Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1292901990' post='2547469']
Such an action would certainly put to rest some of the rumours that are currently circulating that PC and iFOK made this announcement as a part of a backroom deal to keep other parts of Pandora's Box from fighting on Fark's side.
[/quote]

Ah yes, backroom deals, splits within PB and their allies, etc. Such intrigue and drama, it would make for a good cautionary tale if it were not patently false.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1292904924' post='2547536']
Ah yes, backroom deals, splits within PB and their allies, etc. Such intrigue and drama, it would make for a good cautionary tale if it were not patently false.
[/quote]
As I have suggested, were FOK to defend their allies who are attacking NEW from counters, it would certainly prove said rumours false.

The ball, as they say, will likely be soon in your bloc's court. Time will tell whether Pandora's Box decides to take a side in this conflict or simply try and remove itself from the war completely.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292903245' post='2547495']
I could be mistaken. I swear there was a war that once it broke out, they canceled treaties to avoid something. Was it when they canceled on TPF? I dunno. I'm only a man. Never claimed to be perfect.
[/quote]
Is this what you're talking about? [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79126&st=0&p=2128281&hl=nusantara&fromsearch=1&#entry2128281"]NEW Neutral?[/url]

[Locke]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292904911' post='2547535']
I don't recall exactly but I do believe there was a war where NEW did not honor a treaty. Last year's Christmas war or Bipolar War? Would have to dig through the threads from around that time to find out....
[/quote]
I seem to recall that too, I think it was in Bipolar. They didn't want to participate on Polar's side because of raider's rights or something.

[JBone]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292903245' post='2547495']
I could be mistaken. I swear there was a war that once it broke out, they canceled treaties to avoid something. Was it when they canceled on TPF? I dunno. I'm only a man. Never claimed to be perfect.
[/quote]
To the best of my knowledge AirMe, NEW has only ever cancelled two treaties.

One with TOOL and the other with TPF.

Neither were in wartime.

Edit: Forgot about WAPA, but that is easy enough to do.

Edited December 21, 2010 by JBone

[AirMe]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292905247' post='2547548']
Is this what you're talking about? [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79126&st=0&p=2128281&hl=nusantara&fromsearch=1&#entry2128281"]NEW Neutral?[/url]
[/quote]

Could be......

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292904911' post='2547535']
I don't recall exactly but I do believe there was a war where NEW did not honor a treaty. Last year's Christmas war or Bipolar War? Would have to dig through the threads from around that time to find out....
[/quote]
NEW was fighting RoK in Bi-Polar, amongst a bunch of other alliances. It was WAPA that decided they'd ditch NEW, who could really have used the help, and instead pile on NATO, who already had over 12 alliances on it at the time. (WAPA got what they deserved though. They got belted. One of the few alliances on "that" side that got into the top NS losers list)

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1292905204' post='2547545']
As I have suggested, were FOK to defend their allies who are attacking NEW from counters, it would certainly prove said rumours false.

The ball, as they say, will likely be soon in your bloc's court. Time will tell whether Pandora's Box decides to take a side in this conflict or simply try and remove itself from the war completely.
[/quote]

If you are looking for us to escalate your war for you, I suggest you try the house down the street. I mean, that is what your getting at, no?

Though I do apologize that we have not conformed to your view of us as uncompromising warmongers who shelter evil raiders and bully people with impunity. It's understandable that this whole "acting reasonably" thing could throw someone off their guard.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1292905783' post='2547568']
If you are looking for us to escalate your war for you, I suggest you try the house down the street. I mean, that is what your getting at, no?

Though I do apologize that we have not conformed to your view of us as uncompromising warmongers who shelter evil raiders and bully people with impunity. It's understandable that this whole "acting reasonably" thing could throw someone off their guard.
[/quote]
I am afraid that you have mischaracterized my query completely.

I agree with The International. I think they are in the right here. If FOK supports them, that's a good thing.

If, however, they agree to stay out of the war in order to balance Poison Clan staying out of the war, that changes how I look at the situation.

[Earl Dumarest]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1292904766' post='2547531']

NEW cancelled on WAPA after WAPA left them out to dry

[/quote]

Wrong! Not all of it, and no part of it 100% wrong, but that statement has enough spin to cause it to veer wildly off-target.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1292904911' post='2547535']
I don't recall exactly but I do believe there was a war where NEW did not honor a treaty.
[/quote]

Wrong! Almost correct, though. You're thinking of January 2010, when NEW created a precedent in relations with them, by informing their allies that they, NEW, had no intention of honouring their treaties, if they felt it would put them on the wrong side, in terms of the greater conflict.

[Steinfeld]

this whole thing still perplexes me.... i still cant find waldo, i mean the protection announcement....

[Cairna]

[quote name='Steinfeld' timestamp='1292908006' post='2547612']
this whole thing still perplexes me.... i still cant find waldo, i mean the protection announcement....
[/quote]
Stop whining. They could have done better, but it was pretty clear on the first page of Dark Fist's original announcement.

[Geoffron X]

So, PC and iFOK, now that the war has been expanded, are you still following the same decisions?

[abdur]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1292854548' post='2546505']
Prepare to be disappointed.
[/quote]
Well whaddya know? I was not disappointed.
o/WFF
o/FEAR
o/Europa
o/ODN
For making this shindig more interesting

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1292913839' post='2547967']So, PC and iFOK, now that the war has been expanded, are you still following the same decisions?[/quote]
Since nobody else has hit NEW, I would imagine so.

[Alterego]

Another day of shame for the gutless wonders. Real allies, real friends, brave friends had the guts to fight. They didnt cower in terror using elawyers to help them run away

Edited December 21, 2010 by Alterego

[yoyoabc]

I was away and came back to see this post and I am loving it.
Thanks guys

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1292900816' post='2547433']
Wasn't there then, 3 some years ago+

Not butthurt, but glad you brought that up, demonstarates my point exactly. They jumped in guns blazing.... with numbers and quite a few other alliances on their side, Demonstrating their deisre to only fight when numbers are on their side.
[/quote]
I really need to retire from CN. Second time today I've gotten the same response. CN historical ignorance is never a good defense. They just don't make'em like they used to. :shrugs:

[Cobalt]

to all the haters:

I know, I know; you were drooling over the idea of Pandora's Box coming in on the side of NEW/FEAR, and you're mad about it. Query Goldie on IRC and he'll give you a cookie to make you feel better. Alternatively, you can think of it this way: keeping the fight small gives you more time to reconcile many internal conflicts you may be facing, such as:

-How to be anti-raiding while supporting a raiding alliance (NEW)
-How to hate on GOONS for having bad raiding practices, while supporting an alliance that won't even admit they are in the wrong or pay any sort of reps to their bad-raid victims (NEW)
-How to argue NEW is in the right while they one-up \m/ in the "doing things to dead alliances" category.

For help reaching a resolution to these inner turmoils, please query Goldie excessively.

[Balkan Banania]

I don’t get why all this noise…All treaties are actually optional and for most of the times exist as long as they are beneficial for the stronger party (Karma war highlighted it, but so did all the wars before it). My only problem is that depending on what side of the spectrum people are they decide to play the moralist card or the realpolitik card and they do it using big words and revising history, thus making the OWF a sad place. Of course there are exceptions, like NSO that has a rather straight forward FA policy concerning treaties. I think the iFOK and PC stance is immoral, mainly due to the double standards applied, but at the same time it is the best decision for the said alliances. After all history is written by the victors, especially when peoples memory and political awareness is rather shallow.

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Tungsten' timestamp='1292932711' post='2548230']
to all the haters:

I know, I know; you were drooling over the idea of Pandora's Box coming in on the side of NEW/FEAR, and you're mad about it. Query Goldie on IRC and he'll give you a cookie to make you feel better. Alternatively, you can think of it this way: keeping the fight small gives you more time to reconcile many internal conflicts you may be facing, such as:

-How to be anti-raiding while supporting a raiding alliance (NEW) - [b]OOC relations form outside of IC relations.[/b]
-How to hate on GOONS for having bad raiding practices, while supporting an alliance that won't even admit they are in the wrong or pay any sort of reps to their bad-raid victims (NEW) - [b]I'm not seeing the hating on GOONS? Link me please[/b]
-How to argue NEW is in the right while they one-up \m/ in the "doing things to dead alliances" category. - [b]No one is arguing that they screwed up. They did, and royally. Whilst some may support what NEW did (namely NSO by some of their comments on DF's disbandment thread), they realise it's a dick move. So? Treaties still need to be honoured.[/b]

For help reaching a resolution to these inner turmoils, please query Goldie excessively.
[/quote]
Will Goldie mind that many queries?

Edited December 21, 2010 by R3nowned

[greenacres]

Seeing as how others have come to the aid of NEW, the amount of disrespect showed to NEW by PC is incredibly saddening.

NEW deserved PC at their best, and PC at their best would have been there for them 100% of the time, but PC has lost sight of what's important, why they were formed, and most importantly, how you treat one of your oldest and best friends. As for iFOK, they don't have the history that NEW and PC have, so, no fault on their part.

[Tromp]

[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]
Erm, no.

NEW knew what they were going into when they started their war. Everyone could see (hell, NEW leadership even asked for confirmation in the tread) that declarations of protection of DF were issued. NEW decided to ignore it, and that's fine I guess, but they can't say they weren't made aware of the consequences it would have.

By attacking the DF AA, NEW also attacked TPE/INT/FARK in the legal sense (triggering treaties/issues of protection, a clear provocation). When these alliances retaliated, it was thus an inherent [b]defensive[/b] war, not an agressive one. And this is the key element here (TPE/INT/FARK being [b]provoked[/b]), because only if their attack was unprovoked, the defense clauses from NEW would apply. (note: This is also why iFOK and PC [b]would be obligated[/b] to defend NEW from [b]non-provoked third parties[/b] such as you and me; and as stated in the OP they will do so.)
So NEW's allies have no obligation to help them in this war, whether it be via the agressive part of their treaties (helping them attack DF) or the defensive part (helping them keeping third parties [TPE/INT/FARK] off their back from [b]unprovoked[/b] agression.)
Would NEW's allies take part in their war regardless, then they are supporting NEW in their agressive war against DF (and TPE/INT/FARK).

edit: typo's

Edited December 21, 2010 by Tromp

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1292937795' post='2548278']
So NEW's allies have no obligation to help them in this war, whether it be via the agressive part of their treaties (helping them attack DF) or the defensive part (helping them keeping third parties [TPE/INT/FARK] off their back from [b]unprovoked[/b] agression.)
[/quote]
This would all be relevant if NEW hadn't signed a pile of chaining MDOAPs. Read the treaties, they are clearly chaining MDOAPs.

The whole point of signing non-chaining treaties is so that you can use the logic espoused here.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1292938069' post='2548281']
This would all be relevant if NEW hadn't signed a pile of chaining MDOAPs. Read the treaties, they are clearly chaining MDOAPs.

The whole point of signing non-chaining treaties is so that you can use the logic espoused here.
[/quote]
It is BS that you need to put non-chaining clause into a treaty. It's inherent to every relationship.
Now I know all of this is e-lawyering, and it is really sad that everyone tries to bend the written word for their benefit.

Say you punch my girlfriend for no reason at all, would anyone really dare to take offense when I give you a punch in return?

Edited December 21, 2010 by Tromp