Jump to content

A New Friend for a New Way


Recommended Posts

Gentle Persons

We are pleased to announce the first alliance to honour the Order of the Black Rose by agreeing to the terms laid forth in The Covenant.
The Brain has gone through a time of discontent with the general politics of Digiterra as they stand right now. We have known The Brain for a very long time and know many to be good, solid and mature leaders. While we are sad to see them leave their previous connections, sometimes a new beginning means re-examining ones future direction. We are honoured that the path set out in the Covenant appeals to such an alliance as The Brain.
We are happy to add The Brain as the first alliance to sign on to The Covenant and look to find other alliances who would like to try the path laid out before us.


The Central Nervous System

mr3looc
Shane-o
theragu40

The Brain Trust

Cerebellum: SamFisher202
Temporal Lobe: KitKatFox
Brain Stem: JtiksPies
Parietal Lobe: greg136

For the Rosular Kingdom and The Order of the Black Rose

For Queen AterAtra,
Sir Winslow Knight Protector
The Knights Council



The Covenant

The signatories of this Covenant come together to share a style of values in the way they wish to conduct the business of interalliance affairs. This covenant is the easiest to join and the easiest to leave. We welcome all those alliances who share this set of principles to affix their signatures, to show how they wish to be judged on Digiterra. Failure to abide by them means that the alliance forfeits the benefit of this accord with like minded alliances. The Covenant is not meant as a judgment for those who choose a different path. It is meant to clearly outline the means to measure the signatories' future actions. Is our way the best way? Is our way the right way? Is our way the moral way? To all these, we answer: We do not know, but it is our way.

We believe:

1. War is always an option, but it is the last option, not the first.
2. Diplomacy is more than threats or insults.
3. Neutrality in a conflict does not mean indifference.
4. Alliances do not need to be best buddies to respect each other.
5. Friends tell friends when they are acting badly.
6. Most actions are not a casus belli.
7. Civility is not common, but should be.
8. Civility does not suspend itself in times of war or peace.
9. Mistakes happen, and if respect is shared, resolution can be swift and fair.
10. Those who confirm these values by signing may always request, but not command, defensive help unless prohibited by official neutrality.
11. That financial support is what partners do when another is in need, including economic cooperation where desired.
12. Wars are fought to defend a principal or friend, not to acquire assets.
13. In the rare case where punishment is required for egregious actions, the penalty shall be distributed to unrelated small parties, to help build Digiterra.
14. Fighting a friend or foe can be done with dignity and honor, regardless of the eventual victor.
15. The niceties of formal written treaties is not required but desired.
16. Aggressive wars are not in our repertoire of actions.


We do not believe:

1. That we dictate who the friends of our friends should be.
2. That we need to always agree on a course of action.
3. That a request to help is automatic and without due thought to the cause of the request.
4. That politics should determine if a request for help should be approved.
5. That the friends of friend's actions are legitimate reason to approve military support.
6. That the cancellation of a friendship or treaty is required or desired just because we find ourselves on opposite sides of a particular conflict.
7. That information that pertains to another alliance should be withheld or used to advantage.
8. That spying is justified other than in its simple war mode in game mechanics.
9. That a group of 5 or more people with the same Alliance Affiliation and true desire to be seen as an alliance are any less an alliance than any other alliance. When in doubt ask.
10. That PZI or EZI is justified.
11. That rogue attacks are anything more than the act of the uncreative and cowardly.
12. That OOC attacks or spread of OOC information can ever be justified or acceptable.
13. That racist, sexist, rude, salacious or personal attacks are ever justifiable.
14. That any comment or conversation not in a private area should be offered without being tempered with respect for the potential feelings of those who may not be as tough skinned as we are.
15. That something should be done because it can be done.
16. That we have the only way to do things right.


This Covenant provides for a new form of agreement. It is a statement of principle.
It is not a bloc. It has no cancellation notice. Violation of the terms removes a signatory. Voluntary withdrawal removes a signatory.
Since the Order of the Black Rose and the Rosular Kingdom is the author there is no way for us to defer from the terms of the Covenant. There is for us no wiggle room.


What is a defensive war?

1. An attack (spying or military) on a signatory alliance that has not declared an attack (war) that requests defensive assistance.

What is an aggressive war?

1. Everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1300924400' post='2674108']
Good The MVP

We shall strive to do better and meet your enviable record for trustworthiness.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis
[/quote]

When you have Hime Themis making fun of you, you should probably give up.

Congratulations OBR and The Brain!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1300927081' post='2674148']
When you have Hime Themis making fun of you, you should probably give up.

Congratulations OBR and The Brain!
[/quote]

Dear gentlest and noblest and kindest and kindred in heart pezstar,

If I want a treacherous alliance that plots ins and outs of treaties, people already forgot about that expose?, I'll treaty with OBR. Until then I trust the likes of MK and GOONS fare more than them.

And Hime Themis: I'm not the one with a plethora of "Writ de Excuse me as I use the whole I have allies on both sides" to get out of every war that could have involved me getting roughed up a bit. Last I checked the best you could do is support GR in your first war against TORN in a war with little risk. I guess because you all use such flowery language I should trust you all, indubitably!

Edited by The MVP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1300943380' post='2674432']
Dear gentlest and noblest and kindest and kindred in heart pezstar,

If I want a treacherous alliance that plots ins and outs of treaties, people already forgot about that expose?, I'll treaty with OBR. Until then I trust the likes of MK and GOONS fare more than them.

And Hime Themis: I'm not the one with a plethora of "Writ de Excuse me as I use the whole I have allies on both sides" to get out of every war that could have involved me getting roughed up a bit. Last I checked the best you could do is support GR in your first war against TORN in a war with little risk. I guess because you all use such flowery language I should trust you all, indubitably!
[/quote]


Oh right, how horrible to not act on an optional treaty. MONSTERS all of them! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1300946854' post='2674468']
Oh right, how horrible to not act on an optional treaty. MONSTERS all of them! :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Not monsters. It is just convenient, for all power structures, to tolerate the Rosular Kingdom and its little frivolities as they are because publicly attacking them for what they are is a waste of political capital and will ultimately lead to little gain. That's why they have always been given a free pass by the "powers that be", no matter who those were, when they refused to come to the help of that or that other "ally". Alliances have been flamed to hell and back for much less deceit and treachery.

To each his own, I guess. It is no wonder that this Writ de Credo 2.0 isn't drawing crowds, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1300918973' post='2674027']
We believe:

1. War is always an option, but it is the last option, not the first. [b]yes[/b]
2. Diplomacy is more than threats or insults. [b]yes[/b]
3. Neutrality in a conflict does not mean indifference. [b]yes[/b]
4. Alliances do not need to be best buddies to respect each other. [b]true[/b]
5. Friends tell friends when they are acting badly. [b]yes[/b]
6. Most actions are not a casus belli. [b]Vague enough for me to agree[/b]
7. Civility is not common, but should be. [color="#FF0000"][b]No[/b][/color]
8. Civility does not suspend itself in times of war or peace. [color="#FF0000"][b]from above, no[/b][/color]
9. Mistakes happen, and if respect is shared, resolution can be swift and fair. [b]yes[/b]
10. Those who confirm these values by signing may always request, but not command, defensive help unless prohibited by official neutrality. [i][color="#006400"]Hidden ODP clause is nice[/color][/i]
11. That financial support is what partners do when another is in need, including economic cooperation where desired. [i][color="#006400"]As is this tautology which I assume represents an aid clause[/color][/i]
12. Wars are fought to defend a principal or friend, not to acquire assets. [b]yes![/b]
13. In the rare case where punishment is required for egregious actions, the penalty shall be distributed to unrelated small parties, to help build Digiterra. [color="#8B0000"][b]Yes and no. It's certainly a nice gesture, but hardly something I'd agree to sign away permanently.[/b][/color]
14. Fighting a friend or foe can be done with dignity and honor, regardless of the eventual victor. [b]yes[/b]
15. The niceties of formal written treaties is not required but desired. [b]yes[/b]
16. Aggressive wars are not in our repertoire of actions. [color="#8B0000"][b]What does this mean? Unprovoked attacks? If so I agree, otherwise it conflicts with item number one.[/b][/color]


We do not believe:

1. That we dictate who the friends of our friends should be. [b]yes[/b]
2. That we need to always agree on a course of action. [b]yes[/b]
3. That a request to help is automatic and without due thought to the cause of the request. [color="#FF0000"][b]No. Honor is not hiding behind reasons to avoid a conflict.[/b][/color]
4. That politics should determine if a request for help should be approved. [b]yes[/b]
5. That the friends of friend's actions are legitimate reason to approve military support. [color="#FF0000"][b]No, but a friend's actions because of the aforementioned actions, are[/b][/color]
6. That the cancellation of a friendship or treaty is required or desired just because we find ourselves on opposite sides of a particular conflict. [b]yes[/b]
7. That information that pertains to another alliance should be withheld or used to advantage. [b][color="#8B0000"]Unsure, it's too vague. I mean, you wouldn't tell me that I should start giving coalition secrets to our enemies, would you?[/color][/b]
8. That spying is justified other than in its simple war mode in game mechanics. [color="#8B0000"][b]Iffy on this because it can become justified in a sufficiently drawn-out war.[/b][/color]
9. That a group of 5 or more people with the same Alliance Affiliation and true desire to be seen as an alliance are any less an alliance than any other alliance. When in doubt ask. [b][color="#FF0000"]No, it's 2 or more.[/color][/b]
10. That PZI or EZI is justified. [b]yes[/b]
11. That rogue attacks are anything more than the act of the uncreative and cowardly. [color="#FF0000"][b]Are you suggesting that alliances have additional sovereign rights not possessed by the people as individuals? Suggesting that if 64Digits drops below 4 members, we can no longer declare war?[/b][/color]
12. That OOC attacks or spread of OOC information can ever be justified or acceptable. [b]What is this OOC of which you speak? I've never heard of it.[/b]
13. That racist, sexist, rude, salacious or personal attacks are ever justifiable. [b]correct[/b]
14. That any comment or conversation not in a private area should be offered without being tempered with respect for the potential feelings of those who may not be as tough skinned as we are. [b][color="#FF0000"]lol[/color][/b]
15. That something should be done because it can be done. [b]yes[/b]
16. That we have the only way to do things right. [b]yes[/b]

[/quote]

I never commented on the original posting, but here are my thoughts. All in all, surprisingly close to my ideals. But there are a number of areas which prohibit my signature, as I outlined above.

I'd be willing to sign off on a document that is clarified and skimmed down in the appropriate areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1300943380' post='2674432']
Dear gentlest and noblest and kindest and kindred in heart pezstar,

If I want a treacherous alliance that plots ins and outs of treaties, people already forgot about that expose?, I'll treaty with OBR. Until then I trust the likes of MK and GOONS fare more than them.

And Hime Themis: I'm not the one with a plethora of "Writ de Excuse me as I use the whole I have allies on both sides" to get out of every war that could have involved me getting roughed up a bit. Last I checked the best you could do is support GR in your first war against TORN in a war with little risk. I guess because you all use such flowery language I should trust you all, indubitably!
[/quote]

Good The MVP

From our beginning to later the Karma war we held Zero Aggressive and one Defensive treaty with Greenland Republic. So honestly I am uncertain how and when we could ever have used the " whole I have allies on both sides" to get out of every war that could have involved me getting roughed up a bit." Further to my amusement you seem to have a slightly faulty memory. We cancelled the WdC and reinstated the CSN with GR just days BEFORE the Karma war thus drawing us in AGAINST the largest Bloc on Digiterra at the time. Since you memory is somewhat
.rusty you may have forgotten that at the time of the Karma war none was guaranteeing a NPO loss frankly we figured we might get pounded well but we had give our word to our Friends in GR we would not leave them to face the fire without us. Since we had TWO defensive alliances at the time of the preemptive attack on C&G by Duckroll and company not shockingly we once again fought on behalf of our ally in GR. Once again I do not believe ANYONE was guaranteeing an easy win for C&G. We exchange nukes with TORN for about a month and a half. They fought with respect as did we I am sorry you seek to diminish their war efforts along with ours.
Having twice (yes not first war against TORN) come to the aid of our ally in GR in two separate wars and then aided in the rebuilding of GR AND our opponents in both of those conflicts I am saddened that this seems insufficient to be deemed worthy by some people. I believe our allies all” three” that we are treatied to know and understand that we have always provided support in their defence when it was requested. I also believe our opponents will attest that we have kept the bounds of our word to fight and seek cessation of war in an honest, fair and even handed manner. Never have we asked for reparations and in fact in the last two wars actually paid for some of the rebuilding of our honourable opponents (myself personal as well in both occasions) to remove their nations from bill lock ,even though we were fortunate enough to be on the side with the upper hand at the end. In addition after the Karma war we sent 450 mill in aid to our treaty partners in GR to help them rebuild. So I am unclear how we might have done more than fight for our ally, secured peace for them, rebuilt our ally and opponents with no request for reps nor admission of defeat from our opponents. I am sure this is not compatible with the grander tactical thought but it is/was/ and will be the way of the OBR.
The Writ de Credo was a flowery well intentioned and flawed treaty whose terms were NEVER invoked against any treaty partner and even at its cancellation WE kept to the terms of the notice of cancellation. Most will not know that issues caused by the cute wording and the unnecessary call against our honour caused a far greater hurt internally for us than any of you might have any inkling of. For those with a shorter memory the fact that one prominent member of The Brain was a significant player in the debate against the WdC at the time is all the more reason we are pleased to have The Brain and that member as first signatories.
The Covenant was written in plain unadorned language precisely to avoid any potential for interpretation or evasion. I thank you though for raising these concerns in an honest and clear measure.Please feel free to identify the flowery language in The Covenant that confuses you I shall be happy to clarify it for you.
I am actually pleased to be included with MK and GOONS on the tape measure of trustworthiness. While we do not agree with certain of their FA choices I am unaware of even their current enemies ever questioning the loyalty of these alliances in keeping their treaty obligations.

As to your "I should trust you all, indubitably" do or do not. We offer The Covenant if you do not wish to sign we are sad but we will seek to survive the disappointment. I do not question your integrity I am disappointed you choose to question ours. If you wish to question The Covenant I am willing to respond to any legitimate concerns.


Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis


[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1300947462' post='2674472']
Not monsters. It is just convenient, for all power structures, to tolerate the Rosular Kingdom and its little frivolities as they are because publicly attacking them for what they are is a waste of political capital and will ultimately lead to little gain. That's why they have always been given a free pass by the "powers that be", no matter who those were, when they refused to come to the help of that or that other "ally". Alliances have been flamed to hell and back for much less deceit and treachery.

To each his own, I guess. It is no wonder that this Writ de Credo 2.0 isn't drawing crowds, though.
[/quote]

Good
Yevgeni Luchenkov
"always been given a free pass by the "powers that be", no matter who those were, when they refused to come to the help of that or that other "ally". Okay we appreciate the free pass now since we have never had more than 3 allies and have supported our defensive ally the two times they were attacked may I please ask . What ally did we refuse to come to the aid of? This seems a little harsh considering we fought with your C&G ally in the previous two major wars on the same side the only times our allies asked for defensive help. Did I miss a war?

It is also mildly funny to see you label The Covenant as Writ de Credo 2.0 when our first signatory contains as a prominent member who was our BIGGEST critic of the WdC and was the one who approached us to consider signing The Covenant.
As we stated clearly in the Covenant the treaty will have limited appeal it is not designed to be the broader appeal of the WdC. In fact we have stated there are other way that we respect. The Mushroom Kingdom does things in a very different was and we respect that it is simply not our way. I should also point out that there is no multi-alliance treaty that was never pre-solicited that has in two days had massive sign up. Please allow others to see it and judge if it is a style that appeals. If not that is fine we are stating our ideals if others join us it pleases us but it does not change the manner we will show respect to friends and adversaries in future.



Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300984223' post='2674728']
I never commented on the original posting, but here are my thoughts. All in all, surprisingly close to my ideals. But there are a number of areas which prohibit my signature, as I outlined above.

I'd be willing to sign off on a document that is clarified and skimmed down in the appropriate areas.
[/quote]

Good HeroofTime55

I should like to address your specific issues.

We Believe


7. Civility is not common, but should be. [b]No
Yes. Civility does not require one to be a push over it requires those you disagree with the right to a polite and reasonable counter argument not name calling and flaming.[/b]
8. Civility does not suspend itself in times of war or peace. [b]from above, no
From above even more so Yes The point of principles is not so they are easy to discard but so they help you stay strong in adversity. These will never be negotiable..[/b]
13. In the rare case where punishment is required for egregious actions, the penalty shall be distributed to unrelated small parties, to help build Digiterra. [b]Yes and no. It's certainly a nice gesture, but hardly something I'd agree to sign away permanently.
Once again are we to accept a defensive war to gain from it? Sorry not the ideal here. If someone as acted in an incorrigible fashion then punish them but make it a penalty worthy of justice not avarice. Help build Digiterra if you feel the need to punish an egregious act.[/b]
16. Aggressive wars are not in our repertoire of actions. [b]What does this mean? Unprovoked attacks? If so I agree, otherwise it conflicts with item number one.
We defined a defensive war. Everything else is an aggressive war.but yes you are on track.
[/b]

We do not believe:

3. That a request to help is automatic and without due thought to the cause of the request. [b]No. Honor is not hiding behind reasons to avoid a conflict.[/b]
Sadly I see this word over used. I believe you actually mean the word Loyalty.
For Us this is what honour means.
A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege; integrity; uprightness; trustworthness. [1913 Webster]

[color="#a8397a"]to feel you must do something because it is [b]morally right[/b], even if you do not want to do it

This means one does not support actions that are wrong regardless of friendship. Loyalty has been used by soldiers through out history in a admirable fashion BUT it has allowed unspeakable horrors to occur because loyalty trumped honour.
Doing what is right is not hiding. I must respectfully disagree with this point.[/color]



5. That the friends of friend's actions are legitimate reason to approve military support. [b]No, but a friend's actions because of the aforementioned actions, are

As shown above absolutely Not. You have proven your loyalty in wars that you were not winning and I respect that loyalty but if a friend chooses a way that is wrong then it cannot be supported though exactly how this might occur in a defensive treaty I am uncertain.[/b]

7. That information that pertains to another alliance should be withheld or used to advantage. [b]Unsure, it's too vague. I mean, you wouldn't tell me that I should start giving coalition secrets to our enemies, would you?
This is meant to be pertinent in peace not war planning. If a spy brought us news even in war we would tell our adversaries. Why because it right. Does this loses us a tactical advantage of course. We believe that Karma actually has a value.
[/b]
8. That spying is justified other than in its simple war mode in game mechanics. [b]Iffy on this because it can become justified in a sufficiently drawn-out war.
NO, NO ,NO our principles are strong except if the going gets tough ??? If this is the case there is little purpose to stated principles.
[/b]
9. That a group of 5 or more people with the same Alliance Affiliation and true desire to be seen as an alliance are any less an alliance than any other alliance. When in doubt ask. [b]No, it's 2 or more.
Since we just masked a two player alliance on our forum yesterday we believe it is two. However the general consensus is 5. Nobody says you cannot display even greater ethics than the treaties you sign. I know this is a revolutionary concept for some on Digiterra but I am always excited to be surprised.
[/b]
11. That rogue attacks are anything more than the act of the uncreative and cowardly. [b]Are you suggesting that alliances have additional sovereign rights not possessed by the people as individuals? Suggesting that if 64Digits drops below 4 members, we can no longer declare war?

I am I suggesting it not in this clause but if you do not think they do then sadly you and we should all be happily safe sitting on none. How you determined that any alliance of any number may not declare war from this is honestly confusing to me.
[/b]
A rogue unlike the definition of others is the result of their actions not size. Those who give no heed to their nation or alliance and attack others for the sole purpose of hurting their attackers are rogues. Period. If I may be blunt any idiot with a nation can attack another nation or alliance if they do not care. It is oft used by those who are quiting the game and instead of bowing out with grace the inner 12 year old comes out who tosses the chess board when leaving a game they have not the fortitude to complete. Two finger clap to them.


While we would love to have other alliances sign The Covenant we will not do the modification routine because frankly once more than two alliance want in on the writing we have seen the results. This is the reason we belong to no blocs. If everybody needs to feel completely happy the document often ends up saying nothing of merit.

Perhaps this tells it all.

[font="Verdana"][size="2"]If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
[/size][/font][url="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton.html"][b][font="Verdana"][size="2"][color="#0000cc"]George S. Patton[/color][/size][/font][/b][/url]


Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To respond to the addressing of certain issues,

[hr]

(quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1301013859' post='2675343')
Good HeroofTime55

I should like to address your specific issues.

We Believe


7. Civility is not common, but should be. [b]No
Yes. Civility does not require one to be a push over it requires those you disagree with the right to a polite and reasonable counter argument not name calling and [insulting].[/b]

8. Civility does not suspend itself in times of war or peace. [b]from above, no
From above even more so Yes The point of principles is not so they are easy to discard but so they help you stay strong in adversity. These will never be negotiable..[/b]

[i][b][color="#0000FF"]I have always held that logic trumps base name calling, but I am not beyond adding a little spice to my posts. I hold logic and reason on the highest pedestal, and the occurrence of war certainly does not diminish that. But I find the stylings of the Order to be dry and without wit. I value creative and clever insults to be used alongside logic, to add spice and flavor to the argument.[/color][/b][/i]

13. In the rare case where punishment is required for egregious actions, the penalty shall be distributed to unrelated small parties, to help build Digiterra. [b]Yes and no. It's certainly a nice gesture, but hardly something I'd agree to sign away permanently.
Once again are we to accept a defensive war to gain from it? Sorry not the ideal here. If someone as acted in an incorrigible fashion then punish them but make it a penalty worthy of justice not avarice. Help build Digiterra if you feel the need to punish an egregious act.[/b]

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]I can understand this, but if someone causes damage in an unjustified action, the victim has a right to be compensated for the unjustified damage. Forgoing that right and electing to fund a third party is noble, but unnecessary. As it stands, current policy of 64Digits avoids seeking reps in all but the most exceptional circumstances.[/b][/i][/color]

16. Aggressive wars are not in our repertoire of actions. [b]What does this mean? Unprovoked attacks? If so I agree, otherwise it conflicts with item number one.
We defined a defensive war. Everything else is an aggressive war.but yes you are on track.
[/b]

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]I do find your definition somewhat limiting. There are other actions beyond spying and direct military action that constitute an attack and merit response, though I do agree that they are very limited in occurrence. There are many rare and complex situations that cannot be accounted for in any document I could not sign away my right to respond to such a rare emergency.[/b][/i][/color]

We do not believe:

3. That a request to help is automatic and without due thought to the cause of the request. [b]No. Honor is not hiding behind reasons to avoid a conflict.[/b]
Sadly I see this word over used. I believe you actually mean the word Loyalty.
For Us this is what honour means.
A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege; integrity; uprightness; trustworthness. [1913 Webster]

[color="#a8397a"]to feel you must do something because it is [b]morally right[/b], even if you do not want to do it

This means one does not support actions that are wrong regardless of friendship. Loyalty has been used by soldiers through out history in a admirable fashion BUT it has allowed unspeakable horrors to occur because loyalty trumped honour.
Doing what is right is not hiding. I must respectfully disagree with this point.[/color]


5. That the friends of friend's actions are legitimate reason to approve military support. [b]No, but a friend's actions because of the aforementioned actions, are

As shown above absolutely Not. You have proven your loyalty in wars that you were not winning and I respect that loyalty but if a friend chooses a way that is wrong then it cannot be supported though exactly how this might occur in a defensive treaty I am uncertain.[/b]

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]For us, Loyalty to one's allies is one aspect of Honor. Our definition of honor does differ from yours to a fair extent. 64Digits signs treaties very sparingly because we must know that each ally must be trustworthy, and we strive to only sign with the best alliances in that regard.

If an ally, or an ally of an ally, does something bad and winds up paying the price for their actions, we will stand with them, partially because they are our friends, and partially because a portion of the blame is transferred to us.[/i][/b][/color]


7. That information that pertains to another alliance should be withheld or used to advantage. [b]Unsure, it's too vague. I mean, you wouldn't tell me that I should start giving coalition secrets to our enemies, would you?
This is meant to be pertinent in peace not war planning. If a spy brought us news even in war we would tell our adversaries. Why because it right. Does this loses us a tactical advantage of course. We believe that Karma actually has a value.
[/b]

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]I cannot but wholeheartedly disagree with assisting one's captors in committing crimes against oneself. It dishonors the self.[/b][/i][/color]

8. That spying is justified other than in its simple war mode in game mechanics. [b]Iffy on this because it can become justified in a sufficiently drawn-out war.
NO, NO ,NO our principles are strong except if the going gets tough ??? If this is the case there is little purpose to stated principles.
[/b]

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]There is a point where an event crosses the line from being merely war, to an attempt at extermination. There is nothing dishonorable about doing everything you can to survive against an oppressive captor. There is a point where they become unworthy of the title of 'human' and the natural respect such a thing entails. There are no rules to survival, except to do everything that you must.[/b][/i][/color]

9. That a group of 5 or more people with the same Alliance Affiliation and true desire to be seen as an alliance are any less an alliance than any other alliance. When in doubt ask. [b]No, it's 2 or more.
Since we just masked a two player alliance on our forum yesterday we believe it is two. However the general consensus is 5. Nobody says you cannot display even greater ethics than the treaties you sign. I know this is a revolutionary concept for some on Digiterra but I am always excited to be surprised.
[/b]

[color="#006400"][i][b]I suppose this is where I say, hooray! Nothing else to comment on this one.[/b][/i][/color]

11. That rogue attacks are anything more than the act of the uncreative and cowardly. [b]Are you suggesting that alliances have additional sovereign rights not possessed by the people as individuals? Suggesting that if 64Digits drops below 4 members, we can no longer declare war?

I am I suggesting it not in this clause but if you do not think they do then sadly you and we should all be happily safe sitting on none. How you determined that any alliance of any number may not declare war from this is honestly confusing to me.
[/b]
A rogue unlike the definition of others is the result of their actions not size. Those who give no heed to their nation or alliance and attack others for the sole purpose of hurting their attackers are rogues. Period. If I may be blunt any idiot with a nation can attack another nation or alliance if they do not care. It is oft used by those who are quiting the game and instead of bowing out with grace the inner 12 year old comes out who tosses the chess board when leaving a game they have not the fortitude to complete. Two finger clap to them.

[color="#0000FF"][i][b]A definition of "rogue" based on action and not size is something I can be more inclined to agree with.

Sacrificing oneself in a final burst of war can be honorable or dishonorable depending on the circumstance. Causing damage for damage sake is a wrongful submission to primal instinct. But sacrificing oneself against enemies and oppressors is nothing if not honorable. The reason and motive behind the action is more important than the action itself.[/b][/i][/color]


While we would love to have other alliances sign The Covenant we will not do the modification routine because frankly once more than two alliance want in on the writing we have seen the results. This is the reason we belong to no blocs. If everybody needs to feel completely happy the document often ends up saying nothing of merit.

Perhaps this tells it all.

[font="Verdana"][size="2"]If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
[/size][/font][url="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton.html"][b][font="Verdana"][size="2"][color="#0000cc"][some guy][/color][/size][/font][/b][/url]


Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis
(/quote)


[hr]

Thank you for the responses and clarifications, it seems as though we are even more aligned than previously thought.

Edited by HeroofTime55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like a drunken frat boy, HeroofTime fumbles and gropes around the subject. Basically everything you said in that confusingly coloured in post can be summed up with "no, I don't agree" with little else other than your subjective feelings to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...