An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Scorponok]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286461630' post='2477930']
It's not that I don't love you it's that MK doesn't love you. Likewise, I'm also not the biggest fan of Athens but this is presumably an alliance that MK likes.
[/quote]

We know that, I personally have no ill to anyone but [i]Skippy[/i]...(OOC: for bringing me back to this game...) LOL

I find this move very interesting, I await to see how the rumours pan out.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1286490897' post='2478218']
Not really. The vast majority of "binding" defensive agreements aren't worth the digital paper they're written on. On the other hand, MK's friendship (expressed in writing, or otherwise) has actual value.
[/quote]

Any agreement is worth less when it's not written down. Legally, it's not worth anything.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286503609' post='2478427']
Any agreement is worth less when it's not written down. Legally, it's not worth anything.
[/quote]

You must not have been here long.

[Denial]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286503609' post='2478427']
Any agreement is worth less when it's not written down. Legally, it's not worth anything.
[/quote]
Then it's a good thing the 'legality' of something here in the Cyberverse means !@#$ all

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286506465' post='2478485']
Then it's a good thing the 'legality' of something here in the Cyberverse means !@#$ all
[/quote]

What I'm trying to say is that, obviously, it's much easier to break a verbal agreement then one written on paper.

[Denial]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286507950' post='2478525']
What I'm trying to say is that, obviously, it's much easier to break a verbal agreement then one written on paper.
[/quote]
You would think so, but it's been proven time and time again in the Cyberverse that your claim is not necessarily true. Alliances have been able to break formal treaties just as easily.

[Cornelius]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286512368' post='2478603']
You would think so, but it's been proven time and time again in the Cyberverse that your claim is not necessarily true. Alliances have been able to break formal treaties just as easily.
[/quote]
The alliance on the paper is worth more than the paper, you're right. I think the point Dam is trying to make is that a written agreement from you is worth more than a verbal one. If nobody put any stock in treaties, there would be no treaties.

[Denial]

[quote name='Cornelius' timestamp='1286513527' post='2478623']
The alliance on the paper is worth more than the paper, you're right. [b]I think the point Dam is trying to make is that a written agreement from you is worth more than a verbal one[/b]. If nobody put any stock in treaties, there would be no treaties.
[/quote]
Then Mr Damsky is talking out of his ass.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286514233' post='2478632']
Then Mr Damsky is talking out of his ass.
[/quote]

I just don't think your understanding what Mr Damsky is saying.

The difference between verbal agreements and written agreements is that of publication and that of accountability. It doesn't matter what alliance you are with, a written agreement means more then just being friends.

[Denial]

And I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

We do not work that way.

[Rextu]

Nobody understands what Damsky is talking about. It's always been that way, always will be that way.

On another note, treaties are useful for calculating odds of winning a bloc war.

[Bob Janova]

Treaties do have a strong legal purpose for resolving non-chaining clauses (implicit or explicit) which are common in other people's treaties. You will be considered legally aggressors in a new war if you 'defend' without a treaty, as will your friends if they 'defend' you. But if all you were trying to do was keep the same friends, you wouldn't have made this move in the first place.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286506465' post='2478485']
Then it's a good thing the 'legality' of something here in the Cyberverse means !@#$ all
[/quote]


See, this is where the debate should have stopped.

If an alliance wants to get out of a treaty obligation there are ways to do it up to and including breaking the treaty (yes, its happened before and doing so was of no particular consequence to the alliance that broke it).

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286540541' post='2478776']
Treaties do have a strong legal purpose for resolving non-chaining clauses (implicit or explicit) which are common in other people's treaties. You will be considered legally aggressors in a new war if you 'defend' without a treaty, as will your friends if they 'defend' you. But if all you were trying to do was keep the same friends, you wouldn't have made this move in the first place.
[/quote]
And then those legal aggressors will be arrested by the CN police and sent to jail!

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286540541' post='2478776']
Treaties do have a strong legal purpose for resolving non-chaining clauses (implicit or explicit) which are common in other people's treaties. You will be considered legally aggressors in a new war if you 'defend' without a treaty, as will your friends if they 'defend' you. But if all you were trying to do was keep the same friends, you wouldn't have made this move in the first place.
[/quote]
Bob you should know by now
the winners define the terms of the war, who was aggressive / defensive

any other perspective doesn't matter tootly spit

[Bob Janova]

That's true, but the closest thing to objective truth on that matter – publically visible and referencable treaties – can determine which side actually becomes the winner.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286559132' post='2478947']
That's true, but the closest thing to objective truth on that matter – publically visible and referencable treaties – can determine which side actually becomes the winner.
[/quote]
That's just dull
It means that before taking any action everybody rushes off to the wiki works out likely sides and only moves if they think they have an overwhelming advantage
having large paperless alliances adds an element of randomness to the politics of the game, and makes diplomacy more important

[Ashok]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286516381' post='2478653']
And I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

We do not work that way.
[/quote]

Everyone can say they don't work that way but unless its proven through time it means nothing as the old saying goes "actions speak louder than words." I wait to see how your actions speak for your statement here.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286512368' post='2478603']
You would think so, but it's been proven time and time again in the Cyberverse that your claim is not necessarily true. Alliances have been able to break formal treaties just as easily.
[/quote]

The consequences have in general always been more severe.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' timestamp='1286561147' post='2478970']
That's just dull
It means that before taking any action everybody rushes off to the wiki works out likely sides and only moves if they think they have an overwhelming advantage
having large paperless alliances adds an element of randomness to the politics of the game, and makes diplomacy more important
[/quote]

or it just adds to the curbstomps that occur most often. don't like an alliance, talk to the defender or aggressor and bam, got yourself a secret treaty for your alliance to ride in on the war with.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1286564078' post='2479013']
or it just adds to the curbstomps that occur most often. don't like an alliance, talk to the defender or aggressor and bam, got yourself a secret treaty for your alliance to ride in on the war with.
[/quote]

Depends on the leadership how going paperless is played,
but a treatyless alliance that is into bandwaggoning will not be popular and will be the obvious candidate for a curbstomp

without the bonds of paper it is even more important for a treatyless alliance to be seen as decent and honest lest is bring down the wrath of the mob

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1286564078' post='2479013']
or it just adds to the curbstomps that occur most often. don't like an alliance, talk to the defender or aggressor and bam, got yourself a secret treaty for your alliance to ride in on the war with.
[/quote]

Isn't that what happens anyway?

[SonOfHoward]

Crap this beats VE's triple drop before the Karma fires ate everything.

(I read this ages ago, only responding now.)

Edit: Also Post 420. Epic.

Edited October 8, 2010 by SonOfHoward

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='SynthFG' timestamp='1286570041' post='2479080']
Depends on the leadership how going paperless is played,
but a treatyless alliance that is into bandwaggoning will not be popular and will be the obvious candidate for a curbstomp

without the bonds of paper it is even more important for a treatyless alliance to be seen as decent and honest lest is bring down the wrath of the mob
[/quote]
Not necessarily. It depends on how willing their friends are to step in. If their friends attitudes/opinions are unchanged by the bandwagoning then the treatyless alliance will be just fine, when their friends form the larger 'side'.

[Krack]

[quote name='Ashok' timestamp='1286561742' post='2478977']
Everyone can say they don't work that way but unless its proven through time it means nothing as the old saying goes "actions speak louder than words." I wait to see how your actions speak for your statement here.
[/quote]

You could attack them and test your theory. I wouldn't advise it, but then we could all find out if MK's friendships are worth more than your paperwork.