Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Locke]

[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'll bet you they're also the same people who complained that NSO's allies didn't come to defend them when NSO requested they didn't.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1292875187' post='2546897']
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).
[/quote]


Regardless, DF no longer existed. Their treaties no longer existed and Fark made no statement of protection. That would make this purely an aggressive action on Fark's behalf.

Clearly TPE and Int could not have handled NEW on their own and Fark was the closest thing to maybe passing the sniff test that could have came in on this, but if you take a good whiff it still smells pretty bad.

[BloodFury]

I like how this thread is bigger than the DoW. Strange days when a DoW thread becomes less important than alliances making an announcment that they were doing what their ally told them.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292875210' post='2546900']
I'll bet you they're also the same people who complained that NSO's allies didn't come to defend them when NSO requested they didn't.
[/quote]


Of course it's the same people, but under this new definition we wouldn't have been defending NSO, we'd have been supporting them via oA in our treaties.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292834860' post='2546278']

It is not about protecting NEW because they deserve it. It is about protecting NEW because Poison Clan has done the [b]exact same thing[/b] as NEW before, and have suddenly changed their moral view on the world because now it's convinient of them to do so. If Poison Clan had [i]any[/i] balls at all, they would have defended NEW, no matter what the consequences would be.

Because, they don't have a NAP (Not that they wouldn't break that if they had to ), but they do have an obligation to [b]defend[/b] them through their M[b]D[/b]oAP. And as Poison Clan have so eloquently pointed out before, raiding dead alliances is perfectly fine. But when was this, I can't quite bring my mind to remember it

[/quote]

My god, this.

I remember when PC raided a protectorate of Echelon and proceeded to rub their e-peen stating some bull about the Wiki entry being outdated.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Smooth' timestamp='1292874787' post='2546883']
It's not just about iFOK and PC, though. It's about an entire sphere of power.
[/quote]

oh i get that and my point still stands. the power structure has several Karma alliances no longer near PB/MK which means that calling those former Karma alliances, anti-Karma is ridiculous. and thus makes calling the PB/MK sphere Karma just as ridiculous.

[Badpoet]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292875119' post='2546895']
When the alliance disbanded or officially ceased to exist so did their existing treaties thats why the quicky protectorate was announced.
[/quote]


[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292875424' post='2546904']
Regardless, DF no longer existed. Their treaties no longer existed and Fark made no statement of protection. That would make this purely an aggressive action on Fark's behalf.
[/quote]

Not everything needs to be on e-paper.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Badpoet' timestamp='1292876071' post='2546915']
Not everything needs to be on e-paper.
[/quote]


So Fark is attacking NEW just for the sake of friendship? Honorable....but still and aggressive attack.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292875210' post='2546900']
I'll bet you they're also the same people who complained that NSO's allies didn't come to defend them when NSO requested they didn't.
[/quote]
It boils down to the pawns of this world lusting for blood, and unfortunately for them, cooler heads prevailed.

And even then it were only those crying for war who would have nothing lost by it. It's pretty transparent me thinks.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Badpoet' timestamp='1292876071' post='2546915']
Not everything needs to be on e-paper.
[/quote]
True, but this thread has FARK saying they dont need something on paper to get in on this war and PC saying they dont have anything specific on paper to get in on this. Its fairly comical.

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1292872739' post='2546832']
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.
[/quote]
This

A Handful of nations raiding =/= a DoW, So you can't use the oA arguement to not come to their defense.
Mutual Defense means mutual [i]defense[/i]. NEW gets attacked, you defend.
New got attacked... and you're not defending.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292876266' post='2546919']
True, but this thread has FARK saying they dont need something on paper to get in on this war and PC saying they dont have anything specific on paper to get in on this. Its fairly comical.
[/quote]
What I find most comical is people yelling "NEW WAS YOUR FRIENDS YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED THEM" at iFOK and PC while also yelling "NEW WAS JUSTIFIED AND FARK HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS FRIENDS". Not everybody's making the leap, but enough to raise an eyebrow.

[Badpoet]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292876186' post='2546917']
So Fark is attacking NEW just for the sake of friendship? Honorable....but still and aggressive attack.
[/quote]
No, they are defending former DF members.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292876266' post='2546919']
True, but this thread has FARK saying they dont need something on paper to get in on this war and PC saying they dont have anything specific on paper to get in on this. Its fairly comical.
[/quote]
It's a matter of character.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292876608' post='2546925']
What I find most comical is people yelling "NEW WAS YOUR FRIENDS YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED THEM" at iFOK and PC while also yelling "NEW WAS JUSTIFIED AND FARK HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS FRIENDS". Not everybody's making the leap, but enough to raise an eyebrow.
[/quote]
Fark has every right to defend its friends without a treaty requiring them to, but it doesn't change that iFOK and PC are ignoring their treaty obligations when convenient here.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Badpoet' timestamp='1292876636' post='2546926']
No, they are defending former DF members.


[/quote]

By attacking NEW....without a treaty, or stated protection. AKA agressively attacking them.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292876608' post='2546925']
What I find most comical is people yelling "NEW WAS YOUR FRIENDS YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED THEM" at iFOK and PC while also yelling "NEW WAS JUSTIFIED AND FARK HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS FRIENDS". Not everybody's making the leap, but enough to raise an eyebrow.
[/quote]


Where is anyone saying Fark has no right to defend it's friends? Only thing is, when you attack someone without treaty ties or any other reason than "frends" then it's an aggressive attack.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292875210' post='2546900']
I'll bet you they're also the same people who complained that NSO's allies didn't come to defend them when NSO requested they didn't.
[/quote]

Yea, most people only use morals and ideas when it suits their agendas. Welcome to Planet Bob.

I remember Umbrella calling GATO cowards when they sat out because their ally done something retarded. Now in the same case they're congratulating iFOK and PC.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Omniscient1

[abdur]

TPE + The International would have had NO chance of defeating NEW convincingly, so needed someone strong to bandwagon with them. Enter Fark.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292876608' post='2546925']
What I find most comical is people yelling "NEW WAS YOUR FRIENDS YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED THEM" at iFOK and PC while also yelling "NEW WAS JUSTIFIED AND FARK HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS FRIENDS". Not everybody's making the leap, but enough to raise an eyebrow.
[/quote]
The only one yelling is you. FARK in with no treaty for a disbanded alliance out of friendship. PC out despite being friends and having a treaty. Both arguments are being used at the same time and people like you think both arguments which are the complete opposite of each other are both right. I can understand arguing one point but they contradict each other and some people are making a pathetic attempt to argue [b]for [/b]opposing arguments

Edited December 20, 2010 by Alterego

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='abdur' timestamp='1292877150' post='2546940']
TPE + The International would have had NO chance of defeating NEW convincingly, so needed someone strong to bandwagon with them. Enter Fark.
[/quote]


You can take out the convincingly part. They would have had no chance of defeating NEW.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='AvengingAngel256' timestamp='1292876487' post='2546923']
This

A Handful of nations raiding =/= a DoW, So you can't use the oA arguement to not come to their defense.
Mutual Defense means mutual [i]defense[/i]. NEW gets attacked, you defend.
New got attacked... and you're not defending.
[/quote]

This post here hits the nail firmly.
First off I am not one of the PC are cowards crowd, they took the best course available. What bothers me the most in this whole affair is the idea put forth in the OP that when an alliance attacks another alliance it is then attacking every alliance the alliance they attack has a treaty with. The whole notion is insane. If I were to attack (just an example) NPO it doesn't mean I have attacked NSO at the same time, the first war is aggressive but the second one is defensive.

I have seen many people in this thread state that this war couldn't have escalated because it would take days (weeks) to sort out the treaties, to friggin bad, let the chips fall where they will, not everything is scripted.

I want to address one other issue that has come up in this thread, NEW raids on DF are not the same as the \m/ raid on those that were still on the GGA AA (before it comes up I am not defending our attactorate decision, it was terribly wrong and I regret my advocacy of it) The difference between the two is simple, the DF AA was still under protection, the GGA AA was no longer under protection, that is a big difference.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292877569' post='2546950']

First off I am not one of the PC are cowards crowd, they took the best course available. What bothers me the most in this whole affair is the idea put forth in the OP that when an alliance attacks another alliance it is then attacking every alliance the alliance they attack has a treaty with. The whole notion is insane. If I were to attack (just an example) NPO it doesn't mean I have attacked NSO at the same time, the first war is aggressive but the second one is defensive.

[/quote]


Been saying this for pages now. It would have only been oA if NEW was asking PC and iFOK to hit the remnants of DF.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292877569' post='2546950']
This post here hits the nail firmly.
First off I am not one of the PC are cowards crowd, they took the best course available. What bothers me the most in this whole affair is the idea put forth in the OP that when an alliance attacks another alliance it is then attacking every alliance the alliance they attack has a treaty with. The whole notion is insane. If I were to attack (just an example) NPO it doesn't mean I have attacked NSO at the same time, the first war is aggressive but the second one is defensive.

I have seen many people in this thread state that this war couldn't have escalated because it would take days (weeks) to sort out the treaties, to figgin bad, let the chips fall where they will, not everything is scripted.

I want to address one other issue that has come up in this thread, NEW raids on DT are not the same as the \m/ raid on those that were still on the GGA AA (before it comes up I am not defending our attactorate decision, it was terribly wrong and I regret my advocacy of it) The difference btween the two is simple, the DT AA was still under protection, the GGA AA was no longer under protection, that is a big difference.
[/quote]

just going to note, NEW raided DF aka Dark Fist, not DT aka Dark Templar. i would have been ecstatic had NEW hit DT.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292877781' post='2546953']
just going to note, NEW raided DF aka Dark Fist, not DT aka Dark Templar. i would have been ecstatic had NEW hit DT.
[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up, I've spent the last 12 hours wondering why NEW would have such an issue with Darkfall.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292877781' post='2546953']
just going to note, NEW raided DF aka Dark Fist, not DT aka Dark Templar. i would have been ecstatic had NEW hit DT.
[/quote]
Freudian Slip?

Good catch, thanks