Treaty Questions

[KWorld]

Is there any purpose to Article II?  Such a section makes sense in a Washington-type treaty, where the signers are limited on tonnage.  But here, we're not (other than at start), at least as of now.  I'd suggest this section be removed, at least for now.

Also, suggest removing section 3.01, since the practice has been that no "treaty-breakers" are allowed to be built before 3910.


I'd also like to see the "Treaty" changed to "Ship and Technology Rules".  This makes it clear that what we're talking about is an OOC construct, that the sim nations involved cannot decide to break, that they are the Rules of the sim.  A Treaty between the in-sim nations, on the other hand, it is perfectly feasible for the nations to break (see Japanese heavy cruiser tonnages, for a historical naval treaty example), subject to in-sim consequences.  Breaking the Rules, on the other hand, is different.

I'll come up with a modified version of the document, see if it reads better.

[KWorld]

Grrr.  I've modified it, but it's mostly a classification document: what separates a Battleship from a Heavy Cruiser from a Medium Cruiser from a Light Cruiser, etc.  This would be important, if there was a Washington- or London-type naval limitation treaty, but there isn't.  The only real "rules" there are in the document are in the section defining Battleships, and they are: 1, no guns bigger than 12", and 2, no warships larger than 20,000 tons.  There's a rule linked to the classifications: the rule on what ships may or may not use turbine propulsion before 3910.

[snip]

Is there any purpose to Article II?  Such a section makes sense in a Washington-type treaty, where the signers are limited on tonnage.  But here, we're not (other than at start), at least as of now.  I'd suggest this section be removed, at least for now.

I think it adds quite a nice bit of flavor to the document, as well as explaining why there are no ships over 15 years old in our fleets. Since it also covers the older vessels that may be maintained, it should be kept.

Also, suggest removing section 3.01, since the practice has been that no "treaty-breakers" are allowed to be built before 3910.

Once again, this is more of a flavor piece.

I'd also like to see the "Treaty" changed to "Ship and Technology Rules".  This makes it clear that what we're talking about is an OOC construct, that the sim nations involved cannot decide to break, that they are the Rules of the sim.  A Treaty between the in-sim nations, on the other hand, it is perfectly feasible for the nations to break (see Japanese heavy cruiser tonnages, for a historical naval treaty example), subject to in-sim consequences.  Breaking the Rules, on the other hand, is different.

I really dont understand your problem with calling it a treaty. It being a treaty is a key part of both the setting and the manor in which the game is to be run and played. It stays as such.

[Carthaginian]

'Treaty' is because the document is actually a BINDING TREATY... signed by the nations we play in the game.
Just because it doesn't say 'Da Rulz' at the top doesn't mean that it isn't 'the rules of the game.'

D&D doesn't have a 'rulebook'- it has a 'Player's Handbook,' a 'Dungeonmaster's Guide' and a 'Monster Manual.'

What 'rules' are called is not as important as what they are agreed to do.


And if Section II is too confusing, then it can be modified to simply state that any ship under construction which would be in violation of the treaty once completed must be modified to conform or scrapped.

[KWorld]

An issue with the word "treaty" in this case is that there's no such thing as a "binding" treaty between nation-states: any treaty signed can broken if the perceived cost of doing so is less than the perceived gain, see Japan's behavior with respect to the tonnage limits in the OTL naval treaties.  Treaties can also be renounced, see Nazi Germany's renouncement of Versaillles.   Calling the sim rules a "treaty" suggests that it's not against the sim rules to break them (when it clearly is intended to be against those rules), and that the rules can be renounced (when  it's clearly intended that they can't be renounced).

Another issue with the word "treaty" in this case is that there's a matter of expectations: if one treaty is the rules of the game and enforced by the moderators, are all treaties going to be?  Ie, if a future Washington-type treaty is created, limiting the production of various classes of ships, will the mods enforce that treaty's limits if a country tries to "creatively account" for it's tonnage?  Or will the in-character countries have to do so?  If DFox and I come up with a treaty dividing up the continent directly south of our countries, will the mods enforce that treaty if one of us decides to plant a colony where it's not supposed to be?  Or will DFox and I have to come up with a solution (including as a possibility tearing up our treaty and going to war)?

Here's a hypothetical situation: after he's been too active in causing trouble, the other players decide to "get" Player X at the next Treaty session (Player X has laid down and will soon complete several 35,000 ton BBs, no one else has anything bigger than 25,000 tons on the stocks, but 35,000 ton ships were made legal at the previous Treaty session).   There are a total of 9 players: 2 moderators, Player X, and 6 others.  At the next Treaty session, the 6 players vote through a change in the Treaty to allow no larger than 25,000-ton ships, thus effectively wrecking Player X's expenditures for the last 2 years.  This vote is a 2/3rds majority, despite Player X's resistance and any possible voting by the mods.   In a realistic world, Country X could renounce the treaty and go forward, but not in this case, because the treaty isn't a treaty, it's the sim rules.

[Darman]

KWorld,
Here is my (hopefully) elegant solution. Call the starting treaty an OFFICIAL TREATY.  All other treaties are NOT, repeat: NOT official treaties and thus can be broken.  Since you seem very concerned about people breaking the treaty.  Although in all our discussions it has been made quite clear that for this treaty, which is The Treaty, is unbreakable, changeable but unbreakable. 

[snip]

KWorld,
Here is my (hopefully) elegant solution. Call the starting treaty an OFFICIAL TREATY.  All other treaties are NOT, repeat: NOT official treaties and thus can be broken.  Since you seem very concerned about people breaking the treaty.  Although in all our discussions it has been made quite clear that for this treaty, which is The Treaty, is unbreakable, changeable but unbreakable.

Close, tho I would hesitate to use the word official. Universally binding might be a better choice, but the point is spot on. The rule is to obey the treaty (AN AGREEMENT UPON LIMITATIONS FOR NAVAL VESSELS), so all nations must abide by it. Any other agreement is between the parties that wish to engage in it IC.

[KWorld]

KWorld,
Here is my (hopefully) elegant solution. Call the starting treaty an OFFICIAL TREATY.  All other treaties are NOT, repeat: NOT official treaties and thus can be broken.  Since you seem very concerned about people breaking the treaty.  Although in all our discussions it has been made quite clear that for this treaty, which is The Treaty, is unbreakable, changeable but unbreakable.

I'm a history major, as well as a long-time Diplomacy player, so I expect treaties to be "worked" around the edges, and to be outright broken on occasion.  Historically, they were, so I expect that sort of thing to continue to happen.

[Darman]

I'm a history major, as well as a long-time Diplomacy player, so I expect treaties to be "worked" around the edges, and to be outright broken on occasion.  Historically, they were, so I expect that sort of thing to continue to happen.

I also studied history in college, and you are right, treaties are made to be broken.  Its completely irrelevant to this particular treaty in this particular game.  The rules of the game are couched in terms of a treaty but they are The Rules.  They can be amended just like a treaty can be.  All other treaties, feel free to "work" around the edges, etc. 

[KWorld]

That, I suppose, is my issue: WHY are we trying to make the out-of-character rules of the game into an in-character construct?  It's confusing, and it opens the potential of some gaming of the system that would be reduced (though not eliminated) if we didn't do it.

[snip]

Take a look at the tech trees from the old games. Then you will see why is the version Carth and I chose to go with.

[KWorld]

I don't have an issue, per se, with the mechanism, and I agree that coming up with a set of tech trees that will cover everything a bunch of creative players can come up with would be a serious project.  However, my opinion (and it's only that) is that you can use the same mechanism (the players set the technology boundaries every two sim-years, and no one is allowed to exceed those boundaries) without making it an in-character thing (in this case a treaty).  By making it explicitly an out-of-character thing, it's easy to see why there's no rule-breaking allowed, they're the rules of the game.

[KWorld]

On a different topic entirely:

The 15 year age clause is awfully short, though I realize that period ships often had short lives by modern standards.  Historically, the German fleet laws initially assumed a lifespan for a ship of 25 years, though this was reduced in the 1908 naval law to 20 years.  We might want to look at changing this in some fashion, though it may be a moot point for a little while since lots of older hulls will be happily replaced soon.

[snip]

That clause is only for ships from the pre-startup period. It will not apply to any ships that physicly exist after the start of the game, including those of the starting fleets. This is a game reason for there not being any ships before 1895.

[KWorld]

If that's the case, we may want to modify the text to say something like that, because without some change, come 1911, we'll have to be rid of any 1895 ships.  Not sure how to word this, but something like:

[Rules]
As of game start in 1910 (3910), no fleet shall include any vessels laid down prior to 1895.  Once actual play has begun, this ship age limit of 15 years no longer applies.


[Treaty]
As of the beginning of the year 3910, the pre-existing treaty limitation on ship age within the signatory fleets (15 years) shall no longer be in force.