Mechanus Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 ...pipeline open... ...searching for signal... ...signal located... ...establishing link... ...connection successful... Gorramit! Someone get this ruttin thing updated so it doesn't take forever and a year just to make a transmission. I swear you'd think this place was run by a bunch of drun...oh yeah, we are a bunch of drunks. Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng I need a vacation. Sir, we're ready to begin broadcasting. About time! I swear you'd think I was trying to get information from a hoe-tze duh pee-goo... ...preparing transmit... ...data link established... ...transmitting... The 57th Overlanders have been reviewing our current FA structure and policies in regards to treaties and we have been working hard to try and make some changes for the better of the alliance. With the review of our existing policies we have decided that we will no longer sign treaties below the form of MDP. We have realised that you don't have to have a treaty to share information or help a friend out in need. We hope that by making these changes we can help do our part in keeping the treaty web free from unnecessary clutter. Due to the changes in the FA policy of the 57th Overlanders, we are announcing the cancellations of some current treaties we are a signatory of. The other parties to these treaties were informed of our changes in policy in advance. As of May 9th, the 72hr cancellation period has passed in regards to the following treaties: The Whitefall Accords, WAPA and 57th PIAT (with ODP clause) Insert Flags Here Treaty, the 57th & Ragnarok PIAT Colorado/Calgary Accords, the 57th and ACF PIAT We hope to continue the friendships we have with the above listed alliances and hope that one day those friendships cultivate into something more. ...transmission completed... ...disengaging link... ...pipeline closed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 This is a respectable decision, and while I normally consider treaty cancellations to be saddening, the manner in which you have presented your decision makes me think that you will still remain close. Good luck in the future to all involved, especially to our friends at ACF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Good to hear Mech. I agree PIAT's and other treaties below MDP's are all in all unneeded, I believe they serve a purpose to allow alliances to get better acquainted with one another. I believe they should not be long term but instead stepping stones to more absolute treaties. Anywho, that's just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Good announcement, and an understandable reason for the cancellations I should think. Who knows, it may catch on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 An understandable decision and a well presented message. Good luck to you in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Good to hear Mech. I agree PIAT's and other treaties below MDP's are all in all unneeded, I believe they serve a purpose to allow alliances to get better acquainted with one another. I believe they should not be long term but instead stepping stones to more absolute treaties. Anywho, that's just my 2 cents. I have to respectfully dissent with the bolded section. All treaties are valuable, but not necessary. I don't know when the view became that treaties are necessary to defend or help friends, but it's a view that I disagree with at its core. Alliances are free to do what they choose to do, unless they give up some of that sovereignty (a very valuable thing) in the form of a treaty. Even a NAP has value - and as always, the value depends largely on the parties signing. So any treaty can be valuable if you (the parties signing it) want it to be. Nonetheless, good luck 57th, and I certainly can't say that stating your intentions beforehand isn't a good thing, because it is. Regards, VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Does this mean yall're withdrawing from the Amber Accords? that's ODP iirc Best of luck to all involved parties. I quite like the idea, although I do think some of these lower level treaties are a recognition of circumstances(I notice PIAT with SSX didn't get cut) and that there's probably some kind of place for lower treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 A Treaty is worth as much as the people who sign it. Doesn't mind if it's a NAP or an MDAP. Good luck on your new FA policy, folks. Hope it works out well for ya! You're all right, stand-up kind of people who make any treaty with your name on it worth its' weight in Plat. ^^d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanus Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Does this mean yall're withdrawing from the Amber Accords? that's ODP iirc Best of luck to all involved parties. I quite like the idea, although I do think some of these lower level treaties are a recognition of circumstances(I notice PIAT with SSX didn't get cut) and that there's probably some kind of place for lower treaties. AA is a special circumstance treaty that involves Brown economics on a sphere level. As for SSX, well, just stick around and see what happens over the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 AA is a special circumstance treaty that involves Brown economics on a sphere level. As for SSX, well, just stick around and see what happens over the near future. I agree, I don't think you're wrong for *not* canceling any treaty or wrong for canceling any treaty that you did. As for your point about Brown Economics on a spherewide level, your line "We have realised that you don't have to have a treaty to share information or help a friend out in need." in the OP *could* be said to apply to that too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Too bad we never talked Mech, but Theo did hit me up. Hope yall continue making good choices for the bettering of 57th, while I respect your choice I feel that treaties such as PIATs cannot cause any harm, and thus aren't making the webs any worse than they once were. I view PIATs as a sign of friendship between alliances, even though regardless we'll still remain friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I understand completely the cancellation of our PIAT. Being one hundred percent honest, that treaty was the brainchild of ChairmanHal more than Ragnarok as a whole. While it's a shame that we couldn't keep up the relationship after Hal parted, that's something that's on both parties. I wish you all the best of luck in your future and if our paths converge once more hopefully we can sustain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Archer Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Sad to see our treaty go, but I still you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bower3aj Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 an understandable move from Mechanus... but what more could I expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 This is a respectable decision from our friends on Brown. The fewer treaties the better. I liked the part about not needing a treaty to have a friendship too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry wagner Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Understandable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 With the review of our existing policies we have decided that we will no longer sign treaties below the form of MDP. This is dumb. Mandatory anything means you forfeit your sovereignty, normally for a cause not worth fighting for. Treaties are there for political support and general fear. I sign an ODP not necessarily to activate it, but to make others look twice before attacking. PIAT's are there as an act of good faith that no one really uses correctly because intelligence is never shared and aid rarely awarded. If anything, you should cancel your MDP's and higher and keep the Optional ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 This is dumb.Mandatory anything means you forfeit your sovereignty, normally for a cause not worth fighting for. Treaties are there for political support and general fear. I sign an ODP not necessarily to activate it, but to make others look twice before attacking. PIAT's are there as an act of good faith that no one really uses correctly because intelligence is never shared and aid rarely awarded. If anything, you should cancel your MDP's and higher and keep the Optional ones. I can see where they're coming from. They want to be sure their treaty partners will be 'guns blazin' for them. When's the last time you've seen the aid clause of a PIAT activated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Mandatory anything means you forfeit your sovereignty, normally for a cause not worth fighting for. Huh... Didn't think there was anyone else out there that felt the same way about this. House Atreides has an.... inverse FA policy from the 57th. ODP's will be the strongest thing we sign when we start signing treaties. The plan is to put ourselves in a position where we can choose to go to war based on conscience, rather than obligation. That said, I know that the same thing may not work for everyone. 57th has chosen their path, and no power in the 'verse will stop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veneke Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) Just to address a few points, though people will forgive me if they notice that I'm essentially reusing my old arguments from elsewhere. This is dumb.Mandatory anything means you forfeit your sovereignty, normally for a cause not worth fighting for. Treaties are there for political support and general fear. I sign an ODP not necessarily to activate it, but to make others look twice before attacking. PIAT's are there as an act of good faith that no one really uses correctly because intelligence is never shared and aid rarely awarded. If anything, you should cancel your MDP's and higher and keep the Optional ones. The first half of your second sentence holds some weight. Mandatory anything does forfeit a small portion of your sovereignty. However, in light of what we're talking about here, Mutual Defense Pacts, the point is moot. Given the MO of the 57th however, and the fact that we only sign MDP's with our friends, the argument is flawed, unless, of course, you think helping your friends out violates your sovereignty.... To address the point of ODP's, you have, curiously enough, pretty much said why we're canceling our ODP's "I sign an ODP not necessarily to activate it,". That right there is a complete 180 on how the 57th views its treaties. You seem to think of them as bits of paper, we, on the other hand, sign treaties with friends, and, as such, there is no cause ever to not "activate" an ODP. We do however, recognize that not all alliances view matters in this light, and our new FA policy recognizes that so that we're all on the same page. PIAT's are worthless, period. If you need a piece of paper to symbolize your friendship with another alliance, your friendship isn't really worth much. Huh... Didn't think there was anyone else out there that felt the same way about this. House Atreides has an.... inverse FA policy from the 57th. ODP's will be the strongest thing we sign when we start signing treaties. The plan is to put ourselves in a position where we can choose to go to war based on conscience, rather than obligation.That said, I know that the same thing may not work for everyone. 57th has chosen their path, and no power in the 'verse will stop them. Oh, you're far from alone out there. The concept of ODP's meaning that you can choose your wars based on the inherent right or wrong of the war is a tempting one, unfortunately, it ignores a very important part of this planet, and that is that most people here are cowards at heart. If, Admin forbid, House Atreides finds itself in a position where its going to get curbstomped, how many of your ODP's do you reckon will activate? I realize of course that even some MDP's wouldn't be activated, but at least there would be some social stigma attached to that, with an ODP, there's nothing. I don't mean to condescend, but rather merely outline our thinking on the matter. House Atreides are good folk, and I wish nothing but the best for them. "Often I must speak other than I think. That is called diplomacy." I think I failed diplomacy 101... *Veneke chuckles Edited May 12, 2009 by Veneke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Frankly, I never really plan to sign any MDP or above treaties so... I don't really like this course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Oh, you're far from alone out there. The concept of ODP's meaning that you can choose your wars based on the inherent right or wrong of the war is a tempting one, unfortunately, it ignores a very important part of this planet, and that is that most people here are cowards at heart. If, Admin forbid, House Atreides finds itself in a position where its going to get curbstomped, how many of your ODP's do you reckon will activate? I realize of course that even some MDP's wouldn't be activated, but at least there would be some social stigma attached to that, with an ODP, there's nothing.I don't mean to condescend, but rather merely outline our thinking on the matter. House Atreides are good folk, and I wish nothing but the best for them. "Often I must speak other than I think. That is called diplomacy." I think I failed diplomacy 101... *Veneke chuckles We intend to be just as picky about who we ODP with in the future, have no fear of that. We'll be trying to look for like-minded alliances who wouldn't hesitate to throw in with us if we're in the right or slap us if we make a dumb move. As you noted, we'd rather have an ODP survive than an MDP get cancelled. *grin* I know we've had this discussion before under different circumstances, too. The great part is that both ideals can work. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. The key is to be aware of those weaknesses and seek to shore them up. Proactive FA work and a public stance of only going to war for reasons we believe in are a few steps toward that practice. It lets our ODP partners know that we're not going to seek war for the sake of war and hopefully increase their faith in our decisions. That said, we're not ruling out ODAPs, either. It WOULD be a step up, but considering that we don't plan to sign any treaties until we get a fair amount bigger, we've got some time to consider it. ^^d Sorry for the late reply... Was away being a good lad and visiting my mum for a late Mothers' Day. Edited May 16, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom98 Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Considering what is at stake when treaties are signed, and how many seem to take the "opt out" option or even worse "opt for your opponent" section of that clause. If I am to sign into a treaty it damn well better be with someone I trust to have my back as I have theirs. I can say this for I resigned my govt. position to keep my word and fight by my allies. Instead of hiding behind the closed door of the "optional". yada yada yada. I can go on and on but my point is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Even if this announcement has nothing to do with me, I still like you guys. o/ 57th! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.