Popular Post Raphael Posted August 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 22, 2019 "[...] generally the rule has been, treaty means you are in [...]" There will be no pictures in this wall of text, no fancy gifs or graphics to distract you. Just the ramblings of an old man, burdened with the ideals of the past. Not calling out anyone specifically, but this quote spurred a thought. I personally believe, as stated multiple times, that treaties have a negative impact on an alliance's ability to conduct itself. I truly believe that people who will not act unless obligated via meaningless paper are cowards of the highest order. Friends should defend friends, and people should play the realpolitik game and strategically conduct wars. All that being said, there seems to be a weird twisting of what a treaty does and what a treaty inherently is and how it applies to coalition warfare. So let's look at what a treaty is. A mutual pact is a pact that requires both parties to provide some form of assistance in the event of aggressive attack on the other. Typically these are military treaties and both parties are obligated to defend each other. An optional pact is implicit in the name, but similar to a mutual pact. A protectorate is a one-way defensive agreement where one alliance obligates itself to the protection of another. Typically how we help new or very small alliances but there are exceptions to this rule aplenty. Establishing these inalienable facts and acknowledging that every single treaty at present is a defensive pact, why does coalition warfare operate from another set of rules? Somehow, treaties are now treated as Casus Belli in themselves and the aggressor parties are striking out against defensive pact holders. Usually we see this in the form of a pre-empt for strategic purposes or we see how treaties chain multiple jumps away from the initial affected alliance to pull in a coalition of defenders. Now we appear to be setting a new, in my opinion dangerous, trend that any tangential treaty - no matter how distant - if it relates to a current war then that tangential treaty is either a threat to be dealt with or leverage to be used against the original affected parties. This precedent not only nullifies the purpose, intent, and language of most treaties in the game; but it also creates an atmosphere where the primary tool of defensive and peaceful intentions is now twisted into potentially painting a target on your back. Otherwise known as guilt by association. I don't need to explain to my expert forum arguers that this is a classic logical fallacy. As much as I think more alliances should go paperless or reduce their paper, I also think it's important to stand up and point out when things aren't right. Attacking uninvolved parties with no strategic value is wrong, especially when the aggressors have determined themselves the pre-disposed "winners." Conflict, and the expansion of conflict through strategic choices and pre-empts on potential actors, is a necessity to the activity and life of this world. Utilizing the existence of tangential treaties, suspected ties, and general association as a casus belli on parties who chose not to involve themselves takes agency out of the hands of each individual - as well as the alliance overall. Agency and individuality is the core of any piece of enjoyment that we derive from what we do. Thusly, this practice should be condemned by the entire community, not just whichever side profits most from it. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Pot meet kettle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Meyer Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 I didn't read the actual post just the title but both sounds about right so I'll go with that. Both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 There wasn't a tl;dr version. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosier Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 TL;DR: he's upset that BK attacked his alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifex Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Alliances can do whatever they please. Any arbitrary law based around treaties is pointless and foolish. Quote Love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, Rosier said: TL;DR: he's upset that BK attacked his alliance. Yeah oddly enough people who are retired from politics didn't want to be involved with this incredibly salty shitshow. Can you really blame them? Aside from that, war deserters don't get opinions nor the right to call out others. Please keep this in mind for the future. 1 minute ago, Malleator said: Alliances can do whatever they please. Any arbitrary law based around treaties is pointless and foolish. Then why have treaties at all? Why not a paperless world where all do they as please for whatever reason they please? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 We all already do as we please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Akuryo said: Yeah oddly enough people who are retired from politics didn't want to be involved with this incredibly salty shitshow. Can you really blame them? Aside from that, war deserters don't get opinions nor the right to call out others. Please keep this in mind for the future. Then why have treaties at all? Why not a paperless world where all do they as please for whatever reason they please? It's difficult to be "retired" from the game. The game has always been about people getting hit because they can be hit. There's never been a protected sanctuary where someone could choose not to participate in the political game. GPA was rolled and TFP when it was neutral was rolled. Everyone with the strength to do so has always hit whoever they could get away with in terms of neutrals. The paperless world was the format of the early game for the most part but once a cold war began between two paperless alliances(Rose/SK) and also they were working together with Guardian to position against VE so they all started signing treaties to secure people on their side, but their affiliations were known before that. The treaties exist on paper now since people feel they need them for the security and some alliances never practiced paperless as an endgoal thing like Syndicate who became the influencers after the fall of the initial hegemony. Edited August 22, 2019 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Treaties mostly exist as public announcements of an alliance's foreign ties. They characterize those relationships somewhat - ODPs aren't the same MDPs - but, in practice, the actual language of most treaties is all but ignored. Because treaties aren't used as reliable generators of acceptable casus belli, they're not particularly relevant as mechanisms for fighting wars. War coalitions are instead determined by personal relationships and shared priorities, and alliances' entrances into wars into wars are almost never explicitly justified by treaty clauses. It's interesting to me that some of the same people who are quick to decry neutrals, deadbeat protectorates, and pixel huggers in general seem to feel it's an entirely different matter if someone is "retired". If the extent of someone's retirement is great enough that they don't even want to fight wars, they should strongly consider entering vacation mode, or at least find protectors capable of deterring potential aggressors. It's what everyone else has to do. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 (edited) He said, as he stood in the shadow of the arrgh banner. Edited August 22, 2019 by Prefonteen 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singha Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 These seems to be the base guidelines of what a treaty are (in relation to real life). I do believe Protectorate treaties can get complicated, depending on what is agreed between the protector and the protected. Traditionally, in terms of real life, the protector may require tribute or manpower from the protected. Each treaty is different on it's on. The protected is self-governed and independent but it's FA may be affected in that regard that they are bound to their protectors. What I'm getting at is, this is simplified but doesn't go over the complicated part of what a protectorate is. A protectorate is also a form of "client state." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zim Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Edward I said: It's interesting to me that some of the same people who are quick to decry neutrals, deadbeat protectorates, and pixel huggers in general seem to feel it's an entirely different matter if someone is "retired". If the extent of someone's retirement is great enough that they don't even want to fight wars, they should strongly consider entering vacation mode, or at least find protectors capable of deterring potential aggressors. It's what everyone else has to do. Well the difference between retired and "deadbeat protectorates, and pixel huggers" as you call them is, that retired already have done alot of both their original alliance, and the game as a whole. They invisted time, energy and money, over several years. Asking them to go on VM, afterall they have done for game, just because they not able to be as active as they where in the past, is outright cruel. They have fought their wars, Yarr and by extension Swagrr is made up of mainly former high ranking Arrgh members. The alliance that have without a doubt, taken a part in more wars then any other alliance. Who's normal playstyle can admittedly be exhausting in the long run. Even so if they able to become more active again, they often either rejoin Arrgh, join Grumpy, or end up as alliance leader of some other alliance. My guess is, other alliances retirement homes, work much the same, else they just stay around as half-inactive whales. But back to treaties. Treaties being used as a casus belli, is nothing new: "Few people seem to realize that treaties themselves have significant downsides which erode your sovereignty, earn you enemies and makes you a target for wars, the exact things that treaties are supposed to protect you from." As said by Ogaden in 2015. It's explain Arrgh stand on treaties, why we choose not just to be, but stay as a paperless alliance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Zim said: Well the difference between retired and "deadbeat protectorates, and pixel huggers" as you call them is, that retired already have done alot of both their original alliance, and the game as a whole. They invisted time, energy and money, over several years. Asking them to go on VM, afterall they have done for game, just because they not able to be as active as they where in the past, is outright cruel. They have fought their wars, Yarr and by extension Swagrr is made up of mainly former high ranking Arrgh members. The alliance that have without a doubt, taken a part in more wars then any other alliance. Who's normal playstyle can admittedly be exhausting in the long run. Even so if they able to become more active again, they often either rejoin Arrgh, join Grumpy, or end up as alliance leader of some other alliance. My guess is, other alliances retirement homes, work much the same, else they just stay around as half-inactive whales. I'm not asking them to go into VM, I'm saying that retirement isn't a get out of jail free card. To be clear, I don't think anyone in Swagrr or Yarr has said that retirement is grounds to not be declared on; Akuryo mentioned it here and I commented on the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 (edited) I mean I like Prefontaine but in general idk why people would be cool with a feeder for Grumpy. I find the whole "Let's raid everyone and get rich, retire, and then join a politically involved alliance" problematic. It's sort of become the norm where it's normalized. LIke I don't know how that's a playstyle anyone would advocate. Like could Pablo Escobar retire to Miami? Edited August 23, 2019 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 On 8/22/2019 at 9:01 PM, Edward I said: I'm not asking them to go into VM, I'm saying that retirement isn't a get out of jail free card. To be clear, I don't think anyone in Swagrr or Yarr has said that retirement is grounds to not be declared on; Akuryo mentioned it here and I commented on the idea. To clarify, Swagrr is not meant to be "retired" in the sense Yarr intends. 23 hours ago, Roquentin said: I mean I like Prefontaine but in general idk why people would be cool with a feeder for Grumpy. I find the whole "Let's raid everyone and get rich, retire, and then join a politically involved alliance" problematic. It's sort of become the norm where it's normalized. LIke I don't know how that's a playstyle anyone would advocate. Like could Pablo Escobar retire to Miami? I'm not sure what you mean by "a feeder for Grumpy." If I understand it correctly, you're saying that Yarr (and I guess Swagrr but we're not all upper tier) members tend to join Grumpy? If that is what you're trying to say then you are factually incorrect. Yarr membership fluctuates but most of their membership comes from Arrgh - Prefontaine is really the only notable exception that I can think of. I actually don't know of any of Yarr's present or past members that have been in, or even associated with, GOB. And to dispel any "well in the future..." Yarr has been an alliance for years at this point. If I misunderstood you then sorry for my mini-rant Either way, I'm not arguing whether or not retirees should ever be hit. Instead my argument is that BK - and by extension coalition B - attacked hitherto uninvolved and frankly uninterested parties and then arbitrarily classified them into the KERTOG coalition. It's one thing to go whaling, to raid, to burn high infra cities, hell it's even a different thing to hit a periphery alliance during a global - These are respected traditions in Orbis. However, what you're doing is something completely new and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Your coalition is on full-auto mode and hitting anything that moves with seemingly no regard for rules or style. Uninvolved parties (Swagrr, Yarr), dropped protectorates (Medellin), even ODP allies (Dark Brotherhood). We've never seen this kind of unprecedented aggression towards... everyone. NPO and BK are acting like rabid dogs guinea pigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 25 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said: NPO and BK are acting like rabid dogs guinea pigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said: It's one thing to go whaling, to raid, to burn high infra cities, hell it's even a different thing to hit a periphery alliance during a global - These are respected traditions in Orbis. However, what you're doing is something completely new and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Your coalition is on full-auto mode and hitting anything that moves with seemingly no regard for rules or style. Uninvolved parties (Swagrr, Yarr), dropped protectorates (Medellin), even ODP allies (Dark Brotherhood). We've never seen this kind of unprecedented aggression towards... everyone. NPO and BK are acting like rabid dogs guinea pigs. We didn’t choose salt the earth, salt the earth chose us. Just ask your coalition members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 The way I see things is you sign treaties due to how they can benefit you, I would fall off my chair laughing if anyone claimed they signed a treaty out of friendship as if this was true it would not matter the level of the treaty you had, you would defend your friend I know I would. So the question remains did you sign a treaty for protection and as it would benefit you, or did you sign with friends? in any case, both are valid reasons to sign and both are valid reasons to get hit if that treaty partner is at war. HOW many wars labelled "raid" has Arrgghh done where was the CB? wait to them being inactive is a CB, so why can NPO CB not be you are allied to someone we are at war with so we will hit you too, that's better than no CB at all, DAMN hitting someone due to the fact you do not like them is a valid CB look at Soup vs Fark or when Ketogg his Chaos over some made up CB but the truth was GoB hates CoS that's the only CB they had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Mensa established the precedent of hitting protectorates in this game, and ts/tkr/guardian/etc. backed them up. This has existed for years now, it's your own fault if you thought a proct would let you pixel hug forever in peace. 3 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 34 minutes ago, Malal said: Mensa established the precedent of hitting protectorates in this game, and ts/tkr/guardian/etc. backed them up. This has existed for years now, it's your own fault if you thought a proct would let you pixel hug forever in peace. RIP poor SALUS. We hardly knew ye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said: The way I see things is you sign treaties due to how they can benefit you, I would fall off my chair laughing if anyone claimed they signed a treaty out of friendship as if this was true it would not matter the level of the treaty you had, you would defend your friend I know I would. So the question remains did you sign a treaty for protection and as it would benefit you, or did you sign with friends? in any case, both are valid reasons to sign and both are valid reasons to get hit if that treaty partner is at war. HOW many wars labelled "raid" has Arrgghh done where was the CB? wait to them being inactive is a CB, so why can NPO CB not be you are allied to someone we are at war with so we will hit you too, that's better than no CB at all, DAMN hitting someone due to the fact you do not like them is a valid CB look at Soup vs Fark or when Ketogg his Chaos over some made up CB but the truth was GoB hates CoS that's the only CB they had. The difference between the ability to do something and the question of whether that "something" is the right thing to do - this is the content of my argument. We could all never post on the forums, disband all alliances, and exist in a mad-max world of constant warfare. What would be the point though? 34 minutes ago, Malal said: Mensa established the precedent of hitting protectorates in this game, and ts/tkr/guardian/etc. backed them up. This has existed for years now, it's your own fault if you thought a proct would let you pixel hug forever in peace. Go back to bed, old timer. No one pixel hugs in Piratesphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Bartholomew Roberts said: Go back to bed, old timer. No one pixel hugs in Piratesphere. I don't get why Pirates deserve the right to "retire" and play this game with a different set of rules than other folks. So you're allowed to raid, war how much ever you want and also decide when to claim retirement and neutrality? There seems to be a bunch of issues with that This is a normal I disagree with. It's best to hit a pirate on sight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: I don't get why Pirates deserve the right to "retire" and play this game with a different set of rules than other folks. So you're allowed to raid, war how much ever you want and also decide when to claim retirement and neutrality? There seems to be a bunch of issues with that This is a normal I disagree with. It's best to hit a pirate on sight Retiring just means leaving Arrgh and joining a different alliance. We're not neutral by doctrine. We just didn't want to be involved in this shitfest. edit: I've clarified that "retirement" is an internal community term from Piratesphere and doesn't mean neutrality or pixelhugging before. Please defer to this post if you feel further confused on the topic. It's short and sweet. Edited August 24, 2019 by Bartholomew Roberts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.