Treaties and You: Don't let the treaty define the relationship
Entry posted by VIdiot the Great
212 views
Treaties, the lifeblood of CN.
Yet too many alliances let the treaty form dictate the relationship instead of dictating the relationship to the treaty.
Huh?
Here's what I mean:
It appears that, for the most part, there are the following basic forms of treaties that I would say 90% of alliances use in pretty much the same basic format:
PIAT
ODP
oMDoAP
MDP
MDoAP
MDAP
So what's wrong with the above? In my opinion, it tends to lead most alliances into basing their relationship with another alliance on the categories above. However, I believe the relationships between alliances take on far more forms than the simple ones outlined above. Which brings me to my point:
By writing your own treaties, you are able to state what the relationship actually is between your alliance and X alliance instead of letting the letters above define it for you. What's the difference?
Let's say alliance A and alliance B are generally friendly. Let's further say that neither alliance is particularly interested in wars. Let's further say that the alliances are friendly to the degree that they want to exchange diplomatic and economic information. Now, you no doubt will say, 'hey, who needs a treaty for that?' to which I respond with a hearty 'you don't.' You also don't need a treaty to defend, attack, or otherwise act as a sovereign alliance either. My point here is if you want to use a treaty to define a relationship, write it that way. Don't rely on the stock treaties passed around as forms throughout Digiterra. Why is this a problem?
The first thing that comes to mind is the 'cancellation clause' contained in most treaties. Most alliances don't care to burn for the misdeeds of their treaty partners (spying, bad tech raiding, etc.) and find themselves in the following position:
'Damnit, our treaty partner did something stupid and they're going to get rolled. How do we get out of this?'
At this point, someone bothers to read the actual treaty and finds the following clause, sitting there at the end of the document like a stinking steaming turd: 'A party may cancel this treaty upon 3 days notice to the other party.'
Immediately, Alliance A leader drops by channel B and says 'hey, any gov around?'
We all know what comes next.
Now Alliance A is in a bit of a bind. Sure, they've canceled the treaty, but they're probably going to burn right along with Alliance B anyway. Why? Because they likely used a form of a treaty and didn't think about if the form actually followed the substance of the treaty. If you weren't of the mind to burn along with B, why keep that clause?
Wouldn't it have been better, if you never intended to back your treaty partner if they did something you define as stupid, if there wasn't a cancellation period? Isn't this what you REALLY meant? Consider the following clause:
"In the event that either alliance engages in any one of the following acts: spying, treason, nuclear retaliation, panty raiding, etc. this treaty is rendered null and void immediately."
Yes, it took me about 10 seconds to write that. Imagine how grateful Alliance A would have been if someone had bothered to do the same thing BEFORE they had to burn.
Another clause that is in too many treaties and creates problems: 'An attack on one is an attack on the other.' Why is this language necessary? Sure, it's a nice fuzzy statement of solidarity, but it is vague and creates problems. Let's say Alliance A and B have a treaty with that language. Now, let's say Alliance B has a treaty with C that has the same language. C gets attacked. Ok, by the terms of B and C's treaty, an attack upon C is an attack upon B. Gotcha. Now, based on the language in the treaty between A and B, an attack upon B is an attack upon A. We've all seen this play out numerous times, and in fact, such 'daisy chains' go further out than that. So, in an effort to curtail such things, we start seeing boilerplate 'non daisy chain' clauses.
I posit that such would not be necessary if alliances actually wrote down what the relationship is between A and B. And defined terms such as 'an attack,' among others.
In short, don't shoe horn your alliance's relationship into a cubby hole if it doesn't actually define the relationship.
Another clause that drives me nuts "Both parties will be respectful on the boards." What the hell does that mean? And if you can't count on your partner to be respectful, why have a treaty in the first place. Write down what you actually mean:
"If there is an event that affects both parties, no individual statements will be recognized and the leaders of Alliances A and B will release an official statement regarding that event. If no such release is made, then Alliance A and B have no official policy on such subject and any statements of members of A and B are not the policy or position of Alliance A and B, but merely that member's position."
Isn't that what you're really seeking to avoid? Getting tagged for statements of members? Now, other alliances will not view it that way sometimes, but the fact that it's in your treaty gives you the credibility to say 'hey, we foresaw this and agreed from the start that neither A nor B's members' statements would be adopted through silence.'
So consider defining your relationship with a well written treaty, and don't let the letters define it for you.
I'm sure I'll have more on this later.
6 Comments
Recommended Comments