Should alliances allow spying on their own members?

[LeonidasRexII]

A basic policy disagreement came up in the GOONS DoW thread - [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91676&view=findpost&p=2454208"]http://forums.cybern...dpost&p=2454208[/url], and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

Here's the situ - Alliance A is at war with Rogue X who is then aided by a member from Alliance B. Alliance A complains to Alliance B presents evidence of the illegal aid, and requests to have the suspected member spied on. Alliance B allows another alliance to spy on their member.

Do you think that allowing another alliance to spy on your own members should be allowed? If it is allowed do you think it could have a negative effect on the trust between alliance leaders and their members?

In my own opinion alliances should handle these things internally as much as possible. If the member is found to have violated the alliance charter they would be subject to appropriate punishment up to and including expulsion.

Edited September 15, 2010 by LeonidasRexII

[JT Jag]

If a terrorist assaults a nation and the victim thinks another nation might have information on the attack in any form, it is common policy for the victim to cordially, diplomatically request any files or information the other nation may have on the terrorist.

[bzelger]

A spy op such as gathering information does no damage to the spied nation. Since the alliance doing the spying is a solid ally even the warchest information is not sensitive.

That said, it would have been better if we had done The Rebel the courtesy of asking him first as the issue was not particularly time sensitive.

[Horatio Longworth]

I guess I'm OK with it. But I would agree that such matters would best be solved in a method that's as internal as possible.

[thedestro]

If they did the alliance would have to suffer the repercussions from their spied on members.

[JackSkellington]

If I were leading Alliance B, I would probably try and use one of my own members to spy on said nation, unless I was unable for some reason or another. Then I would use a trusted ally if they had the ability.

As for whether trust would be lost or not...I'm not sure it would be. Considering I'd be using the means available to me that happens to be a trusted ally, I would hope my members would be fine with the decision and understand where I'm coming from. But again, I would probably need a reason to use an ally over one of my own members.

Edited September 15, 2010 by JackSkellington

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284522333' post='2454376']
If a terrorist assaults a nation and the victim thinks another nation might have information on the attack in any form, it is common policy for the victim to cordially, diplomatically request any files or information the other nation may have on the terrorist.
[/quote]

Isn't that just an accusation though? While it is a serious accusation that needs to be followed up shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to a long-standing and (until then) loyal member? If after the internal investigation is run through and the member is found in violation they can still be dealt with internally or expelled.

[Drai]

Why wouldn't it be fine if all parties agree to it?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284522333' post='2454376']
If a terrorist assaults a nation and the victim thinks another nation might have information on the attack in any form, it is common policy for the victim to cordially, diplomatically request any files or information the other nation may have on the terrorist.
[/quote]
The terrorists would sound a lot like GOONS and their attacks on weaker alliances as well as unaligned nations. It would seem when an alliance writes it into their charter that they have the right to terrorize these nations it would seem more logical to not help GOONS, which would be the terrorists in any analogy here.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284524241' post='2454425']
The terrorists would sound a lot like GOONS and their attacks on weaker alliances as well as unaligned nations. It would seem when an alliance writes it into their charter that they have the right to terrorize these nations it would seem more logical to not help GOONS, which would be the terrorists in any analogy here.
[/quote]This has nothing to do with the topic. Please stay on topic, or else.

[Haflinger]

I wouldn't do it. In a case like Dopp or The Rebel, I'd want us to do the spy op ourselves.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284524441' post='2454429']
This has nothing to do with the topic. Please stay on topic, or else.
[/quote]
The topic seemed to be referring to the GOONS DoW and our war, as well as the spy attacks you guys requested, so what do you mean by "or else"?

[NoFish]

An alliance has the right to do whatever they want with their own members. The cost of the spy op should probably be covered by the aggrieved party, however.

[Gopherbashi]

EDIT: Read the question wrong - thought it was talking about an alliance spying on its own members.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Gopherbashi

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1284524511' post='2454430']
I wouldn't do it. In a case like Dopp or The Rebel, I'd want us to do the spy op ourselves.
[/quote]

One would need a big enough trust-factor on the part of the aggrieved alliance [the one making the request for the spy op] to take the spy ops results at face value, if the accused's alliance were the one carrying out the op.

[Baldr]

Having one of your own alliance members spy on another might be construed as spy slot filling. Also, if Alliance A spies on a member of Alliance A in order to convince Alliance B that X happened or did not happen, then the data is likely to be suspect. If Alliance B does the spying with Alliance A's permission, then that gets around both of those problems.

I don't see anything wrong with it. The nation who gets spied on might, I suppose, but that is between them and their alliance leaders. On a gather intel operation, there isn't any actual damage taken, so any complaints would pretty much be along the lines of "You don't trust me".

[Arcturus Jefferson]

If I was alliance B I would ask my compatriot if he had sent aid. If he said he did, I would cut him loose. If he said he didn't, I'd tell alliance A where they could go.

If my compatriot says he didn't but I don't trust his answer, I should cut him loose (and should've done so probably long before this incident)

[Augustus Autumn]

This essentially falls under "Take responsibility and clean up your own mess". I'll run a breakdown so that my point is clear and to highlight any possible misunderstandings I may have as to the scenario.

Also, I'll presume that the case-in-point here is the NSO-GOONS incident of late.

[b]Situation:[/b] Alliance A has been attacked by a Rogue nation. The Rogue has received secret aid and Alliance A suspects that a member of Alliance B has supplied said aid (the suspected nation shall be called the Rebel nation). The aid supplied has caused noticible damage to Alliance A and they feel entitled to some sort of compensation as a result.

[b]Resolution:[/b] Alliance A demands that Alliance B provide verifiable proof as to whether or not the Rebel nation supplied secret aid to the Rogue nation. Failure to do so could initate hostilities.

[b]Key Issue:[/b] In essence, Alliance A is demanding the right to infringe on the sovereignty of Alliance B. Should Alliance B be unwilling to provide proof as has happened in the past, precedent suggests that Alliance A would either engage in an act of war (spying) to attempt to verify their claims or just launch an all-out assault. The government of Alliance B would certainly have to take this into account as they are responsible not only for maintaining their sovereignty as an alliance but also the safety of their member nations.

[b]Proposed Solution:[/b] As Alliance B is, in theory, responsible for the conduct of their members they should be the ones to handle the investigation into the activities of the Rebel nation. As the spy effort could revel sensitive information (warchest, trade partners, etc.) it would not be correct to simply hand said information over to another alliance without [i]explicit[/i] consent from the Rebel nation. Should the claim of Alliance A be verified by their investigation then Alliance B would be free to handle the situation as they please within the bounds of their charter. Should the claim not be validated Alliance B would be fully entitled to inform Alliance A that they have the wrong nation and should look elsewhere.

[b]Problems:[/b] The issue, of course, always comes down to trust. Alliances who don't have good prior relations are more often than not unwilling to trust one another and will claim that the other side is lying / war-mongering / whatever. Thus, unless Alliance B would be willing to give ground and have its sovereignty violated, even by a third party, it would be nearly impossible to resolve the issue peacefully. Add to that the possibility of the entire alliance being held responsible for the activities of one nation, even if they're told beforehand that they won't be, and you're building toward a situation where the only realistic solution is for the smaller / less-well-treatied party to bow to the larger / better-treatied party.

Realistically, the only way the situation would get resolved would be as it was in the case-in-point: the weaker side bows to the demands of the stronger otherwise they run the risk of getting stormed and burned to the ground for the crime of defending their sovereignty. Until trust and good conduct becomes the order of the day, might will be making right.

[KCToker]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284522074' post='2454372']
A basic policy disagreement came up in the GOONS DoW thread - [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91676&view=findpost&p=2454208"]http://forums.cybern...dpost&p=2454208[/url], and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

Here's the situ - Alliance A is at war with Rogue X who is then aided by a member from Alliance B. Alliance A complains to Alliance B presents evidence of the illegal aid, and requests to have the suspected member spied on. Alliance B allows another alliance to spy on their member.

Do you think that allowing another alliance to spy on your own members should be allowed? If it is allowed do you think it could have a negative effect on the trust between alliance leaders and their members?

In my own opinion alliances should handle these things internally as much as possible. If the member is found to have violated the alliance charter they would be subject to appropriate punishment up to and including expulsion.
[/quote]
You say alliances should handle it internally, yet you post a topic here.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284524241' post='2454425']
The terrorists would sound a lot like GOONS and their attacks on weaker alliances as well as unaligned nations. It would seem when an alliance writes it into their charter that they have the right to terrorize these nations it would seem more logical to not help GOONS, which would be the terrorists in any analogy here.
[/quote]
Contrary to your belief, every thread here isn't about you. Stop trying to make it about you.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1284534880' post='2454599']
This essentially falls under "Take responsibility and clean up your own mess". I'll run a breakdown...

...only way the situation would get resolved would be as it was in the case-in-point: the weaker side bows to the demands of the stronger otherwise they run the risk of getting stormed and burned to the ground for the crime of defending their sovereignty. Until trust and good conduct becomes the order of the day, might will be making right.
[/quote]

First off great write up. It was very well reasoned and I do agree with your point that the protection of the many over weighs the protection of one. There is one thing missing in that argument though. Referring to your example couldn't the same situation have been handled internally?

When the accusation is leveled the Alliance questions said member. That member will either deny the accusation or admit to it. If the evidence is iron-clad the Alliance would be well in their rights to punish the member according to their charter. The condition of punishment would either be that the member was insubordinate in not answering the questions, or that they endangered the alliance by aiding a rouge at war.

[Tautology]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284522074' post='2454372']
...
Do you think that allowing another alliance to spy on your own members should be allowed?[/quote]
It's the sovereign right of the alliance to decide whether it permits the other alliance to spy on its member.

[Bob Janova]

The answer to this one is simple: it depends what the charter says. Most charters don't say anything about this either way so it's down to the judgement of the government. The premise of an alliance is that nations give up certain rights (typically the right to declare war on whoever they like, the right to speak freely in public, but also control over their spy ops, sometimes their aid slots and wonder programmes, etc) in exchange for protection. That means that alliance government can order a nation to take being spied on if it is reasonable to do so.

I'd normally want to do the operation 'in house', because no ally, however trusted, is as trusted as my own alliance with the information you get from an intel operation. [OOC: I would hope that the game staff would permit that as it wouldn't be spy slot filling, it would be a genuine operation to find out information.] In the case of a serious accusation like using an FAC to send secret aid to a nation at war, it seems reasonable to either get that information or permit another alliance so to do.

[LeonidasRexII]

It seems that this boils down to those who would keep this in house and others who would allow an outsiders to handle it. For those that would let outsiders handle this situation what about this - [b]are you at all worried that this could become a weapon[/b]?

If another alliance sees that you allow 2nd or 3rd party spying on your own members couldn't they just level accusations at your membership over and over again? Even if the accusations aren't true, members would be questioned and then subjected to spy attempts. If it happens enough or even to one particularly vocal member that alliance could suffer a big backlash against the leadership as the trust factor breaks down.

[bzelger]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284596326' post='2455249']
It seems that this boils down to those who would keep this in house and others who would allow an outsiders to handle it. For those that would let outsiders handle this situation what about this - [b]are you at all worried that this could become a weapon[/b]? [/quote]
No. The warchest information of a single nation is not especially important, and I have zero concern that said information would be abused by the Mushroom Kingdom even if it were.

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284596326' post='2455249']If another alliance sees that you allow 2nd or 3rd party spying on your own members couldn't they just level accusations at your membership over and over again? Even if the accusations aren't true, members would be questioned and then subjected to spy attempts. If it happens enough or even to one particularly vocal member that alliance could suffer a big backlash against the leadership as the trust factor breaks down.[/quote]
If GOONS had asked for a spy report on a random member of our alliance we would have told them to shove off. They had enough evidence that it seemed likely that they had found the culprit (and lo and behold, they had).

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284596326' post='2455249']
It seems that this boils down to those who would keep this in house and others who would allow an outsiders to handle it. For those that would let outsiders handle this situation what about this - [b]are you at all worried that this could become a weapon[/b]? [/quote]

The question comes down to how important one nation's information is in a larger effort - the bottom line is that it really isn't. Outside of actually infringing on an alliance's sovereignty and publicly embarassing them by their allowance of the violation, there really isn't much to be gained here by trumping up charges. It's more the fact that it is permitted or not rather than the information which would prove damaging.

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284596326' post='2455249']
If another alliance sees that you allow 2nd or 3rd party spying on your own members couldn't they just level accusations at your membership over and over again? Even if the accusations aren't true, members would be questioned and then subjected to spy attempts. If it happens enough or even to one particularly vocal member that alliance could suffer a big backlash against the leadership as the trust factor breaks down.
[/quote]

After a few of these occurances the infringed-upon alliance would like take the approach bzelger suggested and simply tell the other party to bugger off and stop bothering them. It all comes down to a matter of the intent behind the request - if the information is being sought as part of a good-faith effort and the information is not abused or the requests are infrequent at best that's one thing. If the procedure of requesting permission to spy on another alliance becomes common place then you're going to see a general breakdown in channels to peacefully resolve issues and warfare will become (even more) common when it comes to settling disputes. As always, the retreat to might-makes-right is the likely fall back.