The State of Treaties in Planet Bob

[Locke]

Honestly, after last night, I'm rather dissapointed in the membership of Planet Bob. When it became "unpopular" to support NPO and it was clear that a very real war was going to be both hard and damaging, alliances pulled out en masse, and not just the "Coalition of Cowards," as it's been termed. Whatever happened to the binding power a contract such as a treaty was supposed to hold? Are treaties even worth anything in light of last night? It's quite clear that if an alliance wants to do something, they're not going to let something like their solemn word stop them.

So, coming to my point: what is the state of treaties in Planet Bob? Should nations that renege on a treaty face the ire of nations on all sides of the war? Should we even have treaties if they aren't followed and enforced?

[RandomInterrupt]

Where were you during last years war, man. This is just standard protocol from alliances who value their hides over their honor. When Polar was made out to be a badguy we lost almost all our treaties. Now that the NPO has slipped up and shown a weakness, they will lose all their treaties. It's a simple reaction to having too many treaties without relationships to back them up.

It's not a reflection of the world at large, simply a side-affect to over-extending your treaty base.

[Doitzel]

This is the same it's always been. I doubt anything will change because history repeated itself for the umpteenth time.

[raasaa]

when put in a tight spot....an alliances true colors pop out.....

now you know who will stand by you thro tough times and who wont

[enderland]

That's what happens when all the alliances who will honor treaties are not on "their side" anymore.

[alpreb]

Most of CN is, for better or worse, a rather large group of carebears, who really, really don't want to lose their stuff. This alone gives a good enough reason to justify some of the rather cowardly action we see now and then.

[GOONS]

Its easy to be there for the good times, but not for the bad.

[hizzy]

The thing I find funny is that even after the smear campaign by Pacifica and co., Polaris still maintained a number of friends.

Now Pacifica is literally all by her lonesome, and nobody even had to do any FA work. The so-called greatest diplomatic corps in the game did all the work themselves.

As to your point about what will happen to the cowards... well, Karma, ain't that what this is about? They'll find themselves in trouble some day, and when that day comes, Karma will bite them in the $@!. Personally I think the best thing anyone else can do is simply throw out any treaty offers they present them. I mean, these are alliances with a history of cancellations. They're like CN's version of coke addicts. You can pretend to be friends and "wub" and "huggle" and play grab-$@! all you want, but you're gonna wake up one morning and your wallet is gonna be missing.

Anyone who signs a treaty with a coward has earned their fate.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

Anyone who signs a treaty with a coward has earned their fate.

I agree. There are several alliances who have now made it very clear that they will not stick with their treaty partners if the seas get rough. Any alliance who decides to make a treaty with them is only asking for the same dedication.

[Ryiis]

Honestly, after last night, I'm rather dissapointed in the membership of Planet Bob. When it became "unpopular" to support NPO and it was clear that a very real war was going to be both hard and damaging, alliances pulled out en masse, and not just the "Coalition of Cowards," as it's been termed. Whatever happened to the binding power a contract such as a treaty was supposed to hold? Are treaties even worth anything in light of last night? It's quite clear that if an alliance wants to do something, they're not going to let something like their solemn word stop them.

So, coming to my point: what is the state of treaties in Planet Bob? Should nations that renege on a treaty face the ire of nations on all sides of the war? Should we even have treaties if they aren't followed and enforced?

RandomInterrupt makes a couple of good points:

...It's a simple reaction to having too many treaties without relationships to back them up.

It's not a reflection of the world at large, simply a side-affect to over-extending your treaty base.

NPO based a large part of its defensive strategy on deterrence: the papers of many treaties. Papers which, without the political capital to back them up, were worthless. Once they had spent that capital, and rather frivolously so as of late, then they were left - in many cases - with nothing more than paper with ink on it.

[Reachwind]

Most treaties on Bob? Toilet paper.

There are a select few treaties that are worth a damn. Treaties to STA, NSO, GR, MK and probably one or two alliances I can't think of at the moment.

[The Dukes of York]

how bout TOOL in that list?

[bbrownso]

Parties on both sides of this conflict are cowards.

I wonder if they'll ever earn the trust of the other alliances again. I know I've learned a lot about several alliances and they'll need to work hard to get any trust from me again.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Brandon Simonson

[avernite]

Treaties have cancellation clauses for a reason; to show how you CAN cancel a treaty when you disagree with what someone has done.

Of course, if the other side violates the treaty first it's truely voided, but well...

Lesson of the day: don't sign MADPs.

[DocOctane]

Treaties serve as an Alliance's excuse to enter a war they know they will win. See: Also Gang Banging, Curb Stomping, Rolling.... Defensively they seem to do nothing more that take up server space.

[hizzy]

Lesson of the day: don't sign MADPs.

I can think of a couple people I would sign MADP's with. It's a matter of trust and friendship. Even if they $%&@ up and give everyone the biggest CB in the world, we'd stick with them.

I always compare it to a bar fight. Sometimes you go out to the bar with a group of friends, and there's always the one idiot who manages to get into a fight. Do you let him get his $@! kicked? Hell no. You back him up, even if he deserved it. Maybe the next weekend you don't bring him along, but you don't leave a friend hanging.

[avernite]

I always compare it to a bar fight. Sometimes you go out to the bar with a group of friends, and there's always the one idiot who manages to get into a fight. Do you let him get his $@! kicked? Hell no. You back him up, even if he deserved it. Maybe the next weekend you don't bring him along, but you don't leave a friend hanging.

I may have too little experience with bar fights, but if someone hits another guy I'm not defending him unless the other guy goes beyond a punch back.

[mpol777]

I swear I've read something like this before. Hmmm.. Oh yeah.. this is it. Welcome to 2007. You'll catch up eventually.

[Defiant]

I think that this shows that treaties are thrown around WAY toooo much. Treaties should be built from true comradery, as that is what an MADP shows.

This is why the NAP and ToA and PIAT treaties are not a waste and still have a place in Planet Bob

[Oktavia]

I wouldn't be making assumptions yet until after tonight's update. It could be a ruse for all we know.

[cptblck]

i will bet 30 million to anyone who dares challenge me that there will be DoW's from this Coalition of Cowards ( or for lulz these CoC's)

[Lyria]

This is the same it's always been. I doubt anything will change because history repeated itself for the umpteenth time.

Doitzel is right. Nothing has changed.

As much as I hate to say it, it is occurring on both 'sides' of this conflict. MHA and ODN have announced which treaties they will follow and which ones they will not. IRON/TPF and co have decided that their longstanding treaties with NPO are no longer worth following, and dumped them en masse.

What we are witnessing is the same goddamn thing we have witnessed for the past two years. Honor when convenient. Until people sign treaties with the intent of following them, regardless of situation, we can look and say that we have changed the state of treaties on Planet Bob. Today is not that day.

[Bellisus]

I can think of a couple people I would sign MADP's with. It's a matter of trust and friendship. Even if they $%&@ up and give everyone the biggest CB in the world, we'd stick with them.

I always compare it to a bar fight. Sometimes you go out to the bar with a group of friends, and there's always the one idiot who manages to get into a fight. Do you let him get his $@! kicked? Hell no. You back him up, even if he deserved it. Maybe the next weekend you don't bring him along, but you don't leave a friend hanging.

That is correct. If Avalanche didn't roll out with her allies, what would she be? We are forever indebted to GR, and will always fight with them. Always.

Reasoning for loyalty: In the NoCB war, we were told by GR to cancel our protectorate treaty, though every government member would have thrown our 200k alliance down the drain as cannon fodder. But they decided to protect us, and told us to cancel. The moment they could, we signed an MDoAP with them. Now we're around 800k, and have upgraded to an MDoAP. Circumstances are different. But when things looked bleakest for Karma, when this was going to be the biggest war the world had seen, we contacted GR and our new allies in NV, and offered our services.

Sorry, had nothing to do with the OP. But I cannot stand fair weather friends. Grow a sack, CoC.

[Neuromancer7]

I have several conclusions to draw from this recent mess.

1. As many people always believed there are a large number, if not a majority of alliances who's honor is a word and nothing more. I am surprised by quite how widespread this it to be honest.

2. When a treaty is violated by either side it's VIOLATED, and hence void. When a treaty is violated cancellation durations should not apply.

3. At this point any treaty that I suggest or that I would sign MUST contain a clause stating that said Treaty MAT be considered void if either nation takes actions that could reasonably be expected to lead to war WITHOUT giving sufficient notice to allow a timely cancellation as appropriate.

4. Certain leaders of certain alliances need to figure out how to draw conclusions. SO many people saw this coming it could only have been a surprise to people with their heads firmly in the sand. How almost all of Continuum failed to draw the obvious conclusions and retire from the field in the appropriate time with their honor still intact is frankly a wonder to me.

5. Obviously certain alliances have made it clear that they have no honor. I suppose this is doing planet Bob a great service. Anyone who signs a treaty with said alliances now know's EXACTLY what that treaty will be worth if push comes to shove. The same goes for the leaders of said alliances regardless of where they end up.

Obviously that's my opinion. You-all are more then welcome to draw your own conclusions. I just happen to have felt like sharing.

Edit:

i will bet 30 million to anyone who dares challenge me that there will be DoW's from this Coalition of Cowards ( or for lulz these CoC's)

^^ I sincerely hope you are right. There are a number of alliances, and more specifically people, that I really expected better of.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Neuromancer7

[Paradigm]

^^

Well said - well worth writing - and well worth reading.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Paradigm