Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292830813' post='2546192']
Instead of complaining, man up and enforce your own doctrine. Don't leave it to others to do it. Oh but wait, it wasn't politically convenient to do so. So you didn't

Now, I am not defending the Red Safari, I think it was a terrible move and poor show, but you guys also proved that you can't enforce your own policy.

NEW has asked they not activate the treaties. So they aren't. Much like the NPO choose not to honor their doctrine when they red was systematically raided by other alliances.
[/quote]

Next time why don't you just use "Do Something About It"

Now implying that someone is a hypocrite is considered complaining by your standards? Good to know.

Also, we did take measures to deal with the Red Raiding Safari. We just didn't use military force to do it. You and I both know that would've been suicide and the raids would have continued.

Edited December 20, 2010 by BlkAK47_002

[Arrnea]

My personal issues with iFOK and PC aside, I do believe they have chosen the lesser of two evils here.
Really, it was a lose-lose situation for them, but this way, only those who have been idiots get to pay for it, as opposed to [b]everyone[/b].

The only crime that iFOK and PC have committed here is being allied to NEW in the first place.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Arrnea

[The Corrupt Teacher]

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.

That being said in terms of this whole situation. You can look at it this way in regards to a treaty and options in full legal terms:

1. Dark Fist is a protected alliance, in which case NEW "DoWed" them. This results ins no oA clause being activated on this for Dark Fist but when other alliances attack it becomes defense of NEW and the non-chaining clause of the treaty doesn't work because it wasn't one of NEW's allies messing up but NEW itself.

2. Dark Fist is not considered a protected AA by NEW's allies in which case the attacks are completely unprovoked and the mutual defense option must be exercised.

Either way the MDP portion should be activated regardless if NEW's aggressive action was incredibly stupid and I wonder if this will lead to clauses being written into treaties about alliances being able to request no-aid being sent or defense being not mandatory because that would be a smart move.

That was from a purely legal standpoint (which to me is stupid anyway). In political sense PC and iFOK made the right move and the best move for all alliances involved even NEW as if this had been blown into a full out war imagine the reps that would be laid on them via all the alliances brought to bear on them vs. the small amount they might have to pay to Dark Fist members after this goes down.

[Bob Sanders]

[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]
You're making a simple mistake, assuming that PC has the skills or wherewithal to establish and follow a coherent FA policy. PC is an attack dog on the leash of whomever is in their ear at the time. Right now it happens to be their fellow PB alliances who don't want this war.

[Elorian]

So NEW screwed up and now are getting their asses kicked. And since they asked you not to, you're not helping them BUT warn the folks that already are striking back, that if they do, you will do something about it? Is that something "sitting in the corner, looking mildly intimidating but somewhat toothless"? I apologize if I've gotten the situation wrong, reading through this thread is extremely confusing.

Elly

[ROMMELHSQ]

Heh, everyone calling iFOK/PC "cowards" or "made the right decision" have probably said the opposite to another alliance (that was in the same position) onetime in the past.

edit: trying to make sense :psy:

Edited December 20, 2010 by ROMMELHSQ

[SpiderJerusalem]

Oh, so much to fix and so little time, my comments in coward yellow.[color="#FFA500"][/color]

[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.

That being said in terms of this whole situation. You can look at it this way in regards to a treaty and options in full legal terms:

[s]1. Dark Fist is a protected alliance[/s][color="#FFA500"]This is a common misconception. However, DF was [i]not[/i] an alliance at the time of the attack[/color], in which case NEW [s]"DoWed"[/s] them.[color="#FFA500"]There was no DoW involved, as it wasn't needed. It was a raid that was legal per NEW's rules, and also per the standards of PC.[/color] This results ins no oA clause being activated on this for Dark Fist but [b]when other alliances attack it becomes defense of NEW and the non-chaining clause of the treaty doesn't work because it wasn't one of NEW's allies messing up but NEW itself.[/b] [color="#FFA500"]There we go. The oA clause doesn't come in play here, as it's [b]defence[/b].[/color]

[b]2. Dark Fist is not considered a protected AA by NEW's allies in which case the attacks are completely unprovoked and the mutual defense option must be exercised. [/b][color="#FFA500"]This is a very important point. Since PC believe that it was NEW's right to raid the non existing alliance of DF, it's clearly so that the MDP part must be activated.[/color]

Either way the MDP portion should be activated regardless if NEW's aggressive action was incredibly stupid and I wonder if this will lead to clauses being written into treaties about alliances being able to request no-aid being sent or defense being not mandatory because that would be a smart move.

[/quote]

There we go


[quote name='Bob Sanders' timestamp='1292839371' post='2546322']
You're making a simple mistake, assuming that PC has the skills or wherewithal to establish and follow a coherent FA policy. PC is an attack dog on the leash of whomever is in their ear at the time. Right now it happens to be their fellow PB alliances who don't want this war.
[/quote]

Well... The fault on my part is that I always assumed that PC was a wild dog who would protect it's family and stand up for itself. However, after this I can only compare them to a domesticated chihuahua [s]!@#$%* (the technical correct term, not the foul word)[/s] [i]female dog[/i]

[Banksy]

We raided red in the "red raiding safari" because we knew you wouldn't (and weren't capable) of protecting the sphere. If you actually protected the nations, while everyone would have been surprised, you would have been within your rights (as it was as a valid CB as any). NEW might feel it was within its rights to raid DF, but it was given a clear warning to not do so. Unlike the NPO, INT, TPE and Fark actually went through with their promises.

[berbers]

PB: Dodging wars they might actually take damage in since 2010!

Now if this was a dogpile, everyone from PB would be chaining in as fast as possible.

I didn't think one of the deadly sins was being a little @#$@$.

[Vol Navy]

Looks like a new CoC rolled into town.

Sorry to see your new allies abandon you when the first fight came NEW.

[Banksy]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1292843346' post='2546356']
PB: Dodging wars they might actually take damage in since 2010!

Now if this was a dogpile, everyone from PB would be chaining in as fast as possible.

I didn't think one of the deadly sins was being a little @#$@$.
[/quote]
Hey look, NATO's disappointed that some friends decided not to cripple each other over a single act of stupidity. Wow.

EDIT: and TPF! This sort of arrangement should be no surprise to you considering what was going on this time last year.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Banksy

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292843864' post='2546364']
Hey look, NATO's disappointed that some friends decided not to cripple each other over a single act of stupidity. Wow.

EDIT: and TPF! This sort of arrangement should be no surprise to you considering what was going on this time last year.
[/quote]


Hey....we are still called the CoC for a war we fought for 3 months in when our ally made an aggressive act and we didn't immediately respond by going to war to defend them within 2 hours.

What you are saying is that NEW getting crippled is fine as long as it doesn't hurt PB/MK's plans to roll the Orders again. Friends of PC/iFOK or no, they can burn, just can't have "friends" fighting each other at this juncture.

Also many of us were bashed relentlessly for not defending NSO when they asked us not to, although since NSO committed the aggressive act by aiding the guy we obviously wouldn't have been defending.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292844533' post='2546368']
Also many of us were bashed relentlessly for not defending NSO when they asked us not to, although since NSO committed the aggressive act by aiding the guy we obviously wouldn't have been defending.
[/quote]

Don't expect them to remember the NSO war. That was when they wanted a war because it was good for their cause, now that its not good for their cause, they don't want anything to do with it.

Funny, how a few months they go from bashing something to doing the exact same thing.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1292844760' post='2546371']
Don't expect them to remember the NSO war. That was when they wanted a war because it was good for their cause, now that its not good for their cause, they don't want anything to do with it.

Funny, how a few months they go from bashing something to doing the exact same thing.
[/quote]


Their memories for certain events are very short, for others, very long....and words, they flow from both sides of their mouths.

NEW pays the price this round.

[R3nowned]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1292844760' post='2546371']
Don't expect them to remember the NSO war. That was when they wanted a war because it was good for their cause, now that its not good for their cause, they don't want anything to do with it.

Funny, how a few months they go from bashing something to doing the exact same thing.
[/quote]
This is CN. Grudges are long and memories are short.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292844533' post='2546368']
Hey....we are still called the CoC for a war we fought for 3 months in when our ally made an aggressive act and we didn't immediately respond by going to war to defend them within 2 hours.

What you are saying is that NEW getting crippled is fine as long as it doesn't hurt PB/MK's plans to roll the Orders again. Friends of PC/iFOK or no, they can burn, just can't have "friends" fighting each other at this juncture.

Also many of us were bashed relentlessly for not defending NSO when they asked us not to, although since NSO committed the aggressive act by aiding the guy we obviously wouldn't have been defending.
[/quote]
No actually I was saying you told your allies not to defend you against Athens/RoK this time last year despite everyone clamouring for you to do so.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292845095' post='2546377']
No actually I was saying you told your allies not to defend you against Athens/RoK this time last year despite everyone clamouring for you to do so.
[/quote]


And how were those allies called out by the same people defending PC? We were all told how wrong we were for that stance and how your side of the web would never ever ever do something like that. Friends > Infra and all that.

If NEW asked PC and iFOK not to defend them, I would say I am fine with NEW's decision and PC/iFOK's. But I would hope that the same side who did all the mega bawwwwwwing for 3 consecutive wars will abandon that stance in the future when this situation comes up again.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292845095' post='2546377']
No actually I was saying you told your allies not to defend you against Athens/RoK this time last year despite everyone clamouring for you to do so.
[/quote]

Well, thats not exactly accurate.

The reason it took a week was because of the difficulties in
1) getting people active in such a time.
2) figuring out the best course of action
2) enacting a plan that would put everybody under 65k NS into peace mode (big deal)

TPF had requested support, their allies wanted to give it, but it was a tricky situation where if they wanted to make their one shot count, they had to do it right. If your speaking of telling allies not to defend, thats the NSO conflict.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1292845466' post='2546381']
[s]Well, thats not exactly accurate.

The reason it took a week was because of the difficulties in
1) getting people active in such a time.
2) figuring out the best course of action
2) enacting a plan that would put everybody under 65k NS into peace mode (big deal)

TPF had requested support, their allies wanted to give it, but it was a tricky situation where if they wanted to make their one shot count, they had to do it right. If [/s]your speaking of telling allies not to defend, thats the NSO conflict.
[/quote]

You are wrong or just a liar, because I was in their millcom room and no it was not due to planning or getting people active.

They had a full irc room in that channel with loads of people bursting to get the ball rolling with the defence of TPF.

They were terribly un-organised I mean horridly bad.

Liquid Mercury was unavailable due to [OOC/RL problems], and the excuse I got directly from LM was that he never left anyone in charge.

They took a whole 5 mins to decide that peace mode / doing nothing was a valid tactic. Also known as being cowards.

And just to prove my point. here is LM's pm conversation I had with him.

From my inbox as i couldnt find the quote his post option in my messenger system. But yea you get the point.

I appreciate your words and accept your apology. As far as me not being the only one organizing, yes that is true. But currently all things are run through me for final approval. The coalition does not move if I do not give the word. Yes I should of passed that authority off, but to be honest my RL issues have been so horrible that I did not think to do that and that was my mistake. Yes the coalition could of chosen someone else but I do not believe anyone knew that things would be so spotty, I did not. It was a series of multiple things in my RL at inopportune moments for CN and my lack of communication regarding it (there are only 4 people in CN that know the true OOC issues going on, and that does include Londo and Archon as I felt they should be made aware to know that I was not trying to use it against them and for my immense respect for both of them). Yes things could of worked out better, but I can truly say that the delay was my fault. I handled the whole situation poorly.

Anyway, I was kind of wishing along with many others that we got the chance to roll PB into action. Damn you PC iFOK!!!!!

[Banksy]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292845463' post='2546380']
If NEW asked PC and iFOK not to defend them, I would say I am fine with NEW's decision and PC/iFOK's. [/quote]
Well, apparently they did. So i'm not too sure what your problem is here.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1292845466' post='2546381']
Well, thats not exactly accurate.

The reason it took a week was because of the difficulties in
1) getting people active in such a time.
2) figuring out the best course of action
2) enacting a plan that would put everybody under 65k NS into peace mode (big deal)

TPF had requested support, their allies wanted to give it, but it was a tricky situation where if they wanted to make their one shot count, they had to do it right. If your speaking of telling allies not to defend, thats the NSO conflict.
[/quote]
Well, they were excuse given. But TPF also stated numerous times that it hadn't requested its ally's support immediately because of the reasons which you have cited. PC and iFOK were asked not to enter, and this is a case of the allies respecting their position, just like TPF's allies did last year.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

It has been pointed out many times already but if some people really want that bad to have a war with PC-iFOK, all you have to do is declare a single war on a NEW nation (assuming you're not in the trio who are already attacking NEW).

Sounds straightforward and really simple. Then, if they bail out, they're cowards.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292846187' post='2546388']
Well, apparently they did. So i'm not too sure what your problem is here.


[/quote]


The extremely hypocritical stance of the same people who gave absolute hell to us and our allies over the past few wars turning around and doing the same thing but suddenly praising it.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1292846223' post='2546389']
It has been pointed out many times already but if some people really want that bad to have a war with PC-iFOK, all you have to do is declare a single war on a NEW nation (assuming you're not in the trio who are already attacking NEW).

Sounds straightforward and really simple. Then, if they bail out, they're cowards.
[/quote]

AKA were only going to let 3 people stomp the crap outta our friends...but if a 4th person decides to...we're just gonna be all bad to the bone.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1292844533' post='2546368']Hey....we are still called the CoC for a war we fought for 3 months in when our ally made an aggressive act and we didn't immediately respond by going to war to defend them within 2 hours.[/quote]
Actually, you're called that for posting a topic many hours after NPO was hit where 6+ of you instantly cancelled your MADP-level (might want to look up the definition of "mutual aggression" here) treaties with the NPO and failed to respect the cancellation clauses in them that you had agreed to. You earned the moniker, regardless of whether or not a certain MCXA person was able to convince you that you'd be even more $%&@ed if you didn't go into the war.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1292846060' post='2546387']
You are wrong or just a liar, because I was in their millcom room and no it was not due to planning or getting people active.

They had a full irc room in that channel with loads of people bursting to get the ball rolling with the defence of TPF.

They were terribly un-organised I mean horridly bad.

Liquid Mercury was unavailable due to [OOC/RL problems], and the excuse I got directly from LM was that he never left anyone in charge.

They took a whole 5 mins to decide that peace mode / doing nothing was a valid tactic. Also known as being cowards.
[/quote]

I was also in the mil-com channel, and I remember it quite vividly, there was 2 or 3 days at the start with changing plans, then another two days because you don't just get hundreds upon hundreds of sub 65k overnight, and then another day delay because its never a great idea to war over new years eve because well, there would inevitably be horrendous turnout.

Was it done artfully or beautifully? No. But all things considered with the time of year, the plan chosen, and the troubles with organizing that effort (namely getting tons of people into peace mode), it could have been alot worse.