Versions of it were ratified by 2 signatories, that’s how it was originally “leaked” months ago, but nobody noticed. Nobody thinks it’s actually active though.

(This post was last modified: 03-21-2022, 01:11 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Could we have more specifics on what exactly where the issues with the original text, and how subsequent discussions addressed (or tried to address) those issues?

Based on the logs, the problems Roavin had with it were;

• The language of Article I.2 (committing to defender values) wasn't clear enough, as it left room for a signatory to suddenly go tagging or hold founderless regions for funsies if they wished so and be in perfect compliance with the treaty.
  
• No meaningful discussions were held about including anyting Frontier-related in there, which made the MDT in II.2 problematic in nature and not well thought out.
  
• There were some more qualms about the vague language used in II.3.1, II.3.2 and IV.1.1 and a general desire to make these more explicit.
  
• Concerns were raised about IV.2.3 (dealing with suspension of treaty terms for a fixed period of time), as Roavin believed that the given time for which the treaty could be suspended by a signatory (30 days) was way too long and wanted to shorten it. In his own words;

  I don't like suspension clauses because it's like "oh hey I'm gonna suspend our agreed-upon monogamous relationship for 30 days because I really want to cheat on you with the hot guy at the gym" and that's not how things should be ?

• Similarly, the agreed-upon timeframe for IV.2.5 (3 days for withdrawal from the treaty) was deemed to be too short, and it was suggested that a week would be the perfect length for this.
  

Obviously, Roavin's welcome to correct me if he believes that I've misrepresented anything he said there.

Can we get some more clarification? Roavin alleged that Jay's draft did not address F/S at all, but the version Moon posted which he says was Jay's seems to be revised in a few ways and does seem to reference F/S (at least by my interpretation) in a few highlighted sections.

I'm a bit confused about this too, and I can only assume that Roavin meant no extensive discussions had taken place in the server to adequately address the involved parties' concerns about F/S in the treaty text, and it was just bullheadedly rushed through without much consideration.

Just so I'm clear: this treaty is not active, right? Like no region thinks its part of something that it (or we) are not?

It's not active, no. The regions which first ratified it (XKI and UDS) has since then discarded that version in favor of creating a new document that would be satisfactory to everyone at the table.

---

A brief update on this thing's progress; a new draft has been posted and we're currently discussing changes to it. Negotiations have slowed down a little due to XKI's incumbent Delegate abruptly resigining from their position, but I expect it to pick right back up once they have a proper representative at place.

(This post was last modified: 03-22-2022, 10:07 AM by Moon.)

Reply

So for starters. There’s a redraft going? Then, in this draft, include everything that you wish had been included! Stronger language on 1.2, longer withdrawal time frame, shorter suspension time, etc. But that’s obvious and has probably already been done.

Present the redraft as if it’s a new thing, starting over, starting from scratch. The history of this is too messy and complicated and make it clear that it should be pursued as if you’re starting over. That should make it fairly clear.

Include F/S stuff. Have conversations with the other parties about how this would work. Open the treaty up for Frontier signatories and/or have clauses for defending frontiers specifically. Maybe include a provision that expresses a desire to defend allies’ frontier properties, if they exist, like TSP has already officially done, but on a wider scale. Etc.

In this vein, open up the treaty even to regions that will be strongholds, or regions that are secure, if not for the mutual defense then for the defender principles in the face of F/S. This brushes close to PfS, so:

Talk about this in PfS! Initiate long meaningful discussion. So “There was no attempt made to actually start a conversation, to explain the benefits, to ask why there was opposition, or anything”? THEN MAKE THAT ATTEMPT. It feels like something that would really be in line with PfS. As an optional thing within PfS, it could draw more defenders to PfS and make the Aegis Accords stronger diplomatically for it. If that initiative fails, then it fails but it’s important to make the attempt.

With the emergence of The Brotherhood of Malice, the concept of Raider Unity, and the bolder/more aggressive policies of raiders such as TBH, as well as the advent of F/S, stuff like this is necessary for the evolution of the defender cause. So pursue all avenues, and if that doesn’t work, then yes, let it go.

That’s my personal opinion on it, I may have made incorrect assumptions, and if that’s the case I do apologize.

“Consuming, purchasing, selling, or holding poison-free food substances is hereby considered Treason against the people and the government of A poisoned apple. Mangoes are exempt from this clause. Poisoned fruits other than apples will not be permitted.”

~ Offices ~ Awards ~ RP Nations ~

Reply