In Response to Recent Drama

[lordliam]

Almost 40 pages of people insulting each other back and forth and arguing over cowardice, a decision that was made not by their own alliance leaders, but those of [b]another alliance[/b] and a rogue who received a petty 6 million dollars. Surely both parties must feel some kind of shame. Shorely.

[+Zeke+]

So let me get this straight.

GATO hears about an impending attack on NSO and cancels the treaty because NSO didn't warn them first?

Seems to me that clause works both ways. Why didn't GATO tell NSO attacks were coming and come to their aid?

[xplicit313]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281475837' post='2410184']
So let me get this straight.

GATO hears about an impending attack on NSO and cancels the treaty because NSO didn't warn them first?

Seems to me that clause works both ways. Why didn't GATO tell NSO attacks were coming and come to their aid?
[/quote]

I may be wrong, but I believe some where in the midst of these 40 pages of nonsense there is a quoted log of GATO telling NSO about it. I tried to look for it fast before posting this but I came up with nothing, and I am not going to go through all 40 pages, so again I could be wrong but im pretty sure.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281475837' post='2410184']
So let me get this straight.

GATO hears about an impending attack on NSO and cancels the treaty because NSO didn't warn them first?

Seems to me that clause works both ways. Why didn't GATO tell NSO attacks were coming and come to their aid?
[/quote]

They did, that's why the DoW's went up 5 hours before update. NSO was running for peace mode.

[+Zeke+]

Ok, so they warned NSO, but my last question still stands. Why didn't they come to their aid as the treaty required?

If it was a matter of conflicting treaties then they should have done what honor requires and notify both partners that a full scale attack by either side voids the treaty with the attacker, and at the same time use that leverage to get everyone back to the bargaining table. Seriously, what's the use of being friends to both sides without using that advantage to stop the bloodshed?

[Bob]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281477661' post='2410218']
Ok, so they warned NSO, but my last question still stands. Why didn't they come to their aid as the treaty required?

If it was a matter of conflicting treaties then they should have done what honor requires and notify both partners that a full scale attack by either side voids the treaty with the attacker, and at the same time use that leverage to get everyone back to the bargaining table. Seriously, what's the use of being friends to both sides without using that advantage to stop the bloodshed?
[/quote]
No e-lawyer: NSO stated that no treaty activations would be used I do believe.


E-laywer reply: Also, depending on your view of the situation, NSO committed the hostile act by accepting a member who was on ROK's naughty list and then aiding him during negotiations.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281477661' post='2410218']
Ok, so they warned NSO, but my last question still stands. Why didn't they come to their aid as the treaty required?
[/quote]

Because the treaty requires no such thing. I know people are used to thinking of treaties as "roll together, die together" but an MDP has a key word in it [i]Defense[/i]. If you go and pick a fight you don't get to call on a defensive treaty.

I actually view this incident as one of the few times the MDP web has worked 'properly' the aggressor picked a fight and is not receiving military support and the conflict isn't expanding hugely. I hope the precedent serves to make everybody a little less aggressive in the future, and hopefully NSO's example will lead others to be less confrontational in their diplomatic exchanges.

[quote]
If it was a matter of conflicting treaties then they should have done what honor requires and notify both partners that a full scale attack by either side voids the treaty with the attacker, and at the same time use that leverage to get everyone back to the bargaining table. Seriously, what's the use of being friends to both sides without using that advantage to stop the bloodshed?
[/quote]

Well, conflicting treaties almost always leave you with a choice between bad and worse no matter what happens. Sometimes you can get the issue resolved sometimes you cant. It just looks like that never happens because the ones that get resolved quietly don't make it to the OWF nearly as often as the wars

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1281477987' post='2410229']
E-laywer reply: Also, depending on your view of the situation, NSO committed the hostile act by accepting a member who was on ROK's naughty list and then aiding him during negotiations.
[/quote]

Which relates to my first point about defensive treaties. Usually there is little agreement about the point that actually started the war, so both sides claim defensive treaties. In this case, that isn't happening. (yet? It did take a week for TPF to get military support so I guess we'll see)

Edited August 10, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Heft]

Apparently the "you're all cowards" baiting failed so now it's time for the "if your allies don't jump in then that proves you're the aggressor, despite not actually being the aggressor" baiting.

Creative.

[+Zeke+]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281478123' post='2410232']
Because the treaty requires no such thing. I know people are used to thinking of treaties as "roll together, die together" but an MDP has a key word in it [i]Defense[/i]. If you go and pick a fight you don't get to call on a defensive treaty. [/quote]

The way I see it, one party got to arbitrarily decide what exactly is an attack. Namely a bit of minor aid, which has never been considered a actual mass attack. Furthermore, GATO did not have to recognize what RoK defined as an attack and would have still retained their leverage to force some kind of balk to get both sides together. Maybe it is just me, but true allies put aside minor differences to get things settled peacefully, even if that means staring down one or both of their allies.

Good diplomacy on Bob is not for the fainthearted. NS must be put at risk to make your point.

[quote]I actually view this incident as one of the few times the MDP web has worked 'properly' the aggressor picked a fight and is not receiving military support and the conflict isn't expanding hugely. I hope the precedent serves to make everybody a little less aggressive in the future, and hopefully NSO's example will lead others to be less confrontational in their diplomatic exchanges.[/quote]

I will not comment here. I see it all as hearsay from 3rd parties. What NSO and RoK said to each other will likely never be known except to the two parties. One side will call the other a liar and logs will be posted that can be typed whenever they are convenient. Unless a trusted and neutral arbitrator or observer is involved then I put little value in logs or chatter from antagonist parties.

Personally, I think it's a shame that disputing parties never call for the Grey Council anymore. You could trust what they said happened.


[quote]Well, conflicting treaties almost always leave you with a choice between bad and worse no matter what happens. Sometimes you can get the issue resolved sometimes you cant. It just looks like that never happens because the ones that get resolved quietly don't make it to the OWF nearly as often as the wars [/quote]

I believe this could have been settled easily. I've sorted out far worse before. So I chalk this up to either no one was willing to intercede because of risk or one party was too interested in making the war happen to let negotiations take place.

[Zombie Glaucon]

I kind of wish I had some sense of respect for GATO so I could lose it right now.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281479945' post='2410288']
The way I see it, one party got to arbitrarily decide what exactly is an attack. Namely a bit of minor aid, which has never been considered a actual mass attack. Furthermore, GATO did not have to recognize what RoK defined as an attack and would have still retained their leverage to force some kind of balk to get both sides together. Maybe it is just me, but true allies put aside minor differences to get things settled peacefully, even if that means staring down one or both of their allies.
[/quote]

Sending aid to someone who is at war has always been an act of war, trying to downplay the event by saying it was "a bit of minor aid" is irrelevant. they could fill his aid slots and it'd still only be 15 mil, which is chump change to most of us.

NSO commited an act of war when they sent that aid. True most cases of aid sent to a nation at war are resolved peacefully, but that's because most cases of aid to a nation at war are a simple mistake, like a completed tech deal, or something equally benign. In this case NSO sent aid after specifically being told this nation was at war, and that sending that aid would by them some of the same trouble the target currently had. Big difference.


[quote]
I believe this could have been settled easily. I've sorted out far worse before. So I chalk this up to either no one was willing to intercede because of risk or one party was too interested in making the war happen to let negotiations take place.
[/quote]

I don't agree. There has been a lot of downplaying of what NSO did and a lot of talk about ulterior motives, but the fact is NSO deliberately committed an act of war fully informed of what they were doing and what the consequences would be. NSO knew exactly what they were doing, and were told exactly what would happen. They chose to not credit the warning for whatever reason (I personally think it was motivated by their culture of thumbing their nose at convention, but really its just a guess on my part).

NSO deliberately set out to commit an act of war. They got their war.

[Heft]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281480864' post='2410315']
NSO deliberately set out to commit an act of war. They got their war.
[/quote]
Well, no, actually. It's been repeated plenty of times that the aid was an effort to avoid war by not actually defending the person we told RoK we would defend.

We can all go around in circles about who provoked who the worst there, but the fact is that we didn't start the war and they made no effort to avert the war, despite such an outcome clearly being unnecessary.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281478123' post='2410232']
Because the treaty requires no such thing. I know people are used to thinking of treaties as "roll together, die together" but an MDP has a key word in it [i]Defense[/i]. If you go and pick a fight you don't get to call on a defensive treaty.

I actually view this incident as one of the few times the MDP web has worked 'properly' the aggressor picked a fight and is not receiving military support and the conflict isn't expanding hugely. I hope the precedent serves to make everybody a little less aggressive in the future, and hopefully NSO's example will lead others to be less confrontational in their diplomatic exchanges.

Which relates to my first point about defensive treaties. Usually there is little agreement about the point that actually started the war, so both sides claim defensive treaties. In this case, that isn't happening. (yet? It did take a week for TPF to get military support so I guess we'll see)
[/quote]

Yeah, perhaps you've missed the part where NSO asked their allies not to come in this war? Their allies aren't wimping out because they don't have an obligation because they too fall into the flawed logic that NSO is the aggressors in this war, they are simply adhering to NSO's request that they not come to NSO's [i]defense[/i].

Past that, I think there is a large difference between committing an act of war and committing an act worthy of war.

[+Zeke+]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281480864' post='2410315']
Sending aid to someone who is at war has always been an act of war, trying to downplay the event by saying it was "a bit of minor aid" is irrelevant. they could fill his aid slots and it'd still only be 15 mil, which is chump change to most of us.

NSO commited an act of war when they sent that aid. True most cases of aid sent to a nation at war are resolved peacefully, but that's because most cases of aid to a nation at war are a simple mistake, like a completed tech deal, or something equally benign. In this case NSO sent aid after specifically being told this nation was at war, and that sending that aid would by them some of the same trouble the target currently had. Big difference.[/quote]

The point here is a matter of severity. Many things can be considered an act of war if someone wants to put the right spin on it. Me? I call lighting up with multiple attackers a war. Everything less I consider merely warlike that will be used as fodder for the CB once talks have broken down.

In any case, I'm couching all this in terms of GATO, not NSO or RoK. They are the antagonists in this setting. Both will claim the other started the war. But GATO had one magic moment to be the hero here and stick their necks and reputation between the parties to find a solution.


[quote]I don't agree. There has been a lot of downplaying of what NSO did and a lot of talk about ulterior motives, but the fact is NSO deliberately committed an act of war fully informed of what they were doing and what the consequences would be. NSO knew exactly what they were doing, and were told exactly what would happen. They chose to not credit the warning for whatever reason (I personally think it was motivated by their culture of thumbing their nose at convention, but really its just a guess on my part).

NSO deliberately set out to commit an act of war. They got their war.[/quote]

Again you return to the antagonists in this. That what they did is justification for GATO's actions. I've already said that since I didn't witness any of the negotiations that I cannot take either party's word as gospel. Nor do I see observations from witnesses with no dog in this fight. All I see as a potential viewpoint is GATO's, given they shared a relationship. But then their response was to walk away in a manner that seemed safest to them.

[magicninja]

Did you read Omni's last paragraph Zeke? It seems omni did try to do some diplomacy but was shunned by RoK. Try to keep up.

[+Zeke+]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281483039' post='2410363']
Did you read Omni's last paragraph Zeke? It seems omni did try to do some diplomacy but was shunned by RoK. Try to keep up.
[/quote]

If that was the case then why did they walk away from NSO? It's hard to keep up with counter-intuitive logic, after all.

[magicninja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281483495' post='2410368']
If that was the case then why did they walk away from NSO? It's hard to keep up with counter-intuitive logic, after all.
[/quote]

Because of the communication issue. That too is in the op.

[+Zeke+]

I read it.

It looks like GATO made a call to RoK over the issue and got rebuffed by RoK. So they walked away from NSO as a result.

As long as NSO was willing to sit at the negotiation table then GATO should not have walked away from them.

Edited August 10, 2010 by +Zeke+

[magicninja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281484514' post='2410398']
I read it.

It looks like GATO made a call to RoK over the issue and got rebuffed by RoK. So they walked away from NSO as a result.

As long as NSO was willing to sit at the negotiation table then GATO should not have walked away from them.
[/quote]

No, I'm pretty sure the op says GATO walked away from NSO because of a communication issue. I guess the communication issue was enough for Omni to walk away from NSO regardless of whether diplomacy was still possible at that point. Cancellation was felt by Omni to be warranted. I think most people are only upset because of the timing. That is really the only thing to be upset about.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281484889' post='2410405']
No, I'm pretty sure the op says GATO walked away from NSO because of a communication issue. I guess the communication issue was enough for Omni to walk away from NSO regardless of whether diplomacy was still possible at that point. Cancellation was felt by Omni to be warranted. I think most people are only upset because of the timing. That is really the only thing to be upset about.
[/quote]

Don't you think you might be downplaying it just a bit too much? I mean timing as they say...

[+Zeke+]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281484889' post='2410405']No, I'm pretty sure the op says GATO walked away from NSO because of a communication issue.[/quote]
This is what I saw instead:

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281331898' post='2406642'] Also RoK I don't like being shoo-ed away when I come to try and solve an issue.[/quote]

I've said my opinion on the matter and I still haven't seen anything that changed my mind.

Talking more about it won't likely change my opinion. I'm done here.

[Ragashingo]

... is everything.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281481176' post='2410319']
Well, no, actually. It's been repeated plenty of times that the aid was an effort to avoid war by not actually defending the person we told RoK we would defend.

We can all go around in circles about who provoked who the worst there, but the fact is that we didn't start the war and they made no effort to avert the war, despite such an outcome clearly being unnecessary.
[/quote]

Seriously do you even read what you write? Since when has aiding a nation at war been acceptable? It isn't even acceptable according to your own alliance doctrine...
Your new member picked a fight with Rok's protectorate. Frankly conflicts like that can only end in a number of ways (Hoo listed them all in the logs) instead you choose to send him aid (and not even an insignificant amount for his size).
By that action you've made yourselve part of the conflict. What kind of effort should they have made after that?
And since when does the NSO "defend" nations who are at war with a different alliance before they join them?

Maybe you should take some time to rethink your decisions in this mess.

[magicninja]

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1281485662' post='2410420']
This is what I saw instead:



I've said my opinion on the matter and I still haven't seen anything that changed my mind.

Talking more about it won't likely change my opinion. I'm done here.
[/quote]

Only the second quote has nothing to do with why the treaty was canceled. So I really don't know what point you are trying to make.............

/me shrugs.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1281485326' post='2410414']
Don't you think you might be downplaying it just a bit too much? I mean timing as they say...
[/quote]

Ask anyone in GATO if I am downplaying the situation Raga. Believe me I'm not at all happy how it went down. However, if people want to !@#$%* at GATO for this the only thing that they can really !@#$%* at is the timing. Cowardice had nothing to do with it as NSO wasn't asking for help anyway. So, I can't let people say that. The notion that GATO had been looking for a reason to cancel is asinine at best. We were working on a joint venture when this all broke out. We were as friendly as we had ever been. Complaining about the reason for cancelation is ridiculous because GATO gets to decide what is expected from a treaty not everyone else. How would you like it if we told you how to interpret your treaties? Exactly. Now if you want to be disgusted by the timing of the treaty? Fine. I won't argue. That was a mistake and we'll live with it.