just like) the alliance who's subject to the DoW. The e-lawyering makes these forums virtually un-readable. The honourable thing to do would be to keep to "ya, they're in the wrong, but they're our allies so we'll defend them," if you absolutely must post anything at all. *edit: Oh, and actually defend them... Edited January 13, 2010 by Louis Balfour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Morals don't belong in CN for anything other than the purpose of creating war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 If you want to opt out of your treaties, only sign optional ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Friends > CB.Know your friends, love and support them, and deal with family problems in private while you still do your duty for/with them, ok? Is that B? Please tell me, I feel a need to enshrine my option via vote button. It depends on what you do in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickyard Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 d) Polls are irrelevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 It depends on what you do in private. I do every thing in private. Deal with it. Hold my seat please, I am off to cook up a reasonable facsimile of a CB and see where it leads me. (Would you like to join?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Our government would be honored to join yours for a private dinner. One friendly understanding we ask of you is please do not expect us to eat everything you serve and tell you it is delicious. Please also do not ask us to lie to our other friends, should they solicit opinions of your cooking staff's culinary skills. Speaking for my government, I can promise great discretion and much diplomatic finesse, but not outright dishonesty. Should we agree on this, perhaps we might continue to share private state dinners. In some cases, we might even share recipes, or chefs, or even help each other find better chefs. This arrangement to me is how our environment is viewed by those who pick A). Take out the honesty and we have those who choose B). Open to you thoughts, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Are you asking me out for dinner, or proposing a treaty, or calling me a liar, or what? Maybe it is because it is too early/late, but my political advisors cannot make sense of your message, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 None of the above... This was my poor attempt to interpret your "private channels" answer on how you handle ally and friend conflicts. I'll try to do better next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.