An Announcement from The Conclave

[trimm]

Not to mention that the validity of the CB is not by any means airtight, nor is it the most airtight one even recently.

And even if I concede the CB, neither ConC or DBDH are obligated to defend ActTi, and Battalion certainly didn't do any reasonable amount of diplomacy to bring them into the fold. In fact, I daresay he did a worse job of diplomacy with his allies than his enemies here.

[Kryievla]

An ODP is the treaty you have so you don't have to burn with your partner if they started the whole mess by doing something dumb. You can still fight if you want to, but you aren't under any obligation. That is what Conclave & AcTi agreed to, and they are following both the letter and the spirit of their treaty; I don't see why Conclave is taking so much heat for this.

edit: I should add we don't do ODPs in Valhalla. This is pretty much why

Edited November 7, 2010 by Kryievla

[trimm]

Because certain people believe that it doesn't matter what the letter of a treaty says, or what the actions of your treaty partner are, that an alliance should go to war just because a treaty makes them "friends".

Give me a break folks.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Kryievla' timestamp='1289155537' post='2505135']
I don't see why Conclave is taking so much heat for this.
[/quote]

Because people want to see a bigger war.

If they really want a bigger war, they should go and defend AcTi themselves IMO, if they feel so strongly.

[Il Impero Romano]

It's unfortunate to see Conclave taking heat over this, I certainly don't think the criticism is warranted in this situation. It's an ODP, meaning optional, and all parties in this war acted in an unreasonable manner. Moreover, Acti's war was by definition aggressive and stupid, therefore the "D" does not apply. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Sure, an argument can be made that good friends should defend each other regardless of the circumstance, and I agree, but I think the key difference here is that they simply weren't that good of friends (which is why they only held and ODP).

That being said, I wouldn't fault them for taking a more hard lined stance in regards to the separate more ridiculous issue of Acti's leader randomly facing ZI for declaring an alliance war.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289116994' post='2504838']
Yes, if you ignore the context, i'm sure you'd be correct. The turtle people had blocked attack slots and James Maximus's personal grudge with Battalion motivated his diplomatic stonewall. [/quote]
Battalion stonewalled his own diplomacy by not using any. Diplomacy isn't saying, "I KNOW YOU RUINED THE STAGGER JUST TO HARM MY ALLIANCE! JUST ADMIT IT! OH, YOU'RE NOT ADMITTING IT! WELL I KNOW YOU DID IT ANYWAY, SO YOU SHOULD JUST ADMIT IT!"

[quote]It's quite easy to see that this could be constructed as a defensive war. Hence why this alliance has "E-Lawyered" (interpreted) its way out of this situation, by declaring it an offensive act and removing their defensive obligations under the treaty. If a treaty exists to represent a friendship, then seeing your friends get rolled while you offer a "loan" at the end of the war seems heartless. [/quote]
There are degrees to friendship. The degrees are PIAT, ODP, MDP, MDoAP, and MADP. You're expecting an ODP friendship to operate at an MADP friendship. Surely you see how silly that notion is, right?

[quote]Well, I am glad i'm not allied to Argent, considering it appears that you only find it acceptable to defend your friends if 'bound' to by the letters of a treaty. [/quote]
Yes, we will stand by our treaties. Apparently, following the letter and spirit of treaties is looked down upon by you?

[quote]If you read my reply properly you would have noticed that I was speaking in general terms. But if Conclave is unwilling to defend an ally then it shouldn't sign a ODP, and then have to construct an interpretation to remove their defensive obligations.[/quote]
That's an interesting opinion: if the Conclave isn't willing to go along with an offensive operation, they shouldn't have signed an optional defense pact. To sane people, that means that they shouldn't have signed a mutual aggression and defensive pact, you know, considering it's offensive and all. That's ignoring the fact that even if it was defensive, it's still only optional, rather than a obligatory defensive pact, which an MD(oA)P would be.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1289131785' post='2504977']
While AcTi has a good reason for war, it was completely suicidal for them to declare in attack. It's just as suicidal for their optional defense friends to attack as well.
[/quote]
I would agree if legitimate attempts at diplomacy broke down, but it wasn't even attempted. The only action taken was accusations.


Believe me, if AcTi had made a real attempt at diplomacy and then was stonewalled, and then AcTi had taken a moment to attempt a coalition and put pressure on TKTB, I would be all support for AcTi. I hate when people ruin the stagger to rogues. It happened to me three months ago. It blows, but Bat acted without thinking.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289076106' post='2504207']
Not even willing to help your friends and allies without making any profit from it? Again, truly pathetic.
[/quote]
Their doing it is understandable.

[quote name='OP' post='2504199']The Conclave fairly recently started a new and potentially prosperous relationship with AcTi.[/quote]
Even if they held your view of all friendships equating to mindless droning (or mob mentality if you prefer) they're still in the process of building that relationship up. Few would give the shirt off their back to someone they're still in the early stages of getting to know.


[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1289089068' post='2504444']
And that's why I don't believe in the ODP Treaty menace!
[/quote]
I assume that's true for many as with it they'd be held accountable for their actions and nobody wants that.


[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1289096294' post='2504570']
None of this makes it honorable for the Conclave to stand idly by as their allies are crushed.
[/quote]
This announcement is honor neutral. The Conclave might not be fighting and dying besides Acti but they are offering assistance post war and aren't looking to cancel the treaty for some cheap reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a lack of concern over what's the most honorable action. In fact I'd say those who feel the need to prove how honorable they are at every turn have a serious lack of self-confidence and massive amounts of insecurity.


edit: wrong post id put in 2nd quote

Edited November 7, 2010 by Hyperbad

[RustyNail]

This has got to be the most ridiculous thread on these boards in a long time. I am seeing stupid posts from people I thought much better of. ConC is doing nothing wrong and is not going to join an offensive action so get off the drama llama, it ain't happening folks. I'm not even going to address such stupid comments as 'i'm glad i'm not allied to Argent' when we aren't even involved in this. Coming from a member of an alliance I respect so much, this is disappointing.

[Little Fame Monster]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1289164474' post='2505225']
Their doing it is understandable.


Even if they held your view of all friendships equating to mindless droning (or mob mentality if you prefer) they're still in the process of building that relationship up. Few would give the shirt off their back to someone they're still in the early stages of getting to know.



I assume that's true for many as with it they'd be held accountable for their actions and nobody wants that.



This announcement is honor neutral. The Conclave might not be fighting and dying besides Acti but they are offering assistance post war and aren't looking to cancel the treaty for some cheap reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a lack of concern over what's the most honorable action. In fact I'd say those who feel the need to prove how honorable they are at every turn have a serious lack of self-confidence and massive amounts of insecurity.
[/quote]

^ This.

I just find it hilarious that everyone's jumping to criticize ConC for not activating their ODP when put in the same situation they would've not only not activated the treaty, but would've canceled it and distanced themselves as far as they could possibly go.

[Locke]

[quote name='Teddyyo' timestamp='1289153869' post='2505118']
I don't 'love AcTi". I'd defend them if I was the leader of an alliance due to the circumstances. I can't 'defend' a 2m NS alliance from what? 7m NS of enemies with a 67k NS nation. It's quite different when you replace a 67k nation with DB4D and ConC.
[/quote]
And if that happens, more allies get brought in on the other side and nothing changes; welcome to the treaty web.

[Locke]

[quote name='trimm' timestamp='1289153910' post='2505119']
Heaven forbid we treat an ODP level treaty like an ODP, and not like an MDAP signed in blood and printed on gold. Sheesh, are people so desperate for a global war that we are really going to damn an alliance for not using the OPTIONAL part of an OPTIONAL treaty?
[/quote]
Finally, someone besides me who is actually logical and uses MDAP(MDoAP/MDAP, not MDoAP/MADP folks).

[LittleRena]

It's nice to see some common sense in here, it's refreshing.

[MrMuz]

This thread explains why I disagree with ODPs. They're almost as good as many of the higher treaties to some people. However, with many younger alliances who haven't formed strong friendships or a reputation, an ODP is probably the only way to get a little protection.

[caligula]

...An ODP is an ODP, not a MADP, nor a MDoAP treaty.

Essentially, The Conclave is doing more than they're requested to by treaty in promising to be there for their fellow signee after their aggressive war is over.

Friendship is nice and all, but it's unlikely that a level of friendship existed between The Conclave and AcTi that would have them devaite from the will of their protectorate and engage in an offensive war through an Optional Defense Pact. Even if it had, I wouldn't expect The Conclave to be praised for their dedication to their ODP treaty partner, moreso chided for foolishly joining a blunderous war conducted with the foreign affairs skills of a naked greenhorn. That would not only be dishonorable in the respect that they are hanging out their other treaty partners to dry, but gaining no honor in fighting for someone elses (foolish, no less,) cause with absolute abandon.

Granted I like a lot of the folks at RIA, but such a move would constitute the epitomy of random and insanity, and in no way should it be praised nor suggested in a serious manner. I would also expect serious questions to be raised about treatying with such an alliance, rather than the same for following the letter and doing their utmost to uphold the treaty in such trying times.

Good show, Tc.

[White Chocolate]

Well written and good move. Never mind what anyone else says. If you chose to join them, people would either be critical because that would be a bad political move or thrilled because there's more targets to attack. Also - it's a good demonstration of the benefits of Optional treaties and may encourage more in the future which, personally, I'd love to see

Edited November 7, 2010 by White Chocolate

[merdesa]

[quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1289164648' post='2505228']
^ This.

I just find it hilarious that everyone's jumping to criticize ConC for not activating their ODP when put in the same situation they would've not only not activated the treaty, but would've canceled it and distanced themselves as far as they could possibly go.
[/quote]


True, they probably would do just that, but when faced with the choice of DB4D canceling the treaty based on the complete disrespect and lies, etc. from batallion, they jump DB4D as fair weather treaty holders; oh hypocrisy.

I would say ConC made a respectful move, even if I too wish it would get a bit more interesting.