Validity of ODP

[Lurunin]

First off I would like to apologize if I have put this into the wrong forum...

I just have a question for the Cyberverse when it comes to writing treaties with your treaty partners:

"Is entering into a war from a ODP treaty a valid CB?"

For months I've heard this point being debated and even just recently in the Aircastle topic

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=86259&view=findpost&p=2308977

...I know many alliances who value their ODP's very highly, and then I know alliances who downright refuse to sign such a treaty...


The way I see it is as a valid CB, especially if you sign it with an alliance who you are good friends with but may be on the opposite side of the treaty web..while you cant promise to defend them all the time, you can defend them when able.


So what are your thoughts?

[Auctor]

It's inherently opportunistic, but opportunism isn't invalid.

[lamuella]

an ODP is an entirely valid reason for [i]my[/i] alliance to jin a war, It is a cowardly and craven reason for [i]anyone else[/i] to join a war,o

[lonewolfe2015]

Why would it not be? It is an Optional Defense Pact, we'd not sign such treaties if we had no intentions of activating them to defend our allies.

I value ODP's very highly, they are in some cases better than a MDP with non-chaining clauses if the two alliances signing them are true friends. Less headaches too.

[New Frontier]

Is this a serious question?

I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks ODPs are an invalid CB. Sure, some people might not like ODPs, but they're certainly a CB.

[Cotillion]

Phrasing the choices as you did and making the poll public will not make me explain why I think that ODPs are perfectly valid. I might have before, but not now.

[abdur]

They are perfectly valid, and are a CB.

[Lurunin]

gotta say i wasnt expecting this kind of reaction

[quote name='King Puffington' date='23 May 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1274629164' post='2309099']
Phrasing the choices as you did and making the poll public will not make me explain why I think that ODPs are perfectly valid. I might have before, but not now.
[/quote]


yea...messed up when i chose to make the poll public i realize that, misread it to think it would show results and not wait until poll expires

[Alterego]

People on the Supercomplaints went to war against people without a treaty or a CB so I say its valid. They have to opt in though and this usually only happens when people are on the big side. Saying that they are a pointless treaty and show a lack of trust between alliances.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1274630594' post='2309120']
People on the Supercomplaints went to war against people without a treaty or a CB so I say its valid. They have to opt in though and this usually only happens when people are on the big side. Saying that they are a pointless treaty and show a lack of trust between alliances.
[/quote]

You should invest in a stepstool because you really are reaching too far. Do you recall how TOP and IRON entered the war? Why you would call out the SG alliances on [i]this[/i] topic is beyond me. ODPs are of course a valid CB, maybe you like an alliance and feel close to them, but don't know them well enough to commit 100% to their defense, in which case you keep the option open to do so even though your relation isn't on the mutual defense level.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Lurunin' date='23 May 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1274628816' post='2309090']
I just have a question for the Cyberverse when it comes to writing treaties with your treaty partners:
"Is entering into a war from a ODP treaty a valid CB?"
[/quote]

Optional agreements in general are absolutely valid. In your example (ODP) assuming one is entering as a defender, it's valid.

A treaty is simply a written statement of an agreement between one or more alliances. What is agreed to (or not) in that treaty is between the alliances signing the treaty. As long as the agreement is posted in public, every other alliance is given notice of the relationship as defined by those parties who sign it. If military support is optional as opposed to mandatory, then any group considering an attack needs to take that into account when making their plans.

The risk in signing optional military agreements is to the people signing them. If it's an option to help defend, then it's also an option to refuse. That is the trade off.

I can think of many reasons why an alliance might choose to go with an optional treaty in addition to your example. Here are a few:

- alliance philosophy states war is justified in some but not all situations and a treaty that allows for the option of military action is easier than spelling out all the reasons that one will go to war and all the reasons one will not
- the members of both alliances are just getting to know each other and its going well but they don't know each other well enough to promise to defend each other for ANY reason
- the alliance defines "sovereignty" as the right to declare war (or not) - period. Thus they just don't sign mandatory treaties because it's a violation of their definition of sovereignty.
- to avoid being caught in the "treaty web." This is either in general or because the alliance that one is signing the optional treaty with also has a treaty with another alliance that the first does not indirectly want to be tied to
- the alliance is small and/or recovering from a previous war and is not ready to commit to an absolute promise of military assistance

[Ashoka the Great]

Any treaty is as valid as its signatories' word, so I'm not sure I understand the question.

[quote name='Lamuella' date='23 May 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1274629065' post='2309093']
an ODP is an entirely valid reason for [i]my[/i] alliance to jin a war, It is a cowardly and craven reason for [i]anyone else[/i] to join a war,o
[/quote]

And this is why you don't declare war on an alliance that GOONS has an ODP with. They'll throw a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_%28rapper%29"]Chinese rapper[/url] at you.

[GearHead]

ODPs are definitely valid CB. I mean, I hold them very highly. A treaty right under MDP shouldn't exactly be treated like a peace of paper.

The only difference that I see between an MDP and an ODP is this: In an MDP, if your ally screws up badly and is about to get rolled, you get rolled with them. Happily. In an ODP, if your ally screws up badly, you can consider getting rolled with them.
I'm completely excluding the more probable occasion of treaty chaining during a Great War, because usually your fate is already decided and you usually follow your closest MDP allies into the conflict anyways. This is mostly in perspective of "if my ODP partner gets attacked in a more isolated situation, what will I do?"

We've never been asked to activate any of our ODPs, but by golly if one of our partners asks and it is their ideals at stake, you can bet we'll be coming.


Now, concerning the more probable Great War situation, my opinion changes slightly. In a Great War, I believe ODPs can still be used honestly (see CoJ and Nemesis). However, much of the time, they are actually used opportunistically - to optimize certain treaty chains, which end up utilizing empty DoWs just to chain somebody 5 treaties down the line. Personally, I think this is a terrible deviation from what treaties were originally intended for, but oh well.

[Duke Nukem]

Definetly a valid CB. I think there only use is a CB to be quite honest. They aren't mutual so it is basically an opportunism thing.

[Lord Boris]

Any treaty with an assistance/ODP clause is indeed a valid CB.

[Max Power]

I agree with White Chocolate fully.

Also, if a nation hypothetically has to act either way with an ODP, whether it means backing the ally or not, how is the treaty in any way [i]optional[/i]?

If alliances are worried about others backing out on them, I'm sure there's a way to write certain limited mandatory clauses into an ODP. At that point, it's more about communication between the alliances and having a clear idea of what each clause of the ODP means. That's why every treaty actually contains clauses instead of just saying ODP, MDP, etc.

[Bob Janova]

I'm not really sure what 'valid CB' means. 'You attacked my friends' is a 'valid CB' whether you have an MDP, a ODP/PIAT or no treaty at all, in that we've seen it used and most people do not complain about it. If what you meant to ask was 'does it count as a defensive activation', without getting into too subjective territory, a lot of non-chaining MDPs explicitly exclude chaining into a war where one partner was hit due to a treaty [i]obligation[/i], and therefore ODPs activated against alliances with that type of treaty would not be considered legally defensive.

[Fallen Fool]

I've always liked ODP's and never really understood why some people foam at the mouth over them.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Fallen_Fool

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

What's the point of signing an ODP if you don't think you could ever use the optional "defense" part of it, because it's considered bandwagoning? Seems rather silly to me.

[supercoolyellow]

If an alliance didn't want to ever use their ODP's as a valid CB, they wouldn't put it in writing.

[Gopherbashi]

Clearly, signing a treaty in which military action is "strongly recommended" in case of attack gives an alliance no valid reason whatsoever to engage in military action in case of attack against its treaty partner.

The only logical response to this thread is therefore "no".

[Haflinger]

I don't like ODPs, but not for the same reason. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=22&showentry=200"]This is why.[/url]

[Adrian LaCroix]

My definition of "bandwagoning" is extremely narrow, so I have no problem with optional defense or aggression clauses being activated in any situation.

[Uralica]

Joining a war on an ODP is perfectly legit if one's fellow signee is attacked. I had no problem with Sparta or Alpha Omega using the NOIR ODP to declare on TOOL during the Karma War. What good is having an optional defence pact/clause if you are afraid to use it for fear of being labelled bandwagonners? (I've heard people being accused of bandwagoning for activating an MDP, but that's another story entirely.)

[kpcurley]

[quote name='Auctor' date='23 May 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1274628992' post='2309091']
It's inherently opportunistic, but opportunism isn't invalid.
[/quote]

sure, thats what it is there for.