A Neutral's Blog

It depends on the alliance. Currently none actually follow this practice, except perhaps OBR. Everyone else is either decidedly neutral or plays the domino game. Frankly the reason is probably because it makes things interesting. As much as people pretend otherwise, anyone not in a neutral alliance these days essentially declares that they love war, and they don't want to be left out of all the global power plays. If they wanted to just build nations, then of course following your treaty advice or having none at all is the way to go.

Alliances can always sign nonchaining clauses, or actually be creative and write in safeguards, or simply declare a special treaty doctrine. Nobody forces alliances to sign carbon copy "domino" treaties.

Alliances can always sign nonchaining clauses, or actually be creative and write in safeguards, or simply declare a special treaty doctrine. Nobody forces alliances to sign carbon copy "domino" treaties.

Alliances can sign non-chaining treaties. However the moment you actually use a non-chaining clause, no matter how much you warn people for months you will use that clause, you apparently are not a good alliance.

People are desperate to have the domino effect because it reduced the political work needed to form a coalition.

Yeah, I agree with JR. I think the treaty system is intentionally structured such that no one is left on the sidelines. If you try to ride the fence and stay out of war, many many alliances will be angry at you. Peer pressure is a beotch.

I agree that alliances should make more decisions based on what they feel is wright or wrong, but I'm not necessarily sure that's a problem with the treaty system itself. It's more an issue of what people do with their treaties. Why does anyone have treaties with NG, considering their allies even call them pricks? Why did CnG get so far behind MK, when they were making so many questionable decisions?

I think it boils down to some people (many people) like RPing the jerk. Treaties won't change that.

There's an implicit contract when you sign a treaty/agreement with someone that they won't actively look for a way to lead/be a key component of an event that undermines you, their treaty partner.

Those that don't understand that probably shouldn't sign treaties.

Those that do understand that, especially in a position of power -- often ignore it anyway.

Kashmir doesn't play the domino game.

I do, only in south florida though.

Why does anyone have treaties with NG, considering their allies even call them pricks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GwrR-4Q9E

Alliances should go to war based on their own interests. It's why I have no issue with why IRON's actions. The gov of IRON made a decision that was in the best interests of their own members and that is the way it should be. IRON's gov is accountable to their membership, not so and so's gov in a coalition channel. That doesn't mean I support the methods used by IRON but I can certainly support and understand the reasoning for their actions.

Let's all go to a Paperless World, TE style.

It depends on the alliance. Currently none actually follow this practice, except perhaps OBR. Everyone else is either decidedly neutral or plays the domino game. Frankly the reason is probably because it makes things interesting. As much as people pretend otherwise, anyone not in a neutral alliance these days essentially declares that they love war, and they don't want to be left out of all the global power plays. If they wanted to just build nations, then of course following your treaty advice or having none at all is the way to go.

DBDC follows this tactic to the letter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GwrR-4Q9E

ROFL, that pretty accurately describes how I view global politics