Treaty Interpretation

[Ogaden]

Treaties are IOU's with no force of law, whether the clauses are obeyed depends entirely on how much value is placed on the ally in question. What IS at stake is your reputation as an ally and the trust placed in you by your other allies or related alliances.

If an alliance blatantly violates a clause in a treaty, it can haunt them for years, even if due to political expediency it is tolerated or even lauded by some parties at the time.

Some alliances make a point of honoring every clause to the letter as a point of honor, others consider relationships more important than treaties and will violate them whenever necessary to help their friends. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Edited June 11, 2012 by James Dahl

[jerdge]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1339284629' post='2980004']Another example would be MHA canceling their "eternal" treaty with Gremlins. They violated the treaty and got some bad PR, but I doubt many people care about that now. To have continued to honor that treaty would be self-defeating well beyond the consequences of violating it.[/quote]
Not necessarily meaning that you said anything wrong and/or that your recollection of events was incorrect, but I'd add that The Härmlins Accords was more a acknowledgment of an existing bound that (when written) was believed to be indestructible, rather than a "normal" treaty. It was an act of faith (that history proved [i]wrong[/i].)

It is also worth noting that the MHA didn't cancel it when The Grämlins were at their lowest PR point (at the time they were demanding unconditional surrender from IRON), but just after peace had been reached; that decision probably shielded The Grämlins from direct harm, and it was certainly honourable of the MHA to burn part of their reputation in defence of their "brothers" (also note that not necessarily honourable = good, in this context).

Some people criticized the MHA for not having tried, after the war, to help Gre fix their internal problems (basically: "problems" = Ramirus Maximus). I remember having privately thought something similar to that.
They however had privileged information on The Grämlins' inner workings and their membership (MHA members had member-level access to Gre's forums), which some times is even more informative that "just" good gov-level communication, and they might have realized that their ally's culture was broken beyond repair (IIRC after the war Gre basically slowly decayed into apathy and irrelevance, until the old members seized the alliance back).

[hr]More specifically on topic:

1) If the treaty wording is unclear its interpretation is left to the signatories. If an alliance is attacked while another alliance's obligation to defend them is expiring (but not expired) I'd say that that defence is still mandatory (why have a defence expiration window at all, otherwise?) but only until the final expiration of the obligation, as outlined in the wording of the treaty.
"Common sense" and actual feasibility should matter. If fighting may make sense (e.g. the expiration is several days or some weeks away) the obligation is actual. If you're, for example, 47 minutes before that moment, a strike would be either half-hearted or an act that effectively extends support beyond the expiration terms (effects of anarchy on the other side, etc.): this means that no defence should be performed.
The two parties may also find an accord to avoid silly situations (e.g.: promises of rebuilding aid instead of a pointless 2 days long "support").

2) If your ally B programmed an attack on your ally C, you weren't given the chance to try compose the fracture and you don't anymore have even just the time to cancel on C, [i]just cancel on B[/i]: they just showed that they don't give a damn about your FA and/or what crap they might throw you into, i.e. they are an "ally" you can't really count on. Don't bother about any term of your treaty with B, as they broke the treaty first and every clause is now null.

3) (There's always point 3) Just go neutral: problem solved!

[Chief Savage Man]

Treaties are more of an announcement to the rest of the world than a binding document. An ODP signals friendship but not an ironclad commitment, MDoAP means you intend on protecting this person if they are directly attacked, MADP signals that you are a bad decision-maker. There are exceptions of course like TLR's pretty public position that they definitely honor their ODP with NPO or Fark's similar rumblings with regards to their Polar ODP. And Polar's habit of never honoring MDoAPs with their pets. It's complex, fluid and not entirely rational, like anything involving human beings.

[Comrade General]

Icewolf, you bring up interesting thoughts. But those are just too deep for CN, especially in these days.


CN politics used to be much simpler and more serious, but treaties were never "lawyer written." Although many treaties has become less official reading than they once were.

Planet Bob is a a messy web of alliances and treaties. Which makes the intel clauses that much more tricky. You have a good example for that, because Im sure similar things happen quite frequently.

Just like in real life, as the years go on, honor becomes more rare.

[D34th]

How Treaty Interpretation works for 90% of CN alliances.

[b]Scenario 1: [/b]

Alliance A is on the winning side.

Alliance B will honor the treaty because they are loyal and support friends.


[b]Scenario 2: [/b]

Alliance A is on the losing side

Alliance B unhappily has treaty conflicts and have to stay out of the fight.

or

Alliance B will honor just treaties with follow alliances: Alliance C, Alliance D, Alliance E who coincidentally(I swear!) are in the winning side.

[jerdge]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1339658697' post='2983153']How Treaty Interpretation works for 90% of CN alliances.

[spoiler][b]Scenario 1: [/b]

Alliance A is on the winning side.

Alliance B will honor the treaty because they are loyal and support friends.


[b]Scenario 2: [/b]

Alliance A is on the losing side

Alliance B unhappily has treaty conflicts and have to stay out of the fight.

or

Alliance B will honor just treaties with follow alliances: Alliance C, Alliance D, Alliance E who coincidentally(I swear!) are in the winning side.[/spoiler][/quote]
I'll add that another 8% are neutral.

[MrMuz]

You don't get to interpret treaties if you don't have any

[jerdge]

That's the point.

[Icewolf]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1339658697' post='2983153']
How Treaty Interpretation works for 90% of CN alliances.

[b]Scenario 1: [/b]

Alliance A is on the winning side.

Alliance B will honor the treaty because they are loyal and support friends.


[b]Scenario 2: [/b]

Alliance A is on the losing side

Alliance B unhappily has treaty conflicts and have to stay out of the fight.

or

Alliance B will honor just treaties with follow alliances: Alliance C, Alliance D, Alliance E who coincidentally(I swear!) are in the winning side.
[/quote]Isn't that risky though? I mean, if you always follow the winning side, surely the most logical thing a winning alliance can do is pound you the moment peace is agreed as you will turn on them when it is their time to be losing.

[D34th]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339754698' post='2984709']
Isn't that risky though? I mean, if you always follow the winning side, surely the most logical thing a winning alliance can do is pound you the moment peace is agreed as you will turn on them when it is their time to be losing.
[/quote]

It's not risky, in fact is a very successful tactic if you doesn't care about self-respect. And if the winning alliance start to attack those who helped them to win the war soon the winning alliance will become the losing alliance. You have nothing to fear from opportunists while you are in the top of food chain, said opportunists are always happy with just crumbs.

[MrMuz]

A winning tactic only on the surface. People will end up treating you like a meatshield, and should you fall under direct attack, they're likely to do the same to you.

But you'll still get a lot of PR for winning a lot of wars.

[Icewolf]

At the moment I think there needs to be a new question.

To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1340463520' post='2993566']
At the moment I think there needs to be a new question.

To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties?
[/quote]

They became implied the moment they became the most convenient.

[D34th]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1340463520' post='2993566']
At the moment I think there needs to be a new question.

To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties?
[/quote]

If you act stupid but your side is bigger than the other side your allies wont care about your stupid move because they are loyal and support friends no matter what.

If you act stupid and find yourself in the losing end of a curbstomp your allies will ignore the treaty because they will say you are stupid thus they don't have the obligation of defend you even if there isn't a anti stupid move clause in their treaties.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1340463520' post='2993566']
To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties?
[/quote]

Too vague. Sign anything above an OADP and there is no "don't act stupid". Almost every defensive war was starts because someone acted stupid - aided a rogue, slow on reps, insulted someone important, verbally threatened someone in a private embassy, raided a protectorate that wasn't mentioned on the wiki, etc.

So, I'd argue that a MDP is really a "we'll defend you even if you act stupid" treaty. Don't like it? Sign ODPs like CoJ does.

[Ogaden]

While it's true that stabbing very specific people in the back in wartime can be a very beneficial tactic in the short term, people have very long memories about these sorts of things.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340467251' post='2993599']
So, I'd argue that a MDP is really a "we'll defend you even if you act stupid" treaty.
[/quote]

I dont really disagree, except to point out that if you are stupid enough it's no longer defense you are asking for, it's offense. MDAPs are the only treaties that dont have any sort of 'dont be stupid' clause implied, the only ones that full-on encourage stupidity.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1340472557' post='2993652']
I dont really disagree, except to point out that if you are stupid enough it's no longer defense you are asking for, it's offense. MDAPs are the only treaties that dont have any sort of 'dont be stupid' clause implied, the only ones that full-on encourage stupidity.
[/quote]

While this would probably be enough to e-lawyer out of a conflict, you would never live it down.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1340468925' post='2993627']
While it's true that stabbing very specific people in the back in wartime can be a very beneficial tactic in the short term, people have very long memories about these sorts of things.
[/quote]
Remember The Ruins of Polaris.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1340481607' post='2993781']
Remember The Ruins of Polaris.
[/quote]

Grub's actions in BiPolar are almost honorable in comparison to what your coalition has done in this war.

[jerdge]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340464557' post='2993578'][quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1340463520' post='2993566']At the moment I think there needs to be a new question.

To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties?[/quote]
They became implied the moment they became the most convenient.[/quote]
This.

Let's be honest with ourselves guys, the only way to not sign treaties you can't be sure you won't have to break is to go neutral.
While I am old enough (CN-wise) to have learned that hugging stats is silly, and I don't see the need to avoid burning your pixels at all costs, opportunists and bandwagoners aren't that "morally" bad: [i]this is just a game[/i].
Talking of honourability in this (OOC) forum doesn't make much sense... (Sorry Ogaden, I am not meaning to pick your post in particular).

[MrMuz]

There's in game morality and honor too. Similar to Risk or Mafia or whatever. There's a degree of trust involved, you'll lose tons of in-game credibility with some betrayal. And like any proper war-political game, there is a moral high ground. For example, hitting GPA would be viewed as highly immoral, like shooting cows for sport and anyone who commits immoral acts will be subject to vengeance.

I guess there's also OOC morality like not running people out of the game, but that's a different story.

[jerdge]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340636639' post='2995874']There's in game morality and honor too. Similar to Risk or Mafia or whatever. There's a degree of trust involved, you'll lose tons of in-game credibility with some betrayal. And like any proper war-political game, there is a moral high ground. For example, hitting GPA would be viewed as highly immoral, like shooting cows for sport and anyone who commits immoral acts will be subject to vengeance.[/quote]
You're right but that's not a reason to (seriously) discuss IC morality here. In fact it's a reason to discuss it where it belongs (AA and WA).
And again yes, OOC morality is not what we're talking of.