Jump to content

Treaties: Mutual cooperation or damnation?


Justinian the Great
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. :D

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? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

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 by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3

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:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P 

This is a normal I disagree with. It's best to hit a pirate on sight ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P 

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 by Bartholomew Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.