A debate on accepting nations at war

[Sardonic]

Recent incidents have drawn to my attention the fact that some alliances think it is perfectly acceptable to accept nations at war. I do not believe this is justified by standard conventions.

Let us take for example a recent incident in the abstract (with names removed for the privacy of those involved):

Let us call the entities Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C, and Alliance D.

1. Alliance A enters a state of war with Alliance B

2. A member (let's call him member X) from alliance B joins alliance C with active wars

3. Alliance D, who is C's ally, threatens alliance A to peace out with member X immediately, or they will attack the nations attacking X.

4. Alliance A refuses to peace outright, and instead elects to let the current wars expire on member X.

So my question in all this, who do you feel is justified? The situation is somewhat oversimplified, but the concept remains the same.

Would it change your opinion if Alliance B was a microalliance raided by A?
Would it change your opinion if instead of electing to diplomatically talk about the issue, B launched wars against uninvolved nations of A?
Would it change your opinion if C had an outstanding other issue with A, wherein a member of A completed a tech deal with a nation engaged in combat with C?

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[lamuella]

I'm going to explain my opinion by means of the old quote about "my right to swing my fist ends at your face".

An alliance has the right to accept any member as may apply to their alliance. What they do not have is the right to do so [i]without consequence[/i].

An alliance has the right to pursue any foreign policy they so wish. What they do not have the right to do is to determine the foreign policy of others.

Part of this comes down to whether I'm being [i]asked[/i] to do something or [i]told[/i] to do it.

In general, what it comes down to for me is this: If a war is occurring at the point where you accept a nation into your alliance, then you accept the war as well as the nation. If you at that point wish to petition the attacker's alliance, that's fine, and most of the time if it were my alliance I'd have no problem with peace being granted.

Now, obviously, this is a very different matter from attacking a nation that has [i]already[/i] joined an alliance.

[Bob Janova]

If it's a real war, you shouldn't do it. If it's just a raid then there's an argument that the alliance can just send the 'PM for peace' ... raiders just want to peace out anyway, right? But in general it's not a good idea, as raids and wars are basically the same thing and it's likely to end in trouble if you take nations that are being raided without talking to the raiding government first. (Unless you want to pull a raiding alliance into a fight, of course, but you need to know what you're doing to do that.)

[Haflinger]

The OP is full of vague statements. Usually these cases come down to the details in the facts of the individual nation's case.

And I get the feeling the OP is thinking of some particular incident but doesn't want to disclose the details for whatever reason; probably because of drama.

[Bob Janova]

GOONS raided a micro, one of their leaders ran off to join another alliance while still being raided. I don't think they're trying to hide it particularly, just not have this turn into another 'evil GOONS' thread about that specific incident. There's a legitimate discussion to be had about the general case, I think.

(e: typing fail)

Edited July 23, 2010 by Bob Janova

[trance addict]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1279896006' post='2385850']
Recent incidents have drawn to my attention the fact that some alliances think it is perfectly acceptable to accept nations at war. I do not believe this is justified by standard conventions.

Let us take for example a recent incident in the abstract (with names removed for the privacy of those involved):

Let us call the entities Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C, and Alliance D.

1. Alliance A enters a state of war with Alliance B

2. A member (let's call him member X) from alliance B joins alliance C with active wars

3. Alliance D, who is C's ally, threatens alliance A to peace out with member X immediately, or they will attack the nations attacking X.

4. Alliance A refuses to peace outright, and instead elects to let the current wars expire on member X.

So my question in all this, who do you feel is justified? The situation is somewhat oversimplified, but the concept remains the same.

[b]A)[/b]Would it change your opinion if Alliance B was a microalliance raided by A?
[b]B)[/b]Would it change your opinion if instead of electing to diplomatically talk about the issue, B launched wars against uninvolved nations of A?
[b]C)[/b]Would it change your opinion if C had an outstanding other issue with A, wherein a member of A completed a tech deal with a nation engaged in combat with C?
[/quote]


A) Is it a tech raid or an alliance war? In your orignal set of examples it refers to alliance A enteeing into a tate of war with alliance B. Then it is changed to a raid of alliance A. Are there CB's; treaties/protectorates; What is the size of alliance B

B) I would note that Alliance B elects to physically protect their members from outside aggression. So my opinion may or maynot change but it definetely would be affected by the path chosen by B

C) There are way too many variables not given to make a fair judgement.
- What is the outstanding issue?
- Is the tech deal an individual or alliance wide deal?
- is the issue resolved or ongoing?
- you mention a tech deal with an engaged nation at war? is the war a raid or part of the defense of the raided nation?

[Mayzie]

I've always worked on the basis that a member can join my alliance while at war, or at the very least ghost our aa pending approval, we determine what the war is over and if possible get peace for them. Until peace is achieved or the war expires, the member application will not be approved, they will receive no financial (or military) assistance.

I thought this was the way that the majority of alliances operate to be honest, I've never heard of anyone threatening to attack someone over not peacing out with someone who was not a member or applicant prior to the attack.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='trance addict' date='23 July 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1279898281' post='2385893']
A) Is it a tech raid or an alliance war?
[/quote]
Tech raid, A tech raided B, and B attacked A in full force in retribution. So it became an "alliance war", even if A didn't recognize B as an alliance.
[quote]
In your orignal set of examples it refers to alliance A enteeing into a tate of war with alliance B. Then it is changed to a raid of alliance A. Are there CB's; treaties/protectorates; What is the size of alliance B
[/quote]
See above, B has no treaties, and the treaties of C and D are largely of no consequence, except for one shared treaty partner between A and D. Alliance A is unassailably well connected. Alliance B is less than 15 members.
[quote]

C) There are way too many variables not given to make a fair judgement.
- What is the outstanding issue?
[/quote]
The tech deal in the next sentence
[quote]
- Is the tech deal an individual or alliance wide deal?
[/quote]
Individual
[quote]
- is the issue resolved or ongoing?
[/quote]
Presumably resolved.
[quote]
- you mention a tech deal with an engaged nation at war? is the war a raid or part of the defense of the raided nation?
[/quote]
The tech deal began while the nation was still in alliance A, and was mistakenly completed after the nation had left alliance A and gone rogue.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1279896006' post='2385850']
Recent incidents have drawn to my attention the fact that some alliances think it is perfectly acceptable to accept nations at war. I do not believe this is justified by standard conventions.

Let us take for example a recent incident in the abstract (with names removed for the privacy of those involved):

Let us call the entities Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C, and Alliance D.

1. Alliance A enters a state of war with Alliance B

2. A member (let's call him member X) from alliance B joins alliance C with active wars

3. Alliance D, who is C's ally, threatens alliance A to peace out with member X immediately, or they will attack the nations attacking X.

4. Alliance A refuses to peace outright, and instead elects to let the current wars expire on member X.

So my question in all this, who do you feel is justified? The situation is somewhat oversimplified, but the concept remains the same.

Would it change your opinion if Alliance B was a microalliance raided by A?
Would it change your opinion if instead of electing to diplomatically talk about the issue, B launched wars against uninvolved nations of A?
Would it change your opinion if C had an outstanding other issue with A, wherein a member of A completed a tech deal with a nation engaged in combat with C?
[/quote]
I think it depends on the CB. If there is a legitimate CB against the alliance/member, go ahead and war the guy. If there isn't, then it should be okay to accept the member. Whether the accepting alliance wants to pursue diplomatic/military pressure probably depends on the strength of the alliances involved. If it's a raid, I think the raider should peace out, but shouldn't be obligated to do it. Asking nicely would be best in this case.

[Il Impero Romano]

It depends why the nation is at war. If a nation is being attacked because they "left an alliance incorrectly" or are flying a certain flag, etc, I'll accept them because...well...those are retarded reasons to attack someone. If its legitimate then no.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

If someone contacts me (as I somewhat represent my alliance) for help, I'll look at the case.

If his cause seems just, I'll likely help him. I won't threaten the war party but I can help with the negotiations if the "applicant" wants to.

If he is simply a war deserter, it is doubtful that he will be helped or accepted in our ranks.


Just causes can be:
-Victim of a raid;
-Victim of an alliance-wide raid;
-Being PZIed for !@#$%^&* reasons, etc.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Shakira]

Sooooo, the nation got raided, The raiders sent peace but the person who got raided attacked back and now the raiders are !@#$%*ing about it? And the person that got raided went to sign up with another alliance and now that alliance is threatening to attack the nations that raided the nation who got raided?

pls correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Shakira' date='23 July 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1279902386' post='2385962']
Sooooo, the nation got raided, The raiders sent peace but the person who got raided attacked back and now the raiders are !@#$%*ing about it? And the person that got raided went to sign up with another alliance and now that alliance is threatening to attack the nations that raided the nation who got raided?

pls correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote]
This will be the last time I explain the scenario.

A tech raids microalliance B. Microalliance B declares war on A over it and attacks people who were not involved in the initial raids against B. A lone member of B, X, joins C. D threatens to attack A's nations attacking X if A does not peace out immediately (with nation X). A refuses, but states that no new wars will happen while X is flying C's AA and the existing wars will be allowed to expire.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[RustyNail]

with all of those letters all I can come up with is:

a[sup]2[/sup] + b[sup]2[/sup] = don't tech raid and you won't have to deal with the drama

Pythagoras has nothing on me

[Delta1212]

If you are at war with a specific individual for a specific reason (punishing them with ZI or what have you) they should not be accepted.
If you are in an alliance war, it's a bit more sticky because on the one hand, you have to make sure the nations aren't running to other AAs for temporary respite before going back to war. On the other hand, removing nations from an opposing alliance only helps in prosecuting a war, so as long as you can check against reentry it shouldn't really be a huge issue.
If it's a tech raid, then tough luck. You don't have to like the alliance that accepted them, but the only reason you can raid someone is that they don't have the back-up to stop you. If they get back up, then you stop. Or go to war. It's really your choice. All actions have consequences and, as always, that goes both ways in any situation.

Since I went and read the full topic after formulating that response and it seems to be a raid, I have this to say: I'm not going to espouse the evils of raiding. My alliance doesn't really do it but we do allow it so that would be rather hypocritical of me. That said, you seem to be complaining because someone you attacked without provocation found a way to get protection and make you stop. The typical response to that complaint generally lies somewhere around "If he didn't want to be attacked, he should have joined an alliance. I'm going to asked anyone who was considering using that response to think hard about the situation for a moment before following through on that thought.

Really, there is an inherent element of realpolitik embedded in raiding (and in most CN politics to some extended, but the fact that a person only raids who they can and doesn't raid who they can't makes it an inescapable facet of this particular activity). Under that ruleset, retaliating against a raid target who escalates a raid can be justified as protection of self. Complaining when they take a different track and beat you at your own realpolitik game is just kind of sad, though. If you can't deal with situations like the one this strongly appears to be and move on, then you shouldn't be setting yourself up for it.

On the other hand, stop ruining GOONS' game, raid target!

[Shakira]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1279902834' post='2385968']
This will be the last time I explain the scenario.

A tech raids microalliance B. Microalliance B declares war on A over it and attacks people who were not involved in the initial raids against B. A lone member of B, X, joins C. D threatens to attack A's nations attacking X if A does not peace out immediately (with nation X). A refuses, but states that no new wars will happen while X is flying C's AA and the existing wars will be allowed to expire.
[/quote]

I say A brought it upon themselves for attacking a microalliance and I applaud the microalliance for defending themselves.

[Captain Flinders]

I've never heard of, nor been in an alliance that would accept a nation at war. That's the way it should be. If it's an actual alliance-wide war I would assume a surrender and ensuing peace offer would be needed before acceptance into an alliance. Anyone who does it drastically differently wouldn't seem fit to run an alliance in my mind.

I'm very curious as to who would allow a nation at war, regardless of the reason, join the alliance and see political turmoil arise from such a senseless action.

[quote name='Shakira' date='23 July 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1279903877' post='2385995']
I say A brought it upon themselves for attacking a microalliance and I applaud the microalliance for defending themselves.
[/quote]
The microalliance isn't defending itself. The members of said microalliance are using the structure and treaties of an alliance they had no previous part in to fight their battles for them.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Captain Flinders

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1279902834' post='2385968']
This will be the last time I explain the scenario.

A tech raids microalliance B. Microalliance B declares war on A over it and attacks people who were not involved in the initial raids against B. A lone member of B, X, joins C. D threatens to attack A's nations attacking X if A does not peace out immediately (with nation X). A refuses, but states that no new wars will happen while X is flying C's AA and the existing wars will be allowed to expire.
[/quote]
So, again, you are coming to complain on the OWF because members of another alliance attacked members of your own alliance who hadn't done anything to that alliance, and you are upset because the person responsible has back-up that makes him difficult to touch? Holy !@#$, how do you not see the irony here? What would you have done is the micro-alliance had come on here and complained about their members being attacked by another alliance without having individually provoked them. I do believe those types of threads are generally mocked, and I can't see why you thought this thread was a good idea. You just don't take this type of thing to the OWF. It will get you nowhere good.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='23 July 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1279903752' post='2385991']
:words:
[/quote]

Those are a lot of pretty words about raiding, but the incident in question ceased to be a tech raid when alliance B launched attacks against uninvolved nations of A. It was a war then. Don't confuse the issue.

As to your second reply, Alliance A is completely justified in their actions, and I am sure they are more than happy to contest the whimsical arguments for accepting nations in a full scale alliance war.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[RustyNail]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1279904202' post='2386006']
Those are a lot of pretty words about raiding, but the incident in question ceased to be a tech raid when alliance B launched attacks against uninvolved nations of A. It was a war then. Don't confuse the issue.

As to your second reply, Alliance A is completely justified in their actions, and I am sure they are more than happy to contest the whimsical arguments for accepting nations in a full scale alliance war.
[/quote]

It was considered a war by Alliance B when you attacked their members. You recognizing it as a war at that point is irrelevant as you were not the offended party. They defended themselves against a hostile aggressor.

They had every right to do so.

[nippy]

You should have known this would turn into an anti-techraid thread, Sard. Unfortunately, the peanut gallery can't seem to make it past the alliance A and alliance B portions of the entire scenario.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='RustyNail' date='23 July 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1279904459' post='2386011']
It was considered a war by Alliance B when you attacked their members. You recognizing it as a war at that point is irrelevant as you were not the offended party. They defended themselves against a hostile aggressor.

They had every right to do so.
[/quote]
Alliance A does not contest that they recognized it as an act of war, and fully understand alliance B's reasons for doing so, though it is of the opinion of alliance A that this was a foolish move. That is not the issue being debated, however.

[quote name='nippy' date='23 July 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1279904504' post='2386012']
You should have known this would turn into an anti-techraid thread, Sard. Unfortunately, the peanut gallery can't seem to make it past the alliance A and alliance B portions of the entire scenario.
[/quote]
Alas, I fear you are correct. I should have omitted the tech raiding parts, maybe then we could have an actual argument on the merits.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1279904202' post='2386006']
Those are a lot of pretty words about raiding, but the incident in question ceased to be a tech raid when alliance B launched attacks against uninvolved nations of A. It was a war then. Don't confuse the issue.
[/quote]
I already responded to this, but I'll be more direct. I've participated in all of one tech raid in four years, myself, but I allow my members to do so if they wish. I don't know exactly what I'd do in this situation, but I would most certainly not run to the OWF with it, even in vague terms. It's very difficult to sympathize withthe guy who threw the first punch, even for other people who go around throwing punches. This is because you should know what you're getting yourself into when you allow raiding, especially of micro-alliances, and if you can't deal with the consequences by yourself, you shouldn't be doing it inthe first place.

Or is this a complaint that someone is acting in a fashion that goes against what you perceive as proper behavior? Actually, That seems wrong because I'm pretty sure I've been told that talking about how somethig is wrong is pointless unless you're going to do something about it and only actions matter.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='RustyNail' date='23 July 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1279904459' post='2386011']
It was considered a war by Alliance B when you attacked their members. You recognizing it as a war at that point is irrelevant as you were not the offended party. They defended themselves against a hostile aggressor.

They had every right to do so.
[/quote]
Am I missing something here, or is everyone else?

Alliance B is not defending themselves. If B took A on straight up, I don't think this thread would exist. This is about members of B leaving the alliance during an alleged wartime, without a proper surrender, and using the connections of a completely different and unrelated alliance to fight alliance A. Are people confused about this? Because as the story is told in the OP, alliance B is not defending themselves at all. They're getting someone else to do it.

[der_ko]

Accepting nations at war is just plain stupid and if you still do it then pray the people waring him/her is kind enough to let him go. They have every right see through the ongoing military operation.

Edited July 23, 2010 by der_ko