Jump to content

Crimes of Persuasion


Experimentum

Recommended Posts

You have read no doubt the words that I have spoken from time to time. I have used language that may seem archaic and misbegotten.

Either you don't have an amzingly good grasp of what misbegotten means, in which case that sentence is ironically accurate, or you're admitting to the exact reason I tend to skim over your posts. Namely, you throw in random "big" words for the sake of doing so rather than to enhance or more exactly relay your meaning. Quite frankly, that's incredibly annoying. A person should say exactly what they mean to say in a way that conveys their message as accurately as possible. Using language intentionally meant to be barely intelligible does neither and makes you sound pompous.

I really have no issues with OBR, but there is a fine line between eloquence and verbosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Little does anyone know that I crafted a similar clause for MFO into the new NOIR treaty...

I am amused, mostly. Here I see chief diplomats admit their own failings, countless numbers express their own ineptitude, a few valiant warriors who claim to have known all along, and the general mob of those who post only to say that they, "Don't care [about anything at all, yet they proclaim this feeling wherever they go! here or in any other thread]."

What amuses me most, however, is the title. Writ de Credo, or "Death Cookie." No one else seems to notice, and perhaps the original drafter Herself did not intend, but the term "Death Cookie" belies one important fact about the clause. This cookie can only be enjoyed in death. When employed, the Order will be engaged in one of two things: embroiled in total war and soon ceasing to exist, or preying upon an innocent, smaller alliance member. It will be the one Sweet taste to go with the bitter death, the one last treat before defeat, the idea that the Order will have always honorably upheld her treaties to the letter while the enemy initiated hostilities. Or, the Order destroys one nation and loses all credibility, enjoying this last cookie before ceasing to have any "relevance" to anyone, most importantly any new would-be signatories, after seeing the manner in which the Order might have dealt with this signatory alliance and nation. The clause would never have been appropriated.

It is a shame really, because this will probably prevent any further alliances from signing the Writ. The Order will have only the Realm and Blackwater to attend to. With so few projects other than internal growth, I fear the Order may decay through isolation and disinterest. (I am not one to talk. MFO has only two treaties, the Dark Vows -- ironically an OBR-written NAP-bloc++ --, and NOIR, a black team ODP+econ bloc treaty.) Perhaps the Order should consider something like the Citadel. The folk are entirely honorable, the Order would have a more prominent role in world affairs, and more individuals would be driven to supplicate to such an honorable society.

I laugh with everyone else regarding the revelations, and I wish the Order well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any future OBR treaties should be read very carefully in future.

Any treaty signed with any alliance should always be read very carefully. Though, you are indirectly correct in one regard - that is, documents written in the style of the Writ de Credo should receive increased scrutiny. However, this should be the case no matter the alliance that produces them, as there are only two reasons why such unnecessarily verbose, tedious legalese would ever be used in a Cyberverse treaty: i) The alliance incorrectly believes the use of this style of writing exudes professionalism, or ii) The realisation that very few denizens of the Cyberverse will even bother to read something so long-winded, and of the opportunities for the inclusion of 'hidden' terms that this apathy provides. Frankly, I feel very little sympathy for those signatories of the Writ De Credo who were surprised by this 'exposé'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being a lawyer, I can't claim to understand legalese as well as TOP, but I can read and once translated the Writ for normal folks like myself.

I haven't seen the death cookie thread on our forums ever, but that discussion happened before I retired there so it must be open only to Knight Admins. But the OBR does have a link to my original translation in our Chamber of Diplomacy and as far as I know, it is standard practice to give the link to all potential writ signatories.

Anyway for reference- its a harsh NAP, but I thought everybody knew that since back in Dec 2006.

Check it out- I'm banned on the old forums!!!

Writ Translation in Dec 2006

wootage.png

Edit- And here is the actual link that is provided to Writ signatories:

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...t&p=6097600

Edited by Quercus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Mmm.. character assassination.

One of us! One of us! :ph34r:

LOL

I would like to point out:

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.

Agreed. The most devious thing about this treaty that I can see is if it is used as follows: Nation is talks some smack in the forums about the OBR, they decide to zi them. The alliance of the member getting zi'd wants to fight to protect them, but OBR invokes the clause. It won't stop the fight, but it would give any allies of the alliance that is deciding to fight to protect their member an excuse to not help fight OBR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...