Jump to content

Burn The Treaty Web


Margrave

Recommended Posts

You have something secret with most people :P

 

54152751.jpg

 

In nearly all the treaty web discussions, very few (except the insanely extreme few) have actually attempted to discuss "zero treaties" as being a definition of 'no one can be allied to anyone' .. But really more so against the documented treaties known as the Treaty Web. Such an environment as you are here noting Kashmir to reside in is more what most of us have attempted to suggest (NSO is an alliance you will find proudly, strongly and firmly beside Kashmir for any and all reasons between our alliances in an undocumented relationship). But people tend to go all Chicken Little about their treaties thinking the suggestion is to remove all relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like well-written treaties because they precisely define relationships between alliances in a way that is easily grasped by non-govt nation rulers. It lets the average nation ruler make better judgment calls and "vote with their feet" depending on alliances they want/don't want to be allies with. Without written treaties, things become less clearly defined and more uncertain for most people.

 

I don't think getting rid of the treaty web would make for more action. There would be more uncertainty... I think major wars was would be even less frequent when there is nothing to bind alliances together aside from private agreements, combined with the fact you aren't exactly sure how many secret pacts your adversaries have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well written, Margrave.   Also, as an ally of Kashmir for the past couple years, I will say that if anyone is interested in going paperless as far as treaties go, Kashmir is a good group to talk to.  A couple thoughts on the OP.   I may have some more general comments later.

 

There are a few comments I have regarding treaties before talking about the issues brought up by the OP.  It's how I view treaties generally.

 

A treaty is a written agreement between two or more sovereigns.  It does not have to be public.  It does not have to take any particular form or have specific clauses, etc.  It just has to be written , state the duties of both parties in reference to their obligations to each other and be approved by a person (or people) who hold plenipotentiary power.  (full authority to represent the particular nation - or in the case of Planet Bob generally speaking - alliance).   The treaty can also end however is agreed between the parties involved or just simply become obsolete because it isn't followed.

 

There are many ideas that people hold as somehow necessary for a treaty which are simply not true.  Thus, we (as individual alliances and/or as a whole community) can change how they are done, up to not having them if we wish.  In addition, there is nothing in the above that states that a treaty is enforceable.  Note, I'm not saying that there are no consequences for breaking a treaty.  There can and often are consequences.  However there is no way that if alliance A and alliance B sign a treaty on Planet Bob and alliance A does not meet it's obligations there is no way for alliance B to make some sort of case against alliance A that will absolutely result in alliance A doing anything that was agreed to.  Thus, all treaties are based on the belief that the other signatories are taking part in good faith and will meet the obligations agreed to.  Having said that, I do think there are good reasons to hold treaties.  However, it should be understood that a chance is being taken regardless.

 

Regarding specific comments in response to the OP...

 

 



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

 


 

 

1. Relationships Do Not Require Treaties

 

I agree., mostly.  However I don't think that treaties necessarily hurt them either.  It's more what works for the relationship between the alliances.  When two alliances first decide that they will be allies of some sort, I think it is a good idea to spell out the specifics of who will do what, when and under what conditions.  I also think that published treaties are needed in some instances.  The big example is the protector - protected treaty.   As a general rule, those are used for situation where one alliance for whatever reason isn't powerful enough to protect itself so another steps in and assists until the situation changes and the protected alliance is able to be an equal partner or another arrangement is made.

 

Also a comment about Friends > Infrastructure:  I remember this as an idea that really started becoming popular leading up to the Karma war.  Personally, I was not super involved in world politics at that time so I'm sure there are people who can speak better about this and perhaps I'm wrong.   However, what I remember is it being used as a rally cry for convincing nation leaders and alliances to lose the personal resources necessary to take down the hegemony of the time because doing so would be extremely costly for individuals.  When it's said, it usually is used as a justification for why individual nations should keep fighting a difficult war or otherwise take actions that go against their own prosperity and the safety of their people.   I am not critical of the idea.  In fact, I have encouraged it plenty and will in the future.  However, I think it did change the way people viewed this world somewhat.  It is debatable whether or not it is for the best.  We have a much smaller world here and it is easier for all of us to know each other.  Instead of a war at this point, the concept of "friends are greater than infrastructure" could arguably be a rally for peace exactly because we are all friends and thus who cares which one of us is at the top or otherwise.  I find that a bit ironic. 

 

2. Paperlessness Encourages Activity

 

It has been my experience that this is correct.  Why do you think that is the case?

 

3.The Return of Fairness

 

I doubt this is true.  In fact, I think that if no one had written treaties, it would be even easier to break promises, to hid information and to claim that so and so agreed to do X, Y and Z and didn't do X and Z.  Treaties don't make people accountable to them, but they help show what was agreed to and can keep alliances to some level of accountability that I think would be lost without their use.

 

4. The Element of Surprise

 

There would be more surprises at first perhaps.  However my concern is that eventually the world would get into the same rut AND deals would just be made back room and we would basically have a similar "treaty web" but there would be nothing public.  I don't think that is necessarily a better situation. 

 

Plus there can be surprises now with the treaty web. The difference is that the surprise comes when a treaty is posted or ended and not at the time of war.  By the time a war begins there usually are no more surprises.  If your argument is that the surprise would happen during the war, yes - in that case you may be correct assuming no leaks or successful old fashioned spy work.

 

5. The People Vs The Political Class

 

See my points regarding surprise.  There can still be politics and everything that they involve, it will just be done even more behind the scenes than what happens now.  May that create more surprise?  Probably.  However it is likely to be at the cost of even less openness with the majority of the people of the world.

 

My personal opinion on this topic is that treaties themselves are necessary in some cases but not in others.  From my experience with Kashmir in particular, the fact that we are allies and don't have a written treaty speaks well about our relationship.  It does require better communication. 

 

I don't think that treaties in and of themselves have a major negative affect.  If they are left the same too long without communication between the parties, they can basically become obsolete.  I think THAT is problem that exists now and perhaps alliance leaders should take a good look at the treaties they hold and review them to see if they match the currents goals of the alliance or hinder them.  That may cut down on a few. 

 

I also think that there are a number of other creative ways that alliances could add and/or subtract to the agreements made in treaties.  For instance, most treaties require a 48 to 72 hour notice of cancellation.  Why?  72 hours is actually NOT a lot of time, especially considering it takes a few days at least to organize a war.  Thus in reality, I don't find a treaty that has that short of a cancellation period all that comforting - at least if the goal is to assure that your treaty partner will not 1) attack your group and/or 2) will not drop you and join up with the enemy against a friend in a few days. 

 

So in a way, regardless of what the treaty states otherwise, most are so easy to end that it is almost like not really having them at all.  Perhaps we are essentially paperless now anyway and just don't realize it. :P  

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margrave has put it very clearly, and i find myself in agreement with most of it.

As to why paperlessness increases activity... there are quiet a few reasons for that. Also two broad kinds of activities. Paper, lulls people into a sense of security, with not enough effort put into nurturing ties, the good FA teams might be exempt from this generalization but for a lot of us it holds true.

Paperless also brings in the element of communication and relationship managers very strongly, from the get go.

On the flip side, it is increased activity for those preparing to go to war, attacker and defender both. Lack of paper makes it a more interesting game as there is no almanac for ties. There is the possibility of "they came from behind!!!" As the gyrocopter goes down in flames. Makes you work harder at each FA related task and move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment about Friends > Infrastructure:  I remember this as an idea that really started becoming popular leading up to the Karma war.  Personally, I was not super involved in world politics at that time so I'm sure there are people who can speak better about this and perhaps I'm wrong.


I believe it was first used in noCB and the phrase was coined by CnG with most on the side calling the coalition that.
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.
Now, point by point.
 


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.
 


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.

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.
 

 

There are no "laws" on Planet Bob.  Even the idea that "might makes right" is not a law here.  Let me explain.  When I think of a "law" - I think of a written rule that if broken by one party can be brought to a neutral third party (at least for the laws to be "just") who has the power to force the first party to either comply with the rule or otherwise punish the party for breaking the law.  That is not the state of affairs on Planet Bob and as far as i know, at least between alliances, it has never been that way.  

 

The only way I could imagine there being anything close to law on our world is as follows: 1. the vast majority of alliances agree on what laws this world has and they be written down and 2. the majority of the world agreed that if some nation leader or alliance broke one of these laws, everyone else would punish that person/alliance and (at least to have these "laws" be at all actually "just')  if we had a neutral alliances who would serve as the "court" in disputes AND everyone agreed to follow said alliance's decision.  

 

Having said that, I DO understand that there are "common practices" and in some regard it can be argued "our community" (the nation leaders of Planet  Bob) enforce somewhat a community standard through the "court of public opinion."  I also understand how it benefits the alliances in power to pretend that the "common practices" in place (which usually benefit the power structure that is in place) has the force of law.  But that is a complete falsehood.  

 

I do appreciate your argument and thank you for taking the time to come discuss these issues.  Feel free to respond (or not) to my point.  I hope you do.

 

 

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. 

Why do you think it would be easier without paper?   Since treaties here tend to allow one alliance to cancel on another with only two or three days notice, that gives plenty of time to drop someone and join the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of brevity, I'll abandon the point/counterpoint format for the nonce and focus on what I feel the main thrust of the argument is.

 

 

Firstly, we've all nodded at the high probability that we'll never get everyone to abandon the treaty web. It's still in my mind the most desirable and idyllic state of affairs, and the goal I am always encouraging working towards, but we must live in the world as it is. For alliances, the paperless route allows a nimble, active foreign policy which can respond fluidly to wars and battles they or their allies might fight. One must pair this fluidity with an active membership base, involved leadership, and military reliability; harder for some than others to be sure. Never the less, Kashmir has successfully positioned itself in Digiterra based on a principle which is at the core of our being:

 

Honesty.

 

 

Our entire model is based upon internal transparency, crowd-sourced problem solving, meritocratic interactivity, and the common bonds we've forged with one another. Joining Kashmir brings one into the community, where your voice and your effect is roughly proportional to your involvement. Aside from the position of King, every government office has been held by a newer player (which is admittedly relative, but in a game ten years old 1 year or less players holding Cabinet positions is a nimble power structure). Our allies are willing to defend us in war and feel comfortable calling upon us at need because we've kept no secrets from them in regards to our intentions. Everyone knows what they're signing on for when they become friends with Kashmir. Where other 'players' rule their alliances and blocs based on cynicism, real politik, and an eye to use-relationships, there's no dead meat in the Kashmir foreign policy portfolio; in a world of half truths and shaded conversations, Kashmir uses Honesty to pursue its prosperity both internally and abroad. 

 

 

 

White Chocolate has hit upon an important issue. What are the laws of Digiterra? Aside from the material conditions, what exactly are the "rules", and how do we define them? For myself, I argue that we exist in a state of nature where the Leviathan has abdicated It's seat; perhaps following the Taoist principle that "The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects", our only potential Leviathan is content to sit and dream its quiet dreams, plotting perhaps but on a scale of time that frankly does not effect the day to day operations of the world. We do not wish for anyone to hold that one high seat on Bob, as its a great way to freeze the potential of many nations. Never the less, with the one we have, we are happy enough that they don't participate. Might may well make Right, but we will pursue our policies and what we believe in regardless of what the Mighty do or do not do.

 

 Kashmir recognizes that the only truly reliable entity is the self, the nation ruling itself. From there, seeking prosperity and advancement, a nation joins an Alliance. It becomes involved in the group identity, and pursues prosperity for the organization, sometimes at the expense of the individual. From there, alliance leaders wishing to pursue prosperity for themselves and their people sometimes form blocs, coalescing their foreign policy objectives with a group of others, sometimes to it's own detriment. At the end, the individual who first pursued his dream becomes unimportant, or at least so he/she is made to feel, unless they are inordinately charming, or have a nation with great power. This state of affairs has obtained throughout our shared history, and Kashmir refuses to participate in the model. 

 

By being Paperless, we free the alliance itself from being restrained and manipulated, not by our friends, who approach us in honesty and good faith, but by those who might have otherwise been a few treaty links away, plotting a war in which Kashmir might have been needed for its middle tier. We take ourselves out of the reach of these people, this class of  manipulators, while still honoring our bonds with other alliances.

 

Our allies know how we feel about them and the people they treaty with, so there's no surprise factor or betrayal if we refuse to commit  to a conflict chain. This honesty, paired with our record of putting our money where our mouth is militarily, frees us of of being charged with the sin of being 'paperless just to avoid fighting', or of cowardice, while allowing us to turn down conflicts which are at the behest of people who are not our friends.  This has been mostly an academic issue, as we've yet to not fight or support our allies at need in one way or another, but it is an important right to reserve, and we do so reserve it holding against the day where someone who has abused the treaty web attempts to entangle us in a conflict we have no part of or stake in.

 

 

Honesty, Individualism, and Prosperity are the heart of what we do in Kashmir, and I advocate it to every nation ruler and alliance leader as the best of all policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margrave preaches it real nice. With a little twist here and there, but yeah, he can speak.

 

A couple points though. Paperless versus papered is distraction. Kashmir has proven that if anyone doubted it. Completely besides the point.

 

National sovereignty is a very important concept. Gratifying to see others discovering it, no matter who they are. This must be the fundament, the grounding in reality.

 

Alliances of the traditional form allow for only a few people to actually 'exist' in the game, to have these relationships we are talking about. If we keep that form, then the size and number of alliances needs to scale to keep up with the number of people that actually want to 'exist' in this sense and are willing to spend the time to do so. As time goes on not just the total numbers but the proportions change and not always in the same direction.

 

There is a constant tension here between aggression and defense, between stability and chaos, between inactive micros with no officers and inactive macros driving active players out of the game because they are a threat to a position someone older feels they own.

 

Almost everyone wants just as much help as they can get, both for offense and defense. From each individuals point of view this makes perfect sense - we each want to survive and make our enemies hurt and the more backup we have the better for that. When everyone thinks that way and expects everyone else to think that way the game is total domination. Build your side enough bigger than the rest of the universe you own it and everyone else is your slave and they can suck your toe-jam, right? Physics, gratifyingly, does not coöperate fully with that fantasy however.

 

And at any rate I don't like that world. I don't even want to live in that world once I step back and look at the long view. I'd just as soon fire nukes till I am done if that's really all we can do.

 

I think we can do better. We can't get rid of relationships and friendships, no, and I would not want to. That's part of what makes this all worthwhile. But we can also involve alliance members more and involve the values that they want the alliance to uphold, at a level where important friendship might not necessarily trump them. We can allow more, smaller alliances to form for those that wish to be part of the relationship game without spending years working their way up to positions of trust in the big guys. We can build a treaty web, whether it's one that's officially published or subject to some coy game playing like Kashmir (and I'll even be fair enough to admit to a lesser degree CA as well) engages in doesn't really matter - but a treaty web that is not based on a power-gaming MADP mindset, but instead on the model of the expected relationship being closer to an ODOAP. Where it's normal for allies to NOT come immediately charging in on each side in a cascade when a couple of minor players come to blows, but instead where it's normal for friends of both sides to shrug and let them fight, at least for awhile.

 

We don't have to recreate GWIII every year. That's not actually all that interesting of an activity, when you think about it.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kashmir has never devalued the individual, nor is this stance of ours recent. Rather, we are making the public case for the way we do business and inviting those willing to dare to go and do likewise.

I take issue with your dismissal of my argument and cause being a "distraction", particularly since you make no argument for why it is that. You also fail to make an argument for how or why would anyone move towards your ideal; I show incentive and make my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take issue with your dismissal of my argument and cause being a "distraction", particularly since you make no argument for why it is that. You also fail to make an argument for how or why would anyone move towards your ideal; I show incentive and make my argument.

 

We are talking about the no paper idea - you realize I did not 'dismiss' your entire post, I actually had to admit I agreed with most of it, right?

 

So I'm not dismissing the no paper idea, I am just classifying it. It's a distraction. It's sort of a political equivalent to the chaff that a fighter jet will drop to distract a missile, capisç?

 

Ultimately whether you announce these things or not, and whether they are formal or informal, is not nearly as important as what they do.

 

What does no-paper do? Makes it slightly more difficult for a potential attacker to recon you quickly.

 

But otherwise, you have those agreements still, and they do become public knowledge, they have to be in order to serve their function. If you don't make an announcement you still wind up publicizing them in another way (because that's how you use these relationships, they don't work if people don't know about them.)

 

So yes, that particular aspect is absolutely just a distraction, a way of cloaking your actions or giving yourself a slight strategic edge against a sloppy planner, it really doesn't change the other aspects of what you're doing. If you go paperless and keep essentially the same FA you had before that otherwise, then all you have done is added a distraction.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will start by saying that I have not actually spent all day reading this.

 

With that said, I think that to burn the treaty web is not the same as to go paperless. Simply dispensing with paper but maintaining the same ties is not REALLY a change per se. However, if burning the treaty web means that each conflict gives every alliance a unique circumstance under which they select how they wish to react without the FA damage that breaking a treaty would cause, well that would actually be a game changer.

 

So the difference I see in this proposal has to do with how the world takes the circumstance. If everyone goes paperless but behaves in the same way, then nothing changes, But if every alliance had to behave and interact every day as if they could not definitely count on a certain amount of NS to back any decision or chain of decisions they made, then that could be transformative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points from a lot of people in the thread. I'm going to hit some of the highlights, if anyone sees something that I missed and they would like addressed, please let me know.

Margrave,

The utopian goals of political ideologies are rarely achieved in this or any other world, and certainly not for long. I am cognizant of the fact that there is a low probability of total success for Kashmirs philosophy becoming universal; I will, however work towards that happy state of affairs in the hopes that my labors will produce some form of value. That being said, my vision of that utopia lies smack in the middle between two extremes.
There was once a philosopher called Hobbes who posited that before the emergence of the State, the State of Nature was one where life was nasty, brutish, and short. People took what they wanted and damn all the rest. Many years later, a man named Rosseau argued that in fact the state of nature had been an idyllic Eden, peaceable, plentiful. Now who was right or wrong is more than I can say, but Kashmir recognizes a different state of nature in Digiterra; one where individual nations and alliances both compete in the pursuit of Prosperity.

Kashmir, holding to the school of thought that global politics needs much less entanglement in the way of absolute treaties, knowing full well, and understanding that global politics is a place of conflicting moral obligations and conflicting treaty obligations-- acknowledges that in this world of chaos there are those among us who would stake their right to defend and assist as they please.

Understanding that public policy toward all aspects of cybernation politics changes daily, Kashmir submits that alliances are bound only by true feelings of friendship and co-prosperity. It is with this submission that Kashmir accepts co-prosperity as the only means necessary to legally aid and assist, in aggressive or defensive, diplomatic, economic, or military tasks-- if so determined by the governance of Kashmir.


I'm interested to hear what the ultimate goal of the Kashmiri philosophy is. If it is the development of friendships and bonds between alliances, then I don't know that ridding the world of treaties is a good way to go about it. For example, the alliances of CnG regularly turn over their membership, just like any alliances do. It would be easy sometimes to just reassess all of the bonds between the alliances, and swing towards the friendships that we hold in the short term. But because we have a treaty with history and good will, we instead work to renew those bonds every few months, making sure that our new membership gets to know each other and ensuring that strong bonds will continue into the future. Is this possible without a treaty? Yes. But is it as likely? No.

If the end goal is to make the universe more interesting... well, that's I think where we disagree the most strongly. I think that people working hard to advance their goals is more valuable than a universe where anyone with a will and a whim has as much impact as those that work hard. But it's not just about what's more valuable, it's about what's more interesting. Everyone with an equal voice turns into a shouting match between every nation in the cyberverse. It's not interesting for anyone.

The political will does not exist to reform the institution. Those who have the respected voices are silent, as I have said, and your promises of activity from GATO are not proof of activity. I feel Ill start repeating myself if I continue this vein of argument, so well move on.

Youre arguing for an existence of a Leviathan; I posit we need no Leviathan, but rather, to liberate people from the paralyzing structure of the treaty web. Youre also not debating the existence of the political class which manipulates people in order to cause the wars they like; do you agree that they exist?


I'm going to lump these two points together for the sake of brevity. My answer to both is that the Leviathan is infinitely preferably to the state of nature. The state of nature is by its definition incapable of providing fulfillment; it's a state in which the ultimate goal is simple survival. In the same way that a human couldn't expect to make great works in a state of nature, an alliance can't expect to achieve great goals in a state of nature.

I do not deny the existence of a political class that influences wars, and I support such an existence. Where I think we disagree is the barrier to entry to this political class. I think that the only barriers are activity and competence. If you are fairly active and fairly competent, you can execute change in the world. If you're very motivated, then you can probably get a global war started.

I think youre partially right in that were in complete disagreement; I think youre wrong in defining a cultural victory as fleeting. I can point to the history of CN and show the rise and fall of hegemons and define the victory you pursue as fleeting, but you cannot point to a historical trend in CN to show the same for the Cultural Victory.


I can name many fleeting victories. In the early days, there was a severe prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons, to the point that GATO refused to use them in GATO-1V. This cultural victory was eventually erased in the years that followed. The cultural victory that we have now that allows nearly unlimited raiding of "None" members was not always that way; for a while, both NPO and GATO took extreme measures to prevent raiding in certain circumstances. Cultural victories over things like the use of sanctions in war, the legitimacy of attacking nations that aid belligerents, and the use of old nations in the low-NS tiers are all cultural debates that are ongoing.

I think I may not have a perfect grasp on what you define as a cultural victory, though, so I'm definitely looking for feedback on that point.

One thing this field of study needs, as a good tool to further discussion is terms. We're struggling to communicate ideas that frankly we don't have the language for (Like the spectrum or divide or what have you of the optional versus mandatory treaty writers, etc, etc)


Definitely agreed here.

I like well-written treaties because they precisely define relationships between alliances in a way that is easily grasped by non-govt nation rulers. It lets the average nation ruler make better judgment calls and "vote with their feet" depending on alliances they want/don't want to be allies with. Without written treaties, things become less clearly defined and more uncertain for most people.

I don't think getting rid of the treaty web would make for more action. There would be more uncertainty... I think major wars was would be even less frequent when there is nothing to bind alliances together aside from private agreements, combined with the fact you aren't exactly sure how many secret pacts your adversaries have.


I agree very much with both points made here. The second point is especially true - it's a lot harder to get a large, interesting war without treaties.

There are no "laws" on Planet Bob. Even the idea that "might makes right" is not a law here. Let me explain. When I think of a "law" - I think of a written rule that if broken by one party can be brought to a neutral third party (at least for the laws to be "just") who has the power to force the first party to either comply with the rule or otherwise punish the party for breaking the law. That is not the state of affairs on Planet Bob and as far as i know, at least between alliances, it has never been that way.

The only way I could imagine there being anything close to law on our world is as follows: 1. the vast majority of alliances agree on what laws this world has and they be written down and 2. the majority of the world agreed that if some nation leader or alliance broke one of these laws, everyone else would punish that person/alliance and (at least to have these "laws" be at all actually "just') if we had a neutral alliances who would serve as the "court" in disputes AND everyone agreed to follow said alliance's decision.

Having said that, I DO understand that there are "common practices" and in some regard it can be argued "our community" (the nation leaders of Planet Bob) enforce somewhat a community standard through the "court of public opinion." I also understand how it benefits the alliances in power to pretend that the "common practices" in place (which usually benefit the power structure that is in place) has the force of law. But that is a complete falsehood.

I do appreciate your argument and thank you for taking the time to come discuss these issues. Feel free to respond (or not) to my point. I hope you do.


Well said, and you make an important definitional distinction between a law and a social norm. You are right that I am referring to social norms or common practices which are enforced through public opinion and action vice laws that are enforced by a third party. I think the concept of true laws are interesting but do not and have not ever existed as far as I know.*

The enforcement of community guidelines backed by the force of arms has happened before, and usually in a similar pursuit to what Margrave is advocating. I think that the Karma War is the best example of this enforcement in action; a great percentage of alliances and nation leaders came together against the idea that there should be a hegemony that determined both alliance politics and morality in interactions was unacceptable. I think that alliances attempting to enforce these community standards is an important part of the game and should be encouraged.

How does this interact with the topic at hand? One of the longest-lived and most important social norms that we have is that wars should be justified, and the existence of treaties justifies those wars. In addition, the binding nature of treaties is a social norm; if someone were to abandon a treaty when an ally was attacked, for example, that should lead to repercussions from the rest of the community. If we eliminate treaties, we eliminate those interesting avenues of gameplay.

Thank you all again for the interesting discussion, it's been very fun to write and read about.

*[OOC: Except Terms of Service and moderation, but that's really more of a natural law.]
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:

 

Outside a few exceptions, it seems to me that there is little investment in alliance persona/ideology anymore. 

 

 

I agree in general that there seems to be little investment in alliance ideology.  What I am curious about is why is this the case?  What do you think happened presuming we are correct?  

 

If anyone believes that we're wrong in this view, please speak up too.

 

 

But I wonder if it is enough. We have seen respected, neutral alliances attacked without reason and, when they defend themselves, only struck harder. Can you feel truly safe in this world, where a strong group can, without reason or warning, attack? If there is no rule of law, the strong will not have less sway over the weak - they will have much, much more. The rule of law builds part of the system that you want to see - an invisible web of ties between alliances that at some point say "enough". That this action is so far outside of the norms that we have established that it must be stopped even without a treaty saying that it must be so. Our disagreement on this point is that I think that treaties are an integral part of the structure of that rule of law, and strengthen the likelihood that people truly act on their beliefs.

 

 


I'm not exactly sure what your point is here in reference to the OP's discussion regarding the possibility of there not being a treaty web.  If your point is that Planet Bob needs the treaty web to avoid situations such as the above example, there WAS a treaty web at the time and it made no difference.  Neutral alliances have chosen to stay outside the web.  If anything, in my mind the better argument (assuming one wants to reference the above) is that the treaty web assists in these types of actions being possible and actually stops other alliances from taking action exactly because they don't have a treaty with the neutral alliance attacked.  In other words, the web (although it doesn't have to actually be this way) not only defines in many people's minds who alliance A can defend but also who alliance A can NOT defend.   Example:  alliance A and alliance B have a military treaty.  Thus "legally" alliance B is attacked and alliance A can defend.  However when alliance C is attacked, alliance A can't defend C because alliance C has no treaty allowing for that with alliance A.  

 

As one of the leaders involved in that particular war (I was in DBDC at the time), I find it amusing that you decided to use that example.  If anything, to me it shows one of the exploitable aspects of the treaty web.  Also, there was a reason for the attack for whatever that is worth, but it was not one generally used, at least not openly and in polite company :P

 

I will start by saying that I have not actually spent all day reading this.

 

However, if burning the treaty web means that each conflict gives every alliance a unique circumstance under which they select how they wish to react without the FA damage that breaking a treaty would cause, well that would actually be a game changer.

 

 

 

It absolutely would be a game changer and that is one of the reasons I'm interested in this discussion.  I am sure all of us have personal examples where, had the "common practice" allowed for us as individuals or as alliances, to make decisions based on the specific reason for the war and not based on treaty obligations, we would of done something different.

 

Well said, and you make an important definitional distinction between a law and a social norm. You are right that I am referring to social norms or common practices which are enforced through public opinion and action vice laws that are enforced by a third party. I think the concept of true laws are interesting but do not and have not ever existed as far as I know.*

The enforcement of community guidelines backed by the force of arms has happened before, and usually in a similar pursuit to what Margrave is advocating.

One of the longest-lived and most important social norms that we have is that wars should be justified, and the existence of treaties justifies those wars. In addition, the binding nature of treaties is a social norm; if someone were to abandon a treaty when an ally was attacked, for example, that should lead to repercussions from the rest of the community. If we eliminate treaties, we eliminate those interesting avenues of gameplay.

Thank you all again for the interesting discussion, it's been very fun to write and read about.

*[OOC: Except Terms of Service and moderation, but that's really more of a natural law.]

Thank you.  Now that we agree on that, the reason I made the distinction is that using the term "law" in many people's mind gives these various social norms the illusion of far more force and power than is actually correct.   The vast majority of the social norms were already decided and in place when I came to this planet in 2008.  I never agreed to them and I'm sure that now that it is 2016, I'm in the majority in that regard.  In addition, the world is different now then it was at the time that most of these social norms were developed.  Yet they remain.  Why?

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...