International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations

[magicninja]

1. A "safe haven" Alliance Affiliation is established. This AA will have no internal government oversight. No forums. Nothing official. Just an AA individual nations can wear to escape being raided. Nations wearing the AA can still be recruited by anyone and be on any trading sphere they desire.

2. A non-political group of alliances will be needed to ensure protection of the safe haven AA. The more the merrier. Out of this group a council of 5 alliances that is openly elected here on the OWF to do the diplomatic leg work when a legit safe haven nation is raided.

3. Nations cannot use the safe haven AA to escape legitimate punishment. Nations on the safe haven AA that engage in aggression lose all rights to protection.

As it is I propose the following:

[quote][center][u][b]The Safe Haven Accord[/b][/u][/center]

[b]Preamble[/b]

The undersigned alliances and individuals agree to protect the Alliance Affiliation "Safe Haven" from unprovoked aggression. In the interest of fostering international cooperation on the issue of "unaligned" protection no alliance or individual will be barred from signing this document.

[b]Article I Membership of Safe Haven[/b]

Membership in Safe Haven only requires wearing the alliance affiliation Safe Haven.

[b]Article II Protection[/b]

All undersigned alliances agree to protect all nations wearing the Safe Haven alliance affiliation from unprovoked attacks.

Any nation under the Safe Haven alliance affiliation that engages in aggressive warfare will forfeit protection.

Any nation proven to be a legitimate enemy of any alliance will forfeit protection.

Only nations wearing the alliance affiliation Safe Haven at the time of attack are eligible for protection.

[b]Article III Council of Five[/b]

Of the undersigned alliances a council of five (5) alliances will be chosen to speak for the Safe Haven alliance affiliations in all diplomatic matters.

Elections will begin on the 1st day of every even numbered month. A thread will be opened in the "World Affairs" forum by a current council spokesperson for nominations for council seats. Nominations will last 24 hours. Upon conclusion of nominations a council spokesperson shall open a poll in the "World Affairs" forum. The top 5 alliances garnering votes shall be deemed the Safe Haven Council for the term.

No alliance can hold a council spot for two consecutive terms.

[b]Article IV Diplomacy[/b]

Diplomacy will always be the first option. Safe Haven protector alliances will never ask for anything more than peace and/or equal reparations for damage done. Military action will only be used when all diplomatic options have been exhausted.

[b]Article VI Military Action[/b]

Military Action may only be taken against an offending nation through a unanimous vote of the Council of Five.


[b]Article VI Accord Membership[/b]

Any alliance or individual may sign this accord through the laws of their charter.

Any alliance or individual may remove their signature from this accord at any time.[/quote]

Discuss.

Edited July 23, 2010 by magicninja

[wickedj]

FINALLY

So i get any credit?

[Voytek]

So essentially this is an artificial neutral alliance with protectorates.

[Lord Levistus]

if you can't find a flag to wear already, you aren't going to find this one.

[Max Cristof]

Not too bad I suppose. Getting the signatory alliances to follow through would be difficult I imagine. Especially if someone expelled from the signatory/goes rogue etc joins the safe haven and then they're safe.

Overall, I wouldn't side with it. Not really sure it would work in this game.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Max Cristof

[SoADarthCyfe6]

It is essentially a doctrine of defense to specific group by larger alliances.

[lordliam]

I support it 120%. magicninja is the best.

[supercoolyellow]

It should be be protected by alliances in different areas of the treaty web for this to work.

[wickedj]

[quote name='Voytek' date='22 July 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1279853077' post='2385234']
So essentially this is an artificial neutral alliance with protectorates.
[/quote]
Yea, a protected AA that is just a haven from the 'none' AA

[ktarthan]

Vastly superior to the Revenge Doctrine.

One thing that I think, though possibly already in the spirit of the document, should be explicit is the treatment of nations who switch to this AA [i]during[/i] a tech raid or other defensive war. That is, they shouldn't be expected to get reps just because they switch to this AA for wars the commenced prior.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Voytek' date='22 July 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1279853077' post='2385234']
So essentially this is an artificial neutral alliance with protectorates.
[/quote]

Can only push the envelope so far before someone does something about it. Ask the NPO what it is like when someone does something about it.

[ChairmanHal]

I like it. Could have some issues down the line, but I think it's worth trying.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Voytek' date='22 July 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1279853077' post='2385234']
So essentially this is an artificial neutral alliance with protectorates.
[/quote]

It wouldn't be an alliance in the conventional sense. It would be a group of nations that do not wish to partake in "real" alliances and want to do things on their own. The only thing they gain from wearing the AA is protection from unprovoked attacks. They have no responsibility other than to not engage in aggressive action themselves.

[Ryuzaki]

The main issue with an idea like this that the people most likely to be tech raided won't know about it. So it is more or less a fruitless endeavour.

[wickedj]

[quote name='Max Cristof' date='22 July 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1279853167' post='2385237']
Not too bad I suppose. Getting the signatory alliances to follow through would be difficult I imagine. Especially if someone expelled from the signatory/goes rogue etc joins the safe haven and then they're safe.

Overall, I wouldn't side with it. Not really sure it would work in this game.
[/quote]
[quote]3. Nations cannot use the safe haven AA to escape legitimate punishment. Nations on the safe haven AA that engage in aggression lose all rights to protection.[/quote]

Adjust your glasses my friend

[der_ko]

Something wrong with GPA or TDO these days?

Edited July 23, 2010 by der_ko

[magicninja]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 July 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1279853223' post='2385243']
Vastly superior to the Revenge Doctrine.

One thing that I think, though possibly already in the spirit of the document, should be explicit is the treatment of nations who switch to this AA [i]during[/i] a tech raid or other defensive war. That is, they shouldn't be expected to get reps just because they switch to this AA for wars the commenced prior.
[/quote]

So we add in a bit that the war must have been while a nation was wearing "Safe Haven". I think we can agree on that.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 July 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1279853223' post='2385243']
Vastly superior to the Revenge Doctrine.

One thing that I think, though possibly already in the spirit of the document, should be explicit is the treatment of nations who switch to this AA [i]during[/i] a tech raid or other defensive war. That is, they shouldn't be expected to get reps just because they switch to this AA for wars the commenced prior.
[/quote]


You would be able to easily point that out due to the fact the display wars shows where this person came from so that would be rather easy to control. This is probably one of the only times I will support a statement from a GOONS member, but that needs to happen otherwise this will NOT work.

[Voytek]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1279853240' post='2385246']
It wouldn't be an alliance in the conventional sense. It would be a group of nations that do not wish to partake in "real" alliances and want to do things on their own. The only thing they gain from wearing the AA is protection from unprovoked attacks. They have no responsibility other than to not engage in aggressive action themselves.
[/quote]
They already have this option with alliances like GPA and TDO. What makes you think nations that haven't already signed up to those alliances for protection are going to sign up to this?

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1279852920' post='2385230']
[b]2. A non-political group of alliances will be needed to ensure protection of the safe haven AA. [/b]The more the merrier. Out of this group a council of 5 alliances that is openly elected here on the OWF to do the diplomatic leg work when a legit safe haven nation is raided.
[/quote]

So you want GPA, WTF, TDO, et.al. to basically take on a near-formless protectorate. Anyone else that would be involved would inherently be political as part of their nature of existence. Further, none of the alliances I mentioned that would theoretically be able to live up to that role would likely take it up, as it would likely generate situations that would force them to be semi-political.

Don't get me wrong, I hate raiding as much as the next guy, but there are so many glaring problems with this proposal when you look at it pragmatically. In order to ensure that it worked, you would invariably need cooperation from ALL corners of the current cluster#$@& web, and there's no way in Hell that many people with such diametrically opposed viewpoints on how the way things should be would be able to set aside all their differences on something like this. Now, call me a cynic, but I fail to see there such an overly idealistic concept will work.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='22 July 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1279853244' post='2385247']
The main issue with an idea like this that the people most likely to be tech raided won't know about it. So it is more or less a fruitless endeavour.
[/quote]

True enough. I think those that recruit would be doing the world a favor if they added in. If you don't want to join our alliance that is fine but switch to the AA Safe Haven so you don;t get wrecked. Will this undermine recruiting? Maybe a little but this going to be mostly for those nations that don;t want to join an alliance at any point.

[wickedj]

[quote name='der_ko' date='22 July 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1279853300' post='2385251']
Something wrong with GPA or TDO these days?
[/quote]
GPA and TDO are alliances, recruiting from them tends to result in bad things. with this AA you can openly recruit these nations the goal is just to keep the ebil raiders at bay

[magicninja]

[quote name='Voytek' date='22 July 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1279853378' post='2385254']
They already have this option with alliances like GPA and TDO. What makes you think nations that haven't already signed up to those alliances for protection are going to sign up to this?
[/quote]

There are nations that want nothing to do with alliance politics. Before Karma there were a handful of extremely large nations on Red taking advantage of the Revenge Doctrine. I don't see why similar nations wouldn't want to take advantage of this.

[Comrade Craig]

I suppose the main flaw in this idea is that alliances often walk away from much stronger commitments for political reasons... Such an agreement would be at the mercy of politics to an even greater degree, simply because there is no material gain in supporting it "at all costs."

If (against all odds) this were to become a reality, it is far more likely that it would be used as a CB for an oppressive war than to defend the defenseless.

-Craig

[Michael von Prussia]

I support this move. The Revenge Doctrine has its place, as does this. Well done to magicninja for putting this into action, and to wickedj for the concept.