White Chocolate

[quote name='Viluin' date='08 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1265679983' post='2169488'] Chances are you'll never know the truth. It certainly can't be found here on the OWF. [/quote] Another Viluin quotable quote In an odd way, the way people are responding to this post is comforting. Same old complete lack of sympathy that usually occurs in these situations. Perhaps Planet Bob is recovering after all.

[quote name='PHDrillSergeant' date='08 February 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1265646232' post='2168782'] Dearest people of the world, I am an old nation. I have been here for a long time, just minding my business. [/quote] Very well written. Thanks. I hope things work out for you.

Happy hunting, good luck, etc. Hail CRAP!

Congrats on peace.

Best of luck to the members of SWF. Congrats to the leadership of INT.

I'm not convinced that anything that has developed in terms of a possible change in CN culture is a trend...yet. Maybe a fad. This isn't a commentary at all. I like some of what's being discussed and I don't like others. I've just found it politically smart to be skeptical.

[quote name='Comrade Mao' date='05 February 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1265350299' post='2160849'] Not only the same side. We're literally coming to their aid by attacking those who are attacking them. [/quote] Seriously?

I would be extremely surprised if paperless catches on in any significant way. It would certainly make life interesting if it does, but I don't see it happening. 1. Alliance leaders want to know their chances of winning before starting a war. How is that figured? By people looking up who has a treaty and with whom and what is my sides strength vs. their side. 2. Which alliance is going to take the first step to start this trend? If it happens, right after this war (when everyone is sick of war) would be the time. Then maybe no one will "take advantage" of the alliances lack of treaties right away. But I wouldn't count on it. However, a large reduction in treaties may happen. I also think the "non-chaining" will catch on.

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 February 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1265403121' post='2162023'] Please tell me you're specifically directing that comment at MM and as a result at \m/. That would be awesome considering the current war came about from them not following their charter. I guess they'll be the trailblazers in the "paperless" alliance movement. [/quote] Who me? Imply something? Not a chance. *White Chocolate offers Stetson a high-five*

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1265404193' post='2162050'] ...or there will be 10 super alliances that have no reason to fight... [/quote] King of the Hill...

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 February 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1265394868' post='2161777'] The problem that arises is that not having obligations will lead to greater stagnation than the most convoluted treaty web ever could. [/quote] I disagree. Assuming this world occurs, you'ld have constant wars but smaller scale. There would be many larger alliances attacking smaller ones, because they would assume they can. Either those smaller ones would surprise the larger - because they have friends who will support them without a treaty OR they would be squished, break apart with lots of nations merging into a larger alliance or quitting. [quote name='Stetson' date='05 February 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1265394868' post='2161777']Anyone who believes that they will always have the support of "friends" is either stupid, or willfully ignorant.[/quote] Or very lucky. But I agree with the general argument that many, many alliances or people would not help out without a treaty obligation. What most would probably do is say something like, "sure, but why don't you all just merge into our alliance. That way it will be far less likely that you'll get attacked again later. If you do that, I'll tell the alliance attacking to stop since you all are merging in with us." [quote name='Stetson' date='05 February 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1265394868' post='2161777'] That is the reason you all tried to cozy up to them and why they've been able to consistently attract quality players. They made their positions known [b]publicly[/b] in the form of treaties, and stood by those positions unwaveringly.[/quote] I will agree that MK is "lawful." I've also been told by former members that they are active. But, of course, they being popular has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they have a very nice amount of nukes. (just saying, it may not be the ONLY reason) I am a supporter of having formal treaties. However, my reasons are purely political in that, in my opinion, NOT having formal treaties will support the development of large alliances, not small ones - and us is a small one. I'm absolutely sure we'd have been attacked by now but for our treaties.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='05 February 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1265393181' post='2161696'] Friendship and honor never needed a piece of paper to be valid anyways. [/quote] Indeed. However, one can make the same argument when talking about alliances and having an AA. What's an alliance, really - other than a formal charter - which is just a piece of paper?

[quote name='Smooth' date='04 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1265304428' post='2159000'] Oh hi there ego. [/quote] Could have said, "oh hi there, Sith." A Sith being a Sith, and all Kind of like saying "Oh hi there, Moralist" to Vilien. (who, by the way I like and admire which is why I used him as an example). Regarding The Moldavi Doctrine, the fact that "it isn't a new concept" is an understatement. Short version: We are all sovereign. However, maybe that isn't pointed out enough. The statement "If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance" is also very true but, imo, often forgotten...until a war comes along, that is

Regarding "chaining", here is how I described it to one of our allies while discussing current events: Necroseer and I do not want to get too tied up in "the treaty web." We're all for helping allies but not for declaring on alliance O because A and B got in a fight and called on C, D, and E who have treaties with F, G and H who declare on I, J, and K who then in order to "defend" their treaty partners declare back on F, A, and H who also has a treaty with O and so O declares on G who has a treaty with someone who has a treaty with US and G defends O and then expects US to "defend" G. The fight is between A and B and whoever they originally got in the fight with. IF we had our own treaties with A and/or B (or whoever they got in a fight against) - it may be another story. Clear as day.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='04 February 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1265287175' post='2158715'] Every treaty is an oAoDP. If it is in the best interest of an alliance to honor it, they will. Otherwise they will claim something else and decide not to honor it. [/quote] Perhaps. However, if this is true then every alliance should have optional treaties as opposed to ones that require war. If nothing else, it's more honest that way. In general, just a thought. Instead of canceling treaties or keeping them, there is an option to "downgrade" - i.e. turn a mandatory treaty into an optional one. It establishes the relationship still exists but doesn't mean that the other alliance will absolutely assist in every case. Also - most optional treaties also include a non-aggression clause. If nothing else, both know that the other will not attack them

Nicely done. Fun DoW - and that's something I wouldn't expect myself to say regarding a DoW

Just to clarify (because I do a lot of our treaty writing) - is the intent here to make it an mutual defense pact but NOT required defense if the attack is a result of a treaty web incident? I think that is the intent, just not sure. You say "to a non-chaining MDoAP." What's meant by "non-chaining"?

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='22 January 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1264200466' post='2125457'] @James Dahl- essentially raiding unaligned is different as they do get recruiting messages that state that they can join an alliance for protection and to get away from raiders and be rebuilt. thus, they have a safety net to fall into. now that some raiders think it is okay to raid alliances, even that safety net is beginning to get holes in it as alliances are no longer safe for the unaligned to run to to be protected. personally, i despise any raider that states unaligned "deserve it" as they don't deserve any such treatment. though the war option is part of the game and should be utilized to have fun, thus, they are a viable target mostly out of necessity versus them deserving it. [/quote] The messages say they can join for protection. What they don't say is that the protection is until some big world wide war breaks out and then they get attacked by some other alliance(s) or get ordered to attack someone else for reason that are not even understandable by many seasoned players. The "you can join an alliance" argument only goes as far as the treaty web allows, which lately hasn't been that much.

Nice job, CB.

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1264920591' post='2146973'] This is how you help you allies, declaring on an alliance that has 3 wars against tR and has 1/10 of your nations and 1/30th of your NS. TMF was clearly a threat to your allies. [/quote] Agreed. However, at least GOONS had the decency to make a war declaration.

Never heard of it myself. Not a very intelligent policy if there is any truth to it.

Treaties are fine as a general rule. It's good to have something that lists specifically what each alliances roles and responsibilities are in a relationship with another alliance. I agree with those who say they are basically "contracts" - as far as they exist on Planet Bob. However, these "contracts" have become WAY too "boiler plate." When a treaty can be summed up entirely in a couple letters (i.e. ODP, MDP, MDOA, etc) and everyone knows EXACTLY what is in each, there's a problem. Alliance leaders should pay more attention to what they propose as a treaty and memberships should read each one and agree to OR change the terms before voting. A treaty between two unique alliances does not have to look like every other treaty - if fact, it probably should not. Personally, I'd prefer to see far more ODP's than MDP's. Also people don't have a problem "upgrading" treaties, so why is it that when the relationship changes in the other direction people act as if keeping or dropping the treaty are the only two options? How about an agreement just to downgrade? I haven't seen many of those. In theory, it can be done. I also suggest that terms such as "defense" and "aggression" be better understood between the parties. For instance, I personally see "defense" as follows: Alliance "A" attacks alliance "B" and so alliance "C" (in defense of alliance "B") attacks alliance "A." That's defense. However if alliance "D" therefore attacks alliance "C" in "defense" on alliance's "A's" behalf - well, to me that's a stretch as alliance "A" was the one who started the fight in the first place. If alliance "D" has an aggression pact with "A" and doesn't claim it as "defense" - so be it. In other words, if "A" started it then "A" is the aggressor. In my opinion, that doesn't change until all original parties agree that the war is officially over. Oh, and a "tech raid" is a war so any alliance "tech raided" has to agree that the war is over. Again, just my opinion. I'm not saying other people who do not have a treaty with US have to agree. However, I do think that if more "defense" agreements were seen in that way, we'd have less treaty web confusion. The quick and easy way, if an alliance doesn't want to get pulled into this web and/or argue about definitions is simply to have only ODP's.

Sigh. You just have to be different. Should have known to look closer

Congrats, Minister kulomascovia