Jump to content

Burn The Treaty Web


Margrave

Recommended Posts

Kashmir contends to the Cyberverse a beautiful truth: The Treaty Web is a lie. 

 

 

I submit the following for the consideration of the community of nations: Acceptance of this truth edifies the collective whole of Bob, and arms those who do not wish to go gentle into that good night with the means to combat ennui and restore meaningful, harmonious relationships between nations and alliances. I am here to present the case that this edifice of digital ink is a constrictive fossil that has long passed out of purposefulness, if it indeed ever held a purpose before.

 

The Web is at best only relevant among a small community of cynics who still embrace the term "realpolitik" as the defining feature of their foreign relations; they require a stick to beat their fellow devils with. How weak and ineffective a tool it is in the end! Examples abound of treaty partners abandoning their responsibilities to their allies, or even betraying them in the sort of gross power playing that typifies inhuman regimes. Yet they still play the old game; at the end of the day, it's the only game they know, and stepping outside of the restrictive confines of the monster they've constructed is a vanishingly small probability. 

 

 

This isn't addressed to them; rather, it's addressed to those who believe that diplomatic relationships should be forged in the fraternal relationships between alliances. If you've ever said the terms "Friends over Infrastructure" I'm talking to you. If you've gone to the mat for an ally when you had a way of avoiding it, I'm talking to you. If you care about the people, and not just the Nation Strength of those who you sign these pieces of paper with, I'm talking to you.

 

 

This notion may seem radical; it may seem quaint, it may even seem foolhardy, but I am convinced it is the most effective path forward for a world weary Digiterra, tired of cynical web manipulations and back room power players. My arguments are simple; I will go over the points in brief, and then open the floor for the discussion I know this subject merits.

 

1. Relationships Do Not Require Treaties

 

2. Paperlessness Encourages Activity

 

3.The Return of Fairness

 

4. The Element of Surprise

 

5. The People Vs The Political Class

 

So let's attack this point by point.

 

Firstly, treaties are supposed to reflect the genuine relationship one alliance has with another. In the best version of a treaty, they are public affirmations of mutual respect, trust, camaraderie and brotherhood. Yet nothing lasts forever, leaders come and go, and we are constantly witnessing the results of poor treaty management (see the NPO's maintenance of their relationship with TPF as our most recent example). If the respect and mutual admiration is there, why sign a piece of paper? If the respect and friendship is lacking, why trust that they'll honor their supposedly ironclad obligations to you? A quick scan of our world's history will show that in desperate times, the true character of an alliance will show, and a signature on a piece of paper will profit them nothing at all. These betrayals reveal the bankrupt nature of the treaty system.

 

 

Moving to my second point: Abandoning paper encourages, indeed requires, a certain level of activity. In a world rife with ennui and boredom, those who abandon the restrictive confines of the treaty web must be an active, constant presence in the diplomatic channels of their friends; they must renew the relationship consistently by affirming with action and behavior what most lean on their treaties to affirm. Kashmir retains its many positive diplomatic relationships by being an active friend, and being consistent both in our diplomatic activity levels and our pursuit of military excellence.

 

Fairness returns to CN with a vengeance when people abandon the treaty-model as a way of engaging their political compatriots. Bloc politics and the behaviors of the super-coalitions restrict the activity and behavior of its members, promising victory if only they'll muzzle their nation leaders and restrain their natural behavior. While we'll probably never see the day the freedom Kashmir advocates obtain globally, a strong enough movement away from the treaty web confuses the models and analysis of those cynical power players who make relationships with alliances, not in order to profess or express a mutual friendship or admiration, but to chain their friends into their next power play.

 

Surprise returns as well; it requires much more than a simple reading of the tea leaves to say who will war with whom in a treatiless model. Kashmir saw the advantage of our paperless way of life in the Doom War, when our friends the SRA came into the conflict on our behalf, much to the surprise of their enemies. What other sudden twists and exciting conflicts can occur when the geopolitical environment isn't dominated by web manipulation, cynicism, the old "Wait and See" attitude? When victory isn't guaranteed by being a member of the latest faddish bloc, activity abounds as people seek out their natural friends and enemies and engage them.

 

Finally, a communal ascent into a paperless environment will finally and utterly confound that class of political power players who operate in cynicism and prey upon those alliances who eschew their methods.  If you doubt that this class exists, I must ask you the following questions: 

 
How many ways have the lines stretched as puppet masters pulled strings, arranged loopholes in legal language to refrain from assisting a sworn comrade, called down cascading declarations from alliances far outside the true conflict, or to otherwise manipulate the treatied classes? How many useless pieces of paper build a immense warband of untested soldiers, only to be revealed as useless when the bullets fly?
 
 
Many words weary the reader, so I will end, not with a TL;DR, but a summary of the spirit and intent of this message: The spirit of the Law is the whole of the Law. Letters and convoluted legalities only inhibit it. 
 
 
I now open the topic to discussion, in the hopes that you will read and think on what I've declared here, and take it to heart. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, but if people stop signing treaties in public they're just going to keep their "relationships" and that defeats the whole purpose

Like, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be something done to encourage more barely-warranted violence and copious amounts of bloodshed; cutting treaties out entirely is just not the answer.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are in a world where people wish to hug their pixels and only fight when they have a clear 10 to 1 advantage while claiming to have the best warriors in all of CN. Most people are fucking scared pussies who would shit themselves if it came down to fighting a fair and even war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are in a world where people wish to hug their pixels and only fight when they have a clear 10 to 1 advantage while claiming to have the best warriors in all of CN. Most people are !@#$@#$ scared pussies who would !@#$ themselves if it came down to fighting a fair and even war.

 

 

It may seem like a pipe dream, but as I have no intention of departing Digiterra anytime soon, it is my sincere hope that this state of affairs (The end of the Treaty Web) will obtain near universally. I say hope, because I temper that hope with the understanding that long standing tradition makes any change difficult, and universal change nigh impossible. But I think there is something in this for everyone; for the moralist, for the militant, for the revolutionary....the only people who lose is that class of treaty manipulating backroom politicians. 

 

There have already been two great blows struck in recent years against this political class; Non-Chaining clauses and Optional Clauses in treaties both confound the tea leave readers and the manipulators. I support the spirit that motivates those who embrace these functions, but at the end of the day these are still half measures. True freedom for the individual nation and the alliance both emerge out of a death knell of the Treaty Web. The energy and NS that the treaty web leashes would be freed, and activity would naturally emerge from this new model of political discourse and foreign policy behavior. 

 

At the end of the day, I believe this to be the most direct and effective solution to a plethora of problems plaguing the world; I can only hope that my argument will seed fertile soil and that something good from it will bloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the premise to a degree, I can see the merits of a paperless system. Relationships do not require public documentation, but having a publicly stated relationship does provide some benefit. A public document can be avoided through various means but there is a repercussion, treaties provide a degree of accountability that is visible to all. If an alliance disregards a treaty it is known and the reputation of the alliance suffers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the premise to a degree, I can see the merits of a paperless system. Relationships do not require public documentation, but having a publicly stated relationship does provide some benefit. A public document can be avoided through various means but there is a repercussion, treaties provide a degree of accountability that is visible to all. If an alliance disregards a treaty it is known and the reputation of the alliance suffers. 

 

Does it? Can you name off hand all the alliances that abandoned NPO during Karma without looking at the wiki? I can't. Memory fades, or is manipulated by present circumstances. No one cares what the chattering classes of the OWF have to say about their treaty obligations because they, like everyone else born to the race of mankind, assume that their conditions are unique and their experiences singular. 

 

There's no tool except a weak public sentiment to keep anyone from doing whatever they want, and hang that treaty they wrote a month ago.  So what benefit does one get, except a blanket made of wishful thinking?

Edited by Margrave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an alliance disregards a treaty it is known and the reputation of the alliance suffers. 

 

This is the true purpose of treaties.

 

Public declarations of support. Something which will continue to happen regardless of what we want to call our artifices. "Treaties" "relationships" all the same thought.

 

 

 

Perhaps a deeper inquiry into the relationships between alliances and the "whole" would better answer this thought of why our world withers.

 

 

 

 

What drives politics, wars, and everything else ever?

 

Competition.

 

 

The very mechanics of this game eliminate any kind of remotely fair competition on multiple, multiple levels. There are so many things preventing change and a complete lack of desire for said change that many of us have given up trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter if people have treaties or informal fuzzy feelings. What people really want is for everyone else to act in a way that disregards the consequences so they can be high and mighty about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be totally down with a paperless world but that will be nigh impossible.

 

It really doesn't matter if people have treaties or informal fuzzy feelings. What people really want is for everyone else to act in a way that disregards the consequences so they can be high and mighty about it.

 

No, what most people want is a world in which the top 20 alliances don't hold 100 treaties between the 20 of them. That makes shit boring for everyone really since if the top 20 get their panties in a twist, they can roll just about anyone else since those 20 alliances also tend to hold around 200 treaties with another 60 or so alliances. That is what this is all about really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with the proposal put forward here. I'll get into each of the points presented here in a moment, but I'd like to express a generally contrary model for thinking first. The nature of inter-alliance relationships is and should be one that is governed by laws. Treaties, though they are no longer consistently written this way, are the basic laws of the cyberverse. To replace them with unspoken relationships would be like relying on the individual relationships between citizens and policemen to be enough to govern a country. It would work for some honorable citizens and for some honorable policemen but wouldn't work for those less dedicated to their social constructs.

Now, point by point.
 

The Web is at best only relevant among a small community of cynics who still embrace the term "realpolitik" as the defining feature of their foreign relations; they require a stick to beat their fellow devils with. How weak and ineffective a tool it is in the end! Examples abound of treaty partners abandoning their responsibilities to their allies, or even betraying them in the sort of gross power playing that typifies inhuman regimes. Yet they still play the old game; at the end of the day, it's the only game they know, and stepping outside of the restrictive confines of the monster they've constructed is a vanishingly small probability.


First, we have to draw a distinction between the concept of treaties in general, and the concept of treaties which are signed without good faith. It is impossible to argue that the way that treaties are signed now is not good for the state of interalliance politics. Alliances are willing if not eager to sign treaties that they know they will back out of if given the chance. This should not be allowed to happen. Just because some treaties are signed in ill faith, however, does not mean that all treaties are bad.
 

1. Relationships Do Not Require Treaties

Firstly, treaties are supposed to reflect the genuine relationship one alliance has with another. In the best version of a treaty, they are public affirmations of mutual respect, trust, camaraderie and brotherhood. Yet nothing lasts forever, leaders come and go, and we are constantly witnessing the results of poor treaty management (see the NPO's maintenance of their relationship with TPF as our most recent example). If the respect and mutual admiration is there, why sign a piece of paper? If the respect and friendship is lacking, why trust that they'll honor their supposedly ironclad obligations to you? A quick scan of our world's history will show that in desperate times, the true character of an alliance will show, and a signature on a piece of paper will profit them nothing at all. These betrayals reveal the bankrupt nature of the treaty system.


I disagree in principle. Actions should be in accordance with laws, not feelings. If an alliance wants to go to war, it should justify not by an ethereal relationship, but by providing a documented basis for doing so. I think that this lack of respect for laws makes the entire political system less interesting. How do you scheme a way to put your alliance into power if you can't count on the rest of the alliances to play the game? How do you built up an elaborate plot to overthrow an enemy if the other alliances do whatever they want, whenever they want? Are these laws going to be broken sometimes? Yes. How do we prevent this? Two ways: first, internally, we must hold ourselves to our commitments. If your alliance leadership doesn't honor a treaty, then you should find a new alliance. Second, externally, we must realize that alliances that will ignore a treaty today will ignore a treaty tomorrow. An alliance that doesn't honor its treaties should find the rest of its partners cancelling on it shortly thereafter.

A necessary corollary to this thought is that alliances must avoid conflicts of treaties, and have a plan to resolve their treaties if they do come into conflict, legally. I have no problem with anti-chaining clauses in treaties for this exact reason.
 

2. Paperlessness Encourages Activity

Moving to my second point: Abandoning paper encourages, indeed requires, a certain level of activity. In a world rife with ennui and boredom, those who abandon the restrictive confines of the treaty web must be an active, constant presence in the diplomatic channels of their friends; they must renew the relationship consistently by affirming with action and behavior what most lean on their treaties to affirm. Kashmir retains its many positive diplomatic relationships by being an active friend, and being consistent both in our diplomatic activity levels and our pursuit of military excellence.

This is an interesting point because I think that it requires more activity without encouraging that activity. Yes, to maintain a relationship in this new scheme would require a much more active foreign affairs. But I don't think that there's any compelling reason to do so. Why do we build relationship and treaties? It's because we want to make our alliance the best, not just to acknowledge a friendship. In a chaotic, post-legal world, it becomes impossible to make long-term, effective plans to change the world around you. So I have an incentive to be active to make or maintain a relationship, but no reason to want that same relationship. In the end, it's probably worse for activity.
 

3. The Return of Fairness

Fairness returns to CN with a vengeance when people abandon the treaty-model as a way of engaging their political compatriots. Bloc politics and the behaviors of the super-coalitions restrict the activity and behavior of its members, promising victory if only they'll muzzle their nation leaders and restrain their natural behavior. While we'll probably never see the day the freedom Kashmir advocates obtain globally, a strong enough movement away from the treaty web confuses the models and analysis of those cynical power players who make relationships with alliances, not in order to profess or express a mutual friendship or admiration, but to chain their friends into their next power play.

I believe strongly that what you define as "fair" is better called "equal". Equality in result is not a good goal, with no offense meant to our Communist members. If nation A or alliance B makes poor decisions, then their "natural behavior" should result in them being crushed. It may take cynical means to put your alliance or your bloc in power, but it can be done with noble goals. I want every alliance to have a view for how the cyberverse should be run, and I want them to put all of their energy into making the cyberverse look that way. Your goal might be to ban raiding the non-aligned. Your goal might be to encourage democracy or free Senate seats or to tamp down on hateful or irritating misconduct. But if you don't have a goal and the will to accomplish it, then you should be relegated to the sidelines while those that do make themselves heard.
 

4. The Element of Surprise

Surprise returns as well; it requires much more than a simple reading of the tea leaves to say who will war with whom in a treatiless model. Kashmir saw the advantage of our paperless way of life in the Doom War, when our friends the SRA came into the conflict on our behalf, much to the surprise of their enemies. What other sudden twists and exciting conflicts can occur when the geopolitical environment isn't dominated by web manipulation, cynicism, the old "Wait and See" attitude? When victory isn't guaranteed by being a member of the latest faddish bloc, activity abounds as people seek out their natural friends and enemies and engage them.


Here's another interesting point, because its premise is mostly true without its result being a good thing. First, the existence of overt treaties does not preclude the existence of secret treaties or plots. This is my quibble with the logic of the point itself; the element of surprise can still exist in the cyberverse, it's just supplemented by the treaty system. The larger problem that I have is that when there is no expected course of action there are no surprises. If my bookcase fell over right now while I'm writing this post, that would be surprising. If my house was on fire and my bookcase fell over, I wouldn't even notice. A chaotic interalliance system precludes true surprise, which can only exist in an ordered, comprehensible world.
 

5. The People vs. the Political Class

Finally, a communal ascent into a paperless environment will finally and utterly confound that class of political power players who operate in cynicism and prey upon those alliances who eschew their methods. If you doubt that this class exists, I must ask you the following questions:

How many ways have the lines stretched as puppet masters pulled strings, arranged loopholes in legal language to refrain from assisting a sworn comrade, called down cascading declarations from alliances far outside the true conflict, or to otherwise manipulate the treatied classes? How many useless pieces of paper build a immense warband of untested soldiers, only to be revealed as useless when the bullets fly?


If this is your goal, I encourage you to pursue it, but you should use treaties as a tool to accomplish it. If you want to overthrow the ruling structure of the Cyberverse, then surely a web of allies, working together towards one goal, would be the strongest advantage imaginable. If it's not working for you, then it might be time to not look at the treaties as your enemy, but instead at your enemies themselves. Perhaps they are simply playing the game better than you. If that is the case - play better.

Overall, I have two things to say to close.

First, I think that your post is extremely well-written, and that this type of discourse is extremely helpful to the cyberverse at large. I applaud you for taking the time to write it and to write it well. It brings back some memories of when well-structured and reasoned discourse was the norm, not the exception. Second, I agree that reform needs to come to the treaty system. I propose, however, that we reform the system by making treaties truly meaningful. If you are going to sign a treaty (with the exception of humorous treaties meant to poke fun at alliances that might take themselves too seriously), mean it. Hold to it. And if your allies don't hold to their treaties, then isolate them and stop doing business with them. Only we can police the system of laws that we have established. I encourage us all to do a better job of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be totally down with a paperless world but that will be nigh impossible.
 
 
No, what most people want is a world in which the top 20 alliances don't hold 100 treaties between the 20 of them. That makes !@#$ boring for everyone really since if the top 20 get their panties in a twist, they can roll just about anyone else since those 20 alliances also tend to hold around 200 treaties with another 60 or so alliances. That is what this is all about really.

Paperless wouldn't solve that one damned bit. The average alliance joining the winning side doesn't do so because paper obligated them - in most cases, it doesn't.

Alliances are going to organize themselves in some way for collective security purposes, whether it be through treaties or not. It would be a distinction without a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paperless wouldn't solve that one damned bit. The average alliance joining the winning side doesn't do so because paper obligated them - in most cases, it doesn't.

Alliances are going to organize themselves in some way for collective security purposes, whether it be through treaties or not. It would be a distinction without a difference.

 

I get what you are saying and for the most part that is true but without paper backing it up, it would be easier to back out of a war or to join on a different side. This could lead to a mess worse than the treaty web or something slightly better. But with the current mess, you could hit a fringe alliance and given the amount of treaties, start a global war rather easy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

I get what you are saying and for the most part that is true but without paper backing it up, it would be easier to back out of a war or to join on a different side. This could lead to a mess worse than the treaty web or something slightly better. But with the current mess, you could hit a fringe alliance and given the amount of treaties, start a global war rather easy.

 

With the current climate as-is, you can predict exactly which fringe alliance can/will do so. Part of the intrigue paperless relationships offer. Surprise, as OP point 4 notes. 

 

In response to Holton, yes - the relationships will still exist; but the point I'm taking out of my interpretation of the OP is that the activity and such comes from alliances having to actually maintain those relationships. Not just sign a piece of paper and then have infrequent and inconsistent activity with each other till such time the treaty is needed [or broke; or cancelled]. Where some discord may come about or various reasons. People may choose to break those, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll get off scot-free. At least, not if the other involved alliance is active and vocal about the transgression. Brings back a level of debatable politics to the world - and a different angle to politiks. 'Verbal paperless agreements' - I like the way Eviljak words it. 

Edited by Rayvon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprisingly, there's some really neat discussion going on here; thought I might bring up a cent or two.

 

I think MTTezla succinctly phrased what I consider to be a primary problem on Bob today, quoted here for clarity:

 

I want every alliance to have a view for how the cyberverse should be run, and I want them to put all of their energy into making the cyberverse look that way.

 

Outside a few exceptions, it seems to me that there is little investment in alliance persona/ideology anymore. To paraphrase SUN's Fen_Dorbek, we don't necessarily need more armed conflict to make things interesting, we need more investment in alliance politics (both internal and external). In my experience, however, most alliances fail in one or two regards:

 

1) They simply don't have unified (or at least multiple substantive) positions on such things as economic policies, senate sanctions, etc. and oppositions to others' views

2) They fail to staff their internal positions with people who are ambitious enough/willing enough to see those ideals realized.

 

Again, outside a few exceptions, It seems to me like the only alliance ideal remaining today is "Join us and we'll try not to get you rolled for a little while." People complain about how annoying Seph and Junka are, but I have to say that I'm glad they're at least fighting over visions of what the brown sphere should be like. Plus, if more people were willing to care about that fight (or something similar), perhaps there'd be some more variety on these boards. I know it's cool to say you don't care, but that makes me wonder why you're hanging around.

 

So back to treaties: you don't need my validation, but keep up the fight if that's what you believe in. Fight to make Bob a paperless planet :ehm:

I think treaties, whether public or not, verbal or written, can be useful to codify the steps alliances wish to take to mutually achieve their goals.

Edited by Bernhard Klein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we really need to do is get rid of alliances! It's all these collective defense agreements that are messing the game up, if everyone had to go it alone we'd see some real action!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it? Can you name off hand all the alliances that abandoned NPO during Karma without looking at the wiki? I can't. Memory fades, or is manipulated by present circumstances.


So EVENTUALLY people forget. (tho I think people who were around back then still remember one or two, just not all).. they still suffered the coward's stigma for a long time. Pretty sure I've seen people in the past year criticize IRON for it's part in that.. even though Karma was like, what? 6, 7 years ago?

No one cares what the chattering classes of the OWF have to say about their treaty obligations because they, like everyone else born to the race of mankind, assume that their conditions are unique and their experiences singular.


A lot of the ruling class does care, because it shows said alliances to be less trustworthy.

Fairness returns to CN with a vengeance when people abandon the treaty-model as a way of engaging their political compatriots. Bloc politics and the behaviors of the super-coalitions restrict the activity and behavior of its members, promising victory if only they'll muzzle their nation leaders and restrain their natural behavior.


We would see the true nature of more nations, for sure, but fairness? Ha, give me a break. Friends would still gang up on people all the time. I'd even go so far to argue that the treaty web increases fairness in a lot of ways. With everyone connected, it encourages diplomacy and mediation with smaller alliances that normally would just have been rolled because they can be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone brings up karma cause that was biggest things to happen in CN. Everything since has been crap, some better than others, but still crap.

At this point in the game everyone is tied to everyone in some fashion (via chains). To the extent NPO could have a civil war and it turn into a global war.

When it comes down to it treaties only mean 3 things. 1) save my precious pixels, 2) used to prevent a counter from a certain AA as you bash their treaty partner, 3) actual commitment/friendship.

I wish wars could be grudge/death matches between 2-4 AAs without everyone and their mom coming in, but that is way in the past. Now it's build/collect/save for a year and have 1 lopsided fight for a handful of months. I rather go back to having AAs pay reps when they lose than that crap. At least the rep payment creates a grudge/hatred towards certain AAs. Gives alliances something to work strive for the next war. Then again alliances will just suck up to any opposing AA that remotely resembles a challenge as we see today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The treaty web is almost meaningless anyway, I mean everything is non-chaining and people ignore the chains that lead them into the loaing side with some notable exceptions.

The side that actively builds a coalition seems to win, regardless of treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the lead up to the Karma War, the Karma Side included many alliances still in Continuum wno were already plotting NPO's fall under the framework of a potential new bloc. So if an alliance tries using treaties as a means of control & gets everyone to sign with them who don't want to get rolled; then those alliances can use that treaty to avoid getting rolled up until the moment they are ready to make their move.

 

So even if everyone is a treaty chain away or allied, that doesn't mean everyone will act as the treaties dictate if people have different motivations. So on paper an alliance might look invincible if every treaty partner gave full assistance, but that's not always the case.

Edited by Sephiroth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...