Just curious, but, I'd really like to know Aquinas's motivation for his cruel crusade here.
Just
why is it that he hates our treaties so much?
So much so, as to call to override the preferences of the players who chose to ratify those treaties.
Please tell me, (other than Aquinas's feelings for whatever reason),
whom does the survival of our treaties harm here, please?
Leaving them alone is not only the kindest approach, it's also the simplest and least-effortful as well. Certainly sounds like a win-win to me.
"The list is too long" or "there are too many treaties" -- really, is that proclamation supposed to be more important than, the players who happen to
like those treaties?
He repeatedly keeps calling our treaties "unnecessary". Whereas from my point of view, it is very much instead
his cruel crusade which is what is totally unnecessary. Think about it.
Just let us be. Please.
Meanwhile,
If we had fewer treaties and organisations, but treaties and organisations that were more relevant and focused, then maybe, just maybe, that would help lay the groundwork for a revival of interest.
Or, umm:
maybe not.Plus furthermore, how do you propose to measure such a supposed "revival of interest" (whatever that phrase is supposed to actually mean), please?
Seems to me the quantity in itself clearly demonstrates that players are interested.
Perhaps not "interested" in whatever way it is that you want them to be, but, let's let the players decide how it is that they want to participate, please?
If it's "forum RP" -- there's
plenty of forum RP already! And the quantity of treaties (of all things), sure doesn't seem to be inhibiting it.
Taking our treaties which players like me
already currently do enjoy, and killing them, in the pursuit of whatever bizarre "revival of interest" you're imagining -- really reminds me of the story of the dog with the bone, who saw his reflection with a bone, and greedily opened his mouth to try to grab the "other" dog's bone too. Resulting in his bone falling in the river and being lost, and him being left with no bone at all.
Senselessly destroying something that we already have and whose continued existence costs nothing at all (except apparently offending some intrusive busybodies), in order to undertake a nonsensical pursuit of something "more" which doesn't make any sense to me anyway.
But,
Looking through the list, it sure appears to me that very, very many of the treaties are
two-nation treaties ... all of which say just about the same thing more or less ... and, which don't really
do anything.
The treaties I desperately want to save, are the ones which are either very-long-standing (1000+ years old);
and/or,
are ones which actually
do something, such as Pentalarc's ones (his party is "Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM").
It seems that what Aquinas and his ilk are objecting to throughout this, is the total quantity of treaties.
Somehow they feel that there's "too many".
Killing the ~50 or so that I really like, would absolutely infuriate me, yet at the same time it wouldn't make sufficient enough of a dent in the total quantity of treaties to satisfy Aquinas and his ilk anyway.
Whereas the ~200 or so two-nation, no-legislative-article treaties, on the other hand....
Just speculation on my part, but,
I'd guess that this horde of two-nation treaties are often created by relatively new players who, upon attaining their nation's Foreign Ministry, now feel that it is their duty, now that they're Foreign Minister, to go create such things with every one of their neighbours -- and often going beyond just their neighbours, even.
They don't realise that peaceful relations are happily the default, and really do not need a (yet another) two-nation no-legislative-article treaty to emphasise them.
This surfeit of two-nation no-legislative-article treaties, while certainly not a direct problem in and of itself ...
well, at least I certainly don't mind their existence in and of itself ...
but unfortunately by substantially increasing the total bulk quantity of treaties, unfortunately does in turn provoke the ire of intrusive busybodies, who then proceed to turn their dreadful guns on all treaties in general.
Just recently, I had been manipulated into proposing one of these myself
The creator had written it and set it to ratification before even informing me of its existence (I don't know if he told anyone else in the nation, but I held the Foreign Ministry at the time, so it would be strange if he told other players in the nation but not me).
What was I supposed to do, please?
Tell him no, and thereby perhaps cause friction between our nations (which I really really
really don't want to do), merely in order to supplicate Aquinas who hates our treaties anyway?
There are 58 nations in Particracy.
If a two-nation (and very likely no-legislative-article) treaty were to be created between every potential pair thereof, that would eventually add up to, if my math is right: 1653 treaties....
Also, simply changing the rules to make it more difficult to delete treaties will only further increase the number of unnecessary treaties. In turn, this will obviously make it harder work for both players and Moderators in their efforts to limit them.
Ever considered the other option, perchance? Of simply letting us be, instead of putting yourself through what you recognise as being "work", in order to "limit them" and thereby in order to hurt me and other players who like them?
Again, as I said before, that "work", is what is
truly "unnecessary" here. Not the treaties.
Right now, there are 506 treaties in the system. Rather a lot, but be prepared for a massive increase, with all of the associated problems, if we do not succeed in keeping on top of them.
"Associated problems"? Such as, well, that it being that such would annoy Aquinas even more, in that he hates our treaties so much.
And also such as ... well ...
[ponders] ... umm, that's the
only "associated problem".
It'll free up space
Now "space" is [severely] limited?
and use the wiki partially for what it was meant for?
Many of the treaties
have legislative articles -- so please explain how these are going to continue to be enforced if the corresponding treaties themselves no longer exist in-game, only archived on the wiki.
Again, just simply leaving them alone, completely prevents this problem as well, at no cost.
Just let them be, please.
Just let them be.