Terminus Est Declaration.

[Licorice]

So people are realizing that paperless is essentially the same thing as having paper just.... without paper. Let's say Arrgh and Roz decide that they will defend each other if they were attacked.... that's the same thing as signing an MDP. 

 

I've never really understood the premise of paperless because it's essentially the same thing as having paper but instead of paper it's just handshake agreements. If BK were paperless we would have the same exact agreements in place as we do now. So why not throw in some paper so it's official?

 

I'm genuinely wondering what arguments for paperless there are. I've never been in a paperless alliance so I've never experienced it first hand, so maybe someone can enlighten me.

 

Let say being paperless give us a degree of freedom to do whatever we want without caring about what other people think.

 

For example tEst, Arrgh, RW have the option to hit literally every single alliances in the game without having to heard something like "but we're allies!!" for the simple reason being we're not and we don't care. And as much as I despise the neutral menace, you can't deny that their play style is different and actually bring another flavor to the game no matter how horrible it is.

 

Paperless group are wild card, we have no sure allies other than ourselves. Sure tEst is technically part of Syndisphere but nothing stop them from hitting t$ if it comes down to it; same goes for this agreement, tEst can roll our entire upper tier because we pissed them off and we won't be butthurt about it for the simple reason of they may not always stay our ally unlike papered alliance being bound by treaties and common enemies.

[Truerror]

So people are realizing that paperless is essentially the same thing as having paper just.... without paper. Let's say Arrgh and Roz decide that they will defend each other if they were attacked.... that's the same thing as signing an MDP. 

 

I've never really understood the premise of paperless because it's essentially the same thing as having paper but instead of paper it's just handshake agreements. If BK were paperless we would have the same exact agreements in place as we do now. So why not throw in some paper so it's official?

 

I'm genuinely wondering what arguments for paperless there are. I've never been in a paperless alliance so I've never experienced it first hand, so maybe someone can enlighten me.

 

That part I emphasized. That's pretty much the explanation you seek about the difference between paper and paperless.

 

As for why you'd want to be paperless, the main argument for it would be flexibility. In paper alliances, you're bound to the words in you're treaty document. If something goes wrong, one side will argue for the "spirit of the treaty", while the other would argue for "words as written". And third parties would take sides. Then things get ugly.

 

I think a good example of this would be TKR in NPO's First Time. Despite all the good intentions they might have (or not, I don't know), they still get some flak for purportedly breaking a treaty.

 

This is where being paperless is advantageous. You have no written, defined treaty. So if you, for example, say "I'm gonna help A", you have the flexibility to choose how exactly you're going to help A. Maybe it's military. Maybe financial. Maybe both. And while a form of "contract" exists, you don't really have to obey a written document which states what form of help you should give, as long as you actually help A.

 

I hope that satisfies your curiosity. I accept burgers as payment for my tutoring services. I know you have lots.

 

 

 

TL;DR: I taught you something. Now give me burgers.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Truerror

[Sargun]

"we don't have paper because we didn't specifically say what we're doing"

 

"but you specifically said you're protecting roz wei"

 

"okay but it doesn't count because we didn't make it detailed"

 

dude that doesn't make it not a treaty that just makes it a really shitty treaty. jfc

Edited August 14, 2016 by Sargun

[Yosodog]

Let say being paperless give us a degree of freedom to do whatever we want without caring about what other people think.

 

For example tEst, Arrgh, RW have the option to hit literally every single alliances in the game without having to heard something like "but we're allies!!" for the simple reason being we're not and we don't care. And as much as I despise the neutral menace, you can't deny that their play style is different and actually bring another flavor to the game no matter how horrible it is.

 

Paperless group are wild card, we have no sure allies other than ourselves. Sure tEst is technically part of Syndisphere but nothing stop them from hitting t$ if it comes down to it; same goes for this agreement, tEst can roll our entire upper tier because we pissed them off and we won't be butthurt about it for the simple reason of they may not always stay our ally unlike papered alliance being bound by treaties and common enemies.

 

But you can do the same thing as a paper alliance, and it has happened a couple times before too. There's no treaty police that are going to come and arrest you if you do what you want. No one's stopping BK from hitting Rose or UPN, and if we wanted to tomorrow we would. No one's stopping us from leaving our bloc with TKR and BoC and rolling them. Just because you have paper doesn't mean you are restricted, the only thing it does is declares to the world that you will defend them. There's cancellation clauses in treaties and in my opinion they should be used more often.

 

 

That part I emphasized. That's pretty much the explanation you seek about the difference between paper and paperless.

 

As for why you'd want to be paperless, the main argument for it would be flexibility. In paper alliances, you're bound to the words in you're treaty document. If something goes wrong, one side will argue for the "spirit of the treaty", while the other would argue for "words as written". And third parties would take sides. Then things get ugly.

 

I think a good example of this would be TKR in NPO's First Time. Despite all the good intentions they might have (or not, I don't know), they still get some flak for purportedly breaking a treaty.

 

This is where being paperless is advantageous. You have no written, defined treaty. So if you, for example, say "I'm gonna help A", you have the flexibility to choose how exactly you're going to help A. Maybe it's military. Maybe financial. Maybe both. And while a form of "contract" exists, you don't really have to obey a written document which states what form of help you should give, as long as you actually help A.

 

I hope that satisfies your curiosity. I accept burgers as payment for my tutoring services. I know you have lots.

 

I can understand the whole not being bound by paper thing, but without any treaties or agreements, you're isolating yourself and setting yourselves up to get rolled once again.

 

Taking TKR/NPO's example, let's say they were both paperless and had an agreement in place anyway, the same argument NPO used could still apply. I don't know the whole issue, but if TKR and NPO said they'd defend each other but didn't sign a treaty it's the same thing as signing a treaty.

 

Okay I can see the advantage of being able to determine how you want to help an alliance, but most treaties don't actually define what "defending" them is. eLawyering aside, it also doesn't stop the defending alliance from saying "Hey yeah, you can just send us aid." We saw Alpha call off their allies even though those allies were obligated to defend them. History has proven that just because it's on paper doesn't mean alliances can't be flexible. If Rose was attacked, BK could decide that they wanted to defend them. 

 

My main argument is that being paperless you should have agreements with other alliances to help defend you or aid you if attacked and those agreements are essentially the same thing as a treaty. You can drop a treaty at any time, you can end an agreement at any time. You can decide that you won't honor a treaty, and the out lash would be the same as if you had a handshake agreement in place. If TKR was hit and we didn't defend them, people would be pretty pissed. If we had a handshake agreement with TKR to defend them and we didn't, the same anger would occur. 

 

I'm not in any way saying that paperless is a bad thing, I just don't see the point of it. Maybe my opinion is that way because BK is very dynamic and flexible when it comes to this. If we want to do something, we'll do it. If a treaty isn't beneficial to us, we'll drop it. If we say we'll defend someone, we will, and might as well throw up a treaty because it doesn't hurt anything. If we want to get involved in a conflict that doesn't involve us, we will. If tS gets involved in a conflict that's not theirs and we don't support it, we'll tell them that and if they ignore us we can easily drop the treaty.

[Peacity Peace]

Imaginary imaginary treaties are good.

 

 

But imaginary treaties made out of paper is down right disgusting.

 

 

(before you get triggered think about this for at least 2 minutes)

[Licorice]

I'm not in any way saying that paperless is a bad thing, I just don't see the point of it. Maybe my opinion is that way because BK is very dynamic and flexible when it comes to this. If we want to do something, we'll do it. If a treaty isn't beneficial to us, we'll drop it. If we say we'll defend someone, we will, and might as well throw up a treaty because it doesn't hurt anything. If we want to get involved in a conflict that doesn't involve us, we will. If tS gets involved in a conflict that's not theirs and we don't support it, we'll tell them that and if they ignore us we can easily drop the treaty.

 

Pretty much this.

 

 

Imaginary imaginary treaties are good.

 

 

But imaginary treaties made out of paper is down right disgusting.

 

How can trees be real if our eyes aren't real.

 

No but seriously I don't understand what you meant with those two sentences.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Talerong

[Sisyphus]

Congrats Roz Wei.

 

Nit-picking criticisms aside, kudos to TEst to doing what they believe in. You've always consistently done whatever the hell you want to. Can't hate on anybody for that.

[Eumirbago]

I'm not in any way saying that paperless is a bad thing, I just don't see the point of it. Maybe my opinion is that way because BK is very dynamic and flexible when it comes to this. If we want to do something, we'll do it. If a treaty isn't beneficial to us, we'll drop it. If we say we'll defend someone, we will, and might as well throw up a treaty because it doesn't hurt anything. If we want to get involved in a conflict that doesn't involve us, we will. If tS gets involved in a conflict that's not theirs and we don't support it, we'll tell them that and if they ignore us we can easily drop the treaty.

 

Can confirm

[Doktor Avalanche]

We will respect our declaration more than many other Alliances have or will honor their Treaties.

[Peacity Peace]

We will respect our declaration more than many other Alliances have or will honor their Treaties.

 

 

[Truerror]

But you can do the same thing as a paper alliance, and it has happened a couple times before too. There's no treaty police that are going to come and arrest you if you do what you want. No one's stopping BK from hitting Rose or UPN, and if we wanted to tomorrow we would. No one's stopping us from leaving our bloc with TKR and BoC and rolling them. Just because you have paper doesn't mean you are restricted, the only thing it does is declares to the world that you will defend them. There's cancellation clauses in treaties and in my opinion they should be used more often.

 

 

 

I can understand the whole not being bound by paper thing, but without any treaties or agreements, you're isolating yourself and setting yourselves up to get rolled once again.

 

Taking TKR/NPO's example, let's say they were both paperless and had an agreement in place anyway, the same argument NPO used could still apply. I don't know the whole issue, but if TKR and NPO said they'd defend each other but didn't sign a treaty it's the same thing as signing a treaty.

 

Okay I can see the advantage of being able to determine how you want to help an alliance, but most treaties don't actually define what "defending" them is. eLawyering aside, it also doesn't stop the defending alliance from saying "Hey yeah, you can just send us aid." We saw Alpha call off their allies even though those allies were obligated to defend them. History has proven that just because it's on paper doesn't mean alliances can't be flexible. If Rose was attacked, BK could decide that they wanted to defend them. 

 

My main argument is that being paperless you should have agreements with other alliances to help defend you or aid you if attacked and those agreements are essentially the same thing as a treaty. You can drop a treaty at any time, you can end an agreement at any time. You can decide that you won't honor a treaty, and the out lash would be the same as if you had a handshake agreement in place. If TKR was hit and we didn't defend them, people would be pretty pissed. If we had a handshake agreement with TKR to defend them and we didn't, the same anger would occur. 

 

I'm not in any way saying that paperless is a bad thing, I just don't see the point of it. Maybe my opinion is that way because BK is very dynamic and flexible when it comes to this. If we want to do something, we'll do it. If a treaty isn't beneficial to us, we'll drop it. If we say we'll defend someone, we will, and might as well throw up a treaty because it doesn't hurt anything. If we want to get involved in a conflict that doesn't involve us, we will. If tS gets involved in a conflict that's not theirs and we don't support it, we'll tell them that and if they ignore us we can easily drop the treaty.

 

Alpha did call off their allies. And guess what, while it's not really a popular view, some people criticize said allies for not defending Alpha.

 

Also, the out lash for not honoring a written treaty is definitely not the same as a handshake agreement. When we fought TKR and co., Kastor said that TEst would help with the rebuilding. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't really know. He handled the talk by himself. But later on, nearing the end of the fight, several things happened and we were led to believe that no financial help is coming. Despite the seemingly confusing info all around, the general sentiment was, "oh well, both us and TEst are paperless. Guess they gotta do what they gotta do." There was virtually no backlash against TEst. Of course, with their recent announcement, this is a moot point, but I believe it serves to illustrate what kind of backlash, if any, if a paperless alliance were to retract their promise.

 

It's okay if you disagree though, paperless is not for everyone. All in all, while it might be interesting if every single alliance in Orbis is paperless, I believe it would be better if both paper and paperless exist. Ideological clash makes politics interesting, definitely more interesting than if everyone is paper, or everyone is paperless.

 

Also, I must remind you that you still owe me burgers for that tutoring session.

[Aksel]

tl;dr

 

To prove we are not signing paper/formal treaties we are formally declaring our protection over Roz Wei as a paperless alliance - that doesn't normally do this. 

[Keegoz]

If I didn't have ODPs I'd be a paperless alliance now.

 

Our MDAP doesn't have any articles or anything, all our protectorates are simply "Protected by Rose". I do support less paper in this game but I feel it a little odd that by this definition I am that close to being a paperless alliance.

 

In saying that, for protection reasons I do believe even paperless alliances need to announce such things.

[Yosodog]

Alpha did call off their allies. And guess what, while it's not really a popular view, some people criticize said allies for not defending Alpha.

 

Also, the out lash for not honoring a written treaty is definitely not the same as a handshake agreement. When we fought TKR and co., Kastor said that TEst would help with the rebuilding. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't really know. He handled the talk by himself. But later on, nearing the end of the fight, several things happened and we were led to believe that no financial help is coming. Despite the seemingly confusing info all around, the general sentiment was, "oh well, both us and TEst are paperless. Guess they gotta do what they gotta do." There was virtually no backlash against TEst. Of course, with their recent announcement, this is a moot point, but I believe it serves to illustrate what kind of backlash, if any, if a paperless alliance were to retract their promise.

 

It's okay if you disagree though, paperless is not for everyone. All in all, while it might be interesting if every single alliance in Orbis is paperless, I believe it would be better if both paper and paperless exist. Ideological clash makes politics interesting, definitely more interesting than if everyone is paper, or everyone is paperless.

 

Also, I must remind you that you still owe me burgers for that tutoring session.

 

Those people who blame Alpha's allies for not going in are crazy lmao I wanted them to go in so we would've had a war, but personally I have no issues with it. It was a losing war and Alpha decided to take one for the team, nothing wrong with that. Their allies were ready to come in and Alpha said no. Anyways...

 

I guess it's personal opinion about lashing out for not following through with your word. I think if you say you're going to do something and you don't, you better have a very good explanation for doing so. If I'm paperless and I say I'm going to defend you and I don't, isn't that the same thing as signing a treaty and not following through with it?

 

If you like peanut butter burgers I can hook you up. Peanut butter burgers, sounds !@#$ing delicious. 

 

Pretty much this.

 

 

How can trees be real if our eyes aren't real.

 

No but seriously I don't understand what you meant with those two sentences.

 

What I was trying to portray is that just because your alliance has paper doesn't mean they're restricted on what they can and cannot do. There's no rule book that alliances must follow. If we want to do something we will, pretty simple as that.

[DVDCCHN]

Alpha did call off their allies. And guess what, while it's not really a popular view, some people criticize said allies for not defending Alpha.

 

Also, the out lash for not honoring a written treaty is definitely not the same as a handshake agreement. When we fought TKR and co., Kastor said that TEst would help with the rebuilding. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't really know. He handled the talk by himself. But later on, nearing the end of the fight, several things happened and we were led to believe that no financial help is coming. Despite the seemingly confusing info all around, the general sentiment was, "oh well, both us and TEst are paperless. Guess they gotta do what they gotta do." There was virtually no backlash against TEst. Of course, with their recent announcement, this is a moot point, but I believe it serves to illustrate what kind of backlash, if any, if a paperless alliance were to retract their promise.

 

It's okay if you disagree though, paperless is not for everyone. All in all, while it might be interesting if every single alliance in Orbis is paperless, I believe it would be better if both paper and paperless exist. Ideological clash makes politics interesting, definitely more interesting than if everyone is paper, or everyone is paperless.

 

Also, I must remind you that you still owe me burgers for that tutoring session.

 

so after this grand OP and all this discussion, nothing has changed. tEst had the option to defend you prior and they declined. then a rumor they may help you financially, (granted that came from Kastor) and declined. now a statement that tEst is paperless and champion of the paperless cause,  may or may not protect Roz Wei, only in a way it deems fit.  however, Roz is under tEst protection..... what is new about this?

[Sisyphus]

In saying that, for protection reasons I do believe even paperless alliances need to announce such things.

I'll agree with you on this.

 

I think the altruistic nature of protectorate agreements sets them apart from the classic "paper" treaty, maybe only slightly but all the same.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Peacity Peace]

No but seriously I don't understand what you meant with those two sentences.

 

Basically saying that "paperless" alliances have just as much freedom to do what they want as alliances with paper.

 

While also making fun of Pre. 

[Truerror]

Those people who blame Alpha's allies for not going in are crazy lmao I wanted them to go in so we would've had a war, but personally I have no issues with it. It was a losing war and Alpha decided to take one for the team, nothing wrong with that. Their allies were ready to come in and Alpha said no. Anyways...

 

I guess it's personal opinion about lashing out for not following through with your word. I think if you say you're going to do something and you don't, you better have a very good explanation for doing so. If I'm paperless and I say I'm going to defend you and I don't, isn't that the same thing as signing a treaty and not following through with it?

 

If you like peanut butter burgers I can hook you up. Peanut butter burgers, sounds !@#$ delicious. 

 

 

What I was trying to portray is that just because your alliance has paper doesn't mean they're restricted on what they can and cannot do. There's no rule book that alliances must follow. If we want to do something we will, pretty simple as that.

 

It's all about personal opinion, Yoso. It's always about personal opinion. The thing is, because it's all personal opinion, there will be people who take things too seriously and throw expletives to the other guy because "they're not honoring their treaty". At least, with paperless alliance, this risk is minimized.

 

Yes, I accept peanut butter burgers. I'll pick them up when I come around BK's residence.

 

 

so after this grand OP and all this discussion, nothing has changed. tEst had the option to defend you prior and they declined. then a rumor they may help you financially, (granted that came from Kastor) and declined. now a statement that tEst is paperless and champion of the paperless cause,  may or may not protect Roz Wei, only in a way it deems fit.  however, Roz is under tEst protection..... what is new about this?

 

Nothing is new. I was just tutoring Yoso about the concept of paperless alliance. As you know, Yoso is a doge. So, while having the advantage of being able to produce dank memes, he often has troubles with formalizing concepts. Thus the tutoring session.

 

Also, about that bolded part, uh, yeah. It came from Kazy. I guess you know how we regard the info back then.  

[Licorice]

@Yoso

The last bit was for Peacity though, I get want you're trying to say.

 

Also 2 nutella burgers plz

[Kastor]

so after this grand OP and all this discussion, nothing has changed. tEst had the option to defend you prior and they declined. then a rumor they may help you financially, (granted that came from Kastor) and declined. now a statement that tEst is paperless and champion of the paperless cause,  may or may not protect Roz Wei, only in a way it deems fit.  however, Roz is under tEst protection..... what is new about this?

I don't remember ever stating TEst was going to help us financially. Don't put words in my mouth, though your side loves to twist what I say.

[Peacity Peace]

wew

 

lad

Edited August 14, 2016 by Peacity Peace

[Prefonteen]

But you can do the same thing as a paper alliance, and it has happened a couple times before too. There's no treaty police that are going to come and arrest you if you do what you want. No one's stopping BK from hitting Rose or UPN, and if we wanted to tomorrow we would. No one's stopping us from leaving our bloc with TKR and BoC and rolling them. Just because you have paper doesn't mean you are restricted, the only thing it does is declares to the world that you will defend them. There's cancellation clauses in treaties and in my opinion they should be used more often.

 

 

 

I can understand the whole not being bound by paper thing, but without any treaties or agreements, you're isolating yourself and setting yourselves up to get rolled once again.

 

Taking TKR/NPO's example, let's say they were both paperless and had an agreement in place anyway, the same argument NPO used could still apply. I don't know the whole issue, but if TKR and NPO said they'd defend each other but didn't sign a treaty it's the same thing as signing a treaty.

 

Okay I can see the advantage of being able to determine how you want to help an alliance, but most treaties don't actually define what "defending" them is. eLawyering aside, it also doesn't stop the defending alliance from saying "Hey yeah, you can just send us aid." We saw Alpha call off their allies even though those allies were obligated to defend them. History has proven that just because it's on paper doesn't mean alliances can't be flexible. If Rose was attacked, BK could decide that they wanted to defend them. 

 

My main argument is that being paperless you should have agreements with other alliances to help defend you or aid you if attacked and those agreements are essentially the same thing as a treaty. You can drop a treaty at any time, you can end an agreement at any time. You can decide that you won't honor a treaty, and the out lash would be the same as if you had a handshake agreement in place. If TKR was hit and we didn't defend them, people would be pretty pissed. If we had a handshake agreement with TKR to defend them and we didn't, the same anger would occur. 

 

I'm not in any way saying that paperless is a bad thing, I just don't see the point of it. Maybe my opinion is that way because BK is very dynamic and flexible when it comes to this. If we want to do something, we'll do it. If a treaty isn't beneficial to us, we'll drop it. If we say we'll defend someone, we will, and might as well throw up a treaty because it doesn't hurt anything. If we want to get involved in a conflict that doesn't involve us, we will. If tS gets involved in a conflict that's not theirs and we don't support it, we'll tell them that and if they ignore us we can easily drop the treaty.

 

brb, putting you to the test.

 

Dance puppet, dance.

[Peacity Peace]

brb, putting you to the test.

 

Dance puppet, dance.

 

Badum tss?

[Ogaden]

I like it

[Yosodog]

brb, putting you to the test.

 

Dance puppet, dance.

 

You're my !@#$ now Partisan.

 

Try me. I dare you.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Yosodog