Sitting and Speculating

They should receive protection for a couple of weeks after the alliance disbands. After that though they'd probably be considered fair game for tech raiding.

Wait have either \m/ or STA actually declared on the other?

Oh poor \m/. Their fun got busted up by mean old STA. Cry me a river.

Also, yes, it's perfectly right and good to protect anything you want to protect.

You can protect whoever you want to (assuming you can).

It's perfectly fine to protect whatever you wish to protect. The only question lies in if you have the political capital to make those claims worth anything.

Lastly, \m/ is a terrible alliance.

here here!

Wait have either \m/ or STA actually declared on the other?

I don't think so, however several nations are at war with each other in game. I'm sure we'll see a STA DoW soon with the CB listed as "GGA".

For those of you thinking its fine to protect what you want...isn't it still dumb to do so?

It's only dumb if it affects you adversely.

Caleb: Gondor protected GGA for three weeks and would do it again.

Some might say it's dumb to completely misunderstand two separate announcements, and then make both a thread and a blog post about your off-the-mark findings.

Can mindless people please stop pretending like STA either protected, or had any interest in protecting GGA? They simply said , what amounts to "\m/ cant raid you, but anyone else can." That, my friends, is NOT protection, by any stretch of the imagination. What they did, and successfully, was dress down \m/'s attempt at being relevant, but they did NOT, I repeat NOT... protect GGA from anything.

The misunderstanding from all sides about what everyone was saying is what made this whole stupid incident worthwhile for me.

Can midless people please stop pretending like STA either protected, or had any interest in protecting GGA? They simply said , what amounts to "\m/ cant raid you, but anyone else can." That, my friends, is NOT protection, by any stretch of the imagination. What they did, and successfully, was dress down \m/'s attempt at being relevant, but they did NOT, I repeat NOT... protect GGA from anything.

Welcome to the 'CN Reading Comprehension Club'.

I think we're up to about five members now.

Protecting an AA for whatever reason is perfectly fine, whether that be a regular protectorate, a trading partner like CTC or RIA's venture, an anti-raid protection like Church of Maroon or a disbanded alliance like GGA. In all cases you need to consider the costs and benefits; in the case of a disbanded alliance the benefit is usually the sentimental one of your friends not being rolled.

However, 'protecting' something and then raiding it is entirely different. That's claiming a group of nations as your tech farm, and STA were quite right to break that up.

Didn't STA only respond because of the "Attacktorate" on GGA?

It's not that they were protecting GGA, they just didn't want the "attacktorate" to become the Status quo by raiding alliances.

\m/ did something, STA responded by saying "don't do that". \m/ stopped doing it.

There should be no "moral issue" behind raiding a dead alliance. It's not an alliance and therefore cannot hold treaties nor be considered a union of nations in anyway. Yes, you can protect anything you wish to protect, but there is no way to "justify" it besides :

1. I'm trying to recruit as many people possible by looking good and offering them a hand.

2. I like individual nations in that AA. (Chances are that you won't as any active significant nations have already left and were not inactive during the death of the alliance)

3. You dislike the alliance that is raiding and want an excuse to start a war.