Iserlohn

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1280087379' post='2388568'] Given Sardonic's statement earlier that the raiders have been ordered to peace out (which was well-handled), is it a safe assumption that you've compromised on your compromise position in this instance? [/quote] Whoops, sorry, I should have said "initial" compromise and "initial" raid policy. Yes, Sardonic deemed it wise to alter our raid policy and offer peace immediately. I believe future cases will actually be handled the way Sardonic handled it, so don't worry I was focusing more on the "due diligence" part of my post. [quote]If you see an alliance has merged into another one and there are people still on the old AA, how is it due diligence to raid them without asking the alliance they merged into whether it is ok or not?[/quote] Well, the most realistic answer is that this is a very rare circumstance. It's not often that an AA that was active enough to post treaties merges without the slightest peep. Additionally, precedent for the last few merges seemed to support the notion that protection needs to be explicit for the remnants. In any case, my point was generally to state that this was handled properly and equitably, both in the initial response and in Sardonic's wise compromise to settle the situation, but this rare occurrence did serve to highlight a blind spot in our raid policy which will likely be remedied.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1280085422' post='2388543'] Your defense was that the merge was not "publicly announced". Using that logic, the cancellation of the MA/SoL MADP was never "publicly announced" either and could have still been in effect despite SoL being a three man AA. It is usually wise to, you know, ask before raiding. A simple "Hey, is this AA protected?" goes a long way. It is much better than refusing to peace out when asked politely to cease attacks citing BS reasons to continue the raid. Lastly, the decision to protect the remnants of a merged alliance is up to the alliance that was merged into ... as well as the length of time said protection lasts. Just because no public announcement was made detailing this, that does not mean that you can safely assume that there is no protection. Again, asking and confirming before attacking is always the smart thing to do. I like GOONS and all, but I would have just rolled you the second you initially refused. [/quote] We count the wiki as "public", which is why it was a surprise that CptGodzilla posted this thread. Simply quietly editing something into the wiki would have been fine. Oh well. Also, our members do in fact already follow an [b]extremely[/b] high degree of due diligence. For the raided AA they are required to check the wiki, OWF, [u]and[/u] IRC. Likewise for any listed active protectors in the raided AA's wiki or OWF info. We do not require them to ask on IRC whether a private unannounced merge implies de facto protection. The question here is [u]not[/u] about due diligence, as you implied, but rather whether the inactive remnants of a merge implicitly retain any of their treaties. I personally don't believe so, but I can ask our gov whether there is room for compromise in that stance. Still, it should be noted that GOONS will honor private protectorates if this fact is politely communicated to them, but we do not believe in retroactive protection. This means that in this case and similar cases, our compromise position is to let current wars expire, declare no new ones, and put them on our permanent raid immunity list, which is exactly what was offered, along with the [i]suggestion[/i] that the OWF or wiki contain a notice of this. I praise Beefspari for her perfect handling of the situation.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1280085402' post='2388540'] I believe the word you're looking for is "inequitable". [/quote] Whoops, you're right. My mistake. Editing now.

No, it's a fair assumption of CN process. When MASH merged into Legion, did that mean their treaty with GGA or CIA carried over to Legion? No. Was the protection of the MASH AA implied or explicitly stated? It was [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88128&view=findpost&p=2353027]explicitly[/url] stated. When FPA merged into GOONS, we also explicitly stated the protection and its length of time in the thread. Contrary to a "double standard" as some people put it, GOONS strives for a single standard that can be applied to all of CN, regardless of power or position. People may call us amoral, but you can't really call us inequitable. edit: thanks to Ardus for the diction catch

[quote name='Shaazzam' date='23 July 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1279917851' post='2386507'] If someone declares an offensive war from the Safe Haven AA, wouldn't they forfeit everything? I would think people would be able to stomp them flat. They would be crossing all the nations that signed the accord, the attacked AA , and the allies of the attacked AA. That could potentially be a lot of people that they thumb their noses at. If you wanted reps, you'd have to deal directly with the nation or however some unaligned rogue is dealt with, no? [/quote] Yeah, pretty much. I was just noting that this is a completely normal AA, except that it cedes its sovereignty to third parties. Nothing wrong with that, kinda interesting approach if you ask me.

I like how some people will probably support this because they somehow view it as an affront to GOONS [quote name='Lamuella' date='23 July 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1279898789' post='2385900'] if a nation has it together enough to change their AA to Safe Haven, surely don't they have it together enough to join an alliance? [/quote] This. If a nation is active enough or smart enough to join an alliance to avoid getting raided, then they're not really unaligned anymore and as such aren't raid targets. According to GOONS policy, if the AA that the raided joined comes to talk to us, we will very likely let the war expire or even peace out if you're cordial and polite. Safe Haven is just another alliance, albeit a loosely run one. Still needs someone in charge to resolve incidents if one of its members rogues or something, though, which makes it even more like a normal AA.

Is it really a race when the winner is a sure thing?

It should also be noted that the person being raided was there to negotiate raid immunity for his microalliance, and instead decided to abandon them and join Schattenmann's alliance. Is this the caliber of member CoJ accepts, or is he ghosting?

I can't remember if someone posted these earlier or not. Just in case people are still misled by Schat's earlier ignorant posts on the topic, this is our latest set of terms and typical of the sort we give out. [quote]You may write about and draw one of the two following stories: Option #1: A story about your trip to an amusement park, where you're bullied by some mean old goons at the front gate. After a bit of talking, you realize that they're pretty cool guys and enjoy the rest of the day riding rides and having fun with the awesome goons. Also the amusement park is underwater. Option #2: Through a series of unlikely events you're launched into space with a goon on a rocket ship for the purpose of space exploration. Detail your journey across the stars, whether you meet blue alien babes, are eaten by a 700-tentacled monster (not the goon though, goons are too awesome to die), or just sit around pushing buttons on the ship until you realize just how handsome your goon partner is. [/quote] [quote]For the purpose of artwork and physical description, you may consider goons lumberjacks with plaid shirts and large beards.[/quote] We also require similar terms for own members when they mess up a raid and pick a target outside of our strict guidelines. On several occasions some of our own members have completed them just for fun! Just throwing this out there in case people keep using the "humiliating" line.

[quote name='General Rex' date='20 July 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1279655588' post='2381147'] Does anyone know how many more nations are getting raided? People are making a big deal about this but for some reason I don't think that many nations are getting attacked. So can someone anyone atleast give me an estimate? Thanks [/quote] Honestly? Probably not many. Raiding is inherently a low-NS activity (nuke rogues are far more harmful in terms of cash damage), since raided nations are always small (only 15 unaligned nations in the [i]entire world[/i] are above 10k NS, and most of them are in peace mode) and the the raiding parties are also limited to those nations small enough to attack. For reference, \m/, PC, and MK's average NS are about 25k, 45k, and 41k NS.

[quote name='Chron' date='20 July 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1279654279' post='2381106'] Ill just keep on sending recruitment messages out to red unaligneds. Tootles. [/quote] This is [u]not[/u] an unintended consequence. Raiding is generally an impetus towards greater engagement in world politics, whether it involves joining and participating in an AA, seeking a protectorate for your AA, increasing recruiting to rise above the threshold, or in some cases, proving that you care enough about your nation or alliance to quickly draw a picture of a goon as a big strong lumberjack to earn yourself a spot on a permanent do-not-attack list. Proper raiding is not ZI, or extortion, or anything like that, but a simple transfer of tech from lazy nations to remind them there's so much more to the world than collecting daily or sending each other $15000 at a time. Once they get the message, raids halt and they very, very quickly regain whatever they lost once they start interacting with the rest of the world.

I salute the nations participating in the Red Raiding Safari for their tireless efforts promoting fiscal responsibility! (You know, by preventing NPO from spending coin it doesn't have)

[quote name='Thrash' date='19 July 2010 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1279579985' post='2379442'] Wow, it's been a year already? [/quote] [i]Allegedly.[/i]

[quote name='Style #386' date='18 July 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1279516399' post='2378476'] What on earth are you gibbering about? [/quote] Have you not been paying attention in just the last couple of days? BAPS-Legion canceled, Valhalla-Legion canceled, IRON-eight other alliances canceled, now ODN-tR canceled, UPN desperately seeking mergers to avoid a downward spiral of inactivity, multiple disbandments and retirements. It's a time of minor upheaval, and this is the latest chapter, regardless of whether it's related to the other recent events.

I refuse to acknowledge this. How do I know you're really one year old? The CN wiki? OWF announcements? WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!

Grub had the cojones to issue a (private) ultimatum to his [u]own treaty partner[/u] GOONS to "rectify the situation" after it had already been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, even the [i]raided party[/i]. The whole war was started by Grub's desire to attack \m/, nothing more, and he alienated his allies to do it.

[quote name='ratonbox' date='17 July 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1279358411' post='2375675'] Heh.. looks like a 4-way battle between us, TFD, PC and CSN. [/quote] Yeah it's a nice setup for GOONS eventually leapfrogging over four AA's at once

[quote name='Gopherbashi' date='16 July 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1279345452' post='2375552'] [b]Commentary[/b] I'm actually glad no one did update yesterday. [/quote] I'm not, if someone had done it a little earlier yesterday we'd have had +0.20

[quote name='Grendel' date='16 July 2010 - 05:00 AM' timestamp='1279281640' post='2374361'] Okay everyone even now? No more "jokes" please? Scrambling to change passwords was annoying while I was at work yesterday o.O [/quote] I think Valhalla's counter-prank may have backfired a bit on the rest of Purple Unity

Heh, figured it was connected with Valhalla as a counter-prank, but accusing people on OWF is generally pointless and counter productive. Couldn't be a goon, seeing as how that sort of terrible leetspeak would earn a ban first time they used it on our boards. [quote name='Buds The Man' date='15 July 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1279226763' post='2373421'] Honestly i was impressed with your response and good show on handling it. [/quote] GOONS, contrary to apparent public opinion, generally handles diplomatic incidents with panache, thanks to the efforts of (in no particular order) Sardonic, Beefspari, Biazt, ktarthan, nippy, and many more. In fact, if you count the end of the UjW to be the effective endpoint for Neutral Shoving, I'd like to point out the current GOONS has actually been around [b]longer[/b], due largely to their efforts.

[quote name='Masterof9puppets' date='14 July 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1279138157' post='2371389'] We were not enjoying Valhalla's "public humiliation". [/quote] Not to mention, Valhalla isn't exactly "humiliated" by getting 45/112 members to peace mode on short notice. Strategic quibbles aside, kudos on a fast mobilization, Valhalla.

[quote name='Jonesing' date='14 July 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1279137553' post='2371371'] Thank you, I couldn't quite put my finger on what the difference was, but this is it!!! The sheer idiocy and stupidity of some of the GOONS 2.0'ers posting in this thread is not what I think we would have seen from GOONS 1.0. [/quote] This is a pretty pointless post. Please, provide some examples or details. Fact is, the current GOONS, while still reserving the right to harvest pubbie tears from time to time, is [b]far[/b] more diplomatic and accommodating than the old GOONS. You're just mad that they were your tears edit: bah, nippy beat me to it

Xiph, you glorious person you. [IMG]http://i30.tinypic.com/ieicz5.gif[/IMG]

Congrats. I've only been around to see maybe the latter half of your three years, but I still like what I see

[quote name='Grumpdogg' date='12 July 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1278953937' post='2368207'] Let's hope this is contagious. [/quote] Really? I'd think you would want to quarantine other Polarians from whatever Roi Loup has.