International Trade Agreement?

[Diglytron]

Im feeling already Lucky that the MOTN doesnt begin a slave market.

Fresh Airbenders, good miners just 2000$

[Jay Walker]

Im feeling already Lucky that the MOTN doesnt begin a slave market.

Fresh Airbenders, good miners just 2000$

You gave Prussia idea!

[Diglytron]

fuuuuuu we are not for sale! I got some nice Brothers for sale tough! Brother Poach, a real Gladiator! let him fight to death in your arena!

[Jay Walker]

Sorry Digs we want you

[Diglytron]

I know im sexy and stuff but im not really a good worker. I can produce weath tough. Ehhh..

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Slave market? Hmm... don't give me ideas guys

[Diglytron]

Thomas, you have already been traded serveral times. I sold you from the legion to Ascalon, they sold you to the Order.

you just diddnt noticed yet

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Lol

They didn't sell me to the Order. I bribed them.

[Archduke Greens]

Any faction that takes bribes to allow members in is not a faction, IMO.

[King Sama]

I think our registration test is not quite difficult enough, it seems some of the more illiterate here managed to get through simply by dumb luck. However, some of you may simply have poor sight. To aid you:

For the conspiracy theorists:

The original proposal explicitely, and in bold, rejects the idea of military intervention.

For those who believe this treaty would create a military coalition:

If there were any military intervention, it would only be in cases where: an attacking nation loots shops in pre-determined foreign areas without giving prior notice, and if they refuse to return the goods, OR if the open portals were abused repeatedly.

[Remlap]

I think our registration test is not quite difficult enough, it seems some of the more illiterate here managed to get through simply by dumb luck. However, some of you may simply have poor sight. To aid you:

For the conspiracy theorists:

The original proposal explicitely, and in bold, rejects the idea of military intervention.

For those who believe this treaty would create a military coalition:

If there were any military intervention, it would only be in cases where: an attacking nation loots shops in pre-determined foreign areas without giving prior notice, and if they refuse to return the goods, OR if the open portals were abused repeatedly.

Yes, this sill does not appeal to me.

[King Sama]

Yes, this sill does not appeal to me.

Fair enough, but your post was not the only and certainly not the worst.

[Poach]

So..... "This has no military strings attached, but we'll react militarily if people break the rules!"

I like it.

[Aanker]

What Sama wrote was an attempt to build on my proposal. The original proposal I made did not include any military provisions whatsoever and I would not support them. If people break treaties, it will ruin their reputation, but that's it. Reputation. A nation has a poor case for interventionism if it runs by the breakage of only one treaty, but the loss of reputation caused could add up to some other mistakes made and trigger a conflict.

The likelihood of a coalition forming just because someone broke a treaty is literally null. A coalition is the result of long-term dislike of another faction's policies, most often involving aggression on completely innocent nations.

But yes, obviously all dwarves are out to destroy all other factions and PvP along with it.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

but also ban the use of public portals as a means of transportation for an aggressor, signatory, faction. The treaty would be of entirely civilian purposes, and as such, breaking the treaty by either closing a public portal while not at war or using one in an attack on a host, signatory, faction will not result in automatic consequences.

Banning the use of public portals to attack seems to benefit the Dwarves and other far away factions more than anyone else. Most factions are closer to spawn and can be pretty quickly reached from the SZ or a toll portal, making using the public portal to attack unnecessary, while the Dwarves take at least half an hour to reach by boat. For most factions, just putting a lot of defenses around the portal so it's difficult and time consuming to use it to attack would be good enough to make it secure.

I'd make a move to amending it to ban using public portals to attack before declaring war as a signatory faction. In that case, it's running through the portal, entering the enemy city, and then deciding to declare war that's banned. If someone war decs and can get through the public portal before it's closed off, why should that be unfair? The faction would have warning and wouldn't have any trouble mistaking the attackers for civilians. And what if we're at war and they open the public portal to let in their allies, but forget to close it? Would we not be allowed to rush in and take advantage of their inattentiveness? Isn't it unfair to let a faction use a portal to let their allies through, but threaten intervention if their enemies use it?

Banning aggressive public portal use only when not at war makes much more sense. It keeps the heart of the idea, while removing the potential exploitation in wartime.

[Aanker]

I like your ideas, it is true that it otherwise would be exploitable by allies while enemies could not do anything if, by mere chance, the portal was left open.

[King Sama]

Banning the use of public portals to attack seems to benefit the Dwarves and other far away factions more than anyone else. Most factions are closer to spawn and can be pretty quickly reached from the SZ or a toll portal, making using the public portal to attack unnecessary, while the Dwarves take at least half an hour to reach by boat. For most factions, just putting a lot of defenses around the portal so it's difficult and time consuming to use it to attack would be good enough to make it secure.

I'd make a move to amending it to ban using public portals to attack before declaring war as a signatory faction. In that case, it's running through the portal, entering the enemy city, and then deciding to declare war that's banned. If someone war decs and can get through the public portal before it's closed off, why should that be unfair? The faction would have warning and wouldn't have any trouble mistaking the attackers for civilians. And what if we're at war and they open the public portal to let in their allies, but forget to close it? Would we not be allowed to rush in and take advantage of their inattentiveness? Isn't it unfair to let a faction use a portal to let their allies through, but threaten intervention if their enemies use it?

Banning aggressive public portal use only when not at war makes much more sense. It keeps the heart of the idea, while removing the potential exploitation in wartime.

Don't take this too literally. Keep in mind the purpose is to protect trade, not interfere in war - after a short period of time, enough so that the defending nation has a chance hear of the war, and if it chooses, close its portal and move its shop's stores.

Otherwise, everything is fair game. We just need to ensure that the defending nation has the opportunity to secure the aspects it made insecure through this treaty - and nothing else.