Jump to content

A Discussion on Treaties


Fernando12
 Share

Recommended Posts

So this war or these wars or whatever has left me and just about everyone frustrated, confused, and questioning what treaty obligations are.

CBs are too difficult to judge whether valid or not. For arguments sake lets just say argue both. Below, you'll see my scenario. One, say the CB is recognized by all to be valid and go with it. Two, say the CB is questionable or hard to prove or not recognized to be valid but an alliance feels it is and moves to war anyway.

First, I want to get your thoughts on what is "chaining". Basically, is it where any offensive war declared that gets the ball rolling make the mutual defense optional? My thinking is if an alliance declares a war on another alliance that only has 4 mutual defense treaties, then only chaining clauses would be if those 4 treaty partners declare war on the alliance that launched / made the DoW that started the war, meaning the alliance that made the DoW cannot use mutual defense as a reason to get its treaty partners in, instead those treaty partners if they enter would enter via the optional aggression in the treaty.

Alliances that enter via optional aggression clauses via the 4 treaty partners of the alliance that was declared upon (the alliance that was received the DoW does not have treaties with those alliances, their treaty partners do)...this would not be activate chaining clauses and therefore the alliance that made the DoW that started the war has the right to ask for military assistance from its mutual defense treaty partners.

So, I hope my understanding is correct. I want your thoughts and explanations, I am simply stating how I would interpret things.

Then, what is escalation? The alliance that made the DoW is in the war versus the alliance they declared upon. No escalation yet IMO. The alliance that was declared upon activates its 4 mutual defense treaty partners. No escalation yet IMO. Escalation to me would be if the alliance that made the original DoW brought in allies via optional aggression clauses, or if any of the 4 treaty partners of the alliance that was declared upon brought in any of its optional aggression treaty partners. To me, escalation has nothing to do with number of nations, alliances, or total NS.

So, discuss and give me your interpretations of all of this. Thanks.

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with this line of thinking is that people are so set on whether it's aggro/defense that they then spin their aggro war into a defensive action when they're countered. Treaties need to be simpler, more akin to the shortest treaty ever between FOK/iFOK. We stand by each other, simple. People should know where we stand now. However, you remove all the clauses etc, there's nothing for the e-lawyers to try and work with. In the end, people just boom boom, pow pow, pixels kabloowie! I love the smell of confusion in war....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaining to me means anything at least one degree removed from the original declaration. Pretty much how you said it. So if offensive-1 attacks defensive-1 any of their direct treaty partners would be entering without chaining. It is once the allies of offensive-2 or defensive-2 get involved that the treaties start chaining and you start seeing fronts x number of degrees removed from the original declaration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='eyriq' date='04 February 2010 - 07:33 AM' timestamp='1265290397' post='2158756']
Chaining to me means anything at least one degree removed from the original declaration. Pretty much how you said it. So if offensive-1 attacks defensive-1 any of their direct treaty partners would be entering without chaining. It is once the allies of offensive-2 or defensive-2 get involved that the treaties start chaining and you start seeing fronts x number of degrees removed from the original declaration.
[/quote]

So in this war, you would agree that FOK's entering by declaring war on NpO was an escalation since they entered via the optional aggression treaty they have with Poison Clan? FOK's treaty partners would have been able to use clauses to keep out of the war? Then, with NSO entering to defend NpO from FOK's attack is not an escalation and or would be a case where the chaining clause could be used?

Edit: Further, the next DoWs/escalation came from Stickmen who had no direct treaties with \m/ and entered via optional aggression in treaties iFOK has with FOK and Stickmen have with iFOK.

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaining in a nutshell.

Alliance ABC XYZ are all linked by MDPs.

A declares on X. X activates MDP with Y and Z, who counter A. A now claims that the MDPs with B and C are activated, to "defend" from the counters.

WRONG. A is the aggressor its MDPs dont apply. Yet 9 times out of 10 B and C will ignore this fact and act like A was just minding its own business peacefully when Y and Z attacked them out of the blue. And if B or C quite correctly point out they arent obligated the raving lunatic hordes here will flame them for cowards.

So, to make it more clear, people started adding non-chaining clauses.

(This is not to say that B and C shouldnt intervene - that depends on the situation. But they are NOT obligated to act in such a situation, they can and should consider the CB for the original war as well as their own interests in deciding what to do, not mindlessly charge in claiming they had no choice. A lot of related nonsense actually goes way back to the days of Pacificas reign, when they liked to call anyone that entered against them on an 'option' a bandwaggoner and give them extra harsh terms. Hence people would try to argue they had no choice in a usually vain attempt to avoid that harsh treatment. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='04 February 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1265287175' post='2158715']
Every treaty is an oAoDP. If it is in the best interest of an alliance to honor it, they will. Otherwise they will claim something else and decide not to honor it.
[/quote]

Perhaps. However, if this is true then every alliance should have optional treaties as opposed to ones that require war. If nothing else, it's more honest that way.

In general, just a thought. Instead of canceling treaties or keeping them, there is an option to "downgrade" - i.e. turn a mandatory treaty into an optional one. It establishes the relationship still exists but doesn't mean that the other alliance will absolutely assist in every case. Also - most optional treaties also include a non-aggression clause. If nothing else, both know that the other will not attack them B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding "chaining", here is how I described it to one of our allies while discussing current events:

Necroseer and I do not want to get too tied up in "the treaty web." We're all for helping allies but not for declaring on alliance O because A and B got in a fight and called on C, D, and E who have treaties with F, G and H who declare on I, J, and K who then in order to "defend" their treaty partners declare back on F, A, and H who also has a treaty with O and so O declares on G who has a treaty with someone who has a treaty with US and G defends O and then expects US to "defend" G. The fight is between A and B and whoever they originally got in the fight with. IF we had our own treaties with A and/or B (or whoever they got in a fight against) - it may be another story. Clear as day. :P

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668&st=0&p=1757154&fromsearch=1&#entry1757154"]The Moldavi Doctrine[/url]

Basically, every alliance in the Cyberverse has the right to declare war on any other alliance for any reason at any time. This assumes that the alliance doing the declaring is responsible enough to understand that taking such action also means that others are liable to do likewise and that there are undoubtedly consequences for doing such things.

Treaties are convenient means by which some alliances are able to manufacture their way into the soveriegn decision making roles of other alliances. If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance. If you sign a mutual defense pact then you obligate yourself to defend that alliance even if they are miscreant boneheads that can't form two coherent sentences together properly to save their life in most circumstances. If you sign an aggression treaty you surrender an even greater portion of your sovereignty.

To me, treaties have very little to do with building up a protective barrier around your alliance because the frequency of a supposed treaty partner choosing not to enter or to enter another side or to voice neutrality because of conflicting treaties seems to increase exponentially with every major war while the number of people !@#$%*ing and moaning because an alliance took aggressive action that didn't fit within their parameters of acceptable behavior seems to increase by an inverse amount. The fact that the "you attacked a friend of a friend" argument can even exist and not be laughed off the world stage as a ridiculous and preposterous notion stands as testiment to this trend.

Overall, I believe the Moldavi Doctrine, whether through direct relation to it or indirect bellicose action without cause, symbolizes the barest roots of warfare in the Cyberverse. It isn't a new concept and has started to be embraced more and more as time progresses. Eventually the Cyberverse will function under it without it being issue or abnormal at all and the Doctrine will cease to be such and simply become the overall reality of conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='04 February 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1265304035' post='2158990']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668&st=0&p=1757154&fromsearch=1&#entry1757154"]The Moldavi Doctrine[/url]

Basically, every alliance in the Cyberverse has the right to declare war on any other alliance for any reason at any time. This assumes that the alliance doing the declaring is responsible enough to understand that taking such action also means that others are liable to do likewise and that there are undoubtedly consequences for doing such things.

Treaties are convenient means by which some alliances are able to manufacture their way into the soveriegn decision making roles of other alliances. If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance. If you sign a mutual defense pact then you obligate yourself to defend that alliance even if they are miscreant boneheads that can't form two coherent sentences together properly to save their life in most circumstances. If you sign an aggression treaty you surrender an even greater portion of your sovereignty.

To me, treaties have very little to do with building up a protective barrier around your alliance because the frequency of a supposed treaty partner choosing not to enter or to enter another side or to voice neutrality because of conflicting treaties seems to increase exponentially with every major war while the number of people !@#$%*ing and moaning because an alliance took aggressive action that didn't fit within their parameters of acceptable behavior seems to increase by an inverse amount. The fact that the "you attacked a friend of a friend" argument can even exist and not be laughed off the world stage as a ridiculous and preposterous notion stands as testiment to this trend.

Overall, I believe the Moldavi Doctrine, whether through direct relation to it or indirect bellicose action without cause, symbolizes the barest roots of warfare in the Cyberverse. It isn't a new concept and has started to be embraced more and more as time progresses. Eventually the Cyberverse will function under it without it being issue or abnormal at all and the Doctrine will cease to be such and simply become the overall reality of conflicts.
[/quote]

Oh hi there ego.

Moving on, though I agree a lot of alliance's do, sometimes, few their treaties a oAoDP's I can say for certain their are a few alliances out there that always do their best to honor their treaties.

Edited by Smooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Smooth' date='04 February 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1265304428' post='2159000']
Oh hi there ego.

Moving on, though I agree a lot of alliance's do, sometimes, few their treaties a oAoDP's I can say for certain their are a few alliances out there that always do their best to honor their treaties.
[/quote]
My ego, insofar as the Cyberverse is concerned, comes from a long tenure of being right. And quite frankly, assuming that calling me out on it would be an insult only shows your lack of understanding regarding that particular topic.

Regardless, if the only response you can have to what I posted is that it has anything to do with my ego, which, incidently it doesn't, and the idea that their are a "few" alliances that try to honor their treaties without addressing the fact that even those that try to honor their treaties still use those same treaties as a means of manipulating, pontificating or whatever you want to call it as a measure of forestalling soveriegn acts by those other signatories then you are not contributing to this discussion in any meaningful way, correct? The doctrine could have been called anything - and if you would like you can simply substitute Sovereign Rights of All Cyberverse Alliances Doctrine and then address my points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Micheal Malone' date='04 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1265286767' post='2158713']
The problem with this line of thinking is that people are so set on whether it's aggro/defense that they then spin their aggro war into a defensive action when they're countered. Treaties need to be simpler, more akin to the shortest treaty ever between FOK/iFOK. We stand by each other, simple. People should know where we stand now. However, you remove all the clauses etc, there's nothing for the e-lawyers to try and work with. In the end, people just boom boom, pow pow, pixels kabloowie! I love the smell of confusion in war....
[/quote]
iFOK is FOK's non Dutch speaking colony alliance.

they are for all intents and purposes the same alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='04 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1265305006' post='2159012']
iFOK is FOK's non Dutch speaking colony alliance.

they are for all intents and purposes the same alliance.
[/quote]
I know that they work together well but I am not sure that they would agree with that description. That is more or less the same argument several entities used to describe NPO and Polar for a very long time when it was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='05 February 2010 - 03:38 AM' timestamp='1265305127' post='2159015']
I know that they work together well but I am not sure that they would agree with that description. That is more or less the same argument several entities used to describe NPO and Polar for a very long time when it was not the case.
[/quote]
They might as well be the same alliance, iFOK is for the people who do not speak Dutch that is the only difference between them that I have seen so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Smooth' date='04 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1265304428' post='2159000']
Oh hi there ego.
[/quote]

Could have said, "oh hi there, Sith." A Sith being a Sith, and all ;) Kind of like saying "Oh hi there, Moralist" to Vilien. (who, by the way I like and admire which is why I used him as an example).

Regarding The Moldavi Doctrine, the fact that "it isn't a new concept" is an understatement. Short version: We are all sovereign. However, maybe that isn't pointed out enough. The statement "If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance" is also very true but, imo, often forgotten...until a war comes along, that is :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 February 2010 - 08:45 AM' timestamp='1265294719' post='2158834']
I basically agree with your view and yes, that means that FOK escalated the war, so did Stickmen and so did Superfriends (and obviously so did IRON/TOP and a bunch of people on that front).
[/quote]

So, if this is true about escalation...I'd have to look to see if all the alliances have peaced out or not from having entered with optional aggression clauses in the NpO-\m/ war. Who is left out there still fighting because of these optional clauses? I believe NSO is still fighting. Who else?

Why don't all alliances that entered the war just peace out and if necessary make an announcement saying we are out but due to TOP/IRON declaring on CnG, we are still in.

I would like to know who out there is still fighting a now meaningless war.

The way I'm looking at the FARK/GOD/NSO fronts is like this: The original reason for them being at war is over. Now the reason for them still being a war is because IRON declared on CnG? My understanding - correct me if I am wrong here - is that FARK got in the TOP&IRON/CnG war because Harmlins announced http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79461 (note no actual treaty, just friendship which is fine) so would it not stand to reason that FARK and GOD make peace with NSO? And FARK if it chooses just continue its war against IRON in support of Harmlins (GRE/MHA) and GOD/NSO peace out? And NSO if it chooses declare on those that declared on IRON? So, here is where FARK and NSO are back at it. What is GOD still doing in the picture? Supporting its ally in FARK.

My point is these guys are at each others throats due to IRON going along with TOP in an unnecessary war. And also because Harmlins chose to enter to defend friends. Do these guys know what they are fighting for? Yes, fighting for allies. But really what the heck is the cause of this war? Pre-emptive strike? More like mutual distruction. I would advise these alliances to consider what they are fighting for.

TOP/IRON/TORN, from the look of things have no way of turning back because CnG is not going to let up.

I guess my point is to just let the 7 CnG alliances deal with TOP/IRON/TORN and everyone else just peace out.

and also ugh, headache :gag: wut, I dont even....

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='04 February 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1265308360' post='2159096']
So, if this is true about escalation...I'd have to look to see if all the alliances have peaced out or not from having entered with optional aggression clauses in the NpO-\m/ war. Who is left out there still fighting because of these optional clauses? I believe NSO is still fighting. Who else?

Why don't all alliances that entered the war just peace out and if necessary make an announcement saying we are out but due to TOP/IRON declaring on CnG, we are still in.

I would like to know who out there is still fighting a now meaningless war.

The way I'm looking at the FARK/GOD/NSO fronts is like this: The original reason for them being at war is over. Now the reason for them still being a war is because IRON declared on CnG? My understanding - correct me if I am wrong here - is that FARK got in the TOP&IRON/CnG war because Harmlins announced http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79461 (note no actual treaty, just friendship which is fine) so would it not stand to reason that FARK and GOD make peace with NSO? And FARK if it chooses just continue its war against IRON in support of Harmlins (GRE/MHA) and GOD/NSO peace out? And NSO if it chooses declare on those that declared on IRON? So, here is where FARK and NSO are back at it. What is GOD still doing in the picture? Supporting its ally in FARK.

My point is these guys are at each others throats due to IRON going along with TOP in an unnecessary war. And also because Harmlins chose to enter to defend friends. Do these guys know what they are fighting for? Yes, fighting for allies. But really what the heck is the cause of this war? Pre-emptive strike? More like mutual distruction. I would advise these alliances to consider what they are fighting for.

TOP/IRON/TORN, from the look of things have no way of turning back because CnG is not going to let up.

I guess my point is to just let the 7 CnG alliances deal with TOP/IRON/TORN and everyone else just peace out.

and also ugh, headache :gag: wut, I dont even....
[/quote]
The NSO is fighting because our allies were attacked and because we do not accept anything outside of white peace. We do not offer anything aside from white peace so we do not accept it either. To whatever end.

The NSO is not fighting because of some morality crusade or to see another bloc or alliance destroyed. I do not agree with the decisions some of our allies have made and they know it, but my people like to fight, they are enjoying it, so we fight.

If there had been no treaty with Polar at the time we would still likely be fighting, just as we are fighting with CSN even though CSN and STA have declared peace. We declared on CSN to defend STA. It is highly unlikely that CSN and NSO would be fighting if they had not attacked STA but those two alliances are not even engaged at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='04 February 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1265304035' post='2158990']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668&st=0&p=1757154&fromsearch=1&#entry1757154"]The Moldavi Doctrine[/url]


Treaties are convenient means by which some alliances are able to manufacture their way into the soveriegn decision making roles of other alliances. If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance. If you sign a mutual defense pact then you obligate yourself to defend that alliance even if they are miscreant boneheads that can't form two coherent sentences together properly to save their life in most circumstances. If you sign an aggression treaty you surrender an even greater portion of your sovereignty.

[/quote]

I agree with this, as well as the description of our state and our implied defensive and aggressive responsibilities here. How anyone can attack this as ego-driven or Sith-like says more about our inner herding instincts than anything else.

I suspect the reason so many have a problem with recognizing and acknowledging this is they were born into the treaty system, or they just don't have the courage to think for themselves.

Too many leaders today remind me of the story of the child who was lost in a jungle. Just because some of us have been raised to think treaties are necessary for action, this does not make it any more true than Tarzan believing he is an ape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Moldavi Doctrine is interesting I think it takes a simple problem and makes it much more complicated than it needs to be. I much prefer the Mpol Doctrine.

[b]The Mpol Doctrine[/b]
[quote]
Think, adapt, survive.
[/quote]

Rules are for people that don't know how to think for themselves or function without guidance. They are as scared of themselves as they are of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mpol777' date='04 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1265311247' post='2159160']
While the Moldavi Doctrine is interesting I think it takes a simple problem and makes it much more complicated than it needs to be. I much prefer the Mpol Doctrine.

[b]The Mpol Doctrine[/b]


Rules are for people that don't know how to think for themselves or function without guidance. They are as scared of themselves as they are of the world.
[/quote]

Your asking allot Sir, keep in mind most the planet has been brought up in sub par [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml"]education[/url] system, let alone belives everything the [url="http://www.usa.gov/"]tele[/url] broadcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mpol777' date='04 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1265311247' post='2159160']
While the Moldavi Doctrine is interesting I think it takes a simple problem and makes it much more complicated than it needs to be. I much prefer the Mpol Doctrine.

[b]The Mpol Doctrine[/b]


Rules are for people that don't know how to think for themselves or function without guidance. They are as scared of themselves as they are of the world.
[/quote]

I don't believe a statement of the obvious, which is all the Moldavi Doctrine is, to be overly complicated in the least.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...