Is a treaty cancellation in order?

Build and expand your nation through trade, diplomacy, and superior firepower.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Cyber Nations Moderators

Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:52 am

User avatar
Kon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:
This thread poses an extremely difficult question, and one that I want everyone's input on. The question is, should we cancel our treaty with the 57th Overlanders? If you haven't already, please refer to this thread in the War Room for information on why I feel like this question needs to be asked at all. To be sure, there are excellent people in the 57th Overlanders, and I have known some of them for a very long time. However, I have spent the last few days interviewing both government and non-government members of the 57th, as well as people who have left in the past couple months. Veneke, Captain of the 57th, has also given me the IRC logs from various recent government meetings. It is evident to me that the 57th is experiencing a lot of internal problems.

For one, the recent diplomatic crisis that ultimately led the 57th to a short one day war raises serious questions of governmental competence. It should first be noted that this war highlights how the 57th has aligned itself with other alliances which may not always be on our side. If the war had been allowed to continue, 57th would have been in direct conflict with our allies in IAA, and we would have had to fight our non-treaty friends in CoJ and Browncoats. Veneke initiated the problem by acting on what was found to be faulty intelligence obtained from a defector, and ultimately ordered a preemptive strike on Browncoats without just cause. Kodiak, the alliance's second-in-command, recently resigned due to posting the Declaration of War after peace had already been agreed upon in the wider conflict, and then making hostile and inflammatory remarks directed at enemy leaders during the ensuing peace negotiations. Lord Panda, another government official, has a known vendetta against Browncoats, and has been slinging mud and trolling them for months, even creating flame wars on the CN forums. Several 57th members have also complained about Lord Panda's tendency to pull rank and talk brashly with nongovernmental members.

There has also been talk of a decreasing role of friendship and community within the 57th, in favor of a more regimental style of leadership, with greater focus on following orders and meeting statistical benchmarks than enjoying the game as friends. Attempts to expand and organize 57th groups in other games has largely been abandoned. While I don't believe it is our place to judge the leadership style of others, the changes have caused a definite rift in the community. My good friend Mechanus, co-founder and former Captain of the 57th, left some time ago, and has been joined by former government members Iyeman and Jake, in addition to several other members.

In light of these facts, I ask you: should the SSX tell 57th that we can no longer maintain the treaty in good faith, or should we continue to stand by our allies, and hope that they can get back on track?
"We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution."

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:03 pm

Inquisitor
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
Location: SSX
Contact:
I would suggest renegotiating the treaty, we should porobably have built in review terms for all treaties.

Some frank diplomacy with their leadership seems in order. We cannot get involved in assinine wars cause by temper tantrums. any treaty we sign should have a caveat for that.

"If you turn into 10 year olds, this treaty is suspended"

Of course, someone other than me should craft the language ;)

Probably something more like "If you provoke wars against the interest of the SSX"

Mutual defense does not mean going medieval on anyone for any reason. Any war that an ally provokes should be something we have an OPTION to participate in, not be required to participate in.

The US has mutual defense treaties via NATO, for instance, those treaties did not require anyone come with us to invade Iraq. The provoking attacker should be required to make the case for why we tag along and drop bombs.
No signature

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:55 pm

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:44 pm
Contact:
I second Inquisitors feelings. Renegotiation is in order.

I think we can remain allies as long as they behave reasonably, but it should be made clear that our support is contingent upon such behavior.
"All I was trying to do was get people to want to make their own new ring of light so that it is forever a name with meaning and substance ...." - BlackDove the Beneficent

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm

User avatar
Miasma
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:37 am
My like for Veneke leads me to agree with earlier posts. We need to tell them what we will tolerate and what we will not, and judge our course of action on their respone.

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:19 am

User avatar
Jericho78
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:50 am
Location: Delta Serpentis
I agree with all that has been said so far. We need to redefine our treat with regards to their own actions and policies.

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:47 am

User avatar
Kon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:
Miasma and I spoke to Veneke for a rather long time on IRC today, with the occasional additional insight from Ed. We discussed the proposal at length, and Veneke will return with an answer for us tomorrow.
"We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution."

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:07 am

User avatar
Kon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:
Well, instead of Veneke telling me what his decision was, I was invited into a room with him and the other 57th government members, who proceeded to try to convince me to not change anything, while demanding that I explain my concerns in greater detail. Which I did several times. Veneke was AFK for most of this, and it ultimately resulted in Lord Panda telling me that the 57th was canceling the treaty on us. We have been served the 72 hour notice as required by the treaty.

Problem solved. :weird:
"We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution."

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:00 am

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:44 pm
Contact:
Have we solved a problem and/or created a new one?
"All I was trying to do was get people to want to make their own new ring of light so that it is forever a name with meaning and substance ...." - BlackDove the Beneficent

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:19 am

User avatar
Kon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:
I don't think we've created any new problems, no. It is rather unfortunate how it turned out, but honestly, I think it is more so for them than us. We should be fine.
"We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution."

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 pm

User avatar
Whizbang
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:16 pm
I'm sorry to hear this guys. But I think it is for the best. The 57th isn't the place it used to be.
Walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone

[16:22] <SoulSeeker> i know its not the pc version but i kill kids for fun

<whizbang> Who's the ref?
<Isileth> Some dickhead

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:53 pm

Inquisitor
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
Location: SSX
Contact:
I think this does give us important lessons for future treaties. I do not want to be FORCED to join a war somone provokes if we don't agree with it. Mutual defense should be for defense ;)
No signature

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:09 am

User avatar
Miasma
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:37 am
Freakin' Drama queens.

I think we just averted future problems. The system works.

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:32 am

User avatar
Kon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:
I couldn't get a hold of anyone in 57th to figure out when they were planning to announce the cancellation formally, so by half past midnight I just went ahead and posted a recognition of the cancellation myself. Hopefully this is the final conclusion to all this nonsense. It's a shame that the 57th seem to have changed so radically in the past few months, but on the bright side, the replies in the announcement thread make it easy to see who our true friends really are.
"We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution."

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:58 am

raasaa
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:53 pm
now that we are friends again.....ahem....can i snuggle up in bed with you guys :D

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:41 pm

User avatar
Whizbang
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:16 pm
Raasaa, you are a dirty lil' bugger. Always looking for an in to the SSX bedroll... :lol:
Walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone

[16:22] <SoulSeeker> i know its not the pc version but i kill kids for fun

<whizbang> Who's the ref?
<Isileth> Some dickhead

Re: Is a treaty cancellation in order?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:28 pm

User avatar
Miasma
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:37 am
raasaa wrote:now that we are friends again.....ahem....can i snuggle up in bed with you guys :D
Like you need an excuse. ;D

Return to “Cyber Nations”