Treaties

[Tulafaras]

nope, it's what you believe to be the truth maybe, and it might be what you want to be the truth.

Truth is a fact, not a suggestion.

No treaty is a law, a treaty is a number of clauses agreed between partners, a law per definition a set of rules enforced by a superior authority. Breaking a treaty is between you and your treaty partner, breaking the law is usually punished by some sort of law enforcement (police, military etc.).

The only treaty which was outright broken in this war was the PC / TPF Nap to my knowledge. And those two alliances have always been hostile so the treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Now either NAME those treaties you consider broken or shut up.

[Chalaskan]

First of all, Public Opinion doesn't create Bobian law. If it did, Yala Misr's polls would have actually meant something.

Secondly, claiming something is true, saying there is proof of it, then calling the person who is clearly much more educated in Bobian politics than you are naive is not the way to prove a point. In fact, it makes you look like a fool.

And lastly, if you wish for anyone to believe you, I suggest you gather proof of the 'hundreds' of treaties being broken.

LOL, of all I would think you would know the treaties being broken. It may be to your advantage to look at them. NAPS hit due to loopholes, allies hitting allies of their allies when obligated not to, alliances hitting alliances with no real treaty obligation, MDP's being cancelled after they should have been honored.

Look, I'm not stating anyone on anyside is in the right. I am stating the whole damn planet has abandoned the law we live by, and asking what law it there now?

If there isn't any standard, we live in anarchy.

Point blank

[leprecon]

I will not go through the mass laws broken by treaty here. Laws have been broken on several levels. If you don't know you are naive. With that I'll let you know that treaties are not just op clauses. There are many clauses within them.

Not to mention joining a war without one has been a breach before. There are various degrees of law being broken here. Like it or not, it's the truth.

Seriously, many people have asked, "give us examples."

We are still waiting.

Sure treaties are being broken, but its because some alliances are more friendly than others.

For instance, VE is very close to GOD, (and to OV for that matter) and we wouldnt end the treaty we have with them even if it costs us a global war.

However, MCXA had a treaty with VE, but we guys werent as close so it was only natural that treaty got cancelled.

The treaty web now is so big that if people were to not cancel any treaties, we would have a constant state of neutrality.

Also, what I like is that you keep referring to "laws". What laws ?

There are no laws but one, the winner is right.

Even in the real world this is so.

Lets say, you have the most dishonourable annoying evil alliance ever, but they would have 60% of all the strength of CN, then what ?

They could break their treaties as they please, attack their madp partners, sanction people for having funny names.

Wheres your law now?

However if in CN you would act like the above FICTIONAL alliance (yes, im not referring to the NPO, and anyone who thinks that can go suck a carrot) you would find that people wont sign treaties with you because you lie, people wont respect you, and when you find yourself without friends youll be curbstomped.

There is no such thing as a law, because writing something on a piece of paper wont make it true.

[Delta1212]

Yes, and this happens every time we have a major war. How have you not noticed this?

[Tulafaras]

(ooc) the laws in this game are the rules enforced by the administration, everything else are treaties, contracts etc. refer to a dictionary if that part is still unclear (/ooc)

[Alicia]

NAPS hit due to loopholes,allies hitting allies of their allies when obligated not to, alliances hitting alliances with no real treaty obligation, MDP's being cancelled after they should have been honored.

As already stated, provide examples if you want your argument taken seriously.

[rabonnobar]

There are plenty of examples... RIA-NPO MDP, ODN's multiple treaties with hegemony, MHA's treaties with hegemony, TOP's treaties with both sides, Argent's treaty with TOOL, TOOL's treaty with RoK, NpO's treaties with both sides, TORN's treaties with both sides but mainly hegemony, MA's treaty with VA, Trident as a bloc is split, as well as CDT (CD on one side, most others on other side), I could go on and on....

When I was told that war was coming, I was confused, as there were still literally dozens of intertwining treaties.

[Tulafaras]

there is a difference between a treaty not being enforced, and a treaty being broken. Considering the RIA-NPO MDP, since RIA is a part of the Superfriends how are they supposed to solve that? GoD must defend OV against the NPO and RIA cannot defend the NPO against GoD unless they break the Superfriends.

Does this mean the treaty is broken? Not necessarily. If NPO insisted on their aid they would have to decide which treaty to enforce, but if NPO is willing to let things lie, they can fullfill their obligations in the aftermath of the war by providing aid.

The same problem has been a factor for many other alliances, but almost none (as i said i am aware of PC's actions) have directly broken a treaty.

[Starcraftmazter]

Dark Fist entered the war to support it's treaty partners - who just so happened to be alliances we are closest to (and not by coincidence).

We have never broken a treaty. We never will.

Learn2honour & sign meaningful treaties.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[Delta1212]

There are plenty of examples... RIA-NPO MDP, ODN's multiple treaties with hegemony, MHA's treaties with hegemony, TOP's treaties with both sides, Argent's treaty with TOOL, TOOL's treaty with RoK, NpO's treaties with both sides, TORN's treaties with both sides but mainly hegemony, MA's treaty with VA, Trident as a bloc is split, as well as CDT (CD on one side, most others on other side), I could go on and on....

When I was told that war was coming, I was confused, as there were still literally dozens of intertwining treaties.

RIA-NPO MDoAP has a clause permitting us to be on opposite sides of a global conflict in which treaty conflicts would otherwise occur. It downgrades to an NAP in such instances.

[Haflinger]

CDT is a bad example, for reasons I shouldn't really go into here. CD and DE have followed their treaty obligations per the bloc treaty.

There are certainly other good examples though. And I really dislike the trend of cancelling treaties in wartime, which does seem to be on the upswing.

And certainly the cancel-then-attack-same-night method I don't recall seeing before.

[Taget]

Can't say I like the cancelling of treaties right before a war when the intention is just to switch sides. But the treaty web does make everything very confusing. For example my alliance kept our MDPs to just three. Yet if the war had started with an attack on MA instead of OV via our MADP with VA we would've ended up on the Karma side of the war.

[Vilien]

My question to the CN community, is what are the new laws? The old ones have obviously been obliviated.

The "old ones" that you speak of have never existed. This war is the same as every other war.

[Chalaskan]

There are plenty of examples... RIA-NPO MDP, ODN's multiple treaties with hegemony, MHA's treaties with hegemony, TOP's treaties with both sides, Argent's treaty with TOOL, TOOL's treaty with RoK, NpO's treaties with both sides, TORN's treaties with both sides but mainly hegemony, MA's treaty with VA, Trident as a bloc is split, as well as CDT (CD on one side, most others on other side), I could go on and on....

When I was told that war was coming, I was confused, as there were still literally dozens of intertwining treaties.

I didn't bother posting a list cause I knew that it would be countered with rhetoric. The point is we have never seen treaties being broken on this scale, and are we going to go back to the legal system we once had, even though it was obliterated by this war...or is there a new law?

It's a simple question...and btw...there are a ton more illegalities than what is listed above.

[Syzygy]

Law is made by men, so its imperfect by definition. It cannot reflect all circumstances. Sometimes it cannot be adapted or amended as quickly as the world changes. And then you either let your friends die or you help and break whatever laws are saying "you can't do it!". I can. And I will be damned if I don't.

Now what is the consequence? Either you sit in your small chamber, mourning that they are all traitors and their word mean nothing, or you open the door and take a look at the reasoning for their actions. Some you might find to be treacherous, some you might find to be careless, some you might find to be doing the right thing.

Just judging a decision over the fact if it is "legal" is shortsighted. The bigger picture is what matters. And you can be sure the fewest people violate what they have signed. Most of them had to make a hard decision between "two wrongs".

[rabonnobar]

I didn't bother posting a list cause I knew that it would be countered with rhetoric. The point is we have never seen treaties being broken on this scale, and are we going to go back to the legal system we once had, even though it was obliterated by this war...or is there a new law?

It's a simple question...and btw...there are a ton more illegalities than what is listed above.

Heh yeah still I got tired of reading so many saying to name some or stfu so posted a list anyways. And yeah I know it's far from complete, those are just the ones I knew from the top of my head.

[enderland]

Treaties are more than anything written promises.

In that, they are dependent upon the honor of the alliance and the bonds of either friendship or obligation they feel towards the alliance they have promised to support.

Because of this, one should not say treaties are worthless, but rather that the promises of some alliances are worth less than others.

This is precisely my view as well.

[Locke]

I posted something like this after the night the mass treaty cancellations dropped: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54969 My position now is the same as it was then:

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 to 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.