Assisting in wars

[greenacres]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1293601536' post='2557029']
I only mentioned Fark taking issue issue with PC because I couldn't imagine a scenario in which NEW actually wins and is able to pursue further grievances with allies who've contributed ghosts to Fark.

I'm sure this has happened before, but in this quantity and to this significant an effect? I assure you my panties are completely unbunched; it semed to be a very effective tactic.
[/quote]

Yes, in this quantity and in this significant an effect, it has happened before.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1293601536' post='2557029']
I'm sure this has happened before, but in this quantity and to this significant an effect? I assure you my panties are completely unbunched; it semed to be a very effective tactic.
[/quote]
Hundreds of nations joined Vox after they declared war on GGA and Valhalla.

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1293643573' post='2557411']
Hundreds of nations joined Vox after they declared war on GGA and Valhalla.
[/quote]
Those were mostly insignificant nations who weren't able to much damage. Lots of re-rolls and so on.

[Alekhine]

Didn't people join \m/ after Polar attacked them at the beginning of the BiPolar war?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293589317' post='2556801']
Except you said yourself that everyone is accepting new members, so why is it only a CB against Pandora's Box?

I don't know what the $%&@ you're smoking, but stop it.
[/quote]
I never said PB is the only one to of done something that could be used as a CB against them, but I don't think PB would be willing to risk fighting Fark, so it doesn't matter if PB has a CB they could use since they won't. If PB wanted to fight Fark they had a CB to hit them as soon as NEW was declared on, but they were unwilling to do it and have been helping those Fark was fighting through other means.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Methrage

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1293573614' post='2556534']
I judge treaties by what they actually say and how people act on them.

I know, I know....it's a minority position.
[/quote]


Hats off to you Zog, you are entirely consistant in your viewpoint, which I share with you. This new trend of trying to spin that anyone who starts a war makes everyone who would potentially enter to defend them aggressors is mind boggling.

[Bob Janova]

If the government doesn't endorse it, then no, it's not a CB. I'd hope that the alliances from which they deserted won't let them back in, since they've shown that they can't follow orders and they will leave in times of crisis.

[Baldr]

I haven't read the whole thread, and I plan to come back and do that. But I'll post my initial thoughts.

If someone leaves Alliance A to join Alliance B because he wants to be in the war with Alliance C, they can do that. If Alliance B doesn't like it, well, every AA has to deal with ghost busting. If Alliance A doesn't like the guy leaving, they can refuse to let him come back, or even put him on a "enemies" list if they want to go that far. As Alliance C that he ends up fighting against? Well, by doing that, he's already at war with them, so they deal with it on the battlefield.

If Alliance C loses the war then I don't see how they are in much of a position to do much about it. If they win, though, that puts them in a position to decide on the terms.

In the NEW/FARK situation which brings this up, FARK could have said "No, we're not going to give peace this quick" or "We'll give peace now if you agree to X reps and apologize, else we'll fight for another month and talk again". They didn't have to let it go.

They did decide to let it go. Terms were agreed to, and FARK doesn't seem to be here complaining.

People move around during wars all the time. It tends to get handled differently based on the situation, which is what should happen IMO.

If enough of one AA move to fight against you, if it pisses you off enough, and if you think that the AA they left from was encouraging it, sure, you can call it a CB. Do something about it, if you want, and if you can.

Most of the time, doing something about it doesn't make much sense. You're talking about 8 people moving from an 80 nation alliance. Sure, that's 10%. You want to attack the other 72 nations because of it? You can, if you want, but that just gives you a bigger war, and if you are complaining about 8 nations, then attacking another 72 nations doesn't seem to be helping.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293652097' post='2557540']
If the government doesn't endorse it, then no, it's not a CB. I'd hope that the alliances from which they deserted won't let them back in, since they've shown that they can't follow orders and they will leave in times of crisis.
[/quote]

Crisis What crisis were iFOK and PC in other than being in a bit of an awkward position? There was no danger to them as alliances from this situation. To spin it as abandoning them in a time of need is utterly hilarious.

Personally I applaud each and every member that put their beliefs and friendships in front of what their alliance tried to enforce upon them. The phrase 'vote with your feet' got thrown around a lot during the times of Vox and Karma, and that's exactly what they were doing.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1293643764' post='2557414']
Those were mostly insignificant nations who weren't able to much damage. Lots of re-rolls and so on.
[/quote]
True, but some weren't.

I'm just trying to debunk the myth that what happened with PC and NEW is somehow a completely new phenomenon that has never happened before.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293652097' post='2557540']
If the government doesn't endorse it, then no, it's not a CB. I'd hope that the alliances from which they deserted won't let them back in, since they've shown that they can't follow orders and they will leave in times of crisis.
[/quote]

They show no such thing. If anything it shows their willingness to abide by not only the letter of the treaty, but by the spirit of the treaty, when their leaders have shown they are either too chicken!@#$ or too concerned with what little power they have to bother abiding by the treaties that they signed.

Those people who left to fight, are EXACTLY the kind of people you want in your alliance. Less people like you, and more people like zoom, the better your alliance will be.

[Cerridwyn]

I think the biggest issue here is the stance and values of the alliance that the person left. Back in my days as a TDO senator, I took a bit of flack from people when I said no you cannot let that person back in because they no longer subscribe to our values and they have proven it.

Many alliances have no issues with their members raiding, or being mercenaries. It is a part of their value system. If that is the case then, and they allow folk to come and go as they please, then so be it. If it is against the alliances values, then they should not be allowed back, no matter what the individuals feel.

I have been a part of government almost since they day I joined CN, first in Ubercon (neutral), then in TDO (neutral) and now founder of my own (neutral) alliance. There have been times when in my heart I agreed with one side or the other in a war, but my personal and my alliance values say I must sit at the sidelines. If ever my personal values change, and I choose to involve myself, then my honor dictates I resign from my alliance. Simple. If I do not, my alliance is no longer neutral. This is true whether or not I am government or the newest new member.

*************

As to charters being public, I disagree LK. They should be. They are not just a code of conduct, they are your values, your constitution if you will. How does a potential applicant know if my alliance is where they want to be if they cannot read what I am about.

I see nothing wrong with having a separate code of conduct that is not a part of the charter that is more like a TOS that applicants sign when they apply.

[zzzptm]

Because of this thread, I have convinced Nueva Vida to declare war on an alliance to be named later. It's an alliance that has it coming, so all of you will want to get in on the fun. Since we're not currently at war, you can join NV without being labeled a mercenary. We will declare war as soon as our alliance NS is high enough to qualify for a sanction. Then we promise lots of good war slots to all our new members.

^Do you see what I did there?

Edited December 31, 2010 by zzzptm

[Mark Ashton]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293809182' post='2559239']
They show no such thing. If anything it shows their willingness to abide by not only the letter of the treaty, but by the spirit of the treaty, when their leaders have shown they are either too chicken!@#$ or too concerned with what little power they have to bother abiding by the treaties that they signed.

Those people who left to fight, are EXACTLY the kind of people you want in your alliance. Less people like you, and more people like zoom, the better your alliance will be.
[/quote]

The supplementary interpretation of a treaty is part of the responsibility of the government and not of single Members of an alliance.

[Bob Janova]

Leaving the alliance to go fight (particularly in a losing cause) because you believe in a particular interpretation of a treaty over what the alliance government believes is not responsible behaviour. True, this is not a time of crisis as such (except that PC have lost some senior members and a lot of NS, so it is something of a crisis caused by the jumpers) – but they've shown an unwillingness to follow orders which is likely to cause problems in crisis situations too.

I don't believe that the spirit of the treaty was 'you can do whatever idiotic things you like and we will bail you out', and nor did the decision making body of PC.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293821603' post='2559359']
Leaving the alliance to go fight (particularly in a losing cause) because you believe in a particular interpretation of a treaty over what the alliance government believes is not responsible behaviour. True, this is not a time of crisis as such (except that PC have lost some senior members and a lot of NS, so it is something of a crisis caused by the jumpers) – but they've shown an unwillingness to follow orders which is likely to cause problems in crisis situations too.

I don't believe that the spirit of the treaty was 'you can do whatever idiotic things you like and we will bail you out', and nor did the decision making body of PC.
[/quote]

This is why I'm very glad that there aren't more people like you around, who are much more interested in attaining and holding onto what little power you can, at the expense of your friends and allies, except when is convenient for you to actually help.

Your overly complicated interpretation of treaties is just your way to defend cowards when they act cowardly, or to defend political schemers when they want to scheme. You, at one time, were well respected for your opinions, what the $%&@ happened to you?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293821603' post='2559359']
Leaving the alliance to go fight (particularly in a losing cause) because you believe in a particular interpretation of a treaty over what the alliance government believes is not responsible behaviour. [/quote]

I wouldnt disagree that the government deserves the benefit of the doubt as long as there is some. And it's my understanding, though I confess I havent researched it myself and could be wrong, that this applies in this case. But I must take exception to this insofar as it implies that the sitting government of an alliance is entitled to interpret their treaties however it suits them regardless of their actual words. If the alliance government were to adopt a position completely contrary to their actual obligations, leaving the alliance is exactly what would constitute responsible behaviour.

In that case, however, one is very unlikely to even want to come back again, so to a degree the whole thing would be moot.

[Bob Janova]

You have a point, in that (particularly in a non-replaceable government) the government can completely ignore what it actually said – though that's likely to have major political consequences with their allies and consequently isn't often done. I don't think that applies in this case, though, as you say – where there's two possible interpretations and the government picks one (which is agreed with by all or most of their allies) it's probably because they are more informed or better understand the wording (which is often very unclear in CN treaties).

[quote]You, at one time, were well respected for your opinions, what the $%&@ happened to you? [/quote]
I'm not hating on the fashionable targets any more . I'm still the same as ever and if people supported me then and not now it says more about their political ends than mine.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293822718' post='2559373']You, at one time, were well respected for your opinions, what the $%&@ happened to you?
[/quote]
Bob moved from not having much power to being in a position of power.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293822718' post='2559373']
This is why I'm very glad that there aren't more people like you around, who are much more interested in attaining and holding onto what little power you can, at the expense of your friends and allies, except when is convenient for you to actually help.
[/quote]

Its not about holding power at any cost, its about making sure we don't reward stupidity. I don't care who you are or who you are allied to. Terminal stupidity should not go unpunished, nor should it be supported.

[quote]
Your overly complicated interpretation of treaties is just your way to defend cowards when they act cowardly, or to defend political schemers when they want to scheme. You, at one time, were well respected for your opinions, what the $%&@ happened to you?
[/quote]

Nothing, you just followed the same pattern most OWF people do. Hes your hero as long as he agrees with you but as soon as he doesn't hes abandoned his values.

[greenacres]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1293852182' post='2559794']
Its not about holding power at any cost, its about making sure we don't reward stupidity. I don't care who you are or who you are allied to. Terminal stupidity should not go unpunished, nor should it be supported.



Nothing, you just followed the same pattern most OWF people do. Hes your hero as long as he agrees with you but as soon as he doesn't hes abandoned his values.
[/quote]

No, I never liked bob janova, always thought he was a pompous windbag, but I can admit that his opinion mattered at one point. I'm about the most consistent misanthrope on the OWF, when I'm not getting bored and deciding that I need to jet off to outer space and all that !@#$.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293809182' post='2559239']
They show no such thing. If anything it shows their willingness to abide by not only the letter of the treaty, but by the spirit of the treaty, when their leaders have shown they are either too chicken!@#$ or too concerned with what little power they have to bother abiding by the treaties that they signed.

Those people who left to fight, are EXACTLY the kind of people you want in your alliance. Less people like you, and more people like zoom, the better your alliance will be.
[/quote]
When the noCB War occurred I left FCC to join MK since the FCC had been pressured by Citadel not to get involved despite the treaty with MK at the time, later when I rejoined FCC and the charter was rewritten to have a Ruler I was elected King with dictator-like powers over a previously democratic alliance. I think many agreed with my reason for leaving to help an ally and probably made getting elected into a powerful position when I came back easier. So I think its entirely possible many of these who left due to their beliefs in fighting for allies unconditionally will be elected into more powerful political positions in their alliances when they return assuming the decision not to assist was an unpopular move by the current gov.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Methrage

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293821603' post='2559359']
Leaving the alliance to go fight (particularly in a losing cause) because you believe in a particular interpretation of a treaty over what the alliance government believes is not responsible behaviour. True, this is not a time of crisis as such (except that PC have lost some senior members and a lot of NS, so it is something of a crisis caused by the jumpers) – but they've shown an unwillingness to follow orders which is likely to cause problems in crisis situations too.

I don't believe that the spirit of the treaty was 'you can do whatever idiotic things you like and we will bail you out', and nor did the decision making body of PC.
[/quote]

Question. Who are you to say people can and can't leave an alliance to help out friends? The spirit of the treaty is not yours to interpret, as much as you'd like to think so. People disagreed with the decision and left. What the $%&@ is the big deal? It happens all the time, stop pretending like it is something new in this world. We're not all mindless inactive drones that take orders and don't think twice about how it impacts our beliefs and values.

[Cerridwyn]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293900137' post='2560097']
Question. Who are you to say people can and can't leave an alliance to help out friends? The spirit of the treaty is not yours to interpret, as much as you'd like to think so. People disagreed with the decision and left. What the $%&@ is the big deal? It happens all the time, stop pretending like it is something new in this world. We're not all mindless inactive drones that take orders and don't think twice about how it impacts our beliefs and values.
[/quote]

You are correct. I would have no say on who leaves. But what I have a say in is who comes back. When you make a decision to leave an alliance and take actions that go against the alliance charter/leadership, then the alliance is under no obligation to welcome you back and could consider you a ghost when you return and treat you accordingly.

Simple.

[Bob Janova]

People can always leave an alliance in peacetime, for whatever purpose. It just shows a distinct lack of thought for their former alliance mates to do so to fight for a cause which the alliance government explicitly disagrees with.