Defending an ally that doesn't want to be defended

[Jyrinx]

Interesting opinions on defense obligations from the other threads, so I thought I'd make a thread/poll on it:

[b]Situation[/b]: You are head of Alliance A. You have an MDP+ with Alliance B. The defense obligation is written such that it implies that the requirement for both alliances to defend each other is mandatory, regardless of whether or not they formally request assistance. Alliance B has been attacked by Alliance C. In your opinion, this activates the mandatory defense obligations of your treaty. Despite this, Alliance B requests that Alliance A not get involved at all under any circumstance. You plead that you really wish to help them, but Alliance B emphatically declines all offers of assistance and says that they really, really want you to stay out of it.

Three questions:

1) Do you have a treaty obligation to defend Alliance B?
2) Do you have a moral obligation to defend Alliance B?
3) Would you defend Alliance B?

My personal views:

1) Other. In my opinion the meaning of a treaty is given by the parties to it. If all parties to a treaty unanimously agree to interpret a clause or obligation in a certain context, then for all intents and purposes that is what the clause or obligation means. In the situation described, your ally has already indicated their view that the defense obligation can be waived by the party that has been attacked. If you also give your consent to that view, then that is what the obligation means and thus you have no treaty obligation to defend them. Or you can choose not to give your consent to that interpretation and thus technically have a treaty obligation to defend them.

2) Emphatic no. If anything, you have a moral obligation not to defend them. As the entire point of the defense obligation in situations like this is for the benefit of Alliance B, it would be absurd for you not to consent to their viewpoint. To not do so is to be ridiculously obsessed with the technical and to treat your ally like they're some sort of child who cannot determine for themselves how best to proceed in the given situation. The treaty with your ally was, ideally, a bond of friendship and disregarding Alliance B's opinions and desires seems morally wrong. Again, all in my opinion.

3) I would not due to the above reasoning.

What do you think?

Edited August 9, 2010 by Jyrinx

[wickedj]

Yes to all and ill explain. Few months ago our MDP partners at The Brain had some issues with UPN that could result in war. We were prepared to defend them.

Simply put, if you value your stats over loyalty then dont bother

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1281326879' post='2406363']
Simply put, if you value your stats over loyalty then dont bother
[/quote]
This sums up my opinion. I'd defend a stong ally despite the odds.

[HHAYD]

During the meat grinding Karma War, DOOM had a protectorate treaty with Molon Labe and it specified that DOOM can decide if they want to defend ML or not. We knew we would be entering the massively losing side.

We decided to join the meat grinder with ML.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Defending your ally regardless of any "out" you might have is the only honourable thing to do.

[infinite citadel]

Answered yes to all of the above, and I've actually acted on it before while in TDSM8

If you're truly someone's ally you stand with them no matter what.

[Moridin]

If an ally specifically requests that you not enter a war on their behalf, you shouldn't enter the war. Honoring what your ally wants at the present is far more important than what you wrote down weeks or months (or years) ago.

So for the record, I voted Yes, No, No.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Moridin

[Farore]

If my allies ask us to not take part in their war, we won't. It does not mean we are not honourable and cowards. It simply means that we respect the wish and desire of our allies.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Farore

[Griff]

An ally will ignore that request and join in anyways. Whether its simply for PR points is another story.

[New Frontier]

If an ally actually asks us not to get involved out of strategic desire, then no. If the ally gives us the option to not get wrecked for their sake, I would say $%&@ stats and jump into the fray.

[Prodigal Moon]

Did some of you even read the question?

I agree with Jyrinx: you should at the very least consult with your allies about what they think is for the best. If you know without a doubt that your side is going to get beat down, dragging your friends into it isn't going to help your strategic position after the war one bit. Maybe NSO's corner of the web could, with some time, bring in a few more allies in the middle of the web, or otherwise reorganize into a legitimate rival of SuperGrievances. But to bring in all their allies at this point would just result* in Karma 3.0.



*Unless GATO decided to defend them and people chained indiscriminately. Then things could get really interesting.

[Ryuzaki]

1. Yes. Fairly straight forward.
2. Other. Morals are stupid.
4. Yes. (OOC: War is fun, why would I choose to avoid it?)

[Eden Taylor]

Yes, Yes, Yes; this includes 'paperless' declarations of allegiance.

[Necromancer V4L]

No. If you are true allies than the paper is merely a formality - you've got each others best interest in mind at all times, and that includes calling off the dogs of war in certain situations.

[HeroofTime55]

No, no, and no. Defense is about more than blindly running into an obvious death trap. If someone tries to set up your side of the web, for instance, it is Alliance B that is actually defending it's partners by not requiring them to run straight into said death trap. Defense is about sticking together and doing what best defends your collective interests, and not having a lever external alliances can pull on to get your alliance rolled with absolute certainty.

[Believland]

Yes, Yes and Yes.

Shout-out to the lovely merry men of Freak Safari and LUA for helping defend LX during NoV-Q, even though we asked them not to.

[Ogaden]

Voted no to all just to be contrary and screw up the poll

[JackSkellington]

We signed a treaty for a reason. Not to defend sometimes. I'd keep it ODP if that was the case.

[Bernkastel]

I see it as one of the following:
[b]1. Honor their wish for us not to get involved; we dishonor our treaties and get called cowards in the international community.[/b] It's all about looking good around here or else you'll be politically isolated with nobody wanting to sign treaties with you. It will show that nobody should ally with you because of the fact you failed to honor a treaty.

[b]2. Dishonor their wish for us not to get involved; we honor our treaties and get either (a) praised for coming into a war we cannot win or (b) called idiots for going into a suicide mission. [/b] People will want to sign with you and some will shun you if you pull this off and [i]live to tell about it[/i]. It also shows who can be a reliable ally if you can get them on your side. When all is said and done, the ally who told us not to get involved, will be quite grateful for the sacrifices of their allies. Time and time again, this has proven true with very few abnormalities.

Keeping positive public relations is essential. That's ultimately what people should consider.

That's just how I see it anyways.

tl;dr - Yes, yes, yes.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Bernkastel

[Locke]

You do have a treaty obligation, but any treaties I write avoid this by requiring that assistance be requested. Moral, well, I'd say that's a "spirit of the treaty," matter, not a "letter" one. It would depend, but likely no. As to whether or not I'd actually come to their defense, I suppose that depends on the circumstances.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Griff' timestamp='1281327826' post='2406412']
An ally will ignore that request and join in anyways. Whether its simply for PR points is another story.
[/quote]

Not trying to single you out, but a lot of people seem to be saying the same thing.

If everyone actually believed that, IRON would have had a bunch of allies against Gramlins, which would have brought in a lot of others on the Gramlins side.

I think that ignoring what your treaty partners ask, and ignoring what is actually good for them, would make you a bad treaty partner.

I don't run an alliance, and I'm not much into politics, but if I were in charge, I'd like to think that the alliances I'd signed treaties with would actually care what I had to say, and that if them declaring against my wishes was going to make things worse, that they would have the good sense to stay out of it.

I think it depends a lot on the circumstances, but overall, ignoring the wishes of your treaty partner would seem like a bad plan.

[Ashoka the Great]

The TDSM8 example mentioned earlier is one of the finest examples in CN history of how an ally [i]ought[/i] to act.

So....Yes, yes and yes.

If you're not going to honor what you sign, don't sign anything. If what you've signed gives you an 'out' and you use it, be up-front about it, take the heat and move on.

Personally, if an ally gets hit, I don't need an invitation to the party.

[D34th]

[b]Do you have a treaty obligation to defend an ally who does not wish to be defended?[/b]

[i]No.[/i]

[b]Do you have a moral obligation to defend an ally who does not wish to be defended?[/b]

[i]Yes.[/i]

[b]Would you defend your ally in the situation described below?[/b]

[i]Other.[/i]

It is a case-by-case situation:

Why your ally doesn't want you to be involved? Will be easy for him get peace if you don't assist? You can help more helping him to rebuild than attacking the enemy alliance? They are asking just to protect you? In the last case I think you should defend your ally, in the others I think you should to listen your ally request since you will help him more by staying away.

Edited August 9, 2010 by D34th

[Iosif]

Usually I'd [i]love[/i] to enter the festival especially if it meant total wreckage of my nation, but I think disrespecting your allies' wishes in an attempt to make a stand for them is foolish and I personally wouldn't really like to have allies who are more eager to jump to the warmobile than actually listen what we've got to say.

So yeah, no, no no. If my allies go all [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-frogout.gif[/img] on me, the only moral and treaty obligation I have is not to declare war. Even though it means I miss all the fun and my alliance will probably end up ridiculed by the peanut gallery.

edit: the typoman strikes again

Edited August 9, 2010 by Iosif

[Cobalt]

If you respect your allies at all, you should respect their judgment and thank them for their sacrifice if they chose to go down solo rather than drag their friends with them.

If I risked myself to save someone else... I know I would be pissed to see them standing beside me when the feces hits the thermantidote (and yes... I have been waiting for a while to use that word )