Jump to content
PigInZen

Rules of War: Causus Belli

Recommended Posts

I have a serious question.  I sincerely hope that this thread is not trashed by trolling.  Where are the rules/guidelines for an alliance to state a valid reason for a declaration of war, i.e., how is a valid causus belli defined in P&W?  I ask because this term is bandied about like it is the golden ticket to Willy Wonka's factory.  I checked the wiki and found while there are plenty of historical references to current and past wars (sometimes multiple references from multiple points of view) there was no wiki page outlining what is a "valid" causus belli and what is not.

 

If there is a comprehensive checksheet against which an alliance can gauge the legitimacy of their reason for war, how was it defined? Was there an international conference or forum thread from which the entries were determined by universal acclaim or, barring that, simple majority?  How can one change these criteria?  Is there a process or some sort of oversight panel?  WHO CONTROLS IT?!?

 

I await your responses.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

Kinda like that.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History is written by the victors, without anyone to contest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

Kinda like that.

 

Jodo, as I feared.  It is wielded like a cudgel, however.

 

History is written by the victors, without anyone to contest it.

 

So it's subject to change ex post facto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potter Stewart said it best... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potter Stewart said it best... 

 

And I am equally disgusted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "valid CB" its just whatever pushes you over the edge enough to declare war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodo, as I feared. It is wielded like a cudgel, however.

Yup. It's not fair, it very rarely makes sense, and people just make shit up on the fly to push their own agenda. They'll beat each other over the heads for weeks over semantics and "pride".
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "valid CB" its just whatever pushes you over the edge enough to declare war.

 

 

So... are there no rules around war in this game after all?  Despite all the drama on this forum to the contrary?

 

Yup. It's not fair, it very rarely makes sense, and people just make [email protected]#$ up on the fly to push their own agenda. They'll beat each other over the heads for weeks over semantics and "pride".

 

So Jodo, is this truly a case of the emperor not wearing any clothes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a serious question.  I sincerely hope that this thread is not trashed by trolling.  Where are the rules/guidelines for an alliance to state a valid reason for a declaration of war, i.e., how is a valid causus belli defined in P&W?  I ask because this term is bandied about like it is the golden ticket to Willy Wonka's factory.  I checked the wiki and found while there are plenty of historical references to current and past wars (sometimes multiple references from multiple points of view) there was no wiki page outlining what is a "valid" causus belli and what is not.

 

If there is a comprehensive checksheet against which an alliance can gauge the legitimacy of their reason for war, how was it defined? Was there an international conference or forum thread from which the entries were determined by universal acclaim or, barring that, simple majority?  How can one change these criteria?  Is there a process or some sort of oversight panel?  WHO CONTROLS IT?!?

 

I await your responses.  Thanks.

It's up to everyone to define for themselves and usually the majority in any given situation will determine the validity for that specific situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're being honest with ourselves, then at the end of the day, the rules are whatever you can get away with. In this case, a large coalition of alliances decided they didn't want to let SK and co. get away with what they had done. There really are not any rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Jodo, is this truly a case of the emperor not wearing any clothes?

I'm unfamiliar with that reference. I assume you mean this in which case, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: My comment below is Out-Of-Character and has no bearing on my positioning in the game itself.

 

CB's are all about precedent. The legitimacy of a CB is often defined by the community at large, and evolves over a period of time.

 

Some will argue that the CB is nothing more but an internal motivator that drives an alliance to war. That justification comes third to the "entertainment" that is extracted from the war itself, and the strategic value of "winning". This "might makes right" often leads to post-war revisionism. 

 

Others will argue that the CB is the external "reason" for war that the aggressor brings out in order to justify its attacks to the public at large. Proponents of this argument will consider the "legitimacy" of a CB, based on the framework of personal ideology and historical precedence.

 

It is true that up to this date, CB's have mostly leaned towards the aforementioned "internal" definition: Hits were often based solely on power preservation or boredom. Wars such as CU and GPA saw reasonings that did not hold ground in the eyes of some. 

 

It is also true that the historical precedent with regards to terms, has leaned towards White Peace. Some would argue that this is due to benevolence on the part of the victorious parties, and that this precedent was established purposefully in order to forge a certain game culture.

 

A key fact that one often overlooks, is that this game generally favors the aggressor. This is underscored by the fact that up until this war, the aggressing party has nearly always been the victor. During offensive wars, the inclusion of reps as a term is often found to be quite costly in terms of (intangible) political capital. When the CB is internally motivated (and not externally justified), enforcement of such terms is likely to lead to long-term complication with regards to reputation management. This can explain why reps have not been established to date: There was never true need or external justification for it.

 

What we are seeing right now is a clashing of cultures during a political situation that is abnormal to the game: An aggressive, CB-less war (which is a type of war that is often not conducted unless total victory is secure) was lost by the attacking party, officially putting the defensive party in position to impose terms.

 

CB's are ever evolving, as is the perception of reps. We are currently looking at an attempt at the utilization of the "new" concept of reps in order to emphasize the alteration of the precedent of internal CB's. Whether this ultimately holds ground, and whether we will see a shift towards the external definition of CBs (being: Justification) remains to be seen. It is not better or worse. It is a natural progression of politics. Some will fight it. Others will propagate it. 
 

Regardless of what one may think IC: I believe it to be an interesting development and good for the game from an OOC perspective. This drives drama and animosity, which is a prerequisite element for a fun gaming environment.

Edited by Partisan
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partisan, thanks.  I think there could be value in a sticky thread outlining which alliances hold grudges (i.e., CBs) against others.

 

Estelle - thanks for point out what I was alluding to in my OP.  This is odd to Mensites as we don't have the history in game to fully understand the depth of animosity amongst the major players.  Sure, the leadership of Mensa has probably had to take a crash course in order to begin to navigate the waters, but the vast majority of the membership don't grok it.  

Edited by PigInZen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not speaking for others, I would imagine most alliances would differentiate between a grudge and a cb. A grudge is something they're holding against you, but not necessarily something they consider war worthy. Alternatively, a CB is an actual cause or reason for a war. For example, I had a CB against Joshua Granger et all when they reformed the Celestial Union, because I claimed that as the Cobalt's heritage that they were trampling and harming. I may still hold a grudge against those people for the way they handled the situation (I don't), but it's not a CB, more of an intense dislike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is also true that the historical precedent with regards to terms, has leaned towards White Peace. Some would argue that this is due to benevolence on the part of the victorious parties, and that this precedent was established purposefully in order to forge a certain game culture.

It's been transferred from the other games we've played. White Peace was a good idea to limit retaliation and it's therefore used here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been transferred from the other games we've played. White Peace was a good idea to limit retaliation and it's therefore used here.

 

That is fair enough, and I concur. It was a good tactic given the situation (of the victors mostly being the aggressing parties).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple general levels of CB:

 

1)  The idiot raider - An alliance that allows raiding has a raider that hits an aligned nation, does not pay reps or cut member loose.  The aggrieved alliance declares war stating that the raiding alliance has not acted in good faith in helping bring the matter to a close.  Pretty open & shut in terms of a CB.

 

2)  Shadow CB - An alliance or group of alliances is considered to have become too (powerful/deceitful/annoying/etc), a vague reason is given, war rages.  Grey areas galore.  Beauty is in eye of beer-holder.  

 

3) For Lulz - 'Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time whatever stupid Cb given it is merely some stupid plus illogical one, such as oh they are plotting, oh leaks, oh they are going to attack us first.

 

Lets be honest, the real CB is " We want to take your place as the overlord" Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBs are basically [email protected]#$ that is pushed onto, in most cases, to swing alliances in a conflict to justify your actions. A CB is effective if it can be used to convince swing alliances that your cause is just and that it's sufficient to rally to your banner, and it's ineffective if no one swallows your bull.

 

In other circumstances, CBs are used to protect your PR and to protect your soft power, so that people don't feel that they are aligned with a force of sociopaths, even though manipulation of CB is a sociopath's specialty, and so that people will be more likely to align with your alliance for war or peace.

 

In this war, SK, Guard, and Mensa thought that they were powerful enough that they could commit aggression against VE without any CB. While it seemed as though no one made a big deal about the lack of CB, people were probably snickering behind the scenes, and when Tenages got leaked, that must have been sufficient to be their end.

Edited by Inst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CB's being valid or not are simply whether you're influential enough to get people on your side.

 

For instance, TC's war on TAC was considered unjustified by most, however the same tactic was used by Guardian-sphere to attack TC members and was widely accepted. Could it be partly because people felt "you get what you dish out" or was it more based on the influence of the leadership in charge. I'd say a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only rules are the ones coded into the game. Everything else is determined by the community at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a Casus Belli is pretty much vague. Jodo is right in this matter, it is in the eyes of the beholder. What may be right to you, can be wrong to me.

 

Malone is also on point in this. You need major influence and charisma to back your Casus belli. Gathering supporters in declaring your CB is just, will prevent a one sided war like this.

 

Regarding the current war though, that pre emptive "CB" is more of a d*#&! move. Come on man, you could do better than that. It's like you punched someone before he could even show any motives. Correct me if I am wrong though, I am also kinda new in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a Casus Belli is pretty much vague. Jodo is right in this matter, it is in the eyes of the beholder. What may be right to you, can be wrong to me.

 

Malone is also on point in this. You need major influence and charisma to back your Casus belli. Gathering supporters in declaring your CB is just, will prevent a one sided war like this.

 

Regarding the current war though, that pre emptive "CB" is more of a d*#&! move. Come on man, you could do better than that. It's like you punched someone before he could even show any motives. Correct me if I am wrong though, I am also kinda new in this game.

 

It's interesting to me.  Obviously there are guidelines that are what I would call in my day job "institutional knowledge."  That is, knowledge that isn't written down anywhere and must be learned through social interaction and direct instruction.  Which leads me to wonder how the dividing line became drawn here about pre-emptive wars not being legitimate.  

 

From what you've said, however, it would seem that some pre-emptive wars could be consider legit, depending upon circumstances and the politics involved.  I get the need for this political stamp of approval; it prevents the game from devolving into a dog-eat-dog environment.  But that's not 100% true either as this political stamp is conditional based upon a history between direct and secondary parties to which many may not have complete information.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a world without CB

 

tumblr_m4scn5zLm91qztjn5o1_r1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.