Treaties: Political Crisis
Entry posted by Jipps
199 views
The past war has seen the very basic structures of Bob's political society shaken to it's roots. The entire political landscape we have built here is based on the foundation of treaties and responsibility. We entrust others to uphold obligations that we make in order for the game to function, and everytime it fails it becomes more and more accepted. If the current trends continue, we may be facing political crisis and the collapse of everything that makes this such a wonderful game.
Cybernations relies on honor to make it work. Alliances need to uphold their honor to not PZI and drive players away, they uphold their honor to treaties, they uphold their honor by keeping it IC, ect. However when an alliance chooses to become dishonorable, it is the moral responsibility of the players to dispose of the unhonorable alliance. History will show you this to be true, many alliances have fallen from it.
So you can understand my recent displeasure with the amount of alliances balantly "clarifying" or outright ignoring their treaties. Cancellation clauses are included for a reason, use them. Many alliances have become picky with their treaty obligations, choosing to honor only certain ones during war. This type of behavior is disgusting. Alliances like ODN have been using this horrible practice for years literally.
The decaying of the treaty is evident in the current ranking of treaty importance. What happened to the NAP? It is considered useless by todays standard and almost completely unseen. This might be in part because of the actions of Legion in GW3, where it ignored its NAP with NPO. Our actions have a very real effect on the political landscape.
Alliances shouldn't have to feel pressured to sign as many treaties as possible, they wouldn't need to if there wasn't such a scare of half of them getting cancelled. Nor should you have to have a treaty with someone to justify defending them, treaties aren't mandatory. If cybernations was more keen on these ideas, we would sure have a lot less and more stable treaties.
7 Comments
Recommended Comments