Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Hyperion321]

Ugh, can't we all just shut up and have a nice, term free, blood bath of a war? For old time's sake? Sheesh.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1292885428' post='2547112']
PC/iFOK don't want to 'break' the treaty web, so they effectively nullified treaties with an alliance that would have died for them.
[/quote]

I'm going to echo this sentiment. I didn't think it was this bad, but I was wrong.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292891080' post='2547223']
Because it's a non-chaining MDP and not a MADP.
[/quote]
Here I have to agree with the irritated poster from TPF. It's a chaining MDP.

Look at the text, the defense requirement triggers if NEW is attacked, regardless of provocation of the other party.

[JBone]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292891080' post='2547223']
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]
I guess it is this concept of "non chaining" that is eluding me.

I see no mention of it in the treaty text.

I read an MDoAP as :

Two AAs are allied.

If one [i][b]starts[/b][/i] a war, ie they are the aggressor, the other [b][i]may[/i][/b] join them, but it is their [b][i]option[/i][/b], hence the little o before aggression.

If one is attacked, for whatever reason, it is [b][i]mandatory[/i][/b] that the other defend them, hence the large M before defence.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292891724' post='2547239']
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.
[/quote]
I'm not asking if it was right or wrong from [i]your[/i] moral viewpoint but from the moral standpoint that PC has established for itself.

I think they are two different and distinct positions.

Once again this whole non chaining thing, please point it out in the treaty text.

It's late, maybe I can wrap my head around it in the morning.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1292893370' post='2547285']
Ugh, can't we all just shut up and have a nice, term free, blood bath of a war? For old time's sake? Sheesh.
[/quote]
Dream no small dreams, eh Hyp?

[Glen MoP]

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1292882600' post='2547057']
Let them get beat down, [i]but only by so many alliances[/i].

img: Brilliant!
[/quote]

This is actually logically consistent with their stance. They read their treaty as requiring them to defend NEW in a defensive war and giving them the option to join in an aggressive war, regardless of fronts.

As it stands, NEW is engaged on an aggressive front with DF in an aggressive war and on a defensive front in an aggressive war with FARK-TPE-TI. Assuming DF has no other defensive treaties, there is no one else who could attack NEW as part of the war NEW started. If, say, NpO attacked NEW, the NpO would not be acting as a defensive ally of DF (no defensive treaty) but rather as an aggressor against NEW, opening an aggressive front in a new aggressive war. At that point NEW's defensive partners would be treaty-bound to intervene.

PC-iFOK are only being inconsistent if there is another defensive treaty partner of DF who attacks NEW and then is attacked in turn by PC-iFOK.

From the "war, not front" perspective of treaties, there isn't a way for anyone else to legitimately join in unless they have an aggressive pact with NEW or a defensive pact with DF. Anyone else joining in would be starting a whole new war that could activate a whole new set of treaties.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Glen MoP

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292855217' post='2546517']
So it is ok for you to back down in the face of insurmountable odds ignoring the words of your own doctrine. But NEW, who knew full well that the remnants of DF were protected by multiple alliances and they went and raided anyways...and then when diplomacy was tried, well they didn't even really try other than posting a statement that was counter productive. My sources tell me there was a massive attempt at a diplomatic solution except NEW was being exceptionally uncooperative.

NEW deserves this. Every ounce of it and more. You and the other NPO's trying to compare this to the safari are only in here to score some cheap PR victory. Don't you have a mustache to twirl?

Since we are playing that game, next time don't implement a policy that you can't enforce. If you release a doctrine stating you will protect all nations on red, stand by it and do it instead of backing down. You make sure you can back up your own words.

NEW took AGGRESSIVE action against a protected group of nations. And now they are getting stomped by the people who were protecting them. Much like anyone who would have raided GGA when they disbanded would have gotten stomped by Ronin and Gondor if they would have raided. Infact, we only had one nation raid GGA during the 21 day protection period. And GGA was arguably one of the most hated alliances in the world. NEW is getting everything they deserve here.
[/quote]

Woah, Well someone blew this entirely out of proportion. Okay well lets nip this in the bud here and now because I can tell you are looking for someone to argue with like hell about this, but tonight I'm really not the one.

I called a certain group of people Hypocrites. A title that was well earned by that group of people due to their actions during the past few months. That was my two cents. How you swooped in and managed to drag me into a debate about The Red Raiding Safari, GGA or whatever else you managed to trump up in your little rant is beyond me.

First off, I never said NEW isn't getting what they deserve.

Second, Most of the your "counter points" were directed at subjects that YOU brought up not me. You put words in my mouth then argue against them as if I spat them at you in the first place.

I'm not even disputing most of what you said, either because I agree or I simply don't care. The only thing I'm disputing is you sitting here trying to tell me that Pacifica didn't honor her doctrine. Which they did to the best of their abilities. War, the option which you seem to have wanted us to have chosen so badly would've done more harm to the sphere than good.

Anything else?

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292894345' post='2547306']
Dream no small dreams, eh Hyp?
[/quote]
What can I say...I'm an optimist.

[RePePe]

This is open to pinpoint analysis and nitpicking galore. However, I view this the following way:

1. NEW commits an aggressive act of war against DF or remnants thereof.

-As part of the optional aggression, PC/iFOK employ their right to not partake in this aggressive attack. Therefore, even during DF's retaliation against NEW, since the conflict was started aggressively, PC/iFOK can choose to remain uninvolved.

2. TPE/INT/FARK declare an aggressive war against NEW in defense of DF.

-Although PC/iFOK have opted out of attacking DF, here they have no option. Their ally, NEW, has been attacked aggressively by three other alliances. Though that aggression is justified and part of a defensive side in the larger context, it does not matter. It is still inherently an aggressive war against an ally of PC/iFOK.

Therefore, PC/iFOK are obligated to defend their ally as per their treaty. Of course we cannot make PC/iFOK do anything as it is their right to conduct their own affairs. However, this view of mutual defense makes the most logical sense.

[Heft]

Hurray technicalities! Congratulations PC/iFOK on finding your way out.

[AirMe]

You know, I am used to seeing us argue in circles, but this has gotten ridiculous. Every treaty has a clause in it that they will not take action against their direct treaty partners allies. PC and iFOK are treatied there for, they would not take action against FARK because it would break the treaty with iFOK. It isn't their fault that NEW is a bunch of overaggressive nitwits.

[The MVP]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292896919' post='2547354']
You know, I am used to seeing us argue in circles, but this has gotten ridiculous. Every treaty has a clause in it that they will not take action against their direct treaty partners allies. PC and iFOK are treatied there for, they would not take action against FARK because it would break the treaty with iFOK. It isn't their fault that NEW is a bunch of overaggressive nitwits.
[/quote]

So PC have never taken overly aggressive actions? Only difference between PC and NEW is that PC gave in due to pressure from their allies and from the outside. The bottom line is they allied NEW and knew that this could happen in the future. If you don't accept someone at their worst, you don't deserve them at their best. Had PC or iFOK been put in this situation NEW would be the first ones in. For some reason people of you and your ilk keep wanting to dismiss NEW as being dumb and that no one should help them for the sake of your own agendas.

Edited December 21, 2010 by The MVP

[ktarthan]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1292897230' post='2547355']
So PC have never taken overly aggressive actions? Only difference between PC and NEW is that PC gave in due to pressure from their allies and from the outside. The bottom line is they allied NEW and knew that this could happen in the future. If you don't accept someone at their worst, you don't deserve them at their best. Had PC or iFOK been put in this situation NEW would be the first ones in. For some reason people of you and your ilk keep wanting to dismiss NEW as being dumb and that no one should help them for the sake of your own agendas.
[/quote]
Maybe it's just me but I was under the impression that iFOK and PC stayed their hand because NEW asked them to.

[AirMe]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1292897230' post='2547355']
So PC have never taken overly aggressive actions? Only difference between PC and NEW is that PC gave in due to pressure from their allies and from the outside. The bottom line is they allied NEW and knew that this could happen in the future. If you don't accept someone at their worst, you don't deserve them at their best. Had PC or iFOK been put in this situation NEW would be the first ones in. For some reason people of you and your ilk keep wanting to dismiss NEW as being dumb and that no one should help them for the sake of your own agendas.
[/quote]

I have never stated that PC was innocent. In fact, I can think of at least 3 times where I have advocated for their destruction. NEW would only have been in if they would have been guaranteed that they would win. They have a habit of canceling treaties when the going gets tough.

If you have ever dealt with NEW,you would know they are dumb. I classify anyone that won't own up to a mistake dumb. They certainly fit that bill.

You are like a lamprey, you attach yourself to any shark that swims by no matter what their health. If you are going to be a loud mouth, at least stick to your principles. Alterego could teach you a lot of things.

Edited December 21, 2010 by AirMe

[Fernando12]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1292896342' post='2547345']
This is open to pinpoint analysis and nitpicking galore. However, I view this the following way:

1. NEW commits an aggressive act of war against DF or remnants thereof.

-As part of the optional aggression, PC/iFOK employ their right to not partake in this aggressive attack. Therefore, even during DF's retaliation against NEW, since the conflict was started aggressively, PC/iFOK can choose to remain uninvolved.

2. TPE/INT/FARK declare an aggressive war against NEW in defense of DF.

-Although PC/iFOK have opted out of attacking DF, here they have no option. Their ally, NEW, has been attacked aggressively by three other alliances. Though that aggression is justified and part of a defensive side in the larger context, it does not matter. It is still inherently an aggressive war against an ally of PC/iFOK.

Therefore, PC/iFOK are obligated to defend their ally as per their treaty. Of course we cannot make PC/iFOK do anything as it is their right to conduct their own affairs. However, this view of mutual defense makes the most logical sense.
[/quote]
This is pretty much the thinking many have.

What I find frustrating is that a while ago Jack Diorno published a Survivalist Alliance thread of who broke the most treaties. Now, over a year since he wrote that topic, a Survivalist Alliance should be redefined to be those that have so many damn treaties all over the web that they can never lose a war because all they have to do is pick and choose when and which wars they will fight in, which allies they will stab in the back.

A treaty is not needed to go to the aid of an alliance in need of help. A treaty is not needed to defend friends. If an alliance signs a treaty it should be with those it will fight for no matter what and those they believe will fight for them no matter what. Instead, this world is paralyzed by Survivalist Alliances.

PC and iFOK should be ashamed of the fact that they in effect in the OP approved of NEW being attacked by 3 alliances. Defend your friends, if they are indeed your friends, or cancel the treaty.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Fernando12

[flak attack]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1292897424' post='2547358']
Maybe it's just me but I was under the impression that iFOK and PC stayed their hand because NEW asked them to.
[/quote]
I think most people are forgetting that key detail. Nothing else really matters if NEW doesn't want them in this.

[AirMe]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1292897811' post='2547363']
I think most people are forgetting that key detail. Nothing else really matters if NEW doesn't want them in this.
[/quote]

People, for some reason, aren't believing that NEW asked them to stay out.

[Sardonic]

EDIT: Nevermind, I was wrong.

A shame so many people who should know better are pushing for a war that would leave us all very vulnerable to outside forces.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Sardonic

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292897629' post='2547362']
A treaty is not needed to go to the aid of an alliance in need of help. A treaty is not needed to defend friends. If an alliance signs a treaty it should be with those it will fight for no matter what and those they believe will fight for them no matter what. Instead, this world is paralyzed by Survivalist Alliances.

PC and iFOK should be ashamed of the fact that they in effect in the OP approved of NEW being attacked by 3 alliances. Defend your friends, if they are indeed your friends, or cancel the treaty.
[/quote]
That brings up the question: If you go against a friend's wishes to help them, are you really being a good friend?

[Lukapaka]

I'm very glad to see PB being reasonable in this instance. There is no sense in turning NEW's poor decision making into a global conflict. May this war end quickly, and may all our allies find peace.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1292897897' post='2547367']
That brings up the question: If you go against a friend's wishes to help them, are you really being a good friend?
[/quote]
Yes. A true friend doesn't let another friend get killed. Friend says "Let me be beaten to death". True friend says "No, I'll fight the fight with you to help you."

Discussion about what led to the situation can come later. What's most important is the now which is NEW getting rolled. Later, the why can be discussed and what to do to prevent it in the future.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1292897424' post='2547358']
Maybe it's just me but I was under the impression that iFOK and PC stayed their hand because NEW asked them to.
[/quote]
I think most are under the impression that iFOK/PC had already decided not to enter the war and NEW likely gave them permission to stay out knowing they wouldn't enter, so they could try keeping their reputation in tact and keep relations from turning negative. If NEW didn't tell them to stay out it wouldn't surprise me if we would still have a topic telling us iFOK/PC won't help, but it would be much more negative towards NEW in its wording if they tried activating the treaty instead.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292898236' post='2547378']
Yes. A true friend doesn't let another friend get killed. Friend says "Let me be beaten to death". True friend says "No, I'll fight the fight with you to help you."

Discussion about what led to the situation can come later. What's most important is the now which is NEW getting rolled. Later, the why can be discussed and what to do to prevent it in the future.
[/quote]
Not all requests are equal. I don't think that this situation has the same weight as "let me be beaten to death." The context of the request is important, not simply a binary "Will I do whatever my friend asks no matter what?" or "Will I always uphold my virtues, no matter what?" (I'm not going to attempt to analogize this because analogies always suck.)

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1292898243' post='2547379']
I think most are under the impression that iFOK/PC had already decided not to enter the war and NEW likely gave them permission to stay out knowing they wouldn't enter, so they could try keeping their reputation in tact and keep relations from turning negative. If NEW didn't tell them to stay out it wouldn't surprise me if we would still have a topic telling us iFOK/PC won't help, but it would be much more negative towards NEW in its wording if they tried activating the treaty instead.
[/quote]
Nice speculation.

Edited December 21, 2010 by ktarthan

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1292898626' post='2547385']
Nice speculation.
[/quote]

Actually, the 'nice speculation' was in that other thread wherein a number of people said that iFOK and PC would [i]never[/i] leave an ally twisting in the wind.

Hilarious.

[The MVP]

[quote]I have never stated that PC was innocent. In fact, I can think of at least 3 times where I have advocated for their destruction. NEW would only have been in if they would have been guaranteed that they would win. They have a habit of canceling treaties when the going gets tough.
[/quote]

Are you !@#$@#$ kidding me? NEW may be many things but they are [i]not[/i] a warm weather alliance. I seem to remember them joining in the last war when it was apparent due to Polaris' treachery that they would lose. They've also been on beat downs in the Karma War sticking their necks out for TPF.

Where the hell do you get your information from? That's no different than saying that I always pick the winning side. What a joke.