War And Treaties

[BeanCorn]

I have come to ask myself, with this massive war upon us, what will it bring? I mean sure, it brings nuclear warfare, a lot of infra loss, and the occasional ZI.

But what about the end, after the dust and ruin has finally settled?

What will treaties mean, and will people ever completely trust them again?

Who will stand and write the history books, and who shall be defeated and fall into obscurity?

These are a lot of questions that I have about it, and after this war, I would certainly hope i get some answers.

[zigbigadorlou]

It will bring a power vacuum. That is all.

The moralists haven't won yet.

[SpacingOutMan]

People will still devalue the importance and representation of treaties. People will roll others en masse. People will whine and complain when their allies duck and roll away from them. People will still bail on others. People will still bandwagon.

So yea, I nulled.

[Coursca]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't see it changing at all after a couple months out of this war.

[Ogaden]

Nothing will change but the people in charge.

Unless we win of course.

Edited April 22, 2009 by James Dahl

[Starcraftmazter]

Perhaps it will change how they are made by Q/1V alliances. The rest of all already do it right.

[maximinus thrax]

For a time we may see alliances being more careful and less wanton in their signing of treaties. After a while though, the lessons taught by this war will be forgotten just like every other lesson humanity has learned. Welcome to the school of hard knocks, attend long enough and you'll lose all common sense.

[Brotherington]

Nothing will change but the people in charge.

Unless we win of course.

I'll admit, I lol'ed.

[Lycurgus Rex]

Whats next?, more lols from GGA I suppose. Probably the sole reason they should survive.

[iamthey]

I don't see anything changing, while there was a significant negative reaction to NPO; slowly as new people enter gov and people unconnected to the history rise up they will simply go back to the same pragmatic policies and way of doing things. Moreover, the two sides want the same thing, they are just going about diffrent ways of doing things. Once karama takes its place post war, there will no longer be anything to morally react to; no hegemony to fight as its leading figures will be the new hegemony and thus their policies will just be reflective of their own desires. In short their present moral crusade is a tool to acheive their own aim, its a weapon to use against the hegemony; once they are the hegemony they will then be on the defensive and a similar crusade could be led against them by an impotent party. In short the moral card is not something the new order could use as it is born out of a reaction to something more powerful than itself. Example if a knight goes and raids a town with an army, the preist who is an intellectually elite figure is powerless to stop it; so it reacts by denouncing the knight. Once the preist however aquires power to enact its will it will do so rather than just sit and essentially complain. Point is aside from a few diffrences in policy, the new leaders won't be too diffrent from the old ones.

Edited April 24, 2009 by iamthey

[Obiwan]

I don't see anything changing, while there was a significant negative reaction to NPO; slowly as new people enter gov and people unconnected to the history rise up they will simply go back to the same pragmatic policies and way of doing things. Moreover, the two sides want the same thing, they are just going about diffrent ways of doing things. Once karama takes its place post war, there will no longer be anything to morally react to; no hegemony to fight as its leading figures will be the new hegemony and thus their policies will just be reflective of their own desires. In short their present moral crusade is a tool to acheive their own aim, its a weapon to use against the hegemony; once they are the hegemony they will then be on the defensive and a similar crusade could be led against them by an impotent party. In short the moral card is not something the new order could use as it is born out of a reaction to something more powerful than itself. Example if a knight goes and raids a town with an army, the preist who is an intellectually elite figure is powerless to stop it; so it reacts by denouncing the knight. Once the preist however aquires power to enact its will it will do so rather than just sit and essentially complain. Point is aside from a few diffrences in policy, the new leaders won't be too diffrent from the old ones.

I somewhat agree with iamthey. Every leader does what he thinks is best for his alliance. This is called acting logically. If he doesn't, then he shouldn't be the leader for his alliance. Everything the NPO did that it is hated for, was justified by this unquestionable logic. However, what is questionable is whether or not these actions and policies are actually in their best interest. You could use anything they have done for example, they did it for their best interest, but I would argue that some of the things they did actually ended up hurting them. Alliances that are following NPO in what started out as a dim chance are doing so because they feel it is in their alliance's best interest. Alliances on the Karma side are doing it for the same reason, it is what they feel is the alliance's best interest.

[iamthey]

I somewhat agree with iamthey. Every leader does what he thinks is best for his alliance. This is called acting logically. If he doesn't, then he shouldn't be the leader for his alliance. Everything the NPO did that it is hated for, was justified by this unquestionable logic. However, what is questionable is whether or not these actions and policies are actually in their best interest. You could use anything they have done for example, they did it for their best interest, but I would argue that some of the things they did actually ended up hurting them. Alliances that are following NPO in what started out as a dim chance are doing so because they feel it is in their alliance's best interest. Alliances on the Karma side are doing it for the same reason, it is what they feel is the alliance's best interest.

Of course, the term "best intrest" and the concept itself are way to vauge to really be nailed down to any one course of action. Its more just whatever the subjective judgment of the decision maker decides it to be. I mean if you think about it being the hegemony is not really in the best intrest of any alliance for the fact that you are there really makes you the target of many. An alliance absolutely dedicated to the longterm best intrest of itself would basically sit in peace mode or be totally isolationist. (of course no one is going to really do that) My point was decisions made out of "honor" and "justice" will basically cease to occur once the new order has taken its place; because the concepts themselves are no longer relevent. The way morality has been used in CN is basically as a way to to attack the hegemony on an ideological basis. Once that is dispatched however there is no longer a need for the moral rehtoric as the new leading figures will have the needed clout to simply do as they want. While the actions of the alliances themselves will still be along the same lines, there will no real shift in the paradigm of how things are done. Decisions will still be made out of self intrest, and alliances will still be run pragmaticlly. If anything moral rehtoric will be used by a new group rejecting them in very much the same way that vox or karma used it against the NPO.

Edited April 24, 2009 by iamthey

[Taishaku]

The ultimate problem with treaties is that leaders rarely consider the consequences of signing them. Here, we saw the network of diplomacy that NPO had constructed, arguably their most powerful asset, disintegrate under a wave of ambivalence. Technically speaking, everyone who signed a treaty with NPO should have honored it and Karma should have been smothered at birth. But they didn't. Thus, future behavior will be influenced by these events, at least concerning those that did renege (and eventually came back, COUGH COUGH).

[ChairmanHal]

This war started off with an idea.

It was fed by hatred, both for imagined slights and well documented ones.

Treaties, as always, will come and go and some will be held because they signify true friendship, in other cases convenience.

I don't think the destruction of NPO, or any alliance, if that ultimate goal, will make this into paradise. Indeed, it may allow forces lurking on the edge of this conflict to come forward and become more oppressive than ever previously existed.

No, if I survive this war, I'm not sure that I will like this world very much.

[WarriorConcept]

B)

I don't think the destruction of NPO, or any alliance, if that ultimate goal, will make this into paradise. Indeed, it may allow forces lurking on the edge of this conflict to come forward and become more oppressive than ever previously existed.

No, if I survive this war, I'm not sure that I will like this world very much.

Well, it'll definitely be better than the last 2 years. I am wondering what forces you speak of on the edge that could possibly come out as being oppressive. The future I see for planet Bob is more emphasis on friendships before signing treaties, more communication between allies, no EZI, no terrible war terms, no viceroy for a year, no war lasting for 2 years.

The world looks set to be a lot more multi-polar following this war, and I for one am excited to see what kind of drama and actions will unfold from it.

[King MyLife]

Whats next?, more lols from GGA I suppose. Probably the sole reason they should survive.

LOL..whats GGA gotta do with the way treaties are honored or not..Or if treaties are going to be same or different..People take they path of living..Every alliance in this game had their own ways of life..Weather its good or bad its to be seen..But taking a alliance name in everything thats being said every where in planet bob is not accomplishing nothing..And the GGA is going to survive and stay around planet bob weather you like it or not..