What Does a Treaty Mean These Days?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295764801' post='2593414']
I'm unsure where I said actions should not have consequences. Nor did I criticise GOD for cancelling that treaty. I agree with you with regards to the need for more alliances to respect what treaties stand for more than they currently do.
[/quote]

No, you didnt say that personally, I am saying that is the environment which discourages people from doing what you are calling for. It was just your comment that you couldnt and shouldnt control who your allies treaty that brought it to mind. You shouldnt control who they ally, but you certainly *should* be able to downgrade or cancel entirely treaties if they make choices you cant stand behind. Yet if you do, you will be pilloried for it, while if you dont, and then later that puts you in a position where you break your word because of it, you get lots of support for 'making a tough decision' and that rot.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1295757748' post='2592929']
Your problem lies with too many alliances to begin with. I'm offering a solution. Cull the herd.
[/quote]
You know, I never see anyone that makes this idiotic argument volunteering to help with the "problem" by disbanding their own alliance.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1295765166' post='2593427']
No, you didnt say that personally, I am saying that is the environment which discourages people from doing what you are calling for. It was just your comment that you couldnt and shouldnt control who your allies treaty that brought it to mind. You shouldnt control who they ally, but you certainly *should* be able to downgrade or cancel entirely treaties if they make choices you cant stand behind. Yet if you do, you will be pilloried for it, while if you dont, and then later that puts you in a position where you break your word because of it, you get lots of support for 'making a tough decision' and that rot.
[/quote]

Of course you can cancel treaties if your ally signs a treaty with someone you do not want to be associated with. If you are ridiculed for doing so, I don't see that being a reason not to go ahead with your decision or to make a similar decision later on. If you make such a decision then you make it for a reason and what people say about it should not chage the reason at all.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295766625' post='2593493']
Of course you can cancel treaties if your ally signs a treaty with someone you do not want to be associated with. If you are ridiculed for doing so, I don't see that being a reason not to go ahead with your decision or to make a similar decision later on. If you make such a decision then you make it for a reason and what people say about it should not chage the reason at all.
[/quote]
Nemesis got hammered (and me along with them for my support) for cancelling on LoSS when LoSS signed with TOOL. Literally raked over the coals. GOD just came off a serious thrashing for doing the same thing with GOONS.
That is the problem with the idiots in charge of alliances in this game; they don't understand the concept of having a foreign policy with more nuance "than 1 MDP good, 2 MDP better."

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1295765961' post='2593467']
You know, I never see anyone that makes this idiotic argument volunteering to help with the "problem" by disbanding their own alliance.
[/quote]
Yevgeni is in the alliance that just one about half of last years awards, why should we disband?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1295767043' post='2593506']
Nemesis got hammered (and me along with them for my support) for cancelling on LoSS when LoSS signed with TOOL. Literally raked over the coals. GOD just came off a serious thrashing for doing the same thing with GOONS.
That is the problem with the idiots in charge of alliances in this game; they don't understand the concept of having a foreign policy with more nuance "than 1 MDP good, 2 MDP better."
[/quote]

Unfortunately idiots will always be around to make noise about these things.

[quote name='Azaghul]
Yevgeni is in the alliance that just one about half of last years awards, why should we disband?
[/quote]

So your alliance can no longer rush polls for next year's awards?

[Tiggah]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295767578' post='2593522']
Yevgeni is in the alliance that just one about half of last years awards, why should we disband?
[/quote]

Not to mention an alliance of a hundred plus members disbanding would only result in a bunch of splinter alliances forming and exacerbate the issue.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295767578' post='2593522']
Yevgeni is in the alliance that just one about half of last years awards, why should we disband?
[/quote]
Yeah, the awards that awarded the same alliance most honorable and most dishonorable is definitely the gauge of which alliances should not disband to solve the problem of too many alliances.

[quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1295767856' post='2593526']
Not to mention an alliance of a hundred plus members disbanding would only result in a bunch of splinter alliances forming and exacerbate the issue.
[/quote]
Oh, a self-replicating problem. I guess the "too many alliances" camp has some work to do on their philosophy.

[hammer]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1295753784' post='2592837']
Going treatyless isn't the solution. It may look like it but it's definitely not unless you want virtually every war to become global.
[/quote]

A. Untrue
B. Even if it were - what's the problem?

[Golan 1st]

Personally, I have never considered treaties a necessary condition to legitimately enter a war and while I believe in honouring treaties as a rule, I don't believe in them as carte blanche for your treaty partners and can easily imagine situations where I would oppose honouring a binding treaty. In essence, my view is that a treaty cannot morally justify fighting for the wrong cause and fighting for the right cause does not require a treaty.
Also, the e-lawyering notion of "a treaty giving a valid CB" is really strange, IMO. It basically means that alliances are expected to accept what they would otherwise consider being wronged because of a treaty they have no part in (for example, if VE's cause in this war is just, NpO's treaties are not VE's concern and therefore the attacks of NpO's allies on VE and its allies are illegitimate from VE's POV).
What treaties are good for, IMO, is to serve as a deterrent and to give some kind of a framework for cooperation between alliances.

[SyndicatedINC]

Good on you Tyga, though as Locke mentions, this is not the first time this has been brought up, and to failure. Thus congrats for saying what so many feel, and provoking the conversation, kudos!

In regards to the topic. I hail from Avalon, and since we are small many are probably unfamiliar with just how anti-treaty we have been for our entire existence. Case in point we refuse to even call them treaties (we use the term Oathe of Brotherhood as we feel it better describes it), but we have rejected dozens of offers, and have taken in with few others. To us a treaty is NOT a means of advancing a political agenda for the world, but rather a sign of lasting friendship, respect, or relationship between the two alliances.

Perhaps therein lies the problem, rather than treat a treaty as an insurance policy one holds with a friend, people treat them as a means of shaping the battlefield of the next global war to further their political aims.

Again back to Avalon's philosophy, ALL elements of our Oathes are optional, based upon our value system. We inform our friends of such going into things, and we expect nothing less in return. Meaning if we find ourselves on opposing sides of a world coalition, no hard feelings, as we each are fighting for what we believe, and well we would not want to be friends with someone if they did not do that.

I would argue that the problem stems from coalition fights, not being ACTUAL coalition fights. Instead you have alliance A declares on alliance B, then C and D declare on A, so E declares on C, etc etc. We get a giant game of paper-rock-scissors, and tons of people walk away angry and hurt.

Instead a true coalition would involve EVERYONE on the side of Alliance A declaring on Alliance B, C, and D, not just stemming on the outside. Sure it would still involves applying pressure with slots to certain groups, but this convoluted structure just breeds abuse of a treaty system.

Bottom line, if an alliance is involved in the current conflict as part of the VE side, then declare war on Polar and EVERYONE on the other side, joining EVERYONE on the VE side, if an alliance is really on the Polar side, then declare war on VE and EVERYONE on their side joining EVERYONE on the VE side. If you want to support your friends who are fighting in the one of the coalitions, join up with them, if you dont want to fight for that side than dont. If you have friends on both sides and are so worried about fighting against one or the other, than stay out, because clearly you dont care enough about either cause to fight for it, you care more about not engaging your friends.

However what we have today is a system wherein Global conflicts and coalition wars over ideals, are really just being treated as if they were a bunch of small scale conflicts, which if that is the case they should be treated as being unrelated to one another, and issues such as the SF situation should not exist. I man if SF members simply happened to involve themselves in two separate unconnected wars at the same time, no big deal right? So why the complaining? Oh because people see actual 'sides' and a split, despite people not stepping up and actually fighting for a "side" but for a 'friend' or 'treaty'. If you are fighting for a friend/treaty not an ideal, then you are NOT part of the coalition.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Golan 1st' timestamp='1295785188' post='2593822']
Personally, I have never considered treaties a necessary condition to legitimately enter a war and while I believe in honouring treaties as a rule, I don't believe in them as carte blanche for your treaty partners and can easily imagine situations where I would oppose honouring a binding treaty. In essence, my view is that a treaty cannot morally justify fighting for the wrong cause and fighting for the right cause does not require a treaty.[/quote]

I pretty much agree, which is why I have always opposed MADPacts on principle.


[quote]Also, the e-lawyering notion of "a treaty giving a valid CB" is really strange, IMO. It basically means that alliances are expected to accept what they would otherwise consider being wronged because of a treaty they have no part in (for example, if VE's cause in this war is just, NpO's treaties are not VE's concern and therefore the attacks of NpO's allies on VE and its allies are illegitimate from VE's POV).
What treaties are good for, IMO, is to serve as a deterrent and to give some kind of a framework for cooperation between alliances.
[/quote]

They also serve as a sort of notice system. I believe it was Tautology that pointed to this function very recently, when he said something along the lines of anyone that hit NpO without getting his agreement first would be attacked. Public treaties are a way to put everyone on notice that "Alliance A are our friends and if you have a beef with them, however legitimate it may be, you are still going to have to come to US with it and give us a chance to work it out peacefully, or we WILL fall on you like a ton of bricks."

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1295671285' post='2590843']
Another solution to going treaty-less is going with more specific treaties. If we required our treaty partners to defend us regardless of treaty conflict then the treaty would have more meaning. Then they either have to cancel or defend. I think the practice of outright ignoring treaties and staying neutral has helped get us here as well... That practice should be ridiculed endlessly.
[/quote]
I know I'm late to the party...but this is exactly what I've been advocating lately. A big part of the problem is that the MDP system just doesn't reflect the reality of how wars are fought. People sign with a few friends - as much for OOC reasons as IC - but all significant wars are fought between conglomerations of several large power clusters. All anyone really needs for the standard level of protection is a single MDP tying them to the web, because then attacking you for a lame reason probably means global war. Once you have more than 1 MDP with the web you're either (redundantly) reinforcing which power cluster you're allied to, or setting yourself up for a conflict.

One answer to this, as Ragashingo mentioned, is to be much, much more specific about what circumstances the treaty is meant for. So (if you really feel the need to) agree to defend a few members from one bloc from unprovoked attacks, while letting them know that in a global war situation, you roll with another group. Better yet, don't sign any MDP's with the web until you decide to pick a side because you perceive an indentifiable threat, and even then keep it limited to addressing that threat.