Crimes of Persuasion

[onbekende]

I am here to post, post a long reply I have made regarding this thread and the treaty itself, if you don't want to read it, I aint giving a tl;dr

• I start this reply with where this thread started with, the 5th paragraph ("Accord the Fifth (V): On Defense and Hostility")
  As I read this, indeed it stipulates ZI'n like attack possibility's for any OBR nation(s) against a single nation belonging to a signatory's alliance.
  BUT
  For this to happen, any of the following things have to happen (by the signatory nation)
  * War declaration (or directly to any OBR nation, or in responce to an OBR war)
  * Deletion of commen trade between OBR nation and signatory nation
  * Sanction placed on any OBR nation by the signatory nation
  This does NOT make OBR in there right to attack any nation at there whim, as the OP suggests (or what I think he suggests, his post is as difficult to read as this accord)
  
• The 5th paragraphs also refers to the 1st ("Accord the First (I): Preamble") for describing the punishment.
  It only speaks about what happens to OBR natons, thou it probably refers to it for the line of "appropriately harsh and swift punishment, ..." (second alinea, end)
  As this thus entitles any OBR nation any action, the ZI'n portion of the OP stays.
  

But, lest us now look at the whole accord in detail:

1. In the first paragraph "Accord the First (I): Preamble" there is word of that OBR nations, and Knigts in special stand for, and I quote:

   Thus we now, in due appreciation of their achievements and to expand the sphere of their talents, embark upon establishing an atmosphere in which they and their companions in other honorable alliances may thrive.

   As seen here, OBR seeks to ally themself with honorable alliances, thou the acts discribed in paragraph 5 aren't the words of such an honorable alliance.

   The Order Of The Black Rose holds honor, nobility, and civility paramount, believing in absolute adherence to the code of chivalry to which each of its members is strictly bound.

   So any OBR nation holds honor, nobility and civility high to go with there chivalry. Never knew that any knights slaughtered inocent or inocent "till proven guilty" people.
   And I quote the "Encyclopaedie Britannica" for the word chivalry:

   The concept of chivalry in the sense of “honourable and courteous conduct expected of a knight”

   Since when is attacking for a minor and perhaps meaningless deletion of a trade agreement (the lowest offence paragraph 5 mentioned) an "honourable and courteous conduct"?
   Further we find the following word in the 2nd alinea:

   Thus we declare that any member nation of The Order Of The Black Rose who dares to commence, commit, further, aid, support, or abet, prolong, or orchestrate hostilities against any other nation without due provocation or who otherwise violates any term of this treaty shall be instantly subject to appropriately harsh and swift punishment, and that such punishment shall be delivered without delay, restraint, or reserve by the Knights of The Order Of The Black Rose through our massed military in our Armory and the assembled magisteria of our Inquisition.

   orchestrate is the key word in this line, as the 5th paragraph (and thus the whole accord) is made to orchestrate a war without provocation (as the provocation hasn't happended yet, the accord itself orchastrates hotilities by OBR nations against any signatory or other nation.
   And as last, it has this last line:

   Now therefore, in the open spirit of friendship and chivalry, do we set forth these candid terms of our avowed ideals for assent by such Signatories as shall honorably agree to be bound thereby.

   What open spirit of friendship when you make such deception in a treaty? This alone would cancel/negate any relevance and power this treaty as a whole has!
   
2. In the 2nd paragraph ("Accord the Second (II): Definitions") some words get explained, but I here also see stuff to critizize (I am here to please the audience )

   Signatory, Signatories. By these terms shall we designate all alliances agreeing to be bound by this document. This term shall refer to the alliance as an inseverable and continuous body, and the obligation of a Signatory to abide by this Writ shall not perish with the replacement, removal, or other change in position of whichever noble official shall be the original signer hereby.

   There is no direct and absolute wording as to when a signatory removes himself (willingly or unwillingly) from Digitera (planet bob to the masses). Thus any alliance mentioned as signatory bounded by people who have left this world, the signatory itself becomes void unless redone/renewed.

   Hostility. By this term shall we designate any and all actual, attempted, or threatened attack, invasion, or endeavor to inflict harm upon a nation or its citizens, territories, or properties, including, but not limited to, military action, trade or economic sanctioning, harassment, hijacking, defamation, or conspiracy.

   defamation is the keyword here (a legal word you are free to look up, otherwise I believe too many quotes will be used). It speaks about a false claim. I see this whole treaty as such a thing, and thereby any OBR nation has commited a hostility against itself, OBR and any signatory.
   
3. We now look at the 3rd paragraph ("Accord the Third (III): On Agression") is perhaps the funniest of the accords I covered to this point. I am not going to quote it, you can find it via: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Writ_de_credo
   But the funny part is that it speaks that any signatory nation shall be "equalle exempt from all such hostility from any Order nation" directly stops any attempt of an OBR nation to attack a signatory nation on punishment defined in the 1st paragraph.
   But the biggest "LOL" probably is the following line: "as well as for orchestrating or attempting to orchestrate such Hostility through third parties, non-Signatory alliances, or any other means"
   => so this threaty itself says that the 5th paragraph must be as a hostility of the OBR alliance as a whole! Or this treaty hereby negates itself, or the OBR alliance must go medieval on themselfs (look they can play knights!)
   
4. The 4th paragraph is another mastery of killing yourself in words, I am going to keep this short:
   OBR is neutral in any war, even there own, hence OBR is GPA 2.0
   I can say more, but I believe anyone reading that paragraph can see the failure it has.
   
5. The 6th paragraph seems correctly formulated, althou even magistrates would kill themselfs over it I believe.
   
6. The 7th paragraph is already negated by the first, third, fourth and fifth, so I aint going to start.
   
7. The 8th paragraph is as dead as the treaty itself, I thus conclude that all signatory's are free. (WEEEE!!)
   
8. The 9th and last paragraph now, which again makes oppertunity to not only disolve the treaty itself, but the OBR alliance as a whole, here is why:
   "It is the avowed ideal of the Order to ensure ongoing fairness and justice in all its doings, and to adapt its commitments and relationships to an ever-increasing standard of nobility."
   So a chivalry and nobel alliance lies not only about its own nobility, but also to its befriended alliance? There have been disolvements of alliances for less.
   

So I just killed the treaty, half the signatory's signatory on the treaty (believe its like half, didn't count) AND I found that the OBR should disolve or kill itself.

[D34th]

We really live in a boredom era...

[Sal Paradise]

Taking 'hostilities' as 'war' which is the usual interpretation, that means that they can retaliate against you if you declare war on them, or support someone who does.

Ah, but Mr. Janova, you have fallen into the same trap that caught everyone else that signed this treaty: you didn't read it.

Hostilities as defined by the Writ de Credo:

Hostility. By this term shall we designate any and all actual, attempted, or threatened attack, invasion, or endeavor to inflict harm upon a nation or its citizens, territories, or properties, including, but not limited to, military action, trade or economic sanctioning, harassment, hijacking, defamation, or conspiracy.

If you are a member of an alliance that has signed this treaty with OBR and have said nasty things about them in this thread (including myself I suppose) you could be legally (lol) ZI'd by them at this very moment.

[Chinatownbus]

because I want to have your children, obviously.

I don't know why you're quoting me either, since you so obviously don't care about this whole mess. I guess you just had to tell me though, didn't you?

Just clarifying your misinterpretation of my statement.

[Experimentum]

The emphasized part is clearly untrue. As said before, any military action by the OBR would only be legally justified if an initial act of Hostility was committed against the OBR.

Actually, no. But I understand your confusion. That was an intended feature of the document.

As with all contracts, fully grasping the implications lie in also comprehending the complex interplay of clauses spread far apart on the document so as to dis-encourage that same understanding.

The key lies back in “Accord the Second (II): Definitions.”

Hostility. By this term shall we designate any and all actual, attempted, or threatened attack, invasion, or endeavor to inflict harm upon a nation or its citizens, territories, or properties, including, but not limited to, military action, trade or economic sanctioning, harassment, hijacking, defamation, or conspiracy.

Assailant, Assailants. By this term shall we designate any non-Order Nation that undertakes any form of Hostility, against any Order Nation.

Those two definitions are extremely broad by any legal standard and in fact allow OBR to interpret virtually anything as a Hostility and anyone as an Assailant. Read them closely. You’ll see.

Did OBR ever intend to invoke the so-called Death Cookie? It was certainly discussed in a few early cases, but, as one might expect, practicality quickly became an issue. More than anything else it grew to be a liability that could not easily be corrected. “Accord the Ninth (IX): On Amendment” requires that all Signatories agree unanimously to any changes to the Writ. In order to remove the Death Cookie, OBR would have to expose the original deception to all who had signed.

In any event, those two details often debated in this thread were not intended to be the main thrust of the original post. The apology that lies therein is for the deception which did most assuredly occur. Providing further evidence of the OBR’s intention to deceive by way of the Death Cookie would necessitate the posting of OOC IM logs – something I will not do.

To clear up the debate over the Citadel’s centerpiece document: Sir Fonzoland authored the original treaty in its entirety, presented it to Her Highness for review and editing, and then posted it at the Citadel’s forum for further review. A few additional changes were made and then the document was ratified. Quite simple really.

I’m glad to see so many have found this first thread interesting enough to participate in. A number of your comments have been very entertaining and the depth of thought in some pretty fascinating.

[Slayer99]

Are we rolling tanks on OBR yet? No?

I guess this is much ado about nothing. TPF didn't sign it so I couldn't care less. If our allies that signed are offended, I guess they'll take appropriate action...but I doubt they care that much either.

As a side note, any definitions they had in private could not be held binding to the document that was signed unless the signatories were aware of such definitions. Not that it matters...it's OBR, let them have their fun...they've always been on a tangent so this really isn't that surprising or disturbing.

[greatmagnus]

I honestly do not see what the big deal is over. The clause was pretty much something for them to snicker about in private rooms/forums, not enforce on anyone. Sure they might be able to call it on some teeny tiny alliance, but by the looks of it most if not all of the alliances listed there are either bigger or are tied to bigger friends.

[Smooth]

Actually, no. But I understand your confusion. That was an intended feature of the document.

As with all contracts, fully grasping the implications lie in also comprehending the complex interplay of clauses spread far apart on the document so as to dis-encourage that same understanding.

The key lies back in “Accord the Second (II): Definitions.”

Those two definitions are extremely broad by any legal standard and in fact allow OBR to interpret virtually anything as a Hostility and anyone as an Assailant. Read them closely. You’ll see.

Did OBR ever intend to invoke the so-called Death Cookie? It was certainly discussed in a few early cases, but, as one might expect, practicality quickly became an issue. More than anything else it grew to be a liability that could not easily be corrected. “Accord the Ninth (IX): On Amendment” requires that all Signatories agree unanimously to any changes to the Writ. In order to remove the Death Cookie, OBR would have to expose the original deception to all who had signed.

In any event, those two details often debated in this thread were not intended to be the main thrust of the original post. The apology that lies therein is for the deception which did most assuredly occur. Providing further evidence of the OBR’s intention to deceive by way of the Death Cookie would necessitate the posting of OOC IM logs – something I will not do.

To clear up the debate over the Citadel’s centerpiece document: Sir Fonzoland authored the original treaty in its entirety, presented it to Her Highness for review and editing, and then posted it at the Citadel’s forum for further review. A few additional changes were made and then the document was ratified. Quite simple really.

I’m glad to see so many have found this first thread interesting enough to participate in. A number of your comments have been very entertaining and the depth of thought in some pretty fascinating.

I'm so afraid of OBR now.

EDIT:

[14:41] <&Smooth[VE]> You know CN needs drama

[14:42] <&Smooth[VE]> when people pull out the "OBR is going to ZI us all" conspiracy

Edited February 28, 2009 by Smooth

[Baron deSandersted]

Dear Friends Across The Planet Digiterra,

Whatever your thoughts might be, concerning the OBR or the

Writ de Credo, please consider this statement.

Experimentum did not start this thread to help anyone or to

enlighten anyone. If Experimentum believes that the Writ de

Credo was flawed from the beginning, than as one of the founders,

he must have known from the beginning.

If anyone believes the ridiculous claim that there was deceit

involved, in the writing of the Writ de Credo, than as one of

founders, Experimentim helped to perpetrate, or even orchestrate

such deceit.

I put to each of you that this thread was begun by an expatriot,

only to hurt the OBR and that no credence should be given to

anything that this man has to say.

Having attempted to stab his own alliance, in the heart, this man

has no honor and should not be given a serious audience by anyone.

Experimentum obviously has some axe to grind, and in a notably

dishonorable way, wishes to hurt the OBR. He does not care about

you; he wants you to turn against the OBR. Do not allow him to

manipulate you! Don't give him what he wants!

Do any of you seriously weigh the angry public posts by those whiners

in your own alliances that cannot get thier way? Do you give such persons

the attention that they so desperately crave? If the answer is no, than

why give Experimentum a second thought? He does not deserve your

attention or your consideration.

Don't Be Fooled By Experimentum,

[Bob Janova]

Ah, but Mr. Janova, you have fallen into the same trap that caught everyone else that signed this treaty: you didn't read it.

I never signed it (and nor did my alliance) so I had no reason to go over it particularly carefully. You are correct, I had missed that when I went to look at it earlier. However, the idea that anyone would let OBR roll a nation that said something nasty about them, legal traps notwithstanding, is pretty laughable.

This is an interesting theoretical thread but its practical value is nil.

[Archon]

Well this is amusing. As are the reactions contained therein. There's a healthy mixture of "OBR is irrelevant" and "OBR is still the bastion of righteousness" with a decent amount of feigned shock. How wonderful.

[Salmacis]

Seriously it's like they were in the back room in the VIP section sitting together giggling about what everyone else just signed, giving each other high-fives and backrubs for being so smart...but in the end they never did anything but giggle.

^This.

Leave them alone, they just had a RP victory over all the signatories. Threatening them now would only make you look even more foolish.

[cookavich]

I don't care.

[RandomInterrupt]

Gentle Persons

You have read no doubt the words that I have spoken from time to time. I have used language that may seem archaic and misbegotten. Those that have dealt with me will know my word is held sacrosanct and my intent always clear and unequivocal. So let me lose the bonds of arcane language for a moment. I speak not for the Knights that setup the alliance, I speak not for Sir Neboe I speak for Myself who has been in the Order for just over 1 year. Those who have had the pleasure of dealing with the EX- Sir Experimentum will know that his tone and style can be mildly off putting. His departure was not one that covered anyone with glory. His return has been fraught with ego that was all too reminiscent of his past style. I am sure I will now be subject to his withering critique frankly I could care less. Pomposity has been his hallmark so I would expect no less of him than a fine grand standing as he no longer holds sway in the Order. Pity his words on departure hold so hollow now. What ever cute machinactions he may have felt were written into the Writ, I reject any such nefarious intent. I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order. I know the current Order that has until recently been blessed with the absence of Miko. It is this Order I serve. Let the past wail its siren cry. My word is to uphold the spirit of the Writ de Credo and not some fools dream of a Death Cookie.

I am prepared to put my word forth for the testing. I will no longer suffer in silence the idiocy of the ego maniac who used to be Sir EX. If someone wishes to believe the rantings of one such as that then I am truly saddened that honour and trust has so long departed from Digitterra.

To this I pledge my words and deeds.

Respectfully

Squire Hime Themis

Sir Experimentum is the only reason most of those signatures exist on this treaty. You might remember that before trashing his name in a fairly poor attempt to minimize his actions here.

Also I read this thread quick, and I think it's pretty funny. Was I seriously the only one who signed it that actually understood what it meant? Seriously, just me? The important thing to realize here is the reality of the situation.

Imagine a member of your alliance goes decides to "tech raid" the OBR, who you have signed the WDC with. That member apologizes and offers to pay reps. Do you think the OBR will decline said reps and instead demand ZI? No, not likely and I do not recall that ever happening. They'll take the reps and move on. Now say this member, after attacking the OBR, refused to stop and to pay reps. Any decent alliance would boot the offending member and release them to the OBR. The OBR then has the right to take the guy to ZI.

So how does this Death Cookie actually change the dynamic of the game, and give the OBR power it didn't already have as a sovereign alliance with a nice collection of nukes? It doesn't. Not one bit. So what it boils down to is, folks are upset that there was a clause in a treaty they didn't read but signed anyway. The fault is not on the OBR here, but on those who signed it without understanding what it said. You are the ones who are fools who have failed your alliances. The OBR just did their thing as always.

[youwish959]

Everyone knows OBR are smart people. So what makes everyone think that OBR thinks this will still work? Perhaps they just left it as a secret so as to not scare off current or future, or perhaps they left it because they still found it amusing.

[joracy]

Dear Great Lord Experimentum,

As a recent visitor to OBR, Blackwater and now The Realm of the Rose, I

like to count myself as a friend to those of the Rosular Kingdom.

It seems that I am a greater friend to them, than you are. How could you

do such a horrid thing to the people that you once led? What kind of a leader,

or role model, drives such a lance into the heart of his people? Perhaps you

should have stayed away.

The Writ de Credo has served the OBR well for a very long time. Discussing

any possible flaws in a treaty, should be done behind closed doors and not in

an open forum for the world to see. Any noob knows that. Why do you wish

to hurt the alliance that you helped to found?

Please note that I have not address you as "sir". In my humble opinion, you

have made a conscious decision to cast your title to the ground and you are

undeserving of Knighthhood.

How Might Anyone Trust You Again?

Um, I'm not sure if its flawed. Actually, I would think its written exactly as it was intended(At least according to the screenshots).

[Prodigal Moon]

The moral of this story, as several have pointed out: lern2read treaties.

If you look at the actual wording, it's pretty clear really. OBR will defend itself against any hostility*, and that defense does not give you reason to retaliate/escalate further. Their defined forms of "hostility" are right there. Sure it's broad, but the terms are straightforward.

It's a bit disappointing to think that the Order with all its affectations of nobility would be attempting to deceive others this whole time. But I've got to give them a hats off for managing to get others to sign something like this that technically/legally puts most of the world at a huge disadvantage.

[Geoffron X]

It's a bit disappointing to think that the Order with all its affectations of nobility would be attempting to deceive others this whole time.

So, um, you had previously thought they wouldn't defend themselves against hostile actions?

[Zinobya]

Sir Experimentum is the only reason most of those signatures exist on this treaty. You might remember that before trashing his name in a fairly poor attempt to minimize his actions here.

Also I read this thread quick, and I think it's pretty funny. Was I seriously the only one who signed it that actually understood what it meant? Seriously, just me? The important thing to realize here is the reality of the situation.

Imagine a member of your alliance goes decides to "tech raid" the OBR, who you have signed the WDC with. That member apologizes and offers to pay reps. Do you think the OBR will decline said reps and instead demand ZI? No, not likely and I do not recall that ever happening. They'll take the reps and move on. Now say this member, after attacking the OBR, refused to stop and to pay reps. Any decent alliance would boot the offending member and release them to the OBR. The OBR then has the right to take the guy to ZI.

So how does this Death Cookie actually change the dynamic of the game, and give the OBR power it didn't already have as a sovereign alliance with a nice collection of nukes? It doesn't. Not one bit. So what it boils down to is, folks are upset that there was a clause in a treaty they didn't read but signed anyway. The fault is not on the OBR here, but on those who signed it without understanding what it said. You are the ones who are fools who have failed your alliances. The OBR just did their thing as always.

No, not the only one who realized, Random. I do mostly agree with your assessment regarding Experimentum and see no need to trash what he has achieved. I do however believe Sir Neboe played a fairly heavy role in some of the signatories.

I also agree with your assessment of the death cookie as well, in all but my belief that my percieved intent to obfuscate with the wording was unnecessary at best; and having viewed the spirit behind its intent I find it so, in wont of a better word, ugly.

Personally however, I must confess I really want to know why Experimentum has posted this now, and also if the timing was in any way designed to ensure Sir Neboe would not be around to reply to this immediately. A Sir Neboe sighting on the weekend is very rare indeed.

[Neboe]

Let it be known throughout Digiterra that ignominious leader of the Experimentum has posted in attempt to take down The Order and his efforts of subterfuge and espionage shall be, in the long run, failing of lasting impact. Let it be clear that the referenced clause simply protects our ability to defend ourselves by effectively nullifying the automatic activation of an aggressors allies should we be attacked while PROHIBITING US from allowing ourselves to be drawn into a war we choose not to fight.

The text was plainly written and any objective review of The Order’s actions will show that the Order of The Black Rose has been consistently honorable. I challenge anyone with any history of dealings with The Order to find any specific instance where we have been anything but outstanding in our respect and honor for our allies.

I also welcome any leaders of this world with any questions or concerns to approach me via private message at any time. I am the Knight Protector of The Order of the Black Rose, and it is my charge to ensure the safety, security and prosperity of The Order. Find me and I will set this right and correct.

It would be easy for me to be swallowed by anger of such an egregious breach of Experimentum’s Oath, Honor and Trust that our Queen and her Knight’s held for him. Do not have any doubt that there are no altruistic intents behind the posting of this rant. Experimentum is lashing out against the people who trusted him the most, the very people ho cared most for him. That he has stooped to this lowest level is truly the greatest tragedy of this whole unfortunate situation.

As I take my leave, everyone gathered here should be of absolute certainty that The Order still holds the tenants of chivalry, honor and nobility as its core belief. We will rise from the shadow of the former Knight and his lashings. The Order will continue forward and rebuild whatever damage may fall out from this. I strongly encourage any and all alliances leadership to approach myself personally to begin the process of healing.

[Kaiser Martens]

Props to OBR for tricking us all for such a long time.

[Vicea]

I would not call this is crime, all I can say if this is true that the people over there are pretty stupid for lawyers.

Was it worth the chuckle? For a joke where there only gain is a loss of trust and signatories?

[RandomInterrupt]

I would not call this is crime, all I can say if this is true that the people over there are pretty stupid for lawyers.

Was it worth the chuckle? For a joke where there only gain is a loss of trust and signatories?

I don't know about the OBR, but I sure chuckled after reading dozens of confessions from alliance leaders that they sign treaties without knowing what they mean.

[Prodigal Moon]

So, um, you had previously thought they wouldn't defend themselves against hostile actions?

Huh? I didn't even say anything about how I would expect them to defend themselves. Just that it looks like they were trying to pull a fast one on signatories of this "death cookie." The responses from signatories in this thread shows that they weren't aware of how the document might be interpreted by OBR.

[Lord Brendan]

I'm really not seeing the sinister aspect of this. As I understand it, Article 5 allows OBR nations to defend themselves from any kind of Hostility, and the Assailant is afforded no protection by the Writ. Unless I'm wholly mistaken, it doesn't say anything about the Assailant's alliance not being able to defend itself: quite the opposite according to the first line.

Maybe I'm just tired.