Jump to content

The Mint Chocolate Accords


Laserwolf

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

I agree completely that it is the sovereign right to any alliance to defend with or without a treaty. But I think you know as well as I do that there will always be people "BAWWW"ing about it if the treaty doesn't state it.... I hate people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

this treaty is more an official way to announce to the world "wow, ve and gato actually really like each other". i think that this was merely a way of saying yes we want to be protecting each other, and that im sure the option will be picked up because this is a treaty grounded in a great friendship between the alliances. while i wouldnt say there is a timetable right now by any means, this is probably a stepping stone more than anything and perhaps down the line it can be upgraded to something more concrete to represent how far our alliances have come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

I agree with this statement 100%. You don't have to have a treaty to do what is right or what is in the best interest of your friends or your own alliance.

I guess this treaty though is just to let everyone know that there's an official tie between our two alliances and we hope it can grow into something more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

The actual legistlation here serves, at least as far I am concerned, some meaningful purposes. In regards to our internal decision making, an existing treaty expands the authority of declaring war from myself and my secretary of defence, to my second-in-command as well. While this has very little actual meaning during a time where the whole of our government is highly active, it can decrease our response times in cases where communications are less effective due to any unresponded phenomena [OOC: for example unexpected technical problems, RL, et cetera].

This piece of legistlation also serves as a form of communication, in the sense that everyone can see that we are inclined to care for each others' security. Not only can it serve as a deterrent to those whom might wish us harm, but it also signifies that there is mutual respect between the alliances involved, which may have an impact on people's opinions in regards to the alliance they know (or think) less of.

Also, in the case of those member nations who have concentrated more on their internal issues, have been inactive so to speak, will upon returning to alliance-level activity instantly notice that "oh, we're allied to GATO now", which encourages constructive behavior, and decreases the need and extensity of catching-up-dialogue in cases where such is deemed necessary.

I agree completely that it is the sovereign right to any alliance to defend with or without a treaty. But I think you know as well as I do that there will always be people "BAWWW"ing about it if the treaty doesn't state it....

I agree that there has historically been, and probably will be for some time, actual (PR) implications for declaring war without legistlation or a nifty CB to support it. I, however, do not think that the tears of sissy girls pose a genuine threat of, say, drowning us in them, and while I recognize the implications of BAWWWing, shielding us from such activity has played no part in our motivations to sign this treaty.

Most importantly, this treaty is a form of communication, which has sociological effects we all are familiar with even if we don't put our minds to thinking about them.

I hate people...
I love people, even if their actions and mental processes might sometimes seem counter-intuitive and even silly. Even with some bad apples in the gang, the species itself is something that I regard as pretty adorable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

Or of course, it could be that we like cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice treaty name even if optional defense is, at best, an e-lawyer shield.

Thanks, the name was my idea. Oh. Yea. so was the treaty. Thanks for the mention Laser!

Kidding! I know you didn't mean anything by it. :P

I'm in love with VE.

:edit: removed reference to another game.

Edited by Dark Wire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

honestly, i think this really makes it tradition.. have everything on paper.. Kinda, sad how cn is now really....

but its a step forward non the less with a great alliance :)

but looking forward to making our ties even stronger with the allies we got now

also, Hai Schect!

Edited by BlaZeAzZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on codifying this.

I do have to ask, not to be rude or trite, because I actually like both these alliances, but did you not have the option to defend one another without a treaty on file? I only ask because it seems that the defense of those wronged is something that is a sovereign right to any alliance in the Cyberverse, with or without a treaty.

Of course, this could be simply a more direct means of establishing closer political ties, which makes perfect sense.

Sure no treaty is needed but this just shows there's a 99.989% chance that GATO or VE would take action if either is wronged rather than eh maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...