Is an Open World good?

[thaone]

I personally think with the tangled mess Alliance politics became more exited. You could see it for example with the GOD-TPF mess, Ragnarok had treaties with both sides and they clearly chose one of those.

[Unko Kalaikz]

I personally think with the tangled mess Alliance politics became more exited. You could see it for example with the GOD-TPF mess, Ragnarok had treaties with both sides and they clearly chose one of those.

Indeed, the excitement of conflict is hardly limited to warfare (the last stage of conflict). Most activity of importance and intreague takes place long before the first cities are razed. Just because one is too impatient, or too incompetent, to take part when he wishes to, does not mean that there is a general "stagnation." Rather, civilization is following its path to its' logical conclusion.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Bob Janova]

Secret treaties have no legal value (there is precedent for this), and in my opinion rightly so. Knowing how entities are going to act is a very important basis for building politics on, and the public treaty web gives a good impression of that. There are two precedents for political interaction which keep the world turning:

- Secret treaties don't count (established in GW2). Secret treaties mean that you can never predict the size of a force and therefore no conflict would occur unless you had the power to take on everybody else, which would be very rare. The Initiative at its height maybe could have done so, although probably not; nothing in today's world comes close.

- Entering a conflict with no treaties is 'bandwagoning' (established in GW3). This means that you can predict the sides simply by reading the MDP web, with no 'wildcards' to spoil your calculation. It's also the reason for all these ODPs and optional aggression clauses, which in a logical world wouldn't be necessary – you always have the option to do anything which is not specifically banned anyway.

Destroying either of these precedents would make politics an even more cagey process.

[Kindom of Goon]

I personally think with the tangled mess Alliance politics became more exited. You could see it for example with the GOD-TPF mess, Ragnarok had treaties with both sides and they clearly chose one of those.

I disagree, if neither side were tied to each other in the example you just gave then the level of tension and/or bickering would have been far higher.

The fact that theres no real structure to the MDP web and instead everyone is tied to everyone else means you're more likely to see people stick to saying nice things about each other, looking for diplomatic solutions to pretty much everything, and keeping any real drama behind closed doors.

I think things have been improving a little in recent weeks/months, hopefully they continue to go that way.

[VIdiot the Great]

Interesting OP, Sir Delirium, well written, and you advocate an interesting point. I must respectfully dissent from your dissent, however. I don't think secret agreements would lead to the conclusion that you posit. Part of the purpose of signing the treaties is a pre-emptive security measure. By putting the world on notice that you have an agreement with alliance X, you are (at least theoretically) increasing your security.

Secret treaties have no legal value (there is precedent for this), and in my opinion rightly so.

No 'legal' value? There is no 'legal' value to any agreement, treaty, understanding, etc. in Digiterra. Your statement implies that there is a 'legal' system to which one can apply to have an agreement enforced. There is no such body, nor has there been in Digiterra. There have been attempts to create such a body, but they are roundly rejected because it violates....wait for it....sovereignty of alliances.

In Digiterra, there is no higher law to which everyone is equally accountable. There never has been. That's not to say there couldn't be in the future, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

- Secret treaties don't count (established in GW2).

Again, you assign 'precedential' value to that which is not precedent. All you need for a treaty to 'count' is for the two parties entering into the agreement to think it counts. Again, without an overarching 'legal' system that is applicable to everyone, sovereignty of the alliance is the final word on their 'law' - and yes, it may conflict with other alliances' law, but that doesn't mean it doesn't 'count.'

- Entering a conflict with no treaties is 'bandwagoning' (established in GW3). This means that you can predict the sides simply by reading the MDP web, with no 'wildcards' to spoil your calculation. It's also the reason for all these ODPs and optional aggression clauses, which in a logical world wouldn't be necessary – you always have the option to do anything which is not specifically banned anyway.

Again with the 'precedent?' Precedent implies a standard legal process applicable to everyone. This has never been the case. As to your contention that 'entering a conflict with no treaties' is 'bandwaggoning' you are incorrect. As a term of art, bandwaggoning refers to entering a conflict with no treaties on the side of the party that is going to very clearly win the conflict. A party that enters a conflict on the clearly losing side without a treaty isn't going to be called a bandwaggoner.

Destroying either of these precedents would make politics an even more cagey process.

That which has not been created can not be destroyed. There are no precedents in a legal sense, nor have there been.

Again, thought provoking OP, Sir Delirium and good response Bob. I enjoyed both along with all the other responses as they certainly sparked my interest.

Regards,

VI

[thisperson]

If it's worth declaring war over, it's worth getting the crap kicked out of you while dishing out some damage. You do make a good point, though. However, it would be much more worth it if surrender terms weren't so merciless; in addition, the frequency of DoWs that boil down to "We don't like you and we're in a bad mood", or "Meh, I'm bored" would decrease significantly.

Admirable as those actions may be, they would be ruined because there always has to be someone that cares about their pixels.

[Cobalt]

Ah, yes, I, the endorser of logical analysis, am the fringe lunatic.

Just because I call myself an astronaut doesn't mean I am one. Have fun out there on the fringe.

[Shurukian]

But if people stop announcing treaties, what will we have to talk about in Alliance Announcements?

Treaty Cancellations.

[Bob Janova]

VI, are you a lawyer? Does precedent have a special meaning in Chrisland? I was not referring to a legal precedent in relation to a fixed international law, but just to the past instances where the points I made had been tested.

There may be no international law, but secret treaties have been shown to 'not count' for the purposes of aggression and treaty chaining.

[VIdiot the Great]

VI, are you a lawyer? Does precedent have a special meaning in Chrisland? I was not referring to a legal precedent in relation to a fixed international law, but just to the past instances where the points I made had been tested.

There may be no international law, but secret treaties have been shown to 'not count' for the purposes of aggression and treaty chaining.

Your initial point said that they were not legal and then you went on to point out the precedential value of certain circumstances relating to 'secret treaties,' etc. Regardless of whether you are using 'legal' and 'precedential' as terms of art or not, my original point still stands.

There is no universal understanding that determines what treaties are 'valid,' 'invalid,' 'legal,' or 'not count' for purposes of aggression and treaty chaining. Since there is no universal wording in treaties, and further, universal understanding of what those non-universal words mean, there is no such thing as precedent for the reason I raised above. There is no common understanding of treaties outside of what the particular alliances who are interpreting the treaty they signed are giving it.

Secret treaties are just as valid or invalid as the parties to them make them. Same with any other treaty, agreement, or understanding.

For instance, a MDP partner that backs out of a treaty on the eve of conflict renders the treaty invalid on its face. They determine the validity of the agreement, not you, not me, nor anyone else outside those two parties. Now the reason cancellations are so important to watch is it lets us know what THAT alliance means when it signs or cancels something. Again, no universal terms or conditions, only sovereign decisions.

Regards,

VI

[Bob Janova]

Well, I don't agree that because there is no international legal system 'there is no common understanding of treaties'. Two alliances can do whatever they like of course, but how other alliances will react is determined by a loose series of conventions which are strongly driven by precedent.

[Big Z]

Realistically speaking, behind every treaty is a bond. Now, the strength behind that bond varies, dependent on the alliances involved, but ultimately, strong or weak, every treaty has that bond. The treaty itself is just a method to display that very bond, to cement these feelings and obligations into words. By doing so, it serves multiple purposes, including deterrence, furthering political agendas, or simply just to publicly state that the alliances involved are friends and allies.

However, the existence of the treaty itself is not necessarily obligatory, as long as that very bond is recognized by both sides and both sides intend to honor the spirit of the bond. If all signatories consider each other to be an ally to the death, a lack of a treaty doesn't change the fact that they'll defend each other to the very end. What it does do however, is follow precedent and avoid any backlash that may result from lacking a treaty and involving oneself in any potential conflict. Nonetheless, because the risks of not signing a treaty far outweigh the benefits of not doing so, it is simply expedient to sign a treaty to signify the bonds rather than not.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Big Z

[Heft]

Secret treaties are just as valid or invalid as the parties to them make them. Same with any other treaty, agreement, or understanding.

For instance, a MDP partner that backs out of a treaty on the eve of conflict renders the treaty invalid on its face. They determine the validity of the agreement, not you, not me, nor anyone else outside those two parties. Now the reason cancellations are so important to watch is it lets us know what THAT alliance means when it signs or cancels something. Again, no universal terms or conditions, only sovereign decisions.

If an alliance gets attacked and another alliance comes to its aid because they have an MDP that everyone is aware of, then people will, more or less, approve or at least accept that action. If they use an MDP that no one is aware of they will be laughed at and mocked and probably would have been better off just saying "We're defending them because we want to." There may not be any international law, but in the realm of "acceptable alliance actions" there certainly is an established precedent of "if it's not public, it doesn't count." The validity of the treaty may be judged only by the signatories, but the validity of the action (in this case, honoring the treaty) is not.

[Randleman]

I think we all realize what a tangled mess the treaty web has come to. No one is here to deny that. I think it is in part due to lack of wars. With lack of wars this lets more and more alliances ally to different alliances before having to choose sides in a global conflict. I also believe gone are the days of Great Wars and honorable positions. Now we will see curb-stomping and I sure wish this will change. We need blocs vs. blocs. If a large war was to break out treaties will become exempt. Alliances will go either with NPO or whoever they believe will hold their best interests.

[Qaianna]

One issue might be that as alliance blocs start meeting each other, they decide to NOT war. Thus, bigger blocs.

For something to really work, there has to be some reason for it to. Right now, there's really no reason for huge blocs to war against each other, and that's not including the cases where they both are made up of the same members.

How would one really prevent a bloc from forming, anyway?

I think the original post offerred the idea of secret treaties and optional treaties. Secret ones really don't do much, and optional ones already exist, as optional defence agreements. There's also the more recent non-chaining clauses in treaties, too. Plus, there's the joy of being considered an alliance that won't honour its treaties. Ask the population on these boards how much they respect a treaty partner that doesn't come through. Even when asked not to by the victim.

I do, however, think that less harsh terms might help in a surrender, but that means there's a role the surrendering party has to play to accept it. We've had some alliances reject white peace, folks. Granted, not many..

Also, remember how chilling the reception gets when the world at large isn't terribly fond of your reason for war. That tends to pour the ice down the hawks' backs, too.

Overall, there's a lot that has to change for wars to get more popular.