Valhalla Announcement

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297027905' post='2622654']
If you consider yourself to have no obligation because of a non-chaining clause, you consider them ODP's. This is why you often have something to the effect of "in the event of a treaty chain, defense is [i]optional[/i]" in non-chaining MD(oA)P's. In other circumstances you would treat them as mutual, but in this particular instance, you [i]are[/i] considering the treaties optional, thus making them ODP's.

Optional is optional is optional is optional, no matter what the rest of the treaty says. The relevant clause is an ODP, thus you are treating it as an ODP.
[/quote]

ummm no.

If any of the above alliances had been hit for no reason or for reasons outside of this current conflict there would be no discussion and Valhalla would roll in defense of the aggressed ally. Very black and white.

Now then if any of the above alliances enter into a fray for anyone outside of those parameters it falls under the non chaining clause of what is a very common addition to treaties in CN. Hence making any 'obligation' non existent.

If the parameters of such a clause isnt acceptable, then dont sign anything with such included.

So in short, if you have a treaty with Valhalla and are hit for bs unrelated to any act of aggression by your own alliance then you have someone whom will walk thru hellfire for you until the bitter end. If you choose to jump in the fray for a friend that isnt Valhalla's then dont 'expect' us to do the same. Only expectations in that event is for Valhalla to support you thru as much encouragement and moral support as we can give and aid afterwards if needed. Anything above and beyond that is discretionary and depending on circumstances.

[Locke]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1297030231' post='2622702']
ummm no.

If any of the above alliances had been hit for no reason or for reasons outside of this current conflict there would be no discussion and Valhalla would roll in defense of the aggressed ally. Very black and white.

Now then if any of the above alliances enter into a fray for anyone outside of those parameters it falls under the non chaining clause of what is a very common addition to treaties in CN. Hence making any 'obligation' non existent.

If the parameters of such a clause isnt acceptable, then dont sign anything with such included.

So in short, if you have a treaty with Valhalla and are hit for bs unrelated to any act of aggression by your own alliance then you have someone whom will walk thru hellfire for you until the bitter end. If you choose to jump in the fray for a friend that isnt Valhalla's then dont 'expect' us to do the same. Only expectations in that event is for Valhalla to support you thru as much encouragement and moral support as we can give and aid afterwards if needed. Anything above and beyond that is discretionary and depending on circumstances.
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that I am absolutely correct, that in the case of treaty chaining, the treaty is optional. I don't care if you don't like that word, that's what it is and that's what you just said. If someone had attacked your allies out of the blue, it would not be optional, but that's not what happened [i]so it [b]is[/b] optional. In this particular case, you have [b]no obligation[/b] to defend your treaty partners, which was well known and agreed to at the time of signing. Not having an obligation is the [b]definition of optional[/b].[/i]

I'm sorry, but I can't make it more clear than that, so if you insist on making arguments against points I'm not raising, I'll just ignore you and keep laughing.

[Aeros]

All hail the new dear leader

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297031310' post='2622743']
So what you're saying is that I am absolutely correct, that in the case of treaty chaining, the treaty is optional. I don't care if you don't like that word, that's what it is and that's what you just said. If someone had attacked your allies out of the blue, it would not be optional, but that's not what happened [i]so it [b]is[/b] optional. In this particular case, you have [b]no obligation[/b] to defend your treaty partners, which was well known and agreed to at the time of signing. Not having an obligation is the [b]definition of optional[/b].[/i]

I'm sorry, but I can't make it more clear than that, so if you insist on making arguments against points I'm not raising, I'll just ignore you and keep laughing.
[/quote]

So the point you were trying to make is that you agree that we are viewing our obligation as optional per what is written and agreed to between all parties involved per the inked documents?

ok?

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1297031649' post='2622762']
So the point you were trying to make is that you agree that we are viewing our obligation as optional per what is written and agreed to between all parties involved per the inked documents?

ok?
[/quote]

so then, back to the original point. In this conflict, all of Valhalla's treaties are ODPs, including the 7 treaty partners who have entered the conflict. Valhalla has chosen not to act on any of those

UPN actually had a better excuse for staying out of the last war, as treaties were conflicting (not to mention ODN's activation should've been direct).

[Locke]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1297031649' post='2622762']
So the point you were trying to make is that you agree that we are viewing our obligation as optional per what is written and agreed to between all parties involved per the inked documents?

ok?
[/quote]
Yes, I am; is this a bad or wrong view to hold? Do you disagree?

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297032188' post='2622776']
so then, back to the original point. In this conflict, all of Valhalla's treaties are ODPs, including the 7 treaty partners who have entered the conflict. Valhalla has chosen not to act on any of those[/quote]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297031310' post='2622743']Saying stuff to feel self important[/quote]

The treaties haven't changed one bit. They have non chaining clauses and optional aggression clauses. The Mutual Defense clause is fully intact.

Now if NSO or the SOS brigade feel as strongly as you two do, go ahead and attack one of our allies. We'll be happy to give you a demonstration. Not that you would, it's so much easier to just spout from peanut gallery.

[Locke]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1297034061' post='2622826']
The treaties haven't changed one bit. They have non chaining clauses and optional aggression clauses. The Mutual Defense clause is fully intact.

Now if NSO or the SOS brigade feel as strongly as you two do, go ahead and attack one of our allies. We'll be happy to give you a demonstration. Not that you would, it's so much easier to just spout from peanut gallery.
[/quote]
I see you're as delusional as CJ; even when I agree with you you keep taking potshots.

[Believland]

No Kry?

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297020711' post='2622456']
Oh, ok, I didn't realize that we had gone the "they didn't ask" route. My apologies, carry on! Congrats, Bud, you're a cool guy. Next term, Hal, next term!
[/quote]

OH have i hurt your feelings in someway?
I guess my CN career is over as schatt doesnt think im cool.


Welcome to gov Esthar now go get me my coffee.

[RePePe]

Umbrella defends our right to stay out, while NSO and CoJ, among others, attempt to paint our actions as somehow devious.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with which side of the war they are on.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1297055683' post='2623357']
Umbrella defends our right to stay out, while NSO and CoJ, among others, attempt to paint our actions as somehow devious.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with which side of the war they are on.
[/quote]

UPN was derided by everyone on both sides, I believed, for not following most of their treaties from a 'conflicting treaty' with ODN. You don't even have that 'conflicting treaty' luxury that UPN had. Now there's an 8th MDP+ alliance at war, what will Valhalla do now?

It's all extremely amusing to me.

[Mark Ashton]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1297018598' post='2622404']
I for one would like to see proof that we actually turned down a formal request to honor a treaty....
[/quote]

Please get in line with the FA strategy of your alliance.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297056843' post='2623451']
UPN was derided by everyone on both sides, I believed, for not following most of their treaties from a 'conflicting treaty' with ODN. You don't even have that 'conflicting treaty' luxury that UPN had. Now there's an 8th MDP+ alliance at war, what will Valhalla do now?

It's all extremely amusing to me.
[/quote]

Nothing that can please you guys anyways [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img]

Since unless we activate oAP's you won't be happy :3

Edited February 7, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV

[Alterego]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1297044783' post='2622985']
OH have i hurt your feelings in someway?
I guess my CN career is over as schatt doesnt think im cool.
[/quote]
He has been very angry in the last week or so. He had grande ideas of leading a coalition to victory against DH like the one he attempted during the GOON/UPN incident. If you read his blogs and posts there is real venom in most of what he is saying at the moment even stuff thats unrelated to the war. The only thing more painful than a low blow is a hurt ego.

[Cataduanes]

I am surprised Keshav has not blown the world up yet , congratz to all.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1297084831' post='2623944']
He has been very angry in the last week or so. He had grande ideas of leading a coalition to victory against DH like the one he attempted during the GOON/UPN incident. If you read his blogs and posts there is real venom in most of what he is saying at the moment even stuff thats unrelated to the war. The only thing more painful than a low blow is a hurt ego.
[/quote]

Psychoanalysis like this amuses Valhalla.
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/5140575952_d1b88bf1f4.jpg[/img]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Mark Ashton' timestamp='1297075403' post='2623887']
Please get in line with the FA strategy of your alliance.
[/quote]

I asked the question at the time because it seemed that Valhalla was being roasted over an open flame for breaking treaties. Simply put we have not. Have we made decisions that were not necessarily popular with everyone? Absolutely. It is impossible to please everyone all the time. Our FA policy however has been consistent through this entire war.

[Pariah]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297016884' post='2622365']
Actually I like Valhalla, but I honestly don't see why you would flaunt your refusal to honor treaties while a war is still on, it's not really an admirable trait.
[/quote]

It's "admirable" to those who matter.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297056843' post='2623451']
UPN was derided by everyone on both sides, I believed, for not following most of their treaties from a 'conflicting treaty' with ODN. You don't even have that 'conflicting treaty' luxury that UPN had. Now there's an 8th MDP+ alliance at war, what will Valhalla do now?

It's all extremely amusing to me.
[/quote]

Im going to put this as simple as possible for you.

1. The orders mean very little to us. Polar has stabbed us and Pacifica has spit on us. We will not come in to defend either. Hey guess what that is the same thing weve told every single treaty partner. We have non-chain clauses in our treaties for a reason. If we come in to defend anyone what does that do? Oh yeah it defends someone who would spit on us or even better yet betray us on the battle field.Is this an easy decision no, but if you truly want us in this war by all means attack our treaty partners directly with your own CB and see what happens. I know its difficult for you to understand hopefully this clears it up. While locke takes the long way around it and attempts to spin it in poor light he got it. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ENTER ON A CHAIN and we will not do it. Sorry we dance to our own tune and the funny thing is our allies understand and tbh that is all that really matters.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Buds The Man

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1297044783' post='2622985']
OH have i hurt your feelings in someway?
I guess my CN career is over as schatt doesnt think im cool.
[/quote]
Uhhhhh, what? Congrats, Bud, you're a cool guy. If I'm insulting or unhappy with you, I will state it clearly. Congrats, Bud, you're a cool guy. I am glad you're in gov, I like you.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Schattenmann

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1297092845' post='2624021']
Im going to put this as simple as possible for you.

1. The orders mean very little to us. Polar has stabbed us and Pacifica has spit on us. We will not come in to defend either. Hey guess what that is the same thing weve told every single treaty partner. We have non-chain clauses in our treaties for a reason. If we come in to defend anyone what does that do? Oh yeah it defends someone who would spit on us or even better yet betray us on the battle field.Is this an easy decision no, but if you truly want us in this war by all means attack our treaty partners directly with your own CB and see what happens. I know its difficult for you to understand hopefully this clears it up. While locke takes the long way around it and attempts to spin it in poor light he got it. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ENTER ON A CHAIN and we will not do it. Sorry we dance to our own tune and the funny thing is our allies understand and tbh that is all that really matters.
[/quote]

What makes what you're doing any better than what UPN did a year ago? Did UPN have any obligation to fight on behalf of IRON or TOP? (No, they actually had a direct obligation to defend ODN against them). Most of the participants in this war has no direct link to the Orders, and I really don't care about your feelings being hurt by NPO. I'm just saying you've just pulled a UPN (or worse) after spending the last year whining and !@#$%*ing about how UPN doesn't defend its allies, now you go around and do the exact same. And it's just not one or two treaties, we're now up to [b]8 treaties being ignored by Valhalla[/b].

This is a circus you're running, and we're not exactly laughing with you.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297101619' post='2624204']
What makes what you're doing any better than what UPN did a year ago? Did UPN have any obligation to fight on behalf of IRON or TOP? (No, they actually had a direct obligation to defend ODN against them). Most of the participants in this war has no direct link to the Orders, and I really don't care about your feelings being hurt by NPO. I'm just saying you've just pulled a UPN (or worse) after spending the last year whining and !@#$%*ing about how UPN doesn't defend its allies, now you go around and do the exact same. And it's just not one or two treaties, we're now up to [b]8 treaties being ignored by Valhalla[/b].

This is a circus you're running, and we're not exactly laughing with you.
[/quote]

8 would be exaggerating a bit don;t you think? Seeing they were informed before hand the moment !@#$ hit the roof it's not really being ignored. Another important fact is they are non-chaining so we are well within our legal rights to do so and no where does it say using the non-chaining clause means we are ignoring treaties. So continue your whining, we've stated our reasons and you still find fault no way to appease you guys and we could care less really. Our allies also know I believe that the sides they are defending want us in only to burn, so connect the dots and maybe you would get a clearer picture :3

Edited February 7, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV

[Sulmar]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1297055683' post='2623357']
Umbrella defends our right to stay out, while NSO and CoJ, among others, attempt to paint our actions as somehow devious.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with which side of the war they are on.
[/quote]
Not a thing to do with the side of war, I swear!

Edited February 7, 2011 by Sulmar

[Solaris]

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of non-chaining?

It's because people are lacking of cognitive fitness either by trait, or by communications strategy, and do not care or understand what treaties in question say. That's why.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Solaris