R&R-UINE Announcement

[Heft]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1307611804' post='2727786']
You're cranky. I like you.


You're witty - I like you too.

Sadly, I'd much prefer if you didn't dismiss my comments by throwing a delicious new spin on 'em - I didn't say anything against the opinion of the critics, I only suggested they choose their words more appropriately 'cause it doesn't do much for their credibility (and on that note, oh the irony of me using emotes! )
[/quote]
How did you get "cranky" out of that? Whatever, moving on.

Actually, no. I'm not going to argue over the usage of two words. The criticisms remain valid, and the fact that the large majority of the response has been distraction of one sort or another doesn't really help those who would try to defend against the criticisms.

[Indra Saputra]

o/ rnr
this is my first war
good luck UINE

[The Archduke]

Concerning the changing mind/hectic incident, I was attempting to ascertain whether it was legal to impeach our Emperor. I wanted time for us to work out if possible, and then (if it was) we'd need time to set up a court and carry out proceedings. When you want time, you want a cease-fire, and so you put up an argument for it. This I did. Not once did I say that I wanted the Emperor to be expelled from the alliance - indeed, many times I made a point of saying we were not doing so. So you can forget the Nobel prize award.

What I can't understand is that RnR didn't give us a cease-fire for negotiations once they saw that the government was attempting to rectify the matter. It might have looked like they were trying to destroy us and consolidate their reputation? Anyway, it may well be that these terms will need some revision later - even if we were already complying with them, some future freedom to choose our path later would be nice and probably appropriate. I won't go on to mention those words that AmbroseIV hates, in thanks for RnR finally agreeing to be decent and negotiate.

[mydilan]

Good luck with Peace both of you

[Banksy]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1307611804' post='2727786']
You're cranky. I like you.


You're witty - I like you too.

Sadly, I'd much prefer if you didn't dismiss my comments by throwing a delicious new spin on 'em - I didn't say anything against the opinion of the critics, I only suggested they choose their words more appropriately 'cause it doesn't do much for their credibility (and on that note, oh the irony of me using emotes! )
[/quote]
Paging the GOONS guy who reads OWF posts.

[Hydro]

Funny how a little while ago everyone was all "RnR is so honorable cuz they don't let bandwaggoning tech raiderz" and now they're dishonorable cads. Then again, it's not like UINE was compelled to agree to these admittedly !@#$ terms. Sucks to be terrible at this game lol.

[ShouAS]

I would like to point out that, paying money or tech reps, forces alliances to change the way it runs, hot having about 20% army strength is a forced policy change, not having nukes is a forced policy change, forcying people to exit peace mode is forced policy change.

All other winners of war: change your alliance is exactly the way we say

RnR: Change your alliance, no we don't care how, but don't elect that idjet who was running it. Oh and if you DoW on us it will be considered an act of war.

with the exception of the last term which is just weirdly worded these terms are pretty light. UINE can still have a built up army, they can elect their own officials, carry out their own FA, and with the exception of RnR&allies they can still raid who they want.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1307611147' post='2727781']
It's a fair assumption that one can know the conditions of a contract by reading said contract. Your argument only makes sense if there are "secret" terms of the contract hidden from public view which extend/modify/contradict the public portion of the contract. I suppose it is entirely possible that there is a secret term that says these terms are only going to be enforced for X number of days/weeks/months or something, but why that would be secret and not public is rather baffling. Assuming that an agreement has secret terms like that is a much stranger assumption than just assuming all the terms are in the publicly released document.

Other than that, it's an argument over "indefinite" versus "permanent."
[/quote]

My argument makes sense anyway because neither you, me or Zombie Glaucon know what was RnR and UINE's intention when they agreed to that clause. It's not just secret terms, it's the inherent intention behind a clause that they both agreed. It's not an argument over "indefinite" versus "permanent, it's an argument over "common sense" versus "e-lawyering". Coincidently that's also something that puzzles me, to see NSO doing it.

And forgive me if I am skeptic on the deal of RnR oppressing UINE and UINE being oppressed by RnR.

For academic purposes I'll make an example out of another type of treaty. Imagine a MDoAP between two alliances. MDoAP has a simple article such as "If either alliance is attacked the other will defend it.". However, both alliances agreed, upon negotiation, that the treaty would be non-chaining. And that, considering the bilateral relationship between the two alliances, is what matters, not what the rest of CN community might perceive.

[Heft]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307620128' post='2727845']
My argument makes sense anyway because neither you, me or Zombie Glaucon know what was RnR and UINE's intention when they agreed to that clause. It's not just secret terms, it's the inherent intention behind a clause that they both agreed. It's not an argument over "indefinite" versus "permanent, it's an argument over "common sense" versus "e-lawyering". Coincidently that's also something that puzzles me, to see NSO doing it.

And forgive me if I am skeptic on the deal of RnR oppressing UINE and UINE being oppressed by RnR.

For academic purposes I'll make an example out of another type of treaty. Imagine a MDoAP between two alliances. MDoAP has a simple article such as "If either alliance is attacked the other will defend it.". However, both alliances agreed, upon negotiation, that the treaty would be non-chaining. And that, considering the bilateral relationship between the two alliances, is what matters, not what the rest of CN community might perceive.
[/quote]
Common sense is reading the agreement that they wrote and presented and accepting that it means exactly it says, rather than trying to guess at what they [i]really[/i] meant.

E-lawyering is twisting the text of a document to make it mean something other than what is plainly apparent. That isn't happening. If the intent of the document is so far off base from what a plain, face-value reading of the document indicates, then that is entirely the fault of those who composed the document. And for that matter as far as I can tell the only disagreement on meaning is whether or not Keve is forever forbidden from returning to government because of term 5. And in that case, while a plain reading would say "yes" it is a reasonable assumption that that isn't meant to be the case, especially since term 5 is already poorly worded in other ways (The whole "declaring war is an act of war" bit).

The terms clearly force UINE to change their internal structure and methods of governance to a degree that has been avoided by the victors of every major war since following Karma. Whether the intention is despotic or altruistic doesn't change that, and has little relevance to most of the criticisms that have been offered, since it's only a minority of people that have actually accused R&R of despotic intent. Arguing about intentions is thus just another non-argument to distract from the points that have been made, rather than a proper rebuttal.

[Craven]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307504352' post='2726589']
Good to know R&R is in the dictating-other-alliances'-business business.


No !@#$, right?

The personalities involved might make it easier or more difficult to accept any action, but they are irrelevant to that action. It is as wrong to force a terrible leader out of an alliance forever as it is to force an effective or popular leader out. It might be fun to chuckle at Keve's situation, but the comeuppance or humorous nature doesn't make R&R's "reform" at the point of a gun good. It is not R&R's job or right (with the backing of two blocs) to enforce their idea of how alliances should be run, whom by, or by which government system on any group of nations except their own. Without regard to motive, R&R's actions here are nothing more than a demonstration to the world of what they will do from their position when dealing with a disadvantaged opponent: Whatever they want. Without regard to Keve's ability or popularity, R&R's actions are no more right or acceptable than VE's refusal to allow Ordo Verde to choose its own government; Polaris' attempts to enforce \m/'s charter, Karma's permanent removal of Caffine from Echelon gov; or NPO's placement of a viceroy in GATO. Judgment of actions is not a popularity contest, nor can an honest answer be found by consulting the treaty web; each case must be considered based upon its own facts.
[/quote]

It is good to see peace, but as was said so nicely above.. the terms seem a bit much.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307596535' post='2727655']
But do you keep a bucket of pebbles by your bedside, just in case you get the urge to kick them around a bit in the middle of the night?
[/quote]
I'm not even sure you know what that's supposed to mean. My best guess is that MK has you locked up somewhere so they can insult you before bed each night.

[Piratemonkey530]

As the Minister of Internal Affairs of UINE I'd like to point out that some, if not all, of these term agreements were already going to happen in the near future of UINE. I don't want to give RnR the pleasure of thinking that they are "forcing" our alliance to do anything. The only thing they are forcing us to do is not have Keve in power which we will get over.

To be honest I don't see the big deal in these terms. They were practically unnecessary.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307579174' post='2727410']
Mandatory Tech deals is a way of [i]running[/i] a foreign alliance's resources. Mandatory exit of peace mode is a way of [i]running[/i] a foreign alliance's nations.

The argument on sovereignty concession is nothing short of absurd - that is per se the definition of a treaty and more so of surrender terms -, the question is where you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable demands on someone's sovereignty. Punishment should fit the crime and not follow a blind declaration of [i]rules that should be respected[/i]™.

Saying that an alliance has no business running another alliance has never been true in Planet Bob since the first war GATO fought.
[/quote]
Thanks for pointing out why people have a problem with requiring enemies to come out of peace mode to get peace, whether it's GATO in 2008 or NPO in 2011. Mandatory tech deals are more in the category of reparations – yes, they assert partial ownership over another alliance's aid slots, temporarily, but aid slots are not considered to be as important a representation of sovereignty as peace mode or charters.

[quote]As the Minister of Internal Affairs of UINE I'd like to point out that some, if not all, of these term agreements were already going to happen in the near future of UINE[/quote]
Then why didn't you just do them? It seems to me that you got attacked for not fulfulling a prior deal and pushed into making changes. Keve is no more incompetent today than he has been for the last six months, after all.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307627255' post='2727874']
I'm not even sure you know what that's supposed to mean. My best guess is that MK has you locked up somewhere so they can insult you before bed each night.
[/quote]
If we had him locked up somewhere, he certainly wouldn't have internet access.

[Mathias]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1307640767' post='2727965']
If we had him locked up somewhere, he certainly wouldn't have internet access.
[/quote]

Not a bad idea though...

[Merlinus]

One of the most basic tenets of Contract Law is that it is what the document [b]says[/b] that has legal standing. That includes any "[i]intent[/i]" clause which is present. Absent such a clause, the document must pass scrutiny on its face. If the party proffering the consideration has unstated, or even invisible/unstated ulterior motives in that consideration which pass through to the agreement by the accepting party, it is the accepting party's responsibility to fully understand that to which they have agreed. It is completely possible, even reasonable to have a sound contract with lousy inclusions, as it is possible to have a lousy (yet legally binding) contract with good provisions. Both can easily pass legal scrutiny in any court of competent jurisdiction, and can be held binding on both parties regardless of the document's construct.

If, however, any part of the consideration requires as a natural result of the writing an unstated (either more restrictive or more liberal) outcome, such parts of the contract [u]can[/u] be adjudicated. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, there is no such court of competent jurisdiction within the game for such scrutiny; the resulting reality is the court of public opinion. It is left to the community of players to govern itself, which can sometimes seem as if the inmates have taken control of the asylum.

Yet, for years the community has held a relatively reasonable control over itself. This may have the unintended outcome of defining the boundaries or limits of acceptability (or not, given the plethora of divergent comments on OWF) of the game itself. It does not, however, have direct impact on game mechanics.

I'm reminded of the first definition I ever heard of a Contract:

" [i]A contract is a false document created by two liars, who sign their forged agreement and then put the lie into a desk drawer. The first liar to ever see the document again...loses.[/i]"

That definition seems to fit here for some innocuous reason. I enjoyed the discussion between Heft and Lusitan very much. Raising this issue to the level of acceptance of both the Rules of Debate, and of Rhetoric is interesting to me. I add this to perhaps provide a basic point of mutual understanding for future or further discussion.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1307640580' post='2727964']
Thanks for pointing out why people have a problem with requiring enemies to come out of peace mode to get peace, whether it's GATO in 2008 or NPO in 2011. Mandatory tech deals are more in the category of reparations – yes, they assert partial ownership over another alliance's aid slots, temporarily, but aid slots are not considered to be as important a representation of sovereignty as peace mode or charters.
[/quote]

I am not sure you understood yet that a surrender implies giving up sovereignty. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with increasing the intrusion proportionally to the crime - that's how things should be, the punishment should fit the crime.

[Bob Janova]

A surrender implies giving up explicit elements of sovereignty as determined by the terms you agree to. Some things are considered to be reasonable derogations of sovereignty to ask – aid slots being the most obvious and common at a low level – and some are not. Until recently it was agreed by everyone that your alliance's internal affairs and military deployment tactics were two of those things.

[Bill Wallace]

Congrats on peace. The punishment in my view is nowhere near the level is should be for such a flagrant offense. I would have liked to have seen the words "disbandment" and "tech farms" used in the posted terms. Sure it's extreme, but it's become obvious that we've all become too comfortable and lazy without any real threat to our communities. We're rotting from within. There's a time for being reasonable, but there is also a time for making a group pay the ultimate price for having a bad leader. It would do wonders for cleaning up the exorbitant amount of useless micros and making the leaders of all alliances focus a little harder on how they interact with the world. Anyways, I've only recently changed my views on this and I know I'm in the minority and this is a discussion for another place.

Again, congrats on peace.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1307649793' post='2728071']
Congrats on peace. The punishment in my view is nowhere near the level is should be for such a flagrant offense. I would have liked to have seen the words "disbandment" and "tech farms" used in the posted terms. Sure it's extreme, but it's become obvious that we've all become too comfortable and lazy without any real threat to our communities. We're rotting from within. There's a time for being reasonable, but there is also a time for making a group pay the ultimate price for having a bad leader. It would do wonders for cleaning up the exorbitant amount of useless micros and making the leaders of all alliances focus a little harder on how they interact with the world. Anyways, I've only recently changed my views on this and I know I'm in the minority and this is a discussion for another place.

Again, congrats on peace.
[/quote]

I see what seeds you are planting

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307627255' post='2727874']
I'm not even sure you know what that's supposed to mean. My best guess is that MK has you locked up somewhere so they can insult you before bed each night.
[/quote]
I'm asking you if you make an extra effort to be able to kick pebbles around whenever you might get the urge.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1307571648' post='2727318']
I'm not sure how these terms are at all justified. Not from a moral standpoint, just from a rational standpoint. What the hell does instituting a Magna Carta-like document have anything to do with UINE's incompetence that led to these issues?
[/quote]

Time will tell.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Piratemonkey530' timestamp='1307634532' post='2727907']
As the Minister of Internal Affairs of UINE I'd like to point out that some, if not all, of these term agreements were already going to happen in the near future of UINE. I don't want to give RnR the pleasure of thinking that they are "forcing" our alliance to do anything. The only thing they are forcing us to do is not have Keve in power which we will get over.

To be honest I don't see the big deal in these terms. They were practically unnecessary.
[/quote]

Maybe they should have happened 6 months ago.

[Piratemonkey530]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1307640580' post='2727964']
Then why didn't you just do them? It seems to me that you got attacked for not fulfulling a prior deal and pushed into making changes. Keve is no more incompetent today than he has been for the last six months, after all.
[/quote]
We didn't change our charter because the person who writes the new charter is the emperor and our emperor, keve, was pretty busy in RL. The rest of the government does not have the authority to overrun Keve and write out the charter.

[Piratemonkey530]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307658762' post='2728174']
Maybe they should have happened 6 months ago.
[/quote]
Maybe they should have. But that's our alliances responsibilty not anyone elses. If anything, RnR should have put some interest or something on the reps and not full out attack UINE. It was rather barbaric.