Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[OsRavan]

[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1292839200' post='2546319']
You know what I find funny that most of these people that are saying PC and iFOK should ignore their allies wishes and fight anyway were the same people throwing a fit about ODN working out a deal against their allies wishes. Got to love how things work around here.
[/quote]

I could also add that 24 hours ago a large portion of the peanut gallery ranting in this thread were ranting at int/tpe and condemning the horrid actions of NEW that should not be allowed to stand.

Or in other words, yes, im implying some here dont actually give a damn about what is right or wrong or honorable or alliances like NEW and PC they have no ties to. They are just going to complain at whatever gets in the way of the big war they wanted. Facts and logic be damned.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292855494' post='2546526']
It doesn't communicate not knowing about it. It communicates that it was PC's and iFOK's position, not NEW's
[/quote]

It doesn't communicate, as was being implied or contended, that NEW (government at least) did not request these allies not come to their defense or that NEW (government at least) was strong-armed into requesting these allies not come to their defense.

Ultimately, at this point, we're just interpreting others words. It's tricky business. The logs that were shared with me, wherein gantanX, a government member, requested these allies not intervene, are far more concrete and are what I base my position on.

*edited for clarity

Edited December 20, 2010 by SirWilliam

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1292854548' post='2546505']
Sorry, I really don't understand that. Why do PC have no excuse and why iFOK do?
[/quote]
iFOK has a MDoAP with Fark. Treaty conflicts lets them stay out quite legitimately.

PC on the other hand, have no such obstruction, other than the rest of PB saying no.

[Vol Navy]

Did GantaxX ask for no oA or no MD?

It's according to how the situation is taken. 90% of the times I can remember on Bob it was taken as JBone said, oA would have been attacking the remnants of DF. MD would be defending NEW from people who attacked them.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1292856529' post='2546537']
iFOK has a MDoAP with Fark. Treaty conflicts lets them stay out quite legitimately.

PC on the other hand, have no such obstruction, other than the rest of PB saying no.
[/quote]


That side is so wrapped up in conflicting treaties to keep down the Pacifican menace their hands are completely tied unless it's to get in on a curbbie, then they no longer even need a treaty. Just friends fighting for friends at that point.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292856698' post='2546542']That side is so wrapped up in conflicting treaties to keep down the Pacifican menace their hands are completely tied unless it's to get in on a curbbie, then they no longer even need a treaty. Just friends fighting for friends at that point.[/quote]
You got us, we are [b]so[/b] paranoid that the Ghost of Christmas Past, Pacifica, is going to come to us in our beds and EZI the lot of us.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1292856864' post='2546545']
You got us, we are [b]so[/b] paranoid that the Ghost of Christmas Past, Pacifica, is going to come to us in our beds and EZI the lot of us.
[/quote]


The FA direction of about 75% of the non-neutral world seems to be aimed at keeping the Orders down. See TOP <3's MK all of a sudden for the latest example.

[JBone]

[quote name='kutumoncrot' timestamp='1292850831' post='2546451']
but jbone, that different. at that time, you ask NEW to WAIT, not ask us about not to join in. when NEW ready for war, you make peace. It looks like NEW leaving his allies.

*it's my opinion....
[/quote]
And I respect your opinion kutumoncrot.

The end results here are very different though, by TPF asking you to wait, we got peace and the next conflict was started.

Here NEW just gets screwed.

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1292851031' post='2546453']
No, I didn't, and if I had my way, the treaty web and even friends/enemies would appear a lot different than they do now. But I left (derwood says he kicked me out) because I had had it with some things. I went about getting what I wanted in the wrong way, but I'm not really one to sit on the sidelines and merely wait for things to happen.

All I can say now is, that, once again, I was right. I'm batting 1.000 here.
[/quote]
You are many things Greenie, especially a man of your word.

[quote name='sigelopisan' timestamp='1292851810' post='2546467']
Well, personally I dont feel abandoned by our allies.
In fact when we consider to sign a treaty, we always consider "how far will we sacrifice to our allies" instead of the other way around.
So, there must be a reason why PC and iFOK declare this stance. Its their right and we must respect it.
[/quote]
Sig, can you honestly say you are not disappointed by the fact that PC and iFok chose to pick their new bloc friends over you guys?

If possible I would like to see where/when and how gantanX or whomever told them not to lend a hand.

I'm thinking it went sorta like "yea, whatever, if you guys don't want to back us up in this because it is causing you a political headache that's fine with NEW."

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292852398' post='2546475']


Wait... It's [i]their[/i] right?

Didn't [i]you[/i] ask them not to intervene?




*cough*
[/quote]
I'm gonna nail this down by the end of the day SJ.

[quote name='Marginali' timestamp='1292852486' post='2546477']


Considering this as a "right" decision from our "allies"..
[/quote]
Hi Marginali.

Would NEW have acted the same way if the the roles were reversed, and if not, why ?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292855962' post='2546530']
Ah, here's our Balloon Boy moment.
[/quote]
Dig something up, you were always so good at that before.

[Shovel]

Pathetic. I thought our treaty said "defend" not "let burn".

[sigelopisan]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1292855748' post='2546529']
I edited my post for clarification before you quoted it, and before I saw your reply .

Anyway, what bothers me is that, the PC and NEW treaty was probably a good 2 years in the making. I don't think the PC leadership right now appreciates just how tight PC and NEW were, or how much PC wanted a treaty with NEW (out of friendship and respect) in the beginning, and how hard twist and everyone else worked to try and make that a reality. It's just something that's lost on them, which isn't really their fault, because none of them were around at the beginning.

But this is highly, highly disappointing. It's like all that time and all that effort was for nothing, and NEW deserves better, especially from PC, especially after what NEW went through for TPF. NEW just deserves better from PC, I don't care about iFOK, I really don't, but just the bond that was there between NEW and PC seems to have been forgotten.

edited because I said "say your reply" instead of "saw your reply" .. my bad
[/quote]

I still can remember the long day of talk before the treaty signed.
It was fun to know each other more close before signed it on a paper. Paper is just a paper. What beyond it is much more important.

Then, if we have a chance to go back to that day when the treaty signed, will we signed it? 100% YES.

[RebelBreeze]

o/ iFOK
o/ PC
o/ GOONS

[JBone]

[quote name='sigelopisan' timestamp='1292857215' post='2546551']
I still can remember the long day of talk before the treaty signed.
It was fun to know each other more close before signed it on a paper. Paper is just a paper. What beyond it is much more important.

Then, if we have a chance to go back to that day when the treaty signed, will we signed it? 100% YES.
[/quote]
And you would be smart to, the PC of Green,Twist, CTB, pooks and a few others was much different than the PC of today.

Now that you bring that up, how will this action affect the PC & iFok treaties going forward?

I know you are not government, but the perspective from a soldier would be nice.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Shovel' timestamp='1292857169' post='2546550']
Pathetic. I thought our treaty said "defend" not "let burn".
[/quote]

Feel free to follow your treaty and gain some lost respect

[Shovel]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292857498' post='2546556']
Feel free to follow your treaty and gain some lost respect
[/quote]

Oh, don't worry, I will.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Shovel' timestamp='1292857584' post='2546557']
Oh, don't worry, I will.
[/quote]

+1 in my book.

Now I just hope that your testicular fortitude will be noted and inspire your alliance mates

Edited December 20, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[Jackie Moon]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1292848288' post='2546422']
Note that this is exactly what happened to UPN in Bipolar. They did exactly the same thing as you did; declared neutrality. Nice to see you're finally taking your cues from them
[/quote]

"Seeing as this somewhat generic happenstance has occurred in the past to UPN, which I'm implying is fail, and they chose the same course of action, I can infer that your foreign policy wishes to mimic that of UPN's "

Hopefully you're being sarcastic here Haflinger... When two of your allies are at each other's throats, and it seems that mediation between the two parties has failed, what exactly would be the 'Invict-o-sphere' approved way to deal with it? Pick the side of the alliance with the most pixels? Pick the side you think is right? Run around crazily and as Pacifica for help? (Last one is a personal favorite of mine.)

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Shovel' timestamp='1292857584' post='2546557']
Oh, don't worry, I will.
[/quote]

Shovel good luck in what ever you will do, its to bad your alliance doesn't think the same way.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Dark Temptation' timestamp='1292857702' post='2546559']
Hopefully you're being sarcastic here Haflinger...
[/quote]
I have never been sarcastic. Sarcasm, aka the lowest form of wit, is...

Oh god I can't keep a straight face anymore. No, I'm just calling them out for their rather vocal criticism of UPN's choices in a similar situation.

[abdur]

[quote name='Shovel' timestamp='1292857584' post='2546557']
Oh, don't worry, I will.
[/quote]
Good on you mate. Here's to hoping a lot more follow.

[sigelopisan]

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292857452' post='2546555']
And you would be smart to, the PC of Green,Twist, CTB, pooks and a few others was much different than the PC of today.

Now that you bring that up, how will this action affect the PC & iFok treaties going forward?

I know you are not government, but the perspective from a soldier would be nice.
[/quote]

Well General, I still have to believe that "today PC" is still have some spirit from the "old PC".
Things are changes along with time goes by. They might had lost it somewhere.

The friendship is forever General. But the paper, I'm not sure.

You (and most of PC founders) taught us that, remember?

[Marginali]

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292857139' post='2546549']



Hi Marginali.

Would NEW have acted the same way if the the roles were reversed, and if not, why ?

[/quote]

Hi Jbone.

Like you never know who are the people of NEW? we will fight for our allies, either we are prepared or not, we will still go anyway.. nothing stop us.. even this war come to us... we are still NEW that you have known for years..

[JBone]

[quote name='sigelopisan' timestamp='1292858228' post='2546565']
Well General, I still have to believe that "today PC" is still have some spirit from the "old PC".
Things are changes along with time goes by. They might had lost it somewhere.

The friendship is forever General. But the paper, I'm not sure.

You (and most of PC founders) taught us that, remember?
[/quote]
Yes, Sig I do.

More importantly though, is the fact that you and the rest of NEW live by that code everyday.

o7

[quote name='Marginali' timestamp='1292858693' post='2546569']
Hi Jbone.

Like you never know who are the people of NEW? we will fight for our allies, either we are prepared or not, we will still go anyway.. nothing stop us.. even this war come to us... we are still NEW that you have known for years..
[/quote]
I know Marginali, please never change.

[White Chocolate]

Politically speaking, I get what happened.

However, the groups that are going to come out of this looking the worst to us commoners (as opposed to the back-room deal making politicians) are iFOK and Poison Clan.

INT, FARK and TPE are defending friends in DF specifically and generally the "right" for people to disband in peace.

Hail INT! Hail FARK! Hail TPE!

NEW is backing their original stance. Plus to them from those leaders who want action and/or to eat while watching a good fight. Now they are doing so in spite of being "abandoned" by their friends. This looks almost heroic!

and what are PC and iFOK doing? Nothing. Or worse yet (from a commoner's perspective) "giving in" to back room "treaty web" pressure. Don't want to disrupt the status quo, that would be unthinkable. The world would end. We common masses just don't understand.

iFOK and PC - you got the raw end big time. Argue about what a treaty does or does not allow all you want. Your average leader doesn't care. Justify it saying "NEW" asked you to stay out. (as if every single member of NEW now being attacked, most of whom didn't do the original act in the first place, all agreed to that). It all really doesn't matter.

From a military and now political standpoint, you look weak. Personally, I'm not sure the politics are worth the harm to reputation - but you're free to make your own choice I suppose.

Edited December 20, 2010 by White Chocolate

[kutumoncrot]

hmmm....

Edited December 20, 2010 by kutumoncrot

[Tromp]

Yawn. As if anybody really believed it would have ended differently.
From the moment NEW made their (ridiculous) stance on this affair clear, there was simply no other reasonable option left for PC and iFOK to take.

I don't really see how they were 'obligated to defend' NEW anyway. Would anyone care to show me where NEW is unjustly being treated by anyone? It is pretty clear that they are the initiators of this conflict. As a general rule, no one can expect his ally to automatically come to his aid after going on the offensive, especially when he has not taken their opinions into account before doing so. So to those who scream and yell about the 'defense clause', take a look at the 'intelligence clause' first. It shouldn't need to be said, but any information that will affect the status of the partner in any way whatsoever should be shared. It would be a dereliction of your duty as a trustful and loyal ally to not do so. What follows is that no communication means no obligation by default, and to which I would like to add that putting your allies at risk for selfish motives isn't behaviour that should be awarded.
But what I get from the OP is that there has been communication over this, so I will assume everything has been handled in the dreaded backchannels to satisfaction.

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1292823597' post='2545854']
That view changes depending on if the alliances involved want to get involved or not.
[/quote]
That just makes every alliance that comes to the aid of NEW a partner in unwarranted agression.

[quote]
I have seen treaties used both ways. If you [b](Z)[/b] declare offensive war on alliance A[b](1)[/b], then alliance's A's allies declare on you, your allies then jump in to hit alliance A's allies due to obligatory defense[b](2)[/b] in the MDoAP.

That is how most wars turn global.
When wars stay small, its because people do not use their obligatory defense clause, or chose not to make much of it.
[/quote]
Wouldn't it be more accurate, and to the letter of non-chaining treaties, to say that after what happens at '1', the defense clauses in treaties of alliance Z become optional? After all, that's the sole meaning of non-chaining clauses. Still, alliances keep saying they are 'obligated' to come to the 'defense' of their ally Z at '2'. Where do they get that from? It's a misconception that's broadly accepted or deliberately ignored.
The explanation for this may be that otherwise wars tend to become very unbalanced, the problem being here the legality of the CB (in the eyes of the involved parties primarily) and subsequently the effects it has on chaining. An unbalanced war is always the endresult of that decision making process, which is ofcourse not desirable. Leaders can only try to influence this balance of power (some more than others), although at that point it is often too late.

Maybe it is partly because of the development of our conflicts on Bob turning from relatively decentralized warfare into coalition wide wars in which alliances simply can't take an autonomous position anymore. 'Sides' are pretty much determined months before the actual conflict happens, everyone just wants to come off as the most favourable side for the fence sitters to align with at the climax point when you need them the most. And when the war is raging on, a coalition effort is a balancing act between alliances that often dislike each other, but are for the time being aligned shoulder to shoulder as a part of the coalition. Difficult hurdles have to be cleared, for example I for one recall the position Xiph took during the Karma war...

What also may have played a part in the development of this trend (probably the biggest reason, albeit an more or less OOC one) is peer pressure. On the one hand you have your alliance members, who desperately want a war (generally speaking) so denying them this because of a realpolitik decision like refusing to defend Z won't give your popularity a boost as an alliance leader, no matter of it being the 'best' for the alliance in the long run, quite on the contrary. And on the other hand you will have the political fallout when a part of the world will call you 'cowards' for making this decision not to defend Z regardless of the fact that it is perfectly legal [b]and[/b] sound to do so. What is often overlooked by these people is what caused these alliances to act like they did. Or they simply don't want to admit that the just decision was taken. Example, this guy (sorry joe ):

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1292822649' post='2545717']
You !@#$@#$ cowards

disgust me
[/quote]
So this move may be a shift in the way global politics are being executed, but this may just be my imagination.

Also, I couldn't resist responding to this guy, so here goes.
[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1292823463' post='2545840']
So what you're saying is that if some alliance defend a random tech raid victim against GOONS, that their Mutual Defense pacts won't apply? Interesting.
[/quote]
The difference lies in the properties of the respective actors.
An alliance can choose who to recognize as their equal (ie. another alliance when it has met a set of criteria), since it is a large, more powerful and (artificial legal) body which a single nation simply isn't.

In CN, there are no such things as 'human rights' on which a nation can call, let alone a judiciary that will protect a small nation from the big mean alliance that enters its territories. In this world, it's David versus Goliath; the Natural Law my brother. Learn to live with it; or if you feel so much for unaligned nations, try to enforce your will over them and declare war on GOONS. Doesn't take much, just enforce that sweet Revenge Doctrine you posted somewhere in here, right? (Or is that an act too bold for you to accomplish?)