A simply Nobodies Question

[Joseph Black]

Inspired by the NSO-MK issue. Is dropping a treaty justification for reparations to those offended? I'm not looking for a response related to the current issue, but I'd like to know if this is something that will become a norm?

[Sardonic]

You can't be serious.

The only case in which reps for a broken treaty would make sense is if the agreement was one of payment, like a surrender in war.

[Schattenmann]

Alliances will do whatever they think they have the power to do.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289418670' post='2509545']
Alliances will do whatever they think they have the power to do.
[/quote]

What an awful contribution to this thread. Odd to see from someone who has failed so miserably at exercising the power he thought he had.

Many alliances have the power to do all sorts of things, but don't do them. Any number of alliances have the power to successfully demolish other alliances and get away with it, but they don't. Not due to lack of power or ability, but because it just isn't what they want to or think is right to do.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289419055' post='2509548']
Many alliances have the power to do all sorts of things, but don't do them. Any number of alliances have the power to successfully demolish other alliances and get away with it, but they don't. Not due to lack of power or ability, but because it just isn't what they want to or think is right to do.
[/quote]
That is true, except the last part. You are completely discounting both soft power and long-term strategy.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1289416693' post='2509526']
Inspired by the NSO-MK issue. Is dropping a treaty justification for reparations to those offended? I'm not looking for a response related to the current issue, but I'd like to know if this is something that will become a norm?
[/quote]

Honestly, that action could have opened up some kind of "Pandora's Box" (no pun intended) as to what is conventional in alliance-alliance relations had it escalated. The isolated actions of a nation in non-warring circumstances should not force its alliance into responsibility for it. Were the person a government member of NSO canceling on MK members, then yes, I believe you could make the inference that NSO gov is sabotaging the economics of MK, but as a inexperienced general member (in this case a ghost), accountability should not have been placed at NSO's doorstep.

For a treaty, however, those cancellations often leave bad blood. Members of NpO still hate VE over the treaty cancellation ~27 months ago. Could they make that a CB? Sure, its theirs to interpret.

The point is, something as political as a treaty cancellation can always lead to political ramifications like war, bad-blood, or yes, should parties choose to make it into that kind of an issue, reparations (although that would be an extremely unlikely and illogical response to a canceled treaty). But apolitical things, such as a general member (especially a ghost) canceling a trade, should not entice a political response (like reparations), which is what I think was MK's ultimate mistake in this, and they are paying for it in negative PR.

[Goldie]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1289419207' post='2509549']
That is true, except the last part. You are completely discounting both soft power and long-term strategy.
[/quote]

There may be overriding reasons in many cases for why people hold back and don't do things they have the power to do, but the overwhelming reason is because there just is no reason or desire to do it.

I just glanced at the alliances page. Unity is the smallest alliance listed that isn't an applicant AA. VE has the power to roll that alliance, subject its nations to long-term war, and hurt them. But we don't do it. It isn't at all due to lack of power, but to lack of reason, desire, need, or care. My commentary on that post was simply to show how silly an argument "Alliances [b]will[/b] do whatever they think they have the power to do."

[Schattenmann]

Forgive me for assuming that a readership did not need me to use 3 paragraphs to get across a very simple point, goldie, but I guess I should write with the lowest factor in mind. Here ya go my friend:

If some alliance out there thinks they have the power to demand compensation for a cancelled treaty, and that is what they want to do, then they will do it. They may or may not make considerations of other factors like PR or precedent-setting (Who wants to set a precedent that they may have to face in the future?).

Anyway, I would advise people against making silly replies to facilitate insults, you'll look like goldie. Rather, incorporate insults into solid replies.
e: Oh, good, he pointed out his own pettiness.
[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289419660' post='2509554']
My commentary on that post was simply to show how silly an argument "Alliances [b]will[/b] do whatever they think they have the power to do."
[/quote]

Edited November 11, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Goldie]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289419880' post='2509560']
Forgive me for assuming that a readership did not need me to use 3 paragraphs to get across a very simple point, goldie, but I guess I should write with the lowest factor in mind. Here ya go my helmet-wearing friend:

If some alliance out there thinks they have the power to demand compensation for a canclled treaty, and that is what they want to do, then they will do it. They may or may not make considerations of other factors like PR or precedent-setting (Who wants to set a precedent that they may have to face in the future?).

Anyway, I would advise people against making stupid replies to facilitate insults, you'll look like goldie. Rather, incorporate insults into solid replies.
[/quote]

Again you speak in absolutes like 'will'. What is stopping MK from saying 'We want 90 mil from NSO for having RV in the alliance or else we will destroy you'. They have the power to do it, and I'm fairly certain it would be something they'd love to do, but they don't do it. But according to you, anything someone wants to do that they have the power to do, they will do. Which is completely illogical and thankfully for this game, isn't close to true.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289419880' post='2509560']
e: Oh, good, he pointed out his own pettiness.
[/quote]

If you remove the 'will' from your argument it makes it a useless post.

"Alliances will do whatever they think they have the power to do."

Becomes:

"Alliances can do things".

Which do you want it to be? The irrational and illogical response you made, or the useless and obvious correction you seem to want to make it?

Excellent contribution to the thread, and CN as a whole Schatt.

[Schattenmann]

goldielax [b]will[/b] show his ass if he feels he can.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289420506' post='2509568']
Excellent contribution to the thread, and CN as a whole Schatt.
[/quote]
[i]Are you crying?[/i]

Edited November 10, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Jay Z]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289420318' post='2509564']
Again you speak in absolutes like 'will'. What is stopping MK from saying 'We want 90 mil from NSO for having RV in the alliance or else we will destroy you'. They have the power to do it, and I'm fairly certain it would be something they'd love to do, but they don't do it. But according to you, anything someone wants to do that they have the power to do, they will do. Which is completely illogical and thankfully for this game, isn't close to true.
[/quote]

Do you not think that the reason they do not do this is because of the PR ramifications, and the setting of a precedent that they don't want to set?

Reminder, this is an OOC forum.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289420639' post='2509571']
goldielax [b]will[/b] show his ass if he feels he can.
[/quote]
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289419880' post='2509560']
Anyway, I would advise people against making stupid replies to facilitate insults, you'll look like goldie. Rather, incorporate insults into solid replies.
[/quote]

I miss the old Schatt, you used to be able to string together two decent retorts in a row before resorting to straight up baiting/incompetence.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Jay Z' timestamp='1289420827' post='2509574']
Do you not think that the reason they do not do this is because of the PR ramifications, and the setting of a precedent that they don't want to set?

Reminder, this is an OOC forum.
[/quote]

There are all sorts of reasons why they don't do that, but if it is something they want to do, then why would they care that it is setting a precedent or not?

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289421079' post='2509578']
There are all sorts of reasons why they don't do that, but if it is something they want to do, then why would they care that it is setting a precedent or not?
[/quote]
Because people don't only consider the present state of affairs, and know that any precedent they create now could just as easily be used against them in the future.

[Goldie]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1289421292' post='2509580']
Because people don't only consider the present state of affairs, and know that any precedent they create now could just as easily be used against them in the future.
[/quote]

Right, but I'm still not buying that as the driving reason why people don't do things, so much as I would agree if people were saying "alliances don't do whatever they want willy nilly because they just don't desire to".

[Jay Z]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289421079' post='2509578']
There are [b]all sorts of reasons[/b] why they don't do that, but if it is something they want to do, then why would they care that it is setting a precedent or not?
[/quote]

What I meant to imply was that the bolded part is the reason why they do not do what they do. There are other deterrents to taking advantage of an alliance you have military might over (see: Vox Populi).

[Schattenmann]

My answer/opinion to the OP is very simple:

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289419880' post='2509560']
If some alliance out there thinks they have the power to demand compensation for a cancelled treaty, and that is what they want to do, then they will do it. They may or may not make considerations of other factors like PR or precedent-setting (Who wants to set a precedent that they may have to face in the future?).
[/quote]

People do what they want to do. MK demanded reps because they wanted to and they have the power to do it, so they did it. NPO stomped alliances from time to time when less severe resolutions could have been reached because they wanted to and they had the power to.

Whatever an alliance wants to do and is has the power to do, it will do. If it doesn't do something, it either didn't want to, or didn't have the power to.

[Sargun II]

Schattenmann is not saying "alliances can do things", he's saying that if alliances [b]want[/b] to and [b]can[/b] do something, they will - and while you may say that this is a pointless contribution, it actually answers the question. If an alliance felt like dropping a treaty is justification for something, and they can do it, and they want to, they will - and it will be justification for them regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Schattenmann is wrong because he is right? I don't think so.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289418670' post='2509545']
Alliances will do whatever they think they have the power to do, [b]and see an obvious benefit to do.[/b][/quote]

Fixed it for you.

[Joseph Black]

Thank you all for the replies. So the common theme among answers is that Might makes Right?

The reason I ask is, because I'm doing a ethics paper over cultural relativism, but I'm not permitted to used real world examples

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1289422442' post='2509599']
Fixed it for you.
[/quote]
That's more of a rational actor economic thing than reality. Alliances do things they want to do but which don't necessarily benefit them all the time; for example, MK's recent shens.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1289422564' post='2509603']
Thank you all for the replies. So the common theme among answers is that Might makes Right?
[/quote]
No. Power imparts ability.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289422588' post='2509604']
That's more of a rational actor economic thing than reality. Alliances do things they want to do but which don't necessarily benefit them all the time; for example, MK's recent shens.
[/quote]

The issue is that they THOUGHT it would benefit them. They thought they could squeeze NSO of 15 mil and 250 tech rather easily. The fact that it blew up in their face was a result of arrogance and over-eagerness. I assume they didn’t anticipate a monumental log dump that framed them being extortionists… If they would have never happened, they would have made out like bandits.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1289422564' post='2509603']
Thank you all for the replies. So the common theme among answers is that Might makes Right?

The reason I ask is, because I'm doing a ethics paper over cultural relativism, but I'm not permitted to used real world examples
[/quote]

In that case, I think the whole MK thing is a really bad example. It's not something that is common on our planet, and there's no reason to think it'll continue after all the flaming MK has seen. Then again... I have been wrong before.