STA Official Statement

[kriekfreak]

It's not as close as it gets. We have treaties with MK and with Vanguard. We have no relationship with Athens. If someone were to attack Athens, it has zero effect on STA. Even if MK were to defend Athens, and then be countered themselves, our treaty wouldn't be activated. Non-chaining clauses exist for exactly this reason.

I've seen multiple people in this thread say "It's their MADP partner! An attack on one is the same as an attack on all!" That has absolutely nothing to do with an MADP, and everything to do with only the defensive aspect of their treaty. By attacking someone in C&G other than someone we were directly allied to, the same objectives could have been met without putting us in a very uncomfortable position.

Finally, I'll echo what other people have said in this thread. This is, and was, a tough war with many allies on opposite sides. We did, and will continue to do, the best we can to make it the least painful for ourselves and our allies. If you feel that criticizing STA for trying to find a workaround to directly attacking our allies is the way to go, so be it. We feel we did the best we could and don't regret a single thing we said in these logs.

I disagree with you. Even though you have no direct relation with Athens, you have one indirectly. If someone were to attack Athens, you would have no obligation to help them, not even when MK goes in to help Athens. This is absolutely true, however you are wrong with saying that it wouldn't affect you since your treaty partner(s) would end up in war. And as we all know war is bad for an alliance in regards of losing precious resources, you could need one day to help you out when you are on the receiving end.

I understand that you were in the situation in where you can't preserve every ally of an ally. There were very few alliances out there that could have. The only thing I found distasteful is the lack of respect to a MADP (highest treaty possible) partner. Even cheering if they get declared on, knowing that would put MK and Vanguard in a difficult situation. I seriously cannot understand why you would say that.

To comment on Stumpy, I'm not here to tell MK (nor Vanguard) what they should think of this. I am just ventilating my own thoughts on this. This is between them and STA, and no one else. But we are free to comment on this since this is in the public domain. I think this would have been better if kept private between those alliance involved.

I stand by my comment on not to ally alliance that have treaties with alliances I hate, for instance I wouldn't want to ally NEW cause that would mean I would tie myself to TPF. I cannot support NEW in wars in where they would get dragged in cause of TPF. So that's why I don't want to treaty myself to them. I don't believe in non-chaining treaties because that would basically mean you sign an ODOAP with alliances. Only when it is convenient, you will protect them? Not my cup of tea. If I ally someone I stand by them *NO MATTER WHAT*.

[Sulmar]

No one intended to defend us. Three days into the way, NSO had to declare in our defense because no one else would. It was rumored at one point that Legion was going to defend us, but it was never confirmed to us. You, as per usual, fail.

I feel like this is overly harsh and disingenuous at best. With STA having almost no treaties on our "side" it made it very hard to figure out who could defend you. You were offered a quick ODP in order to bring in some more alliances, but you turned that down. All of us were there willingly to try and win the war that your ally started, so don't try and act like we didn't want to help you.

[Van Hoo III]

I, personally, am offended/outraged/insulted that you got fakecouped. Would you like to like to make self-righteously indignant posts on the forum with me?

Can I please?

[Tromp]

Kudos to STA.

[pezstar]

I stand by my comment on not to ally alliance that have treaties with alliances I hate, for instance I wouldn't want to ally NEW cause that would mean I would tie myself to TPF. I cannot support NEW in wars in where they would get dragged in cause of TPF. So that's why I don't want to treaty myself to them. I don't believe in non-chaining treaties because that would basically mean you sign an ODOAP with alliances. Only when it is convenient, you will protect them? Not my cup of tea. If I ally someone I stand by them *NO MATTER WHAT*.

Our treaties with Vanguard and MK predate their relationships with Athens. In fact, our relationship with MK predates Athens existence altogether.

[Ragashingo]

I am seriously disappointed in STA here. I can't find another more politically correct way to put it. The alliance that is led by Tyga has dishonored everything I thought that STA stood for. The fact of the matter is that I think Londo and Athens are total !@#$%s. I can't disagree with that in any way. I left the other side of the treatyweb for the very reason that treaties are conveniences, trifles to be honored at leisure and opportunism.

The absence of Tyga from this thread saddens me more, as I've not known him to hide from the facts. And, even though it does my side no goodwill for me to wag my finger at you, I see your actions as dishonoring the history of an alliance who has put doing what is morally righteous ahead of what is easy in every occasion.

This is sad.

And this is why I don't like being treatied to individual members in a MADP bloc. By having a treaty with just MK or just Vanguard we're "required" to defend and stick our political necks out for LOST, and Athens, and GR, and FoB and ODN or else someone like you gets disappointed in us. We don't have treaties with any of them and its like being disappointed that we didn't go out of our way to defend someone like GATO who we have no ties to. Personally I think we should either have treaties with all of CnG (and which point we might as well just join it all together) or we should have none. I think this is a very dumb position for us to be in.

That said I am very disappointed in how disappointed you are in us. I think we all agree that these last two wars have put a lot of people in extremely tough positions. STA hold a great deal of respect for our allies in MK and Vanguard and I've seen several of our members wondering if and hoping for us to turn right around and declare on your alliance's behalf. And this is right after we got clear of a war where we were heavily outnumbered and you guys couldn't support us directly because of treaty conflicts.

We understood and respected the fact that you guys were in a bad position then. I'd ask that you do the same for us now.

[uaciaut]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it is as close as it gets. The number one reason is that Athens wasn't even involved in the war, so defacto you are saying that you don't care if CnG gets on the other side of the war. Because that would've happened. Secondly, you could have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd rather have you not attacking Athens since they are a MADP partner of our close allies in MK and Vanguard". Instead you said that you would cheer if Athens would've get attacked.

If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person.

Weren't you in Continuum for quite a while? Did you like everyone there and everyone connected to people there?

[pezstar]

And this is why I don't like being treatied to individual members in a MADP bloc. By having a treaty with just MK or just Vanguard we're "required" to defend and stick our political necks out for LOST, and Athens, and GR, and FoB and ODN or else someone like you gets disappointed in us. We don't have treaties with any of them and its like being disappointed that we didn't go out of our way to defend someone like GATO who we have no ties to. Personally I think we should either have treaties with all of CnG (and which point we might as well just join it all together) or we should have none. I think this is a very dumb position for us to be in.

That said I am very disappointed in how disappointed you are in us. I think we all agree that these last two wars have put a lot of people in extremely tough positions. STA hold a great deal of respect for our allies in MK and Vanguard and I've seen several of our members wondering if and hoping for us to turn right around and declare on your alliance's behalf. And this is right after we got clear of a war where we were heavily outnumbered and you guys couldn't support us directly because of treaty conflicts.

We understood and respected the fact that you guys were in a bad position then. I'd ask that you do the same for us now.

ALL of our treaties have non-chaining clauses. We are not required to defend anyone who enters a war because of another treaty.

[Ragashingo]

ALL of our treaties have non-chaining clauses. We are not required to defend anyone who enters a war because of another treaty.

I understand, thus required was in quotes. I meant is as people out there seem to think we should be looking out of all those alliances when we have no official obligation to do so. I think we should look out for them to a great extent in our service of the safety of MK and Vanguard, but we can't treat them as actual MDP partners which is what some here seem to want us to have done.

[Saber]

I do have to wonder if \m/ would have accepted the peace offer if TOP and IRON instead were just sitting in our corner eating popcorn. I find it somewhat surprising everyone is acting like our entrance had no bearing on it.

[scutterbug]

ALL of our treaties have non-chaining clauses. We are not required to defend anyone who enters a war because of another treaty.

So by wanting Athens to get hit, knowing MK/Vanguard would then defend via C&G you guys wouldnt have to defend them because of no chaining. How honourable!

Edited January 30, 2010 by scutterbug

[Uhtred]

I feel like this is overly harsh and disingenuous at best. With STA having almost no treaties on our "side" it made it very hard to figure out who could defend you. You were offered a quick ODP in order to bring in some more alliances, but you turned that down. All of us were there willingly to try and win the war that your ally started, so don't try and act like we didn't want to help you.

We don't sign treaties of convenience. Never have and never will. That said, had the situation been the other way around I would have happily declared war in defence of any in our coalition provided it wouldn't mean attacking our own treaty partners. The only alliance in the coalition prepared to do the same for us was NSO, and they weren't exactly in a position to provide any meaningful assistance.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Uhtred

[kriekfreak]

Weren't you in Continuum for quite a while? Did you like everyone there and everyone connected to people there?

At the time I didn't hate anyone in Q. Nice try though.

[pezstar]

I do have to wonder if \m/ would have accepted the peace offer if TOP and IRON instead were just sitting in our corner eating popcorn. I find it somewhat surprising everyone is acting like our entrance had no bearing on it.

I'm sure it had bearing on it. C&G knew you were coming, and I believe they even know the time you were coming. I don't believe for a second that it was a coincidence.

[Branimir]

You either are CandG's doggy, or not, because CandG is MUST YUNIFIED BLOCK

There is no middle ground here, as you will find out or should have already.

Choose something quickly and stick with it. Its for your benefit to choose quickly, you will have to fully commit to something.

Enjoy.

[Trinite]

How is it that as the "offended party" I don't feel anything wrong with what happened but everyone else does?

I don't think you are the offended party, and I think that those saying STA betrayed their allies are wrong. In those logs STA does however cheer an attack on an alliance that wasn't engaged in the war. Saying you should protect your ally's allies verges on the absurd with the treaty web how it is, but that still doesn't account for the fact that STA approved of the tactic of attacking an alliance uninvolved in the war because you didn't like them and assumed they would come in on the other side.

Just to reiterate, those saying STA are bad allies are fools. I've never seen anything to suggest that about STA, but it's still disappointing to see them cheering a CB-less attack.

[Venizelos]

[13:55] <pezstar> But don't hit MK or Vanguard aggressively, please.

and now that they have, what is STA planning to do?

[PhysicsJunky]

Our two protectors ended up on opposite sides of this conflict. The best you can do is to try and talk the people you have positive relations with out of direct conflict. With the treaty web and blocs the way they are, which leads into a rant of its own, a great deal of alliances were placed in tough positions during this war. STA exercised what precious influence they had for the benefit of their MDP partners and there wasn't much more they could do without harming another ally. Had they come out and thrown an hissy fit about CnG being attacked at all what good would it have done? At very best it wouldn't have changed anything.

[pezstar]

and now that they have, what is STA planning to do?

We certainly aren't going to show our hand in public right now. That would ruin our fun.

[Kzoppistan]

These are the consequences of maintaining a higher degree of independence. While you have more control over your foreign affairs, you also have to deal with letting your allies allies burn because they are not your allies, too. Most people are aware of STA's independent streak and position in the web. While many consider their allies friends to be their concern, too, it is clear that STA does not. I make no statement of condemnation nor approval of the actions STA took. It is what it is.

[supercoolyellow]

There goes that sterling reputation of STA, unless ofcourse. You change your mind.

Edit, I just realized that I completely misunderstood the OP, my apologies. I tend to be one of those stupid ppl that grind on me from time to time, and this is one of those moments.

Edited January 30, 2010 by supercoolyellow

[Rush Sykes]

I suppose that all-in-all, this is no big deal. Although I do find the added "if you attack, say Athens..." part to be a little over the top. The sentence could have read "No, do not attack our allies." That addendum that it would be ok to hit Athens, seems suggestive, out of place, and offensive to me. It makes me regret my vocal defense of STAs horrible position in this war. Whether or not anyone else in the world agrees with my assessment is irrelevant to me. The Athens suggestion was one step further than "No, its not ok to hit my allies" needed to go.

[Stormsend]

Dear World,

Have fun debating a point few involved actually cares about. Please continue throwing mud at our allies' faces, as I am sure you're just masking your own pain at the position you were put in. For those of you not involved in this war (yet or eternally), pick a side and show your disappointment on the war screen.

Special hello to pezstar, who is handling the comments wonderfully; Stumpy, Trashcat of Heaven and King of Purple; and Hoo, returned for the 1000th time.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Mundokiir

[pezstar]

I suppose that all-in-all, this is no big deal. Although I do find the added "if you attack, say Athens..." part to be a little over the top. The sentence could have read "No, do not attack our allies." That addendum that it would be ok to hit Athens, seems suggestive, out of place, and offensive to me. It makes me regret my vocal defense of STAs horrible position in this war. Whether or not anyone else in the world agrees with my assessment is irrelevant to me. The Athens suggestion was one step further than "No, its not ok to hit my allies" needed to go.

That's a fair position for you to take.

[Scorbolt]

This thread is starting to make my head hurt. I personally think STA's position is very respectable and I am looking forward to seeing how they will respond to TOP/IRON's actions.