NAP versus MDP, which takes precedence?

[Sir Scarfalot]

So, Idk if this has been asked before, but what do you think should happen when an NAP and an MDP come into conflict? Personally I don’t consider honoring an MDP to be ‘aggression’ and therefore war should happen, but I’d like community input

[Jacob Knox]

If someone has a NAP with you, they should keep their hands off your M-levels unless they're looking for trouble. However, I think that if a party you have a NAP with is aggressing one of your M-levels not covered by the NAP, you should try to sort it out behind closed doors. Ultimately, however, your allegiance is to your M-levels so you should do what you gotta do if they don't cooperate.

[mrbread]

I think that an nap extends to immediate allies of an alliance, as attacking an ally of an alliance that would force an alliance with a nap with the aggressor into a war, would count as an act of aggression on the alliance with the nap, therefore being in violation of the nap, although I don't have any experience in fa

[Keegoz]

I made this point before, but NAPs need to be more specific on who they do and do not cover (as use to be the case). Given the game shuffles around quite often during NAP periods, I don't think it is healthy to leave it up to interpretation of different alliances.

We've also never seen anyone break a NAP for a MDP partner in this game, I know a lot of people have expressed they would but it is one thing to say it and another to do it.

[Adrienne]

13 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I made this point before, but NAPs need to be more specific on who they do and do not cover (as use to be the case). Given the game shuffles around quite often during NAP periods, I don't think it is healthy to leave it up to interpretation of different alliances.

We've also never seen anyone break a NAP for a MDP partner in this game, I know a lot of people have expressed they would but it is one thing to say it and another to do it.

You haven't seen it because generally people haven't messed with MDPs of someone under a NAP, because they know most people would say MDPs trump NAPs and act accordingly.

[Sketchy]

I voted depends.

If you specifically stipulate that a NAP covers MD allies, then it covers MD allies. The point of contention that has been discussed recently is whether defending an MD without this clause is breaking a NAP.

It is always breaking a NAP, to go against the terms of a nap. Other treaties you sign don't trump NAPs. If you sign treaties that contradict each other, it's on you to put clauses in those treaties that help to reconcile those contradictions.

Generally speaking, NAPs are signed under some form of duress. Whilst MD treaties and other types of treaties are voluntary. If we conceded MD's or other voluntary treaties override NAPs, then any NAP can be worked around or abused by simply signing voluntary treaties with people. As recent examples have showed.

 

On the opposite side of things, as Keegoz mentioned, we have never seen a single instance of MD treaties actually overriding NAPs. Not one. And there is a reason for that. Some people have tried to assert that the reason this is the case is because many FA people have taken the position that MD's do trump NAPs.

But of course they have, because no FA person wants to encourage other alliances to attempt to NAP chess them. It's a deterrent. Faced with the actual choice I highly doubt many of the normally careful FA people want to be the first ones to step over the line and break a NAP.

So no. Generally speaking I don't think MDs override NAP treaties. Not unless you stipulate that MD's are covered in the NAP, which as we have seen, alliances are reluctant to do.

13 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

You haven't seen it because generally people haven't messed with MDPs of someone under a NAP, because they know most people would say MDPs trump NAPs and act accordingly.

Most people say it, but no one has acted accordingly.

[Adrienne]

29 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Most people say it, but no one has acted accordingly.

Now we're just going in circles 😄

 

"No one's done it before" --> "Well, no one's f*cked around and found out before" --> "Okay, but no one's done it before"

[Adrienne]

Elaborating though, people don't want to include future allies in the NAP because they can't really speak for them. They didn't fight in the war and they weren't even tied when the war happened, so they can't be a signatory of the NAP.

That said, I do think it's ridiculous to expect someone to honor a NAP over an MDP. And thus, they're sort of defacto included in the NAP. You can attack them, as they aren't actually included in the NAP, but you can't fault an ally for defending them. If anything, it's a fault as it's a way to get around a NAP by attacking allies of NAPed parties moreso than anything else. Breaking the spirit moreso than the letter.

 

Edit: After reading some more of the debates around RON and whatnot and seeing some examples/re-reading the above, I think I would agree that adding a clause saying "we won't attack your prots or [uninvolved/future] allies" is a fair/decent middle ground that clearly includes how people view this issue in the NAP, as it's not speaking for the allies - they're free to go about and do whatever they want still - because isn't actually including them in the NAP and binding them in the same way a signatory would be.

That said, I do still think it's implied and given that people have made this sentiment clear for years, you know what you're getting into by doing it. It's not ambiguous, you're pushing limits.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Adrienne

[Shiho Nishizumi]

9 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

Ultimately, however, your allegiance is to your M-levels so you should do what you gotta do if they don't cooperate.

Agreed. There's the paper and there's the relationship underneath it. Both are agreements, with MDP's being more comprehensive and binding than a simple NAP. A party that you MDP is also presumably and often usually, a party that you have a more fleshed-out and friendly relationship with. A NAP, by contrast, is simply a "We won't attack each other" with whichever party you signed it, which most likely is either just apathetic about you or may even harbor dislike for you.

So when you're presented in a case of an un-NAP'd MDP being hit by an alliance that you have an MDP with, you're being forced into a predicament of NAP versus MDP by said party, who put you into that predicament by what was an act of aggression (hypotheticals such as this one notwithstanding). As Niz said, while this isn't a technical violation of the NAP, it is a spiritual violation thereof, especially if done with the intent of baiting a response.

Beyond the paper, do you really care to prioritize an entity that you otherwise have no connection to and is putting you in a rough spot, and possibly provoking you, over your ally which you have actual ties to? The choice is pretty self evident.

I think that the paper alone answers the question, but the nuance drives it home, especially where third parties are concerned (which is critical, given that the whole question of NAP breaking has to do with how other parties would see it and react to it). Their main takeaway wouldn't be "Oh X alliance is in the wrong because it defended its M level against Y which it is NAP'd with.". Their main takeaway would likely be "Okay, we know Y alliance isn't above playing these sorts of games, so we better keep that in mind going forward.".

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Edit: After reading some more of the debates around RON and whatnot and seeing some examples/re-reading the above, I think I would agree that adding a clause saying "we won't attack your prots or [uninvolved/future] allies" is a fair/decent middle ground that clearly includes how people view this issue in the NAP, as it's not speaking for the allies - they're free to go about and do whatever they want still - because isn't actually including them in the NAP and binding them in the same way a signatory would be.

That's a fair compromise, and it reminds me of some talks held within Requiem and among its protectors of opting out of the blanket NAP signed after the Ouro-GGO war.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Shiho Nishizumi

[hidude45454]

>inb4 ITT: people planning on using the system of NAPs and MDPs to attack or defend their allies trying to justify their plans in advance

[Buorhann]

If you attack an ally of mine while having a NAP with me (giggity), I’m reacting.

If my ally attacks a target that I have a NAP with, then that’s on them.

MDP > NAP, defensively

NAP > MDP, offensively 

Of course trickery would be out there if going on the offense (Hitting targets you don’t have a NAP with, etc)

[Adrienne]

6 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Beyond the paper, do you really care to prioritize an entity that you otherwise have no connection to and is putting you in a rough spot, and possibly provoking you, over your ally which you have actual ties to? The choice is pretty self evident.

💯

[Sketchy]

7 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Beyond the paper, do you really care to prioritize an entity that you otherwise have no connection to and is putting you in a rough spot, and possibly provoking you, over your ally which you have actual ties to? The choice is pretty self evident.

I'd argue you can use that same line of logic to justify basically anything. My ally wants to hit X alliance I have a NAP with, their CB is strong, I don't like X alliance because they say mean things to me, why not prioritize my ally over the NAP because I don't like them?

Yes I understand one is an optional aggression and the other is a mutual defense, but along this line of logic, there isn't actually any reason why that wouldn't apply to optional aggression. Or optional defence. Or mutual aggression if we ever see one of those again.

16 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I think I would agree that adding a clause saying "we won't attack your prots or [uninvolved/future] allies" is a fair/decent middle ground that clearly includes how people view this issue in the NAP, as it's not speaking for the allies

This is exactly what a future allies clause is, and is exactly what was asked for. Of course other parties, not involved in the war, cannot be co-opted into a NAP they didn't personally sign, that's self evident. The point of stipulating future allies would be to prevent parties involved IN the war from circumventing the NAP to attack allies of people in the war.

Given the CB's presented and pressure for Florida to split at the time, the fact this stipulation wasn't granted was purely political. It was done with calculated foresight, not as an oversight. Any allies that were signed during the period after the war, would have been exposed to a hit at any point. And were. It was done intentionally to limit our movement after the war.

The reason given back to us at the time for why this clause would not be included was that it would limit options for the sides to deal with those alliances. That's another implicit example of a willingness to attack allies of NAP partners if it was in the interests of the parties involved. Given the recent issues with Aurora, and how they handled that, and the need to force through a NAP to current allies to avoid them being hit, I'd say our concerns were merited. People are just upset we abused the loophole that was designed to suppress us.

I am glad you agree that adding a clause such as this is a fair middle ground, and I guess, by implication, that we weren't dealt with fairly.

[Adrienne]

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Given the CB's presented and pressure for Florida to split at the time, the fact this stipulation wasn't granted was purely political. It was done with calculated foresight, not as an oversight. Any allies that were signed during the period after the war, would have been exposed to a hit at any point. And were. It was done intentionally to limit our movement after the war.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by lack of thorough communication and misunderstanding.

From what I know of them, and better understanding your position from what you are saying here, you guys were on different pages and didn't understand what the other side was looking for.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

4 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I'd argue you can use that same line of logic to justify basically anything. My ally wants to hit X alliance I have a NAP with, their CB is strong, I don't like X alliance because they say mean things to me, why not prioritize my ally over the NAP because I don't like them?

Yes I understand one is an optional aggression and the other is a mutual defense, but along this line of logic, there isn't actually any reason why that wouldn't apply to optional aggression. Or optional defence. Or mutual aggression if we ever see one of those again.

The reason preventing that happening is that NAP's are a tool that people want to have available to them for security purposes. There's no point in signing a NAP with someone who has a history of breaking them. If one is to be voided, a compelling enough justification needs to be provided to third parties to assuage any concerns they make have with signing a NAP with you in future.

"They said mean things so we're activating an oA to void a NAP" is not going to make the cut among those people. A solid CB doesn't expire, so people can just wait for a NAP's end to make use of it.

Not to mention that there's a bit of a difference between shit talk and that other party picking off un-NAP'd links.

As for oA, oD and MA; I don't think that anyone would take an oA activation as overriding a NAP. oA is optional by design (allies aren't entitled to your help on the offensive) and directly clashing with the premise of a NAP which is a promise not to aggress.

An MD activation, by definition and by contrast, is not an aggressive action; it is a defensive reaction, one that the alliance is technically obligated to carry out of activated. It's the polar opposite to an oA.

An oD would be an interesting case study. It'd also be a defensive reaction, but it'd be up to the NAP-bound party whether to carry it out. I think that the argument could go either way.

MA's; I'm pretty sure that people would say that it wouldn't override a NAP (an opinion I would share). Not that it's ever going to be put to the test.

[Sketchy]

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by lack of thorough communication and misunderstanding.

From what I know of them, and better understanding your position from what you are saying here, you guys were on different pages and didn't understand what the other side was looking for.

The logic for why the clause was opposed was laid out pretty clearly. It wasn't a misunderstanding of what was being asked.

[Adrienne]

8 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

The logic for why the clause was opposed was laid out pretty clearly. It wasn't a misunderstanding of what was being asked.

It should be pretty clear to you from reading this thread that there were misunderstandings as to what was being asked. You can literally see comprehension dawning on me in my post a few up. So I think you should re-examine your assumptions regarding how that all went down because it's pretty obvious to me you weren't on the same page.

[Sketchy]

15 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

It should be pretty clear to you from reading this thread that there were misunderstandings as to what was being asked. You can literally see comprehension dawning on me in my post a few up. So I think you should re-examine your assumptions regarding how that all went down because it's pretty obvious to me you weren't on the same page.

I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm referring to you when I say people were aware of what was being proposed.

If I had access to the server peace talks were in I'd go back and share the examples of people saying outright things that clearly indicated they knew exactly what we were asking for. I'm only mentioning it to you because you are the one debating the topic right now.

It's pretty clear where our ire regarding the NAP situation is directed, given what caused this debate in the first place.

[Adrienne]

14 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm referring to you when I say people were aware of what was being proposed.

If I had access to the server peace talks were in I'd go back and share the examples of people saying outright things that clearly indicated they knew exactly what we were asking for. I'm only mentioning it to you because you are the one debating the topic right now.

It's pretty clear where our ire regarding the NAP situation is directed, given what caused this debate in the first place.

Was as an example of thought process/potential misunderstandings. Regardless, from what I've seen at least, you weren't as clear as you thought you were. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, you should keep an open mind and consider that you might have misinterpreted what they were saying given that you may have been operating off different base assumptions. It might be worth talking to them.

Anyways, we're moving off topic a bit and getting a bit redundant now too, so that's the last I'll say here. Do with that advice what you will and have a good night. Or day, I suppose.

[Kastor]

6 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Was as an example of thought process/potential misunderstandings. Regardless, from what I've seen at least, you weren't as clear as you thought you were. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, you should keep an open mind and consider that you might have misinterpreted what they were saying given that you may have been operating off different base assumptions. It might be worth talking to them.

Anyways, we're moving off topic a bit and getting a bit redundant now too, so that's the last I'll say here. Do with that advice what you will and have a good night. Or day, I suppose.

The gaslighting is INSANE. 

[Adrienne]

4 hours ago, Kastor said:

The gaslighting is INSANE. 

It's not gaslighting to say "hey, this doesn't align with what I've heard from others; I think there's been a misunderstanding." Get a grip.

[Tartarus]

16 hours ago, Kastor said:

The gaslighting is INSANE. 

Edited January 1 by Tartarus

[darkblade]

On 12/31/2023 at 4:44 AM, Kastor said:

The gaslighting is INSANE. 

 

[Adrienne]

Alright, alright, I get the point. Go back to your little pity party and enjoy thinking everyone else is horrible and maleficent and out to get you and I'll stop thinking you're reasonable people willing to consider alternative viewpoints and we'll all be happier for it.

[Sketchy]

7 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Alright, alright, I get the point. Go back to your little pity party and enjoy thinking everyone else is horrible and maleficent and out to get you and I'll stop thinking you're reasonable people willing to consider alternative viewpoints and we'll all be happier for it.