If people complain so much about the tangled treaty web...

[Derantol]

CnG and SF were both suicide pacts in some respect upon their formation, I believe. Then they actually beat NPO. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about either bloc, but I'm guessing that both survived this long because they found something to focus on. That doesn't mean they had goals the whole time, nor does it mean they do now, but at one point, both had clear FA goals that they pursued more or less singlemindedly. It's not just about protecting membership - it's how you do that.

[Schad]

Honestly, I think that the proliferation of blocs tops what we had a year ago, where you had only a couple major blocs and a massive blob of interconnected NS bridging the gap between them. It certainly wouldn't hurt if the ties between blocs were pared down, but I think that things [i]could[/i] be more fluid now than before; uncertainty is the death of action around here, and at least now there's a better idea where the first-priority loyalties of a majority of the key alliances lay.

[Tromp]

Blocs have been around for longer then today's arrangement of the web, so that doesn't tell you anything. Not to mention that countless of treaties aren't honoured when a war actually starts. This old argument about the web I have heard too many times by now, years ago too, I think it shows desperation more then anything.
Come up with something orignal, you're in the position to actually do it.

(For that, I salute men like Impero, who actually had the balls to start something and blow the web up, intentional or not.)

[Hereno]

Blocs don't matter anymore than treaties do. The web is dirty because people don't want to put themselves in a position where they can be rolled without inflicting serious damage to their enemies. Those same leaders also don't want to take heavy losses in war, because it leaves them vulnerable even if they manage to win. Couple those things together, and you get our world, where once a year we get a carefully planned curbstomp, and the rest of the year we see maneuvering and a desperate attempt to not be on the chopping block in the next war. This will never change, because general consensus is that a leader who gives people chances to roll his alliance or starts aggressive wars that weaken his alliance or get them rolled is a bad leader who needs to be replaced. That's the way things work.

[CzarBomba]

I don't think blocs are a bad thing at all. Many folks have already mentioned why they are useful. I think they are mostly right. The key is for blocs to strive towards having cohesive foreign policies. The bloc itself provides the groundwork for this cohesion between the member alliances. Blocs do lose some of their usefulness when member alliances are all pulling in different directions. However, as long as the member alliances of the bloc consider each other of the highest priority, then the bloc serves its' purpose. If that mentality is lost, then the bloc probably should disband.

I do agree that blocs are a deterrent for wars. This is because an attack on one member alliance is (or should be) considered an attack on all (kinda like that DH policy). Obviously, they are viewed this way. An individual alliance (or another bloc) looking to attack another alliance is much less likely to do so if the would-be attacked alliance is a member of a bloc. There's much less guess work involved than if you attack an alliance who (merely) has treaties going all over the place.

Personally, I would rather hold a few mutual treaties between alliances than spread each of those treaties all over the web. Blocs don't solve treaty web issues, but I believe they help it more than hurt it.

[CzarBomba]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314746449' post='2791268']
Not to mention that countless treaties aren't honoured when a war actually starts.
[/quote]

I was going to add something like this to my post, but it was turning into a rant on the subject and I decided to take it out. This man concisely states one of the biggest problems with the web in one sentence.

[D34th]

The problems aren't the blocs, the problem are blocs treating other blocs, if alliances in blocs had not outside treaties or at least no outside treaties with alliances in another blocs the problem would be fixed or at least reduced.

Also some alliances should stop to hug their infra/tech so much and stop their sheep behavior, stand up and stop to be an eternal follower.

Edited August 31, 2011 by D34th

[Steve Buscemi]

The reason we have so many treaties is no one wants to fight a fair war. If we all went neutral then we'd still either pick on a micro to attack or get some friends to attack someone bigger.

War in this game is politics. When the actual war starts it's usually over other than pixelation destruction.

That's why there are so many micro's. They get to play the real war game here. Politics.

[Timur]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314736860' post='2791193']
Because everyone is retarded and scared of not being tangled up in it. Also apparently not being tied to the treaty web makes you a rogue in the viewpoint of most senators if you end up in a fight, even though its viewed as fine to attack alliances without treaties. If someone doesn't have themselves tied into the treaty web, they get to be treated as a rogue as the senators take whatever the ones requesting the sanction say at face value, even if the ones requesting the sanction actually started the fight.

So the main reason is that most of the bigger alliances try forcing other alliances to tangle themselves up in it as well, or be victimized by tech raids and sanctions.
[/quote]

All roads lead back to the grotesque crime being committed in the case of Methrage v Non Grata....our collective hearts weep.

[Banksy]

But by making a bloc, we will have so much political power! - Every person in FA 2009-2011.

The bloc thing worked for the NPO as stagnation suited them. They were in power and wanted to consolidate it. Now people want power so they try and make a bloc - not realising that it only works of they have the power first. C&G didn't fit that because it was a suicide pact, but it probably does now. SF has at least evolved several times. The rest are all just power grabs that have actually just prevented anyone (including themselves) from gaining power because of the stagnation.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314746449' post='2791268']
Blocs have been around for longer then today's arrangement of the web, so that doesn't tell you anything. Not to mention that countless of treaties aren't honoured when a war actually starts. This old argument about the web I have heard too many times by now, years ago too, I think it shows desperation more then anything.
Come up with something orignal, you're in the position to actually do it.

(For that, I salute men like Impero, who actually had the balls to start something and blow the web up, intentional or not.)
[/quote]

He did what now?

I'd give this a proper response, but I'm worried about where my response would circulate around and end up.

[RandomInterrupt]

Bloc politics is certainly a major contributor to stagnation and the long-turnaround between wars and political changes. Blocs, in a political sense, serve to retain the status quo. That's certainly a fine thing to do and there's a lot of benefit to an alliance when they join a bloc, but if you are concerned about things stagnating joining/making a bloc is counter-productive.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314794507' post='2791573']
He did what now?
[/quote]
Not really ontopic, but: kick off the last war against Polar?

[deSouza]

Whether people want war or not, diplomacy in the long term tends to lead to peace, because its on the best interest of alliances to prevent themselves from being rolled. So OP, if you really want to be a moralist swine and fight a war against treaties, sever your ties with the rest of the world and expect everyone to follow suit.

[Joe Kremlin]

Treaties are signed more often than they're canceled, the result is that there's an alliance logjam with no room to maneuver that keeps getting worse with time. Also I found this:

[img]http://i52.tinypic.com/iwi6af.jpg[/img]

Edited August 31, 2011 by Joe Kremlin

[CzarBomba]

I think some of you are overestimating the ambitions of people in CN. MK, historically, are power players. They are the antithesis of the NPO and its' power structure. This does not mean that other alliances' ambitions are the same as these two groups. Blocs exist for their defensive purpose every bit as much, if not more than, aspirations for "power". A bloc is a group of alliances that share common interests and act in concert in international affairs. This includes mutual treaties held between bloc members. A group of alliances that each hold identical treaties with each other alliance in that group are a bloc, as a bloc is group of alliances that each hold identical treaties with each other alliance within that bloc. This is how more treaties should be done.

The multi-polar power structure that many groups have claimed to fight for exist in the form of these blocs. Each bloc represents one of these spheres of power. Again, this does lead to stagnation in regards to war, as they create obvious sides in a war. You cannot attack a member of a bloc without expecting each other alliance within that bloc to come to its' defense, as an attack on one is considered an attack on all. However, you can frequently attack an alliance that is not a part of a bloc without worrying about each of its' treaty partners coming to their aid (a much bigger problem in the treaty web than blocs, by the way). This emphasizes the defensive purpose of a bloc.

Spheres of power should not revolve around individual alliances, but rather groups of alliances. The exception being if an alliance is simply so large that it can fend off an entire opposing sphere (or bloc) on its own.

[Schattenmann]

People have known for years that a mass of treaties or blocs create a nightmare, Vox brought a prolonged, unified vocal position for a long time, and one reason I founded Cult of Justitia instead of joining MK or somesuch post-Vox was to be able to put into practice these ideals on foreign policy.

What it boils down to is courage. People feel--from Pax PAcifica experience--that if they are not wrapped up tight in the treaty web swaddling that they will be destroyed for the slightest infraction of expectations or norms. They give up independence of thought and action in exchange for security. CoJ places sovereignty above everything; therefore, we do not sign compulsory (M-) treaties. Optional treaties cut right to the chase of inter-alliance agreements: We pick other alliances with similar philosophies and compatibility with us, we agree with an optional treaty to defend each other when defense is [i]merited[/i]. That does this accomplish? Compulsory treaties inherently give both alliances power over the other, because their fates have been locked, but with an optional treaty, on our end, we don't have to self-censor because we know that our fate is our own, there is no leverage on or from either party. Parties to an optional agreement can express and pursue their own goals and passions in unity where philosophies coalesce assured in the safety of the treaty and common politics, but they are also free to take a detour when they want or need to without getting a go-ahead from anyone else. For example, when CoJ decded to jump between GOONS and a couple Red micros, we had no expectation of support from Nemesis or Browncoats; it was something we felt we should do and in the rigid compulsory treaty system of most alliances, it would endanger our allies, but in our optional system, it gave us freedom to act without fear of that endangerment, needing to consult/get permission beforehand, or worry about cancellations afterward.

Blocs, as you said, should be the same. the FP I outlined above is peculiar to CoJ and a few other AAs, but without regard to treaty philosophies, blocs--like treaties--should be based on common FP goals. To maintain their power ("power" in the case of blocs rather than "sovereignty" in the case of alliances) they must maintain cohesion, and limit extraneous treaties that dilute the direction of the bloc. If a member of, say, C&G goes and signs a compulsory treaty with a member of Checkmate, both blocs are now pretty much obligated to each other. They might like each other, but that doesn't mean they have common goals or needs or security concerns, it definitely doesn't mean they have the same enemies, but nevertheless, there they are. The union of two blocs might make both stronger in terms of NS, but their hands are now tied tighter than they were before.

The motivator is a sort of "shiny things" effect. The world at large sees treaties as a positive thing, so alliances want treaties so that other people think they're a good alliance. MoFAs want to be seen as busy and good at their job, so they go out and sign treaties with people they're friends with instead of acting in their role: tools of the Executive's agenda. Alliances also want to be winners, but it's much more difficult to get to the top of the world like NPO or MK, so instead of the hard work, they associate and huddle around the biggest mass of NS.

The solution, as I mentioned above is courage. Not courage in the sense that alliances who sign lots of treaties are cowards, but courage in the sense of self-confidence, motivation, and ambition. Alliances have to stop thinking of themselves in terms of "how do I git into this machine" and think instead in terms of "how can I advance my[b]self[/b]."

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314746449' post='2791268']
(For that, I salute men like Impero, who actually had the balls to start something and blow the web up, intentional or not.)
[/quote]
Yeah, that war completely altered the entire treaty web, Impero is a visio-- oh, hold on, actually there were no [u]big [/u]changes. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

[D34th]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314810764' post='2791665']
Not really ontopic, but: kick off the last war against Polar?
[/quote]

Since when someone need balls to start a curbstomp?

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314811281' post='2791669']
Whether people want war or not, diplomacy in the long term tends to lead to peace, because its on the best interest of alliances to prevent themselves from being rolled. So OP, if you really want to be a moralist swine and fight a war against treaties, sever your ties with the rest of the world and expect everyone to follow suit.
[/quote]

You clearly didn't check my alliance when you suggested that

[deSouza]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677']
People have known for years that a mass of treaties or blocs create a nightmare, Vox brought a prolonged, unified vocal position for a long time, and one reason I founded Cult of Justitia instead of joining MK or somesuch post-Vox was to be able to put into practice these ideals on foreign policy.

What it boils down to is courage. People feel--from Pax PAcifica experience--that [b]if they are not wrapped up tight in the treaty web swaddling that they will be destroyed[/b] for the slightest infraction of expectations or norms.
[/quote]

I see what you did there. But in the post pax pacifica world, the same happens, except no infraction is necessary.
Simply being disliked is reason enough.



[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677']
They give up independence of thought and action in exchange for security. CoJ places sovereignty above everything; therefore, we do not sign compulsory (M-) treaties. Optional treaties cut right to the chase of inter-alliance agreements: We pick other alliances with similar philosophies and compatibility with us, we agree with an optional treaty to defend each other when defense is [i]merited[/i]. That does this accomplish? Compulsory treaties inherently give both alliances power over the other, because their fates have been locked, but with an optional treaty, on our end, we don't have to self-censor because we know that our fate is our own, there is no leverage on or from either party. Parties to an optional agreement can express and pursue their own goals and passions in unity where philosophies coalesce assured in the safety of the treaty and common politics, but they are also free to take a detour when they want or need to without getting a go-ahead from anyone else. For example, when CoJ decded to jump between GOONS and a couple Red micros, we had no expectation of support from Nemesis or Browncoats; it was something we felt we should do and in the rigid compulsory treaty system of most alliances, it would endanger our allies, but in our optional system, it gave us freedom to act without fear of that endangerment, needing to consult/get permission beforehand, or worry about cancellations afterward.

Blocs, as you said, should be the same. the FP I outlined above is peculiar to CoJ and a few other AAs, but without regard to treaty philosophies, blocs--like treaties--should be based on common FP goals. To maintain their power ("power" in the case of blocs rather than "sovereignty" in the case of alliances) they must maintain cohesion, and limit extraneous treaties that dilute the direction of the bloc. If a member of, say, C&G goes and signs a compulsory treaty with a member of Checkmate, both blocs are now pretty much obligated to each other. They might like each other, but that doesn't mean they have common goals or needs or security concerns, it definitely doesn't mean they have the same enemies, but nevertheless, there they are. The union of two blocs might make both stronger in terms of NS, but their hands are now tied tighter than they were before.

The motivator is a sort of "shiny things" effect. The world at large sees treaties as a positive thing, so alliances want treaties so that other people think they're a good alliance. MoFAs want to be seen as busy and good at their job, so they go out and sign treaties with people they're friends with instead of acting in their role: tools of the Executive's agenda. Alliances also want to be winners, but it's much more difficult to get to the top of the world like NPO or MK, so instead of the hard work, they associate and huddle around the biggest mass of NS.

The solution, as I mentioned above is courage. Not courage in the sense that alliances who sign lots of treaties are cowards, but courage in the sense of self-confidence, motivation, and ambition. Alliances have to stop thinking of themselves in terms of "how do I git into this machine" and think instead in terms of "how can I advance my[b]self[/b]."


Yeah, that war completely altered the entire treaty web, Impero is a visio-- oh, hold on, actually there were no [u]big [/u]changes. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
[/quote]


Blocks having individual alliances signing MDPs with alliances in other blocks are benefited by said treaty [i]even if their goal is to alienate another block/alliance.[/i]



You're thinking too much into it. What really happens isn't as elaborate as some people think, it's more or less an alliance version of high school "politics". Everyone wants to be in the "in" crowd and not be bullied, so they sign declarations of "friendship" to force others to come to their help in case they get to be bandwagoned. Its crystal clear, there's a big effort by everyone to be on the "right" side of a curbstomp before, during and after every war.

Which on the long term, whether treaties are optional or mutual (optional treaties taken seriously [b]are[/b] mutual), guarantees the stagnation of the whole web.

[deSouza]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314813156' post='2791682']
You clearly didn't check my alliance when you suggested that
[/quote]

You clearly didn't understand what I meant with [b]severing ties[/b] when you suggested that I hadn't "checked" your alliance. I was a member of it with you for about a year.

[Chief Savage Man]

excellent point op cancelling doomhouse

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314737473' post='2791202']
The world saw what SF and C&G could do with their blocs, and then PB formed and then this past war happened, and people saw things as a 'if we want to have a say in things and cohesively protect ourselves, we need to make a bloc' and you saw the XX's/MJ's/PF's of the world pop up.
[/quote]
Change "SF and C&G" to "WUT and Continuum" and you'd probably have a better point.

Really this is a years-old cycle now.

Being in an alliance which has both been in an obscenely large number of blocs (four at one point, many with overlapping members) and none at all (like right now, yay) I have to say that generally being in no blocs at all is much more fun.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314814352' post='2791688']
You clearly didn't understand what I meant with [b]severing ties[/b] when you suggested that I hadn't "checked" your alliance. I was a member of it with you for about a year.
[/quote]

Of course I remember your membership.

As for the severing ties remark, I suppose I didn't interpret it in the extreme meaning you do. I thought you were referring to the act of cutting treaties, not burning bridges down. There's a big difference and I'm certainly not suggesting the latter. Also - back to your OP - since when is it moralistic to want to see the treaty web become a little less tightly knit?

[deSouza]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314816371' post='2791708']
As for the severing ties remark, I suppose I didn't interpret it in the extreme meaning you do. I thought you were referring to the act of cutting treaties, not burning bridges down. There's a big difference and I'm certainly not suggesting the latter. Also - back to your OP - since when is it moralistic to want to see the treaty web become a little less tightly knit?
[/quote]

Since it takes alliances severing ties with one another and overlooking personal interest for a principle.