Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Banksy]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1292885807' post='2547116']
but really, if somebody wants to chain in on a non-chaining treaty, they're going to do it.
[/quote]
This is the crux if it. Non-chaining MDPs are the most misunderstood concept on this planet. A non-chaining MDP (or a MDoAP) is no more than a ODP [unless, of course, the other alliance is attacked completely out-of-the-blue]. Many people almost seem to think they are MADPs, but they simply aren't. If they wanted a MADP, they would have signed one.

[flak attack]

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

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]

[quote name='Starcraftmazter' timestamp='1292632308' post='2542138']
Raiding our AA would probably be a bad idea.
[/quote][quote name='Starcraftmazter' timestamp='1292632994' post='2542159']
Our treaties are eternal
[/quote]
Looks like it was pretty well stated what would happen to me.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1292883406' post='2547074']
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
[/quote]
Uh, I don't think so ... I don't even remember a situation where NPO or NSO raided a protectorate or protected disbanded AA. Could you link me to me bashing them there?

[RebelBreeze]

Glory to Pandora's Box!

[Lurunin]

so...uh...does this announcement mean that if anyone else jumps on NEW this war goes from being constrained to a global one?

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1292883589' post='2547078']
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.
[/quote]

That treaty became non-existant when this was annouced by SCM.

[quote]Hello

On this day we are announcing our prompt disbandment[/quote]

[magicninja]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1292829717' post='2546166']
No, you still don't seem to understand, perhaps its my fault for being overly verbose and unclear. Treaty conflicts are actual things, they exist in a very real and pertinent manner. "Chatter you hear", or shoes, or things being "held up", or whatever else you mentioned have no bearing on them whatsoever. You cannot chatter away treaty conflicts, and they are the same from an objective standpoint no matter what shoes one may be in. So long as the treaty exists, so do the conflicts. Because of this simple fact, that which you suggested is impossible in this direct context.

As for personal stake, you sure about that? "Chatter", right?
[/quote]

Treaty conflicts have ways of resolving themselves once the ball starts rolling. Also, I guess I'm a treaty or so removed from the action but I still don't care all that much because whatever will be will be. You can look in this thread for chatter and people say interesting things in public chans at times like these.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

Bummer. Was looking for this global war to happen.

[Kilkenny]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1292822779' post='2545745']
You're an idiot. This was the smartest decision considering the circumstances and the fact that the reason for war is completely retarded.

And calling PC cowards is hilarious. I may not like them, but they're far from cowards.
[/quote]


To be expected from PC et all.. and btw haven't known PC to stand up to a fight where they had a chance of getting beat down, tuck and run baby...tuck and run.

[Haflinger]

I don't think Fark's war is an aggressive one. Their CB is that NEW attacked Dark Fist.

You can e-lawyer all you want about treaties and that kind of nonsense. However that doesn't allow you to get away from the essential fact, which is that NEW started a war. That makes them the aggressor. Anybody coming in to help Dark Fist nations is by definition defending.

I know, all you guys think aggressor is a dirty word. There are cases where aggression is warranted. (I don't think this is one of those cases.) But stop trying to claim that Fark launched an aggressive war. It's just ludicrous, on the scale of claiming that STA aggressively attacked Valhalla in WotC.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1292888760' post='2547185']
To be expected from PC et all.. and btw haven't known PC to stand up to a fight where they had a chance of getting beat down, tuck and run baby...tuck and run.
[/quote]
And this is coming from a guy in an alliance formed by war deserters. TotalFarkistan, tuck and run baby...tuck and run.

Still butthurt that PC attacked you, I see.

[wiccan high priest]

A highly respectable position from Poison Clan and iFOK

[JBone]

[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]
So Delta, do you agree then that PC should be defending NEW against Fark, as they have no such treaty?

Serious question, I place value on your opinion.

[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]
Of course they did, that's why it took so damn long.

[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]
Is that really the way you see it Bob?

Are you talking, politically the best thing they could have done, or this was the right thing to do as per your treaty obligations?

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1292885428' post='2547112']
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.
[/quote]
I guess Treaty web > Friends > Infra

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292886259' post='2547130']
This is the crux if it. Non-chaining MDPs are the most misunderstood concept on this planet. A non-chaining MDP (or a MDoAP) is no more than a ODP [unless, of course, the other alliance is attacked completely out-of-the-blue]. Many people almost seem to think they are MADPs, but they simply aren't. If they wanted a MADP, they would have signed one.
[/quote]
Bansky, please show me how this is not the case:

NEW raids DF.

DF is protected by TPE/TI via direct statement and by FARK due to past treaty/friendship.

TPE/TI/Fark enter negotiations with NEW and at some point PC and iFok try to assist.

Negotiations break down for whatever reason.

TPE/TI/Fark prepare to attack NEW.

PC and iFok decide not to intervene militarily on NEWs behalf [i]despite[/i] having a treaty that states if anyone attacks NEW we are bound to defend NEW, and announce such for all the world to see. But if anyone else attacks NEW, then we will jump in.

NEW is attacked and no treatied allies come to their aid.


If what NEW did was so reprehensible in the eyes of PC and iFok that they turn a blind eye to the current attacks, why defend them from anyone at all?

What if someone else rolls in and says I want a piece of NEW because I was also fond of DF.

Should not this [i]closet friend[/i] also be entitled to their pound of flesh without PC and iFolk interfering?

Why would the MDoAP [i]magically[/i] kick in on the fourth of fifth attacker and not the the first three?

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292890377' post='2547211']
Why would the MDoAP [i]magically[/i] kick in on the fourth of fifth attacker and not the the first three?
[/quote]

Because the 4th and 5th likely don't have a treaty to bring them in for DF directly. Thus they would be classified as bandwagoners.

[JBone]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1292888966' post='2547190']
I don't think Fark's war is an aggressive one. Their CB is that NEW attacked Dark Fist.

You can e-lawyer all you want about treaties and that kind of nonsense. However that doesn't allow you to get away from the essential fact, which is that NEW started a war. That makes them the aggressor. Anybody coming in to help Dark Fist nations is by definition defending.

I know, all you guys think aggressor is a dirty word. There are cases where aggression is warranted. (I don't think this is one of those cases.) But stop trying to claim that Fark launched an aggressive war. It's just ludicrous, on the scale of claiming that STA aggressively attacked Valhalla in WotC.
[/quote]
Haf, I agree that Fark, et al are in a war to defend DF or it's former members, that is really not up for debate.

The optional aggression part of the treaty would come into play if NEW asked iFok and PC to help in the attack on DF, they could, as per the little o, decline.

But by defending DF Fark et al have attacked NEW.

PC and iFok treaty clearly states, as do all MDoAPs, [b]If you are attacked, we will defend you.

[/b]There are no out clauses that say we will defend you only if you are attacked for reasons X Y and Z....but not Q.

Sorry if this post comes directly after my previous one but I'm trying to catch up here.

EDIT: Haf is not Half.

Edited December 21, 2010 by JBone

[Banksy]

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292890377' post='2547211']
If what NEW did was so reprehensible in the eyes of PC and iFok that they turn a blind eye to the current attacks, why defend them from anyone at all?[/quote]
Because it's a non-chaining MDP and not a MADP. If someone attacks NEW now, it's a direct attack without provocation and the non-chaining (and oA caluse, deepening on your view of the situation) are irrelevant.

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292890377' post='2547211']
What if someone else rolls in and says I want a piece of NEW because I was also fond of DF.[/quote]
Then PC and iFOK will protect them as they say in the OP

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292890377' post='2547211']
Should not this [i]closet friend[/i] also be entitled to their pound of flesh without PC and iFolk interfering?[/quote]
They might be entitled to it, but it doesn't really matter because as the OP says, they will be DoWed on by iFOK and PC.

[quote name='JBone' timestamp='1292890377' post='2547211']
Why would the MDoAP [i]magically[/i] kick in on the fourth of fifth attacker and not the the first three?[/quote]
There is nothing magical about it. The MDP would kick in. The imaginary MADP you have created wouldn't.

Thank you for demonstrating my point about the misunderstood non-chaining MDP :)

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Are you talking, politically the best thing they could have done, or this was the right thing to do as per your treaty obligations? [/quote]
It's the right thing to do morally, as NEW are clearly in the wrong here. It's also a legitimate interpretation of the treaties, as statements of protection are generally afforded the same weight as actual protectorates or treaties, meaning that NEW are the initial aggressors and therefore (explicit or implicit) non-chaining clauses in the MDPs kick in, rendering them optional. And because of the obvious moral position, iFOK and PC are not taking up that option.

If anyone else came in then there [i]would[/i] be an obligation, with a standard or implicit non-chaining clause, because they only cause the defence clause to become optional in the case of a treaty-mandated attack, which that wouldn't be. If one was being super-lawyerish one could claim that since Fark didn't explicitly make a new statement of protection after the disbandment then their attack is aggressive, but honestly that is in the realms of idiocy from a pragmatic and moral perspective, and one can say that the presence of a pre-existing MDP with the alliance acts as an implicit statement of protection considering the short timespan between the disbandment and the acts of war.

[Utracia]

If you all want war so badly why don't you declare on NEW or on TPE/INT/FARK and start one? Why demand iFOK and PC do it for you? Stop complaining and do something about it as people love to say.

[Glen MoP]

Assuming I've got it all right, and working with the assumption that all the treaties with DF are still active even as they are disbanding:

NEW attacked DF aggressively, starting an aggressive war. (pure aggressor)
DF is fighting NEW defensively, in a defensive war. (pure defender)
FARK-TPE-TI attacked DF aggressively, in a defensive war (via DF) (An aggressive front in a defensive war)
NEW is now fighting FARK-TPE-TI defensively, in an aggressive war. (A defensive front in an aggressive war)
PC-iFOK can optionally join NEW aggressively and must join defensively. (MoADP)

The core confusion seems to be that no one specifies in their treaties (or no one notices when people do specify) whether the A and the D of MoADP apply to the war itself or simply the front. NEW has both aggressive and defensive fronts in their aggressive war. If the treaty is about fronts, then PC and iFOK should be fighting with NEW. If the treaty specifies wars, then PC-iFOK has the option.

As I see it, PC-iFOK has the following treaty-based options:
1) Open an aggressive front in an aggressive war by also attacking DF and waiting for FARK-TPE-TI to attack them on the interpretation that their treaty addresses wars, not fronts.
2) Open an aggressive front in a defensive war by attacking FARK-TPE-TI on the interpretation that their treaty addresses fronts. This, however, treats the NEW/FARK-TPE-TI conflict as separate from the NEW/DF conflict.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Glen MoP

[Duke Nukem]

Hey PC and iFok I thought you actually defended your allies? Derp.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]The core confusion seems to be that no one specifies in their treaties (or no one notices when people do specify) whether the A and the D of MoADP apply to the war itself or simply the front.[/quote]
The semantics of non-chaining essentially makes it 'applying to the war', though it's not quite that simple sometimes.

[quote]1) Open an aggressive front in an aggressive war by also attacking NEW[/quote]
...

what?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Glen MoP' timestamp='1292892307' post='2547253']
The core confusion seems to be that no one specifies in their treaties (or no one notices when people do specify) whether the A and the D of MoADP apply to the war itself or simply the front. NEW has both aggressive and defensive fronts in their aggressive war. If the treaty is about fronts, then PC and iFOK should be fighting with NEW. If the treaty specifies wars, then PC-iFOK has the option.
[/quote]
I've always assumed that the A and D refer to the war, not the front. Any war where treaties are activated would have both aggressive and defensive fronts, regardless of the cause. That seems kind of silly to me, but I guess unless it's explicitly specified then people will argue about it for dozens of pages regardless.

Edited December 21, 2010 by ktarthan

[Locke]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1292892741' post='2547259']
I've always assumed that the A and D refer to the war, not the front. Any war where treaties are activated would have both aggressive and defensive fronts, regardless of the cause. That seems kind of silly to me, but I guess unless it's explicitly specified then people will argue about it for dozens of pages regardless.
[/quote]
In general I think the definition of that changes depending on whatever goal the treaty-holder wants to achieve, whether it be to stay our or get in.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Locke

[Khyber]

I seriously disagree with many peoples view on MDPs. If you attack and are an aggressor, MDPs shouldn't oblige defense if you get attacked by the alliance's allies that you just attacked. Otherwise what is the point of MADPs, besides assistance in the initial attack you are still forcing your allies through treaty obligations to fight your aggressive war.

No, to me niether PC or iFOK are obliged to assist NEW via their treaty obligations, it is purely optional. I also say good call. People making a big deal out of this are simply trying to use the situation for political gain, and while it's all well and good to do it, I honestly think the arguement is weak, but we are all free to have our own opinions on the matter.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292893009' post='2547266']
I general I think the definition of that changes depending on whatever goal the treaty-holder wants to achieve, whether it be to stay our or get in.
[/quote]
Stop crushing my idealism