The PIAT

[Mathias]

In practice, the PIAT has failed, but in theory it is actually a significant treaty. It's only treated as "oh wow, a PIAT" because people don't value them as highly as they should.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Better a PIAT with an alliance that will honour it than a MADP with one that wont. Also MADP is mutually assured destruction pact. There's nothing wrong with optional clauses, they shouldnt be interpreted as "we'll only help if you dont need it" but rather "we'll only help if you werent being an arsehat" imop.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Imperium of Poliz]

I think it's important to hold them in order to have a tangible instrument to measure and prove a friendship. Also, for protected Alliances who aren't allowed to sign military treaties as per their agreements, they set up the basis for setting those up when the time comes. On people not honouring them:

VI. Cancellation

Barring a blatant violation of parts II or V of this treaty, if a party wishes to not continue to be a part of this pact, that alliance must inform the other and observe a cancellation period of 72 hours during which this pact is in force.

The party breaking this agreement must write a piece of fan fiction for a FOX Program of its choice and post it with the announcement that it is canceling this treaty.

An exerpt from an existing PIAT of ours- I think conditional cancellation clauses can be a lot of fun if we have the right people making them and the right people honouring them. It's there as a 'just in case,' (not that we'd ever cancel it, we wub IRAN xD) but I for one look forward to a time where we've grown enough that this PIAT becomes superceded and we're close enough to IRAN and large enough to use it as a stepping stone to a stronger treaty, if we're ever worth that to our mates in IRAN. But, that said, I believe that they are an important part of inter-Alliance relations and an established means of conveying and 'legally' representing a friendship and fostering co-operation between two parties.

[Wolfg4ng]

I agree and I don't. A good number of the PIATs out there are a piece of you know what like you said but to say its the new NAP IMO is a little extreme NAPs (to me) signify almost little to no relationship and more of a simple gentlemen's agreement put to paper, whereas a PIAT (again, to me) signify an actual relationship among the two alliances and that they would not want to see them attacked and would actually do what they could in-game or not to prevent something from happening to them (doesn't necessarily have to be in-game aid). The problem I think your highlighting is how much a treaty actually means these days and how a PIAT can be construed as an easy-mean-nothing-in-between for and MDP, but this can easily be seen on how MDPs and up are dropped like nothing. As said above its the alliances, the treaties are fine.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Joshuajames

[astronaut jones]

The PIAT is more useless than an NAP.

On that note, I'd rather sign something concrete than something that's optional. Rather have an NAP than an ODP. Rather have an MDP than an MDoAP. Rather have an MADP than anything else.

Anything optional, in my opinion, shouldn't be signed. There needs to be some guarantee that your treaty partner actually will stand with you, and if you sign an ODP, not say they won't defend, but it's just as easy for them not to defend, and I'd rather not have that. etc. etc. etc.

etc.

etc.

whatever.

[SiCkO]

The PIAT is more useless than an NAP.

On that note, I'd rather sign something concrete than something that's optional. Rather have an NAP than an ODP. Rather have an MDP than an MDoAP. Rather have an MADP than anything else.

Anything optional, in my opinion, shouldn't be signed. There needs to be some guarantee that your treaty partner actually will stand with you, and if you sign an ODP, not say they won't defend, but it's just as easy for them not to defend, and I'd rather not have that. etc. etc. etc.

etc.

etc.

whatever.

good point, much rather have solid commitments than a maybe

[New Frontier]

good point, much rather have solid commitments than a maybe

You're both missing the point that the ODP has all the "solid" commitments of the NAP, with the additional "OD" added in. The MDoAP has the same "MD" of an MDP.

[Tom Litler]

PIATs are essentially useless treaties that any alliance cannot accumulate enough of for the purpose of keeping open its options in exerting its influence by means of foreign policy.

If it were not universally unacceptable to join wars or defend others without documents to justify these actions, PIATs would not be necessary.

Edit: To clarify, they wouldn't be "unnecessary". Rather, they would hold more meaning and would not be seen as common necessities but accessories.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Tom Litler

[Salmia]

I find the PIAT essential. I would never want to straight upgrade with an alliance to MDoAP. TOOL only does three kinds of treaties, protectorates, PIATs (which have an ODP in them) and MDoAPs. We hold a NAP stance towards everyone. We only have signed SNOW outside of that.

PIAT is essential to me in seeing if the relationship can be sustained down the road, if this is someone we want to upgrade with. TOOL held a PIAT with NEW since December and then upgraded recently to MDoAP. A PIAT to me is like "you're someone I want to get to know better but not best friends with yet". TOOL cancels them if the relationship doesn't last proving that jumping in head first with that alliance wasn't a good idea to begin with. I try to make a point of strengthening relations with those we do have those level of treaties with, sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't but it is a good step forward. It can also help strengthen relations on your own sphere. It depends on who is signing the treaty though..

The wording of documents never really means much without the intent to back it up. You could have a simple treaty full of lulz but if both signatories intend to honor the document and understand the reasoning behind it, then you're fine. It is not really a matter of the wording but more of the intent and how alliances all view treaties.

[Haflinger]

If it were not universally unacceptable to join wars or defend others without documents to justify these actions, PIATs would not be necessary.

I think this argument applies better to ODPs.

See my blog on the subject.

[astronaut jones]

You're both missing the point that the ODP has all the "solid" commitments of the NAP, with the additional "OD" added in. The MDoAP has the same "MD" of an MDP.

No, I'm not missing the point. I even acknowledged that point, but I said I would much rather have something concrete, because it's much easier to say "it's optional defense, sorry!" than it is to weasel your way out of an MDP, which is a statement of guaranteed defense in the case of attack.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't weasel your way out, or that it's never happened (happens all the time) with an MDP, I'm saying it's harder. And usualyl if an MDP gets cancelled on you, that's fair warning that something is going down.. ODPs don't need to be cancelled on you, you just have to say "you're on your own."

[New Frontier]

No, I'm not missing the point. I even acknowledged that point, but I said I would much rather have something concrete, because it's much easier to say "it's optional defense, sorry!" than it is to weasel your way out of an MDP, which is a statement of guaranteed defense in the case of attack.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't weasel your way out, or that it's never happened (happens all the time) with an MDP, I'm saying it's harder. And usualyl if an MDP gets cancelled on you, that's fair warning that something is going down.. ODPs don't need to be cancelled on you, you just have to say "you're on your own."

The Defence in an MDoAP isn't optional.

[astronaut jones]

The Defence in an MDoAP isn't optional.

...

you're missing the point entirely. MOVING ON.

[ElCid]

You could always sign a friendship pact.

[Kroknia]

I don't ever want to sign MDPs. A PIAT and ODP I see as generally high level treaties. Frankly to sign a mandatory defensive or offensive clause in a treaty destroys the sovereignty of the signing partners. Most MDPs these days are held more lightly than I think I hold a PIAT so...

[SpiderJerusalem]

The Defence in an MDoAP isn't optional.

I guess using your brain is...

What he meant was that you should sign the MDP rather then an MDoAP. With an MDP, you know what you get, but in the case of the MDoAP, you don't know if you'll get the help in an offensive capacity at a time you might need it. Strategically, it might therefore wiser to sign non-optional agreements, because then you always know where you stand

[0 Rorschach 0]

To express friendship in a world where people will lie, cheat, and attack you the first chance that they get. It's giving a knife to someone and then turning around, as if they were somehow no longer aiming for you as you turned a blind eye. Friendship around here get's you nothing. Or perhaps it does. Perhaps... 6 feet below the surface.

[Starcraftmazter]

PIAT: The Peace, Intelligience and Aid Treaty

The PIAT has long taken over where the NAP left off, as a starting point for friendships between alliances. When two groups decide they like each other, they rip off someone else's template, change a few names, and post a PIAT in the OWF.

However, how many PIAT signatories actually mean it?

How many instances can you recall of the "Aid Clause" in a PIAT actually being invoked? How many times in the history of the treaty has a significant amount of aid been sent from one signatory to another? I am sure it's happened in the past, but those cases are easily in the minority. One has merely to reflect on the sheer volume of PIATs signed in recent memory to come to that conclusion.

If you want to sign useless, "friendship" treaties, just cut the crap and call it an NAP.

Why do various NSO people feel the need to completly $@^* on everything that has come to be in CN...

If you want to make a bizarre and fundamentally flawed generalisation of something more complex than you clearly know to understand, why do you feel the need to bore everyone else with your ignorance?

Every single treaty - regardless of type is worth in value exactly what it's signatories want it to be worth. There is no universal constant to dictate the meaningfulness of treaties.

[Iosif]

The concept of a treaty is a failure. I know where my friends are and I wouldn't need that kind of infernal social structures to determine whether I can defend them or whether I'm obliged to do so. And even less than that I need treaty web to pacify the situation on Bob. We could do just fine with mere PIATs with no defence clauses, to mark our territories; to basically say "hey look we're friends, we don't promise anything but you can attack and see what happens". It'd make things so much easier than this horrible treaty crapola where the concept of treaty has been basically canonized.

[Fernando12]

PIATs are often signed and forgotten about and the statements in them are probably rarely followed through with action.

USCN is putting together an Inter-Alliance Economic Pact-Nation Development Program (IAEP-NDP) that will require follow through and communication by the signatory alliances which should hopefully result in creating strong friendships among the signatories.

The Inter-Alliance Economic Pact - Nation Development Program is a Treaty to stimulate the infrastructure growth of the nations that each signatory alliance submits to the program and to foster friendly relations among its signatories.

This pact is designed for small alliances with one or only a few banker capable nations.

If your interested, pm me here and I'll pm you back the treaty draft, it has more details within it

Edited August 5, 2009 by Fernando12

[Systemfailure]

spelt "Failures" wrong.

cbfrt

[Griff]

Why do various NSO people feel the need to completly $@^* on everything that has come to be in CN...

If you want to make a bizarre and fundamentally flawed generalisation of something more complex than you clearly know to understand, why do you feel the need to bore everyone else with your ignorance?

Every single treaty - regardless of type is worth in value exactly what it's signatories want it to be worth. There is no universal constant to dictate the meaningfulness of treaties.

I think we can do without the stalking and baiting.

Anyways, I don't see the worth in PIATs. If you like em enough why not just go for the ODP or MDOAP or whatever?

Edited August 6, 2009 by Griff

[kerschbs]

I think we can do without the stalking and baiting.

Anyways, I don't see the worth in PIATs. If you like em enough why not just go for the ODP or MDOAP or whatever?

You were in an alliance that went to war on a PIAT. It's a symbolic treaty, and it has value if the alliance thinks it has value. You should know who your friends are, and be up to bat for them, paper or not.

[BamaBuc]

I think we can do without the stalking and baiting.

Anyways, I don't see the worth in PIATs. If you like em enough why not just go for the ODP or MDOAP or whatever?

I've been trying to tell people for about two years that a PIAT is an ODP.

-Bama

[Shan Revan]

IRON has signed a couple of PIATs in the past but in general we don't like them and wont sign them. These days you probably have a better chance of getting a NAP than a PIAT. A few if those we have signed have requested, and subsequently received assistance, notably (although not limited to) the Legion and LoSS. I can't recall any specific figures but it was a fairly decent amount for the time.