FOK! announcement

[Hayzell]

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.

But you fail to address the next sentence. By your logic, every single alliance which has a formal means for declaring war (i.e. All of them?) holds only ODPs. You fail to address the reason why all alliances have such systems in the first place; that is, to analyze specific situations and determine the appropriate course of action. TOP isn't any different in this regard than any other alliance.

[Galapagos]

Sad to see orange's top alliances drifting apart.

[WarriorConcept]

But you fail to address the next sentence. By your logic, every single alliance which has a formal means for declaring war (i.e. All of them?) holds only ODPs. You fail to address the reason why all alliances have such systems in the first place; that is, to analyze specific situations and determine the appropriate course of action. TOP isn't any different in this regard than any other alliance.

I don't believe I follow what you're arguing. Most alliances don't have to debate on upholding their treaty just have to mobilize and then attack and more commonly formally declare war on the forums. I believe your alliance is the only one with this system in place where every MDP treaty is essentially treated as an ODP because you have a formal system to vote on it.

[Lusitan]

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.

One thing is what the alliance ought to do, another thing is what the alliance will do. They sign a MDP, they ought to, for the sake of honour and rightous behaviour, to come in defense of the said alliance. But they have the choice not to do it, and that choice is the line between breaking the treaty or not. While they gave their word they'd come to war, and an alliance's word is sacred, whether they upheld their word, whether they lie, is up for them to decide.

Based on your logic, Poison Clan couldn't have decided to attack TPF back in Karma. I mean, they had a NAP that stated they they would not attack eachother, so the decision to declare war on TPF was authomatically excluded from Poison Clan's deciding capacity, right? Based on your logic, during Karma, Grämlins could never have declared war on IRON, because the Lux Aeterna states that an alliance from the bloc cannot declare on any ally of other signatories, and IRON was allied to TOP and Old Guard. Obviously the decision to attack IRON was completelly ruled out of Grämlins decision capacity, right?

A treaty, whether it is a NAP, PIAT or MDP is a commitment that states you will do or not something. It's your word. It's equally valid and important, regardless of the treaty, one person or alliance cannot have two words. However, the way an alliance acts on that word is definetly not decided previously through the giving of that same word.

[Hayzell]

I don't believe I follow what you're arguing. Most alliances don't have to debate on upholding their treaty just have to mobilize and then attack and more commonly formally declare war on the forums. I believe your alliance is the only one with this system in place where every MDP treaty is essentially treated as an ODP because you have a formal system to vote on it.

Please provide me an example of a system in which there is no decision making body that declares war.

Even without voting, whoever holds the authority to declare war in an alliance must make the decision to go to war, and by definition of making a decision there is the option between two choices. If this was not the case then a treaty partner could post their allies DoW for them, since there would apparently be no need for the treatied alliance to make the decision on its own.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Hayzell

[WarriorConcept]

One thing is what the alliance ought to do, another thing is what the alliance will do. They sign a MDP, they ought to, for the sake of honour and rightous behaviour, to come in defense of the said alliance. But they have the choice not to do it, and that choice is the line between breaking the treaty or not. While they gave their word they'd come to war, and an alliance's word is sacred, whether they upheld their word, whether they lie, is up for them to decide.

Based on your logic, Poison Clan couldn't have decided to attack TPF back in Karma. I mean, they had a NAP that stated they they would not attack eachother, so the decision to declare war on TPF was authomatically excluded from Poison Clan's deciding capacity, right? Based on your logic, during Karma, Grämlins could never have declared war on IRON, because the Lux Aeterna states that an alliance from the bloc cannot declare on any ally of other signatories, and IRON was allied to TOP and Old Guard. Obviously the decision to attack IRON was completelly ruled out of Grämlins decision capacity, right?

A treaty, whether it is a NAP, PIAT or MDP is a commitment that states you will do or not something. It's your word. It's equally valid and important, regardless of the treaty, one person or alliance cannot have two words. However, the way an alliance acts on that word is definetly not decided previously through the giving of that same word.

All of that is why I'd trust those alliances a lot less after they broke those treaties, but I get what you're saying and still believe that an automatic voting option automatically makes it an ODP. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

edit: Same to hayzell, I don't mind agreeing to disagree.

Edited January 21, 2010 by WarriorConcept

[Goose]

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.

But it's TOP's throat everyone wants, or so the rumors coming from CC stated.

Please provide me an example of a system in which there is no decision making body that declares war.

Even without voting, whoever holds the authority to declare war in an alliance must make the decision to go to war, and by definition of making a decision there is the option between two choices. If this was not the case then a treaty partner could post their allies DoW for them, since there would apparently be no need for the treatied alliance to make the decision on its own.

I can see both sides. Yes, every alliance can decide not to honor a treaty, no matter the decision making process. However, by blatantly stating that you have to vote on it before you will defend an ally would raise concerns on how solid the treaty actually is. Who does vote to go to war in TOP? Is it just the Heptagon (sp?) or is it the entire membership?

As the Head of State for The Commonwealth, by signing a Mutual Defense Pact, I've given my word that I shall defend them should they come under attack. For SuperFriends, that will always be the case. And, for everyone else, they know it is the case so long as it doesn't bring us into conflict with The SuperFriends. I'd assume that is what TOP's intent is when they sign a treaty. The voting, while likely to result in upholding of treaties, is likely a cause for concern with those that have no rapport with TOP's members or government. Well, not so much concern as it really doesn't affect them as they likely haven't a treaty, but confusion perhaps.

[popsumpot]

Sad to see orange's top alliances drifting apart.

Ironically, orange's top alliances are actually closer together.

[Kaiser]

But it's TOP's throat everyone wants, or so the rumors coming from CC stated.

I can see both sides. Yes, every alliance can decide not to honor a treaty, no matter the decision making process. However, by blatantly stating that you have to vote on it before you will defend an ally would raise concerns on how solid the treaty actually is. Who does vote to go to war in TOP? Is it just the Heptagon (sp?) or is it the entire membership?

As the Head of State for The Commonwealth, by signing a Mutual Defense Pact, I've given my word that I shall defend them should they come under attack. For SuperFriends, that will always be the case. And, for everyone else, they know it is the case so long as it doesn't bring us into conflict with The SuperFriends. I'd assume that is what TOP's intent is when they sign a treaty. The voting, while likely to result in upholding of treaties, is likely a cause for concern with those that have no rapport with TOP's members or government. Well, not so much concern as it really doesn't affect them as they likely haven't a treaty, but confusion perhaps.

Once 4 of the seven members of the Heptagon vote to go to war, and the GM signs off on it. It's the same system as...well everyone, except that more people have to say yes. By WC's logic, your treaties are optional too because you could decide not to honour them. Hell, by his own logic, Celestial Being's treaties are all optional because someone chooses whether to attack. Even if the answer is yes, 100% of the time, there is always the option. TOP will always honour it's MDP's, and just because we have more people that say "yes" than most, doesn't make our treaties any more optional than anyones.

It's like saying all MK's treaties are optional because Archon has to vote yes, or all NpO's treaties are optional because Grub has to vote yes.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Kaiser

[Budlight]

But it's TOP's throat everyone wants, or so the rumors coming from CC stated.

It would be foolish to believe that the world is intent on destroying us. However, it would be equal folly to assume that no one would roll TOP if the opportunity presented itself.

[Bob]

Sad to see orange's top alliances drifting apart.

Actually, TOP and IRON are quite close.

[Goose]

Once 4 of the seven members of the Heptagon vote to go to war, and the GM signs off on it. It's the same system as...well everyone, except that more people have to say yes. By WC's logic, your treaties are optional too because you could decide not to honour them. Hell, by his own logic, Celestial Being's treaties are all optional because someone chooses whether to attack. Even if the answer is yes, 100% of the time, there is always the option. TOP will always honour it's MDP's, and just because we have more people that say "yes" than most, doesn't make our treaties any more optional than anyones.

It's like saying all MK's treaties are optional because Archon has to vote yes, or all NpO's treaties are optional because Grub has to vote yes.

So, it's just a simple majority of the Heptagon with GM sign off. Not nearly as worrisome as WC was making it out to be. I wouldn't like it, but I simply loathe democracy. At least with command level decisions. I can see its uses for electing command level government, but the TOP speed (not a dig, but prevalent example of inefficiencies of democracy) far outweigh the 'balance' that democratic decision making gives.

[wickedj]

It would be foolish to believe that the world is intent on destroying us. However, it would be equal folly to assume that no one would roll TOP if the opportunity presented itself.

The world would roll their own mothers if given the chance too. that said it would be a very fun and LONG war

[erikz]

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.

Lucky for you, you seemed to be there when FOK supposedly forced TOP to cancel on IRON.

sigh....I'd say you don't have a clue.

[LiquidMercury]

The world would roll their own mothers if given the chance too. that said it would be a very fun and LONG war

Absolutely agree. Especially about the long part, it'd make vietFAN look short Yay for paranoid TOP members always thinking the world is coming to get us thus allowing us to prepare for our eventual curbstomp mua hahahaha, ah crap I have to keep playing that long?

Edited January 21, 2010 by LiquidMercury

[Madine]

We were allied to TOP? I have to check our boards more often.

[avernite]

We were allied to TOP? I have to check our boards more often.

Only since 2007...

Also, bye FOK

[John Ron]

I'm a bit late to the party, but just wanted to wish FOK well. I know this decision was hard, but I think it's for the best. I can respect your desire for a unified FA. Classy cancellation as always FOK.

[Jingoist]

oh the whathaveyou. having said that, i support this etc and whatnot stuff and things. forth whoever. hail stickmen.