Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Timeline]

[quote Hiro Nakara, on 20 December 2010 - 12:21 PM, said:]

It was the worst military planning/organising I have personally witnessed. What made it worse was the people in the room that were bragging about how the other side will be smashed by this plan. Yet 1 week later nothing happened. It surely was genius to watch TPF burn. A lot of alliances did not care for this peace plan (myself included) and many alliances had forces ready to rock and roll within 1 days notice. They were given no direction and got frustrated. It was embarrassing.

Apologies Memoryproblems for going off topic, if you want to discuss it further drop me a pm.


Would I be correct in the assumption that if someone attacked NEW out with the 3 already hitting them PC/iFOK would roll into action?

And if anyone attacked PC/iFOK, PB's direct allies, then PB would defend them?

[b]I'm struggling to see how PB are cowards when not 1 alliance has attacked it's direct allies?[/b]

Or is that not how it works?

IDK [shrugs][/quote]

could it be because (33% of PB) two members of PB has chickened out of defending their direct ally ?

or you just saying 33% of PB are cowards but not all of you ?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292877948' post='2546958']
Freudian Slip?

Good catch, thanks
[/quote]

i think you were just trying to tease me Merrie.

[Locke]

[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]
Bandwagoning is when an alliance makes an opportunistic attack on any already outnumbered alliance for their own gain. Seeing as how it was close to even before, with a slight advantage to NEW, I don't see how Fark can be bandwagoning. Bandwagoning would be, say, all of NOIR jumping on them right now.

[abdur]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292878395' post='2546965']
Bandwagoning is when an alliance makes an opportunistic attack on any already outnumbered alliance for their own gain. Seeing as how it was close to even before, with a slight advantage to NEW, I don't see how Fark can be bandwagoning. Bandwagoning would be, say, all of NOIR jumping on them right now.
[/quote]
Fark had no stake in this fight, as mentioned before in this thread. They did not mention anything about protecting DF. Yet they are here to get in on some action. Sounds like bandwagoning to me.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292878395' post='2546965']
Bandwagoning is when an alliance makes an opportunistic attack on any already outnumbered alliance for their own gain. Seeing as how it was close to even before, with a slight advantage to NEW, I don't see how Fark can be bandwagoning. Bandwagoning would be, say, all of NOIR jumping on them right now.
[/quote]
It's also not as if Fark never had a defense pact with Dark Fist dating back over a year.

[Finnish Commie]

As far as I can see Fark has exactly as much stake in this fight as we or TPE do. They too were friends and allies of the late Dark Fist and they felt obviously that friendship was worth defending DF members even after they disbanded. They didn't declare protection in the disbandment topic, but so what? Its not like NEW paid any attention to those in any case.

[abdur]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292878859' post='2546972']
As far as I can see Fark has exactly as much stake in this fight as we or TPE do. They too were friends and allies of the late Dark Fist and they felt obviously that friendship was worth defending DF members even after they disbanded. They didn't declare protection in the disbandment topic, but so what? Its not like NEW paid any attention to those in any case.
[/quote]
Your justification for war is because NEW apparently didn't pay attention to your protection warnings. I can understand that. What I want to know is where FARK declared protection in public. Be it in the disbandment topic or anywhere else.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1292878750' post='2546971']
It's also not as if Fark never had a defense pact with Dark Fist dating back over a year.
[/quote]


There was no longer a DF when this attack happened. There was no more treaty. This is Fark riding into battle for a friend, treaty be damned. Good for them. Great stance. Too bad alliances with actual treaties and friendships with NEW won't follow them and defend NEW from Fark's aggression.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292877231' post='2546944']
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
[/quote]
Outside of capitalization for humorous purposes, I'm not too riled up about any of this. I actually don't like PC, but find the attempts to cast them as in the wrong here as simply... wrong.

All of these arguments lead back to the core dispute of whether or not NEW's act was an aggressive action (itself based on whether or not the statements of protection were sufficient to make any raid on the Dark Fist AA aggressive actions). Until PC and iFOK (and NEW, FARK, TPE, and INT) decided on this course of action, everybody except NEW and I think JBone agreed. As best I can read it the two arguments fall somewhat like thus:

[quote][u]First Set[/u]
1) Party A states that X would mean war against them.
2) Party B does X.
3) A makes war on B.
4) Party C holds MDOAPs with B. Since it was B that did X, and since A made clear that X meant war against them, MD doesn't apply, only OA applies.
5) All involved parties agree that C will stay out and only make war if somebody other than A makes war on B[/quote]

[quote=][u]Second Set[/u]
1) Party A insufficiently states that X would mean war against them.
2) Party B does X.
3) A makes war on B.
4) Party C holds MDOAPs with B. Though B did X, since A insufficiently stated that X meant war against them, MD applies.
5) C should declare war on A.[/quote]

I subscribe to the first set and you the second. In the middle of all of this are pages upon pages of rhetorical arguments and attacks about friendship/cowardice/chickens/etc, fueled by a bunch of people with... appendages of an azure variety. And everybody, [i]literally everybody[/i], is being a hypocrite if we dig up enough history. So other than my stated amusement from the previous post, and the fact that I think this whole set of affairs is a train wreck, I only care about the facts as I interpret them in the first set and at this point couldn't be damned to try and argue against the facts as interpreted in the second set because [i]nobody here is changing their position[/i]. This is a bunch of brick walls yelling at each other.

EDIT: In before some extremely specific detail in the sets presented is disputed.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ardus

[Locke]

[quote name='abdur' timestamp='1292878697' post='2546969']
Fark had no stake in this fight, as mentioned before in this thread. They did not mention anything about protecting DF. Yet they are here to get in on some action. Sounds like bandwagoning to me.
[/quote]
They did, actually. Read PhysicsJunky's post. Just because they didn't post an official statement of protection doesn't make them completely uninvolved.

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1292878750' post='2546971']
It's also not as if Fark never had a defense pact with Dark Fist dating back over a year.
[/quote]
I know, I was just addressing the bandwagoning comment; so few people seem to understand what that word means.

[abdur]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292880444' post='2547003']
They did, actually. Read PhysicsJunky's post. Just because they didn't post an official statement of protection doesn't make them completely uninvolved.
[/quote]
So they did it in memory of their old friends? Fair enough.
Heh, too bad NEW's allies aren't that dedicated.

[Banksy]

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

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292877569' post='2546950']
This post here hits the nail firmly.
[/quote]

Then next time an alliance attacks a protectorate, they aren't aggressors, the protector is. If this is the case, then why are we offering statements of protection?

[Bob Janova]

Good job, guys. This is about the best thing you could do considering NEW's unwillingness to stand down.

[King Louis the II]

[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 decided to ignore DF-Fark MDoAp just because your are lazy to get informed or you have a better reason for that?

[ktarthan]

This must have been a very difficult decision to make. I'd support my allies either way in this matter, but I believe they've made the best decision given the circumstances.

[Lord Levistus]

A little late to this show, but here are my two cents. Not tat anyone really cares.

NEW showed nothing but contempt for hew allies in refusing to allow a diplomatic solution to a bad situation. A situation that they caused. NEW seems to be showing a little class in the end, at least, by asking for the non activation of the respective treaty clauses. I'm sure this wasn't a popular choice within PC and iFOK, but I understand it.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292881360' post='2547030']
Good job, guys. This is about the best thing you could do considering NEW's unwillingness to stand down.
[/quote]

Let them get beat down, [i]but only by so many alliances[/i].

[img]http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/guinness-brilliant.jpg[/img]

[wickedj]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292881360' post='2547030']
Good job, guys. This is about the best thing you could do considering NEW's unwillingness to stand down.
[/quote]
Werent you bashing NSO/NPO for this SAME thing> Jesus tapdancing christ on a cracker you really ARE the worlds biggest hypcorite

/me strokes my stache

[abdur]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1292881620' post='2547036']
You decided to ignore DF-Fark MDoAp just because your are lazy to get informed or you have a better reason for that?
[/quote]
Read my response later on in the thread.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292879031' post='2546976']
There was no longer a DF when this attack happened. There was no more treaty. This is Fark riding into battle for a friend, treaty be damned. Good for them. Great stance. Too bad alliances with actual treaties and friendships with NEW won't follow them and defend NEW from Fark's aggression.
[/quote]
The argument that Dark Fist's treaties became invalid the moment they started disbanding as opposed to at the end of their cancellation clause is petty e-lawyering and short of universally recognized, and there is even some loose historical precedent supporting the cancellation clause side. Both sides could have decided to recognize the other at each step as an aggressor but decided to limit the war and re-affirm an alliance's ability to disbanded in peace while under protection rather than escalating this into a world conflict. The end result is that NEW is facing the other side of an action they themselves were perfectly willing to engage in when they were the superior party (I'm actually fairly sure they outnumbered their raid targets by far more than the numbers they're facing now). People are going to wail and gnash about anything that's done in this game but the pretense of there being some great injustice can be dropped for the sake of the reading public's time. Life came full circle.

@Locke: I was just expanding on your sentiment, not criticizing it.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292880804' post='2547020']
Then next time an alliance attacks a protectorate, they aren't aggressors, the protector is. If this is the case, then why are we offering statements of protection?
[/quote]
There is offensive wars and defensive wars, NEW waged offensive wars on former DF members and are waging defensive wars against those who offered protection to those members. It really is that simple. It should be easy to see were the optional aggression and mutual defense fit.

EDIT ADD: New waved their treaty rights to defense from PC and IFOK, that in and of itself doesn't mean they weren't entitled to defense, they just chose to look out for friends, honorable in any sphere.

My displeasure is with the attempt to redefine optional aggression and mutual defense.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1292883406' post='2547074']
Werent you bashing NSO/NPO for this SAME thing>[/quote]

I was one of those people at the time. And I'm one of them now. PC/iFOK don't want to 'break' the treaty web, so they effectively nullified treaties with an alliance that would have died for them.

Bravo, gentlemen. Bravo.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292880804' post='2547020']
Then next time an alliance attacks a protectorate, they aren't aggressors, the protector is. If this is the case, then why are we offering statements of protection?
[/quote]
Eh, depending on how the treaties work that's exactly what's going to happen. Alliance A attacks Alliance B which is the protectorate of Alliance C. If alliance A has a solid CB (or one solid enough for Bob, which is pretty piss poor), and Alliance C attacks them, Alliance A's allies will usually view the attack on them as illegitimate and strike at Alliance C.

This also depends on how defensive clauses are worded and chain/non-chaining, but really, if somebody wants to chain in on a non-chaining treaty, they're going to do it.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Earogema

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292885261' post='2547106']
There is offensive wars and defensive wars, NEW waged offensive wars on former DF members and are waging defensive wars against those who offered protection to those members. It really is that simple. It should be easy to see were the optional aggression and mutual defense fit.
[/quote]
Honestly I've always thought that wars started due to the a treaty took on the nature of the activated clause - not simply from which side the nations physically declare the wars. IE: If an alliance declares due to a defense clause, then the wars are defensive in nature. Similar to how some treaties word their defense clauses to consider attacks on one the same as an attack on both.

Edit: Not trying to be argumentative - that's just how I've always seen these kinds of situations. And regardless of which wars you see as being aggressive and defensive, there's still a whole host of other subjective decisions to make in a situation where a treaty partner asks you to stay out of a fight.

Edited December 20, 2010 by ktarthan

[Banksy]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1292885261' post='2547106']
There is offensive wars and defensive wars, NEW waged offensive wars on former DF members and are waging defensive wars against those who offered protection to those members. It really is that simple. It should be easy to see were the optional aggression and mutual defense fit.
[/quote]
You are getting confused about the distinctions between alliance warfare and nation warfare. NEW launched a raid sanctioned by its government on a protected AA, which is offensive. In defence of this AA, DF's protectors launched a defensive war.