FOK! announcement

[Saber]

If you are fighting for the friend who is the defender, then you are fighting for that side, and therefore not helping your friend on the other side. Meaning you have a broken treaty, in spirit if not in letter.

And that is a failure as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't want to be in an alliance that doesn't know exactly where it will stand if !@#$ hits the fan.

I don't get how do you break a defensive treaty if your friend is in offence.

But ok. I guess you like to know that you are rolling as a group no matter what happens. Such one mind like behaviour must be refreshing from what I am used to.

I wouldn't want to be in an alliance that did not look at the facts and decided for itself. I'll no longer continue this line of discussion as I feel we are not really on topic.

[WarriorConcept]

I don't get how do you break a defensive treaty if your friend is in offence.

But ok. I guess you like to know that you are rolling as a group no matter what happens. Such one mind like behaviour must be refreshing from what I am used to.

I wouldn't want to be in an alliance that did not look at the facts and decided for itself. I'll no longer continue this line of discussion as I feel we are not really on topic.

If all your treaties and whether you uphold them or not depend on the CB you might as well call them all ODPs.

Also I remember a certain bloc I was in with you where we rolled as a group, no matter though

[Saber]

Technically speaking, everyone would have to have claimed that a clear and concise FA direction was undesirable and then reversed to claiming it was a good thing in this instance for it to be hypocrisy. I can't recall that ever being the case and am pretty sure people have been congratulated for lining up an uncomplicated FA policy for themselves for quite a while. It's not always a common move for people to unravel knots in their FA during peace time, so the compliment doesn't really get heard a lot, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist until this week. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard enough of an uptick in its use recently for it to be considered a meme unless people saying it in this thread a lot counts.

I was being sarcastic with the meme line. But the point stands. Clear and concise FA direction goes partly against friends > infra mantra that was thrown around so easily for so long. If you are true to friends > infra you'll ignore if it makes your FA direction not clear and your decision harder. That's why it's for me hypocritical. Friends > infra is thrown around so easily yet parts of it are obviously ignored.

*For the record I believe this is an academic discussion about this, and not really related to FOK. We could take it in another thread if someone would create it (if there is anything left to discuss)*

[chris8967]

Best of luck to both FOK and TOP. I hate to see old friendships end.

[D34th]

I love how random ideas get mentioned, then become "fact," and are then used to draw ridiculous conclusions and/or propositions.

-Craig

I love how people try to loos smark and support their allies without have a clue of what happened, do you really think that FOK using "You need to chose us or them" diplomacy is a random idea? Ok then.

Edited January 21, 2010 by D34th

[Saber]

If all your treaties and whether you uphold them or not depend on the CB you might as well call them all ODPs.

Also I remember a certain bloc I was in with you where we rolled as a group, no matter though

Why would I call them ODPs? If it is a true defensive war the defense is mandatory. If it is not a defensive war it is not mandatory. It's really that simple.

It would be ODP if even if it is a true defense war you get option of defending. I believe lot of people are mistaking defense for act of fighting on behalf of your ally. Defense for me is act of helping your friend against unjustified aggression. Help against justified aggression (for example act of war against enemy alliance) is not defense.

TOP didn't roll no matter what. We stayed out of several wars because we disagreed with the reasons stated for war. For example attack on VE.

[WarriorConcept]

Why would I call them ODPs? If it is a true defensive war the defense is mandatory. If it is not a defensive war it is not mandatory. It's really that simple.

It would be ODP if even if it is a true defense war you get option of defending. I believe lot of people are mistaking defense for act of fighting on behalf of your ally. Defense for me is act of helping your friend against unjustified aggression. Help against justified aggression (for example act of war against enemy alliance) is not defense.

TOP didn't roll no matter what. We stayed out of several wars because we disagreed with the reasons stated for war. For example attack on VE.

If it is a defensive war and the opposing side has a valid CB, you will defend with them no matter what and not have to vote on it? Is that answer is no then it is an ODP.

[Lord Brendan]

I don't get how do you break a defensive treaty if your friend is in offence.

But ok. I guess you like to know that you are rolling as a group no matter what happens. Such one mind like behaviour must be refreshing from what I am used to.

I wouldn't want to be in an alliance that did not look at the facts and decided for itself. I'll no longer continue this line of discussion as I feel we are not really on topic.

Notice I said "in spirit if not in letter". You might not technically be violating the treaty, but if you hold a MDP+ treaty with someone IMO that should imply you will fight beside each other in a war. WC summed it up nicely I think:

Doing so is generally degrading to their reputation and leaves them with a fleeting sense of resentment from the side that they didn't help.

Looking at the CB and deciding if you want to keep a treaty should be done after a war, or before. Once a war starts it's time to stop all kind of political maneuvering and make good on your promises, for better or for worse.

Anyways it seems we have a fundamental difference in the way we look at treaties. Still fun to argue a bit.

I don't see how discussing possible reasons for canceling a treaty is off-topic in a thread where a treaty was canceled.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Zizka]

If it is a defensive war and the opposing side has a valid CB, you will defend with them no matter what and not have to vote on it? Is that answer is no then it is an ODP.

Holy !@#$ I feel like we're back in GWII again!

[Saber]

If it is a defensive war and the opposing side has a valid CB, you will defend with them no matter what and not have to vote on it? Is that answer is no then it is an ODP.

I'm not sure what you mean so I'll answer generically.

Internal processes of any alliances do not determine whether it is an ODP or MDP. For example TOP's internal processes must declare war if it is a true defensive war and we hold MDP with said alliance. If it is an ODP there is no such requirement. How we reach that conclusion is our own internal sovereign right.

If we do not declare war in a true defensive war (recognized by us) for a full MDP partner then we are breaking the treaty and going against TOP's laws. Nothing stops us from doing it, but it goes against very being of TOP.

So to answer it, yes, we need to vote on wars other than direct attacks against TOP itself but it is an internal matter and trying to make it somehow less of us and turn our MDPs to ODP is just a weak attempt at discrediting us.

In an autocratic alliance there is no voting. However there is a person who looks and sees whether they should roll and defend their ally. This is just the same as having a democratically elected body determine if the activation is valid (they have to follow our laws) it is just a different method to do so.

I will not allow my alliance government system to be drawn out in the mud just because few people are not happy with another check and balance our system has and requires.

[WarriorConcept]

So to answer it, yes, we need to vote on wars other than direct attacks against TOP itself but it is an internal matter and trying to make it somehow less of us and turn our MDPs to ODP is just a weak attempt at discrediting us.

You really just admitted all your treaties are ODPs as you guys vote upon whether to uphold them each and every time. While I respect your right to have your membership decide if it's a worthy cause to fight or not, the fact that you need those discussions and voting at all automatically makes your treaty an ODP whether you recognize it as one or not.

[Bob Janova]

If you are fighting for the friend who is the defender, then you are fighting for that side, and therefore not helping your friend on the other side. Meaning you have a broken treaty, in spirit if not in letter.

Unless that treaty is an MADP, this is incorrect. A friendship does not mean 'I roll with you no matter what', it means 'I support you and advise you so that you may prosper'. If an alliance decides to roll in on an aggressive war, it can't expect its friends – those who advised against it or would have done so had they been consulted, at least – to roll with it without question. This is the mistake that the NPO made and the result was that they lost at least two good friends (TOP and MHA) because they forced them to choose between NPO and their other friends.

Playing both sides of a rift and maintaining your friendships and treaties is difficult. TOP did it through the co-existence of Continuum and Citadel, and let's not pretend it didn't cause tensions. But in the end TOP maintained friendships with (among others) NPO and Grämlins; both of us knew that should an emergency arise, TOP would be there for us, and in several instances they were. Only when NPO took aggressive action that bought in TOP's other friends were TOP not standing there ready to roll. One can understand why FOK felt that they needed to make it easier for themselves, though I still don't agree that it's an inevitability for TOP and FOK's other allies to be in opposition in the next episode (this cancellation makes it more likely, of course), but it is not true that it is impossible to follow your treaties if you are MDPd to both sides of a conflict.

'Unified FA' seems to be the current euphemism for 'we chose a side, right or wrong'. I hope that attitude does not become more established, because it is the wrong way to run an alliance's foreign affairs. (It is the same attitude as that which gave us the Hegemony-era MADP web, aggressive support for stompings and a culture of repression and legalistic restrictions on alliance behaviour.)

Edit for WC: In any alliance, someone 'votes' on whether to uphold an MDP. That decision is made, depending on the alliance, over issues like whether the war is defensive, whether the other party had violated some other part of the treaty (e.g. a no-espionage clause), and if it's a bad alliance, whether there is material gain in breaking it. In TOP's case, the first two points are examined by the GA as well as the government. That does not make the treaty any more optional than if they are examined by a triumvirate or by one man. TOP is still mandated to defend an ally should the terms of the treaty dictate it, and having the terms of the treaty and the situation inspected by a large voting body instead of a small one does not change that.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Saber]

Notice I said "in spirit if not in letter". You might not technically be violating the treaty, but if you hold a MDP+ treaty with someone IMO that should imply you will fight beside each other in a war. WC summed it up nicely I think:

That's why we have many types of treaties. Treaty called Mutual Defense Pact usually makes defense mandatory. Defense as determined by most observers would be defense against unjustified aggression.

I don't see how you can say it implies you fight beside each other in a war. You seem to make no distinction between an offensive war and defensive war, something that is critical in my opinion.

Why then have terms defensive and aggressive in treaties at all. Should you just name it Mutual Let's Go To War Pact, or Mutual Military Assitance Pact. I'm having troubles with catchy names but I'm sure someone could find it.

If my ally wages an offensive war I do not believe I am breaking the treaty in spirit if I am not fighting beside him. Not unless I hold a full MADP and am required to do so.

Holy !@#$ I feel like we're back in GWII again!

If it's applied to TOP, we were declared on by GATO and thus entered the war with ease. But it does remind me as well. I remember some of these "you are voting" discussions back then as well.

It's a sovereign internal right of any alliance how to determine legality of their treaty activations. For an autocracy it may be one guy saying "dude, it's activated", for a democracy it may be 500 members voting. For TOP it's 7 guys voting and 1 guy saying "dude it's activated".

[Saber]

You really just admitted all your treaties are ODPs as you guys vote upon whether to uphold them each and every time. While I respect your right to have your membership decide if it's a worthy cause to fight or not, the fact that you need those discussions and voting at all automatically makes your treaty an ODP whether you recognize it as one or not.

So instead of acknowledging my whole bit about sovereign rights and how different alliances have different ways to determine if a treaty activation is valid you just said "no u".

TOP's MDPs are MDPs. Just as they are NPOs, or Celestial Beings (if that's an alliance and has MDPs). If the treaty activation is true the treaty will be activated. If it is not, we are breaking the treaty clearly and will admit so.

Our membership does not determine if it's a worthy cause to fight or not. If it was worst cause ever but it was true defensive activation we would activate our defensive clauses and defend our ally if we can. Making any different claims is just tarnishing our name with no right.

[WarriorConcept]

So instead of acknowledging my whole bit about sovereign rights and how different alliances have different ways to determine if a treaty activation is valid you just said "no u".

TOP's MDPs are MDPs. Just as they are NPOs, or Celestial Beings (if that's an alliance and has MDPs). If the treaty activation is true the treaty will be activated. If it is not, we are breaking the treaty clearly and will admit so.

Our membership does not determine if it's a worthy cause to fight or not. If it was worst cause ever but it was true defensive activation we would activate our defensive clauses and defend our ally if we can. Making any different claims is just tarnishing our name with no right.

I did acknowledge your bit about sovereign rights, I even said:

While I respect your right to have your membership decide if it's a worthy cause to fight or not

I'm sorry that you saw that response as a "no u" but really we're arguing facts now and I don't see how else to argue that with you when you don't acknowledge the fact that voting on whether to uphold a treaty automatically classifies it as being optional. I'm glad that you claim you would activate the defenses clauses if it was even for a terrible cause, but then why have to vote on it? That implicitly gives you the option to ignore it making it optional.

[Hayzell]

You really just admitted all your treaties are ODPs as you guys vote upon whether to uphold them each and every time. While I respect your right to have your membership decide if it's a worthy cause to fight or not, the fact that you need those discussions and voting at all automatically makes your treaty an ODP whether you recognize it as one or not.

That's absurd. Every alliance has mechanics in place for how it enters a war. Simply following such procedures does not mean an alliance's treaties are optional. Figuring out whether or not an alliance is in a defensive or aggressive position, and the validity of the CB being used have to be determined by some entity.

If a direct MDP ally is attacked in a defensive position I can assure you 100% of the time there would be a unanimous vote to defend that ally. You seem to imply that because it is feasible that the vote might fail that makes the treaty essentially optional. But that makes no sense given any alliance feasibly has the capacity to just not declare in support of their ally. But that doesn't mean they will do so.

[Bob Janova]

the fact that voting on whether to uphold a treaty automatically classifies it as being optional

So when an alliance triumvirate votes on whether to go to war, that makes their treaties optional too? Clearly any alliance needs to determine whether the conditions for the mandatory assistance in a treaty are met, by whatever internal process it deems best.

[WarriorConcept]

That's absurd. Every alliance has mechanics in place for how it enters a war. Simply following such procedures does not mean an alliance's treaties are optional. Figuring out whether or not an alliance is in a defensive or aggressive position, and the validity of the CB being used have to be determined by some entity.

If a direct MDP ally is attacked in a defensive position I can assure you 100% of the time there would be a unanimous vote to defend that ally. You seem to imply that because it is feasible that the vote might fail that makes the treaty essentially optional. But that makes no sense given any alliance feasibly has the capacity to just not declare in support of their ally. But that doesn't mean they will do so.

That is exactly what I'm arguing to an extent. Because there is a vote automatically means you're giving yourself the option to not follow through with the treaty. Hence why it's essentially an optional treaty.

[WarriorConcept]

So when an alliance triumvirate votes on whether to go to war, that makes their treaties optional too? Clearly any alliance needs to determine whether the conditions for the mandatory assistance in a treaty are met, by whatever internal process it deems best.

You're being vague here. When it's an offensive war of course they'd have to vote. When it's in defense and following their treaty there should be no vote. The voting was held when they agreed to sign their treaty.

[Budlight]

If trying to keep the peace is so offensive, perhaps we should step back and let you all at each others throats. I never thought I would find myself saying this, but I'm becoming a fan of isolationism.

[Bob Janova]

But how do you know that it's defence? That is what an alliance triumvirate has to vote on, and that is what TOP's GA vote on. Not whether to honour the treaty (which they will always do), but whether the treaty conditions are in fact activated.

[KingEd]

So instead of acknowledging my whole bit about sovereign rights and how different alliances have different ways to determine if a treaty activation is valid you just said "no u".

TOP's MDPs are MDPs. Just as they are NPOs, or Celestial Beings (if that's an alliance and has MDPs). If the treaty activation is true the treaty will be activated. If it is not, we are breaking the treaty clearly and will admit so.

Our membership does not determine if it's a worthy cause to fight or not. If it was worst cause ever but it was true defensive activation we would activate our defensive clauses and defend our ally if we can. Making any different claims is just tarnishing our name with no right.

So you "technically" chose to defend IRON should they have come under attacks during WWE because you "voted" that it was "defensive" or that the CB wasn't valid, or that is was the right thing to do ?

In a way it's kind of ODP'ish, but meh, it's not my concern, only your allies.

[WarriorConcept]

But how do you know that it's defence? That is what an alliance triumvirate has to vote on, and that is what TOP's GA vote on. Not whether to honour the treaty (which they will always do), but whether the treaty conditions are in fact activated.

When the alliance is attacked without launching the war first? I can understand if you have to talk about whether the CB is say spying and your treaty says they don't allow it, but I wouldn't think it'd take a vote for that seeing as how you already agreed to the conditions when you signed the treaty and would know right away whether they are met.

[oinkoink12]

Guys guys,

Stop e-lawyering in my thread, cancell your own treaty's for a stage

[Bob Janova]

In the New Year non-war, because TOP's treaties don't chain, they would have had a full vote on whether it would be a good idea to join the coalition. That is a bad example, because the treaty in that case was optional, by design (because IRON was not directly attacked).

Edit: Sorry Oink, last post

WC:

you signed the treaty and would know right away whether they are met

Right away? No, you need to inspect the situation and the treaty and make a determination. If it is clear cut, you can be sure that the TOP GA (or Heptagon or whoever it is that actually votes on these things nowadays) will give a positive vote, just like any alliance government would.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Bob Janova