Announcement from the North American Confederacy

[Vellocet]

Congratulations!

[Gristle McThornbody]

UPN is good people, 'nuff said.

 

o7 UPN

o7 NAC

[Magicboyd25]

Congrats to both of you  

[Dwynn]

This is because people like to play the treaty game, and hit protectorates of an alliance to force the protector alliance to defend the protectorate, which in turn would not trigger the protector's allies defense clause, and instead would then trigger the defense clause of the alliance that hit the protectorate, which would be bad for the protector and the protectorate.

 

So with this clause, if you hit a protectorate, you are not activating the defense clause of all the protector's treaties.

 

I have no idea if any of that made any sense, and I hate political loophole shenanigans.

 

 

That being said, its great to see our former protectorate NAC going out and making some friends with our buddies and mutual allies in UPN.  So congrats to both of you guys!

 

It's not a hard concept to understand -- we're not going to outright outright pledge and promise to defend any protectorates NAC sign, because 1) We may not of been involved in the decision of the treaty and do not wish to compromise our sovereignty in that regard, 2) We can't predict the circumstances of the attack, so will judge it on a case-by-case basis -- and in the event if the protectorate was at fault, we would reserve the right to not enter. It's moreso aimed at the e-lawyers out there who like to talk about various technicalities, which as a whole is pretty silly, so I agree with you. And SRD covered the remaining points well. 

 

I quite understand that certain parties like to play the paper game, the point remains that the clause is redundant and a waste of space. You're basically saying "Hey, we've the option to hit you if you hit their protectorate". Which you already had with the optional aggression clause.

 

You've wasted space, wasted time, and now simply come out looking silly because you're trying to justify the wasted words.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Because people play the paper game is the exact reason that clause is not redundant or a waste of space.  When your two man alliance grows into a mighty force here on orbis, you can feel free to not include any sort of protectorate clause in any treaties you write.

[Buorhann]

if it makes you feel better, Mensa is basically the reason for this clause to be necessary.

 

I imagined we only meant to point out the silliness of it.

[Victor Truchev]

I would not call necessary as "silly." I'd rather be thorough than be caught in a bad spot because of a lack of due prudence.

[George Clooney]

I quite understand that certain parties like to play the paper game, the point remains that the clause is redundant and a waste of space. You're basically saying "Hey, we've the option to hit you if you hit their protectorate". Which you already had with the optional aggression clause.

 

You've wasted space, wasted time, and now simply come out looking silly because you're trying to justify the wasted words.

Actually it's more of an optional defense clause. It is interesting how some people are getting twisted up in knots about it though.

[greatkitteh]

I believe Theres a Russian saying for the Hired haters out there

 

"I feel bad for your ignorance, but its your coffin, not mine"