Augustus Autumn

[quote name='Adam Suttler' timestamp='1284588890' post='2455080'] Epic day is epic. Welcome back, Fred! [/quote] Really, Suttler? REALLY? I mean, there's toeing the line but come on, this is just ridiculous.

It's a poll option, now in alliance form - I fully support this new expansion of 'verse politics. [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1284590295' post='2455109'] Maybe you're bored because you prefer to cuddle with your infra and refuse to fight in wars? [/quote] As opposed to acting in an inflammatory and foolish fashion at every opportunity and thus getting attacked for no real gain? I'll file your methodology away as a cautionary note to others.

This just flat out sucks. Good luck to all the former Fallen Knights out there.

So essentially this is another rehash of the who-honors-treaties discussion as people jockey to slam on alliances they don't like? Also, UPN bashing it getting more predictable than people hating on the GOONS for tech raiding or attempting to paint the name "Hegemony" on whatever group they don't like at the time.

[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.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1284536391' post='2454614'] If the facts as given were the same, yes. Go back and look at the "far over the OOC line" incidents, you will see a pattern of proportionality and congruency between the actual act asserted and the circumstances that surround it. Hackers attacked large alliance forums, people spread simple things like phone numbers in public areas. Not once can I recall something as out of whack as a person going through the massive trouble of obtaining extremely sensitive information, including actual arrest records, then presenting them in a completely unpopulated area where only the person in question would see them. Read that sentence again. The"yea, that is pretty odd..." feeling you get is doubt, doubt brought on by the fact that believing this type of story anywhere besides the internet would be ludicrous. The hallmark of legitimacy (proportionality and situational congruence) which is present in other comparable incidents is lacking in this instance, if not entirely missing. For a more in depth look at the relevant reasons why it is lacking, see my previous posts. [/quote] I'm not against skepticism, but I'm also not for an off-the-cuff dismissal. Stuff like this has happened before and, I hate to say, it can be fairly easy to dupe persons into giving up confidential information relatively easily. In the industry I work in (I'll refrain from specifying in such a public forum - I'll provide that privately if you want it) it's remarkably easy for me to gain access to some rather privledged information without my providing a single bit of verifying information to the person providing it. Again, it's all a function of how much time you really want to put into the effort and how dim the person(s) providing it are. Regardless, if the claims made here are true that's pretty sad. If they're not, that's equally sad but for a different reason. I'm sure that the appropriate authorities (moderation or otherwise) will address the issue as required and deliver appropriate resolution.

Charming. How very charming. Also, Impero, it's happened before that players have taken things over the line and way into the OOC realm. Usually, they're young, foolish and have no idea what they're up to much less the ramifications for themselves or others. Would you be so quick to dismiss the incident if, say, it were another player such as Chron, Rebel Virginia, Ramirus, Tygaland or another notable who made the claim?

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.

Interesting. This, much like the agreement on Maroon, will be worth keeping an eye on.

I fail to understand what the point of this ongoing argument is - the treaty is over, formal ties are broken and now both NSO and IRON look foolish for this disaster of a thread. Slinging mud is cool and all but, really, is the fuel for this anything further than boredom?

[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1284429395' post='2453142'] I think I've found a kindred spirit. No baloney. I'd have to restrain myself if it were for some crappy reason like "oh, he attacked our lower tier once."[/quote] Hence the dive into actually defining what a rogue is, something which people don't seem to want to form a consensus about. [quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1284429395' post='2453142'] I recall the time this was done to TGE. Hell, it spurred Graham to attempt a "sanction standards pact" for White, and from what I recall, there was only one alliance he talked to that was against it (and he talked to all the sphere as far as I remember). Gee, I wonder who that was. [/quote] Would that happen to have been the incident involving Opethian? I remember that one being a real mess. At least they were, and hopefully will be again, good for a real laugh due to high-handed garbage like that. Needless to say, it shows itself an excellent example of how team senators really can run rampant with their authority when they don't consider themselves accountable.

[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1284428334' post='2453110'] This is indeed true. Of course, sometimes when a senator "abuses" their senate privileges, they almost always get their seat by pushing their own alliance to be sure to vote for them. That way, those other people on the sphere that don't vote are stuck with a complete wingnut in their senate. Sometimes the people just don't know until they lose a trade due to a senator going off half-cocked for some stupid reason. [/quote] Then the matter is one of personal responsibility. If, for example, I lose a trade I make a point of attempting to find out why - in the vast majority of instances the nation has been destroyed (OOC: deleted), the other ruler is making a temporary trade or has decided to alter their trades without notification. In the event that I've lost a trade due to a sanction I make a point of attempting to find out why the senator in question levelled the sanction and have no qualms about giving them an earache if I don't agree with their reasoning. Should a senator truly be abusing their privledge there's nothing to stop persons from actually publicizing the action (which has been done in the past quite successfully) and attempting to motivate others to not vote for said senator. If anything, holding these persons accountable would likely being some importance back to color team politics and restore some of the importance of trade pacts and the like. And if you're too lazy / uninformed / uninvolved to care, then shame on you. Apathy is all well and good until it bites you in the proverbial posterior.

Polls not made by The MVP are immoral.

Never let it be said that a publicity stunt has to also be effective.

Without good intelligence on the trading partners of the nation you're going to sanction, their use runs the risk of being a detrimental to your opponent as it does to your own alliance. I can't recall the number of times it has been pointed out that sanctioning a nation has caused damage to four or five uninvolved nations, often when the sanction is over the top and unwarranted. As for the argument that these should only be used against "nuclear rogues", the definition of "rogue" is so muddled and lost that it's coming down to "someone the requesting alliance doesn't like". That being said, how and why a sanction is used is really up to the senator holding the authority. If said senator happens to be acting in a way which the majority of the teams feels incorrect they're free to vote for someone else. It's not like who you've voted for is a matter of public record.

Cast thy eyes this way: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=24 If you're actually interested in a set of opinions feel free to contact me privately - this thread is going to turn into a nightmare as usual.

Considering the events over the past month or so, the award goes to Fernando12 - his ego constitutes an alliance unto itself.

Again, another outstanding step for Imperia and congratulations to both parties. [quote name='SirDog' timestamp='1284374454' post='2452162'] Congrats to NPO and TIO! [/quote] Indeed! Forward Pacifica!

This sounds like a familiar job. Name yourself Shogun and then revel in the pagentry.

Double-post.

Please restart the series of delightfully foolish plans you had to advance this alliance - my life has been lacking in the amusement department of late. Also, I'll be taking bets for the coup pool.

[quote name='thedestro' timestamp='1283890998' post='2445642'] Actually the same thing happened to me before it was locked. [img]http://209.85.48.12/11435/165/emo/psy.gif[/img] [/quote] I was also experiencing the same problem. I just assumed the poll had been edited after the fact and that it originally contained more questions.

I could certainly envision Cortath smugly sitting and chuckling behind the desk at the local Registry of Motor Vehicles. Thank you for furthering this mental image of him and all of its glory.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1283995354' post='2447203'] That still doesn't change the fact (in fact it really has nothing to do with anything) that you're a complete hypocrite and put FAR in a bad situation and put them at risk of being rolled. [/quote] You do realize, I hope, that even entertaining a discussion on this subject, much less anything else related to Fernando or his shenanigans, is simply feeding into his screaming need to be recognized, made relevant and entertained. I'm going to go ahead and preempt his response with the assumption that it will be full of self-justification, inflammatory allegations, some thinly-veiled insults to your intelligence and a variety of other non-sense which will be designed to provoke a counter-response from yourself and keep this disaster of a discussion rolling forward. Perhaps it's best to settled with the standard LolFernando line, agree that whatever happens he'll join the ranks of 'verse pariahs the likes of DRBD, Comrade Vader and other charming souls and simply leave him to rot his way into irrelevant silence.

So, the hemming and hawwing aside, why is anyone actually objecting to anything going on in this situation? UOKMB got their war and their publicity. The GOONS are doing what they always do, actiing how they please and being supported by their allies in the effort. Is any of the whining going to change anything? Unlikely. One of these days the GOONS will inevitably commit an error much like every other alliance out there at which point they'll have to decide if they want to stick with their old methods or change tactics. This isn't their instance, so expecting any sort of change is a waste of time and effort at best. But, hey, if you want to rage and whatnot then this is your port of call. Go UOKMB! Go GOONS! Yeeaaaahhh! [size="1"][i]Damn this combat inhibitor![/i][/size]