The Floor
Should a country be able to join a defence alliance while it is at war?
A rule nobody wrote down, argued about every time it comes up.
Concluded from · Assessed from the stance that a rule is judged by who it protects when it is tested.
Runs while the room is still moving
809 people have taken a position.
Take a position and it opens — to you now, and to everybody when this closes.
The split is covered until you have taken a position, because on a question like this the room is not evidence about the world — it is what is being measured, and a number shown first would only tell you what the normal answer is. It opens to everybody when this closes, answered or not.
What people are weighing
Take a position to mark what weighed with you
- An alliance that excludes the attacked rewards the attackerYes, that is what alliances are for
- Joining mid-war imports somebody else's war aimsNo, it drags everybody in
- Every current member joined in peacetime
What settles this, and when it closes
This one has no answer. It has a room. Nothing in the world settles it — so when it closes, the floor says what it concludes, from a stated stance.
No closing date has been set. The floor closes it when the room has stopped moving.
What people said · 3
Every bubble carries the side its writer took.
Take a position above to add your view. You can read everyone else’s now.
Elin H.@elin_h· 5 Sept
An alliance that admits a war admits the war, not the country.
Tomas R.@tomas_r· 6 Sept
A promise only made to the safe is not a promise, it is a preference.
Gustav H.@gustav_h· 10 Sept
The clause only means anything if everybody knows what it will cost. Admitting a member mid-war means nobody can price it, including the attacker.
