LordSunday Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) To whom it may concern, Below and herein contains the official Gentlemen's Accord of all sovereign alliances in CyberNations: Tournament Edition. All recognized alliances containing more than 5 members shall henceforth be bound by this Accord and its contents herein. ARTICLE I: Parties All alliances with a membership above 5 members shall be recognized for membership with all parties. Parties may propose to the other parties additions, subtractions, or modifications to this Accord at any time. If an alliance falls below the membership requirements for the entirety of one round, that alliance's membership will be revoked until a time they can again meet the requirements. All parties holding membership can and will be entitled to one singular vote on any proposal regarding the Accord. The vote shall be treated as the voice of that particular alliance, and cannot be changed once submitted. ARTICLE II: Structure Within the representative members of each party, the representatives will, at the beginning of each round, place vote for a Chairperson for the Accord in that specific round. Any current sitting representative may be elected to the position of Chairman. The Chairman position contains no extra powers in voting or speaking, but is responsible for providing effective communication between representatives for that round. The Chairman is also charged with announcing modifications to the official Accord should any amendments be added. ARTICLE III: Amendments Any member party of the Accord may suggest edits to this accord at any time. Alterations to the Accord must be met with no less than a three-fourths agreement from voting parties before it may be amended. Amendments that are made will take their first effect at the beginning of the next scheduled round, and may be revoked following the same process. ARTICLE IV: Policies The signing membership and alliances hereby and here forth agree to bind one another to the following policies: - An alliance that is exiting an alliance-wide war will be granted a 7-day amnesty from all aggressive wars against them. This amnesty can and will be considered forfeit if the alliance entices or declares a war themselves. - In the event of any war, all operations and features of the game can be used. If both opposing parties decide on different terms, this policy can be considered nullified for the duration of that singular conflict. - When preparing a Declaration of War, no alliance will engage another alliance that is 50,000 Nation Strength units below them or 5,000 average Nation Strength units below them. If no alliances below the offensive alliance are in this range, and declaring to larger alliances would result in significant disadvantage, the offensive alliance may declare one space lower than them by score on the Alliance Listing screen. ARTICLE V: Violations Any alliance that is within membership requirements and violates any of the stated policies in Article IV or any amended policies will be subject to punishment as deemed by the membership minus the offending alliance. In the instance of violations, the majority vote after a 72 hour period from the time of offense will be the decided action taken. If an alliance that has withdrawn from the accord hence breaks the accord, they will be dealt with as each individual alliance sees fit and the terms of this accord will be nullified in their case. ARTICLE VI: Withdrawment Any alliance reserves the right if in membership bounds to tender a withdraw from the Accord. Any withdraw must be officially submitted in the OWF. After withdrawing, the withdrew alliance must wait one full round before they are able to request membership once again. ARTICLE VII: Signatories The following alliances hereby agree to the above mentioned articles and any below named amendments. HiredGun, Representative for DEFCON 1 LordSunday, Representative for the Independent Republic of Orange Nations Bajor, Representative for the United Nations LordHitchcock, Representative for the Roman Empire bigwilly, Representative for the New League of Nations Edited August 16, 2017 by LordSunday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwilly Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'll be the Representative for New League of Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBilly1 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'll be the chairman, I swear I'll be biased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 So much for D1's slogan, "Fight with Honor." You gave your word to this agreement, and then broke this agreement—by declaring on someone far below the specified requirements of Article IV, at your first opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaarioNaharis Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 Don't think they did Quote When preparing a Declaration of War, no alliance will engage another alliance that is 50,000 Nation Strength units below them or 5,000 average Nation Strength units below them. If no alliances below the offensive alliance are in this range, and declaring to larger alliances would result in significant disadvantage, the offensive alliance may declare one space lower than them by score on the Alliance Listing screen. Since Wolves of The North were just at war, The next in line is The UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, DaarioNaharis said: Don't think they did Since Wolves of The North were just at war, The next in line is The UN. Exactly this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 3, 2017 Report Share Posted September 3, 2017 (edited) Ah, so if, given the standings as they are right now, we attacked RE (assuming they were not at war) that would be cool, according to the accord? Because that's what you're advocating. Edited September 3, 2017 by Das Blitzkrieger Grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Das Blitzkrieger said: Ah, so if, given the standings as they are right now, we attacked RE (assuming they were not at war) that would be cool, according to the accord? Because that's what you're advocating. That'd have been suicide for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 I notice that you didn't answer the question. If you extend your interpretation of the accord to the situation I listed above, it's perfectly fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 7 hours ago, Das Blitzkrieger said: I notice that you didn't answer the question. If you extend your interpretation of the accord to the situation I listed above, it's perfectly fine. Cos it's a silly question and yes it'd have been suicide for you to attack an alliance with a 40 nuke advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabland Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 HG and I discussed this issue for a while as well. Taken literally, "..the offensive alliance may declare one space lower than them by score on the Alliance Listing screen." Means that the alliance has to be directly below you on the rankings to be eligible. There is no exception for ineligible alliances. Just because there are ineligible alliances beneath you, doesn't mean they don't exist. I.e. if UN is ranked 2 and alliances 3, 4, 5 and 6 are at war, that doesn't give us the go ahead to attack alliance 7 (unless they meet the NS requirements). I propose an amendment to clarify this article. If the intention is to skip ineligible alliances, make that clear. If the intention is to not skip alliances, make that clear as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 I'm always a fan of clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Yabland said: HG and I discussed this issue for a while as well. Taken literally, "..the offensive alliance may declare one space lower than them by score on the Alliance Listing screen." Means that the alliance has to be directly below you on the rankings to be eligible. There is no exception for ineligible alliances. Just because there are ineligible alliances beneath you, doesn't mean they don't exist. I.e. if UN is ranked 2 and alliances 3, 4, 5 and 6 are at war, that doesn't give us the go ahead to attack alliance 7 (unless they meet the NS requirements). I propose an amendment to clarify this article. If the intention is to skip ineligible alliances, make that clear. If the intention is to not skip alliances, make that clear as well. This is exactly why something like this has not been done in the past cos you were already taking advantage of the accords (well you thought you were) by suppressing stats so you couldn't be attacked by D1, at one point you were a rank below us but WofN overtook you so I can only assume you purposely stopped building stats for the wolves to do this. The surprised reaction from members of your government support this so I can only assume that you all assumed you wouldn't get hit. Your stats then go on to skyrocket after we declared so why didn't you do that earlier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, HiredGun said: This is exactly why something like this has not been done in the past cos you were already taking advantage of the accords (well you thought you were) by suppressing stats so you couldn't be attacked by D1, at one point you were a rank below us but WofN overtook you so I can only assume you purposely stopped building stats for the wolves to do this. The surprised reaction from members of your government support this so I can only assume that you all assumed you wouldn't get hit. Your stats then go on to skyrocket after we declared so why didn't you do that earlier? This is ridiculous. We had nations waiting for trades, so they could buy tech and mil most efficiently. Are you really incapable of assuming that there is no other viable explanation of our surprise? Is it possible that we simply looked at the stats on that day and saw D1 breaking the terms of the Accord to which we had both agreed, at least by our interpretation? Please stop acting as if you *know* the conversations and motives of other alliances—you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 9 hours ago, Das Blitzkrieger said: This is ridiculous. We had nations waiting for trades, so they could buy tech and mil most efficiently. Are you really incapable of assuming that there is no other viable explanation of our surprise? Is it possible that we simply looked at the stats on that day and saw D1 breaking the terms of the Accord to which we had both agreed, at least by our interpretation? Please stop acting as if you *know* the conversations and motives of other alliances—you don't. The only ridiculous argument here is yours as you knew only a D1 and UN war was possible given the availability and also the most suited so we can only assume you wanted to keep stats low in order for the accords to protect you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 8, 2017 Report Share Posted September 8, 2017 I think you're smart enough to know that there are very few cases—and almost none in TE—where there's only one possible explanation for an event's cause. Why do you think yourselves so privileged to be the only alliance which might get our attention? We could have been planning a war against RE + War Doves, your own alliance, OP+NDO, and a lot of other possibilities. I give you my word that we were not using the accord to shield ourselves from D1 when you declared the war. Yes, it gave us some comfort at the beginning of the round, knowing that you couldn't (because of an accord *you* helped write) attack nations before they built. But after our nations built, we immediately began preparing for a war. Finally, we are not afraid of D1, nor will we ever be. We beat you this war—even if you try to do some mental acrobatics and explain the many reasons why your alliance is more skilled, but still lost. The fact is, our members rose to the occasion, and almost categorically, had a great war. We were not shielding ourselves from you then, and we're not shielding ourselves from you now. As Horatio suggested, our frustration was due to the unclarity of the accord; from our perspective, the precedent of "we'll interpret these how we want because we helped write them" is counter to anything for which the accord originally stood. Enjoy your rebuild, and I look forward to a rematch later this round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 25, 2017 Report Share Posted September 25, 2017 DEFCON 1 withdraws from the accords. The accord is too open for manipulation and has already been used to avoid others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trs4ece Posted September 26, 2017 Report Share Posted September 26, 2017 5 hours ago, HiredGun said: DEFCON 1 withdraws from the accords. The accord is too open for manipulation and has already been used to avoid others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bajoran Federation Posted September 26, 2017 Report Share Posted September 26, 2017 7 hours ago, trs4ece said: Lmao, yup. Pretty tantamount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaBeeGipson Posted September 26, 2017 Report Share Posted September 26, 2017 Google Translation (because I don't read German): "Names of the german government I have the honor to inform you that germany hereby declares its withdrawal from the Volksbund according to article 1 paragraph 3 of the Articles of Incorporation. approve, master general secretary, the assurance of my highest consideration." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted September 27, 2017 Report Share Posted September 27, 2017 On 9/25/2017 at 9:55 PM, trs4ece said: [Relevant historical document that made me feel like an idiot for not recognizing it.] I feel like the idea behind it was sound and well-intentioned, but sadly it is just too hard to enforce or use for resolving disputes. How sadly familiar. I wish I knew the answer to this quandary. --SeaBeeGipson, you're the MVP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Blitzkrieger Posted September 27, 2017 Report Share Posted September 27, 2017 The accord is now in disaccord with what's best for D1. They've lost two wars straight "playing by the rules," so now, HG seeks an alternative way to defeat us. Is this not transparent to everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 27, 2017 Report Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Never mind, I'm not going to waste my time with you. Edited September 27, 2017 by HiredGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted September 27, 2017 Report Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Das Blitzkrieger said: The accord is now in disaccord with what's best for D1. They've lost two wars straight "playing by the rules," so now, HG seeks an alternative way to defeat us. Is this not transparent to everyone? Someone sounds scared. Edited September 27, 2017 by HiredGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) On 9/25/2017 at 1:28 PM, HiredGun said: DEFCON 1 withdraws from the accords. The accord is too open for manipulation and has already been used to avoid others. You just want to raid War Doves. To this I say, Edited September 28, 2017 by Samwise other link was garbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.