Crimes of Persuasion

[SirWilliam]

As commander of the armed forces of the Mushroom Kingdom, I affirm on this day that we will defend no member that comes under attack from OBR forces, as per the stipulation of the Writ De Credo. The Mushroom Kingdom values and honors its treaties, and we will do so at the expense of both our membership and our sovereignty.

[Freelancer]

Yes, I am well aware - really I should have known better - I'm an idealist at heart I suppose...

This is CN after all - alliances do what they have to do... I'm sure I am guilty of a lot worse.

However, I would also temper my earlier comments with the fact that none of us yet know the full story and we shouldn't set our opinions just yet. Not only do we have 'part two' to deal with by this former Knight - but I'm sure the leadership of the Order will be making an official comment, both of which I'm awaiting with keen interest.

I beg to differ, I'm a sucker for a good story line, may it be fiction of non. However the most disturbing part from some of our viewing audience which concerns me dearly is the terms or remarks directed at The First Knight, that he is somehow irrelevant or an Ego Manic.

OCC..

The OBR with all its tradition had and still has a set of core values created by Queen AterAtra and Experimentum, that being said those traditions must live on, once you break away from the core values of your original creator, you may as well burn the house down and start a new..

A prime example of this would be... 6 months down the road, Mr3looc and Shane-o say ok I've had enough and turn over CNS to Lance and Jylnn with explicit instructions what ever you do, don't let that no good son of a !@#$%* Freelancer part of the CNS all he will do is get us in trouble and killed, 6 months later they do it anyway for Shane-o and Mr3looc to find out later on, do you think they may be a tad disgruntled ?

IC

I'm sure the example I set above should set the stage for one of The Nobel Knights requests.

[Xavii]

Haha impressive, good thread. Will read again.

[astronaut jones]

I don't know why you're quoting me when I am obviously saying that nobody cares about this.

because I want to have your children, obviously.

I don't know why you're quoting me either, since you so obviously don't care about this whole mess. I guess you just had to tell me though, didn't you?

[Reyne]

You're either not being open about their involvement or you simply don't know. Draft =/= adding later parts. OBR apparently dropped out towards the end of the discussions but were deeply involved which is a far cry from having no part in it as you wrongly suggested.

Then please name the author? Because I can tell you the name of one of our own who contributed to the writing. When OBR declined to become members, some of us frankly didn't feel they should be writing anything connected to it. OBR wanted no part of Citadel. That much is true, and was not "wrongly suggested." They have ignored their embassy in Citadel since not long after its creation. That's fine for them, but to say they have a strong base in Citadel is erroneous.

It's a derail from this discussion, however. As to the revelation, here, oh well.

[Nizzle]

I had always imagined OBR to be up to something. There has to be some reason for an alliance as seemingly isolated as theirs to enjoy the game, and I believe this is it.

Insofar as this Reyne/Blacky discussion: Though it is a tangent, I think it's disingenuous to claim something that most in Citadel have openly admitted. OBR initially drafted the idea/wording for Lux Aeterna, hence the striking similarities between the treaty and OBR's writing style. However, that was a long time ago and of course I only have direct knowledge through contacts who had direct knowledge, so I suppose I'm not one to resist a rewrite of history.

[Bob Janova]

Yes, OBR did have a significant part in drafting the Citadel treaty ... the wording was mostly done by the time they decided they did not want to be a part of that. I don't see what relevance that has today, though. The Lux Aeterna is not hiding anything, because it was created to do a particular job and it does it well.

I just went and read the Writ, and here is Article V:

Accord the Fifth (V): On Defense and Hostility

It is the right and responsibility of each Order Nation to, in keeping with the duties and privileges of sovereignty endemic to ruling power, defend and protect its citizens, properties, and territories against any and all Assailants and forms of Hostility, and to expect all other nations to do the same. Therefore, no form of resistance or reaction by any Order Nation to any act of Hostility or any action undertaken by the Order as part of a punishment described in Accord the First (I): Preamble above, including without reservations all forms of military response, deployment, attack, amassment, and maneuver, any cessation or restructuring of trades, or any form of economic sanction, shall be considered an act of Hostility or subject to the punishment therefore appurtenant, and any and all such Assailants shall be considered to have forfeited their rights to protection and neutral unalignment under this Writ.

The tl;dr seems to be: if you attack the Order, they can retaliate, drop your trades and sanction you. This is standard practice as an 'end case' for a rogue nation attacking any alliance, if they will not stand down and pay reparations. I simply don't see the trap, even if a legal trap actually meant anything.

Here's the relevant piece of Article I:

Thus we declare that any member nation of The Order Of The Black Rose who dares to commence, commit, further, aid, support, or abet, prolong, or orchestrate hostilities against any other nation without due provocation or who otherwise violates any term of this treaty shall be instantly subject to appropriately harsh and swift punishment

Taking 'hostilities' as 'war' which is the usual interpretation, that means that they can retaliate against you if you declare war on them, or support someone who does. Look at how NPO deal with nations who support FAN and you'll see that there's nothing out of line here.

If you meant to create a legal trap, you could have done much better than to codify standard practice

[Haflinger]

I would like to point out:

Accord the Eighth (VIII): On Enactment

This Writ shall be considered in full force with regard to the Order and each given Signatory as of the date on which that Signatory executes it, and shall remain in effect until either the Order or the Signatory decides to revoke it with regard to one another. Such revocation shall be initially declared in writing by an empowered official from either the Order or the Signatory, and shall take effect and release both parties from their obligations to one another no fewer than seven (7) days after such written intent is communicated.

Supposing OBR did try permaZI as a punishment for, say, a Sparta nation dropping a trade, and Sparta accepted the suggested interpretation of the Writ de Credo as valid, I can't imagine there'd be a lot of signatures left on it 7 days later.

[gwalchfaen]

E tu Miko?

You cited your addiction to this game as the reason you quit, I think that it's time to put the crack pipe back down dude. It's a damn shame that you let your feelings and personal problems get the best of you and override the honor you once had.

Anyone who has bothered to take the time and get to know the members of the OBR will realize that there's nothing new here that you didn't already know. The OBR started as a small alliance, beset by attacks in our first days, with few friends to call on for support. The Writ was a way to ensure our survival in an uncertain world. I don't think we ever numbered over 30 members in the two years we've existed, yet we garnered the respect of our fellow alliances by our words and our deeds. We never pretended to be cute and cuddly, we never said we were neutral. All alliances have the right of self-preservation. This is nothing different, nothing new.

And though I no longer play this game, the members of the OBR are still some of my best acquaintances, and I chat with many of them on a daily and weekly basis. They are honorable folk and superb statesmen and women. Don't let the bitter words of an ex-member who didn't get his way sway your opinion of them.

And Miko, I am truly sad that I can no longer call you my friend.

[President Obama]

:jihad:

Wow, I am disgusted. Not at OBR, but at the folks who claim the Order of The Black Rose to be a manipulating alliance. While I have no understanding over why Sir Experimentum would bring this article into a certain viewpoint, I can safely say that its every alliance's right to protect their own members. Now, were alliances such as NPO, M*A*S*H, IRON, GRE, etc... forced to sign the writ de credo treaty? Absolutly not! It was by free will and will alone between each of the governments to sign the treaty, and signing of a treaty would mean they fully understand the wording and makeup of the contents. If the signatories had no problem with it, why should any of you?

If by some reason you have a issue with the treaty, and your alliance is listed, I suggest taking the flame and unessasary posts to your government. A true and rightful document is to be a exchange of agreements to help better aid the civilized world. For those who claim "No one would honor this treaty!", I ask you to look at protectorate treaties which can be just as manipulating, For one party has to defend the other, while the one defended has more of an option should the protector get attacked. Yet the are honored none the less, as are other treaties.

-Energizer

Just a note, I'm pretty sure that Gremlins never signed this.

[energizer]

Just a note, I'm pretty sure that Gremlins never signed this.

:jihad:

My mistake, I had thought they had too participated with this treaty along with some of the top sanctioned alliances. Looking back, it isnt the case.

[Charles VI]

Maybe I'm reading the section incorrectly, but I find nothing wrong with Section V.

Therefore, no form of resistance or reaction by any Order Nation to any act of Hostility or any action undertaken by the Order as part of a punishment described in Accord the First (I): Preamble above [i.e., attacking an Order Nation as punishment for violating the Writ], including without reservations all forms of military response, deployment, attack, amassment, and maneuver, any cessation or restructuring of trades, or any form of economic sanction, shall be considered an act of Hostility or subject to the punishment therefore appurtenant, and any and all such Assailants shall be considered to have forfeited their rights to protection and neutral unalignment under this Writ.

The emphasized part clearly indicates that this ''sweeping appropriation of power'' to attack others with no limitations cannot be invoked unless there is an ''act of Hostility'' committed by the party in question. Now, let's examine the OP's interpretation.

When any alliance at all was convinced to lay down their collective signature on the Writ, they were also conned into handing over their right to retaliate if an OBR nation decided to, out of thin air, attack one of their nations.

The emphasized part is clearly untrue. As said before, any military action by the OBR would only be legally justified if an initial act of Hostility was committed against the OBR.

In the event an alliance weaker than the OBR signed the Writ, they thereby gave us the right to legally decimate their alliance at whim should the mood strike us.

Again, under the wording of Article V, the right of the OBR to ''decimate their alliance'' would be dependent on that alliance being engaged in Hostile activities towards the OBR.

[joracy]

Yes, OBR did have a significant part in drafting the Citadel treaty ... the wording was mostly done by the time they decided they did not want to be a part of that. I don't see what relevance that has today, though. The Lux Aeterna is not hiding anything, because it was created to do a particular job and it does it well.

I just went and read the Writ, and here is Article V:

The tl;dr seems to be: if you attack the Order, they can retaliate, drop your trades and sanction you. This is standard practice as an 'end case' for a rogue nation attacking any alliance, if they will not stand down and pay reparations. I simply don't see the trap, even if a legal trap actually meant anything.

Here's the relevant piece of Article I:

Taking 'hostilities' as 'war' which is the usual interpretation, that means that they can retaliate against you if you declare war on them, or support someone who does. Look at how NPO deal with nations who support FAN and you'll see that there's nothing out of line here.

If you meant to create a legal trap, you could have done much better than to codify standard practice

Pretty much this. There were some odd sections to the treaty...but I never figured they would attempt to e-lawyer or do anything thats not horribly common. I obviously wasn't around for the signing of this, but I've read through it and never had a problem.

[Tom Litler]

I don't see what the concern is with this elitist "Order of the Black Rose" and this "legal trap" of theirs.

I didn't need attend law school to tell you that people in this world don't honor their treaties.

These neo-cavaliers of the OBR are living in the past in more ways than just their insistent use of medieval mannerisms if they think some words written on paper will stop the iron will of a powerful leader.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Tom Litler

[Alterego]

I didn't need attend law school to tell you that people in this world don't honor their treaties.

People honour treaties all the time, your image of the world has been warped and your statement is totally false.

[Tom Litler]

People honour treaties all the time, your image of the world has been warped and your statement is totally false.

People honor treaties when it is convenient for them most of the time.

Not only is honoring this particular treaty extremely inconvenient but did Queen AlterAtra really think that upon finding out the implications of the Article the Fifth, the signatories would actually go ahead and let the OBR grind their nations into dust much less not feel as though they have been deceived?

When we speak of honoring this "Writ de Credo" we speak not even of people who have a tendency to honor all their treaties as opposed to people who will honor them as is convenient to them, we speak of people who have the common sense to tear up an obviously deceptive document.

[lebubu]

I planned on coming here to be edgy and say that most alliances don't give a !@#$ about their treaties when it comes down to real business. Too late for that though. Well played OBR.

[Alterego]

People honor treaties when it is convenient for them most of the time.

Not only is honoring this particular treaty extremely inconvenient but did Queen AlterAtra really think that upon finding out the implications of the Article the Fifth, the signatories would actually go ahead and let the OBR grind their nations into dust much less not feel as though they have been deceived?

When we speak of honoring this "Writ de Credo" we speak not even of people who have a tendency to honor all their treaties as opposed to people who will honor them as is convenient to them, we speak of people who have the common sense to tear up an obviously deceptive document.

Thats a far cry from "people in this world don't honor their treaties"

[Tom Litler]

Thats a far cry from "people in this world don't honor their treaties"

As I said, it's beyond a simple matter of who honors their treaties whether or not they put them at a disadvantage at times. Of all treaties, this is one not to be honored and I am sure that the "secret" article would hold no power at all when it was brought up and a signatory of the Writ de Credo found out its hidden meaning.

[Yawoo]

Just my two cents, if you signed this treaty, you signed that you understood what it implied, and that is all.

You can debate from there, but it really means nothing. OBR has done nothing wrong here and upheld their end?

Quoting this because it seems to have been lost in the pages.

If you don't understand a treaty you are about to sign, don't sign it. If you have to get somebody else to let you know what the wording means before you sign, don't sign it. If you have any confusion at all about any part of the treaty before you sign it, don't sign it. Get every bit of every treaty clarified, or don't sign it.

Everyone can holler about how evil and deceiving OBR is, but if you would have taken the time to read and analyze the Writ De Credo, you would have understood the language and known exactly what it was saying. Any current signatory which is crying foul now has only themselves to blame for their laziness in not taking the time and effort to review if the Writ was something that would be beneficial to them. Next time, read a treaty and don't sign it just because of the alliance's name.

[Baron deSandersted]

Dear Great Lord Experimentum,

As a recent visitor to OBR, Blackwater and now The Realm of the Rose, I

like to count myself as a friend to those of the Rosular Kingdom.

It seems that I am a greater friend to them, than you are. How could you

do such a horrid thing to the people that you once led? What kind of a leader,

or role model, drives such a lance into the heart of his people? Perhaps you

should have stayed away.

The Writ de Credo has served the OBR well for a very long time. Discussing

any possible flaws in a treaty, should be done behind closed doors and not in

an open forum for the world to see. Any noob knows that. Why do you wish

to hurt the alliance that you helped to found?

Please note that I have not address you as "sir". In my humble opinion, you

have made a conscious decision to cast your title to the ground and you are

undeserving of Knighthhood.

How Might Anyone Trust You Again?

[Tom Litler]

Quoting this because it seems to have been lost in the pages.

If you don't understand a treaty you are about to sign, don't sign it. If you have to get somebody else to let you know what the wording means before you sign, don't sign it. If you have any confusion at all about any part of the treaty before you sign it, don't sign it. Get every bit of every treaty clarified, or don't sign it.

Everyone can holler about how evil and deceiving OBR is, but if you would have taken the time to read and analyze the Writ De Credo, you would have understood the language and known exactly what it was saying. Any current signatory which is crying foul now has only themselves to blame for their laziness in not taking the time and effort to review if the Writ was something that would be beneficial to them. Next time, read a treaty and don't sign it just because of the alliance's name.

I agree with this as well and I'd like to point out that nowhere did I condemn the OBR for what they attempted. I merely said that they were naive in thinking that people would uphold a treaty that disadvantaged them to such an end.

[Smooth]

Therefore all Order Nations shall be exempt from any form of Hostility from any member nation of any Signatory, all member nations of all Signatories shall be equally exempt from all such Hostility from any Order Nation, and the punishment for breach of any such exemption, as well as for orchestrating or attempting to orchestrate such Hostility through third parties, non-Signatory alliances, or any other means, shall be exacted on the swift and certain terms delineated in Accord the First (I): Preamble above.

I'm pretty sure that says OBR nations just can't run around attacking people.

[Unko Kalaikz]

I'm looking forward to everyone seeing what actually prompted this.

[shahenshah]

IRON Charter:

Article 3 - Defense

I. An armed attack against one or more Member Nations shall be considered to be an attack against them all. In such an event, the Republic shall collectively take action as deemed necessary by the Council, potentially including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the alliance and its Member Nations.

That > DC.

One would only be duping themselves if they think they're duping the Republic, GG.

Edited February 28, 2009 by shahenshah