We Have a Grievance...

[paulpig]

I've been looking forward to this!

o/ CnG!

[Goldie]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1297007353' post='2622163']
That's MADP you are thinking of or for some people a chaining MDoAP. MDoAPs are specifically there to provide you with an out incase your ally does something stupid.
[/quote]

That may be why you guys have such a fractured coalition. We view them as ways to get in, you view them as ways to get out.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297007474' post='2622165']
That may be why you guys have such a fractured coalition. We view them as ways to get in, you view them as ways to get out.
[/quote]

Ah yes that explains the first two pages of "its optional aggression!!11" in the ifok/PC's refusal to defend NEW thread.

[Balkan Banania]

I always enjoy seeing alliances that are self-defined as the beacons of morality in CN getting their hands dirty (I mean ODN, GR and Int), hopefully this will decrease the number of self-righteous and consequently idiotic posts. Good luck in our friends in Legion, I think this is an opportunity for Legion to reclaim their position as a central player in CN politics.
Now if this an oA, an oD a D or an A or even a YMCA, international law is always defined by the winners, so meh…we will have to wait how this will end. Keep in mind that there are several precedents set in this war; hopefully people will not post the exact opposite reasoning when these precedents are imposed on them (unfortunately I doubt).

[Goldie]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1297007599' post='2622166']
Ah yes that explains the first two pages of "its optional aggression!!11" in the ifok/PC's refusal to defend NEW thread.
[/quote]

Of course, oA is nice for when you don't want a situation to escalate because it has one ally (Fark) against another ally (SLCB). That situation was resolved pretty well.

Apparently Legion considers its MDoAPs as MPDoODPs though. Mutual Pacifica Defense, Optional Other Defense Pacts.

[Letum]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297007474' post='2622165']
That may be why you guys have such a fractured coalition. We view them as ways to get in, you view them as ways to get out.
[/quote]

I do not think the issue here is wanting to be in or out, but rather an alliance hiding that desire under the veneer of "obligation". That permits them to condone and support blatant aggression whilst having a political "plausible deniability" clause to shelve off responsibility for their choices.

That "fake" attitude behind this declaration of war, that seeks to fool the world into believing that CnG is somehow "defending" an "innocent" ally from "atrocities" is, quite frankly, disgusting.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Poiven' timestamp='1297007157' post='2622159']
When you join an alliance, if that alliance goes to war, you go to war (unless you're not needed), and you don't desert. If you join an MADP bloc, it's the same thing. We have a say about it in that if, in the long run, we don't like it, we leave, just like you can leave an alliance; but not during a time of war.[/quote]Individual nations and alliances should maintain some level of autonomy. If you back something you disagree with, treaty or not, you are equally responsible.

[quote]We pick allies we hope won't be stupid. If they are, we signed a treaty with them, we honor it. It's as simple as that. If we don't like what they did, we drop the treaty; but not after defending them as we promised we would.[/quote]Again, treaties cannot come in place of your own judgment.


[quote]MDPs usually don't have a clause saying "except if you do something stupid."

~Poiven[/quote]Our treaties don't have such clauses either. We choose our allies very carefully, hope and believe that they won't put us in situations where we are forced to choose between our own moral compass and our treaties with them. Yet, I have made it clear to our allies that the treaties are not carte blanche.
If you choose to use your treaties as an excuse to back something you cannot accept, then you cannot avoid the responsibility that comes with it.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297008174' post='2622173']
Of course, oA is nice for when you don't want a situation to escalate because it has one ally (Fark) against another ally (SLCB). That situation was resolved pretty well.[/quote]

Do you agree that =LOST= entered on a oA?

[quote]Apparently Legion considers its MDoAPs as MPDoODPs though. Mutual Pacifica Defense, Optional Other Defense Pacts.
[/quote]

(new emoticon please)

Edited February 6, 2011 by silentkiller

[Tiggah]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1297008346' post='2622176']
I do not think the issue here is wanting to be in or out, but rather an alliance hiding that desire under the veneer of "obligation". That permits them to condone and support blatant aggression whilst having a political "plausible deniability" clause to shelve off responsibility for their choices.

That "fake" attitude behind this declaration of war, that seeks to fool the world into believing that CnG is somehow "defending" an "innocent" ally from "atrocities" is, quite frankly, disgusting.
[/quote]

ODN and Legion let their allies burn because they didn't agree with the reasons for war way back in GWII. All that got us was more hate and vitriol from those we [i]did not[/i] attack and a more thorough beat-down in GWIII where the alliance you represent inflicted a Viceroy upon the Legion and declared perma-war upon their leader regardless of whether or not he re-rolled. It's a major reason for why the Legion is what they are today. We in the ODN learned our lesson in that war and that lesson is that you don't discard your friends to honour your enemies. You want us to act honourably with regards to the NPO and her cronies? That would require having respect for you, of which we happen to be fresh out.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hellbilly' timestamp='1297006115' post='2622138']
Congrats, I guess, on doing your part to insure that anyone can attack anyone they want in the future with no reason or valid CB needed. I certainly look forward to THAT future.
[/quote]

you joined this war on an optional aggression clause. They're joining on mutual defense (and mutual aggression). Would you like me to wheel the steps up to your high horse, or are you OK getting off by yourself.

[OsRavan]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1296985506' post='2621919']
Am I the only one who finds it funny that they were criticizing the alliances who attacked GOONS for not attacking other Doomhouse alliances, but now they are the ones only hitting Legion.
[/quote]

Not sure *we* were criticizing anyone. That said if you want my opinion, I thought the jump on GOONS was poor planning but I had no real deeper objection to it. Ohh, and I would point out that most of CnG actually *are* fighting on multiple fronts.


[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1296999839' post='2622047']
No you didn't. You activated the oA clause of your treaty unless you view the war started by GOONS as defensive
[/quote]

As was pointed out to you by others... if LOST or CnG had gone in on NPO then we would be activating an oA clause. Once Legion hits GOONS LOST are now activating the MD portion of the treaty because *legion* are *attacking* GOONS. It would only be an oA clause for LOST if Legion was *defending* itself from GOONS. Legion went in via an MDP. LOST went in via an MDP. This is Treaty Web 101 here, and is how treaties have worked since well before my time. You do not have to like it, but like it or not the above is the standard and accepted way of treaty activation.

[quote name='Golan 1st' timestamp='1297006516' post='2622148']
In other words, other signatories of CnG were dragged to a war without having a say about it.
It's good that they still maintain their sovereignty, I guess.

I suggest that you ask our allies. Our loyalty to them has already been tested.
I am not talking about some minor disagreement with "something they did", but about being dragged to a war by a treaty you have never signed and for a cause you STRONGLY disagree with.
Honouring treaties cannot come instead of your own moral judgment.
[/quote]

I seem to remember DAWN honoring an oA (I think) to attack CnG with no CB and then justifying it because they were going to roll with their friends.

That said, there is also something ironic about people screaming at DH for not entering the war via correct treaty chaining and then turning around and yelling at CnG for.... following their treaty chains correctly. Double Standards much?


Personally, I don't care much about 'morality' BS. Every alliance *always* thinks they are on the moral side. Morality is a subjective term. Arguments over CB are also equally pointless. 99 percent of the time, the debate will split based on sides. At the end of the day, all that matters is if you will stand by your friends (LOST for ODN in this case) and honor your word to them if they turn to you for help.

I will tell you what *my* personal moral code is. It is that I will guard my friends backs, even if such a defense sees me destroyed. It is that I wont e-lawyer my way out of an obligation if my friends call on me for help. If you are surprised to see LOST honoring their MDP, you do not know LOST well. If you are surprised to see CnG rolling together, than you do not know CnG well.

The time to evaluate the 'morality' of your allies is not when they are in the middle of a war and calling on you for help. I have zero problem with canceling treaties because you decide you are moving in separate directions. Thats why 'eternal' treaties are lame in my book. But I do have a problem with not honoring a legit call for help during war. That seems to be the fundamental difference in our views. To us, our friends come before the often subjective ((and usually lame from an OOC perspective)) 'moral' judgment. And while there is that time to evaluate treaties... that time is NEVER in the heat of battle.

You are free to disagree with that assessment. But personally, I wouldnt want a treaty connection with anyone who did not feel the same way.

Edited February 6, 2011 by OsRavan

[Letum]

[quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1297008935' post='2622184']
ODN and Legion let their allies burn because they didn't agree with the reasons for war way back in GWII. All that got us was more hate and vitriol from those we [i]did not[/i] attack and a more thorough beat-down in GWIII where the alliance you represent inflicted a Viceroy upon the Legion and declared perma-war upon their leader regardless of whether or not he re-rolled. It's a major reason for why the Legion is what they are today. We in the ODN learned our lesson in that war and that lesson is that you don't discard your friends to honour your enemies. You want us to act honourably with regards to the NPO and her cronies? That would require having respect for you, of which we happen to be fresh out.
[/quote]

As I've explained to anyone else I have discussed this with, I do not take issue with Doomhouse's aggression. It may be unjust and unfair, but I have no need for opponents to avoid those qualities when dealing with me. Their rationale might be machiavellian, but I understand it. Similarly, I do not take issue with CnG's support of that aggression here.

What I do take issue with is these lies and hypocrisy. If you do not respect us, if you would choose your friendship over your honour, that is fine; but stop trying to claim the opposite. Stop trying to hide behind pretty rhetoric and talk of defence "obligations". Grow a pair and come out with an honest and forthright declaration, and I'll be able to say "bring it" and we can all go back to fulfilling our basic war-lust.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Letum

[BamaBuc]

ODN fighting Legion... Who'da thunk it back in the day.

Have fun everybody.

-Bama

[Snowbeast]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1296969804' post='2621395']
Athens and C&G support Doomhouse/FAN aggression against an uninvolved innocent party
[/quote]
A most just stance. Thank you brother.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1297000467' post='2622056']
Thanks I try.

Not to mention Sardonic views this as an oA. Case in point NEW-DF war.
[/quote]
Please do not be putting the words in my mouth. That was an entirely different situation.

Also you and all the others criticizing C&G's view on their treaties should just stop. There is nothing quite as pathetic as somebody trying to tell two alliances why their view of their treaty is wrong.

[Tiggah]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1297010121' post='2622204']
As I've explained to anyone else I have discussed this with, I do not take issue with Doomhouse's aggression. It may be unjust and unfair, but I have no need for opponents to avoid those qualities when dealing with me. Their rationale might be machiavellian, but I understand it. Similarly, I do not take issue with CnG's support of that aggression here.

What I do take issue with is these lies and hypocrisy. If you do not respect us, if you would choose your friendship over your honour, that is fine; but stop trying to claim the opposite. Stop trying to hide behind pretty rhetoric and talk of defence "obligations". Grow a pair and come out with an honest and forthright declaration, and I'll be able to say "bring it" and we can all go back to fulfilling our basic war-lust.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I have no issue claiming that this is nothing more than our side vs. your side. That's why we're here and the rest is pretty much window dressing. It's been historically necessary to have that window dressing so the uninvolved can sleep at night when they do nothing to prevent things they would otherwise find objectionable. More importantly, it's about letting the children believe they're growing up in a world of morals and justice, so next time you criticize our mental gymnastics to create that window dressing, won't you please first think of the children?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Tiggah

[Letum]

[quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1297010471' post='2622212']
Fair enough. I have no issue claiming that this is nothing more than our side vs. your side. That's why we're here and the rest is pretty much window dressing. It's been historically necessary to have that window dressing so the uninvolved can sleep at night when they do nothing to prevent things they would otherwise find objectionable. More importantly, it's about letting the children believe they're growing up in a world of morals and justice, so next time you criticize our mental gymnastics to create that window dressing, won't you please first think of the children?
[/quote]

I assure you, we [b]always[/b] think of the children. Babies do compose the primary material of our diet after all.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1297010466' post='2622211']
Please do not be putting the words in my mouth. That was an entirely different situation.

Also you and all the others criticizing C&G's view on their treaties should just stop. There is nothing quite as pathetic as somebody trying to tell two alliances why their view of their treaty is wrong.
[/quote]

How was it different? NEW made an unprovoked attack on DF. DH made an unprovoked attack on NPO.

From where I am it looks pretty similar. The only difference is that now it is in your benefit to claim that any alliance that comes in to support you is using the defense clause rather than the oA clause.

And like Letum has said, I have no problem with =LOST= entering in support of GOONS just try not to make it sound like you were obligated to do so by a treaty.

Edited February 6, 2011 by silentkiller

[Hellbilly]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1297009141' post='2622185']
you joined this war on an optional aggression clause. They're joining on mutual defense (and mutual aggression). Would you like me to wheel the steps up to your high horse, or are you OK getting off by yourself.
[/quote]

lol. I think I can manage getting off by myself..

Just stating an opinion, my good man. I think I am entitled to that. Even if it differs from your own. Opinions are like that sometimes.

For the record, I could care less about the wither-to's and why-for's. I dont do the e-lawyering stuff. I leave that to the "experts". I am too busy getting high on my horse. Or getting my horse high. .. whichever is more clever.

[Mathias]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1296969804' post='2621395']
Athens and C&G support Doomhouse/FAN aggression against an uninvolved innocent party
[/quote]

Rsox

Welcome C&G, nice to see you here. Enjoy yourselves.

[D34th]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1297010466' post='2622211']
Please do not be putting the words in my mouth. That was an entirely different situation.

Also you and all the others criticizing C&G's view on their treaties should just stop. There is nothing quite as pathetic as somebody trying to tell two alliances why their view of their treaty is wrong.
[/quote]

Yeah very different situation...


NEW attacks DF without any [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
DF's allies attack NEW in defense.
PC and iFOK claims it is an agressive move and don't activate their [b]oA[/b] treaty clause with NEW
You:
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1292822804' post='2545751']
NEW aggressively attacked first.
[/quote]
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1292868378' post='2546729']
I applaud iFOK and PC for not endorsing NEW's boorish behavior.
[/quote]

[b]Now: [/b]

DH attacks NPO without any [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
NPO's allies attack GOONS in defense of NPO
=LOST= active oA treaty clause with GOONS and attacks Legion
You:
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296969910' post='2621406']
You have our eternal gratitude.
[/quote]


And you guys still be mad when I call you hypocrites, I really can't understand.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297013515' post='2622260']
Yeah very different situation...


NEW attacks DF without any [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
DF's allies attack NEW in defense.
PC and iFOK claims it is an agressive move and don't activate their [b]oA[/b] treaty clause with NEW
You:



[b]Now: [/b]

DH attacks NPO with [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
NPO's allies attack GOONS in defense of NPO
=LOST= active oA treaty clause with GOONS and attacks Legion
You:



And you guys still be mad when I call you hypocrites, I really can't understand.
[/quote]

fixed your logic.

[assarax]

About time, we'd been expecting this for a while, glad to see you finally caught up. Bring it.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='ChimpMasterFlash' timestamp='1297013831' post='2622263']
fixed your logic.
[/quote]

I take it Cortath told you NPO was getting involved in the war?

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297013515' post='2622260']
Yeah very different situation...


NEW attacks DF without any [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
DF's allies attack NEW in defense.
PC and iFOK claims it is an agressive move and don't activate their [b]oA[/b] treaty clause with NEW
You:



[b]Now: [/b]

DH attacks NPO without any [b]RATIONAL[/b] reason.
NPO's allies attack GOONS in defense of NPO
=LOST= active oA treaty clause with GOONS and attacks Legion
You:



And you guys still be mad when I call you hypocrites, I really can't understand.
[/quote]

Yet a substantial amount of people from your side felt it was completely acceptable for PC and iFOK to go in on their oA clauses (in fact you berated them for not going in for NEW) for a war with no CB.

Glass houses etc.