Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[joracy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292827747' post='2546087']
For an alliance that hit Valhalla in the last big war with no CB or treaty requirement it seems funny they cant defend al ally now when it matters. They threw away the e-lawyers in Bi-Polar to get in to a winning war and now they bring the e-lawyers back to help them abandon an ally.
[/quote]

"you attacked my friends" isn't exactly elawyering here. Going through the text of their treaties with a fine tooth comb however mostly certainly is.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1292827833' post='2546094']
This is the salient point. If I hold a mutual-defence treaty with alliance A and alliance A attacks someone and is attacked back, I prepare to go in on their behalf. However, if alliance A specifically requests that I don't get involved, their wishes supersede the treaty. Going in anyway and ignoring your ally's requests is rude at best and a direct interference at worst.

As an aside, in my experience with NEW, they don't dally with cowards. If PC and iFOK were truly being cowardly, you'd have heard about it from NEW by now, I suspect.
[/quote]
Does the rest of MK know you're an e-lawyer?

[iamthey]

Expected, though you bore me.

[bakamitai]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1292827833' post='2546094']
This is the salient point. If I hold a mutual-defence treaty with alliance A and alliance A attacks someone and is attacked back, I prepare to go in on their behalf. However, if alliance A specifically requests that I don't get involved, their wishes supersede the treaty. Going in anyway and ignoring your ally's requests is rude at best and a direct interference at worst.

As an aside, in my experience with NEW, they don't dally with cowards. If PC and iFOK were truly being cowardly, you'd have heard about it from NEW by now, I suspect.
[/quote]
I assume this means you supported our decision not to defend NSO when they were under duress, despite the existence of an MDP between us?

[Caliph]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1292827833' post='2546094']
This is the salient point. If I hold a mutual-defence treaty with alliance A and alliance A attacks someone and is attacked back, I prepare to go in on their behalf. However, if alliance A specifically requests that I don't get involved, their wishes supersede the treaty. Going in anyway and ignoring your ally's requests is rude at best and a direct interference at worst.

As an aside, in my experience with NEW, they don't dally with cowards. If PC and iFOK were truly being cowardly, you'd have heard about it from NEW by now, I suspect.
[/quote]
I don't have experience with iFOK, but from my experiences with PC, they are not cowards. That is all I will say about that.

[Louis Balfour]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292827747' post='2546087']
For an alliance that hit Valhalla in the last big war with no CB or treaty requirement it seems funny they cant defend al ally now when it matters. They threw away the e-lawyers in Bi-Polar to get in to a winning war and now they bring the e-lawyers back to help them abandon an ally.
[/quote]

But who wouldn't hit Valhalla if the chance presented itself?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1292827428' post='2546073']
In most cases I would but things are being said and I'm sure that most everyone is content with this not going far. I just wouldn't be so sure of what would have happened if it did if I were in your shoes. Like I said probably not a risk worth taking on your part because things might have just turned out a lot different than you think. Terms would've been really soft in this war too considering the friends thing. I think it was a war worth fighting.
[/quote]

I'm sorry magic but I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Due to [i]treaty conflicts[/i], there is physically only a set number of things an alliance can or cannot do in this specific situation. Running the permutations/mock assignments/etc, its just about impossible to come up with a "vs the world" scenario in this instance, even where all of PB's massive amount of long standing defense pacts with very good friends were not upheld, so long as those pacts actually remained in existance. Though it warms my heart to see you were so gun-ho and optimistic about our potential destruction, simple fact is no one of consequence wanted this war.

Taking PC and iFOK's allowance to hit NEW here as a sign of weakness isn't very smart, because all its truly a sign of is an unwillingness to slap their friends in the face, particularly when their right. To me, that signifies a mature and competent alliance more then anything else. They could have taken the remedial viewpoint of the issue like so many of you here in this thread have, or they could do what they did and make a decision based upon the totality of the circumstance around how NEW was acting.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1292828071' post='2546106']
I don't have experience with iFOK, but from my experiences with PC, they are not cowards. That is all I will say about that.
[/quote]
when you act in a cowardly manner that makes you a coward. You are only as brave or cowarrdly as the last situation that called your bravery into question. They chickened out and re trying to e-lawyer their way out of defending an ally.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Louis Balfour' timestamp='1292828120' post='2546108']
But who wouldn't hit Valhalla if the chance presented itself?
[/quote]
They specifically said they dont need a CB or treaty to go to war, wht the e-lawyering now if its not cowardice in the face of a greater threat?

[Aurion]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1292827501' post='2546079']
Neither does making idle threats.
[/quote]

Saying I'll hate people who $%&@ with my alliance's allies and will want them destroyed are threats.

Damn, the standards for what constitutes a threat have [i]really[/i] come down.

It's a fact, deal with it.

[hellsign]

this is cool...and wow NEW got all the cakes

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292827294' post='2546063']
By attacking Dark Fist, NEW was attacking the alliances that claimed it as a protectorate and thus this became an optional aggression obligation. This isn't that hard to understand.

Feel free to accuse me of e-lawyering.
[/quote]
[img]http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/phoenix-wright-objection.jpg[/img]

Also, I'm sorry this happened to you PC/iFOK. I know how crummy of a situation this was to deal with. Good job in handling the enormous political pressure the last few days. Many lesser alliances would have buckled.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292828294' post='2546115']
when you act in a cowardly manner that makes you a coward. You are only as brave or cowarrdly as the last situation that called your bravery into question. They chickened out and re trying to e-lawyer their way out of defending an ally.
[/quote]
That is one of the most insane things I have read. If you really think PC and IFOK are cowards attack NEW yourself and see what happens.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1292828153' post='2546110']
I'm sorry magic but I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Due to [i]treaty conflicts[/i], there is physically only a set number of things an alliance can or cannot do in this specific situation. Running the permutations/mock assignments/etc, its just about impossible to come up with a "vs the world" scenario in this instance, even where all of PB's massive amount of long standing defense pacts with very good friends were not upheld, so long as those pacts actually remained in existance. Though it warms my heart to see you were so gun-ho and optimistic about our potential destruction, simple fact is no one of consequence wanted this war.

Taking PC and iFOK's allowance to hit NEW here as a sign of weakness isn't very smart, because all its truly a sign of is an unwillingness to slap their friends in the face, particularly when their right. To me, that signifies a mature and competent alliance more then anything else. They could have taken the remedial viewpoint of the issue like so many of you here in this thread have, or they could do what they did and make a decision based upon the totality of the circumstance around how NEW was acting.
[/quote]

I understand fine what you are saying and that may have held true for a few alliances but from the chatter I just wouldn't be as sure as you are if I were in your shoes. I know you want to believe that everything would've held up and maybe it would have. It just doesn't seem to be the attitude I've been seeing. I have no real personal stake. I'm just commenting on what I've seen.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292827463' post='2546076']
So if you don't need to defend it, what was the red safari?
[/quote]

If you're trying to get them to admit to their hypocrisy then good luck

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1292829390' post='2546156']
I understand fine what you are saying and that may have held true for a few alliances but from the chatter I just wouldn't be as sure as you are if I were in your shoes. I know you want to believe that everything would've held up and maybe it would have. It just doesn't seem to be the attitude I've been seeing. I have no real personal stake. I'm just commenting on what I've seen.
[/quote]

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?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1292828461' post='2546120']
It's a fact, deal with it.
[/quote]

Hurry up and roll us into oblivion. I'm getting quite bored.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292827933' post='2546100']
Does the rest of MK know you're an e-lawyer?
[/quote]
Is accusing me of e-lawyering [i]really[/i] the most insightful commentary you can dredge up?

[AirMe]

[quote name='BlkAK47_002' timestamp='1292829673' post='2546162']
If you're trying to get them to admit to their hypocrisy then good luck
[/quote]

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.

Edited December 20, 2010 by AirMe

[jonte]

[quote name='Snowbeast' timestamp='1292822889' post='2545766']
The fact that either of you even have these treaties should make it abundantly clear why MK wants nothing to do with you. Good call at any rate.
[/quote]

Funny how you're cuddling up to our side of the web but you're still trying to stay aloof. In for a penny - out for a pound... ?

Edited December 20, 2010 by jonte

[Stefano Palmieri]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1292829098' post='2546145']
Also, I'm sorry this happened to you PC/iFOK. I know how crummy of a situation this was to deal with. Good job in handling the enormous political pressure the last few days. Many lesser alliances would have buckled.
[/quote]
^This. I can imagine treaty conflicts are never a pleasant thing to deal with.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Stefano Palmieri

[SpiderJerusalem]

This is !@#$%^&*.

Per NEW's logic, they weren't attacking an alliance, as it had disbanded and had less than ten members. As far as I know, PC isn't all that strict on the raid rules either, so the same should apply for them. By NEW's standards, this won't come under the oA clause at all, and shouldn't do by PC's standards either.

Your problem is that you are unsure on how this one would have played out if you defended NEW. And don't come with any "We've defended our allies no matter what" in the past. You haven't been close to the losing side ever since you climbed a bit higher on the hierarchical pyramid.

So man the $%&@ up or at least admit that you're too happy with your position to ever risk the current balance in the world. Don't blame it on the old "oA" clause. In global wars, you have treaty chained like a mother to get to war, on the right side. It is and will always be optional when convenient.




[quote]If anyone in this sh*thole world gave two tugs of a dead dog's c*ck about Truth, this wouldn't be happening.[/quote]

[mythicknight]

So, now we know who wears the pants in PB. Never thought I'd see you wiggle out of something like this PC, but to each his own.

[quote name='Louis Balfour' timestamp='1292828120' post='2546108']
But who wouldn't hit Valhalla if the chance presented itself?
[/quote]

I know I would

[wickedj]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292831420' post='2546202']
This is !@#$%^&*.

Per NEW's logic, they weren't attacking an alliance, as it had disbanded and had less than ten members. As far as I know, PC isn't all that strict on the raid rules either, so the same should apply for them. By NEW's standards, this won't come under the oA clause at all, and shouldn't do by PC's standards either.

Your problem is that you are unsure on how this one would have played out if you defended NEW. And don't come with any "We've defended our allies no matter what" in the past. You haven't been close to the losing side ever since you climbed a bit higher on the hierarchical pyramid.

So man the $%&@ up or at least admit that you're too happy with your position to ever risk the current balance in the world. Don't blame it on the old "oA" clause. In global wars, you have treaty chained like a mother to get to war, on the right side. It is and will always be optional when convenient.
[/quote]
Dear SpiderJ

<3

Signed,
WickedJ

P.S. remember this? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58325

[Earogema]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292831420' post='2546202']
This is !@#$%^&*.

Per NEW's logic, they weren't attacking an alliance, as it had disbanded and had less than ten members. As far as I know, PC isn't all that strict on the raid rules either, so the same should apply for them. By NEW's standards, this won't come under the oA clause at all, and shouldn't do by PC's standards either.

Your problem is that you are unsure on how this one would have played out if you defended NEW. And don't come with any "We've defended our allies no matter what" in the past. You haven't been close to the losing side ever since you climbed a bit higher on the hierarchical pyramid.

So man the $%&@ up or at least admit that you're too happy with your position to ever risk the current balance in the world. Don't blame it on the old "oA" clause. In global wars, you have treaty chained like a mother to get to war, on the right side. It is and will always be optional when convenient.
[/quote]
Pretty much nailed my position on the matter.

EDIT: Although I'm not quite suggesting that PC are cowards, as I am still thankful for their defense of \m/ during Bi-Polar. It's simply that they realized this war was probably going to be godawful to figure the treaties for everybody and it would have been a terrible thing to attack into. I still think they should defend NEW here though.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Earogema