Defending an ally that doesn't want to be defended

[Kataklizm the Great]

You honor all treaties, but also honor and respect the wishes of your treaty partner. If they ask you not to get involved, don't.

[Baldr]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1281564252' post='2411604']
I think it's kind of an unexplored grey area between MDP and ODP. It's not an MDP because the alliance being attacked can release their ally from the obligation... But it's not an ODP because, should the alliance under attack not release their ally, the ally is obligated to defend.
[/quote]

I wouldn't call it an unexplored areas. Many MDP's have it written in to say that the defense/aid is only required if it's requested.

I think it's silly to say that the treaty, written long before the exact situation occurred, should apply even if all parties to that treaty, looking at the current situation, decide that there are better options. The spirit of the treaty is more important than e-lawyered BS.

I note that the people arguing that you are forced to defend and have no choice are not involved with any of the alliances that actually have to make the decision. Those people wouldn't necessarily make the same choices if it were their alliance, they just want to tell their enemies what they have to do. CnG/SF would love to force all of NSO's allies into a losing war.

[Starcraftmazter]

[b]Strategic Viewpoint[/b]
You have an opportunity to do so if you think you can make some sort of a difference or make a stand. However you do not have the obligation to do so, and you should respect your ally's wishes.

[b]Idealistic Viewpoint[/b]
When you ally is attacked, it is your responsibility to defend them no matter what, regardless of whether they want to or not.

[b]E-Lawyering Viewpoint[/b]
It depends on how the treaty is worded.

[b]Would I do it[/b]
It depends on how the rest of my alliance would vote

[Believland]

I don't know why IRON keeps getting involved. They're still under reps IIRC.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1281661692' post='2413555']
I don't know why IRON keeps getting involved. They're still under reps IIRC.
[/quote]
Don't know how you mean 'involved' if you're talking about the current war. This of course could be an argument against this being a ploy to replay Karma a third time--some parties have to sit out still. If you mean in chatting..well, I'm pretty sure I lost a war somewhere whose winners proclaimed something about free speech on the forums.

[Hereno]

Yes to treaty obligation, no to moral, and while I selected 'no' for the third question, it would ultimately depend on the specific situation. In the specific situation in the OP, no, I wouldn't defend my ally. Although that would be violating the treaty, as long as the other alliance doesn't care about the violation, it's fine.

[Hydro]

No to all. Being an ally means that you respect your allies wishes and don't just do w/e bloody well please. That's assuming that you actually respect your ally in the first place.

[der Rote Baron]

Sorry, but regardless of whether or not my ally is too proud to accept help or just doesn't want to drag us into their battle, we'd be compelled to defend any ally of ours being attacked and beaten to the brink of extinction like a red headed stepchild... and I'd hope our other friends would follow suit and support that choice.

[img]http://images.radcity.net/6610/2818910.jpg[/img]

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281621059' post='2412641']
Wait, what? Even Continuum/One Vision didn't have a joint cross-bloc channel. That is a high level of communication.
[/quote]
Superfriends and C&G have had a joint cross-bloc channel since during the Karma War. One of the gripes Xiph had with Fark during the SF-wants-Fark-to-cancel-on-Citadel dispute was that Fark didn't participate in it enough.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='infinite citadel' timestamp='1281327605' post='2406400']
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.
[/quote]

Sure.. even if it means you completely dishonor their wishes. With allies like that, who needs enemies.

[infinite citadel]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1281706016' post='2414271']
Sure.. even if it means you completely dishonor their wishes. With allies like that, who needs enemies.
[/quote]

Atleast you know where they stand. On the other hand you could have allies who cancel in mass right as you're about to get rolled. With allies like that, who needs enemies

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1281661692' post='2413555']
I don't know why IRON keeps getting involved. They're still under reps IIRC.
[/quote]

How is IRON involved? If our Govt is going back and forth between the two parties and trying to work to resolve the conflict, we happen to have allies on both sides here..and if it provides us an opportunity to work for peace, I say why not. I'm sure all parties do not want to extend this conflict, dont you?


[quote name='infinite citadel' timestamp='1281719015' post='2414474']
Atleast you know where they stand. On the other hand you could have allies who cancel in mass right as you're about to get rolled. With allies like that, who needs enemies
[/quote]
I dont see how they cancelled in mass to 'prevent getting rolled', it was rather about what NPO did, everybody maintained the bloc-level treaties, thus ensuring the triggers occur and curb-stomp begins .

Edited August 13, 2010 by shahenshah

[Haflinger]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1281719631' post='2414483']
I dont see how they cancelled in mass to 'prevent getting rolled', it was rather about what NPO did, everybody maintained the bloc-level treaties, thus ensuring the triggers occur and curb-stomp begins .
[/quote]
Shah... You're not my favourite poster, but really, you should know better. Go ask Shan about what FinsterBaby did.