Jump to content

Stop signing NAPs at the end of every war


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

I disagree. Imposing NAPs breeds animosity towards the people that impose them. Can't have good wars without animosity 😏🤏

  • Haha 4

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chute Mi said:

I mean, everyone signed a MDoAP against Quack that one time, so why not just do that again?

MDP's = Perpetual Peace? Who's to say! I guess we'll find out as 2007 unfolds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roberts said:

Not only is it redundant as reaching a peace agreement necessitates the ending and desire to cease hostilities, but it's so tedious to artificially restrict yourselves to not going to war when we clearly see multiple people will violate or circumvent those terms anyway.

 

Not to even mention the number of people in my DM's asking Arrgh to do your dirty work because "the NAP doesn't let us hit them for another two months."

 

If you must sign a NAP then do so on an individual basis, but stop acting like it's the new norm for ending wars.

Pfft. NAPs for the win :-). Like you said, those who really want war will find ways around it. The rest can enjoy some Farmville time -.-

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there are some real sanctions for violating an NAP, it doesn't really stop anyone who really wants a fight.  One might even argue that the importance of finding valid and persuasive CB's gives a warmongering alliance's FA something to do during long months.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Roberts said:

Not only is it redundant as reaching a peace agreement necessitates the ending and desire to cease hostilities, but it's so tedious to artificially restrict yourselves to not going to war when we clearly see multiple people will violate or circumvent those terms anyway.

 

Not to even mention the number of people in my DM's asking Arrgh to do your dirty work because "the NAP doesn't let us hit them for another two months."

 

If you must sign a NAP then do so on an individual basis, but stop acting like it's the new norm for ending wars.

Stop signing secret treaties and dogpiling with them, and i'll consider not pushing for a NAP to give my members a reprieve from your bullshit.

Is what I would have told you if I still led.

 

Regarding the bolded part: I'm keenly aware quack is not doing any such thing. If it's not us... yeah...  Thanks for confirming yet again why I mistrust the lot of you.

13 hours ago, Roberts said:

MDP's = Perpetual Peace? Who's to say! I guess we'll find out as 2007 unfolds

lastly, you know why we pushed for a NAP. We did not however push for or agree to a gamewide NAP. It was Swamp/Oasis/HM/TCW's decision to NAP eachother as a high-give for fricking us. Or something.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of negotiations is to find a settlement that's agreeable to both parties. We found one, and as far as I'm aware the negotiations were a (positively) mild mannered affair. 

I'm merely stating that there were parties in both coalitions pushing for increased degrees of nap, albeit in different manners. Not sure what your comment is supposed to rebuke. 

That being said, my leash has been pulled by powers up above. I bid you adieu friend. 

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAPs are inherently fine, imho.  However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple.  If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it.

Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment.  Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement?

Edited by Alexandra B
Added words
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alexandra B said:

The NAPs are inherently fine, imho.  However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple.  If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it.

Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment.  Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement?

It's easier for people to beat their chests in front of one another on the forums than to tell their soldiers to pony up for war for something that isn't "their problem." Im sure anyone who wants to walk the walk & would like to help slap up KT for violating the NAP, then cruise on down to the battlefield in the desert. I dont want to speak on behalf of KT, but I dont think they would mind one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic Arrgh! Always about the no paper. tbqh tho I planned this NAP out to repay all my debt so I am super pro-NAP at the moment. My alliance Oblivion honors the sacred NAPs and we take them very seriously.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alexandra B said:

The NAPs are inherently fine, imho.  However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple.  If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it.

Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment.  Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement?

Gotta bring real politics into this, dontcha?

Breaking an NAP (or being impeached) is a stain on your reputation and will make people think twice about allying (or electing) you. 

Signing a NAP is somewhat of a honor system, and it works well enough. Those who break them will not (or, shall I say, should not) get far in Orbis, and they will have a hard time finding those willing to protect them.

In reality, all political alliances are not divinely protected or anything. See the Treaty of Versailles, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Munich Agreement, Anglo-Soviet Treaty (1942), Non-Proliferation Treaty, Addis Ababa Agreement, Shimla Agreement, Treaty on Open Skies, Oslo I Accord, Treaty of Jeddah, Gbadolite Agreement, among hundreds of hundreds of others were broken in real life and it's not like God Himself smites the offending nation lol.

  • Upvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The precedent has been that the big, major alliances that drive politics (and their less relevant friends) do abide by NAPs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's never been a considerable NAP violation by any 'major' alliance on another. Like, a new global never started because Rose or The Syndicate hit TKR or NPO or something like that. There was a time a few years ago where Arrgh was forbidden from raiding after UPN 'beat' them in a war and even Arrgh obeyed it. Alliances overwhelming abide by agreements to not do anything for a length of time.

The 'NAP violations' almost exclusively occur between minor alliances and apolitical alliances. Micros, protectorates of second rate alliances, and so forth. The reality is that nobody gives a shit about that and if it does become an issue, the big daddies nip it in the bud in backrooms.

Even with KT and Oasis, nobody outside will do anything because it's just not worth it. Nobody cares in the first place that we raided Oasis. It's clearly evident Oasis is taking care of it themselves, and intervening against KT would require a sacrifice in time (in gov officials managing wars and messaging members) and treasure (war damages). 

The big, politically active alliances are happy to sign NAPs because it's fairly guaranteed safety. They're even happier to actually execute on a NAP. NAP violations aren't a big deal historically and I don't think that will ever change.

It would be nice for the practice to roll back some. I understand the motivations behind the current NAP and globals will be under different circumstances and the involved alliances will have to make the best decisions for their communities, but shorter NAPs between specific alliances is way better than blanket NAPs between everyone. 

 

 

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

Even with KT and Oasis, nobody outside will do anything because it's just not worth it. Nobody cares in the first place that we raided Oasis. It's clearly evident Oasis is taking care of it themselves, and intervening against KT would require a sacrifice in time (in gov officials managing wars and messaging members) and treasure (war damages). 

That bolded part I think is the most important part in my view. The thing that most Alliances and Blocs are concerned about is a power becoming too powerful. It's why so many Blocs allied against Quack- the belief that Quack had become too powerful and if the Blocs didn't ally together, they could be taken out one at a time. No one thinks that KT will be destroying Oasis in the forseeable future. Like you said, Oasis can take care of this themselves. 

  • Upvote 2
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.