Regarding the next great "CB" debate

[Fantastico]

Greetings,

Knowing just how much new topics and polls are adored, I decided to include a poll in my very first topic to get that out of the way.

Now onto business:

Many influential alliance leaders, some who presently disagree with each other, and some who simply find themselves in opposing corners or alleys of the treaty web, expressed agreement with certain principles of alliance sovereignty as outlined in the Moldavi doctrine of August 8, 2009.

With that as our framework, we can move onto the question and the options for voting:

When the next war breaks out, do you personally, as the leader

of a nation in an alliance, want your alliance to

A) seriously and independently judge the merits of the CB before and even while following treaty obligations, even if it means it may break a treaty or create a new one.

or

B) only consider the legitimacy of the CB as it directly relates to or is not covered specifically by the wording of its pre-war treaties.

or

C) I don't know/No opinion

Thanks in advance for your vote and your feedback.

Also, since I recall giving someone a lot of trouble recently for making a push poll, I really tried to avoid it here. I can still see some bias problems, but I am not sure which side it pushes for more...

Edited January 11, 2010 by Fantastico

[bigwoody]

I think what you're getting at is what one should do if their treaty partner is in the wrong, creating a direct conflict between one's beliefs in the right or wrong side of the war and your treaty obligations (especially since if the two align, the choice is mind numbingly obvious).

In my opinion treaty is law, but in an extreme case I can see both honoring the treaty and canceling it so it never happens again.

Technically that makes my answer B with a bit of added explanation. If your treaties are split, its more like A.

Edited January 11, 2010 by bigwoody

[Dochartaigh]

I think what you're getting at is what one should do if their treaty partner is in the wrong, creating a direct conflict between one's beliefs in the right or wrong side of the war and your treaty obligations (especially since if the two align, the choice is mind numbingly obvious).

In my opinion treaty is law, but in an extreme case I can see both honoring the treaty and canceling it so it never happens again.

Technically that makes my answer B with a bit of added explanation. If your treaties are split, its more like A.

i agree with bigwoody here. Treaties should always be honored regardless. after the war is done with, if your ally did something that seriously conflicts with your alliances beliefs then you should consider downgrading/dropping. but to not enter should because of that should universally be unacceptable in my opinion.

[Fantastico]

I think what you're getting at is what one should do if their treaty partner is in the wrong, creating a direct conflict between one's beliefs in the right or wrong side of the war and your treaty obligations (especially since if the two align, the choice is mind numbingly obvious).

In my opinion treaty is law, but in an extreme case I can see both honoring the treaty and canceling it so it never happens again.

Technically that makes my answer B with a bit of added explanation. If your treaties are split, its more like A.

It is a difficult question to phrase with a minimum of qualifiers. for sure. What you described personally is what I envisioned as falling in the B category. Any thought on how I could reword B to be more more appealing? Also, thanks!

edit, Dochartaigh, I posted and missed yours, too. What you both are describing is what I'd like to try to measure.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Fantastico

[bigwoody]

It is a difficult question to phrase with a minimum of qualifiers. for sure. What you described personally is what I envisioned as falling in the B category. Any thought on how I could reword B to be more more appealing? Also, thanks!

edit, Dochartaigh, I posted and missed yours, too. What you both are describing is what I'd like to try to measure.

I guess you could write really long walls of text for each that no one would read. Your categories are fine, as this discussion is impossible to capture in perfect pigeon holes.

I know how I intend to handle such situations, and as an extension, my alliance. I imagine many are the same, although some alliances will outright ignore treaties if they would prefer to side with one group.

[bigwoody]

i agree with bigwoody here. Treaties should always be honored regardless. after the war is done with, if your ally did something that seriously conflicts with your alliances beliefs then you should consider downgrading/dropping. but to not enter should because of that should universally be unacceptable in my opinion.

You can also mix the cancellation with your DoW for extra emphasis.

[Fantastico]

I guess you could write really long walls of text for each that no one would read. Your categories are fine, as this discussion is impossible to capture in perfect pigeon holes.

I know how I intend to handle such situations, and as an extension, my alliance. I imagine many are the same, although some alliances will outright ignore treaties if they would prefer to side with one group.

Yeah, I certainly understand, especially since any consideration of A) also is weak to me since it assumes too much regarding how any given alliance government structure would judge any CB. And that is before getting into long-standing emotional feelings that come from multiple levels of prejudice from personal friendships to usually biased perceptions of alliance histories.

Guess we'll see where this goes, have to be off for a few now.

Thanks again for the input, both of you.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Fantastico

[DogeWilliam]

If we could somehow ditch the treaty web, war would happen sooner. The only reason for its existence is protection and the disarming of conflicts to begin with. In regards to having a CB, Planet Bob does not need them.

[ratonbox]

Looks like none of the people that voted A, posted here to explain why.. I voted A because it would be the best option IF and it's a capital if, the part with "seriously and independently judge the merits of the CB" takes place.. but that's really hard to do. So, in the current situation, i agree that B would be the best. Both options have problems.. but you can't really make one without flaws.

[supercoolyellow]

I couldn't care about the CB in the least bit, and will come to the defense of my allies regardless. That option doesn't seem to be there for this poll.

[Dave93]

I couldn't care about the CB in the least bit, and will come to the defense of my allies regardless. That option doesn't seem to be there for this poll.

this is pretty much the same for me

I'll defend my alliances allies no matter what unless its something I strongly disagree with, ill support them even if it means getting rolled and having to pay reps.

[Prime minister Johns]

If you choose your allies wisely you do not need to consider backing out of a treaty because they did something you do not agree with or are strongly against.

A little bit of foresight and treating treaties as seriously binding contracts that should not be entered into lightly would prevent a lot of eve of war cancellations, sure it will mean that an alliance has fewer treaties but the few that they have that meet this standard will be worth a heck of a lot more than a whole pile of treaties that may or may not be honoured depending on the circumstance and mood of the people involved.

[Bob Janova]

B. You should consider the possibility of your allies being rolled for good reason when signing a treaty with them, and if you don't want to give them a free pass, you should put an exemption in the treaty along the lines of 'if you do X, the defence is optional'. X usually means espionage, but it could also include other things that you don't want to have to back up. You should always honour your treaties; honour is all we have as alliances and if you discard that, you have nothing.

I hope those that vote A are in alliances which do not have treaties that they'll break. People who think like A should be in independent or near-independent alliances with well-crafted treaties that set out exactly what is expected of the other partner.

[zzzptm]

Treaties are law. After the conflict is over, demand changes so it won't happen again. Guys at the top have to accept their responsibility and resign, if necessary.

[Grumpdogg]

If you don't trust them, don't sign with them. Treaties are law. Voted B.

[ChairmanHal]

You sign military treaties with the goal of having an ally that will defend you in good times and bad, in war and in peace--yes, peace. An ally that bashes you about on the OWRP while claiming they'll defend you is suspect as an ally at best.

You can always create scenarios where you would think about withholding support from an alliance because they screwed the pooch so badly even their mom is face palming, but ultimately the fabric international relations on Planet Bob depend upon the signatures on a treaty meaning something. The day that military support pledged in advance as mandatory becomes optional and subject to some invisible "checklist", and no one questions it, is the day that we begin a slow descent into chaos.

[Locke]

A mix of A and B, really. Wartime cancels always have been and will be !@#$%^&*. That shouldn't stop you from deciding for yourself the validity of the CB, but you should follow treaty obligations to the letter. If your treaty allows a way to escape defending an ally you feel is in the wrong and don't want to defend, then do so, but if it does not, stand and fight, clean up the mess after the war.

[Lord Brendan]

I actually believe that the coming conflict will be between those who would rather fight with their allies even if they're in the wrong and those who would rather be on the good side. Which essentially translates to A vs B of this poll.

I voted B; unless a treaty specifically says "if a signatory does X defence is optional" (and I don't think any of our treaties are like that), I will honor it to the fullest.

[Goldie]

B, pretty much exactly what Lord Brendan used for an explanation.

[Fantastico]

I couldn't care about the CB in the least bit, and will come to the defense of my allies regardless. That option doesn't seem to be there for this poll.

That's B.

this is pretty much the same for me

I'll defend my alliances allies no matter what unless its something I strongly disagree with, ill support them even if it means getting rolled and having to pay reps.

This qualification you make is what I'd like to know more about, since it could mean A.

If you choose your allies wisely you do not need to consider backing out of a treaty because they did something you do not agree with or are strongly against.

A little bit of foresight and treating treaties as seriously binding contracts that should not be entered into lightly would prevent a lot of eve of war cancellations, sure it will mean that an alliance has fewer treaties but the few that they have that meet this standard will be worth a heck of a lot more than a whole pile of treaties that may or may not be honoured depending on the circumstance and mood of the people involved.

This line of reasoning assumes that past observed behavior predicts future actions. I see the lure of this argument, but it relies greatly on telepathic and clairvoyant powers.

B. You should consider the possibility of your allies being rolled for good reason when signing a treaty with them, and if you don't want to give them a free pass, you should put an exemption in the treaty along the lines of 'if you do X, the defence is optional'. X usually means espionage, but it could also include other things that you don't want to have to back up. You should always honour your treaties; honour is all we have as alliances and if you discard that, you have nothing.

I hope those that vote A are in alliances which do not have treaties that they'll break. People who think like A should be in independent or near-independent alliances with well-crafted treaties that set out exactly what is expected of the other partner.

This still places much emphasis on pure intentions and perfect knowledge in treaty-writing. Also, what if rigidly following a treaty puts your alliance in a dishonorable position? Is your argument that the honor of your alliance's word at one point in the past is more important than the honor of your alliance's judgment in the present?

Treaties are law. After the conflict is over, demand changes so it won't happen again. Guys at the top have to accept their responsibility and resign, if necessary.

Treaties as we currently know them are only binding to the parties who sign them. Regarding post-war cancellations, is that sufficient punishment for an alliance that deceptively used a treaty to pull your alliance into a bad war? For that matter, is that sufficient penance for your own alliance that was "just following orders," as required by the law?

If you don't trust them, don't sign with them. Treaties are law. Voted B.

Again, this relies on mind-reading. As for "treaties are law," this seems very formalistic for a good-intentioned alliance in a world filled with treachery and deceit.

(...) ultimately the fabric international relations on Planet Bob depend upon the signatures on a treaty meaning something. The day that military support pledged in advance as mandatory becomes optional and subject to some invisible "checklist", and no one questions it, is the day that we begin a slow descent into chaos.

This conventional wisdom regarding our international relations seems like it has led us to formalistic order, which arguably could be more dangerous than chaos.

A mix of A and B, really. Wartime cancels always have been and will be !@#$%^&*. That shouldn't stop you from deciding for yourself the validity of the CB, but you should follow treaty obligations to the letter. If your treaty allows a way to escape defending an ally you feel is in the wrong and don't want to defend, then do so, but if it does not, stand and fight, clean up the mess after the war.

You can't do that! Your answer, however, does speak directly to the full picture of our challenges.

Thanks to all so far for your thoughts.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Fantastico

[Ogaden]

Death to the e-lawyers!

[Fantastico]

Death to the e-lawyers!

What is an e-lawyer in our universe?

All I can interpret from such sentiment here is death to reason?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Fantastico

[Ogaden]

What is an e-lawyer in our universe?

All I can interpret from such sentiment here is death to reason?

I'll have you know that e-lawyering is a terrible crime here in the great nation of Ogaden, and violators of our sacred land are stripped naked and pelted with rotten tomatoes.

[Fantastico]

I'll have you know that e-lawyering is a terrible crime here in the great nation of Ogaden, and violators of our sacred land are stripped naked and pelted with rotten tomatoes.

What do you do to the real lawyers of Ogaden who argue these "e-lawyering" cases?

[Ogaden]

What do you do to the real lawyers of Ogaden who argue these "e-lawyering" cases?

What are these 'law-yers' you speak of, we just have judges and people with rotten tomatoes.

We are not so sophisticated and fancy pants here in Ogaden as you are.