MTTezla

Sorry guys, thought the peace was for tonight at update, not last night. You guys can take another couple shots at me if you'd like.

Good points from a lot of people in the thread. I'm going to hit some of the highlights, if anyone sees something that I missed and they would like addressed, please let me know. Margrave, I'm interested to hear what the ultimate goal of the Kashmiri philosophy is. If it is the development of friendships and bonds between alliances, then I don't know that ridding the world of treaties is a good way to go about it. For example, the alliances of CnG regularly turn over their membership, just like any alliances do. It would be easy sometimes to just reassess all of the bonds between the alliances, and swing towards the friendships that we hold in the short term. But because we have a treaty with history and good will, we instead work to renew those bonds every few months, making sure that our new membership gets to know each other and ensuring that strong bonds will continue into the future. Is this possible without a treaty? Yes. But is it as likely? No. If the end goal is to make the universe more interesting... well, that's I think where we disagree the most strongly. I think that people working hard to advance their goals is more valuable than a universe where anyone with a will and a whim has as much impact as those that work hard. But it's not just about what's more valuable, it's about what's more interesting. Everyone with an equal voice turns into a shouting match between every nation in the cyberverse. It's not interesting for anyone. I'm going to lump these two points together for the sake of brevity. My answer to both is that the Leviathan is infinitely preferably to the state of nature. The state of nature is by its definition incapable of providing fulfillment; it's a state in which the ultimate goal is simple survival. In the same way that a human couldn't expect to make great works in a state of nature, an alliance can't expect to achieve great goals in a state of nature. I do not deny the existence of a political class that influences wars, and I support such an existence. Where I think we disagree is the barrier to entry to this political class. I think that the only barriers are activity and competence. If you are fairly active and fairly competent, you can execute change in the world. If you're very motivated, then you can probably get a global war started. I can name many fleeting victories. In the early days, there was a severe prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons, to the point that GATO refused to use them in GATO-1V. This cultural victory was eventually erased in the years that followed. The cultural victory that we have now that allows nearly unlimited raiding of "None" members was not always that way; for a while, both NPO and GATO took extreme measures to prevent raiding in certain circumstances. Cultural victories over things like the use of sanctions in war, the legitimacy of attacking nations that aid belligerents, and the use of old nations in the low-NS tiers are all cultural debates that are ongoing. I think I may not have a perfect grasp on what you define as a cultural victory, though, so I'm definitely looking for feedback on that point. Definitely agreed here. I agree very much with both points made here. The second point is especially true - it's a lot harder to get a large, interesting war without treaties. Well said, and you make an important definitional distinction between a law and a social norm. You are right that I am referring to social norms or common practices which are enforced through public opinion and action vice laws that are enforced by a third party. I think the concept of true laws are interesting but do not and have not ever existed as far as I know.* The enforcement of community guidelines backed by the force of arms has happened before, and usually in a similar pursuit to what Margrave is advocating. I think that the Karma War is the best example of this enforcement in action; a great percentage of alliances and nation leaders came together against the idea that there should be a hegemony that determined both alliance politics and morality in interactions was unacceptable. I think that alliances attempting to enforce these community standards is an important part of the game and should be encouraged. How does this interact with the topic at hand? One of the longest-lived and most important social norms that we have is that wars should be justified, and the existence of treaties justifies those wars. In addition, the binding nature of treaties is a social norm; if someone were to abandon a treaty when an ally was attacked, for example, that should lead to repercussions from the rest of the community. If we eliminate treaties, we eliminate those interesting avenues of gameplay. Thank you all again for the interesting discussion, it's been very fun to write and read about. *[OOC: Except Terms of Service and moderation, but that's really more of a natural law.]

Congratulations guys. This is a nice tribute to seven years of history.

Well, this got quickly out of hand. Obviously tempers flared a little here, and equally obviously nobody is going to be fighting anybody 1x1, 4x4, or in any other capacity. Not that we all wouldn't appreciate the deep irony of an optional NAP causing a war. Margrave, you said in another thread that you couldn't understand why alliance gag orders existed. I wonder if you still hold that view...

Margrave, thank you for your response. I think that this is a debate well worth having, and I think that you are arguing your side with distinction. Once again, I'm going to open with a general statement, before getting into specific responses. I think the overarching flaw with your argument is part of what has made this world so difficult for everyone over the last couple of years. It's the idea that because things are the way they are, they must remain the way they are. The idea that we can't go back to a time when things were better, because that's simply not what the world is anymore. I have heard this repeated ad naseum here, in the smoke-filled back rooms that you reference, in internal discussions, in embassies throughout the cyberverse. This isn't true. This world, more than any other world, is shaped by us. We make it what we want to be. I think you're most right when you say that NPO and the Global Alliance have failed to weigh in on the great issues of morality for the last few years. As a reminder, I have an example of a diplomatic crisis from 2008, and its resolution: Note what happened here. The Orders (presumably) either didn't feel that they were in the right political position to go to war, or believed that the offense did not warrant a declaration of war. Their reaction, however, wasn't to hide this morsel of information, saving it for 6 months as a potential casus belli. Instead, they spun it to their advantage and posted it for the whole world to see. They put their argument before the international community and let it shape public opinion to their advantage, trying to win support by being the party that was in the right, not the party that had arbitrarily garnered the most allies. This is the type of attitude and political maneuvering that we don't see anymore. Where you and I differ is that I don't believe that it is impossible to bring back. I think that it is easy to bring back. We have hundreds of active national leaders. Is this the thousands that we had before? No. But is it enough for good, thorough discourse? For reasoned political discussion? For people to be active and opinionated and argumentative in the world's open forums? Yes. All we need now is for people to do so. You point out that the NPO and GATO haven't weighed in on so many issues of global importance. You're right, we have failed. I intend to see what I can do about that, and I hope that you and everyone else reading this thread does too. I apologize for the length of that opening, it got away from me a bit. A brief(er) response to some of the specific points that you brought up, formatted for easier reading: This point is the one that I most directly addressed in my opening. I would like to address the last paragraph, however. Kashmir has done an admiral job positioning itself, and I applaud your active diplomacy and your record in the international community. But I wonder if it is enough. We have seen respected, neutral alliances attacked without reason and, when they defend themselves, only struck harder. Can you feel truly safe in this world, where a strong group can, without reason or warning, attack? If there is no rule of law, the strong will not have less sway over the weak - they will have much, much more. The rule of law builds part of the system that you want to see - an invisible web of ties between alliances that at some point say "enough". That this action is so far outside of the norms that we have established that it must be stopped even without a treaty saying that it must be so. Our disagreement on this point is that I think that treaties are an integral part of the structure of that rule of law, and strengthen the likelihood that people truly act on their beliefs. I think this paragraph shows how close our opinions are to each other in goals if not in methods. Because the choice here truly is to pull down the edifice or to fix the leaking roof. As the broken toilet in the Nova Rian presidential palace can attest, it's often easier to let small things that are broken stay the way they are, until they get worse and starting from scratch seems like the best option. But it's still easier to fix what you already have than to start anew. Our history is part of what makes us interesting. I like to be able to reference the ancient goings-on of the cyberverse, but I also like to be able to see the connections between then and now in our structures and institutions. If we reform treaties instead of eliminating them, then we keep those bonds of memory intact. Having been a nation leader since GWII as well, I sympathize with your point of view, and agree with it in part. Alliances certainly fight over old grudges, personal biases, and vindictive rivalries. GATO has perhaps been on the losing end of more of those wars than most. But just because people do go to war for these reasons does not mean that they are valid reasons for which to go to war. My advocacy is that the international community judge these declarations on their merits and adjust their foreign policy accordingly. A note: this does not mean not honoring treaties. GATO famously cancelled their treaty with LUE shortly before GWI because of their behavior, but still honored it when NPO attacked during the 72-hour cancellation period. Both of these actions were, in my view, the morally correct ones. The center point is interesting but irrelevant. It requires, if anything, more political maneuvering to maintain a balance of power than it does to create a hegemony. As an example, before Nova Rio created a centralized government, it was a collection of squabbling independent states. One state, known as Great Britain, was an island nation determined to keep itself independent from continental affairs. It spent the better part of a century carefully shifting its weight between the various alliances of the continent just to keep the balance of power intact. As you can see, it requires just as much political acumen, plotting, and scheming to accomplish your goals as it would to build a hegemony. That political maneuvering is what I want to see more of in Planet Bob. Last, my argument is that we should develop an external influence powerful enough to enforce their views on the cyberverse. I agree that it does not exist in the status quo, and argue that it should exist. I think that we are part in agreement here, part in irreconcilable ideological disagreement. I agree completely that the goals of community and bonds are worthwhile and valuable. I certainly would have let this nation fade into dust many times over if not for them. But I believe that these bonds are helped by a political goal, something to strive for. I think that we can be most inspirational as leaders if we point our comrades towards an end that is better than our present, and I think that politics fills that gap. In my mind, a cultural and political "victory", inherently fleeting, is in the same vein. It is indeed difficult; in fact, I believe that it wouldn't be interesting if it was easy! And that motivation must come from the dedicated players setting a goal and working to achieve it. I believe that dedication is already here - if your goal is to establish a balance of power, then do it! There's certainly a strong imbalance as it is. I would note that the last sentence is certainly not the policy of GATO, and isn't really even a policy prescription. More just a general call to action. I believe that the rest of your arguments not quoted above have been addressed indirectly in the responses, but please let me know if there are any that you would like me to address specifically. Just as you have said, it's been extremely pleasant discussing this with someone willing to put the time into such a thorough response, and I'm also just as glad to see the other well-considered responses in this thread. I think we've all done a good job considering an important issue to CN. Because this post is aggressively long, I would like to summarize my thoughts here at the end. The Cyberverse is in a state where everyone has claimed that it is dying, that it is irrevocably changed, and that it can't go back to the way that it was in its glory days. I say that we have been saying that since the beginning. When NPO came to Planet Bob, it was dying because of invasion alliances. When the first MDP was signed, it was dying because of failed independent foreign policies. When we hit our peak number of national rulers, it was dying because there were too many new leaders participating. This planet dies when we let it, and the dream of bringing it back to its glory days dies when we let it. I've run into the attitude more times that I can count. We've convinced ourselves that it's dead by virtue of repetition, but I see some of the great names still active here and in alliances throughout the globe. The potential for action is still there. It's up to us to bring it back.

That should be the case. Sign bad treaties, get bad results.

I have to disagree with the proposal put forward here. I'll get into each of the points presented here in a moment, but I'd like to express a generally contrary model for thinking first. The nature of inter-alliance relationships is and should be one that is governed by laws. Treaties, though they are no longer consistently written this way, are the basic laws of the cyberverse. To replace them with unspoken relationships would be like relying on the individual relationships between citizens and policemen to be enough to govern a country. It would work for some honorable citizens and for some honorable policemen but wouldn't work for those less dedicated to their social constructs. Now, point by point. First, we have to draw a distinction between the concept of treaties in general, and the concept of treaties which are signed without good faith. It is impossible to argue that the way that treaties are signed now is not good for the state of interalliance politics. Alliances are willing if not eager to sign treaties that they know they will back out of if given the chance. This should not be allowed to happen. Just because some treaties are signed in ill faith, however, does not mean that all treaties are bad. I disagree in principle. Actions should be in accordance with laws, not feelings. If an alliance wants to go to war, it should justify not by an ethereal relationship, but by providing a documented basis for doing so. I think that this lack of respect for laws makes the entire political system less interesting. How do you scheme a way to put your alliance into power if you can't count on the rest of the alliances to play the game? How do you built up an elaborate plot to overthrow an enemy if the other alliances do whatever they want, whenever they want? Are these laws going to be broken sometimes? Yes. How do we prevent this? Two ways: first, internally, we must hold ourselves to our commitments. If your alliance leadership doesn't honor a treaty, then you should find a new alliance. Second, externally, we must realize that alliances that will ignore a treaty today will ignore a treaty tomorrow. An alliance that doesn't honor its treaties should find the rest of its partners cancelling on it shortly thereafter. A necessary corollary to this thought is that alliances must avoid conflicts of treaties, and have a plan to resolve their treaties if they do come into conflict, legally. I have no problem with anti-chaining clauses in treaties for this exact reason. This is an interesting point because I think that it requires more activity without encouraging that activity. Yes, to maintain a relationship in this new scheme would require a much more active foreign affairs. But I don't think that there's any compelling reason to do so. Why do we build relationship and treaties? It's because we want to make our alliance the best, not just to acknowledge a friendship. In a chaotic, post-legal world, it becomes impossible to make long-term, effective plans to change the world around you. So I have an incentive to be active to make or maintain a relationship, but no reason to want that same relationship. In the end, it's probably worse for activity. I believe strongly that what you define as "fair" is better called "equal". Equality in result is not a good goal, with no offense meant to our Communist members. If nation A or alliance B makes poor decisions, then their "natural behavior" should result in them being crushed. It may take cynical means to put your alliance or your bloc in power, but it can be done with noble goals. I want every alliance to have a view for how the cyberverse should be run, and I want them to put all of their energy into making the cyberverse look that way. Your goal might be to ban raiding the non-aligned. Your goal might be to encourage democracy or free Senate seats or to tamp down on hateful or irritating misconduct. But if you don't have a goal and the will to accomplish it, then you should be relegated to the sidelines while those that do make themselves heard. Here's another interesting point, because its premise is mostly true without its result being a good thing. First, the existence of overt treaties does not preclude the existence of secret treaties or plots. This is my quibble with the logic of the point itself; the element of surprise can still exist in the cyberverse, it's just supplemented by the treaty system. The larger problem that I have is that when there is no expected course of action there are no surprises. If my bookcase fell over right now while I'm writing this post, that would be surprising. If my house was on fire and my bookcase fell over, I wouldn't even notice. A chaotic interalliance system precludes true surprise, which can only exist in an ordered, comprehensible world. If this is your goal, I encourage you to pursue it, but you should use treaties as a tool to accomplish it. If you want to overthrow the ruling structure of the Cyberverse, then surely a web of allies, working together towards one goal, would be the strongest advantage imaginable. If it's not working for you, then it might be time to not look at the treaties as your enemy, but instead at your enemies themselves. Perhaps they are simply playing the game better than you. If that is the case - play better. Overall, I have two things to say to close. First, I think that your post is extremely well-written, and that this type of discourse is extremely helpful to the cyberverse at large. I applaud you for taking the time to write it and to write it well. It brings back some memories of when well-structured and reasoned discourse was the norm, not the exception. Second, I agree that reform needs to come to the treaty system. I propose, however, that we reform the system by making treaties truly meaningful. If you are going to sign a treaty (with the exception of humorous treaties meant to poke fun at alliances that might take themselves too seriously), mean it. Hold to it. And if your allies don't hold to their treaties, then isolate them and stop doing business with them. Only we can police the system of laws that we have established. I encourage us all to do a better job of it.

We signed a treaty, it's right up there ^.

You're welcome, everyone who was concerned about the stability of Brown! We have once again solved your concerns!

Honestly, what's there to care about? The quality of political intrigue in the core conflict is as bad as the grammar of the participants.

[quote name='Presidant Joe' timestamp='1323614107' post='2873868']this isn't the 1600 where we all lined up shot for a few hours then shared some tea are exchanged apologies for any unpleasantness [/quote] Really, we're all going to let this go? Because this quote is the highlight of the war thus far.

I hope they have their towels.

[quote name='Bilrow' date='30 May 2010 - 12:54 AM' timestamp='1275195280' post='2316274'] I'm sorry I can't hear you the connection is breaking ..... [/quote] Stop calling, stop calling, I don't wanna think anymore!

I am reassured by Gopher's return to the Sanction Race, and less reassured by a slow day. We'll make it up tomorrow!

[quote name='kerschbs' date='29 May 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1275154607' post='2315676'] So..... does Abdur count as a recruit? [/quote] You probably wouldn't want to admit to recruiting him.

[quote name='kerschbs' date='28 May 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1275062090' post='2314640'] Hmm, I think we might be seeing the Cat pip with the IAA deathstar soon. I'll even vote for it this time. [/quote] You're damn skippy you'll choose the cat pip with the IAA deathstar.

Very possible the best player of CN.

Such nice things you guys have to say about the moderation team.

[quote name='The AUT' date='22 May 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1274504475' post='2307731'] I'm no hitman but I think [color="#800080"][b]United Purple Nations[/b][/color] better watch they back, coming up from behind is [color="#663300"]Global Alliance And Treaty Organization[/color] like a Mack[/quote] Actually, FOK just passed them. And I'm liking this Pacifican growth here.

[quote name='wickedj' date='20 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1274396553' post='2305913'] Thus far some of highest ratings given out are from MTTezla([b]6.66[/b]7), baskan (6.300), Omniscient1(6.154) and kulomascovia (7.100) the lowest ratings are from Smacky (2.775) Starfox(3.200) and Reythegreat(4.192) [/quote] I would now like to claim that this was intentional.

Good to see this treaty. o/ Legion

My face is twitching, it seems like it's trying to... Oh, I see what it did there.

[quote name='AirMe' date='20 May 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1274397749' post='2305962'] You'd be surprised what Ronin would have been willing to do had the effort had been there........[/quote] Heyo! On another note, I'm happy to see this treaty! o/ Invicta

Seems like a good resolution to the issue. Can't wait to see IAA's flag in-game!

The wreath on the seal is upside down. Anyways, good luck clearing up the confusion.