A treatise on treaties

[Duckz3]

The question I continue to ask myself is, why do we sign treaties? Recent events have proven to us that treaties mean nothing. Planet Bob has drifted into a state of disorder. It used to be the honor of an alliance to honor a treaty, now treaties are cast aside as though they are trash. Are treaties dead? Will Planet Bob drift into anarchy? Treaties and the value of a good casus belli are the only things keeping Bob from turning into a nuclear wasteland of rubble and it seems as though many have forgotten of this. If you sign a treaty, what are you signing? Something to ward of attackers or you saying, "We got your back, through thick and thin no matter what." A mutual defense clause is "If you are attacked, we’ll attack em." There is no, "Well if we don’t like what you did then we wont help you" clauses. You are bound by that treaty to fight and lose your nation with these people. A treaty is not a piece of trash and why have you, the good people of the Cyberverse forgot this?

Treaties are now something that few people truly respect, they are not to be signed left and right just because you had a good conversation with someone. A treaty is a blood pact signifying that you will fight to the death for this friend. A treaty says many things, but it is what you say that really matters. If a treaty does not stand true, rid yourself of it. A treaty is a sacred pact that you shall be ready to honor at all times. If you do not wish to honor that treaty at all times, either don’t sign it or get rid of it. If you have drifted away from a treaty partner, why stay bound by that pact?

So what defines a treaty? A bunch of friends or people ready to go to ZI and back together, or is a treaty just a piece of paper that is there when convenient. In my terms, a treaty is always valid and shall be honored when called upon. Only cowards do not wish to go to war if they have made a promise to an ally, and do not wish to honor that promise. A treaty should always be honored, no matter if the alliance you have signed it with makes moves that you don’t like. If you truly didn’t approve of their actions, or had suspicions about their motives, then why did you stay bound to them? I leave you with this Planet Bob, so that you may take it to heart, and change this world.

Thank You,

Josshill

A Moralist of Some kind.

DerPrinz

[Lord Brendan]

People throw this accusation around all the time (that treaties are worthless). Very rarely do they ever back it up with anything.

Those who make a habit of breaking their treaties or ignoring obligations find themselves ostracized or stuck in a small corner of Planet Bob. Those who are known to honor their treaties turn into sought-after treaty partners and can always depend on their allies.

So, care to elaborate on "recent events"? The few that do break their pacts always seem to be seen as representing everyone, when they are in fact the exceptions. For every example you have of a broken treaty, I can find ten examples of honored treaties.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Duckz3]

People throw this accusation around all the time (that treaties are worthless). Very rarely do they ever back it up with anything.

Those who make a habit of breaking their treaties or ignoring obligations find themselves ostracized or stuck in a small corner of Planet Bob. Those who are known to honor their treaties turn into sought-after treaty partners and can always depend on their allies.

So, care to elaborate on "recent events"? The few that do break their pacts always seem to be seen as representing everyone, when they are in fact the exceptions.

Many alliances must debate whether to support an ally through a treaty, but many do not. This is the point I am making, your alliance has signed a treaty and they should follow it, Some may call it "blindly" I call it your word and your honor.

[Lord Brendan]

There are times when you have treaties linking you to both sides of a war, in which case you must examine the situation more closely to decide who to support (if either).

Generally I agree with you though, and I'm glad to be in an alliance that has such a policy.

[Lord Fingolfin]

Points for originality OP...wait

In any case, I'd second Lord Brendans assertation. Also, treaty cancellations/not honoring treaties is nothing new, its been going on since the beginning of the game. Crying foul about it now as if its some newly occuring phenomenon is quite innacurate

[Yggdrazil]

Poison Clan had a NAP with TPF which they claimed they could drop cause of a semantic mistake. now here you are protesting the degradation of treaty commitments. The cesspool we now have can be partially laid at your feet.

[Duckz3]

Points for originality OP...wait

In any case, I'd second Lord Brendans assertation. Also, treaty cancellations/not honoring treaties is nothing new, its been going on since the beginning of the game. Crying foul about it now as if its some newly occuring phenomenon is quite innacurate

When Did I say it was new Fingolfin?

[Lord Fingolfin]

When Did I say it was new Fingolfin?

Quoting you below, italics are mine.

Recent events have proven to us that treaties mean nothing. Planet Bob has drifted into a state of disorder.

Treaties are now something that few people truly respect, they are not to be signed left and right just because you had a good conversation with someone.

The terminology of "recent events", "has drifted" and "now", usually indicate/refer to something that is "new". But thats just semantics I suppose

[Jipps]

People throw this accusation around all the time (that treaties are worthless). Very rarely do they ever back it up with anything.

Those who make a habit of breaking their treaties or ignoring obligations find themselves ostracized or stuck in a small corner of Planet Bob. Those who are known to honor their treaties turn into sought-after treaty partners and can always depend on their allies.

So, care to elaborate on "recent events"? The few that do break their pacts always seem to be seen as representing everyone, when they are in fact the exceptions. For every example you have of a broken treaty, I can find ten examples of honored treaties.

While it may be true that most of the time treaties are honored, you must admit the number of times they ignored or cancelled right before conflict is far higher than it should be. Alliances with few, but real treaties are still amazed at how alliances like the ODN have continued to exist by convienently ditching alliances whenver the time need come. That is the true injustice of Cybernations, not some lame raiding or world policing.

[Epik High]

A Treatise on Treatises

The question I continue to ask myself is, why do we write treatises? Years of historical evidence has proven to us that treatises mean nothing. Planet Bob has drifted into a state of disorder. It used to be the courtesy of a poster to put these all into one thread, now treatises are churned out as though they are trash. Are treatises spam? Will Planet Bob drift into anarchy? Original opinions and the value of a good discussion are the only things keeping Bob from turning into a nuclear wasteland of incoherence and it seems as though many have forgotten of this. If you write a treatise, what are you writing? Something original and thoughtful or you saying, "Listen to me, I can state the obvious." A typical treatise is "Treaties are bad and I don't like them." There is no, "Well if we don’t like it, what can we do about it" sections. A treatise is usually a piece of trash and why have you, the good people of the Cyberverse forgot this?

Treatises are now something that few people truly respect, they are not to be written left and right just because you had a good conversation with someone. A treatise says many things, and what you say doesn't really matter. If a treatise does not say anything significant, rid yourself of it.

So what defines a treatise? A bunch of people ready to go post threads saying they have an opinion; just a piece of paper that is there when convenient? In my terms, a treatise is hardly necessary and shall never be called upon. I leave you with this Planet Bob, so that you may take it to heart, and change this world.

Thank You,

Epik High

A Hypocrite of Some kind.

[Trinite]

A Treatise on Treatises

The question I continue to ask myself is, why do we write treatises? Years of historical evidence has proven to us that treatises mean nothing. Planet Bob has drifted into a state of disorder. It used to be the courtesy of a poster to put these all into one thread, now treatises are churned out as though they are trash. Are treatises spam? Will Planet Bob drift into anarchy? Original opinions and the value of a good discussion are the only things keeping Bob from turning into a nuclear wasteland of incoherence and it seems as though many have forgotten of this. If you write a treatise, what are you writing? Something original and thoughtful or you saying, "Listen to me, I can state the obvious." A typical treatise is "Treaties are bad and I don't like them." There is no, "Well if we don’t like it, what can we do about it" sections. A treatise is usually a piece of trash and why have you, the good people of the Cyberverse forgot this?

Treatises are now something that few people truly respect, they are not to be written left and right just because you had a good conversation with someone. A treatise says many things, and what you say doesn't really matter. If a treatise does not say anything significant, rid yourself of it.

So what defines a treatise? A bunch of people ready to go post threads saying they have an opinion; just a piece of paper that is there when convenient? In my terms, a treatise is hardly necessary and shall never be called upon. I leave you with this Planet Bob, so that you may take it to heart, and change this world.

Thank You,

Epik High

A Hypocrite of Some kind.

I've missed you.

[Starcraftmazter]

Couldn't agree more. This is why I'm sick of all the crying and whining about alliances honouring their treaties this war...I mean honestly - what the hell do you expect?

[DerPrinz]

The point trying to be made is, if you aren't going to honor a treaty when war comes, why sign it at all?

[M6 Redneck]

Why sign treaties that bind you to anothers course of action. That is just silly and a loss of independance. The best treaties should offer and obligate nothing. Assistance comes from the friendship behind the treaty and the honour of the alliances involved.

M6

[Starcraftmazter]

Why sign treaties that bind you to anothers course of action. That is just silly and a loss of independance. The best treaties should offer and obligate nothing. Assistance comes from the friendship behind the treaty and the honour of the alliances involved.

M6

To the contrary, treaties which do not obligate both parties to defend each other in all circumstances mean nothing.

[M6 Redneck]

Obligations mean you're a bound to do something for a cause you may not agree with. For me this is just a step too far. Things change but treaties are not rescaled or cancelled at a pace equal to the change. Examples of this would be the mass cancellations on NPO.

As things stand treaties are discarded or ignored as prudence seems fit. I argue that by signing none binding treaties you need to 100% sure thst your new buddies have your back - surely the strongest friendships are those which are supportive not because you have to be - but because you want to be.

Would STA not support NpO, or iFOK, FOK if the treaties between them were optional. I believe that they would still stand together and binding obligations are not needed between them. Alliances that sign binding treaties lose independence and for me do not truely trust one and other. A relationship based on binding obligations is weak unless the underlying ties are deep. To often these ties are shallow, creating a meaningless treaty - alliances are often to pen happy and sign treaties just because they can regardless of the relationship.

M6

[DerPrinz]

Defending an ally who has done something you don't agree with is a risk you have to take. As Josshill said, if you don't like the direction an ally is taking, cancel the treaty. There's nothing wrong with severing ties with an ally during peace time, but you should be defending your ally if a war comes, no matter if you agree with it.

[ratonbox]

Uhm, on planet Bob things aren't always black and white, and because we have something called intellect, we can judge the situations and take the best path possible for everyone. I see treaties more like directions to follow in case of a conflict, not as pure obligations. If you want, i can give you some examples on the OOC forums, to prove my point.