[Jyrinx]

I want to see what the consensus is for these.

If you are a government member acting in official capacity for your government, does messaging an alliance's members for the following reasons constitute an infringement on that alliance's sovereignty?

1) Messaging to vote for a senate candidate, when the alliance member is located off-team (not on the alliance's team)

For example, you're blue and there's a member of a predominately aqua alliance in your blue trade circle right now. Would it infringe on said aqua alliance's sovereignty to message this member and ask him to vote for your alliance's blue senator?

2) Messaging to vote for a(nother) senate candidate, when the alliance member is located on-team (located on the alliance's team)

Similar to 1) but the instead of it being an aqua alliance, the guy is in a predominately blue alliance. Would it infringe on said blue alliance's sovereignty to ask him to vote for a blue senator other than the one his alliance officially supports?

3) Situation 1 but with mass messaging

Instead of messaging a specific person you know or are in a trade circle with, you message indiscriminately everyone in an orange team alliance but only if they're on the blue team. In the message you ask them to vote for your blue team senator.

4) Situation 2 but with mass messaging

Self-explanatory

5) Messaging a friend or other specific nation you know in another alliance, asking them to switch over to either your or another alliance
(OOC: By "friend" here, I mean a nation you know through playing the game, not someone you know in real life. I don't think anybody in their right mind would seriously consider you asking a co-worker or significant other to switch to your alliance being questionable behavior)

6) Mass Messaging all members in another alliance, asking them to switch over to either your or another alliance

7) Situation 6 but said alliance has either just or is in the process of disbanding/merging AND you DID have something to do with the previous alliance

For example, Alliance A merges with Alliance B. You don't like B and, as you are a member of A, decide to officially leave A and either form your own alliance or join another existing alliance. You mass message everyone still on A telling them to come to your alliance.

8) Situation 6 but said alliance has either just or is in the process of disbanding/merging AND you had nothing to do with the alliance before

This post has been edited by Jyrinx: 25 October 2009 - 09:23 PM

[deSouza]

Voted all, because technically they all infringe on an alliance's sovereignity.
An alliance reacting to it or not is a different question.

[Locke]

Can we have a "none" option please?

[Jyrinx]

Locke, on Oct 25 2009, 11:19 PM, said:

Can we have a "none" option please?

Does "null vote" not count in the total results? I thought it did. Ok, I'll add a none option.

[Locke]

Jyrinx, on Oct 25 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Does "null vote" not count in the total results? I thought it did. Ok, I'll add a none option.

Ah, voting now and looking at the vote count, looks like it does.

[Haflinger]

I want there to be an option "In contradiction of the alliance's policies."

There's probably some alliance out there (I can think of a couple examples that get close) that bans its members from all outside contact entirely.

[Starcraftmazter]

I would say all do.

[Corinan]

None of them do. It's just messages. They do no harm at all and can be deleted.

This post has been edited by Corinan: 25 October 2009 - 09:53 PM

[Sal Paradise]

None of that has anything to do with sovereignty. Though you might think so if you considered nations the property of their alliance. Well that's not true... rulers rightfully consider their nations property and such messages still aren't violations of sovereignty for a nation without an alliance. Yeah, none of that has anything to do with sovereignty.

This post has been edited by Sal Paradise: 25 October 2009 - 10:11 PM

[KagetheSecond]

The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool

[Corinan]

KagetheSecond, on Oct 26 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool

It's all PMs, man.

[Sal Paradise]

KagetheSecond, on Oct 25 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool

Please explain why an alliance has this right.

[Corinan]

Sal Paradise, on Oct 26 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Please explain why an alliance has this right.

Because that's, like, the way it's always been!

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Someone is trying to play e-lawyer.

"Infringe on sovereignty?" Probably not. But it's extremely rude and provocative. That's enough.

[Jyrinx]

Sigrun Vapneir, on Oct 26 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Someone is trying to play e-lawyer.

"Infringe on sovereignty?" Probably not. But it's extremely rude and provocative. That's enough.

If I wanted to know whether people thought it was rude and provocative, I would've asked that in the poll.

No, what I'm curious about is how predominant a view it is that those situations are all out infringements on sovereignty. Getting a few explanations for the responses would be cool too.

This post has been edited by Jyrinx: 26 October 2009 - 12:03 AM

[KagetheSecond]

Sal Paradise, on Oct 25 2009, 09:19 PM, said:

Please explain why an alliance has this right.

I understand the reasoning that the NSO used during the whole scandal, but I still don't like that they were doing it. It speaks volumes about the amount of respect that the NSO held for the neutrals and was essentially a slap in the face to them. Twist it what ever way you want, it was uncalled for.

[alpreb]

It doesn't even really infringes on the sovereignty, but people are free to feel pissed off when things like that happens.

[Griff]

KagetheSecond, on Oct 26 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

and was essentially a slap in the face to them.

If that's true then I guess we have something in common, no?

Anyways, voted none, can't wait for the inevitable trainwreck.

[erikz]

Recruiting from other alliances is the only "not-done" scenario for me.

Hai NSO.

[jerdge]

I voted for the last option.
I think that members of an alliance are citizens, not subjects, and that asking/proposing anything to them isn't infringing on their alliance's sovereignty.
That alliance is also within its rights to take offence for it, anyway, and to "do something" about it. Any CB is good for the people in the military...