Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292872938' post='2546836']
Seriously, this topic is full of people speculating without sufficient amount of information on the matter and let me say most of you aren't even hitting close to the target.
[/quote]

Then enlighten us. Did NEW attack Dark Fist before they disbanded? Did NEW force Dark Fist to disband? If so, then that is an act of war and iFOK/PC would have an excuse. If not.....

[x8BitL0gic]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1292872739' post='2546832']
I don't understand how NEW can DoW on an Alliance that no longer exists.

Fact is this: INT/TPE/FARK had a CB and declared war on NEW. You guys are legally bound to defend NEW, but you're using the Optional Aggression part of the treaty as a non-existent loophole. You are "Mutually bound" to come to each other's defense. NEW didn't declare war, therefore the optional aggression part of the treaty does not come into play here.

*sighs*

This is why Foreign Affairs on Planet Bob has went downhill, people seem to have the inability to engage their brains.
[/quote]

Oh dangit someone brought logic to a war.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1292873052' post='2546840']
Then enlighten us. Did NEW attack Dark Fist before they disbanded? Did NEW force Dark Fist to disband? If so, then that is an act of war and iFOK/PC would have an excuse. If not.....
[/quote]

Did NEW attack an AA that was protected by multiple alliances? Yes. Stop being intentionally obtuse. Or unless protection agreements are now optional in your world now, then it is open season on Protectorates.

Edited December 20, 2010 by AirMe

[Finnish Commie]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1292873052' post='2546840']
Then enlighten us. Did NEW attack Dark Fist before they disbanded? Did NEW force Dark Fist to disband? If so, then that is an act of war and iFOK/PC would have an excuse. If not.....
[/quote]
I think it is quite clear cut what lead to NEW having war declared on them, but I can go through this once more:
1. INT and TPE promise to protect remnants of DF
2. NEW starts raiding remnants of DF
3. Negotiations start with NEW with little success
4. NEW is attacked.

The matter I was referring to was what this topic is about and that is not a matter to be discussed in open channels such as this.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Finnish Commie

[Alterego]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292873211' post='2546847']
Did NEW attack an AA that was protected by multiple alliances? Yes. Stop being intentionally obtuse. Or unless protection agreements are now optional in your world now, then it is open season on Protectorates.
[/quote]
I dont remember seeing FARK saying they were protecting them. Their war is an aggressive one, that should bring in PC and ifok.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Alterego

[greenacres]

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292870678' post='2546779']
Excellent to see you are on board with the Optional Defence Clan moniker.

I knew I could count on you Greenie.

Perhaps if Twist wakes up from his long slumber you and he could coup ODC and ride to the rescue.

And if it was Athens Arch would have made them pay reps and apologize, c'mon we all know that.
[/quote]

Nah, I'm not on board with that moniker.. I can't really fault them for what they're doing now, like I said it's just very disappointing. They've started to play the politics game, and one of the reasons PC was started was so that we wouldn't have to play the politics game. I'd have done things differently, for as reckless as I can be in my words and my actions, I do know right from wrong, and regardless of how their other allies feel, PC should have defended NEW, it really is that simple.

PC just isn't the same, and that's neither good nor bad, but they've disrespected NEW here, an alliance that deserves better than to be treated this way.

Edited December 20, 2010 by greenacres

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292873337' post='2546852']
I dont remember seeing FARK saying they were protecting them. Their war is an aggressive one.
[/quote]

If people were arguing that point, it would be a valid. But up until now, no one has raised it or it has gotten ignored. You sir, may have taken the debate to a new level. +1

Edited December 20, 2010 by AirMe

[Smooth]

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'D RATHER NOT READ THE THREAD -- I have summarized it for you:

1) Anti-Karma: PC and iFOK suck for not causing a Karma civil war.
2) Karma: PC and iFOK were in a rough spot and made the right call.
3) Others: Probably don't give a !@#$.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292873337' post='2546852']
I dont remember seeing FARK saying they were protecting them. Their war is an aggressive one, that should bring in PC and ifok.
[/quote]

Oh snap... Good one

Anyone care to comment?

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292872938' post='2546836']
Seriously, this topic is full of people speculating without sufficient amount of information on the matter and let me say most of you aren't even hitting close to the target.
[/quote]

I'll take a swing, then.

Looks like NEW really blew it with their decision to raid a protected AA. They made it worse by saying, "Oh no, it's not protected" when the rest of Planeta Roberto said, "OH YES IT IS!!!" including NEW's allies.

NEW gets to take 40 lashes with a wet nuke for its sins at the hands of the alliances that were protecting the DF AA. NEW's allies are resigned to that. They are spelling out that no bandwagoners will be allowed, which actually means they'll kill any nation that screws up a Fark/TPE/TI stagger from another AA.

NEW burns for its mistakes while bigger fish eye each other from opposite sides of the holding tank...

Logic and law have nothing to do with this: it's realpolitik, and we all know it.

[Alterego]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292873407' post='2546854']
If people were arguing that point, it would be a valid. But up until now, no one has raised it or it has gotten ignored. You sir, may have taken the debate to a new level. +1
[/quote]
Probably ignored

[Delta1212]

It should be pointed out that iFOK has a treaty with Fark and can't attack them.

[Cao Pai]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1292874037' post='2546869']
It should be pointed out that iFOK has a treaty with Fark and can't attack them.
[/quote]


The treaty web strikes again it seems.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Cao Pai

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Smooth' timestamp='1292873701' post='2546860']
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'D RATHER NOT READ THE THREAD -- I have summarized it for you:

1) Anti-Karma: PC and iFOK suck for not causing a Karma civil war.
2) Karma: PC and iFOK were in a rough spot and made the right call.
3) Others: Probably don't give a !@#$.
[/quote]

i don't think you can honestly label groups 1 or 2 as anti-Karma and Karma as many anti-Karma people who think PC/iFOK are cowards for throwing NEW under the bus to save their own skins, are people who wholeheartedly supported Karma.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292873337' post='2546852']I dont remember seeing FARK saying they were protecting them. Their war is an aggressive one, that should bring in PC and ifok.[/quote]
Fark has chosen to interpret its treaty with Dark Fist as continuing in the form of protection over the disbanded alliance's AA while members of said alliance are still on it.
As such, they are invoking the Mutual Defense aspect of said treaty, regardless of the eLawyering that takes to understand.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1292874037' post='2546869']
It should be pointed out that iFOK has a treaty with Fark and can't attack them.
[/quote]
If FARK attacked an ally of ifok they muct have been given approval from ifok which means ifok allowed one ally to attack another ally.

[Badpoet]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292873337' post='2546852']
I dont remember seeing FARK saying they were protecting them. Their war is an aggressive one, that should bring in PC and ifok.
[/quote]
Is there a better way of saying it then declaring war in their defense?

[Smooth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292874204' post='2546873']
i don't think you can honestly label groups 1 or 2 as anti-Karma and Karma as many anti-Karma people who think PC/iFOK are cowards for throwing NEW under the bus to save their own skins, are people who wholeheartedly supported Karma.
[/quote]

It's not just about iFOK and PC, though. It's about an entire sphere of power.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1292874560' post='2546876']
Fark has chosen to interpret its treaty with Dark Fist as continuing in the form of protection over the disbanded alliance's AA while members of said alliance are still on it.
As such, they are invoking the Mutual Defense aspect of said treaty, regardless of the eLawyering that takes to understand.
[/quote]

That's a pretty massive stretching of the boundries of common practice on Bob. Unstated protection in the form of treaties continuing after disbandment?

[JT Jag]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292873766' post='2546861']
Oh snap... Good one

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]iFOK have a treaty conflict in that they're treatied to FARK.

If you're using this train of logic, PC do not have this out.

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292873211' post='2546847']
Did NEW attack an AA that was protected by multiple alliances? Yes. Stop being intentionally obtuse. Or unless protection agreements are now optional in your world now, then it is open season on Protectorates.
[/quote]

I do not recall seeing a notice of protection issued by INT/TPE/Fark. If there was such an issue of protection, then I would say that iFOK/PC have an excuse. I'm not doubting the validity of the CB by the way, I'm doubting iFOK/PC using the "Optional Aggression" clause as a scape.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1292874931' post='2546889']
I do not recall seeing a notice of protection issued by INT/TPE/Fark. If there was such an issue of protection, then I would say that iFOK/PC have an excuse. I'm not doubting the validity of the CB by the way, I'm doubting iFOK/PC using the "Optional Aggression" clause as a scape.
[/quote]


There was no notice from Fark. And oA would apply to them joining in and fighting the remnants of DF, not to defending NEW.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292874564' post='2546877']If FARK attacked an ally of ifok they muct have been given approval from ifok which means ifok allowed one ally to attack another ally.[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fark-iFOK treaty does not give iFOK the power to stop Fark from attacking an alliance.
NEW's unwillingness to negotiate even the tiniest bit really didn't give iFOK much leverage here.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Badpoet' timestamp='1292874726' post='2546880']
Is there a better way of saying it then declaring war in their defense?
[/quote]
When the alliance disbanded or officially ceased to exist so did their existing treaties thats why the quicky protectorate was announced.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292874876' post='2546885']
That's a pretty massive stretching of the boundries of common practice on Bob. Unstated protection in the form of treaties continuing after disbandment?
[/quote]
If it was a few months down the track, or even a few weeks, sure I'd have a problem with that.
But NEW's "tech raids" on DF-aligned nations occurred mere [b]hours[/b] after their disbandment, which is not about tech at all. It's about revenge for what happened in the Karma War, NEW was just never in a position to take that revenge until now (or so they thought).