======================================================================

PE-WJ-Announce [Moderator]: TS victory clock halted
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:32:51 +0000

Announcement from the Moderator to All Leaders:

My count shows the TS alliance controlling 102 of 320 regions, which
is now less than the 1/3 they require.  Therefore, the 5-turn clock
has been halted, and we will not start a new era immediately.  Back to
the struggle!

-- Power's Edge, http://www.powersedge.net/ 




======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [James Howlett]: United Nations
Date:Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:44:04 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

Bold/Bald Porcupines made it clear from the beginning that he would do
whatever necessary to stop the world from ending/restarting.  While I
cannot condone the breaking of peace treaties that had no clause in
them stating that they would end once the victory clock started, at
least I can respect his open nature and the fact that he gave some
warning.

What baffles me is the actions of Aachaan who broke several treaties
this past turn for no apparent reason other than wanting some cheap
gains in regions and production.  The Porcupines and Aachaan could
have just found one more member of decent size for their alliance
(Hermis or Gregorius would have worked) or two smaller nations, and
their region count alone would have halted the victory clock. 
Instead, Aachaan mounts a sneak attack to catch all the nations he has
peace treaties with off guard.  This is unacceptable.  If it was their
only option to stop the world from restarting, then I could see a
surprise attack, but they had several other options in regards to
other members that would have given them enough regions to stop the
victory clock peacefully and without breaking treaties.

So, on to the matter at hand.  This world seems like it has no end in
sight now.  I suppose that's how some leaders want it to be.  I have
been thinking on something like this for a long time and recent events
have made it clear that this world needs an unbiased and unaffiliated
policing body to enforce treaties.  I propose the birth of the United
Nations in this world.  Every nation is invited to join.  Simply add
"[UN]" after your leader name (alliance initials go after your nation
name) if you want membership.  This new affiliation would not be
concerned with what alliance you belong to.  Any member nation could
bring a complaint before the entire group whenever a treaty is broken.
If the group agrees that it was broken wrongfully then pressure would
be applied to the person that broke the treaty to undo the damage done
and make reparations.  If that person is unwilling to do so then the
UN would intervene and attack the treaty breaker until they comply. 
During this military action, any conflict between members within the
UN would be halted immediately.  Once the matter is resolved then any
necessary actions to return the UN members' region count and
production level to proportional levels will be taken, and then any
pre-existing conflicts can resume as normal.  If military action must
be taken then any victory conditions by members of the UN will be
halted (I suppose the moderator would have to agree to letting us do
this).

I truly hope that every nation will want to be a part of this.  There
are simply too many large factions right now and too much war going on
for any one treaty breaker to be punished.  If there is a lot of
interest in this, then the members can work together to create a more
official charter with specific rules and actions.  The main goal would
always be to enforce the laws of this world.  I've always found the
fact that anyone can just break a treaty and often get away with it to
be totally unacceptable.  There should be consequences for illegal
actions.  Peace treaties should be viewed as binding contracts.  If it
says you need to give 5 turns of notice then you should be held to
that.  If you want to add a clause that says the treaty becomes null
and void if either party is part of a victory condition, then do so. 
All peace treaties would need to be made public for this system to
work.  For that reason, any members of the UN should send out a public
announcement with a list of their current (or recently broken)
treaties.  I will list my treaties below.

Thank you,
James

My 5-turn notice of cancellation peace treaties:
Aachaan (attacked me and all of my allies this past turn)
Bold Porcupines (although we lost our border long ago)
BoldyGo
Gregorius XVI (currently asking him about his attack on me last turn)
Ockerboy
Zabor
apeloverage
rstlne30


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Acanthopis]: UN
Date:Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:08:57 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion, Jim, but I'm thinking that what
I don't need more of in my war is paperwork.

Look, a treaty is a treaty. A person breaks it, they suffer the
consequences. A person lives by it, they suffer the consequences.
Those of us who don't break treaties get the benefits of a good
reputation, and people are more likely to make treaties with us. Those
who do break treaties get the benefits of free land, but people treat
them with suspicion.

I am not trying to recreate the wonderful world of human diplomacy
that has led to such peace and fairness elsewhere. I am trying to have
a little fun fighting wars. I choose to do so by sticking with the
terms of my treaties, but I certainly don't want to have to lay down
my arms against you just when I have you on the mats (har!) simply
because a couple minor powers have a squabble somewhere. And then have
to debate endlessly who actually broke the treaty, and what
constitutes reparations because someone "misunderstood" the terms or
something? Havent you been there? My God, next we'll have
subcommittees! (Eh, Professor?)

No way. I'm here to fight, and right now I'm dying pretty fast. Still,
that's a lot more fun than parsing treaties!

So, I won't be joining the UN, but, as I said to Iceman, instead hope
to soon see you and your allies cut up into little bite-sized bits,
covered in molasses, and fed to the donkeys.  

Still I appreciate your friendship and wise words, and wish the best
to you in your UN lackey project,

Your friend and enemy,

-- Acanthopis


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Aachaan]: Response
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:57:31 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

After going over every single diplomatic message I have received since
the beginning of this world, I am as baffled by James Howlett's words
as I was when I read them.

"...the actions of Aachaan who broke several treaties this past turn
for no apparent reason other than wanting some cheap gains in regions
and production."

My forces launched attacks on Howlett, the Professor, and Iceman last
turn.  I admit that I have had friendly relations with each of these
nations, particularly Iceman, but I am positive that no formal
treaties existed between my nation and any of these three at the time
of attack.  At one point I had non-aggression treaties with each,
however they were all set to expire on certain turns (all over 50
turns ago) rather than having any five turn cancellation clauses.  If
I am incorrect in any of these cases, please point me to the private
message in which I agreed to said treaty and I will humbly admit my
mistake.

As for my reasons for these attacks, "cheap gains" is hardly the
complete answer.  The Specialists are extremely close to ending this
game.  They have a massive lead in regions and production and if left
unchallenged they will regain their strength and claim victory.  Of
course cheap gains are always an incentive but I have more additional
in this case.

As for Howlett's interesting lecture on world politics, I must admit I
lost interest about half way through the second paragraph.  As such, I
politely decline his invitation to the world-wide debate club.

	Aachaan of Darokin



======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Bold Porcupines X]: Howlet has amnesia
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:54:43 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

I find it hilarious that Howlett is complaining about other nations
breaking their word when the T.S. alliance, which had previously
declared that it would stand down and reduce its size in order to stop
the victory clock, did exactly the opposite of what they said. 
Aachaan and I would not have been forced into desperate measures if
T.S. had kept their own word.  

Last turn, Aachaan and I were trying as desperately as possible to
keep the world from ending. We did not have confidence in either the
military option (take regions from T.S.) or the diplomatic option. 
(There was not enough time to get messages around to all potential
allies and get commitments before the update.  And Unlike the T.S.
nations A and BP are both very busy and find it difficult at times
even to get moves in, much less an endless stream of diplomacy.)  So
we tried everything we could all at once.  Maybe one of our friends
will join us this turn or next after having had some more time to
think about things.  Or maybe not, since at least the clock is now
stopped.

In any case, the historical record shows that the Porcupines declared
over 2 months ago that we would not honor our 5-turn agreements if the
world was about to end, since we consider any alliance-victory threat
to be a mortal threat to our existence, and thus an act of war
sufficient to break the treaty.  Despite Howlett's protestations,
there's plenty of honor in that stance and we stand behind it.  Anyone
who thinks that anyone else ought to honor a 5-turn notification rule
when the other guy has just said, in effect, "My alliance and I are
killing you off and ending the world in 5 turns" is not sane.

My people are intrigued by the UN idea.  Let's start by punishing TS
for failing to honor their "TS standing down" pledge.  In Howlett's
own words (Feb. 3): "...we will give 4 or 5 regions away to get below
the size necessary to meet the victory condition. We just wanted to
let the world know of our plans so that unneccessary hostility can be
avoided and no one has to break any peace treaties to try to stop us
from winning."

Seems he forgot that last sentence, and is now blaming Aachann for the
"unnecessary hostility" that TS failed to prevent.

BP


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Acanthopis]: UN
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:08:09 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

James:

You see? You see?

This is what multilateral organizations do to war games.

"You broke the treaty." "We didn't have a treaty." "You broke the
treaty first." AAARGH!

This madness must end. I hereby declare war on anyone who so much as
CONSIDERS joining the UN! That's right: me and my 400 armies hereby
declare war on you if the thought crosses your mind. We will be the
judge of what you are thinking. I am sure that the others in SA back
me up 100 percent in my empty threat.

This is how SERIOUSLY we take the dangers of bureaucracy... 

-- Acanthopis


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Kalvis]: James and Honor
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:17:58 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

The intresting read those messages from Aachan and BP, I'd say. So
James lies and... well lies. So much for the honor. It is ironic, how
one who used the treacherous sword of honor is going to lay his head
under that same doomed weapon.

Anyway, I, Kalvis, the once great Leader of Kaunieciai, declare war on
all leaders who shall join UN. I think treaties should be controled by
the reputation of leaders and not by some formal institution. Anyone
is free to break any treaties with me, but in that case he will be a
total bastard and I will hate him till the end of my leader's days :)

This game would be so much more intresting if everyone would be
willing to win and not to just expand!


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [James Howlett]: Pity
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:51:05 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

It really is a pity that other nations don't see the usefulness of a
United Nations just because I suggested it and they have been at war
with me.  I will just be one member among equals, and if the UN wished
to bring up a dispute over my actions or the actions of my alliance
then I would welcome it and defend my actions.  Perhaps the leaders of
SA and people like Aachaan have just become spoiled because they've
only been fighting against the leaders of TS who don't break treaties.
I guess if you haven't been bitten in the butt on several occasions by
different leaders breaking treaties with you over the coarse of this
game and others then you wouldn't see a need for some sort of large
entity to enforce the rules.  I'm not proposing that we go retroactive
with the UN.  Peace treaties would have to be made public by one
leader and confirmed by the second party in order for the UN to
recognize them and enforce them.  Really, I figured that with so much
conflict over the course of this world that it would be hard for some
leaders to look at the big picture and not just think about themselves
or their alliance.  But like I said, I guess if you're never the
victim either through luck or maybe because your allies are the type
to break treaties, then you still wouldn't care about an entity like
the UN.

One side note: I find it amusing when some leaders talk about how they
need to stop the world from ending/restarting and how they don't want
to "lose" or have their nation destroyed.  This game is on turn 117
now.  TS has had it's 4 members and been working toward winning now
for much longer than anyone else.  For a long time we were the only
declared alliance.  Then SA came on the scene and we fought and they
got a phantom 4th member in Hermis and we effectively beat them. 
During this whole time frame of 117 turns there have been 2 alliances.
This turn marks the 3rd alliance this world has seen.  In a world like
this you have no hope of winning unless you have a 4 member alliance
and you need at least 3 members to stop some other alliance from
winning.  So I ask you, what have you been doing all this time if you
really cared about winning, or at least not losing?  Did you not read
the rules?  Did you not want to make firm decisions on allies?  Did
you just want to see how the wind blew before you did something?  Can
you really "lose" a game if you were never a contender to win it?


======================================================================

PE-WJ-Diplo [Hermis]: ...
Date:Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:03:12 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

I see that James can not make peace with the fact that victory was so
close and now it is fading away :)

As most of us know, I was attacked by ChickenLittle when he broke our
peace treaty, and it was not the "end of world" time. But still I am
against UN, because it is much more interesting in the way it is now.

PS. I respect those leaders who brake treaties when the end of world
comes. We all should fight for this world!