The Precedent of Unconditional Surrender

[the masheen]

Whether or not you agree with GRE, the idea of unconditional surrender is pretty intriguing. Imagine if the precedent of unconditional surrender had been applied to the last war that was inflicted on planet bob. Do you think that the ridiculously, seemingly never-ending, treaty chains would have been activated, or do you think that people would have thought twice before going to war? Maybe if this precedent was set it would actually prevent such devistating wars. Maybe this would encourage alliances to take care of their own business. Maybe this would encourage more diplomatic solutions. Maybe signing a defensive or an agressive treaty would actually mean something of significance and it would be important to actually trust and understand your treaty partners. Perhaps IRON would have never attacked MK in the first place? I'm not sure what I think about the situation. Any thoughts from the peanut gallary?

[Carlton the Great]

There aren't enough wars as it is. From a fun perspective peace terms should not be excessively punitive.

[ktarthan]

I simply don't think that, even if precedent was set in one situation, that it would stand as an acceptible policy. Judging by the current OWF reaction, it wouldn't be tolerated in general.

[the masheen]

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='17 June 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1276811250' post='2341031']
There aren't enough wars as it is. From a fun perspective peace terms should not be excessively punitive.
[/quote]

I agree. However, I think that this would make wars more fun. There's more on the line AND there probably wouldn't be as many alliances jumping into the fray. It would be more of a one on one. One alliance vs another, or one alliance and a group of very close friends vs another alliance and a group of very close friends.

[TypoNinja]

((Unconditional surrender represents a concession on the part of the defeated party recognizing a certain level of superiority on the part of the victor to justify asking for basically unlimited terms, I think simple game mechanics prevent such a state from existing.))

The idea of unconditional surrender is a pipe dream at this scale, while it might be possible to secure such from individual nations, alliance vs alliance combat is too large a conflict, worse enforcing it becomes unreasonable because a foe may rearm with as little as two weeks to themselves so you may end up with peace for a while, then ask for something that makes the defeated foe decide they'd rather go back to nuking you for. ((Our lack of ability to implement any form of occupying army that would allow for any kind of policing/occupation of a defeated army is a big hurdle here)) It is far more desirable from the point of view of both the victor and the defeated to simply determine exactly what is expected of the defeated before hand.

Even beyond that, what would one use unconditional surrender to shield? What would you ask for that is such a horrible condition that getting them to agree to unconditional surrender is an easier option? It's almost always easier to simply display terms and convince a defeated opponent to accept those rather than some mystery. Why put yourself through the hassle of trying to convince someone to accept unconditional when simply telling them straight out what you want is far more likely to get you what you want with less of a headache.

[HalfEmpty]

Where would it take us?
Why a dead end of course, unless the OP is really good, I mean really, really good.
In theory it my go 10 12 19, but a really GOOD OP, a good CounterPoster with follow up and a decent backbone and plenty of time, why it's hard to say.

Could it be done? Maybe, if it was a really good OP and a Type Alpha counterposter, come blasting thru the OWF passes at 49 minutes past update, low,I mean really low, with nothing left to lose, jinking that keyboard left and right, persistent and annoying,you ask could it be done?

HELL YES IT COULD GO 200 PAGES EASY

Edited June 17, 2010 by HalfEmpty

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='HalfEmpty' date='17 June 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1276812404' post='2341059']
Where would it take us?
Why a dead end of course, unless the OP is really good, I mean really, really good.
In theory it my go 10 12 19, but a really GOOD OP, a good CounterPoster with follow up and a decent backbone and plenty of time, why it's hard to say.

Could it be done? Maybe, if it was a really good OP and a Type Alpha counterposter, come blasting thru the OWF passes at 49 minutes past update, low,I mean really low, with nothing left to lose, jinking that keyboard left and right, persistent and annoying,you ask could it be done?

HELL YES IT COULD GO 200 PAGES EASY
[/quote]

Im sure this random espousing of verbiage made sense in your head, but please next time, keep it to yourself.

[Derantol]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='17 June 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1276813274' post='2341082']
Im sure this random espousing of verbiage made sense in your head, but please next time, keep it to yourself.
[/quote]

In his defense, I figured it out - he's making a reference to the New Gramlins thread. I think.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Derantol' date='17 June 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1276813904' post='2341095']
In his defense, I figured it out - he's making a reference to the New Gramlins thread. I think.
[/quote]

Ahh, hmm yes that's plausible. Still he isnt contributing much. >_>

[Baldr]

I think that if unconditional surrender were a normal result, people would be far less likely to start a war.

And that once a war starts, it would be far less likely to end.

If I know that saying "I surrender" meant that they could give me any orders that they wanted, for an unlimited period of time, and I had to follow their orders, I'd never do it.

They could tell me to send them tech constantly for years, decom all military wonders and all nukes and all spies, never have over 25% military under any circumstances, vote for the senator they choose, never own a factory... Sorry, I'll pass.

If my only option was unconditional surrender, I'd either keep fighting even though it meant forever being a small FAN type nation that had no opportunity to grow, no chance to win, etc. Or I'd just leave the game. I think that's true of most. Agreeing to become their slave isn't an incentive to surrender.

So wars, once started, last forever, or the losers leave planet bob.

Naturally, with that level of risk on the line, few will start a war unless they are *sure* that they have the backing to win.

I'd expect one really big bloc of alliances to then dominate, and anyone who fought them gets turned into eternal tech farms with terms that never end. Any other bloc that looks like they *might* become large enough to stand up will get rolled long before they are big enough to be a threat.

Planet Bob would be more fun with light reps than heavy ones - and the only reason to require unconditional surrender is because the terms you plan to impose are heavy enough that nobody would agree to them if they knew what the terms were.

[the masheen]

[quote name='Baldr' date='17 June 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1276814643' post='2341110']
I think that if unconditional surrender were a normal result, people would be far less likely to start a war.

And that once a war starts, it would be far less likely to end.

If I know that saying "I surrender" meant that they could give me any orders that they wanted, for an unlimited period of time, and I had to follow their orders, I'd never do it.

They could tell me to send them tech constantly for years, decom all military wonders and all nukes and all spies, never have over 25% military under any circumstances, vote for the senator they choose, never own a factory... Sorry, I'll pass.

If my only option was unconditional surrender, I'd either keep fighting even though it meant forever being a small FAN type nation that had no opportunity to grow, no chance to win, etc. Or I'd just leave the game. I think that's true of most. Agreeing to become their slave isn't an incentive to surrender.

So wars, once started, last forever, or the losers leave planet bob.

Naturally, with that level of risk on the line, few will start a war unless they are *sure* that they have the backing to win.

I'd expect one really big bloc of alliances to then dominate, and anyone who fought them gets turned into eternal tech farms with terms that never end. Any other bloc that looks like they *might* become large enough to stand up will get rolled long before they are big enough to be a threat.

Planet Bob would be more fun with light reps than heavy ones - and the only reason to require unconditional surrender is because the terms you plan to impose are heavy enough that nobody would agree to them if they knew what the terms were.
[/quote]

I think the first couple of wars would be really intense. From my war experience (not much), I ended up friends with a lot of the people I attacked. I don't think the terms would necessarily be too ridiculous. Also, I think if the terms were clearly overly-harsh the rest of planet bob would step in. But hey! That might be way too much faith to have in planet bob!

[King Louis the II]

Unconditional surrender may have some sense in some cases. However, not in the GRE-Iron case. To ask for uconditional surrender after the whole winning side already peaced out and reps were agreed to is just wrong to me.

I hope Iron can recover from this.

Thats is just my 2 cents.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

The concept of unconditional surrender works in that other realm because even the worst regimes in modern history have abided by at least some of the standards of international law and the unwritten rules of minimum humanitarian standards. Those nations who disregarded these standards later found that individual lives were put to the ultimate risk under judicial examination. Death was a very real potential consequence of the abuse of these rules.Thus unconditional surrender has always had pretty narrow limits on its use.What might be imposed on a nation was while in many cases vicious no nation was eliminated or made to remain in that fashion over a long period. Yes the second great war had some terrible examples but those nations and those responsible were held to strong task. For all the might makes right proponents most modern nations and the vast majority of people in the other realm are convinced of the importance of these rules. In the other realm the loss of ones life or freedom by imprisonment is a meaningful deterrent.

Sadly Digiterra by its very nature bring out a more base nature in its interactions. The loss of a ones nations while sad and annoying has zero real consequence to the perpetrator of a crime or abuse. Thus abuse of an unconditional surrender could lead to no more later retribution than the elimination of a nation or nations of an alliance that abused unconditional surrender. As we all know Digiterra has spawned vile characters who have used their nations for purely destructive purposes. Despite elimination they reincarnate time and again and enjoy the perpetual destruction that they wreak on others. In the other realm the permanent incarceration or death of such a charter ensures both the elimination of that threat and the deterrent to others so inclined. Is it perfect? No but one cannot deny it does make a significant difference.

Unconditional surrender on Digiterra would thus only work under two conditions.
1. If every nation and alliance agreed on a maximum set of reparations and terms that would be allowed by unconditional surrender. THIS will never happen.
2. If Unconditional surrender is met with the pre-announced victory that has no conditions. This is then a guaranteed so called "white peace" or as the OBR states in its DoWs no reps or conditions will be used once peace is achieved. So Unconditional peace for an Unconditional surrender. I would love to believe this to be possible but reality and history prove that I can assure that only from a alliance who have stood by that style in the past.

There may well be alliances who could maintain the morality of such a process and there certainly some very good alliances I might trust with the morality they have proven over time. The problem is Digterra has as a whole proven its inability to turn morally strong precedents into some horribly mutated e-lawyered vile version of that precedent and befouled it to gain some advantage. I have no interest in debating the morality of an unconditional surrender from or to an alliance it is fruitless debate. The pragmatic reality sadly ignored in the debate is that it cannot work in practice in an environment where there is zero real consequence to its abuse.

I speak not for my alliance, who for the time I can review have maintained a standard I am proud of , nor other alliances I have watched and reviewed who have shown a history of high standard. I talk for me. Dame Hime Themis and the fingers that type this missive. The higher style of ethics is a personal choice not because it is easy but precisely because it is hard. It is far more fun to let ones inhibitions run wild when anonymity and no consequences can be brought to bear. LuLZ and breaking things is far to easy and lazy a path to take. Pressing that war button destroys armies that may be magically renewed and nations rebuilt with little pain, guilt or true loss of life.Thus allowing things like unconditional surrender may work for a while but some sense of minimum standards gets further lost. I like the fact that many have felt it is a line that should not be crossed.

Is Unconditional surrender immoral or evil? No, but on Digiterra it IS untenable.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

[deathcat]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='17 June 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1276813274' post='2341082']
Im sure this random espousing of verbiage made sense in your head, but please next time, keep it to yourself.
[/quote]


Thats just HE.. a poster of extreme intelligence masked by his Floridianspeak. Seriously, the point he's making is.. we've discussed this at length before.. 200+ pages of it.. I think the question was answered before it was posed here.

Let this thread die please.. Gre thread is POINTLESSLY bad enough as is.

[Bob Janova]

It would be a terrible precedent which is why pretty much everyone has come out against trying to impose it, even on IRON which is hardly the most liked alliance around. It would provide a platform for any alliance that was so inclined to press unjust terms, and the surrendered alliance would have to bend over and take it. That's not something anyone wants to see which is why Grämlins have been left out to lose a war they had already won.

[the masheen]

[quote name='deathcat' date='17 June 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1276819856' post='2341212']
Thats just HE.. a poster of extreme intelligence masked by his Floridianspeak. Seriously, the point he's making is.. we've discussed this at length before.. 200+ pages of it.. I think the question was answered before it was posed here.

Let this thread die please.. Gre thread is POINTLESSLY bad enough as is.
[/quote]

I see I see. Can you direct me to the page it starts on? I probably should have delved into the the New Gramlins thread some more. I couldn't find any real content about unconditional surrender, but rather just people going at it back in forth telling "your mom" jokes. I don't think I'm capable of ending the thread, but if the mods stepped in I wouldn't throw a hissy fit.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Hime Themis' date='17 June 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1276819564' post='2341200']
Is Unconditional surrender immoral or evil? No, but on Digiterra it IS untenable.
Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis
[/quote]

Agreed. Unconditional surrender on Digiterra is a lie. Either it will never be agreed to in the first place or it will be agreed to and later will be broken. If it's never agreed to, dedicated national leaders from the losing alliance will move underground thus starting a cycle of revenge. If it's agreed to and later broken, the best result is that there is no attempt to enforce the original surrender. If enforcement is attempted, the war begins again turning the "surrender" into nothing more than a pause in the original conflict.

Learn from history.

[Zangmonkey]

An incredibly important distinction to understand is that [u]conditions for peace[/u] and [u]conditions for surrender[/u] are not the same thing.

Why is it that we on Digiterra live and die by traditions?
It seems to me the friction over this issue stems from the tradition (not some universal requirement) that surrender and terms are the same thing.

The process from war to peace is certainly separable into various steps, among them being War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace

It is completely possible for one to surrender (in the sense of submission following war) and then to refuse terms and revert to a state of war.

It is simply impossible, given the rules of engagement and the [u]possible[/u] actions of any national leader, to agree to any and all subsequent unknown terms.
In all cases it is inherently necessary (not by imposed condition but by the nature of reality) to reserve the ability to decline future unknown terms.
I'll propose an insane counter-example: what if a term were to join the polka dotted team?

Even if the terms were [b]possible[/b] that could not imply an agreement to comply.
Say, for example, a term such as "disband" or "destroy all wonders" were demanded.... certainly possible in a mechanical sense but impossible in a realistic sense.
This is because Digiterra, like alternate universes, are self-regulated [b]not only[/b] by the laws of physics but also by the laws of [b]feasibility[/b]

Furthermore, we as a people [b]cannot[/b] consider the refusal to submit to murder "wrong" or "dishonorable"
There is no wrong in refusing to follow abhorrent orders even if doing so were to somehow be considered "breaking your word."
I have pledged allegiance to my alliance, but if they ordered me to delete all my wonders and technology so that I might perpetually go to war with all newly forming nations [b]nobody could call me dishonorable for refusing to follow such orders.[/b] Any oaths are null and void given such circumstances.... not by some "exception" delineated in paper but by [b]the reality of humanity in this world[/b]



As for surrender, conditions are the extraneous modifiers and not the necessary rule.

It is completely valid to insist that a party surrender without placing conditions on the procedure.

In fact, to do so is to grant validity to the process.
To surrender in order to be accountable for your actions must inherently be unconditional.

One cannot serve two masters.

How can one say "I am accountable for what I have done, but [b]only[/b] if you will agree to X and Y?"
It's nonsense.
Accountability is necessarily unconditional.


I propose a parallel example to demonstrate this notion of accountability:
A person in my nation went to one of my 5 churches and stole money from the collection plate.
Nobody in any of my 5 police stations has the will to make the arrest.

Does this have any bearing on the fact that [u]it is the right thing to do[/u] for the thief to turn himself in?
Even if the police were known to write unnecessary tickets to my citizens with automobiles... does that mean the thief should not be accountable?

What about conditions? Does it make sense for the thief to say "I accept accountability, I will turn myself in but only if the church promises not to ban me for a period longer than one month?"

Even if this deal is accepted... does that make it "right"?

No.
The only way for the thief to be accountable is to submit without placing his own stipulated conditions.
His acknowledgment of his behavior [b]without trying to bargain about it[/b] is the [b]only[/b] way he can be considered fully accountable.

Now let's say that the judge sentences him to death by inverted crucifiction.

The judge would be sacked and the sentence overturned.
And, more importantly, there would be no wrong in it.
In fact, the greatest injustice would be if the rest of my citizens permitted such an unjust sentence for a crime.



However:
Despite the corrupt cops and the vengeful judge (and even if, Admin forbid!, the thief had been executed) that would [u]NEVER[/u] mean it was incorrect for the thief to turn himself in and stand accountable.


A party truly making themselves accountable for their actions does not place conditions on their surrender.
Anything else is nothing more than normalized "traditions" of bribery and weaselism.

Accountability is unconditional.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Kalasin]

From the amount of condemnation in the other thread, I don’t think forced unconditional surrender will become common practice. I mean, it seems most people disapprove of it anyway, and those who don’t will probably learn from this that it would be a PR nightmare.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1276829285' post='2341397']
The process from war to peace is certainly separable into various steps, among them being, War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace
[/quote]
Most of that post is double-talk and blah blah blah.
If you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullcrap right?

This part I'll respond to anyways.
That's not the actual realistic - "getting the job done" - order of the way such things progress.
I think it works ("works," as in "getting the job done") more like this:
War > Terms > Surrender > Peace > Restitution

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peace"]Peace[/url], simply and accurately meaning no more wars. I'm sure you have you own weird subjective interpretation of "peace" though, like everything else. Making up your own meanings for words seems to be one of your specialties.

One generally has to agree to terms before you can surrender. Even "unconditional surrender" is a term. Once the terms are agreed on, the wars stop - or obviously you're still at war, and terms to stop the war are NOT WORKING. See how that works? Then comes surrender, which once accepted as per the terms, means the wars stop. Without wars, there is peace.

Then begins the paying of whatever restitution has been agreed upon. Peace is an important part of being able to even pay restitution as it sure helps with cash flow - and indicates integrity on the part of the one offering terms. Or else they are de facto keeping the other is war. Keeping someone in peace mode by threat of war - well, that's kind of counter-productive to surrendering isn't it? It's not really even a surrender if they are still at war - in realitistic terms, the surrender has been rejected. You aren't really accepting the surrender since you're still intending war, and such intent counts as an act of war. Thus you're still at the start of the process and no real progress has even been made - your process isn't working.

Again and of course, all this is subjective, and everyone has their own opinions. It's rather silly to try and force your own subjective opinion on someone else - unless you do it with force, I guess. Now we're back to war again

Edited for semantic accuracy.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Clash

[lamuella]

unconditional surrender as the accepted norm is every bit as silly as white peace as the accepted norm. Actions should have consequences, but punishments should be equal in stature to transgressions. There are few transgressions severe enough to warrant absolute and unconditional surrender but not serious enough to warrant perma-war.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='17 June 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1276833052' post='2341485']
unconditional surrender as the accepted norm is every bit as silly as white peace as the accepted norm. Actions should have consequences, but punishments should be equal in stature to transgressions. There are few transgressions severe enough to warrant absolute and unconditional surrender but not serious enough to warrant perma-war.
[/quote]

What do you think warrants unconditional surrender?

[Schad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1276829285' post='2341397']
An incredibly important distinction to understand is that [u]conditions for peace[/u] and [u]conditions for surrender[/u] are not the same thing.
[/quote]

That is not an incredibly important distinction, simply because it is entirely false. Surrender, by its very nature, is a means by which to obtain peace. In surrendering, one is doing so with the explicit purpose of immediately and permanently ending hostilities...if that was not the goal, there would be no surrender. I understand that your alliance would like it to be a kinda sorta truce but with [i]more feeling[/i], but reality simply doesn't function in that manner; no matter how many times I declare my house as a dependent when doing my taxes, the authorities insist that it is, in fact, a house.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Schad' date='17 June 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1276833607' post='2341496']
That is not an incredibly important distinction, simply because it is entirely false. Surrender, by its very nature, is a means by which to obtain peace. In surrendering, one is doing so with the explicit purpose of immediately and permanently ending hostilities...if that was not the goal, there would be no surrender. I understand that your alliance would like it to be a kinda sorta truce but with [i]more feeling[/i], but reality simply doesn't function in that manner; no matter how many times I declare my house as a dependent when doing my taxes, the authorities insist that it is, in fact, a house.
[/quote]


I disagree.
What happens when people come to surrender individually but you are not certain what appropriate terms should be?
You turn them away and refuse to let them surrender?

Surrender does not create peace.
Typically it leads to our functional equivalent of "occupation" until the restitution is served and the peace process is completed.
Of course, during this period the "occupied" are quartered.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Kalasin' date='17 June 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1276833164' post='2341489']
What do you think warrants unconditional surrender?
[/quote]

well, that depends. Would the original GOONS have been allowed to continue existing if they had surrendered unconditionally? Would /b/?