\m/, I just want to help

[Merrie Melodies]

On what basis would you object to a world police?

The treaty web being as it is, any attempt to police raiding would put one at conflict with treaty partners.

[Merrie Melodies]

I appreciate your genuine attempts to work this out. However, I fail to see how reparations might not be warranted. Is there a CB other than "raiding" or "because they can" here or not?

If FoA is not compensated for these attacks, I'd be happy to start an irc channel on the theme of an Optional Defense Coalition.

better get to it as we will not being giving compensation!

Edited January 16, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Doitzel]

The treaty web being as it is, any attempt to police raiding would put one at conflict with treaty partners.

Hopefully we'll be seeing some cancellations soon, then.

[Kevin McDonald]

I appreciate your genuine attempts to work this out. However, I fail to see how reparations might not be warranted. Is there a CB other than "raiding" or "because they can" here or not?

If FoA is not compensated for these attacks, I'd be happy to start an irc channel on the theme of an Optional Defense Coalition.

Well, I suppose because we don`t share the same beliefs. As I stated previously, this raid happened before we became their protector. This raid happened because FoA failed to take the steps to ensure that something like this wouldn`t happen. My obligation ends at getting the attacks ended. However, if someone raids FoA when the protection is already in place, reps are most certainly warranted in that circumstance.

[WarriorConcept]

I don't follow. Because you classify Q as a world police the concept is inherently bad? I admit I don't fully the "anit-moralist" movement, but I thought the premise was that there's no such thing as bad?

And what distinguishes the apparently undesirable situation you describe from what is currently being done to FoA?

No I meant world police in the concept of something like Q is inherently bad. There's other ways to resolve issues like this such as how The Corporation just did.

Are you referring to \m/, GOONS, etc now? They don't have the power to crush most of CN if they want and the situation was handled pretty well with them from what I understand.

[Fantastico]

better get to it as we will not being giving compensation!

We shall see.

[Merrie Melodies]

Hopefully we'll be seeing some cancellations soon, then.

if you are referring just to \m/ then maybe, if you are referring to raidiers in general I'd love to see the treaty web cancelled and realigned with sides being those that dont raid vs those who do.

[Fantastico]

Well, I suppose because we don`t share the same beliefs. As I stated previously, this raid happened before we became their protector. This raid happened because FoA failed to take the steps to ensure that something like this wouldn`t happen. My obligation ends at getting the attacks ended. However, if someone raids FoA when the protection is already in place, reps are most certainly warranted in that circumstance.

You believe that the 33 members of the FoA did not form a legitimate and sovereign alliance until it came under your protection?

Edited January 16, 2010 by Fantastico

[WarriorConcept]

You believe that the 33 members of the FoA did not form a legitimate and sovereign alliance until it came under your protection?

Do you know how to read?

[Merrie Melodies]

We shall see.

There is nothing left for you to see, all you got left is empty rhetoric.

[White Chocolate]

Doing something nice for them would involve getting the attacks stopped and working for reparations, not further infringing on their sovereignty by putting them in protectorate status under your allliance.

I believe I understand your point. However, whether or not they are "under" anyone depends on the specifics of the treaty. We have a protector but I wouldn't say we're therefore "under" them. Alliance size and strength matter politically and militarily, but having a protector (regardless how the agreement comes about) doesn't automatically translate into an infringement of sovereignty.

Edited January 16, 2010 by White Chocolate

[ChimpMasterFlash]

We shall see.

Kinda agree with MM.

[bzelger]

The treaty web being as it is, any attempt to police raiding would put one at conflict with treaty partners.

Ah, interesting. So hypothetically if I were able to convince my alliance (or perhaps a better-connected one) to institute a doctrine declaring that we would attack anyone who raided, you would stop raiding - regardless of our ability to enforce it - because any action on your part would have the potential to create conflict with treaty partners?

No I meant world police in the concept of something like Q is inherently bad. There's other ways to resolve issues like this such as how The Corporation just did.

I'm guess I don't really get the idea of "inherently bad" coming from the amoral camp. Just because there's other ways to resolve it doesn't mean that military response is "bad." What grounds would GOONS, \m/, and PC have to complain if a coalition got together and "tech-raided" them right back?

Are you referring to \m/, GOONS, etc now? They don't have the power to crush most of CN if they want and the situation was handled pretty well with them from what I understand.

What does having the power to crush most of CN have to do with it? Is it only okay to pick on a smaller power if a bigger power exists elsewhere?

[Kevin McDonald]

You believe that the 33 members of the FoA did not form a legitimate and sovereign alliance until it came under your protection?

That doesn`t have anything to do with this. I do not believe I have an obligation to help get FoA reps as this protectorate agreement began after the raids had begun occurring, theoretically we could have even stated that the protectorate did not cover any existing raids, but did not feel that that would be doing enough. Therefore, we have done the amount that we are comfortable with which is more than, oh yes, everyone else. Whether or not you accept that position is up to you.

[WarriorConcept]

Ah, interesting. So hypothetically if I were able to convince my alliance (or perhaps a better-connected one) to institute a doctrine declaring that we would attack anyone who raided, you would stop raiding - regardless of our ability to enforce it - because any action on your part would have the potential to create conflict with treaty partners?

Fun times when that happened.

I'm guess I don't really get the idea of "inherently bad" coming from the amoral camp. Just because there's other ways to resolve it doesn't mean that military response is "bad." What grounds would GOONS, \m/, and PC have to complain if a coalition got together and "tech-raided" them right back?

They wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.

What does having the power to crush most of CN have to do with it? Is it only okay to pick on a smaller power if a bigger power exists elsewhere?

No, what I was referring to was when that bigger power can dictate whatever it wants. I don't think anyone should have that much power is all.

[Fantastico]

That doesn`t have anything to do with this. I do not believe I have an obligation to help get FoA reps as this protectorate agreement began after the raids had begun occurring, theoretically we could have even stated that the protectorate did not cover any existing raids, but did not feel that that would be doing enough. Therefore, we have done the amount that we are comfortable with which is more than, oh yes, everyone else. Whether or not you accept that position is up to you.

You are referring to your role in negotiating reps for FoA. I understand that.

I am referring to the general question of reps for the FoA.

[Kevin McDonald]

You are referring to your role in negotiating reps for FoA. I understand that.

I am referring to the general question of reps for the FoA.

I do not foresee FoA receiving reps in this circumstance, but if they decide they would like a protector who will help them get some (in this circumstance; I have already stated we would help them get reps in others), then I will send them your way, deal?

[Merrie Melodies]

Ah, interesting. So hypothetically if I were able to convince my alliance (or perhaps a better-connected one) to institute a doctrine declaring that we would attack anyone who raided, you would stop raiding - regardless of our ability to enforce it - because any action on your part would have the potential to create conflict with treaty partners?

I'm guess I don't really get the idea of "inherently bad" coming from the amoral camp. Just because there's other ways to resolve it doesn't mean that military response is "bad." What grounds would GOONS, \m/, and PC have to complain if a coalition got together and "tech-raided" them right back?

What does having the power to crush most of CN have to do with it? Is it only okay to pick on a smaller power if a bigger power exists elsewhere?

I am saying you would have other larger treaty partners who raid themselves, would you attack them also? How sincere would your world policing be?

If a larger group got together and raided our faces off thems would be the breaks, living and dying by the sword ect ect, just dont expect us to whine about it.

[Vilien]

I am saying you would have other larger treaty partners who raid themselves, would you attack them also? How sincere would your world policing be?

If a larger group got together and raided our faces off thems would be the breaks, living and dying by the sword ect ect, just dont expect us to whine about it.

I'll admit, I laughed.

[Merrie Melodies]

You are referring to your role in negotiating reps for FoA. I understand that.

I am referring to the general question of reps for the FoA.

What part of "we will not be paying reps to FoA" dont you get? Even if you put together a large group and beat the snot out of us we will not pay. Get it?

[bzelger]

Fun times when that happened.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, I was just curious about the consistency of MM's basis set.

They wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.

No, what I was referring to was when that bigger power can dictate whatever it wants. I don't think anyone should have that much power is all.

So a police action would be just fine and you have no problem with a world police, you just don't like extreme consolidation of power. Is that a fair characterization?

In that vein, if the Corporation had not stepped in (which seems to be a good show, by the way, kudos), these three would be able to dictate whatever they like to FoA. It's only on the macro scale that you object?

[Fantastico]

I do not foresee FoA receiving reps in this circumstance, but if they decide they would like a protector who will help them get some (in this circumstance; I have already stated we would help them get reps in others), then I will send them your way, deal?

Sounds fair enough. Deal.

[Doitzel]

I am saying you would have other larger treaty partners who raid themselves, would you attack them also? How sincere would your world policing be?

If a larger group got together and raided our faces off thems would be the breaks, living and dying by the sword ect ect, just dont expect us to whine about it.

That's cute, because I do remember almost non-stop whining about it for two straight years.

[Merrie Melodies]

That's cute, because I do remember almost non-stop whining about it for two straight years.

Ahh, yes two years, then there was that christmas mircale@

I also remember when people actually used to worry when you made a threat.....see that works both ways.

[WarriorConcept]

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, I was just curious about the consistency of MM's basis set.

So a police action would be just fine and you have no problem with a world police, you just don't like extreme consolidation of power. Is that a fair characterization?

In that vein, if the Corporation had not stepped in (which seems to be a good show, by the way, kudos), these three would be able to dictate whatever they like to FoA. It's only on the macro scale that you object?

I'd say that's fair. And yeah they pretty much would until someone else stepped in (be it from their allies or others such as The Corporation). In a sense then Corporation did act as world police and handled it splendidly.