Burn The Treaty Web

[MTTezla]

The side that actively builds a coalition seems to win, regardless of treaties.

 

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

[The Zigur]

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.

This post wins the thread. Though I would add that a huge part of the problem is a stagnant and exploitative upper tier. In the middle and lower tiers there is much more "new," people who still want to achieve ambitions and fight wars. If more alliances shift political power in that direction, there will be more energy and action. On the other hand, being an ambitious dude limited my opportunities in more "established" alliances... it was as if my years of experience meant nothing because I was a reroll and my nation is small. Only big tier nations get to sit at the big table.

Micros are seen as insignificant bundles of drama, but lacking an upper tier they have far less restraints to behavior than those shackled to the upper-tier system of tech exploitation. So the real solution isn't disbanding the treaty web, it's for new nations and tech producers to leave their AA husks and having a chance to fight for glory and destiny.

[Caliph]

I agree with the premise to a degree, I can see the merits of a paperless system. Relationships do not require public documentation, but having a publicly stated relationship does provide some benefit. A public document can be avoided through various means but there is a repercussion, treaties provide a degree of accountability that is visible to all. If an alliance disregards a treaty it is known and the reputation of the alliance suffers. 

 

 

Not all alliances who disregard treaties really face the consequences of it.  Or other times when an aliance breaks a treaty it can take years before they face any consequences of that action.  In some cases many back the treaty breaking alliance because its politically convenient, they have too many allies, too much strength on their side and only when other people showed the strength that was opposing that alliance did they actually bring up the betrayals of the past years after they were relevant.

 

When alliances break treaties it is known, but they do not always face the consequences if those alliances are too powerful, too well connected, or too well liked.

 

NPO pre karma is a big example of this.  Only when enough strength was arrayed on the Karma side did people actually see NPO's betrayals as something worth doing something about.

[Margrave]

This reply is long and has no TL;DR at the end. Those looking for quick summations, easy answers and bite-sized arguments should look elsewhere. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I respect where your critique comes from. I recall a time where there was an unspoken, minimal standard of conduct for the nation-state and the alliance, and woe betide anyone who did something foolish like post a badly received alliance announcement or who broke an alliance gag order (no one ever explained to my satisfaction why that was ever a thing.) Even if it was honored in the breach more often than not, you can look at certain eras in CN and find a common minimum international standard of behavior.

 

That time is not now. The bottom has fallen out; Oculus, the only bloc that has the potential moral authority of Hobbe’s Leviathan is an inward looking, silent affiliation of alliances that is content to keep to its own and quietly witness the end of the world. There is no “international law” outside of who can do what to whom, and that overarching principle is what motivates many alliances into signing treaties they will never actually honor.

 

If that seems cynical, realize as well that any alliance with the potential moral high ground to speak out against this lack of a standard has long ago fallen silent. GATO, once the ideological counterweight to the New Pacific Order, has been content at silently watching a crisis devour their sphere and has been silent to any of the great moral questions of recent years. New Polar Order has done the same, and though I personally never considered either of these alliances to hold a strong moral position, I respect the fact that perceptually (in the eyes of the public) they have.

 

There is no Law now but the one you take with your own two hands and defend with your own life, fortune, and sacred honor. Kashmir has recognized this fact; it is part of the catalyst that led us to firmly renounce holding formal treaties. That we combine this with an active, engaging leadership and a proven war record of defending our allies puts us in a moral weight class to defend this paperless notion.

 

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.

 

 

 The main thrust of my argument is not solely that alliances can’t be trusted to honor their treaty obligations, though I have made that argument above. I also understand that treaties themselves aren’t evil things; they are tools of the State. In our particular use case, however, they have become an inhibitor to action; they are far too pervasive for such a small world as the one we live in and they are written by rote in accordance with an unquestioned tradition. Better to pull down the edifice entirely and give us a blank slate; since that’s unlikely, encouraging individual alliances to give up participation in an ennui-inducing environment is my goal. Kashmir is the proof that one can abandon the treaty web and still participate in the political scene without signing pieces of paper that are, at the end of the day, pointless. If I have a proven record of letting my yeas be yeas and my nays be nays, what use a special vow or sacred oath?

 

 

 

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 a principle that requires an absolute commitment to idealism. Having been a nation leader since the months leading up to the third Great War, and having been in many alliances and diplomatic positions since, I can assure you that my experience time and again is that alliances fight each other based on old grudges, personal biases, and vindictive rivalries as they do to defeat ideological opponents or people who threaten their material interests. There are a great many ‘smoke-filled rooms’, as they say, though to be honest the whole of the diplomatic life of alliances on popular interactive channels (OOC: IRC) can be referred to as a “smoke filled room”, as the majority of nation leaders do not participate in them.

 

You’ve also assumed that because a centralization of power exists, that other alliances all covet that position or wish to reinforce the underlying system which creates that singular throne. I do not; since being a member of Vox Populi I have always worked towards a goal of a multi-polar world as the best answer to inactivity and ennui among the ranks of nation leaders. I will touch more on this later.

 

Your argument that alliances should behave better fall on deaf ears because there is no external influence powerful enough in most use cases to encourage leaders to go forward in anything less than the most cynical, self-serving manner. Valhalla will always find a treaty partner as long as it maintains a certain NS number. IRON receives no acrimony for always sliding their way into the winning team regardless of ideological compatibility. There is no standard in our community and no group willing (or in most cases able) to enforce such a standard.

 

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 have to disagree with you in principle. It might lend clarity to my argument that I am, first and foremost, a Hakaist (see more on that here), and this informs my leadership style and the way I engage nations as both a government official at the national and alliance level. I have never desired to sit on the Hegemonic throne; even when I was a \m/ member we were with the people we were with because (a) the Initiative’s opposition was morally opposed to our existence and (b) we had many friends among the signatories of the World Unity Treaty.

 

I remain, and I find many others remain, less for some political goal but out of a sense of community and long standing fraternal bonds. I formulate policy based on strengthening the bonds politically between alliances and nations I have a kinship with either ideologically or personally; their NS and political position is tertiary in my view at best.

 

My goal is not a domination-style victory because history has shown that those victories are temporary to the point of being ephemeral; the only victory worthy of the name is the cultural one. Kashmir has won its personal cultural victory; I am here to encourage other alliances to do the same.  Relationships are not the means to ends; they are the end goal in and of themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Means-to-ends relationships, realpolitik and nation-erasing cynicism are the products of this mentality.

 

As for the rest, I feel I have sufficiently addressed this point elsewhere, though we may return to it if you feel I haven’t sufficiently answered the question.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret in this world? There are many people who trade in secrets; of that number, many of them are either a part of the existing power structure or wish to be and will trade in secrets to get into the club. Besides which, when the Treaty Web itself has become so noxious and paralytic, where is the motivation to gather ones allies and fight, particularly when you know that no one ever really “Wins”?

 

As for surprise, I feel we’re arguing syntax; your argument for surprise being the constant in a chaotic system is true without it being an argument against such a system.
 

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.

 

 

My goals, as I’ve stated above, are inimical to assuming the throne in a system which is inherently harmful to the overall state of the world. That does not mean I am against conflict, and if some wish to pursue such a goal I am not against them pursuing it, but I wish to deny them the means to actually achieve that goal via a web of treaties manipulated by a political class which abuses the trust of others in order to achieve cynical end goals which are eventually overthrown in a never-ending cycle of war and oppression. What I fight for is to bring others into that state which Kashmir has, in my opinion, achieved; an overwhelming cultural victory.
 

 

All in all, I’ve appreciated your critique; it’s somewhat like opening a time capsule to a younger, more orderly era. I’ve provided the argument above which I feel sufficiently gives proof that era is dead and in the ground. I am glad for a sparring partner in the field of intellectual discourse and political theory debate, and your arguments have sharpened mine. I look forward to your retort.

 

 

Those looking for a TL;DR should probably pick a different thread.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Margrave

[MTTezla]

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:
 

 

Joint Statement from the New Polar Order and New Pacific Order Regarding GATO

On Sunday, Global Alliance Treaty Organization Assembly Chairman Letum posted comments on the Cybernations Forums indicating his praise for espionage operations within the New Pacific Order that resulted in the release of a proprietary program of the Goons Order of Neutral Shoving.

On Monday, GATO Foreign Affairs Chairman Grenval announced a previously secret policy, apparently adopted under a previous government, that revoked diplomatic recognition of the New Polar Order, and termed them an "Imperial Colony" of the New Pacific Order, despite GATO's public statements and actions that conferred de facto Alliance status on the New Polar Order.

The New Polar Order and the New Pacific Order jointly condemn in the strongest terms possible this recent behavior by the Global Alliance Treaty Organization leadership. These actions are not in the best interests of GATO's membership, and have undermined diplomatic relations between GATO and the alliance of GOONS, NPO and NpO.

We call upon the leadership of the Global Alliance Treaty Organization to reconfirm their recognition of the New Polar Order as a sovereign sanctioned alliance, and to denounce the espionage of Chado Kun and any confederates he may have had in his illegal operation against the NPO and the GOONS.

 

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:
 

I respect where your critique comes from. I recall a time where there was an unspoken, minimal standard of conduct for the nation-state and the alliance, and woe betide anyone who did something foolish like post a badly received alliance announcement or who broke an alliance gag order (no one ever explained to my satisfaction why that was ever a thing.) Even if it was honored in the breach more often than not, you can look at certain eras in CN and find a common minimum international standard of behavior.

That time is not now. The bottom has fallen out; Oculus, the only bloc that has the potential moral authority of Hobbe’s Leviathan is an inward looking, silent affiliation of alliances that is content to keep to its own and quietly witness the end of the world. There is no “international law” outside of who can do what to whom, and that overarching principle is what motivates many alliances into signing treaties they will never actually honor.

If that seems cynical, realize as well that any alliance with the potential moral high ground to speak out against this lack of a standard has long ago fallen silent. GATO, once the ideological counterweight to the New Pacific Order, has been content at silently watching a crisis devour their sphere and has been silent to any of the great moral questions of recent years. New Polar Order has done the same, and though I personally never considered either of these alliances to hold a strong moral position, I respect the fact that perceptually (in the eyes of the public) they have.

There is no Law now but the one you take with your own two hands and defend with your own life, fortune, and sacred honor. Kashmir has recognized this fact; it is part of the catalyst that led us to firmly renounce holding formal treaties. That we combine this with an active, engaging leadership and a proven war record of defending our allies puts us in a moral weight class to defend this paperless notion.

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.
 

The main thrust of my argument is not solely that alliances can’t be trusted to honor their treaty obligations, though I have made that argument above. I also understand that treaties themselves aren’t evil things; they are tools of the State. In our particular use case, however, they have become an inhibitor to action; they are far too pervasive for such a small world as the one we live in and they are written by rote in accordance with an unquestioned tradition. Better to pull down the edifice entirely and give us a blank slate; since that’s unlikely, encouraging individual alliances to give up participation in an ennui-inducing environment is my goal. Kashmir is the proof that one can abandon the treaty web and still participate in the political scene without signing pieces of paper that are, at the end of the day, pointless. If I have a proven record of letting my yeas be yeas and my nays be nays, what use a special vow or sacred oath?

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.
 

This is a principle that requires an absolute commitment to idealism. Having been a nation leader since the months leading up to the third Great War, and having been in many alliances and diplomatic positions since, I can assure you that my experience time and again is that alliances fight each other based on old grudges, personal biases, and vindictive rivalries as they do to defeat ideological opponents or people who threaten their material interests. There are a great many ‘smoke-filled rooms’, as they say, though to be honest the whole of the diplomatic life of alliances on popular interactive channels (OOC: IRC) can be referred to as a “smoke filled room”, as the majority of nation leaders do not participate in them.

You’ve also assumed that because a centralization of power exists, that other alliances all covet that position or wish to reinforce the underlying system which creates that singular throne. I do not; since being a member of Vox Populi I have always worked towards a goal of a multi-polar world as the best answer to inactivity and ennui among the ranks of nation leaders. I will touch more on this later.

Your argument that alliances should behave better fall on deaf ears because there is no external influence powerful enough in most use cases to encourage leaders to go forward in anything less than the most cynical, self-serving manner. Valhalla will always find a treaty partner as long as it maintains a certain NS number. IRON receives no acrimony for always sliding their way into the winning team regardless of ideological compatibility. There is no standard in our community and no group willing (or in most cases able) to enforce such a standard.

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 have to disagree with you in principle. It might lend clarity to my argument that I am, first and foremost, a Hakaist (see more on that here), and this informs my leadership style and the way I engage nations as both a government official at the national and alliance level. I have never desired to sit on the Hegemonic throne; even when I was a \m/ member we were with the people we were with because (a) the Initiative’s opposition was morally opposed to our existence and (b) we had many friends among the signatories of the World Unity Treaty.

I remain, and I find many others remain, less for some political goal but out of a sense of community and long standing fraternal bonds. I formulate policy based on strengthening the bonds politically between alliances and nations I have a kinship with either ideologically or personally; their NS and political position is tertiary in my view at best.

My goal is not a domination-style victory because history has shown that those victories are temporary to the point of being ephemeral; the only victory worthy of the name is the cultural one. Kashmir has won its personal cultural victory; I am here to encourage other alliances to do the same. Relationships are not the means to ends; they are the end goal in and of themselves.

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.
 

Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret in this world? There are many people who trade in secrets; of that number, many of them are either a part of the existing power structure or wish to be and will trade in secrets to get into the club. Besides which, when the Treaty Web itself has become so noxious and paralytic, where is the motivation to gather ones allies and fight, particularly when you know that no one ever really “Wins”?

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.

[the rebel]

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.

Topics like this one seem to happen twice a year and have done for the past few years now, old blood don't really care as of the red tape and new people become part of the machine idling along.

[Master Hakai]

When he says he still sees great names active he means MASTER HAKAI

[Malik Shabazz]

The treaty web is why this place sucks.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Malik Shabazz

[Hereno]

tl;dr response - that's, just like, your opinion, man

longer response - sure, treaties are based on relationships, but not all relationships require lots of maintenance and friendship and this and that. what's wrong with two alliances who don't really care to talk a whole lot recognizing that they have similar political goals and working toward them? what's wrong with an alliance signing a few treaties to deter would-be attackers without the need for actual retaliation? if you want to hang out with friends, do so, but being my friend doesn't mean i won't roll tanks across your borders the minute i need to. and that's the way it's gotta be.

[Margrave]

Will be losting a response here shortly, watch this space!

[Devialance]

Well I feel the treaty web today is more about who can protect us more than who we are willing to protect and become friends with.

[the rebel]

Well I feel the treaty web today is more about who can protect us more than who we are willing to protect and become friends with.

I'd disagree friendships created the treaty web problem, if people allied for political goals and purposes instead of "oh we friends, even though we have different goals and policies, we should have an MDP".

Then the world would be more diverse and intriguing and not stale. Edited March 2, 2016 by the rebel

[Devialance]

I'd disagree friendships created the treaty web problem, if people allied for political goals and purposes instead of "oh we friends, even though we have different goals and policies, we should have an MDP".

Then the world would be more diverse and intriguing and not stale.

You are joking right, look at the treaty web and see who has a treaty with who and why, if you truly believe all those treaties are down to friendship you are very delusional, also explains why you follow methcrackhead.

[Amossio]

Treaties are nothing more than a fancy agreement, all it would cause is treaties behind closed doors. Why go through all that effort to achieve nothing. The objective of a nullified treaty web would be encouraging activity and change the dynamics. But when if the treaty web was burned it still wouldn't encourage birth of new nations and what not. Individual nations are the driving factors behind any relationship, alliance and all things relevant to this. 

[Margrave]

You are joking right, look at the treaty web and see who has a treaty with who and why, if you truly believe all those treaties are down to friendship you are very delusional, also explains why you follow methcrackhead.

This isn't the space for the constant back and forth your post engenders, take it elsewhere.

[the rebel]

You are joking right, look at the treaty web and see who has a treaty with who and why, if you truly believe all those treaties are down to friendship you are very delusional, also explains why you follow methcrackhead.

Why so hostile?

I didn't say all treaties were down to just friendship, you would have to be delusional to think it isn't a large part of the problem though.

For an example: alliances that think raiding is morally wrong and have policies disallowing raiding wouldn't sign treaties to alliances that allow raiding, but they do because they made friends.

Another example: coming for someone who was privy to information in the early days of CnG, some of the blocs members FA plan was make friends and sign treaties with them and it didn't really matter who.

Do you really think they are or were unique in that regard?

So in my opinion when friendship becomes the sole FA direction instead of FA being political and goal direction.
You get problems.


---------

As for your last part, I joined LN to fight GOONS a war started and now I stay because I do not leave alliances when they're at war.

Now please stick to topic.

[Margrave]

@MTTelza

 

 

I would not be here making this argument if I didn’t feel that changes could be made, so there you and I are in agreement. We are in disagreement about what those changes should be, but I will address your arguments below:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The utopian goals of political ideologies are rarely achieved in this or any other world, and certainly not for long. I am cognizant of the fact that there is a low probability of total success for Kashmir’s philosophy becoming universal; I will, however work towards that happy state of affairs in the hopes that my labors will produce some form of value. That being said, my vision of that utopia lies smack in the middle between two extremes.

There was once a philosopher called Hobbes who posited that before the emergence of the State, the “State of Nature” was one where life was nasty, brutish, and short. People took what they wanted and damn all the rest. Many years later, a man named Rosseau argued that in fact the state of nature had been an idyllic Eden, peaceable, plentiful. Now who was right or wrong is more than I can say, but Kashmir recognizes a different state of nature in Digiterra; one where individual nations and alliances both compete in the pursuit of Prosperity.

 

“Kashmir, holding to the school of thought that global politics needs much less entanglement in the way of absolute treaties,  knowing full well, and understanding that global politics is a place of conflicting moral obligations and conflicting treaty obligations-- acknowledges that in this world of chaos there are those among us who would stake their right to defend and assist as they please.

Understanding that public policy toward all aspects of cybernation politics changes daily, Kashmir submits that alliances are bound only by true feelings of friendship and co-prosperity. It is with this submission that Kashmir accepts co-prosperity as the only means necessary to legally aid and assist, in aggressive or defensive, diplomatic, economic, or military tasks-- if so determined by the governance of Kashmir.

 

 

 

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.

 

The political will does not exist to reform the institution. Those who have the “respected voices” are silent, as I have said, and your promises of activity from GATO are not proof of activity.  I feel I’ll start repeating myself if I continue this vein of argument, so we’ll move on.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

You’re arguing for an existence of a Leviathan; I posit we need no Leviathan, but rather, to liberate people from the paralyzing structure of the treaty web. You’re also not debating the existence of the political class which manipulates people in order to cause the wars they like; do you agree that they 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.

 

 

I think you’re partially right in that we’re in complete disagreement; I think you’re wrong in defining a cultural victory as “fleeting”. I can point to the history of CN and show the rise and fall of hegemons and define the victory you pursue as fleeting, but you cannot point to a historical trend in CN to show the same for the “Cultural Victory”.

 

I apologize for the seemingly terse answers, but I feel we’re partially at an impasse. You want a leviathan; I do not. Leviathan’s kill the game and ruin the behaviors of alliances. 

 

 

 

One thing this field of study needs, as a good tool to further discussion is terms. We're struggling to communicate ideas that frankly we don't have the language for (Like the spectrum or divide or what have you of the optional versus mandatory treaty writers, etc, etc)

[Devialance]

Why so hostile?

I didn't say all treaties were down to just friendship, you would have to be delusional to think it isn't a large part of the problem though.

For an example: alliances that think raiding is morally wrong and have policies disallowing raiding wouldn't sign treaties to alliances that allow raiding, but they do because they made friends.

Another example: coming for someone who was privy to information in the early days of CnG, some of the blocs members FA plan was make friends and sign treaties with them and it didn't really matter who.

Do you really think they are or were unique in that regard?

So in my opinion when friendship becomes the sole FA direction instead of FA being political and goal direction.
You get problems.

Look at the treaty web, that's all I am saying and you will see the problem quickly.

An alliance in itself is just a mass of nations that have agreed to defend and protect each other, pretty much like any treaty but we all know not every nation within an alliance agrees with what every nation within that alliance does, I personally disagree with some of the people DK protect however I agreed when joining and staying with DK that I would protect those DK have treaties with. The same goes for treaties also! sure Alliance A might hate raiders however Alliance A knows its in their best interest to be treated with Alliance B even if they do raid, so they do not get curb stomped by Alliance C, D, E and F.

There is not a single treaty within the web right now that is signed out of friendship and common support, most are out of fear or protection, I would love to see a single treaty that is not only made out of friendship but has been tested.



 

[Devialance]

I would not be here making this argument if I didn’t feel that changes could be made,

So when do you plan on taking the first step and cancelling all your treaties?, or would this just be a case of you will if everyone else does?

[the rebel]

There is not a single treaty within the web right now that is signed out of friendship and common support, most are out of fear or protection, I would love to see a single treaty that is not only made out of friendship but has been tested.

Cause some treaties may fundamentally be through fear, I just disagree with your opinion:

Well I feel the treaty web today is more about who can protect us more than who we are willing to protect and become friends with.

There are and have been plenty of treaties born through friendship rather than fear you just choose to see the latter.

I just feel we have been around so long that enemies became friends and allied that there are no real polar opposite enemies left. That is why I think friendship is the problem rather than fear.

You could be right, I could be right, doesn't matter either way as it won't change anytime soon.

[Margrave]

So when do you plan on taking the first step and cancelling all your treaties?, or would this just be a case of you will if everyone else does?

Kashmir doesn't have any treaties.

[Devialance]

Kashmir doesn't have any treaties.

Then how about The X files, thats your new name you are going by right ?

[Margrave]

Then how about The X files, thats your new name you are going by right ?

 

Still no treaties.

[Claude]

Then how about The X files, thats your new name you are going by right ?

kash doesn't do treaties btw i have a secret pact with them :smug: .

[Devialance]

kash doesn't do treaties btw i have a secret pact with them :smug: .

You have something secret with most people :P