You are not logged in.

Regarding Cleito decisions

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, November 9th 2005, 2:32pm

Regarding Cleito decisions

Folks,

has someone written some kind of protocol that sums up the individual threads and includes the final decision proposals for each topic? I think we need something like that to make our decisions and to end the treaty talks. Sadly I haven´t done such a protocol while we were discussing.

Anybody out here with enough to put something together?

Many thanks,

HoOmAn

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, November 9th 2005, 5:01pm

Here's MY read on the Treaty threads:

Settled
Training ships - Accepted Indian and American proposals, as modified by Danish suggestion
Hull limits vs tonnage – Rejected, remains as per Clieto
“6-inch guns” – Rejected, remains as per Clieto
Unlimited ships - Rejected, remains as per Clieto

Capital Ship Definition - Rejected, remains as per Clieto
General Ship Definition - Rejected, remains as per Clieto
Germany – Accepted Indian/German/Nordmark proposal.


Not settled
Capital ship limits – Only a few signatories have commented
Cruiser tonnage - Only a few signatories have commented
Minor Power Limits – Disagreement, may be resolvable
Alterations to Disposal of Vessels – Disagreement, may be resolvable
Experimental Submarines – Disagreement, appears be resolvable
Australia – Disagreement, needs to be resolved.

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, November 9th 2005, 7:05pm

I would also add that my proposal for for training carriers seems to have received general support.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, November 9th 2005, 7:07pm

I was covering that under Training Vessels, but I'll update it and add mention of America.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, November 16th 2005, 3:56pm

<bump>

There's some issues here for the Cleito signatories to decide, or to comment further on before Javi returns.

Marek Gutkowski

Professional

Posts: 1,280

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, November 16th 2005, 4:41pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Here's MY read on the Treaty threads:




Not settled


Minor Power Limits &#65533; Disagreement, may be resolvable


For me its intersting topic as poland is thinking of joining Cleito

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, November 16th 2005, 10:32pm

Poland should consider what its warship designs and requirements will be before it commits to Cleito; it's possible that the treaty will prevent Poland from operating a variety of ship it considers essential.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, November 17th 2005, 1:47am

Agreed, Poland seems to be in a similar situation as Turkey in that being a smaller nation, joining the CT could seriously hamper her building plans.

That being said the selling ships clause may very well wind up forcing smaller nations like Turkey and Poland to join the CT in order to purchase older vessels as a cheaper alternative to guting its warship materials stockpile to buy overpriced newer vessels from opertunistic builders.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, November 17th 2005, 2:40am

That's assuming the CT gets changed to allow the selling of used ships by CT members, and that the revised CT only allows the selling of ships to other CT members.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

10

Friday, December 2nd 2005, 3:25pm

Just bumping the thread so everyone can see what's been agreed to so far (though I may have missed something, remind me if I have).

Settled
Training ships - Accepted Indian and American proposals, as modified by Danish suggestion
Germany – Accepted Indian/German/Nordmark proposal
Hull limits vs tonnage – Rejected, remains as per Clieto
“6-inch guns” – Rejected, remains as per Clieto
Unlimited ships - Rejected, remains as per Clieto
Capital Ship Definition - Rejected, remains as per Clieto
General Ship Definition - Rejected, remains as per Clieto
Alterations to Disposal of Vessels – Rejected, remains as per Cleito

Not settled
Capital ship limits – Only a few signatories have commented
Cruiser tonnage - Only a few signatories have commented
Minor Power Limits – Disagreement, may be resolvable
Experimental Submarines – Disagreement, appears be resolvable
Australia – Disagreement, needs to be resolved.
Museum vessels - Only a few signatories have commented

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

11

Friday, December 2nd 2005, 3:35pm

I'm not sure about the training ship bit; it appears that Denmark proposed that belt armor be allowed, but further on, Atlantis and the USA agree that it is not necessary.

Hrolf, can you post the final text of the German clauses in the new fifth section of the treaty discussion area?

I'll do the same for training ships when the armor issue is clarified.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

12

Friday, December 2nd 2005, 3:43pm

I would, but right now that area is not letting me start a new thread. Once that's fixed, I'll be happy to.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

13

Saturday, December 3rd 2005, 6:20am

Oops that would be my fault. Orriginally I left it open to moderators only. I'll open it up if Rocky hasn't already.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

14

Saturday, December 3rd 2005, 6:44am

Haven't. Pre-occupied with finishing off my Q1 news, writing my Q2 report, and kibitizing various drawings to see what I get: CDS, destroyers, carriers. I can do this kind of thing when Val's away at cat shows...

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

15

Saturday, December 3rd 2005, 6:57am

sall right, I'm just shifting through the various tidbits recently posted, then I'll open er up!

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

16

Wednesday, December 7th 2005, 8:42pm

The current situation appears to be:

Settled and Accepted:

Germany limits
Australia/UK limits
Museum Ships

Unsettled, with prospect for agreement

Rebuilding/reconstruction
Training Ships
Experimental Submarines
Unrestricted vessels
Filipino limits

Settled and Rejected:

6 inch guns
Cruiser tonnage
Capital Ship Definition
General Ship Definition
Hull limits vs tonnage
Minor Power Limits

Unsettled, but likely to be rejected

Sales of warships (new and old)
Capital ship limits
Compliance

It's important that everybody comment at the earliest opportunity; even a yes or no will suffice so we can determine which, if any, unsettled matters will be apporved and move on - remember, unanimous consent is required to make a change. Because I think we're getting collectively burned out by the discussion and would be better off moving on.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

17

Wednesday, December 7th 2005, 8:53pm

We would vote on them all as a package or vote on each proposal separately. We decided to go for the second one. But I thought that the idea was to post all the points in one list and then vote for each point with a yes/no vote in one reply post and I am actually waiting for that...

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

18

Wednesday, December 7th 2005, 9:02pm

Oh...okay. I'll see what can be done.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

19

Wednesday, December 7th 2005, 9:15pm

I think copy/paste of the above list is enough as all points are given there (I think).

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

20

Wednesday, December 7th 2005, 9:57pm

Something like this?

Germany limits ------------------ Yes/No
Australia/UK limits ------------- Yes/No
Museum Ships -------------------- Yes/No
Rebuilding/reconstruction ------- Yes/No
Training Ships ------------------ Yes/No
Experimental Submarines --------- Yes/No
Unrestricted vessels ------------ Yes/No
Filipino limits ----------------- Yes/No
6 inch guns --------------------- Yes/No
Cruiser tonnage ----------------- Yes/No
Capital Ship Definition --------- Yes/No
General Ship Definition --------- Yes/No
Hull limits vs tonnage ---------- Yes/No
Minor Power Limits -------------- Yes/No
Sales of warships (new and old) - Yes/No
Capital ship limits ------------- Yes/No
Compliance ---------------------- Yes/No

You mentioned that "we're getting collectively burned out by the discussion and would be better off moving on" and I think that this way is the quickest way to wrap it up, rather than having to call for the others for more input every time. I think you did it three times already.