How to end the treaty web madness

[kitex]

First of all before I tell you how to end the treaty web madness, I [i]must[/i] give stupid dumb props to the user iamthey for putting this in CNRP treaties. The way to end the treaty web madness is simple:


In all treaties just include an anti chaining clause that looks something like this:

[quote]

[font=tahoma,][i][font="'Courier New"]Anti-Chaining Clause: [/font][/i][font="'Courier New"]If the a signatory was attacked and was not a defender at the initial point of the greater war, or is a member of a coalition that was not initially defensive then the treaty is optional.[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]
[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"][/quote][/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]
[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]That would easily end all the craziness and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/font][/font]

[Divi Filius]

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856']
(...) and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/quote]

I think people generally want them to.

[Kim Jaym Il]

Just about all treaties signed nowadays have that clause added in. The thing is, people will defend their friends regardless.

[Aurion]

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856']
OP
[/quote]

A lot of treaties [i]do [/i]have them.

Edit: God dammit.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Aurion

[thaone]

[quote name='Divi Filius' date='17 July 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1279383540' post='2375863']
I think people generally want them to.
[/quote]

Haha, first post wins.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856']
First of all before I tell you how to end the treaty web madness, I [i]must[/i] give stupid dumb props to the user iamthey for putting this in CNRP treaties. The way to end the treaty web madness is simple:


In all treaties just include an anti chaining clause that looks something like this:

[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]
[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]That would easily end all the craziness and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/font][/font]
[/quote]

This thread has the tone of a guy who says "hey I just discovered the gunpowder" to people already using cannons

[White Chocolate]

This is the language I've used in the past:

Article IV: Joint Military Operations

In the event that either signatory comes under military or spy attack that is not the result of treaty obligations to another alliance, the other shall help in defending the first through military, diplomatic and/or financial assistance as requested. Both parties agree that “defense” is defined as an attack that is not the result of the other choosing to become involved a third party's war. This is non-chaining and meant to avoid "treaty web" situations.

If either signatory decides to become involved in a third party's war for any reason, the other signatory MAY choose to become involved. However this is NOT required and the other party may withdraw at any time and under any circumstances.

-----------------------------
I'm not saying it's better or worse. It's just another option people may use and revise. Also it doesn't use the "defense" and "aggression" language which I think can lead to confusion regarding if a given situation qualifies as "defense" or "aggression." I prefer just "military operations."

The other option is to have all "optional" treaties.

Edited July 17, 2010 by White Chocolate

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='17 July 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1279383598' post='2375865']
Just about all treaties signed nowadays have that clause added in.
[/quote]

I actually have not seen many, and I've tried to pay attention. It's not my personal preference, but perhaps many people/alliances do want large scale wars on a regular basis.

[Erwin Schrodinger]

All of SLCB's treaties either have the words in it saying so, or it was discussed during the making of the treaty that it wouldn't be chaining, although the option is there anyway. Most of the time, people will help friends regardless if only because war > boredom.

[Believland]

Order of the Sword has non chaining and OTP NAP written into all of our treaties. If you want the treaty web to stop becoming crazy, it would be best to stop giving everyone a MDoAP

[Haquertal]

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856']
First of all before I tell you how to end the treaty web madness, I [i]must[/i] give stupid dumb props to the user iamthey for putting this in CNRP treaties. The way to end the treaty web madness is simple:


In all treaties just include an anti chaining clause that looks something like this:

[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]
[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]That would easily end all the craziness and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/font][/font]
[/quote]

Just as others have stated, most people [b]want[/b] global wars. Also, I know some people who don't like all the treaty webs, but I'm highly doubting that they'll disappear overnight (or at all).

[Chief Savage Man]

Optional means mandatory in my book unless they did something [i]really[/i] horrible and I mean like the entire alliance did it not just one guy. Also yeah, I'm pretty sure we have this clause in nearly all our treaties.

[citizenkane]

most people want the war in the first place.

Note to self: remove all non-chaining clauses

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856']
First of all before I tell you how to end the treaty web madness, I [i]must[/i] give stupid dumb props to the user iamthey for putting this in CNRP treaties. The way to end the treaty web madness is simple:


In all treaties just include an anti chaining clause that looks something like this:

[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]
[/font][/font]
[font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]That would easily end all the craziness and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/font][/font]
[/quote]
In order to be called an anti-chaining clause shouldn't it you know, prevent chaining instead of making it optional in order to be called that?

I honestly don't mind much that wars go global. I simply find it ridiculously stupid that people (not necessarily all or even a majority) feel the need to have treaties to act as the justification for their participation in it. Those announcements always sound like someone without the capacity for independant thought.

[memoryproblems]

whats wrong with the treaty web? it makes things interesting.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='17 July 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1279396943' post='2376163']
whats wrong with the treaty web? it makes things interesting.
[/quote]

I suppose making and dropping treaties give people something to do between war. However I don't think that it's the treaty web itself that makes or keeps things interesting. Life could be plenty "interesting" without it

However I don't expect it to change, at least not very fast if at all.

[Fernando12]

The point is although it would create smaller conflicts the chances of them staying small is very low. Should my allies tell me they have things under control I would listen and stay out of a war that perhaps they caused. But once multiple alliances come in against them, then The Federation will not stand by and watch even if we have no obligation.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Fernando12

[xoindotnler]

Replace the optional with forced, problem solved.

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]The NSO has already trademarked non-chaining treaties. We invented them several months ago, but I do appreciate your admiration of our innovations though. You can thank us for white peace in your next thread.[/color]

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='17 July 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1279396943' post='2376163']
whats wrong with the treaty web? it makes things interesting.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how alliances being so inflexible with relationships that they mandate their support in conflict by treaty is making things interesting. I would think things being spelled out ahead of time makes it, well, boring.

[Prodigal Moon]

I was just in a discussion about this. Including a non-chaining clause is easy. Actually telling your friends you're not going to help them out because you don't like the friends they're supporting is much trickier. Having a conflict with another treaty is just about the only way to stop the chain without looking like a fair weather friend.

If people would be more conservative about signing the damn things in the first place - and actually form a consistent FA policy with their immediate allies - things might be a bit more coherent.

[Chief Savage Man]

The incoherence is half the fun.

[Banksy]

I thought everyone already used non-chaining clauses?

Anyway, even if everyone had treaties that don't chain, they are still going to defend their allies. I think we all know what happens to alliances with reputations for backing out on treaties :s

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='17 July 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1279400839' post='2376232']
[color="#0000FF"]The NSO has already trademarked non-chaining treaties. We invented them several months ago, but I do appreciate your admiration of our innovations though. You can thank us for white peace in your next thread.[/color]
[/quote]

You may have been the first to use white peace here (actually I doubt it), but other games have used the term white peace and have used it correctly as in the warring stops and that is it. The way it is used here is many times not actual white peace.

Clauses to stay out of a war simply means that you and that alliance you signed with are not very good friends. No clause will keep me from going to war to fight alongside an ally.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Fernando12

[der_ko]

How to stop the treaty web? Every random idiot makes their own alliance, but if the established powers would just stop protecting them raiders would make sure these worthless alliances would disappear as fast as they appear.