Is this really friendship?

[SoxNation]

You have a valid reason, which has explanation. Some alliances sign with everyone in near sight. It use to be a taboo, now it's a norm. Well, it never was actually considered a taboo until a new wave of annoyed ranters hit the forums -- which I find myself doing these days pertaining to the treaty entanglement.

I agree, they are less likely to follow their word as I stated, but usually these kind of people take only themselves into consideration. One could argue if these selfish alliances even possess true friends, as they truly only seek their own destination and aren't willing to lose their precious stats.

I will have an ally or two the most, because when !@#$ hits the fan -- even if it is their fault, I will be these fighting with EVERY ounce of blood. Depending on what occurs, the timing to 'review who are true friends' comes AFTER, not BEFORE a war, or during one.

People need to recognize this and stop !@#$%*ing about the political system when they are actively contributing to their own headaches.

I agree with you except for one part, if it is their fault, then they really aren't your friend for dragging you in, part of being such a friend means responsibility in thinking about your actions and how it effects your friends.

Lets say NPO ever had a real friend LMAO, them deciding to stomp whoever was next on the list is not a good action for their friend. They aren't being a friend when they take that action, as such their friend has no obligation to follow them into the fray.

[Ejayrazz]

I agree with you except for one part, if it is their fault, then they really aren't your friend for dragging you in, part of being such a friend means responsibility in thinking about your actions and how it effects your friends.

Lets say NPO ever had a real friend LMAO, them deciding to stomp whoever was next on the list is not a good action for their friend. They aren't being a friend when they take that action, as such their friend has no obligation to follow them into the fray.

Your point is also valid. However, as a friend, I would not wish to see my allies decimated without doing something about it. Maybe after the situation I will 'review our status', but I would rather get my $@! kicked rather than leaving them to die, unless if there was a strategical purpose in doing so. We all make mistakes.

Both points are, however, valid. Good insight Sox. Glad you aren't losing your touch.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[theArrowheadian]

So what you're saying is people would honour treaties and get themselves destroyed based on business but not for friendship?

That makes no sense at all.

A business if founded upon a contract, the writing in the treaty, and that contract states that you will defend them when in danger or in some cases attack with them. If you or partner in this agreement can't hold it up well then you should never associate with them again for they are despicable individuals. They have betrayed you and can only betray an ally. It is the sickest thing that can be done.

You're also missing the whole part of what I said. If the friendship is founded on business then it's a beautiful thing because you've made a friend from it. If you say that you've only allied with your friends tell me what led up to that? It was one side saying hey we should get a treaty with alliance X, so you just shoot the !@#$ for a month or two then you say lets sign a NAP, ODP, or PIAT. A couple months role around and you've got yourself an MDP. That's the truth of it all.

[lonewolfe2015]

You my good sir, are full of it.

Stop finding pity on these forums for your alliance. Go join one that you can actually play the game in, or make yours worth a damn. You whine, but I still don't see your alliance doing anything worth caring about.

If you want an explanation to your "topic" it's pretty simple.

Treaties are a paper copy of a friendship. No, you don't need one to defend an ally. But if you don't have it then that leaves others to e-lawyer their way into a war with you, which you need to be prepared for and if you want to avoid it on some occasions to have that paper copy.

Treaties are also ALWAYS allowed to be canceled when the two parties change. It is quite often to occur during large government shifts, changes in foreign policy, actions towards a fellow ally or group of allies or their handling of themselves during a wartime situation.

Treaties will never be blood bonds until you've gone through those kind of situations with your ally and feel competent that they are someone you will go to the grave with. But in the meantime, if they do everything right you may either need or want to put something down.

Kapeesh?

[Prime minister Johns]

It's called "your word".

I have always understood my word to mean this,

Word: an inviolable oath to do what you have said.

but for some people it unfortunately seems to mean this.

Worthless

Oath

Regularly

Disregarded

[Taget]

Changed my mind on commenting.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Taget

[Hydro]

Over the past few months, I have personally seen multiple alliances cancel treaties or sever ties with another alliance at the first sign of danger. My question is, is this really true friendship? Supposedly, among all these treaties are a bunch of friends just showing that they are truly friends, say !@#$ like "we r in da luv", and then a month later, they break apart.

Is this friendship, or just political BS? Personally, I believe strongly that friends do not need treaties to defend each other, and that friends do not bail after their "friends" were attacked, etc.

What you are seeking is the Moldavi Doctrine, which was established to disseminate this paradigm.

edit:

You my good sir, are full of it.

Stop finding pity on these forums for your alliance. Go join one that you can actually play the game in, or make yours worth a damn. You whine, but I still don't see your alliance doing anything worth caring about.

If you want an explanation to your "topic" it's pretty simple.

Treaties are a paper copy of a friendship. No, you don't need one to defend an ally. But if you don't have it then that leaves others to e-lawyer their way into a war with you, which you need to be prepared for and if you want to avoid it on some occasions to have that paper copy.

Treaties are also ALWAYS allowed to be canceled when the two parties change. It is quite often to occur during large government shifts, changes in foreign policy, actions towards a fellow ally or group of allies or their handling of themselves during a wartime situation.

Treaties will never be blood bonds until you've gone through those kind of situations with your ally and feel competent that they are someone you will go to the grave with. But in the meantime, if they do everything right you may either need or want to put something down.

Kapeesh?

You're in no position to be making these kinds of insults. Return when your nation has some spies, a SDI, a warchest and is part of a relevant alliance.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Hydro

[Vilien]

You're in no position to be making these kinds of insults. Return when your nation has some spies, a SDI, a warchest and is part of a relevant alliance.

While I agree with your refutation, his statement is stupid because it's stupid, not because he doesn't have an SDI.

[Kowalski]

Sometimes treaties are signed for political reasons. To suggest that this doesn't happen or that in every case it's wrong is madness.

[Lord Fingolfin]

This is nothing new. Some alliances wear their heart on their sleeve, others are calculating and machievellan, swapping/abandoning allies to gain greater. Its up for you to decide what you want to be

[Hydro]

While I agree with your refutation, his statement is stupid because it's stupid, not because he doesn't have an SDI.

No dispute here. I just found his nation development to be particularly annoying.

[T Paine]

You my good sir, are full of it.

And you can't read. No where in this thread was Wolf Empire mentioned. I haven't even brought it to the Wolfpack thread. Therefore, your statement is full of it.

[theArrowheadian]

You my good sir, are full of it.

Stop finding pity on these forums for your alliance. Go join one that you can actually play the game in, or make yours worth a damn. You whine, but I still don't see your alliance doing anything worth caring about.

If you want an explanation to your "topic" it's pretty simple.

Treaties are a paper copy of a friendship. No, you don't need one to defend an ally. But if you don't have it then that leaves others to e-lawyer their way into a war with you, which you need to be prepared for and if you want to avoid it on some occasions to have that paper copy.

Treaties are also ALWAYS allowed to be canceled when the two parties change. It is quite often to occur during large government shifts, changes in foreign policy, actions towards a fellow ally or group of allies or their handling of themselves during a wartime situation.

Treaties will never be blood bonds until you've gone through those kind of situations with your ally and feel competent that they are someone you will go to the grave with. But in the meantime, if they do everything right you may either need or want to put something down.

Kapeesh?

You have the view of a 12 year old trying to be an internet badass. You're not correct in your assumptions. Firstly, no one is whining, I'm not paying attention to the drama the OPs alliance by choice and frankly IDC b/c this question that he poses is actually a very good question and the situation is one that has plagued CN in the past.

Treaties are not "a paper copy of friendship" because everyone has their own agenda. Ask yourself why ever have allies and why sign treaties? It's not because you want to it's because you have to because there's always bigger fish. You sign treaties and have allies for the security offered by it. If people were truly allies or friends however you want to say it, they'd be in the same alliance. The reason military treaties are signed in real life is similar, but the main difference is land mass and limited resources, these two things have no part in CN.

No one is arguing that it is wrong to cancel treaties, especially when a new regime takes control in an alliance, but if you're saying it's okay to cancel whenever you want you should join an alliance that believes this.

Treaties aren't "blood bonds" they're gentleman's agreements and should be honored as such. You don't sign one if you're not prepared to honor it. You can cancel it, but not on the eve of war.

Alliances who do this are usually blacklisted by more the community for some time.

[Kindom of Goon]

A business if founded upon a contract, the writing in the treaty, and that contract states that you will defend them when in danger or in some cases attack with them. If you or partner in this agreement can't hold it up well then you should never associate with them again for they are despicable individuals. They have betrayed you and can only betray an ally. It is the sickest thing that can be done.

That's the same whether its based on friendship or business. When it comes down to it, and alliance will either honour a treaty or it won't, but if you ask me it's far easier to screw over your business partner than it is friends who you talk to all the time and share a history with.

You're also missing the whole part of what I said. If the friendship is founded on business then it's a beautiful thing because you've made a friend from it. If you say that you've only allied with your friends tell me what led up to that? It was one side saying hey we should get a treaty with alliance X, so you just shoot the !@#$ for a month or two then you say lets sign a NAP, ODP, or PIAT. A couple months role around and you've got yourself an MDP. That's the truth of it all.

Maybe you've just had rubbish friends? What you've described is a treaty based on nothing. Friends are only friends because they have things in common, whether its common goals, other friends or just a long history togehter.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[theArrowheadian]

That's the same whether its based on friendship or business. When it comes down to it, and alliance will either honour a treaty or it won't, but if you ask me it's far easier to screw over your business partner than it is friends who you talk to all the time and share a history with.

Maybe you've just had rubbish friends? What you've described is a treaty based on nothing. Friends are only friends because they have things in common, whether its common goals, other friends or just a long history togehter.

I'm not saying you can't or don't make friends over the term of this treaty or you're in preparations to sign it, but you can't deny that each alliance has an agenda. Treaties are based on gaining security. They can develop friendships, but the treaty is originally conceived out of a security measure.

[lonewolfe2015]

Well then, I must be going about treaties completely wrong.

Here I am the assumption I should only sign anything I intend on keeping my word to if it has another beyond a PIAT's worth of intent to it.

The OP has been disrespecting my allies, and I don't like it. This thread is just an indirect crackshot at them which is something I don't stand for.

When I answered the question outside of being disgusted by his shot at them, I gave my honest opinion, refuting it is fine, we live and learn.

As for my nation, did you even check the age? I'm not even 200 days old, at 210 I'll have a SDI. Once I get some money I'll have spies. You can't build a war machine overnight, and I decided to create a decently sized nation as quickly as possible before I bothered with some assets of a military because I have friends which cover my back.

You say my opinion is stupid (Villien) but yet you don't support evidence why. At least Arrowheadian had the decency to explain why, which I respect. But I still remain the school that I sign treaties with friends and I defend friends. I won't sign a treaty with TOP because they are the biggest alliance and can protect me, I'd sign if they were friends and I felt I would defend them above anything. Fault me for that if you wish, I see nothing wrong with that logic.

Edit: Double standard much Hydro? I fail to see your SDI.

Edited December 20, 2009 by lonewolfe2015

[The AUT]

Well then, I must be going about treaties completely wrong.

Here I am the assumption I should only sign anything I intend on keeping my word to if it has another beyond a PIAT's worth of intent to it.

The OP has been disrespecting my allies, and I don't like it. This thread is just an indirect crackshot at them which is something I don't stand for.

When I answered the question outside of being disgusted by his shot at them, I gave my honest opinion, refuting it is fine, we live and learn.

As for my nation, did you even check the age? I'm not even 200 days old, at 210 I'll have a SDI. Once I get some money I'll have spies. You can't build a war machine overnight, and I decided to create a decently sized nation as quickly as possible before I bothered with some assets of a military because I have friends which cover my back.

You say my opinion is stupid (Villien) but yet you don't support evidence why. At least Arrowheadian had the decency to explain why, which I respect. But I still remain the school that I sign treaties with friends and I defend friends. I won't sign a treaty with TOP because they are the biggest alliance and can protect me, I'd sign if they were friends and I felt I would defend them above anything. Fault me for that if you wish, I see nothing wrong with that logic.

Edit: Double standard much Hydro? I fail to see your SDI.

It's clear you don't bother to get the meaning behind others post and just spout anything to get it off your chest.

Honestly, a little reading comprehension doesn't hurt.

Perhaps when you get more than 0 casualties you can even use "war" in your vernacular.

Baby steps, I won't expect much of you but you'll get there I'm sure!

SDI today a casualty tomorrow!

Edited December 20, 2009 by The AUT

[lonewolfe2015]

It's clear you don't bother to get the meaning behind others post and just spout anything to get it off your chest.

Honestly, a little reading comprehension doesn't hurt.

Perhaps when you get more than 0 casualties you can even use "war" in your vernacular.

Baby steps, I won't expect much of you but you'll get there I'm sure!

SDI today a casualty tomorrow!

You think I can't fight because I have no casualties? Clearly you've never heard of rerolling...

If I don't get the meaning, explain it to me then AUT.

[Goldie]

Over the past few months, I have personally seen multiple alliances cancel treaties or sever ties with another alliance at the first sign of danger. My question is, is this really true friendship? Supposedly, among all these treaties are a bunch of friends just showing that they are truly friends, say !@#$ like "we r in da luv", and then a month later, they break apart.

Is this friendship, or just political BS? Personally, I believe strongly that friends do not need treaties to defend each other, and that friends do not bail after their "friends" were attacked, etc.

Look at the allies who do that, and make a mental note not to ally them. Then look at the ones willing to defend their brothers in times of crisis and stick with them, and make a mental note that you can count on them to fight with their allies in the future.

[theArrowheadian]

You think I can't fight because I have no casualties? Clearly you've never heard of rerolling...

If I don't get the meaning, explain it to me then AUT.

You have no idea how ironic that statement is.

[lonewolfe2015]

You have no idea how ironic that statement is.

I'm aware he's rerolled, just getting frustrated personally.

I'm going to retire from this thread before I do more damage, just wish to leave my final opinion, and it's an opinion not a fact.

I think the OP put this up as a shot at my allies, and I'll defend their name because of that reason. And when I sign a treaty, it is because they are friends that I trust. When I sign a military treaty, it means I'll put my alliance on the line to defend them. But treaties can change over time when either alliance changes, it has happened again and again, and that is why treaties get canceled (in my opinion) so before you crucify me for saying my opinion, at least acknowledge what you agree with in my statements. And if you disagree with everything I say like Vilien said, then I'll just remember not to count on someone like him if it came down to it.

Sorry if I pissed anyone off, I need to stop being as argumentative as I am feeling.

[Hydro]

As for my nation, did you even check the age? I'm not even 200 days old, at 210 I'll have a SDI. Once I get some money I'll have spies. You can't build a war machine overnight, and I decided to create a decently sized nation as quickly as possible before I bothered with some assets of a military because I have friends which cover my back.

Edit: Double standard much Hydro? I fail to see your SDI.

That's precisely why I think your nation is a joke. At 200 days you shouldn't have as much crap as you have because you're not going to have a warchest. There are nations with half your NS that I'd rather go into combat with because they wouldn't get bill-locked within the first week. The reason I don't have an SDI is because I've tried to get my nation battle ready, unlike you (There's also been a few wars that have knocked my nation around but that's beside the point). That means building up a warchest, at bare minimum, so that I'm not a liability to my alliance. Were you in even a half-assed alliance, you'd be ordered to stop all spending and build up a warchest, so that you don't lose it all within the first 2 weeks.

[Jacques Cousteau]

This thread is fairly entertaining.

Most of you have submitted to an absolutist approach to, and view point o treaty signing.

Treaties mean different things to different people. To put one MDoAP on the level of another is absurd. Each and every individual is different and therefore values their treaties differently. It is actually shocking to me that so many of you prescribe to this concept that the cyberverse is split into two factions; spineless pansies, and you.

[Augustus Autumn]

To the OP, the issue might be the overall incorrect perception of what treaties actually seem to mean. I'll explain.

What Treaties Are Thought Of As Being: Treaties are perceived to be some sort of pledge between alliances to fight together, aid each other or engage in some sort of other partnership. They are meant to signify a public pledge to meet certain standard of behavior and make it clear as to the stance. Friendship is often seen as a viable basis for a treaty and rightfully so.

What Treaties Actually Are: A treaty is, in effect, a legal agreement between two or more powers obligating them into a set of behaviors. Like it or not, a treaty is a pledge you made and you have to follow through on it (hence cancellation periods). Treaties are contracts establishing minimum standards, nothing less.

Why Treaties Often Fail: Once you come out and say something like "Alliance 1 will always stand by Alliance 2!" it's hard to change your stance - anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to go research the reaction to the cancellation of the Ordnance of Orders and Emperor Revenge's previous comment. Typically one of these documents gets signed because 1) it's exciting to have a new treaty, 2) it looks cool/scary on the OWF and 3) because this is CN and treaties are the thing to have. Dumping a treaty takes time, effort and you have to actually have some seriously good cause otherwise you'll be heckled to peices. I certainly remember discussions when I was in TSI about treaty cancellations and what a pain they were to pull off due to the concern about public perception.

At the end of the day, people will defend their friends if they want to badly enough - look to the recent NEW/ZDP conflict and you see people "going rogue" and joining ZDP's fight despite there being no legal document. You've got the same thing going on all through CN's history. Treaties are PR stunts, hailfests and a chance to advertise and very little more. Real friendship-based agreements won't need to be written, they'll just be understood and that will be that. Hordes of cancellations just mean that people are cutting legal ties so they can't be screamed at.

[Lord Boris]

tl;dr of the thread: a not worth a frack member of a not worth a frack alliance creates a thread motivated by his butthurt about another alliance and people actually take it seriously.