Defending an ally that doesn't want to be defended

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

What Iosif and Schattenmann said, even if I think we have a moral obligation to loyalty.

Loyalty, in this case, could easily be to listen to what your friend is saying, instead of jumping head first. It has nothing to do with cowardice: I am quite sure that, if NSO asked its allies to enter this war, they would do so.

[im317]

1) Do you have a treaty obligation to defend Alliance B?

yes, unless the treaty with alliance B specifically states that they can ask not to be defended.

2) Do you have a moral obligation to defend Alliance B?

no, they waved my moral obligation

3) Would you defend Alliance B?

yes, on the condition that they were being attacked by more then they can handle alone. not going to take there nice even war away from them when they ask me to stay out.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1281376745' post='2407890']
What Iosif and Schattenmann said, even if I think we have a moral obligation to loyalty.

Loyalty, in this case, could easily be to listen to what your friend is saying, instead of jumping head first. It has nothing to do with cowardice: I am quite sure that, if NSO asked its allies to enter this war, they would do so.
[/quote]
Exactly.

Let's put this in the light of the real world:
At the outset of the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NoVision_War"]One Vision-GATO War[/url], Browncoats was already canceling our involvement with UPS (a Brown MDP/Senate bloc with GATO) our close allies MASH had already left, we had been fighting with GATO for 3 weeks, GATO wanted a meatswarm with no reciprocity so we were done and we weren't going to the mat for GATO before or after we heard about the NPO's plans to attack them. IAA was up GATO's butt and we were MDPed to them, but we were also pissed with IAA about protecting a bunch of poachers who left BCs and took a good portion of members with them behind our backs. On the other hand, we also had to think of the extreme ill will people on the One Vision side had for Browncoats, and the repercussions that our entry into the war would have for our other allies. So, me and a guy on the One Vision side decided to have our own side war so neither of us would be able to activate our treaties in GATO's war. The second BDC attacked us, NoR, MASH, Mafia and other alliances we were tied to started coming around. I told them dead-level to sit it out, things would be fine.
What if all those alliances had not listened to me and counter-declared on BDC? They would have put themselves in the position we were deliberately keeping them out of, and for all their "honor" they'd have been raked over the coals for a long, long time. On top of that, once the plot was exposed, they would have turned out to e getting their heads bashed in for nothing.
On the other side, BDC's allies did not listen to BDC, and started attacking Browncoats forcing an early, messy end to the fake war that became a curbstomp of Browncoats while all our allies kept safe according to plan.

When someone you trust enough to ally tells you something, trust that they're smart enough to know what they're talking about. Things might change to the point where they do need you to come in later, maybe things get resolved in 1 day and a lot of pointless waste is saved.

[Northern Empire]

what is the saying ?

A friend will bail you out of jail , But a true friend will be sitting beside in jail,

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1281377988' post='2407933']
Exactly.

Let's put this in the light of the real world:
At the outset of the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NoVision_War"]One Vision-GATO War[/url], Browncoats was already canceling our involvement with UPS (a Brown MDP/Senate bloc with GATO) our close allies MASH had already left, we had been fighting with GATO for 3 weeks, GATO wanted a meatswarm with no reciprocity so we were done and we weren't going to the mat for GATO before or after we heard about the NPO's plans to attack them. IAA was up GATO's butt and we were MDPed to them, but we were also pissed with IAA about protecting a bunch of poachers who left BCs and took a good portion of members with them behind our backs. On the other hand, we also had to think of the extreme ill will people on the One Vision side had for Browncoats, and the repercussions that our entry into the war would have for our other allies. So, me and a guy on the One Vision side decided to have our own side war so neither of us would be able to activate our treaties in GATO's war. The second BDC attacked us, NoR, MASH, Mafia and other alliances we were tied to started coming around. I told them dead-level to sit it out, things would be fine.
What if all those alliances had not listened to me and counter-declared on BDC? They would have put themselves in the position we were deliberately keeping them out of, and for all their "honor" they'd have been raked over the coals for a long, long time. On top of that, once the plot was exposed, they would have turned out to e getting their heads bashed in for nothing.
On the other side, BDC's allies did not listen to BDC, and started attacking Browncoats forcing an early, messy end to the fake war that became a curbstomp of Browncoats while all our allies kept safe according to plan.

When someone you trust enough to ally tells you something, trust that they're smart enough to know what they're talking about. Things might change to the point where they do need you to come in later, maybe things get resolved in 1 day and a lot of pointless waste is saved.
[/quote]

CSN also entered this war, despite GATO being a bunch of... well, we did not care for the situation. Likewise, we told our allies not to enter, but USN did for the sake of our friendship.

For the poll:

1.) Depends on the treaty
2.) Yes
3.) Yes

[LittleRena]

If an ally requests for you to stay out, then you should stay out, dispite being treaty bound to defend them. It might be hard for some to swallow but going against your allies wishes and jumping into battle is only going to hurt your relationship if they didn't want you there.

There are many points here that I agree with, so I shouldn't repeat what has already been said.

[White Chocolate]

In the spectrum of treaties, a mutual defense pact is a stronger treaty than an optional defense pact, PIAT, etc. That being the case, I don't see why, if requested by the party being attacked, it can't be agreed between both to consider the treaty as a lesser one for the duration of a particular war or some other time period if they so choose.

If the party being asked to stay out of the war doesn't agree, it's arguable that they could enter the war regardless. However, I think it depends on how the alliances involved define "defense." Does "defense" mean military action in every case or can it also mean keeping one ally strong so that said ally is in a better position to meet the "aid" section that most MDP's have in there once the war is over?

I don't see any problem with one alliance asking a treaty partner to stay out of a war for strategic reasons - especially since there is nothing stopping the alliance(s) from attacking you (alliance A who is being asked to stay out) if they really want to bring you into the war.

The only way not defending a treaty partner is a problem is if it's initiated by the MDP partner who isn't attacked as a way to avoid the war.

[Qaianna]

As far as treaty obligation, I'd always read that a mutual defence pact could always be waived by the one being attacked. My vote? 'NO.'

As far as moral obligation, you have an obligation to support your ally by any means necessary. That includes STAYING OUT OF A WAR THEY TELL YOU TO STAY OUT OF. They have their reasons. Maybe they figure it's bait to sucker you in. Maybe they're trying to mitigate the damage. Or do as some said and just go the curbstompee nukefest route. Or whatever. You trust them enough to defend at any time, that includes trusting them when they say to not fight. Vote 'NO.'

So..would I? In this case, 'NO.' Instead I'd start planning for the aftermath. (And, of course, making sure to keep up with any information I learn during the war. There's more to support than pixels.)

..and is it me, or is it many who talk about paperless treaties and bonds of friendship and trust now want to just ignore their friends? Someone said a true friend sits with you in jail..if that's the case, get me the not so true friend who'll bail my sorry butt out.

Edit: ..I'm agreeing with D34th, Tyga, and Schattenmann. Huh.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Qaianna

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1281362468' post='2407402']
what i find funny is all those people who state yes to all and state that a treaty obligation is everything, yet when alliances on their side ignore a treaty obligation to the other side (RnR/IRON anyone) they say it is the only decision that could have been made. either a treaty should always be defended or it can be waived by either signatory. there is no "all NSO allies are dishonorable for not upholding their treaties" after the last war saw those on SG's side not defending TOP/co's side despite having treaties.
[/quote]

This thread is basically about one group trying to goad another into war. Its not the first time that diplomacy was allowed to run its full course by 2 of the involved alliances.

The entrance of allies will not stop the rate at which NSO is loosing pixels, only give excuse to others to prolong the curb-stomp process and hinder the ability of their allies to rebuild them. NSO's side of the web simply does not have the strength to achieve the a better outcome, on the contrary, it will only hurt NSO's interest.

Edited August 10, 2010 by shahenshah

[Viluin]

If an ally asks you not to defend them and you do it anyway, you're messing up their plan. That's all that needs to be said. If you do this deliberately, you're quite an annoying ally to have.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1281346965' post='2407237']
The true power nuclear war has is under curb stomp conditions it allows an alliance to deal out at least two times or even three times as much damage as is done to it. The more lopsided the war the more lopsided the damage ratio will be. Letting the roll happen and not providing additional targets for the larger side to spread damage across could in fact result in greater damage for the attackers. Afterward allies could then pump the defender full of aid and negate the effects while the attackers have considerably more to recoup.
[/quote]
Ah, someone gets it.

[Iosif]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281445825' post='2409563']
Ah, someone gets it.
[/quote]

Yeah, but RARGH WE ARE THE MOST HONOURABLE ALLIES EVER WE'RE GOING IN NOW xfd

Who needs reason when you can masturbate over breaking stuff?

[Kalasin]

Before someone jumps me and calls me out for hypocrisy, I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I've changed my answer from before.

Basically, I don't know whether I would defend my ally if they specifically asked me to stay out. I can't think of any other circumstance where it would be morally acceptable *not* to fight in a war where my ally was being curbstomped, though. Certainly mad props to anyone with the spine to die for their allies, even if said allies told them not to fight. Really I think that I would go in anyway, but that's easy to say now. I've never been put in that situation. I can also see the advantages in the ex-Hegemony's strategy here, but I think back to the War of the Coalition... it would not have been acceptable to simply let Hyperion get rolled, so why would it be acceptable here? Gah. It's a complicated situation. And I'm rambling. D:

[Locke]

[quote name='Iosif' timestamp='1281446427' post='2409571']
Yeah, but RARGH WE ARE THE MOST HONOURABLE ALLIES EVER WE'RE GOING IN NOW xfd

Who needs reason when you can masturbate over breaking stuff?
[/quote]
Welcome to Bob. Please leave your sanity at the door, thank you.

[anenu]

If an ally ask you not to go in you don't have a moral or "legal" obligation to defend them. However if the ally ask to defend them or gives you a choice then you defend them no matter what the odds.

[Alterego]

As much as I wouldnt like not helping them once you force your will on your ally against their wishes you are no longer a good ally.

[Bob Janova]

If the other alliance is explicitly releasing you from your obligation, then no, you don't have a legal obligation to enter whatever the treaty text says. (If you want to get super lawyerish, you can agree to amend the treaty on the spot.)

What you should do depends on what you judge to be the best combined interest of you and the ally in question. It's not a clear cut yes or no situation. If your NS is likely to make a positive material difference to the war and to the long term resolution, then you should defend; if it will make no difference or make things worse, you should not.

[BamaBuc]

Now, things may have changed, but back when I was a MoFA, we had distinct types of treaties for when we wanted to defend someone (and be defended by that someone) "sometimes" and when we wanted to defend someone (and be defended by that someone) "always". Don't want to get dragged into your friends' stupid wars? Don't sign MDPs. Don't want your friends to get dragged into your stupid wars? Don't sign MDPs. Simple.

-Bama

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281461714' post='2409884']
If the other alliance is explicitly releasing you from your obligation, then no, you don't have a legal obligation to enter whatever the treaty text says. (If you want to get super lawyerish, you can agree to amend the treaty on the spot.)

What you should do depends on what you judge to be the best combined interest of you and the ally in question. It's not a clear cut yes or no situation. If your NS is likely to make a positive material difference to the war and to the long term resolution, then you should defend; if it will make no difference or make things worse, you should not.
[/quote]
Absolutely agree. I think it's silly to suggest that a soverign body would not be allowed the right to waive an "obligation" to be defended.

[Aurion]

[quote]1) Do you have a treaty obligation to defend Alliance B?[/quote]

Probably not. E-lawyering about clauses aside.

[quote]2) Do you have a moral obligation to defend Alliance B?[/quote]

If they're just saying "Oh, you don't have to help us" then yes. If they're screaming their heads off about how you should absolutely not help them...that might be a bit more grey.

[quote]3) Would you defend Alliance B?[/quote]

Yes. I'd rather live up to what I signed and deal with the consequences... even if it offends the ally a bit. I mean, they couldn't possibly get but so angry about it.

I could just be being cavalier about it since I'm not government though.

[Nemhauser]

Nordreich will defend its allies no matter what.

[Iosif]

[quote name='Nemhauser' timestamp='1281521488' post='2411007']
Nordreich will defend its allies no matter what.
[/quote]

Is it [i]actual[/i] defending if it also means you're disrespecting their wishes? If they ask you to stay out, they usually have a reason for that. I think that certain wise old sage who posted earlier on in this thread needs to be quoted again.

[quote name='iamthey']The true power nuclear war has is under curb stomp conditions it allows an alliance to deal out at least two times or even three times as much damage as is done to it. The more lopsided the war the more lopsided the damage ratio will be. Letting the roll happen and not providing additional targets for the larger side to spread damage across could in fact result in greater damage for the attackers. Afterward allies could then pump the defender full of aid and negate the effects while the attackers have considerably more to recoup.[/quote]

You may think you're actually helping them out with your "$%&@ you i'm going to outer space now" attitude and that you're being really good allies, but I wouldn't want an ally like that. I have no idea why you would like to rush in if your allies didn't want you to, and I wouldn't want anyone to value their bloodlust or maintaining their image as an honourable alliance more than our wishers regarding our very own conflict.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Iosif' timestamp='1281550267' post='2411332']
You may think you're actually helping them out with your "$%&@ you i'm going to outer space now" attitude and that you're being really good allies, but I wouldn't want an ally like that. I have no idea why you would like to rush in if your allies didn't want you to, and I wouldn't want anyone to value their bloodlust or maintaining their image as an honourable alliance more than our wishers regarding our very own conflict.
[/quote]

Yes, but you have to make a decision as to whether you think they REALLY want you to stay out, or whether they are just saying that for formalitiy's sake. If they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are getting punished, they might say they don't want your help, but they would probably appreciate it. Misery loves company.

Your alliance is also a two way street; if your allies have a bloodlust complex or a tradition of honour to maintain, you should have been aware of that when you signed with them in the first place. It's not their fault they are acting on their own principles.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1281462464' post='2409912']
Now, things may have changed, but back when I was a MoFA, we had distinct types of treaties for when we wanted to defend someone (and be defended by that someone) "sometimes" and when we wanted to defend someone (and be defended by that someone) "always". Don't want to get dragged into your friends' stupid wars? Don't sign MDPs. Don't want your friends to get dragged into your stupid wars? Don't sign MDPs. Simple.

-Bama
[/quote]

Someone actually gets it!

But wait, it's "disrespectful to go against your allies' wishes".

Well, maybe if you were afraid of that, you shouldn't have signed the MDP in that case either. When you sign a MDP, there is no optional clause. When one signatory is attacked, the other is [b]obligated[/b] to enter, no questions asked. Any other writ is no longer a MDP, but rather an ODP. That is a literalist standpoint, and I, for one, follow that to the letter. I sign treaties that I believe in and am willing to put myself out on a limb for; if I know down the road that it will become a problem, that is something I should be able to foresee. [b]Everyone[/b] knows how belligerent NSO is with their carefree attitude; if you seriously did not see an issue such as this coming, you are truly a moron.

When you sign a treaty, you should always account for the possibility of that signatory being rolled for one reason or another, period. I see treaties as marking friendship, and if my friend is being beaten on and he tells me to stay away, I'll laugh and jump into the fray. That's just me and the FA direction I take; others, obviously, do it differently.

[Iosif]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1281551620' post='2411366']
Yes, but you have to make a decision as to whether you think they REALLY want you to stay out, or whether they are just saying that for formalitiy's sake. If they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are getting punished, they might say they don't want your help, but they would probably appreciate it. Misery loves company.

Your alliance is also a two way street; if your allies have a bloodlust complex or a tradition of honour to maintain, you should have been aware of that when you signed with them in the first place. It's not their fault they are acting on their own principles.
[/quote]

Sure, it's often only a formality but in situations like that they usually are a-ok with it if you say you're going in anyways. Even then, I don't think you really have an obligation to join, at least not moral one - after all, [i]they did ask you not to join[/i]. But if they, instead of just hinting about how they wouldn't be offended if we decided to stay out, actually tell me directly not to join, I'm not going to. There's a [i]huge[/i] difference between "you don't really have to do that" and "don't do that", and I understood this thread was pretty much about the latter - at least, that's what the OP is hinting and that's why I think some of the answers here are honestly outright absurd.

Also, yes, of course, that kind of things should be taken to consideration but situations do vary. In most cases, I'd love to join my allies in whatever conflict they get dragged into and I'd love to drag my allies as well in whatever conflict we've managed to get tangled up with. But if they think there's a good reason for not doing that now, I'm going to believe them, and I'm fairly confident they'd believe me as well. Because that's what I think is actual respect between allies, instead of going just "well, suck it hon, that's just how I am."