On Paper

[Hereno]

I'd like to think I know PC and iFOK well enough to be able to say with confidence that they're not spineless cowards, or heartless tech-raiding buffoons, or anything nasty in-between. I completely understand why they decided to sit out, and in their position, I might have even done the same exact thing if I were able to view the situation from their perspective. This thread is not about them, at least not in any direct fashion, though this and other events are what inspired my writing.* My problem is with the growing trend on both sides of the web, where alliances are manipulating the wording of treaties and the situations around them to avoid war at any cost; especially in cases where their allies are perceived as "screwing up". Any alliance can choose to defend any other at any time, with or without a treaty, because treaties are not the end all of who can fight who. This is why in their announcement, PC and iFOK felt the need to ward off 'bandwagoners'. We also saw this in action recently when MK's ex-allies (at the time) chose to defend them from any attacks, despite there being no paper treaty. Friends can always help out their friends if they so desire.

The significance of a 'paper' treaty is supposed to be a declaration that no matter what the circumstance, this will be the way we handle things. It is a mandate; either to consider defending/attacking (in an optional clause) in all cases, or a statement that there is absolutely no case in which your alliance would sit back and watch the other get pounded on and not help them (in a mandatory clause). There should be no 'wishes' involved in that; a treaty should always be honored, or else why bother writing it down? Maybe if we could all have the foresight to keep a greater sense of reservation about which allies we put down on paper and in what capacity, there wouldn't be a need to always have an 'out' in case of screw-ups. Treaties would mean a whole lot more, and we could all have a lot more fun, too. Everyone would be able to take much bigger risks, because every single war we started wouldn't chain to every single alliance in existence. At least not on paper, which would finally have meaning other than good intentions.

* Reiteration: This thread is not to discuss the recent war. Do that in the appropriate thread(s) (ie. not here).

[Rebounder]

I've always agreed completely with this sentiment. The only exception, I believe, to this rule, should be if the attacked alliance specifically asks its treaty partners to refrain from attacking. If the attacked alliance knows it could bring down its entire side of the treaty web by escalating the war, then to simply take the beating alone is the strategically best solution.

[Hereno]

It is true, that strategically, that is the best course of action. However, at what point would we draw the line at when strategy should go out the window and treaties should be honored to their wording? Alliance A, a small alliance, is MDP'd to alliance B, which is much larger and has many powerful allies. Alliance B is attacked, and their larger allies who are all MDP+ come to their aid because of this. Alliance A, however, is much smaller than any other party on either side, and is likely to be concentrated on by the aggressors if they enter, in order to force a surrender (either by alliance A or by A&B's coalition). It would be strategically favorable, then, to refrain from honoring the treaty. So then would it be acceptable to disregard the mandatory defense required by the treaty?

I would not be against the idea of adding "our wishes" clauses to treaties; but most current treaties do not have these. I'd be interested to hear anyone's take on that.

[Jens of the desert]

I think what people don't realise is it wasn't really their "choice" as much as you'd think. NEW asked them to not step in, and being the honourable alliances they are, they went by these wishes, as they would have either way.