PDA

View Full Version : Peace Pact Proposed - Kingdom Leaders please read:


busyrobot
12-30-2002, 08:07 PM
I may not be a member of a Kingdom right now, but with volatile relationships of the Kingdoms at this time, I would like to propose the following Pact for review and hopefully adoption by the various Kingdoms:



As it is evident that basically all Kingdoms have expressed a desire to rebuild themselves in peace without threats of hostility or acts of aggression against their sovereignty, the following Peace Pact is proposed, where all those Kingdoms that commit to this Pact, will have the following responsibilities and benefits:

I: To remain within the Pact, a signed member must agree not to engage in Hostilities towards another peaceful Kingdom, whether or not that peaceful Kingdom is a member of this Pact.

II: Any attack from one Kingdom's citizens or military must result in those guilty being punished in a range from Banishment for 1 - 2 weeks to Exile made permanent, unless the attacked Kingdom wishes a lighter sentence for the guilty. An attack involving the King or where punishment is not executed upon the guilty, will result in the aggressive nation as being deemed Hostile, and Pact members are thus required deem the Hostile kingdom as an enemy.
These punishments are not expected to be imposed on non-member Kingdoms, but they will be deemed as Hostile Kingdom, and will not be fought against should they attack a peaceful Pact member Kingdom.
III: Any Pact member may have any treaty it desires with any Kingdom, as long as that Kingdom does not engage in hostilities towards any other peaceful Kingdom, member or otherwise. Treaties with hostile Kingdoms must be limited to those of trade or non-aggression, but the duties of this this Pact supersede any other treaties or pacts.

IV: All Pact Members agree to come to the defense of a Pact member should a member Kingdom be attacked, although combined defense shall not lead to pre-emptive strikes or attacks on the Hostile Kingdom, unless over time it is deemed to be a continuing threat to the peace, at which time involvement in an aggressive attack will not be compulsory but a voluntary coalition.

V: The goals of this Pact, are that if signed by the various leaders who have already stated interest in peace, that any Kingdom that acts with hostility will face a larger force than the single Kingdom they wish to attack and be unable to isolate single Kingdoms for abuse through intimidation of others. In summary, it is an attempt to defend against divide and conquer techniques of aggression that threaten the peace and prosperity of all the Kingdoms.



* This Pact becomes invalid should this Post be edited after any signees post their agreement.

* This Pact can only be agreed to by the leaders of the various Kingdoms, and applies to any member Kingdom until it is violated or honorably withdrawn from by a following post of the said Kingdom's leader to this thread.

BlKnight
12-30-2002, 08:40 PM
Astri, nay the Eastern Alliance hopeheartingly objects to this peace proposal.

LOA--Paul
12-30-2002, 09:11 PM
mock UN

busyrobot
12-30-2002, 09:32 PM
Why would the good peaceful Kingdom of the Astri, nay, the good peaceful Eastern Alliance have any reservations about ensuring the peace among the Kingdoms?

By hopeheartingly rejecting the idea, you give the impression you are not as motivated by peace as your Kingdom has said it was in the past.

Also, as stated above within the Pact terms, only Kingdom Kings have the capacity to accept or reject the Peace Pact, and then each unto their own Kingdom's role - a group of Kingdoms or any alliance of Kingdoms cannot be spoken for by a single individual.

While King Eric may agree with you, let him state his refusal here.

I would encourage him to sign, as I would hate for the Astri to be the weak party on the outside if the other Kingdoms see fit to adopt this Pact.

BlKnight
12-30-2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by busyrobot
Why would the good peaceful Kingdom of the Astri, nay, the good peaceful Eastern Alliance have any reservations about ensuring the peace among the Kingdoms?

By hopeheartingly rejecting the idea, you give the impression you are not as motivated by peace as your Kingdom has said it was in the past.

Also, as stated above within the Pact terms, only Kingdom Kings have the capacity to accept or reject the Peace Pact, and then each unto their own Kingdom's role - a group of Kingdoms or any alliance of Kingdoms cannot be spoken for by a single individual.

While King Eric may agree with you, let him state his refusal here.

I would encourage him to sign, as I would hate for the Astri to be the weak party on the outside if the other Kingdoms see fit to adopt this Pact.

((I don't think that you quite understand how to run a kingdom. It's not as simple as "let's all be peaceful". And even though I am not going to explain right now, but allowing everyone to be either allied of neutral is the stupidest thing any kingdom could do.

Don't you think that if we wanted to it would have been done before?


ALSO, almost everyone is allied, it's basically the Eastern Alliance and Zormite+Dustari that are hostile with each other. But seriously, did you REALLY think that because of your poorly done contract everyone would abandon their current alliances and make the stupid move anyone could possibly make?))

busyrobot
12-30-2002, 10:30 PM
What you don't seem to understand is that most Kingdoms right now have the simple goal of building up without being overrun.

Some of the politics of late have resulted in treaties create imbalances of power that almost ensure that war will break out in the near future, and the main reason for this is some kingdoms have taken the stance, "better them than I".

The simple basis of this Pact is based on equality of members, and does not require anyone to cut current treaties.

If this is adopted, and an ally acts hostile towards another, then yes, the result would break that treaty. As the Astri are so concerned about peace, I don't think they would have to worry about this effecting them.

It you understand politics at all, which is the underlying mechanics effecting Kingdoms -period- (don't tell me how to run what) you will understand the goal of this treaty is to protect alliances while ensuring they are not abused to attack weaker Kingdoms.

It is designed to protect agianst the divide-and-conquer strategies that are preferred by those whos egos run on blood.


By the way, just why would peace by those who want it be such a bad idea for Kingdoms anyway?

You are quick to attack the idea as 'the worst ever' but you aren't backing it up with anything but insults.



Kingdoms don't need to be at war to build themselves up, and many prefer not to be at war right now anyway. What is your problem with that??

BlKnight
12-30-2002, 10:55 PM
((This is a GAME! Can't you udnerstand that?

Sure many little pixel people may die because of it, but it is much more fun to be at war.

And it's stupid to have everyone allied because people (because of this need for fun war) would look inside the alliance to attack somone, meaning soon enough different allainces would be formed, and the current ones have been worked in so hard so far.))

busyrobot
12-30-2002, 11:24 PM
You don't have to tell me this is a game, I am trying to be IC just a little, I didn't mean to get you all wound up.

First things first, treaties often fall apart and don't last indefinately, I don't think you would have to wait forever for your wars to start.

Second, the likelihood that everyone would wish to join the peace pact is unlikely, but at least those who want peace would have a better structure to defend it effectively.

Thirdly, wars have gone from fun to frustrating, and are an overall drag right now. Those who agree with that sentiment are encouraged to join this Pact. Those who want fun little wars, well, they are not who this document was tailored to.

There has been much talk of peace from various leaders, including King Eric of Astri.

This is a simple mechanism for everyone to back that up.


Also, the current alliances are weak, fragile and imbalanced, I'm sure you can see this without too much trouble.


If it was as simple as everyone wanted war for fun and therefore enjoyed it, this would not be debated.
As that is not the case, this is simply offered for those who believe it would strengthen their mutual defense.

If you want war, and others don't, don't fault them if they choose a mechanism that aids peace and makes it harder for warmongers to wage war.

I am not shoving this down anyone's throat, its an option for those who want it.

BlKnight
12-30-2002, 11:50 PM
Only 2 kingdoms are not part of the Eastern Alliance, And they are semi-allied.

So basically you'd have the same people allied under different terms.

As for the EA itself, I think that we are doing fine.

Zurkiba
12-31-2002, 12:07 AM
We allready lead a nice peaceful world... There are just resistors to our peaceful terms who we must deal with

busyrobot
12-31-2002, 12:19 AM
I am glad to hear you are still committed to peace, King Eric.

What are your peaceful terms you are having trouble getting the lawless hoardes to abide by?

Perhaps you will find the terms presented in this document more persuasive in recruiting Kingdoms to your cause of peace.

aylad
12-31-2002, 12:40 AM
These punishments are not expected to be imposed on non-member Kingdoms, but they will be deemed as Hostile Kingdom, and will not be fought against should they attack a peaceful Pact member Kingdom.
Ummm....... yeah. I mean, ummmm........ no. Read that again. You got it completely wrong.

What you just said was, if a non-Pact kingdom attacks a Pact kingdom, the non-Pact kingdom will not be fought against. Meaning the Pact kingdom has no defense?

Just pointing out a huge mistake, not leaning one way or the other as to Astri/EA's membership.

busyrobot
12-31-2002, 12:57 AM
I am glad you asked about that:

To clarify, it simply means that a non-pact Kingdom would not be subject to an all out war on its soil, but that the Kingdoms within the pact would still defend eachother.

See section IV:


IV: All Pact Members agree to come to the defense of a Pact member should a member Kingdom be attacked, although combined defense shall not lead to pre-emptive strikes or attacks on the Hostile Kingdom, unless over time it is deemed to be a continuing threat to the peace, at which time involvement in an aggressive attack will not be compulsory but a voluntary coalition.


This section clarifies the point, I think. The goal of this section is to prevent a small battle escallating into a full-scale global war, while still allowing for defense.

BlKnight
12-31-2002, 12:57 AM
Zurikiba for ___'s (don't use the lords name in vain) don't do anythign stupid.

busyrobot
12-31-2002, 01:08 AM
BlKnight, I know you have this thing against peace and all, but you are so very very opposed, just why do you think its so stupid?

Have you been opposed to all the peace treaties to date?

BlKnight
12-31-2002, 02:00 AM
Listen, we are already in a very stable alliance between three kingdoms. Is there a problem with not wanting to throw all that has been worked for away?

Zurkiba
12-31-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by BlKnight
Listen, we are already in a very stable alliance between three kingdoms. Is there a problem with not wanting to throw all that has been worked for away?
Exactly... I never agreed to it.. I was putting it down.

I'm making a peaceful world as we speak. But wars are needed for that to come.

The Barbarian Hordes which oppose our peace are the Zormites, who are being dealt with.

busyrobot
12-31-2002, 02:03 PM
Your stability between three Kingdoms is not stable and does nothing to promote general peace. The Zormites are hardly barbarians. If you look at the history, they are likely the most peaceful Kingdom in Graal's history.

Who attacked the Dustari and Samurai Kingdoms?

Was that the work of the Zormites? No.

In fact, they have been attacked by you as well.

If you find this document distasteful, at least have the honor to say it is because you do seek war, as the only one who believes your propaganda is you.


Consider this a test of your commitment to peace - one that you have publicly failed miserably, Zurkiba.



If you want to debate this, then I propose you explain the following:

A) How does agreeing to this treaty threaten your existing 'stable' alliance? There is no clause within it that can cause a destabilization unless one of the Kingdoms become hostile, which doesn't happen under peaceful leaders.

B) If peace is achieved through this Pact with the Zormites, then your stated goals of 'war-for-peace' with them becomes redundant. Why not attempt this through this Pact, and if it rejected, go to war then?

Python523
01-01-2003, 02:33 PM
((

There has to be some kind of war going on, it's what makes kingdoms partially fun (plus I think I rememeber Stefan saying there might be punishments if there isn't at least one war going on, he might have been joking, not sure)

))

ZeroFXSM
01-01-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by busyrobot
-Line-

Asking for a treaty between all kingdoms is a mockery of what the samurai, pirates, astri worked so hard to build.

The Chamberlain is wiser then you know, and should not be apposed in the matter you address to him. He is more knowledgeable about the situation then you.

BlKnight
01-01-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by ZeroFXSM


Asking for a treaty between all kingdoms is a mockery of what the samurai, pirates, astri worked so hard to build.

The Chamberlain is wiser then you know, and should not be apposed in the matter you address to him. He is more knowledgeable about the situation then you.

Samurai and Astri are at war now heh.

busyrobot
01-01-2003, 09:40 PM
Well, now that Astri and Samurai are at war, what will the result be?

The purpose of this thread is to address that there are Kingdoms that don't find being dominated or always being under the threat of such all that much fun.

Now, I would say the Samurai revolt is an excellent example of this.

For the concern that a simple pact could create an indefinate peaceful utopia that will bring down the Wrath of Stefan - that's pretty ludicrous.

Politics are too complex for that to happen.


It's funny that the critics here are essentially saying that a peace pact would be bad for war - uh, that's the objective!