Treaties as instruments should change.

[Ogaden]

I've long considered a possible solution to the problems facing the world that treaties be re-imagined, that treaties are basically single use instruments, this treaty is valid for the next conflict.  After that, everyone has to sign new treaties again.

 

The main issue is what I call "cancellation inertia", where people won't cancel treaties they don't want, need or like anymore, purely out of either nostalgia, fear or concern that it would offend the other party.  This change however puts the opposite situation in place, where treaties constantly have to be re-approved.

 

This proposal contains 3 parts, articles that should be included in every treaty:

 

1 Terms of Use: Pact is redeemable for one war, once that war is concluded the pact expires

2 Escape Clause: Pact is voided if either party attacks alliance X, Y or Z, which are off limits to the treaty scope

3 Expiry Date:  Best before December 2017

Edited April 17, 2017 by Ogaden

[Goomy]

Sounds like alot of extra forum posts, but good idea

[Ogaden]

There should be more secret treaties and agreements too, to make some unexpected and unwelcome surprises when wars are declared for war planners

[Lord of Puns]

I think you have something going with an addition of requirements as to who attacks who and voidance thereof.

 

But in reality politics change so swiftly treaties can't keep up with them. So while right now I might not want my allies to fight Joe Stupid, I sign the treaty and then he does something really stupid, I'm left hanging. Vice versa out of the blue another alliance comes up that I really like, treaty's already made and it can't be rewritten without an addendum later on, which just detracts from the whole get rid of paper idea.

 

 

There should be more secret treaties and agreements too, to make some unexpected and unwelcome surprises when wars are declared for war planners

 

Annnnnd now you lost me. There is a reason we don't do this. Number one: geneva convention. Number two: ever played the game diplomacy?

[Avakael]

The whole problem behind treaties is clarity in diplomacy, but clarity in diplomacy is also what makes the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style treaty system imported over here so good. That clarity is fundamentally advantageous for alliances.

 

A treaty between me and another alliance isn't just a formal agreement of friendship with me and that alliance, it's a statement to every other alliance out there that attacking (or sometimes even just pissing off) that alliance has consequences. It would be fundamentally disadvantageous for me to not have that statement out there somewhere, in some form. It would also be fundamentally disadvantageous for the attackers to not have access to those statements and thus they would expect clarity as well (which is why secret treaties still occasionally exist).

 

There are very few circumstances where, despite the treaty only continuing due to nostalgia/concern of offence/other stuff, it would actually be a good idea to cancel that treaty. When those circumstances arrive, such treaties are usually cancelled anyway.

 

Stuff like escape clauses and expiry dates already exist; non chaining agreements, non aggression against other treaty partners, agreeing to review a treaty in x month's time to see if it's still working then. Artificially forcing weird stuff like mandatory cancellation after x time on alliances will never catch on, because there is no way to introduce game mechanics to force people to not work together, and because weird requirements like mandatory expiry dates are non advantageous to the vast majority of governments playing the game anyway.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Avakael

[Keegoz]

It's an interesting idea, when leading Rose I use to have protectorates which I would review their protection every 3 months. I would like to see something like that put into more treaties.

[Charles Bolivar]

The only rule about treaties is there are no rules. People can make a treaty last as long as they want and discard it when they please.

[Donald Trump]

This suggestion is basically the same thing that has been reiterated countless times in the past by many different people. 

 

Treaties have always been a problem in both (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW. The main issue with this idea is that as much as anti treating and calls to disbandment are often used, they never happen as nobody important in game actually wants to do that and go ahead with it. They're too stuck in their ways, within existing friendships and also too stuck in their current alliances. So we're basically assuming a level of altruism here within the player base, that is for the good of the game, which really doesn't actually exist and probbaly never will as the game isn't actually real enough for people to care about it to that extent.

 

The only realistic way to counteract the atrophying of the politics here, is for the game to have a constant influx of new players, that are then making new alliances, treaties and stirring the political pot of Orbis. As that has always been how these type of games get revitalized from the constant decline that they'll always inevitably suffer from. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Donald Trump

[Yang]

Not everyone plays to win. Some people play just to build relationships and stay loyal to their partners. To some, it's just a series of chat rooms with a game attached - they want long lasting bonds.

 

A treaty with an expiry date and exit clause feels like a marriage with a prenuptial agreement. It's a wise thing, but for personal reasons it feels like you're already planning for the divorce.

 

There is way more resistance to signing these clauses than there is to cancel a dead treaty. And like divorces, sometimes it take a lot to actually make the cut, for sentimental historical reasons. Sometimes allies find themselves on opposite sides, hoping that a relationship would work in the future, which is why these treaties persist.

 

While treaties make wars harder, wars will happen because the game mechanics rewards first strike and punishes backing down from wars.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Yang

[Eumirbago]

I'm here to win. I will stay with people that can win. The other side can not win.

[hadesflames]

The main issue is what I call "cancellation inertia", where people won't cancel treaties they don't want, need or like anymore, purely out of either nostalgia, fear or concern that it would offend the other party.  This change however puts the opposite situation in place, where treaties constantly have to be re-approved.

 

 

And your suggestion doesn't fix that at all because you can make all the exact same arguments about not extending/re-signing. All this does is create work for people that are going to extend/re-sign forever anyway.