The State of Treaties in Planet Bob

[agafaba]

Ya, I miss TDSM8 too

[loannes]

In my opinion, NPO only gained treaties because of their power. Other alliances hoped to gain power, glory, and renown by fighting alongside the Mighty Pacifica. But then it divided into two groups.

Group A: VE, FOK, RoK, and Sparta(?) who cancelled morally

Group B: Coward Coalition and Co, who cancelled (possibly) due to ealiazation that NPO will fall.

[Opethian]

Treaties have never been worth the server space they occupy.

[Earogema]

I remember when El Bruc made a thread like this after UJW.

You people still haven't learned.

[Asriel Belacqua]

I remember when El Bruc made a thread like this after UJW.

You people still haven't learned.

They won't ever learn. I think only a few alliances have "got it" if you know what I mean. By "got it" for those who don't know what I mean, I mean that there are only a few alliances who are TRULY honorable and will stick with people they ally, or know they won't stick with people, so they don't ally anyone at all.

[bbrownso]

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.

Usually, these treaties have cancellation periods for a reason; to prevent an ally from cancelling and running to a larger side. Then again, with no honor involved, they might just ignore the treaty all together like cowards.

[jer]

The issue isn't people cancelling treaties too easily, it's signing them too easily. Time was that getting as entangled in the web as possible and getting ties to as many alliances as possible was seen as a valid FA strategy, but as we have seen over the last few years this strategy - whilst making you feel powerful when you browse your bloated CN Wiki treaties section - does not save you when someone wants your blood badly enough. The key is to stop signing treaties without real basis, and to only take the plunge when you have a real relationship; then you know they will be honoured in even the darkest of times. Alliances who ignore this fact (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) can expect their 'beloved allies' to drop them in a heartbeat if they ever get into hot water.

[Locke]

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.

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.

RandomInterrupt makes a couple of good points:

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm too lazy to respond to these individually, so let's go with a group.

So long as we're playing a game, people will treat it as such. People won't think that it matters. Yet they paradoxically still want to cover their asses when it comes to a war; rather child-like if you ask me.

In a way, this is almost a good thing. I'd love to see the whole treaty web be comepletely redone. People don't want to honor treaties with people they don't agree with anymore? Good, done. People too wishy-washy? Good, done. Overly redundant? Cleared right up. Rebuild it from scratch, make sure that people know what the commit to and stick to it. And there should be harsh penalties for those that don't respect the treaty. And for that matter, let's try to simplify things a bit. As RandomInterrupt noted, the treaty web is vastly over-extended. It seems like treaties are simply a wispy representation of the changing state of affairs. People shouldn't go into treaties unless they're fully intending to stick in for the long haul. And for God's sake, don't go mass canceling on the eve of war, save it for before for after.

Oh, mpol? I am trying to catch up, I've only gotten to know CN politics for the past week or two. However, the state of said politics is fascinating and revolting all in the same moment. I know it's "the way it's always been," but that won't stop me from saying and doing what I can to change it. I, for one, intend to stand by my alliance's treaties, regardless of my personal opinions. I do recognize that NPO has made some very large mistakes, ones that probably do bear some form of reparations for, and not just money/tech. However, I plan to make good on my alliance's word, as I serve that alliance. Invictans do no renege on treaty partners for something as petty and temporal as convenience and profit.

The issue isn't people cancelling treaties too easily, it's signing them too easily. Time was that getting as entangled in the web as possible and getting ties to as many alliances as possible was seen as a valid FA strategy, but as we have seen over the last few years this strategy - whilst making you feel powerful when you browse your bloated CN Wiki treaties section - does not save you when someone wants your blood badly enough. The key is to stop signing treaties without real basis, and to only take the plunge when you have a real relationship; then you know they will be honoured in even the darkest of times. Alliances who ignore this fact (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) can expect their 'beloved allies' to drop them in a heartbeat if they ever get into hot water.

o/

[Lackistan]

75% of treaties have always been worth less then toilet paper in CN. What has changed is how blatant this fact is.

[Mixoux]

See, this is why I don't sign treaties with alliances I know I don't agree with. Makes everything simpler in the end.