GoW, you guys are the best allies ever!

[Hot_Enamel]

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
And to continue this theoretical debate ... is a 20 turn luxery trade therefore considered a NAP ?
Any declaration of war would void the luxery trade.
Therefore, a team may not ever declare war while luxeries are traded ?

If the deal is straight something-per-turn for something-per-turn, it can be ended early without either side's receiving an unfair advantage. Similarly, if a civ sells something up front for something per turn, they are the only ones who lose anything from declaring war. But if a civ promises something per turn in exchange for something of value up front and then declares war before the duration is over, they have broken their commitment and cheated the other side. Note that Firaxis seems to share my opinion, since this is how things work in SP. As long as you haven't gotten something up front out of the deal, you can break a deal in which you received something per turn without destroying your reputation.

MPPs are an entirely different matter. Their purpose is not merely to exchange economic value, but for each civ to help provide military security for the other. It is a form of alliance, limited to defensive purposes only. What is a MPP worth if a civ can end it early by declaring war on their supposed MPP partner? In my mind, barring some kind of special agreement for a special purpose, saying you can have a MPP without a NAP is like saying you can have four rocks without having two rocks: it's not possible because the greater amount encompasses the lesser. And I strongly suspect that Firaxis agrees with me in how they implemented the MPP mechanics in the game, although I sign MPPs so rarely in SP that I'm not sure I've ever tested what happens to my reputation when I break one.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

This just reinforces my belief that - just like in the real life - all 'treaties' are worth less that the (virtual) paper they are written on. As long as they are beneficial to both parties, they are valid. Once one of the parties becomes unhappy about the deal, *snap* and the treaty is gone. Who cares if the action was legal or illegal...

Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Reguarding that lux trade.

The 20 turns had more than expired. The deal was in essence over. No extension had been signed.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Legoland are builders?!

And here I thought they were Isolationists.

Don't isolationists make the best builders, and builders the best isolationists?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

Bingo.

-Arrian

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

GoW and ND declared war on Roleplay, yet we seem to have GS and Lego duking it out in this forum. I guess GoW members are true "agents of Chaos" afterall.

[Arrian]

Lego and GS "duking it out?" Errr, I don't think so.

Debating the nature of GoW's actions? Sure.

-Arrian

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

True. I should have expressed myself better. The reputation may suffer (though not necessarily or not that much, because it always depends on who is breaking a treaty with whom).

What I had in mind when writing that part of my post was that the reaction of the "neutral" teams will mostly be affected by things that have very little to do with the (il)legality of the initial action/attack.

I mean - you seem to feel rather strongly that MPP does include NAP. But still, I do not see GS declaring war on GoW. I would also tend to consider an MPP a superset of an NAP. Yet, I do not see us/Lego declaring war on GoW over that issue. That's because other teams have their own agendas. The importance of these agendas is usually magnitude higher than whether there is an "evil aggressor" to be punished for his evil backstabbing or a "fair aggressor" to be left alone to fight... this game is not about "honour" in the sense known from chivalric tales... it is much more about Machiavellian practices helping one to maximize his overall gain and securing the ultimate victory (even if not entirely about it).

[Arrian]

I mean - you seem to feel rather strongly that MPP does include NAP. But still, I do not see GS declaring war on GoW. I would also tend to consider an MPP a superset of an NAP. Yet, I do not see us/Lego declaring war on GoW over that issue.

Our actions will be dictated by our interests, and yours by your interests, yes. However, when you get into planning alliances, tech deals with NDAs, etc., the reliability of any potential partners/allies is an important factor that cannot be ignored.

Can you plan cooperation with a civ you do not trust to honor a treaty? Not really. So while any action/inaction by GS with respect to this conflict may have little or nothing to do with the "morality" of GoWs attack on RP, it is something to think of down the road, when considering cooperation with GoW.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

As I said before, my focus at the moment is on the theoretical side, not on trying to judge the particular nations involved. I've tried to make it clear that it is not completely impossible for civs to have a MPP without a NAP if that's the way they want it. If discussions between GoW and RP were such that they implied that MPPs would not automatically carry NAPs with them, that changes the complexion considerably. Ultimately, it is what GoW and RP believed that they were agreeing to, and believed that each other believed they were agreeing to, that matters.

As for the spirit of an agreement as contrasted with the letter, in a legitimate contract, the goal is for both sides to understand what is and is not being agreed to. Efforts to deliberately manipulate the wording of a written agreement so that one side thinks they are getting one thing when what they will really get is something else are dishonest and dishonorable and, at least under some circumstances, can be illegal. The ultimate goal of written contracts is to clarify and make a record of what the two sides believe they are agreeing to. The fact that written contracts are sometimes used to lie, cheat, and steal by writing down something different from what one party or the other has been led to expect is an unfortunate side effect of the system, not a part of its design or purpose (except perhaps to the extent that some lawyers have twisted the design to defeat the legitimate purpose). Edit: Just to make it clear, this paragraph is also a statement of general principle, not something aimed at accusing any particular team.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Arrian
However, when you get into planning alliances, tech deals with NDAs, etc., the reliability of any potential partners/allies is an important factor that cannot be ignored.

Though very often, the importance of the "agenda" I was talking about overrides your preference to deal with someone with an "untarnished" reputation. It is an important factor, agreed, but just one of many that come into play.

Originally posted by Arrian
Can you plan cooperation with a civ you do not trust to honor a treaty? Not really. So while any action/inaction by GS with respect to this conflict may have little or nothing to do with the "morality" of GoWs attack on RP, it is something to think of down the road, when considering cooperation with GoW.

Thinking of this, yes, you do have a point. Though, often, one tends to think... "but they would never do the same thing to US!" (hey, I myself believe Voxes will not sneak-attack Lego, despite them doing all those bad things during The War of Chickens... ). There are always "the circumstances" or "the context", which affect how others perceive your deeds.

And here we are getting back to my initial statement. That all that matters is the fact that GoW attacked RP despite having an MPP with them. Arguments over the legality or illegality of that action are useless.

Kudos to GoW for not denying the fact. They are not like that al-Sahhaf guy...

Note: very well said, Nathan.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

EDIT: Removed part of the post while I hunt for the original documentation to prove it. Ughh, I am not looking forward to digging through all the chat logs. ;(

THe original MPP did NOT include a NAP as Roleplay and Togas discussed the point of including a NAP with the second MPP. The MPP only covered mututal defense against ND only from what I have found.

About a week or so ago they then decided we should negotiate a new MPP and INCLUDE a NAP in the new one.

Feel free to discuss this.

NOTE: If you wish to insure that GoW does not attack you, then you sign a NAP and NOT an MPP, as apparently an MPP is not viewed by GoW as an adequate legal defense from them viewing you as a potential target.

[nbarclay]

Vondrack, I agree that many other factors are involved besides just whether and to what extent a civ can be trusted. Players or teams that do not trust each other at all may band together against players or teams they trust implicitly if mutual self-interest provides sufficient motivation. But even in that type of situation, lack of trust carries a price. Allies who cannot trust each other have to commit more of their resources and attention to protecting themselves against each other, and are left with less resources and attention to devote to their common foe.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Vondrack, I agree that many other factors are involved besides just whether and to what extent a civ can be trusted. Players or teams that do not trust each other at all may band together against players or teams they trust implicitly if mutual self-interest provides sufficient motivation. But even in that type of situation, lack of trust carries a price. Allies who cannot trust each other have to commit more of their resources and attention to protecting themselves against each other, and are left with less resources and attention to devote to their common foe.

Yep, true. However, even being honest and trustworthy (h&t) carries its price, since you are waiving advantages you could gain by not being h&t. Whether it's better to be h&t and enjoy benefits of a high credit in the long run or backstab at the right moment and gain the crucial advantage (that will help you in the long run, too)... that's unfortunately more of a dilemma than I'd like it to be - it usually ends up pondering whether the purpose justifies the means. Exactly as in the RL... I am not sure you could say it generally pays off to be h&t (speaking strictly from the lose/gain PoV, ignoring the moral part). I'd say it pays off only as long as you are dealing with h&t partners.

But that is more of a topic for philosophers than for civvers. Fortunately, most people do consider more than just the lose/gain PoV.