Validity of ODP

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='Hydro' date='24 May 2010 - 01:33 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 is more or less my thoughts.

A Casus Beli is merely a "reason for war", no one ever said a CB had to be good. Now one might say entering in via a treaty of some kind (or some other reason) is more justified, but it isn't really any more legitimate. You can have a poor CB, you can have a great CB, but the very nature of a CB makes any CB legitimate.

[Poyplemonkeys]

Nemesis holds an OADP with Cult of Justitia. The alliance is great friends with us, and we place so much value in the treaty that it is essentially an MDP for us. We hold CoJ dear, and if someone tried to tell us that entering in their defence or even by their side was not valid because of the values CoJ hold regarding mutually obligatory treaties, they would be laughed out of our presence.

[Centurius]

My answer was yes and I will explain why.

I will not lightly sign an ODP treaty with someone and when I do it has been preceded by weeks to months of talks or had a higher level treaty before. The way I consider ODPs is as a step between trust and complete trust in an alliance, at the same time ODPs are a nice step if they conflict with your current partners or you see issues between current partners coming.

When NV signs an ODP you better not attack the alliance it was signed with.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='23 May 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1274663856' post='2309716']
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.
[/quote]

You really just tried to justify curb stomps? Or was that unintentional...

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='23 May 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1274663856' post='2309716']
Kind of ironic to see this comment from a VE member, you pretty much have the strongest treaty currently in effect.
[/quote]

And here in lies the difference between an OOC forum (this) and an IC forum (which this isn't)

I'll even break it down:

-OOC: I don't like Aggression clauses as a game mechanic, I think the logic behind them only leads to the curb stomp mentality we had for so long and allows alliances to "legally" jump all over someone without the rest of CN crying foul.

-IC: Lets us ride or die with our allies, always. And heck, even if my OOC thoughts on the matter carry over... the bottom line is they're a powerful tool, and if our enemies (no one specific) might have them at their disposal it only makes sense for us to have them as well.

In CN there really isn't much of an arms race aside from trying to get everyone and their mother to buy a Manhattan Project... the real arms race goes on in the political spectrum, consolidating the power of your allies to help you all move forward - in this case once an alliance came out with an MADP or an MoADP, the ante had been upped and it was up to everyone else to match or raise.

[Daikos]

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

I'm curious, how do you see entering into a war via an ODP as opportunistic?


[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.
[/quote]

You should really consider going into the jewelry business, with all the gems you produce it would be incredibly profitable.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 May 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1274633468' post='2309170']
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.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to put words in the OPs mouth (or am I?) but his referencing the Aircastle thread makes me wonder if he meant to ask: "Is entering on an ODP bandwagoning?". Since that seemed to be more a theme of the Aircastle thread than ODP validity.

[theArrowheadian]

ODPs are completely legal, they're just the cowards way out, but they can be beneficial for some alliances if they don't know if they can trust an alliance or if their treaty partner comes on a soft target they can get some free tech and military training going on.

[Guffey]

[quote name='theArrowheadian' date='24 May 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1274707014' post='2310151']
ODPs are completely legal, they're just the cowards way out, but they can be beneficial for some alliances if they don't know if they can trust an alliance or if their treaty partner comes on a soft target they can get some free tech and military training going on.
[/quote]


everyone makes accidents sometimes, but if they pulled a stupid move with full realization of how unjust their actions are, the ODP gives you a way to say, no I'm not going to defend you, cause you are not being honorable and you are not justified.

Avalon only signs ODP's for this reason, we look at every conflict from every angle possible, and will ONLY join if we are needed, (meaning it will not be a steamroll victory for our side), and we deem the cause just, regardless if we have an ODP or any treaty for that matter.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='24 May 2010 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1274700597' post='2310105']
You really just tried to justify curb stomps? Or was that unintentional...
[/quote]

In a way, yes.

Say an alliance has a good reason to attack someone. Their war would be justified. If they decided to call in twenty allies to assist with the war, why would it suddenly be less justified? Having the numerical superiority doesn't make you wrong (or right).

[Haflinger]

The problem with curbstomps is from a gaming perspective. They're freaking boring for the winner. You get about 24 hours of excitement when you're passing around target lists etc. and trying to make sure nobody screws up, and then great yawnage as your target falls apart.

They're actually kinda fun for the losing side, especially now with all the things CN has added over the last couple years to give losing alliances an edge. Having been on both sides of them, fighting against superior forces is much much more fun, as you can actually make a difference to the outcome - and that's kindof a problem, winning should be fun.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='24 May 2010 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1274712767' post='2310219']
The problem with curbstomps is from a gaming perspective. They're freaking boring for the winner. You get about 24 hours of excitement when you're passing around target lists etc. and trying to make sure nobody screws up, and then great yawnage as your target falls apart.

They're actually kinda fun for the losing side, especially now with all the things CN has added over the last couple years to give losing alliances an edge. Having been on both sides of them, fighting against superior forces is much much more fun, as you can actually make a difference to the outcome - and that's kindof a problem, winning should be fun.
[/quote]


I donno, I enjoy being on the winning side though I understand what you are saying a good fight is more fun than a curbstomp.

[James IV]

Any alliance(s) could DoW anyone whenever they want. They just have to be prepared to take responsibility for their actions though. The "treaties" are merely legal justification for war and tools of PR.

[Mixoux]

[quote name='James IV' date='24 May 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1274733068' post='2310447']
Any alliance(s) could DoW anyone whenever they want. They just have to be prepared to take responsibility for their actions though. The "treaties" are merely legal justification for war and tools of PR.
[/quote]

Yeah, it's honestly pretty hilarious the term 'bandwagoning' exists here in the first place.

Have your alliance do what it wants to do. All a treaty does it make it public that you're going to do x at y time, not like it enables a secret page ingame to click 'declare war'.

[heggo]

Y'all probably can guess what the NSO thinks here, given the whole Moldavi Doctrine thing. Yeah.

[Auctor]

[quote name='Daikos' date='24 May 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1274701712' post='2310108']
I'm curious, how do you see entering into a war via an ODP as opportunistic?
[/quote]

By their very nature, they're optional commitments. If you activate it, it's doing something you are not obligated to do.

Assuming you're a rational actor and I reckon most people are somehow even if it's hard for others to see their reasoning, you wouldn't activate an ODP unless doing so was of some benefit to you. There's things of more benefit than NS or being on the winning side, sure, and I'd be happy to activate an ODP on the losing side of a war, but it would be to my benefit somehow, even if all I cared about was an opportunity to burn to the ground defending my allies against something stupid.

It's opportunism, even when it's "noble".

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='Auctor' date='24 May 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1274739737' post='2310563']
By their very nature, they're optional commitments. If you activate it, it's doing something you are not obligated to do.

Assuming you're a rational actor and I reckon most people are somehow even if it's hard for others to see their reasoning, you wouldn't activate an ODP unless doing so was of some benefit to you. There's things of more benefit than NS or being on the winning side, sure, and I'd be happy to activate an ODP on the losing side of a war, but it would be to my benefit somehow, even if all I cared about was an opportunity to burn to the ground defending my allies against something stupid.

It's opportunism, even when it's "noble".
[/quote]


Well aren't all choices then opportunistic. Those silly tech sellers, opportunism at its finest, buyers too, or and those people who run for government, oh and those opportunistic schmucks who join alliances. Silly them. Jeer Jeer!

[Haflinger]

Yes, all choices are indeed opportunistic. You have an opportunity, you take advantage of it.

This is ... controversial?

[Daikos]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='24 May 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1274742334' post='2310603']
Yes, all choices are indeed opportunistic. You have an opportunity, you take advantage of it.

This is ... controversial?
[/quote]

When people toss the word around in order to try and score cheap political points, yes.

EDIT: Really, if you think that opportunistic isn't used almost entirely in a negative sense around here then you need to pull your head out of the sand.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Daikos

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Daikos' date='24 May 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1274743582' post='2310621']
When people toss the word around in order to try and score cheap political points, yes.

EDIT: Really, if you think that opportunistic isn't used almost entirely in a negative sense around here then you need to pull your head out of the sand.
[/quote]
Yeah, I know.

It was sarcasm. Sorry. But opportunistic should not be a negative word, unless of course the intent is to deprive us all of opportunities.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

A treaty is not a CB.

The CB would be an unjust attack on your buddies, or???

Also re: opportunism, the word doesnt just mean taking an opportunity, it means putting short term gain above principles or long-term considerations. Activating an ODP might or might not be an opportunist move, if depends on the context.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Opethian]

I say all treaties are invalid, but that's just me.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='23 May 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1274632260' post='2309148']
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.
[/quote]
FFS Ashoka I read half of that article before I realized, " Wait, What the hell am I doing!"

As for ODP's I think they are perfectly valid. They have more weight to them than PIAT's IMO. Sure for bigger alliances ODP's might not seem like a big deal but to smaller and micro alliances they may mean the world.

Edited May 26, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[Banksy]

[quote name='Auctor' date='25 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1274739737' post='2310563']
By their very nature, they're optional commitments. If you activate it, it's doing something you are not obligated to do.

Assuming you're a rational actor and I reckon most people are somehow even if it's hard for others to see their reasoning, you wouldn't activate an ODP unless doing so was of some benefit to you. There's things of more benefit than NS or being on the winning side, sure, and I'd be happy to activate an ODP on the losing side of a war, but it would be to my benefit somehow, even if all I cared about was an opportunity to burn to the ground defending my allies against something stupid.

It's opportunism, even when it's "noble".
[/quote]
But you could extend this logic to say that a MDP is optional, to sign one is an option an alliance chooses to take. We only sign MDPs to benefit our alliance (as it gives us protection and a degree of power projection). When we go to war for a MDP, it is an opportunity to show our worth/keep us interested.

but would you say that a MDP is opportunistic?

[Auctor]

[quote name='Banksy' date='24 May 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1274759413' post='2310952']
But you could extend this logic to say that a MDP is optional, to sign one is an option an alliance chooses to take. We only sign MDPs to benefit our alliance (as it gives us protection and a degree of power projection). When we go to war for a MDP, it is an opportunity to show our worth/keep us interested.

but would you say that a MDP is opportunistic?
[/quote]
sure, this is a political game. If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours runs this show. I don't really consider myself a power player, but I'd venture to say most of you have some kind of rationale to choosing and managing your treaties to keep yourselves in a position yall'd prefer.

I don't think there's anything sacred about going to a war for an ODP over an MDP, and I don't think it works the other way either. If you support a retarded move, it will sink you just as easy as if it's for no treaty at all or an MADP, your level of obligation doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the actions you take to support it.

I don't think I maybe meant the word "opportunism" in quite the light some of yall have taken it, but I certainly didn't mean to stand in moral judgment of just how it is you conduct yourself around an ODP. I consider my alliance's policy on our ODP's to be that we'll defend our ODP partners if they are attacked, but recognize that we have other "higher" priorities and that we can't always expect in the current treaty web type dynamic that we'll be able to defend all of our allies at the same time without respect to which side they are on. If we activate an ODP, we'll be glad to defend our allies and won't really care if it's "cool" or not one way or the other. If yall's alliances want to treat them differently, go right ahead and feel just as morally justified about it as you can manage in a day, no skin off my nose.