Vanguard Declaration of Neutrality (DoN)

[Alexio15]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:11 PM, Sean Anthony said:

Instead of declaring Neutrality in the war, just form the Green Protection Agency at this point

Hasn't your only contribution of note been creating alliances where you can't keep control? So come back to me when you have something more concrete to build your snide comments from.

[Sval]

5 hours ago, Alexio15 said:

Hasn't your only contribution of note been creating alliances where you can't keep control? So come back to me when you have something more concrete to build your snide comments from.

I'd be more than happy to offer him some pointers on how to cling to power for more than 5 minutes, but he'd likely be ousted before I could hit "Submit".

[Prefontaine]

Just some food for thought. The strongest bonds in these games come from fight along side one another. Sitting out of a war, even a dogpile runs you the risk of sitting out of those strengthened bonds. Questions come up, like is Vanguard really our ally? Will they have our backs? They didn’t when the fight was easy, why would they if the fight was hard. There’s more risk to sitting out than you think. Step up your FA game and hope your ties stay as strong as they should be. You don’t want to find yourself accidentally isolated and forced into another sphere for protection rather than wanting to be there. 

 

Like I said. Food for thought. Sometimes inaction speaks louder than action. 

[Darknight]

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Just some food for thought. The strongest bonds in these games come from fight along side one another. Sitting out of a war, even a dogpile runs you the risk of sitting out of those strengthened bonds. Questions come up, like is Vanguard really our ally? Will they have our backs? They didn’t when the fight was easy, why would they if the fight was hard. There’s more risk to sitting out than you think. Step up your FA game and hope your ties stay as strong as they should be. You don’t want to find yourself accidentally isolated and forced into another sphere for protection rather than wanting to be there. 

 

Like I said. Food for thought. Sometimes inaction speaks louder than action. 

But at the same time, it disregards what conversation could've gone behind closed doors. Perhaps IQ and Vanguard talked about it weeks before the war happened. Perhaps it was merely days before it occurred. Either way, perhaps the FA game was going on in the shadows the entire time and led to a result that kept the bonds stable. Plus, you must recall, the connection with IQ in terms of offensive wars is an OPTIONAL aggression pact. Meaning Vanguard has the right to refuse to enter an offensive war if they do not wish to partake in it. We aren't obligated to join an offensive war in that case, and per the pact we may decline joining it as is the independent right of Vanguard.

Frankly put, by being neutral instead of joining when we could just decline it also shows that Vanguard does indeed have its own independent thought and isn't an extension of IQ under a different name. In a way, by being neutral it tells everyone that we don't follow IQ into every single fight they start like a collared puppy.

Which is what makes it more funny to see people upset that Vanguard is sitting this one out instead of following IQ into the fray. Going from complaining how Vanguard is just an extension of IQ to how Vanguard doesn't want to follow IQ into a Great War where IQ is an aggressor.

When you think about it, it's a paradox.

Strong bonds also require mutual understanding. If you cannot understand each other, you cannot form a strong bond. Without understanding, those very suspicions and questions you talked about can come up too. Which can break down the bonds. If our allies cannot understand us and we cannot understand them, then the bonds were doomed to break from the start. No?

[Sval]

7 minutes ago, Darknight said:

But at the same time, it disregards what conversation could've gone behind closed doors. Perhaps IQ and Vanguard talked about it weeks before the war happened. Perhaps it was merely days before it occurred. Either way, perhaps the FA game was going on in the shadows the entire time and led to a result that kept the bonds stable. Plus, you must recall, the connection with IQ in terms of offensive wars is an OPTIONAL aggression pact. Meaning Vanguard has the right to refuse to enter an offensive war if they do not wish to partake in it. We aren't obligated to join an offensive war in that case, and per the pact we may decline joining it as is the independent right of Vanguard.

Frankly put, by being neutral instead of joining when we could just decline it also shows that Vanguard does indeed have its own independent thought and isn't an extension of IQ under a different name. In a way, by being neutral it tells everyone that we don't follow IQ into every single fight they start like a collared puppy.

Which is what makes it more funny to see people upset that Vanguard is sitting this one out instead of following IQ into the fray. Going from complaining how Vanguard is just an extension of IQ to how Vanguard doesn't want to follow IQ into a Great War where IQ is an aggressor.

When you think about it, it's a paradox.

Strong bonds also require mutual understanding. If you cannot understand each other, you cannot form a strong bond. Without understanding, those very suspicions and questions you talked about can come up too. Which can break down the bonds. If our allies cannot understand us and we cannot understand them, then the bonds were doomed to break from the start. No?

Indeed, had our allies in IQ been attacked, we'd have been smacking down the aggressor quicker than you can say "neutral menace".

[Prefontaine]

I’ve seen the conversations that have happened behind closed doors. Maybe not all, but definitely enough. I’ve also been privy to the conversations that have happened involving your allies without you there, thus lacking a need to censor their opinions. I was also privy to the conversations about TKR trying to pull you away from IQ and the reactions to it both during, after, and after your declared neutrality.

 

Lets just say I’m highly informed on the manner from both a public and private standpoint. I also don’t give two shits if Vanguard entered or not from a tactical or diplomatic standpoint. Merely I was weighing in from both past experiences and as a knowledgeable current party with nothing to gain regardless of your actions. 

 

Vanguard has made their bed. Time will tell what sort of bed it exactly is. 

[Darknight]

21 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I’ve seen the conversations that have happened behind closed doors. Maybe not all, but definitely enough. I’ve also been privy to the conversations that have happened involving your allies without you there, thus lacking a need to censor their opinions. I was also privy to the conversations about TKR trying to pull you away from IQ and the reactions to it both during, after, and after your declared neutrality.

 

Lets just say I’m highly informed on the manner from both a public and private standpoint. I also don’t give two shits if Vanguard entered or not from a tactical or diplomatic standpoint. Merely I was weighing in from both past experiences and as a knowledgeable current party with nothing to gain regardless of your actions. 

 

Vanguard has made their bed. Time will tell what sort of bed it exactly is. 

Of course. Though one can argue that by being neutral instead of joining in an optional aggression pact, and having talk it out with out allies prior, that FA wise we have conducted an action that counters the words that accuse Vanguard of just being an IA pet. Time will indeed tell what bed that forms, but the Council decided Neutrality was the best given current circumstances. Had IQ been attacked rather than the attacker, the situation would be very different.

However I understand your point of view. Actions can have unintended consequences.

[The Royalist]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:31 AM, Darknight said:

((Credit of writing goes to Phoenix from Polaris. Posting with unified Vanguard approval.))

Alliances of Orbis,

    The leadership of Vanguard declares neutrality in this war. We will not raise up arms against our friends in TKR, nor will we fight alongside them against our friends and allies in IQ. Vanguard will remain completely committed to neutrality in this war, and all military build up seen is purely defensive. If we are attacked, we will strike back with extreme prejudice against anyone who takes it upon themselves to bring the fight to us. Take note, that should anyone strike Vanguard at this time, our immediate and only goal will be the complete and utter destruction of our enemy's military forces and their complete and total surrender.
    
    
    For those who wish to fight in this war, we bid you good fortune in the wars to come. For those who do not wish to fight, but have had the fight brought to you, we wish you well. If war must come, let it come with an honorable ending.

lol tue

[Kevanovia]

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I’ve seen the conversations that have happened behind closed doors. Maybe not all, but definitely enough.

?‍♂️ Maybe you haven’t seen enough. There are still things at play that will decide how VG will look when all is said and done.

[Prefontaine]

18 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

?‍♂️ Maybe you haven’t seen enough.

[Spaceman Thrax]

3 hours ago, Darknight said:

But at the same time, it disregards what conversation could've gone behind closed doors. Perhaps IQ and Vanguard talked about it weeks before the war happened. Perhaps it was merely days before it occurred. Either way, perhaps the FA game was going on in the shadows the entire time and led to a result that kept the bonds stable. Plus, you must recall, the connection with IQ in terms of offensive wars is an OPTIONAL aggression pact. Meaning Vanguard has the right to refuse to enter an offensive war if they do not wish to partake in it. We aren't obligated to join an offensive war in that case, and per the pact we may decline joining it as is the independent right of Vanguard.

Frankly put, by being neutral instead of joining when we could just decline it also shows that Vanguard does indeed have its own independent thought and isn't an extension of IQ under a different name. In a way, by being neutral it tells everyone that we don't follow IQ into every single fight they start like a collared puppy.

Which is what makes it more funny to see people upset that Vanguard is sitting this one out instead of following IQ into the fray. Going from complaining how Vanguard is just an extension of IQ to how Vanguard doesn't want to follow IQ into a Great War where IQ is an aggressor.

When you think about it, it's a paradox.

Strong bonds also require mutual understanding. If you cannot understand each other, you cannot form a strong bond. Without understanding, those very suspicions and questions you talked about can come up too. Which can break down the bonds. If our allies cannot understand us and we cannot understand them, then the bonds were doomed to break from the start. No?

This reads to me like you're saying "you can tell that we're independent, because when we're not needed tactically by the people who our member alliances have historically sided with, we do nothing."

Not... quite...?

[greatkitteh]

Got to admit through, first time I saw a Declaration of Neutrality on forums.

[Sephiroth]

I can understand both views,on one hand if you join a war where you aren't needed then you show your allies that you will back them through thick and thin. 

On the other hand staying out shows the world that you won't agree with all of your allies decisions.

Doesn't really show you're "independent" though since you guys joining honestly was not necessary at all since, you would just be adding more people to a war where you already outnumber the target 4-1.

That's just imo though! 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Sephiroth