Nusantara Declaration

[neneko]

I'm torn here. I like that you have the balls to take a stance by yourself for what you think is right. I also think that previous wars have proven that this move isn't to preserve infra because you guys have never seemed very keen on keeping any infra at all.

However I don't like treaties being broken. Wich is why I think MADPs are a really bad idea. Especially chaining ones.

I was looking over your treaty to try and find some way e-lawyer this but instead I found

The attacking member agrees to provide the partner with 72 hours to provide the requested aid. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of this treaty and thereby cancels it.

Wich would mean the TPF treaty is null and void when TPF have been in the war for 72 hours.

[gantanX]

it's so nice to go to sleep after posting a Thread on OWF

but, i am not going to reply one by one to every posts questioning about our Stance..

we had informed our Allies earlier, should this things/war escalated, we will not be with them on their crusade..

however, we can not force this stance of ours to them, so it is their choice..

EDIT : also, much appreciate to our allies for their understanding

Edited January 26, 2010 by gantanX

[Farnsworth]

We also stand for our belives and do not support coawards moves like bully the weak just because you can.

Yet you attack a weaker alliance in an attempt to control their behavior.

[Tulafaras]

I'm torn here. I like that you have the balls to take a stance by yourself for what you think is right. I also think that previous wars have proven that this move isn't to preserve infra because you guys have never seemed very keen on keeping any infra at all.

However I don't like treaties being broken. Wich is why I think MADPs are a really bad idea. Especially chaining ones.

I was looking over your treaty to try and find some way e-lawyer this but instead I found

Wich would mean the TPF treaty is null and void when TPF have been in the war for 72 hours.

1) TPF isn't at war so far.

2) Even if TPF enters the war they are still free to waive this treaty for this specific war. It's between NEW and TPF.

3) Considering the stance NEW has taken on raiding their position seems logical.

Keeping those 3 points in mind, i find little fault with them informing their treaty partners of their stance (in private as they did) before they actually enter the war (or come close to entering. By my count they are still a few treaty chains away from actually being called upon).

[Big Z]

Best of luck NEW

Hi K1L1O!

[Hob Dobson]

If anyone has read NEWs' treaty with TPF, then you will see that they would only be obligated to attack with us if we requested it.

In the unlikely chance this thing gets big enough to involve little ole TPF, we aint gonna request it.

Furthermore, treaty obligations aside, NEW are raiders to their core. It would be inconsiderate of us to ask them to go against their personal beliefs regardless of whether or not they made this thread.

Some things are more important than the specific wording of a treaty and we understand it and respect NEW having the backbone to stand up and say it.

For whatever it's worth, I think this is a principled stand on TPF's part. In that light, NEW's Declaration makes much more sense, even though I figured they'd already discussed this with their allies (TPF included) long before posting.

[Dochartaigh]

Curious point, but people did you maybe miss the fact that they did in fact talk to their allies in private before posting this?

I'll assume that they reached some kind of agreement with their MADP partner, who knows maybe TPF as a whole will sit this thing out (considering the amount of damage they took not even 3 weeks ago i wouldn't blame them). Aside from TPF they have MDPs with WAPA, TOOL and FEAR (if the wiki is up to date), personally i do not even know if those 3 will all end up on NpO's side...

tis funny. a lot of posts against Polaris assumes Polaris never spoke to their allies about this situation prior to declaring war on \m/, yet it seems that many of those anti-Polar people just assume that NEW spoke to their allies about this move. (not saying that NEW did not speak to their allies, just find the hypocrisy of the anti-Polar people amusing.)

[_GunneR_]

This man is correct. Unless your defense pacts hold exception clauses for this I don't see how you can get out of honoring them.

That's a bit much to expect of people willing to defend you. They should at least have the right reject a war where they don't consider your cause worth defending. A defence treaty should not be a binding contract to dictate all actions of an alliance on each and every matter. Especially on matters as complex as the one we are all involved in currently.

The way I see it, NEW doesn't agree with the attacks first made and thus won't defend those that made them should someone fight back. It's one thing to defend an ally against unprovoked attacks, it's quite another to start a fight and expect to be protected from retribution.

[Tulafaras]

tis funny. a lot of posts against Polaris assumes Polaris never spoke to their allies about this situation prior to declaring war on \m/, yet it seems that many of those anti-Polar people just assume that NEW spoke to their allies about this move. (not saying that NEW did not speak to their allies, just find the hypocrisy of the anti-Polar people amusing.)

The OP includes the fact that they DID talk to their allies, which is why i am curious if everyone who is complaining missed that point.

The allies in question are not currently involved in this conflict (nor are they very close in the treaty chain).

Polar's ally on the other hand was a direct link between the two conflicting alliances, and a fair number of other alliances are also very close to both sides. And yes they did talk to them (as Hoo said a few days ago before the board went down) but the difference should still be rather clear to see.

So no, i did not assume anything, i read what was posted and formed my opinion on that. In NpO's case i read the outrage by quite a few MK and Rok members something which this thread is completly lacking from NEW's allies.

That's a bit much to expect of people willing to defend you. They should at least have the right reject a war where they don't consider your cause worth defending. A defence treaty should not be a binding contract to dictate all actions of an alliance on each and every matter. Especially on matters as complex as the one we are all involved in currently.

The way I see it, NEW doesn't agree with the attacks first made and thus won't defend those that made them should someone fight back. It's one thing to defend an ally against unprovoked attacks, it's quite another to start a fight and expect to be protected from retribution.

That is a rather heavily contested topic, something which has led to quite a few heated discussions in the past, and likely will continue to do so in the future. If you have an MDP with an alliance and that alliance attacks someone, are you obliged to defend them from counterattacks even if you cannot agree with the initial CB for some reason.

The usual answer is: "you shouldn't have signed the treaty to begin with if you do not want to defend them".

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tulafaras

[Starcraftmazter]

So NEW !@#$%*^ out of the war? Okey.

[Style #386]

If this is true, I find it hilarious. But I don't think NEW will stay out.

[deathcat]

So NEW !@#$%*^ out of the war? Okey.

Highly unlikely SCM.. I know these guys and respect the hell out of them. If they don't believe they want to participate for a reason that they perceive may compromise their alliance's position at a later date, then who are we to judge them. They have earned their respect on the battlefield time and time again. Best to let them choose their own path as it is nice to see them come out into the political spotlight on their own

oo/ NEW

Good luck friends!

[_GunneR_]

That is a rather heavily contested topic, something which has led to quite a few heated discussions in the past, and likely will continue to do so in the future. If you have an MDP with an alliance and that alliance attacks someone, are you obliged to defend them from counterattacks even if you cannot agree with the initial CB for some reason.

The usual answer is: "you shouldn't have signed the treaty to begin with if you do not want to defend them".

On the contrary, people shouldn't expect automatic defence for all actions. Some responsibility needs to be taken for initialising. Hence why we have casus bellum and people don't usually attack for the sake of dislike because they won't receive support for it.

[Biff Webster]

With everyone involved concerned with each other, there will be more easy, uncoordinated targets for them to beat on.

[Detlev]

As I said before, I like war because in war times you know who stand by you and who don't. Be friends and allies in the good times is so easy, be friends and allies in the bad times is all that matter.

Also note that today the allies who MK insult are us, in the future, who knows?

It should be noted that before NpO was "insulted" on this thread NpO leadership referred to MK, in their embassy on our forum, as "cowards" and posited "$%&@ MK." I doubt that D34th is aware of this but the rest of you should be. Don't believe this "MK is teh meanzors" crap.

Should one of your 'allies' post on your forum that you're "cowards" and "$%&@ you," what would your response be?

Edited January 26, 2010 by Detlev

[TwistedRebelDB47]

Fair stance, but you're a crappy ally.

NEW are some of the best allies you could have in the game. I say this from fighting alongside them in the same alliance prior to NEW, as well as with them and against them in global wars. To ask NEW to fight for a cause that would eventually kill them isn't just ridiculous, it would be downright greedy and unthoughtful by their allies. From the responses, it seems their allies full well understand NEW's predicament with this war.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

It should be noted that before NpO was "insulted" on this thread NpO leadership referred to MK, in their embassy on our forum, as "cowards" and posited "$%&@ MK." I doubt that D34th is aware of this but the rest of you should be. Don't believe this "MK is teh meanzors" crap.

Should one of your 'allies' post on your forum that you're "cowards" and "$%&@ you," what would your response be?

Sounds like NpO was pretty tactless and rude, but it's infinitely better than what MK has done in the past week. Ever heard the saying "Private Channels FTW"? It applies.

With that I'm not saying anything else, I think this has already been resolved, so I don't really know why you brought it up Detlev.

[Aeternos Astramora]

This must be the first time I've seen people hailing for basically saying, "Eh, we're going to ignore the treaty."

[_GunneR_]

This must be the first time I've seen people hailing for basically saying, "Eh, we're going to ignore the treaty."

I don't know if people are exactly hailing. Nor is this a case of a treaty being ignored. It's quite consciously been considered and announced openly. NEW has the right to act as it sees fit, which ever way it chooses for better or worse.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I don't know if people are exactly hailing. Nor is this a case of a treaty being ignored. It's quite consciously been considered and announced openly. NEW has the right to act as it sees fit, which ever way it chooses for better or worse.

All right then, the treaty obligations have been ignored. NEW has the right to break treaties, as do all alliances. Whether that's honorable when they don't have conflicting treaties is up to debate.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Aeternos Astramora

[Snowbeast]

NEW is a fantastic alliance.

[_GunneR_]

All right then, the treaty obligations have been ignored. NEW has the right to break treaties, as do all alliances. Whether that's honorable when they don't have conflicting treaties is up to debate.

Consider the conflict to be in what they think is right and honourable. What's the honourable decision to make now? Circular debates you see.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Consider the conflict to be in what they think is right and honourable. What's the honourable decision to make now? Circular debates you see.

*Insert quotes making fun of the "CoC"*

They did the "honorable thing" in not supporting NPO's destruction of OV, yet they get insulted like you wouldn't believe. Now NEW does the same thing and are hailed. Can we at least get some consistency?

[darkfox]

Cheers for not fighting in a war you don't believe in.

However I am disappointed that you would just ignore your allies need.

All in all I wish you guys good luck.

[Emphix]

I'm liking NEW much more now

o/ NEW