OBR Treaties

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons of Digiterra

Peace having for the most part made a reappearance we felt it timely to unveil our thinking on the way we would move forward.

Ruminations on the future approach of The Order of the Black Rose have led the Knights Council to conclude that the time is ripe for a review and restatement of the values that we believe in. We believe that we have proven in times of peace and times of war, that our integrity, discretion and support may be relied upon by our allies, militarily, economically and diplomatically. Our word is our bond and it is given to friends without the need to lock it down to the letter.

As Digiterra has evolved, some alliances have chosen to remove the traditional bonds of formal treaty, others have worked vigorously to upgrade to tighter rules and formality in their treaty ties. The OBR is dedicated to upholding not just the word but the spirit of any agreement, be it ever so base as a mere handshake. The quality of the ally and their word is of far more value than the strict written word of a treaty that may be cancelled. Thus, for us, an ODP is far more valuable with those we trust than an MADP with those we are unsure of. This means that there is no need for more than an ODP to show our belief and trust in an ally.

Formal treaties on Digiterra have all too often the shelf life of a Billy Ray Cyrus tune. They are fun to construct and sign but played more than once they lose any appeal. There are some very good and long standing treaties that have been honoured through thick and thin, and to those alliances that have done so regardless of affiliation we salute your proud effort. Sadly, more often even MADP’s are slyly gone around or outright cancelled at the hint of a troubling event. Worse, we have seen some alliances mindlessly follow the actions of friends or treaty partners into actions that are neither becoming nor fair so that they may say “WE honour our word”, or more insidiously “friends before pixels.” It is not valorous to support the actions of a friend or ally in an affair that is questionable or disagreeable. Supporting a friend is good, providing wisdom and disagreement is however the truly difficult and decent thing to do.

Each war we have witnessed regularly degenerates into name calling, insults, and mind numbing debates about who is right and wrong and who was the aggressor. Let us clarify our position. If you initiate an attack on another alliance unbidden, you are the aggressor. This does not mean that you do not have a valid CB or reason. If this action causes anybody else to attack you, you are still the aggressor. You chose war, live with it. Giving up the ability to be an aggressor gives up a small tactical advantage. Principles come with a cost. Insults, flaming, OCC attacks or dating your mom may all be legitimate CBs, but you are still the aggressor. Casus Belli means justification, not necessity, for war. All of the above are annoying and vile but not a real reason for war. Slapping the person who insults you is gratifying and justifiable but staying your hand and trying to come to terms with your adversary is true courage. War is part of the system not all of the system. War should always be an option. We feel it should be the last option.

Rogues are gutless and unimaginative little dweebs who deserve our loathing rather than applause. They bring nothing but pain for their own short comings. Tech raiding is institutionalized theft. Regrettably it is a part of the atmosphere of Digiterra and will not vanish. We do not support it, nor do we approve of it. This does not mean that others may not wish to explore that part of the texture of Digiterra; this makes it no less unsavoury for us. To each his own, it is far too often used as an excuse to turn and look the other way. There is no acceptable excuse, nor do we condone these actions.

Political activism can be interesting and rewarding. Neutrality can be comforting and profitable. We feel that the political machinations of Digiterra are well handled by those who enjoy the process. We are certain the ranks of the Neutral need no further additions. For reasons we cannot understand, it is assumed that one cannot both retain objectivity and still care. We do. The winds of Digiterra buffet the Rosular Kingdom with the same force as it does others, and the dust disturbed bother us greatly. We watch the storms that blow across all Digiterra and will continue to do what we can, both in the light of day and the quiet back-rooms, to help make the Digiterran community a better place.

Digiterra, for a great many, is neither the system of war nor economics. It is the relations between nations and, most importantly, the community within an alliance. The nature of what an alliance is has been debated endlessly with little agreement. For us however, when two or more band together under a common AA and make the effort to institute a community via a forum, wiki listing or IRC channel, then they ARE an alliance. Why is this important if we do not tech raid? The basis of greater Digiterra is community, and that manifests itself in alliances. Thus the destruction of, or constant harassment of, an alliance is unfathomable to us. Wars are not the only part of this game. However, if done right, with dignity and notice, and a legitimate understanding of fair play, it can build not only an individual alliance, but make friends of enemies. As can be seen by our terms of war, the Order believes that those who choose to engage in war should not profit from it, and should not seek any restitution that punishes an opponent while enriching themselves. There have been wars that have been fought to punish an aggressor or particularly nefarious action. Recompense, if offered and rejected early on, does not justify a long war for the purpose of punishing the opponent or enriching one’s own alliance. Penalties are only valid if used to punish egregious acts when the penalty is passed on to an uninvolved third party, otherwise it is just looting. Since community is the basis for Digiterra, then war booty that cripples an alliance or nation is nothing but petty childishness. We have seen the great cry of "its only pixels" used to justify ZIing of nations and hobbling of alliances. Yet it is those same people who gladly enhance their own pixels with captured loot and surrendered payments. So we ask … which is it? It cannot be both.

In the past, we have looked at individual treaties as well as a common treaty. The time has come to hearken back to our past. We seek to ally with those who share similar beliefs. We do not disparage those who choose to approach life on Digiterra in a different fashion. That is their right and we hope they find that, over time, a more amicable way is far more enjoyable, Should some see our pledge and see it as a way forward we shall be most honoured.
We thus provide the wording of our two Bilateral but standardized treaty types going forward.


Pledge of Values

We, the undersigned, will:
1. agree to an ODP with other signatories in the case of an attack as a result of an aggressive attack on them. This ODP is non-chaining and does not become effective if the Alliance chooses to engage in war via any type of treaty or any other reason.
2. not engage in offensive war regardless of provocation.(offensive wars are ones not dictated by specific defensive treaty obligations or as a direct result of hostile action including spying.)
3. not engage in spy operation. (Save in the specific in system methods during war only.)
4. not condone tech raiding.
5. not engage in PZI or EZI.
6. neither seek nor accept war reparations that exceed damages incurred.
7. never accept punitive war damages from the defeated. In the cases of particularly deplorable acts, punitive damages may be requested to go to an uninvolved third party.
8. never demand war reparations totaling to all victors an amount exceeding 25% of the tech level of the defeated alliance at the time of surrender or the tech equivalent of 50% of the aid slots of an alliance for a period of no greater than 4 months whichever is lesser and no more than a monetary equivalent of 50% of the aid slots of an alliance for a period no greater than 4 months.
9. not maintain war with an enemy who offers terms that either meets the losses suffered or the reparations outlined in #8.
10. honor the concept of community and alliance integrity. They shall never require disbandment, viceroyship or any other form of control or access to forums, IRC channels or government of the defeated alliance.
11. agree that signatories may require the standing down from government in the case of flagrant heinous acts by a government member for a term not to exceed four months.
12. never demand destruction of wonders or improvements in surrender terms. They shall never require the disbanding of troops below 40% level.
13. freely offer economic support to help rebuild a signatory in the event of an attack on that signatory.
14. always engage all nation leaders in public and private venues with courtesy, respect and dignity even if the views expressed are disagreeable.
15. treat all information that affects another signatory as private and vital to be transmitted to the effected alliance.
16. be encouraged to exchange wisdom and expertise as well as economic cooperation for the benefit of all.
17. maintain active embassies with other signatories and provide a privileged spot in their own diplomatic forums for other signatories.
18. always resolve differences in a private and confidential manner either through their embassies or IRC with other government members.
19. allow modification of this pledge with mutual consent of all signatories.

Furthermore, all signatories agree that they may cancel their treaty obligations with 72 hours notice and an additional 72 hours of a non-aggression pact. These time frames are doubled for the Order of the Black Rose.

Letter of Amity

On Digiterra are many good alliances that have chosen paths that we find pleasing to our style. These alliances may not yet be our partners in a treaty or may due to their neutrality be unable to partake of a defensive treaty. It is however important from time to time to acknowledge our desire to share more than a friendly nod in the corridors of diplomacy.
To that end we recognize the goodwill, friendship and shared values through this Letter of Amity.

Signatories

1. Acknowledge a desire to further relations in a formal fashion.
2. Pledge special care in the positive discourse between members in all public venues.
3. Refrain from negative commentary or complaint in all public venues.
4. Agree to resolve all reasonable grievances in a private and cordial manner.
5. Will pursue broader social contact between members.
6. Open economic interests with each other
7. Share information or intelligence that is received that impacts the other.
8. Be open to enhancing the level of formal diplomatic relations where reasonable.
9. Refrain from any aggressive military action or spying efforts against the other.
10. Refrain from providing succour to an enemy of the other during war.
11. Will provide knowledge, advice and aid in reasonable measure as requested.
12. Maintain a formal active diplomatic post in the Alliance Forum of each other.

Cancellation may be sadly accepted with 48 hours notice and a further 72 hours of NAP.

Editted to improve the clarity of #2 of the PoV
Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

Edited April 11, 2010 by Hime Themis

[Delta1212]

Could you explain "11. agree that signatories may require the standing down from government in the case of flagrant heinous acts by a government member for a term not to exceed four months."? It's not clear exactly what that entails.

[WalkerNinja]

Does the adoption of the common-treaty format retroactively affect your current treaties?

[Sephiroth]

Some alliances would rather disband than force a leader out due to outside influence, so clarification on that part I think would be good as well. Other than that excellent document.

[President Obama]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='07 April 2010 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1270608175' post='2251102']
Does the adoption of the common-treaty format retroactively affect your current treaties?
[/quote]
I'm wondering this as well.

[Kochers]

Very nice post, as always OBR.

[montypython]

Is there a much shorter version of this announcement, for, oh say, anyone who doesn't want to read a novel?

Does this cancel other treaties?

[bigwoody]

An intriguing path to take...and certainly some worthy principles you have outlined.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

Excellent questions. #11 says a call for a government member to step down may never be a permanent request nor may they be forced out of an alliance period by a signatory.I believe many may check our terms of engagement for our last two conflict to understand our own position on this. Our current ODPs are not superceded and our treaty partners have been contacted directly earlier to consider upgrading to this treaty and are the only ones yet offered the chance to sign.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

PS Sorry for those looking for a TLDR there is none. It is a Pledge of Values that covers many items we hope it is actually worth reading.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Hime Themis

[Lord Fingolfin]

I don't agree with everything, I'd rather have seen no reps in any case and no removal of government, in addition I feel as though there are certain cases where an "offensive" war would be justified. But overall well stated, hope this works out for you

[commander thrawn]

I like this

Good post Hime Themis.

[Guffey]

OBR, you guys have always been one of the top alliances in the game. you guys always show respect in every situation. These are two very well written documents.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Guffey

[Haflinger]

I don't like #2 or #11. The rest are all very good. IMO #8 does not go far enough, those numbers are still much too high though.

[Geoffron X]

This is respectable. I like the reparation and war limits. However, removing the ability for offensive wars would make this world boring.

Getting on my soapbox for a moment, how wars are fought on planet bob needs to change. They need to be shorter. They need to have less reparations. However, they also need to be more common. Long periods of peace are boring. Similarly, long periods of war are boring after the first month.

[D34th]

I don't like ODPs and find the excuse of "an ODP is far more valuable with those we trust than an MADP with those we are unsure of." a poor one, if you trust someone there is no need to just optionally defend them in case of attack and of course if you are unsure of someoe you wont sign a MADP.

[b]That being said[/b] I agree with the other things that you said, but that could be used in a non-chaining MDP where you were "obliged" to defend an ally in case of attack and include canceleting clauses about the acts in war that you don't agree with.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Hime Themis' date='06 April 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1270609486' post='2251138']
It is a Pledge of Values that covers many items we hope it is actually worth reading.
[/quote]

It was. I wish you the very best of luck with this, OBR.

[Sephiroth]

11. agree that signatories may require the standing down from government in the case of flagrant heinous acts by a government member for a term not to exceed four months.

Heinoius acts is vague, if you signed this with someone and they asked for the leader of OBR to step down would be you be treaty obligated to do so? Its one of those things that likely never will happen and shouldn't happen, but if you need to cite a treaty to bring about a leadership change with an alliance the treaty might be better off just being cancelled.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Methrage

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='D34th' date='07 April 2010 - 04:43 AM' timestamp='1270611803' post='2251205']
I don't like ODPs and find the excuse of "an ODP is far more valuable with those we trust than an MADP with those we are unsure of." a poor one, if you trust someone there is no need to just optionally defend them in case of attack and of course if you are unsure of someoe you wont sign a MADP.

[b]That being said[/b] I agree with the other things that you said, but that could be used in a non-chaining MDP where you were "obliged" to defend an ally in case of attack and include canceleting clauses about the acts in war that you don't agree with.
[/quote]


ODPs are undervalued by some people. I think they require that allies maintain their friendship, a MADP can force people who don't like each other anymore to help each other out.

[Xiphosis]

[OOC] OOC references in an OBR OP, never thought I'd ever see the day. Not snark, just saying. [/OOC]

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='06 April 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1270611600' post='2251197']
This is respectable. I like the reparation and war limits. However, removing the ability for offensive wars would make this world boring.

Getting on my soapbox for a moment, how wars are fought on planet bob needs to change. They need to be shorter. They need to have less reparations. However, they also need to be more common. Long periods of peace are boring. Similarly, long periods of war are boring after the first month.
[/quote]

I agree with what is said here.

[Sephiroth]

2. not engage in offensive war regardless of provocation.(offensive wars are ones not dictated by specific defensive treaty obligations.)

I agree this one is vague to, what if one has an ODP with a color sphere like ODN and all of CN like the NSO with the Moldavi Doctrine. The Moldavi Doctrine isn't limited to just wars involving NSO as well, so any alliance could cite it. Would you consider alliances citing unilateral declarations by alliance's other than OBR valid? Also what of oA clauses in treaties to enter wars for strategic purposes in large scale wars that the offensive side can often times be unclear?

[Hime Themis]

Good Methrage

That item 11 is for peace terms that could be demanded in war only. I cannot define for all but as can be seen in our Terms of engagement we would not ask this. However we have seen examples in the past of OCC attacks that go way beyond reasonable and that would be in keeping with this portion of the treaty. It simply means that if we sign with an ally they will never ask for a permanent removal of a government member or their removal from an alliance. The preamble actually matters when reading the treaty. As to the discussion of what is aggressive please see the preamble. However. To be clearer. The ODP in the treaty does not EVER chain. If you declare war due to a ODP, MDP or other defensive treaty you are an attacker period. If you choose war then you choose war. So if we defend alliance A as per our ODP then no obligation arises with ANY of our other ODP treaty partners. Perhaps we were too subtle, war unless your alliance is attacked is a choice plain and simple. If we honour our obligation under our ODP then we cannot expect or demand any other ally to save us from our own choice of action.

Good D34th

I know you dislike ODPs we dislike careless and frequent use of cancellations of treaties. We think it is fairer to tell a friend they are wrong and you will not support their action and remain friends than the snivelling cancellation of treaties up to the MADP level when the wind shifts that are frequent in virtually every major conflict. We TRUST our ODP partners to continue to be friends and support us when we are right and let us know when we are wrong. We hope we have proven our own metal. Frankly if their were less pointless treaties and more allies that would tell their friends YOU ARE WRONG regardless of treaty type we would have less pointless wars and warfare would become a tool of diplomacy where we would great fellow warriors with pride at the end of a battle rather than the gutter sniping that so many of these conflicts produce.

Too All

Let me be clear #11 is to ensure our treaty partners express a very high level of respect for an alliances sovereignty by not allowing permanent government change and only in the absolute worst cases.
I suggest that for further background http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79629 the principles expressed here are as true today as they ever were. Nothing changes.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

Edited April 7, 2010 by Hime Themis

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='montypython' date='06 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1270608501' post='2251113']
Is there a much shorter version of this announcement, for, oh say, anyone who doesn't want to read a novel?

Does this cancel other treaties?
[/quote]
IF CSN's minister of finance is illiterate, can your minister of ...literature... count?

Edited April 7, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Kzoppistan]

Some respectable declarations, I agree with the spirit of this.


[quote name='commander thrawn' date='07 April 2010 - 12:54 AM' timestamp='1270612438' post='2251224']
ODPs are undervalued by some people. I think they require that allies maintain their friendship, a MADP can force people who don't like each other anymore to help each other out.
[/quote]

I agree with this, too. While non-optional treaties are obviously more comforting and indicative of a closer relationship, optional ones are indicative of overlapping values. I'd rather have a friend that I can count on when our aims converge than no friend at all. Some people take great offense when an alliance activates the optional part of a treaty and does not, or can not, provide assistance, but others are more comfortable with such a flexible relationship.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='07 April 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1270614387' post='2251293']
Some respectable declarations, I agree with the spirit of this.




I agree with this, too. While non-optional treaties are obviously more comforting and indicative of a closer relationship, optional ones are indicative of overlapping values. I'd rather have a friend that I can count on when our aims converge than no friend at all. Some people take great offense when an alliance activates the optional part of a treaty and does not, or can not, provide assistance, but others are more comfortable with such a flexible relationship.
[/quote]
It largely depends on the intention going in if people get upset, some see a treaty as a requirement, so some treaties will include ODP clauses like NOIR without expectation but just in case of other alliances having clauses needing one to recognize a CB as valid. NOIR is an example of one with many alliances and the ODP is there just in case, but no strong expectation. It depends on the strength of individual alliance relationships at the moment in the case of ODPs.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Methrage