Validity of ODP

[Chief Savage Man]

ODPs are a good starter treaty. We have two ODPs right now, with Corporation and Asgaard. We have not known either of them for as long as we have our MDoAP partners but we are friendly with them and would defend in most circumstances (I mean they'd have to do some REALLY bad stuff for us to opt out, I'd say it's virtually an MDP). The ODP gives a route out if it turns out the relationship is not going to work on a mutual defense level. But if it will, then the treaty can be upgraded to a higher level. I could replace both our MDoAPs with ODoAPs and we would treat them in exactly the same manner. The obligation aspect of the MDoAP is just what we feel already put into writing. The feeling of brotherhood should precede the MDP/MDoAP, not the other way around.

[Louisa]

[quote]I'm just going to vote and not post my opinion[/quote]

Well I am going to do the complete opposite. Any thing at all is a valid CB to the Alliance declaring the war, even if the target does not see it as such. It is all opinions and, well the war is already on so what does it matter? (Except for causing argumentative threads to sprout all over to debate if the CB was valid or not, then debate what "valid" means, etc and so on.)

By the way, are there any (pure) OAP's around?

[Schad]

It's not the nature of the treaty involved that defines an action as bandwagoning; if the military assistance is genuinely needed by the other party, whether you're entering on an MDoAP, ODP, or to help a friend with whom you don't have a treaty at all, I wouldn't consider that bandwagoning. If you're entering against an already-overwhelmed opponent so that you can get a couple quick kicks in (especially in an attempt to leverage that for reps), that'd be bandwagoning.

It also comes down to the full scope of the treaties held by the alliance in question. Aircastle and OBR both entered on optional treaties, but both take (or took) a minimalist approach to foreign relations...regardless of the level, it shouldn't be a surprise if an alliance with 2-3 treaties enters in defense of a treaty-partner, even if it's a lowly PIAT, while someone entering on an optional treaty with a slew of MADP/MDoAP/MDP partners equally in need of help is a whole 'nother animal.

[Lurunin]

hm so right now i've seen many people claim that it's alright to enter in while throwing out their own experiences with them (excluding the OBR/AC examples)

do you believe the same way when you look at alliances on opposite sides of the battlefield/treaty web who enter into war on ODPs?

[Schad]

[quote name='Lurunin' date='23 May 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1274644320' post='2309338']
hm so right now i've seen many people claim that it's alright to enter in while throwing out their own experiences with them (excluding the OBR/AC examples)

do you believe the same way when you look at alliances on opposite sides of the battlefield/treaty web who enter into war on ODPs?
[/quote]

Absolutely. The treaty web should serve to enumerate one's obligations, but it shouldn't constrain the ability to act such that you have to have an MDoAP before you can even consider helping someone. When NSO entered in defense of STA despite the fact that they had no active treaty, it was laudable; they had no obligation to do so, but walked into a shellacking for a friend regardless.

[commander thrawn]

MDPs and other mandatory pacts are often considered the only way to go. But an ODP has one inherant bonus, you can tell your friends no, you are being stupid. If they trust you, and you trust them then wars that are justified and legitimate will be no issue as they will have no moral grounds to deny the treaty, but if they got caught in a bad tech raid or something backfired and they are attacked there is a bit of leniency where an ally can say, we love you guys but really. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

MDPs and MDoAPs can be used as a club, and many times have been used as such to escalate wars. ODPs cannot be used in such a way.

[Letum]

I don't see why one piece of paper should be more "valid" than another.

[wickedj]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='23 May 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1274629150' post='2309097']
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.
[/quote]
Summed it up.

CSN currently holds an oAoDP with Athens and if Athens asked for our help you can bet your $@! we would be there to help, OP must think ignoring MADPs is ok too

[Banksy]

An interesting question would be whether we see oAP's as valid CBs.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 May 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1274646015' post='2309387']
Summed it up.

CSN currently holds an oAoDP with Athens and if Athens asked for our help you can bet your $@! we would be there to help, OP must think ignoring MADPs is ok too
[/quote]


i'm pretty sure in my OP i claimed that i do in fact believe that ODPs should be highly valued and are legitimate reason to head to war...i made this thread because i've seen conflict over the matter and i want to know people's thoughts

you are taking things WAY out of context

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 May 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1274646737' post='2309406']
An interesting question would be whether we see oAP's as valid CBs.
[/quote]

I was thinking about adding that in as well but i wanted it to be limited to one situation

Edited May 23, 2010 by Lurunin

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 May 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1274646737' post='2309406']
An interesting question would be whether we see oAP's as valid CBs.
[/quote]

Agreed. But it's not the "o" that makes that question interesting.

[Mathias]

They're always a valid CB, but they can be looked at differently. If you use an ODP to fight with an alliance that's obviously going to lose, that's an honorable thing to do. If you use an ODP to join a side in a war where the outcome is uncertain, that's fine. If you use an ODP to fight with the winning side, you're just annoying and better not ask for reps.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 May 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1274646737' post='2309406']
An interesting question would be whether we see oAP's as valid CBs.
[/quote]

Aggression and Optional Aggression treaties were a tool used to gain and hold power... there was that exposé topic about how MADP/MoADPs were an NpPO invention back around the BLEU days it but I'm far to lazy to try and find it.

I find the idea of them and the fact that we as a community still sign them to be hilarious. From a real world standpoint, aggression clauses are kinda like changing the law so that if someone threatened to punched you in the face, it would be legal for you and all of your friends to beat them up. In reality we call that [url="http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#120.06"]Gang Assault[/url]. In CN we call it a valid CB.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Tungsten

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='23 May 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1274629094' post='2309094']
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.
[/quote]

This right here ^^^

if it specifically says you can enter into war then guess what? you can.

Alot of alliances enter into war through ODPs. If I recall correctly I heard somewhere that the NOIR treaty (which is an ODP) was the most common treaty cited in a DoW.

Interesting topic though. Also first time I've gotten to quote an LW post.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='23 May 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1274649634' post='2309463']
Aggression and Optional Aggression treaties were a tool used to gain and hold power... there was that exposé topic about how MADP/MoADPs were an NpPO invention back around the BLEU days it but I'm far to lazy to try and find it.

I find the idea of them and the fact that we as a community still sign them to be hilarious. From a real world standpoint, aggression clauses are kinda like changing the law so that if someone threatened to punched you in the face, it would be legal for you and all of your friends to beat them up. In reality we call that [url="http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#120.06"]Gang Assault[/url]. In CN we call it a valid CB.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand your position. Assuming it would be justified for a single alliance to declare war over being threatened, why would it not be justified for a group of alliances to do the same?

The MADP essentially serves to consolidate the militaries of two (or several, in the case of blocs) alliances into a single military force.

Kind of ironic to see this comment from a VE member, you pretty much have the strongest treaty currently in effect.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[SirDelirium]

You sign a treaty with someone saying "I will defend you if I can/if I choose to." You choose to. Valid CB.

[Hydro]

There is no such thing as an invalid CB, hence this topic being pointless. There are, however, CB's that are less popular then others. The fixation in this game for "paper wars," where only alliances with treaties with each other can fight in a war is absurd. As a sovereign, independent alliance you have every right to enter into a war, with or without a treaty by virtue of the fact that you, and you alone, are the ultimate controller of your military forces. The need to legitimize your actions via a treaty, be it an ODP or anything else, is simply not necessary.

[Horatio Longworth]

'course it is. Hasn't it always?

[Seth Muscarella]

[quote name='Hydro' date='23 May 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1274672017' post='2309860']
There is no such thing as an invalid CB, hence this topic being pointless. There are, however, CB's that are less popular then others. The fixation in this game for "paper wars," where only alliances with treaties with each other can fight in a war is absurd. As a sovereign, independent alliance you have every right to enter into a war, with or without a treaty by virtue of the fact that you, and you alone, are the ultimate controller of your military forces. The need to legitimize your actions via a treaty, be it an ODP or anything else, is simply not necessary.
[/quote]
That's exactly what I came in here to say. An alliance signing an ODP with another alliance is a little odd to me if they are using it solely for CB purposes. This implies that they did not believe they already had the option to defend their friends.

The (newer) Moldavi doctrine essentially stated that NSO recognized the right to defend whoever they pleased, and the world went nuts over it. I didn't think at the time that something like that even needed to be said. :-S

[Groucho Marx]

An ODP, like any other treaty, is as valuable as you decide it's worth.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='24 May 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1274680475' post='2309988']
That's exactly what I came in here to say. An alliance signing an ODP with another alliance is a little odd to me if they are using it solely for CB purposes. This implies that they did not believe they already had the option to defend their friends.
[/quote]
A lot of people believe that. It's insane, yes.

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='24 May 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1274680475' post='2309988']
The (newer) Moldavi doctrine essentially stated that NSO recognized the right to defend whoever they pleased, and the world went nuts over it. I didn't think at the time that something like that even needed to be said. :-S
[/quote]
Correction: it essentially stated that alliances are sovereign.

[JoshuaR]

We at MFO value our ODP essentially the same as our MDP. The ODP happens to be completely non-chaining. The MDP has an oA clause that allows it to be chaining, but we would have no intention of invoking the chain unless extreme circumstances required it.

[der Rote Baron]

There's such a thing as an invalid CB?

War is so sweet is timid these days.

[Ian Miller]

I've never been a fan of ODP's personally. But they're a perfectly valid CB.

[JCFalkenberg]

[quote name='Hydro' date='23 May 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1274672017' post='2309860']
There is no such thing as an invalid CB, hence this topic being pointless. There are, however, CB's that are less popular then others. The fixation in this game for "paper wars," where only alliances with treaties with each other can fight in a war is absurd. As a sovereign, independent alliance you have every right to enter into a war, with or without a treaty by virtue of the fact that you, and you alone, are the ultimate controller of your military forces. The need to legitimize your actions via a treaty, be it an ODP or anything else, is simply not necessary.
[/quote]
This. Having a treaty is just announcing to the world ahead of time what will (or may in the case of an ODP) happen if someone attacks your treaty partner. That said, engaging in offensive warz w/o a treaty is generally frowned upon as band-wagoning, and will mark you in future dealings.