Hyperbad

[quote name='citizenkane' timestamp='1285419782' post='2464231'] [u]Exhibit A[/u] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Kerberos Nexus&anyallexact=exact"]Link #1[/url] Shows the entire of the alliance that methrage is in is warring MK and GOONS. [u]Exhibit B[/u] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_news.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Attack_Date&Search=Kerberos Nexus&SearchBy=Nation_Alliance&View=S#nukes"]This link[/url] contains a list of nations which have been hit by nuclear weapons by methrage's alliance These current round of wars have no CB, are nuclear, you could say the [u][i]entire alliance[/i][/u] has gone rogue. Why no sanction, NPO? [/quote] Did Polaris go rogue on \m/ in the Bipolar war? I ask simply because the motivations are similar; both acting parties felt it was their duty to act with their cause one of moral righteousness. It's also a bit of a rhetorical question as I personally like to try and maintain a policy of what standards I hold alliances to I also hold nations to and visa versa. We don't have to agree with them in order to see them as not actually being rogues. [quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1285419789' post='2464232'] Except GOONS never spied him, FOK and MK did, and still he declared on GOONS. Not a rogue?[/quote] Who spied him is the only valid point to be made in Jim's case. The problem is who they were spying for was quite apparent and even openly stated. In fact when Jim stated he would give no reparations the following statements were that he should expect to lose his rank. Going by the threats made by GOONS in other cases of aid packets being sent it's safe to say they weren't planning on merely passing him by climbing up there but had a plan of tearing him down. Further, one of GOONS members quite literally told Jim to follow through on his threat and oddly enough is the only (or first) person he declared on. That by itself since a request was made would disqualify him as a rogue and helps to set this up as a duel but that's only from my own individual perspective. Really, the only mistake in how Jim went to war was with who he declared on; he never declared on those who actually did the spying. The matter is quite clear on what he should have expected without giving reparations and who was having the spy operations done, thus in no manner of speaking is or was he a rogue. In declaring war he acted against what he saw as an imminent threat. [quote]Your obvious bias in your choice to follow the route of "inaction" I would argue that while you are not overtly "aiding" Methrage, you agree with his actions and "aid" him by "inaction".[/quote] I don't think anybody actually agrees with their actions. They're reckless and unlikely to achieve anything except unite those who they take issue with as opposed to cause a divide where change is possible. It's a question of if they are as the claim was made. There has been a few threads about rogues and the use of the senate seats on red in order to try and ensure a consensus on what will be sanctioned and what will not. In this case he is not termed as a rogue by us and the matter is settled. Rather than continuing to argue semantics you would be better served trying to explore new arguments to justify the use of sanctions to satisfy the reasons given for the view of them not being justified. Additionally if you really want to stretch the definition of aid to the point that it no longer fits then we are giving more aid to GOONS and their allies for who is benefiting more from not receiving sanctions on their nations in combat? Easily they are receiving the greatest amount of aid because they have so many more nations. Also by inaction, and once more using the reasoning you display in the quotation, we agree with GOONS because our refusal to sanction their nations and those of their allies is aiding them in this fight. [quote name='MikeCrotch' timestamp='1285420035' post='2464236'] So if we give secret aid to a nation that you're at war with and you spy on us to find out we did it after already gathering some proof, you won't mind if we declare war on you? Thanks, that's some valuable information.[/quote] Cortath never commented on whether he agrees with Jim or Methrage and that he doesn't mind their acts. He's merely saying that with the power the senate has and the circumstances involved they are not, by definition, rogues. Someone might not be a rogue and you still disagree with their chosen action. If you wish to discover how he feels on the whole situation you would be better served by simply asking than dishonestly putting words in his mouth. [quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1285421030' post='2464243'] I don't know about Methrage, but JimKongIl is by all definitions of the game a nuclear rogue. He aided (Methrage) an enemy of GOONS ( http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91676&hl=goons&st= ) When that provocation didn't got enough attention he decided to DOW GOONS. He even stated himself that he regret that he didn't DOW'ed more alliances after he was nuked. This is a 100% nuclear rogue and it disappoints me that NPO and Red Dawn seems to allow these rogue's to prosper on their sphere.[/quote] By many of the newer definitions he certainly is a rogue but not by all. Some of us have actually held onto the more stringent definitions from years ago because we understand in most cases while acts may not be commendable there certainly may be a legitimate reason behind it which is the issue for concern. If I can see an alliance (collection of nations) acting in the same or a similar manner, or just having a similar view, then I do not see how one could use the powers of the senate against them or would you ask us to be so reckless with it should an alliance do the same? Personally I never saw those acting on their political beliefs as a rogue act, such is a fact of life here on Bob anyway. [quote]In the past alliances have helped NPO sanctioning the rogue's who hit them. Recently Salmacis ( http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=201168 ) went rogue on NPO and got sanctions on all colors (black, aqua and orange included). These colors helped you sanctioning your rogue but you won't return the favor, when the alliances on those colors have a similar request? Do you understand our frustration? I hope you understand it and still decide to sanction him.[/quote] It has not been stated that never again will sanctions be passed out on red team. What has been stated is this isn't a case quite so easily classified as a rogue as you and your friends wish.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285398220' post='2464084'] There's a big difference here. Red Raiding Safari is about NPO vs the world. Other alliances who want to raid on red and don't believe that NPO should get to tell the rest of the world they can't raid on a whole sphere of unaligned nations. Sanction is about GOONS vs Methrage (or GOONS vs Jim), but red is trying to make it about GOONS vs NPO. They're inserting bias into their decision-making, inventing a new precedent and distracting from the actual issue at hand. NPO is not part of the equation other than having a senator, but they're inserting themselves into the situation and making their decision on whether or not to deal with a nuclear rogue based on that. [/quote] I can not verify the veracity of your claims regarding Cortath, nor can I verify that the logs accurately reflect his perspective or if he said those things with a particular purpose in mind. What I can do is comment to the effect of asserting that there is room in some definitions for Jim not to be automatically associated with the term rogue and instead for it to be judged on a case by case basis. Some of these definitions have been evolving recently - still before the whole conflict with Methrage incident mind you - others not quite so recently or as much. Despite your not having any real way to know this I find it an odd thing to take the statements of one leader on a team and jump to the conclusion that all feel this way particularly since, or at least as of a few pages ago (I stopped reading on page five when it was started and returned after being referred back to it) when it was yourself who brought the NPO and what their leader had said into discussion with the only other alliance to present hold a seat on the same team. My colleague and leader was merely attempting to explain the origins of their position and how it all started. Whether it then evolved into something new or there was a particular reason other than Cortath honestly felt that way, I do not know. He would be the best person to shine some light on it. Still, it wouldn't be the first time someone said something simply to see if they might profit from it if that was indeed the case, but I say that as someone who hasn't had many dealings with the NPO. [quote]And by doing nothing they've decided not to deal with a nuclear rogue. Because of something that has nothing to do with either Methrage or Jim.[/quote] I think if you comb this thread you will find some commentary on why doing nothing has been decided. What it really boils down to though is it's not good enough for you to accept. Perhaps it differs too greatly from your own general perspective on these things, perhaps your being an involved party has clouded your judgment or perhaps it just wasn't explained clearly or thoroughly enough between the tangents. Perhaps further discourse of an inquiring nature would assist in remedying this misunderstanding.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285396888' post='2464066'] You misunderstand, when I say apolitical I mean motivations. Much like the hundred and one other random CN diplomatic incidents that make up the day to day work in whatever an alliance calls their foreign affairs branch there are certain tasks that one is always helpful and forth coming with, for the simple reason that you want to be able to get the same courtesy in return later. Nuclear rogues, non-nuclear rogues, ghosts, unauthorized wars, tech deals that keep going after a war stats, delinquent tech deals, ect. The countless mundane tasks that make up alliance FA are typically dealt with without regard to AA, even if its your worst enemy/bitter rival. Its a simple extension of the golden rule, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You treat generously because by doing so you become entitled to expect the same treatment later in return, and of course its only a matter of time until you do require a reciprocal service. You'll have a rogue you want sanctioned, you'll have some idiot member who declared a war he shouldn't have, you'll have some deadbeat member who ditched a tech deal, ect. By attempting to politicize any of these processes you open the floodgates to people deciding that since you weren't nice about it to them or their friends they don't have to be nice to you about it anymore either. This helps nobody, nuclear rogues come from and target all alliances regardless of position on the web. I'm sure NPO thinks its hilarious now to be able to tweak GOONS over a nuclear rogue, but will it be funny when the next time they have someone nuking them they can't get the support they want? [/quote] With that message to your post I would say you're right in that it's not a smart move to make much less to openly state it.

[quote name='Choader' timestamp='1285393348' post='2464020'] As far as I would be concerned Jimkongil is as cut and dry a case of roguery as could possibly exist. If an alliance-less nuclear nation aiding the enemies of an alliance and subsequently attacking them isn't being a nuclear rogue, what [i]does[/i] fit the definition?[/quote] This depends what definition you choose to use. These circumstances are similar to the $6 million war in that both parties feel slighted by what they term as an act of war and both made their feelings known, but one saw fit to act first. The reason Jim cited also isn't all that uncommon for alliances either to hold a very similar perspective. Granted they might not be quite so quick to the red button but there is merit behind his position. That is what removes him, in my opinion, from the definition of a rogue. [quote]It would seem that if Red Dawn with you as the [b]decider[/b] refused a sanction on Jimkongil you would be directly supporting a rogue against GOONS, especially in light of the Senator from CoJ sanctioning all other rogues left and right and your own previous insistence on sanctioning rogues of his type. By all rights you and your alliance should be open to attack for directly aiding their enemy. [/quote] [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285394049' post='2464034'] They're aiding and harboring a nuclear rogue by allowing him aid and trade on their color. Personal issues with GOONS aside, they're supporting Methrage and anyone who aids him.[/quote] Sitting idly by and not assisting either party by use of sanction is a position of neutrality. Aiding and supporting takes a degree of action or inaction in one's favor above another. In this case inaction is of benefit to both parties thus impartial. Supporting them would either be filling their coffers or imposing sanctions on GOONS and their allies. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285394328' post='2464036'] NPO should be more worried about the standard, and pray they never need a sanction in the future from GOONS or any of their allies. There is a reason things like sanctioning nuclear rogues has always been apolitical, its a can of worms no sane person wants to open. [/quote] I would have to challenge that notion. Sanctioning rogues has always been very political and to the lowest common denominator of what one is exactly because of what you allude to; everyone fears the fall-out. I don't really see standards being challenged as such a terrible thing provided there is sound reasoning behind it. I'm not even sure so much that's what's happening here as rogues have been and are sanctioned from time to time. What's at heart of the issue is if the standards of a concerned party is enough and the one with the seat should disregard their own. I wouldn't even say it's a first come first serve situation as I don't think anyone would ever really sanction a member of an alliance at the request of a micro-alliance or individual nation for fear of the fall out. Really I'd say sanctions are tossed out in order to ensure political capital with those significant alliances out there. Presently what we have is an assumed guilt system where innocence must be proven and even then it's typically too late with those who did it unwilling to do anything to remedy the situation for fear of how it would look and impact them. Seldom ever is the question asked of whether what has been asked is a responsible use of the senate's power in an honest manner.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285136493' post='2460730'] So did you aid the guy or not? [/quote] There's one way to find out other then asking. I'm curious how many hundreds of millions (billions?) it's worth to you.[IMG]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd39/stressmaster5000/Misc/Pirate%20Emoticons%20and%20GIFs/eatpopcornpiratesmiley.gif[/IMG] [quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1285136607' post='2460731'] Be funny if he was just baiting you guys into doing it and he really didn't do it. [/quote] That would be so awesome.

I'm loving thar being 3 alliances which aren't sanctioned merely because of privateer count.

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1284233741' post='2450062'] That actually doesn't seem like a terrible idea as long as you keep track of who is an actual member and make sure you and your allies know your real stats. It makes for some extra shielding during wartime. I personally think it'd be too much of a hassle to keep track of, but if you already had it set up... *shrugs* [/quote] Well, every alliance whether they accept ghosts or not should be keeping a list of actual members and who isn't yet resides on the same AA, in order to make addressing gaffes more easily accomplished amongst their own members as well. Some members may idle out or leave with no warning as well so it's generally just a good idea to have a simple list. I do however see attacking "ghosts" as a poor policy choice developed at a time where it was believed any single nation residing on an alliance affiliation could hold an entire alliance responsible for their actions or inactions, regardless of their stature within the alliance (if they had any). Some oppose the idea of permitting non-members on the alliance affiliation merely because of the risks despite a change in attitude and how easily resolved issues are by saying "they're not a member" should they wrong another party. Ghost busting takes up a heck of a lot of manpower and resources for little or no actual gain. I suppose while the addition of so many meat shields is a boon in taking fire from your own members it might also be a negative. Your strength will over estimated at first but when it hits the fan and the meat shields leave you'll be thought of as a paper tiger because ghosts are there in order to hide and will leave any war quickly, thus making it appear as if your membership is melting away. To be quite honest, I'm surprised alliances who are opposed to tech raiding have not changed their policy on ghosts to permit them, in order to protect those who have no alliance while still following the general norm of only claiming any sovereignty on their own affiliation. It seems to me that it's the simplest means to oppose raiding with. [b]Edit:[/b] removed reply to citizen kane as I realized my reply didn't touch on the intentions of his post.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284144947' post='2448950'] 1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance? 2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance? 3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?[/quote] Did you mean they initiated the war or merely brought it to the level of nuclear weapons being used? There's a big difference there and with the latter, no, I don't see it alone being cause for sanctions. Rather it's the reason for war which would be the pressing concern. If they're being tech raided and choose the nuclear option then I'd actually wish to see them protected from sanctions on my sphere, possibly sanctioning the raider. If it's a case where both parties legitimately feel wronged then I would prefer taking no sides with no sanctions being conducted against either party. If they just declared war for kicks or even to test the war options then I would approve of sanctions against them. [quote]4. In any case, would you support the use of trade sanctions as a tool of war in a conflict between two or more recognized alliances?[/quote] This depends upon the reason for war and the goals one has.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1283988652' post='2447080'] What are you trying to figure out some negotiating tips so you're leader can try get get higher reps without crying on the owf? [/quote] I'm not interested in either brown nosing or victimizing others let alone both at the same time. So I think it's fairly obvious I'd have no interest in receiving "tips" from yourselves or any other major alliance out there. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1283994203' post='2447179'] At that size the GOONS don't have SDIs, so yes, every nuke hits.[/quote] That wasn't quite the success I intended for the reader to think. It's the purchasing of the maximum number of nuclear weapons with that aid packet that I was challenging. [quote]Methrage was almost out of cash even before he went rogue this latest time (he told us in VE that during the round of war we had against him), so the aid (it was probably $4.5m since both of them have FACs) would have permitted him to avoid bill lock for a few more days, rebuild to 1000 infra and buy several nukes. I put some maths in the thread on AA showing how $3m could be responsible for $30m-ish of damages, and that will be significantly higher for $4.5m. [/quote] Running the math for hypothetical situations it is possible to come to just about any number in damages, including one lower than $30 million. If he bought up infrastructure then it all depends on when it was done with the aid. If it was the jump from September 1st to the 2nd it probably ate up nearly all of it. If it includes the small NS jump from August 31st then it would have as Methrage's NS was lower than it presently is and right now he's sitting on 658. The first 1,000 infrastructure costs $10 million and most of the cost would be on the higher half. This brings us right back to how much cash he had on hand at the time and given the knowledge that he was low on funds I would find it extremely difficult to believe that the GOONS didn't push hard on putting him in bill lock thus taking at least some of the cash away and not leaving all of it to be used against them. [quote]On the other hand, the 100 tech that Schatt airs in the OP would be responsible for maybe 10 points of infra and land ($500k? at most) in a round of war.[/quote] I mentioned 100 tech here?

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1283985710' post='2447015'] That's a ridiculous claim. $3m to someone with billions is hardly going to contribute much to their current situation.[/quote] I'm glad you see the point. It was previously stated that Methrage had a pretty empty war chest but no amount was given nor was anything commented on further prior to my posts to really assert this $3 million played any substantial role. Though pretty empty might be close to entirely empty the former gets tossed around quite a bit when ever someone lacks any kind of significant war chest for their size. If he had any of his own money left over and didn't dip into the $3 million then it's safe to say the aid did nothing and you're just seeing $90 million in profit from the deal as opposed to $x million for damages and $x million in profit. [quote]Although we might still ask for a bunch of money if you [i]blatantly aided a nuclear rogue after we posted a thread saying not to[/i]. This doesn't set a precedent for $3m = $90m in all situations all the time forever and always.[/quote] There was no assertion made of it setting a precedent. [quote]Methrage is a 5k NS nuclear rogue. He has no warchest and he has no back-up plan. The $3m drastically increased his options and ability to retaliate given his current situation, very much unlike giving $3m to someone with billions. It's pretty safe to assume that the $3m was spent on nukes, considering he didn't have nukes before, and afterward he did. Although you can't really prove the $3m went right into funding nukes, you also can't prove it didn't. Which is my point; there's no real way to ask for damages in this situation anyway. Even if you don't think it was 90m, you have no way of telling us how much it actually was, so there's no point in discussing damages.[/quote] It is possible, even probable that some of the money did go to funding nuclear weapons if he had no warchest. What I have a difficult time believing though is in the event that he was down to the $3 million then it all was spent on nuclear weapons and actually succeeded in hitting you with all of them or is your alliance so typically inept as to allow an alleged nuclear rogues to keep their minuscule war chests so more may be lobbed at you? [quote]We picked a figure we thought made sense for the situation. We asked for $90m and that's what we got. It was discussed and agreed upon. Whether or not that $3m funded nukes or how much damage it actually did, Corinan thought the $90m deal was worth taking. [/quote] You picked the figure based upon the maximum amount of damage possibly dealt to your alliance as opposed to its actual impact, correct?

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1283979555' post='2446898'] Doesn't matter, making a case for what exactly that $3m was spent on is nearly impossible.[/quote] To know exactly what was spent on, yes, however you could narrow it down and make educated guesses as to how far that money would have went to war based upon gather intelligence on Methrage earlier (then later) and looking at war reports. You could narrow it down quite well. [quote]We looked at some war reports, figured it could've easily hit 90m at x3 or x5 (although Corinan commented he'd take x10 heh), remembered we got that last time and went for it.[/quote] By that line of thought, since you've provided no underlying basis for it to be judged by, if I send $3 million to someone with a $5 billion warchest and they do damage which could easily hit ten times that, you'd seek all of those damages he did despite the aid packet effectively having done nothing to change the amount of damage you'd receive. Basically, you'd be asking me to pay for something I had literally no influence on. Now, in the case of Methrage it is possible the aid had an influence on how much damage he did but then if that's the case it's also possible for your alliance to have minimized said damage by a magnitude thereby making such calculations inaccurate. [quote]Regardless of if you think the damages were that high or that's what the money was spent on (could've just as easily been spent on paying bills), it's what Corinan agreed to so there's no point in discussing it.[/quote] I'm not seeking to change what they agreed to. I'm challenging your methodology and the conclusions made.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1283740575' post='2443265'] Pretty empty. [/quote] Is/was there the chance the money might have been destroyed or looted prior to its use for maximum amount of damage $3 million can do? Otherwise if he hasn't dropped that low, is it possible the $3 million has yet to have any sort of effect on combat and whether it will have any is debatable yet? The reason I ask these questions is you all seem to be asking for money based upon the damage received in combat but I've not seen any actual connection being made to the $3 million in question which is rather important if you're seeking full reps.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1283824114' post='2444664'] Not our problem, we tried to pay, he's probably gone inactive. [/quote] You canceled the offer before the slot even was even expired and never made an effort to investigate whether he was going inactive, idling out or if something had happened making him unable to accept it. Furthermore there's the fact that the nation still exists unpaid. The lack of contact to see payment through makes cop out the phrase. [quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1283831252' post='2444831'] Of course Schattenman thinks this is comparable to the [b]former second in command at NSO (who stills holds an advisory position in government)[/b] sending 4.5m of secret aid to a known nuclear rogue at war with GOONS, and then gloats about it until a spy report is finally generated; especially after an explicit announcement was made by us about aiding him. [/quote] hmm, why does that debate of whether advisors are government sound familiar. Seriously, wasn't there a previous incident about that?

Curious, what's Methrage's warchest at?

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1283556953' post='2440836'] and yes, a lot of alliances suck, are the same and offer little difference with each other. I don't think it'd be a bad thing if a lot of the micro alliances begin to merge with each other.[/quote] eh, I wouldn't really push them to merge myself. If they don't care then great. If they do care however then accentuate those features baby.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1283556424' post='2440823'] Actually, the splinter alliances result in having the same people run the game.[/quote] Not if enough people leave

I see a lot of scape goating in this thread by several people where every possibility comes out except the most obvious. If this is an issue for any alliance then safe to say there is some element of "you" involved be it their members, its uclture or its policies which will impede on your growth. Off the top of my head maybe it would help if they just sucked less among other things. One glaringly obvious reason some might not join you all is minus a few topics/poliices just about every alliance with military treaties is the same as one another. Ditto with the neutrals. You're all not identical to one another but there are very few areas where you all differ greatly enough and in a meaningful way in public to really set yourselves apart. tl;dr fix your !@#$, quit blaming others and look at what you could do better

Congrats on those who've been elected. [quote name='CEverettKoop' timestamp='1283396524' post='2438793'] If someone could, someone would. Methinks they're not being truthful and there are some "hush-hush" backroom deals to keep them alive and afloat, as long as the community doesn't find out.[/quote] Nope, there's nothing of the sort as you suggest going on. No backroom dealing for their security. They stand on their own and others either don't care, can't be bothered, are concerned about the fall out or are sympathetic to their cause. Simply put though everyone has greater concerns than what they are doing.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1283043946' post='2434354'] Sorry to disappoint. No, what he did was exactly what many other people in the "might makes right" world we live in might do. He ran to the leader of a alliance who he knew (i.e. me - not my current alliance, I'm semi-retired) with a very sad tale of woe on how he's being "raped" and extorted. He failed to mention any details regarding the situation leading up to the attack. Must of slipped his mind [/quote] More likely he isn't a man that holds his principles in this regard above his own well being. I must say there are some things I do feel deeply on and wouldn't mind going to the mat for and other things that, well, I just don't care that much about. [quote]So tell me, assuming you ruled the verse, how would recruiting from alliances be done? Any rules, our would it be a free for all spam fest?[/quote] There's more to it then I can really say here but basically if the lines of communication between two parties are open then I don't see anything wrong with it. In the mean time don't open the messages and you'll likely see yourself off the lists because there's apparently a zero chance of their recruitment being successful.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1283031250' post='2434158'] If they have made it clear that they want to leave their alliance and are looking for somewhere else to go, it isn't disrespectful. However, just sending random recruitment messages to one or more people in another alliance (or group of alliances) because there is a chance someone there might take it is a problem.[/quote] So... what's the problem? Not interested then delete it. [quote]In terms of options, there are plenty of places for people to look if they want to explore options.[/quote] There certainly are but then sometimes it helps if options are brought to them. [quote]However, you suggest that a person already in an alliance should have to make repeated requests to be taken off before it's harassment. What I'm arguing is that by the act of joining an alliance in the first place, THAT is a request to be taken off the "list" (in addition to the other benefits of joining an alliance) and to intentionally not respect that is at best rude. To do it repeatedly or on a large scale is harassment.[/quote] Here is where we seem to differ. I don't see a nation being member to an international organization being a request to not receive solicitations to join others. There may be a desire of some not to receive them but in no way is a request actually made. The claim it in itself is a request is born out of the belief that everyone is happy where they are and consider it a bother to delete the messages. Additionally that another has presented other options to the one presently being explored (ie. ones present alliance) is far from rude in my own opinion. What they are doing while may be selfish at heart - to grow themselves by the acquisition of new members - it does present other options to the recipient of said message which in turn could be to their benefit. Even if they don't wish to leave there may be something alluring in those who sent the message which may spur activity in their present home to emulate that attraction. [quote]Thus far, the best way that I've seen an alliance deal with the issue of repeated, unwanted requests by a leader of another alliance that their members join his was, after trying to resolve it diplomatically and being told "no, I'll do what I want" they declared war on him only. I thought that was rather reasonable.[/quote] That's actually pretty funny. I hope the guy kept sending them to show that war does not prevent the sending of inquiries or requests.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1283021657' post='2433996'] The disrespect comes, imo, by not respecting the individual member's choice to belong to the alliance he or she chose. By the very act of joining a particular alliance, the leader is making a statement of "I WANT to be here." There are enough alliances to chose from, after all. Thus unless there is something written by the leader that he/she is looking to join another alliance (or the alliance has disbanded formerly), to attempt to recruit him or her out of his or her choice is harassment.[/quote] The interesting thing is how this quote and the very last one are at odds. You acknowledge some are considering leaving their alliance or having doubts yet say it's disrespectful to them because their membership says they want to be there. It's not telling them they have to leave or are wrong for their choice but recruitment messages present options which might appeal to what the recipient wants most even if they are already happy where they are. [quote]Again, there is an easy way to solve this. Everyone who thinks it is not harassment, simply write on your nations "Feel free to send me recruitment messages" in a similar fashion to people who want tech deals write "looking to buy/sell tech." No one taking my suggestion? I rest my case.[/quote] If you make repeated requests to be taken off of a recruitment list then I certainly agree it's harassment if continued with intent (let's face it, mistakes happen) though I do think people blow it out of proportion to the kind of issue it's seen as. I'm not sure what case you think you had though. I think you throw around the word harassment a bit much here though and stretch its meaning from intent to cause the target to become destraught to the mere possibility of causing an annoyance existing no matter how small (if it even exists) and whether one knows it will or not. [quote]Oh, and for those people who would leave an already established alliance that you are a part of by a recruitment message (and I'm assuming we're NOT talking about already established friendships) - I suggest looking around and finding a group. You are not where you should be.[/quote] So then why be opposed when the potential for them finding a place they'd rather be is sent to them?

[quote name='Land of True Israel' timestamp='1282950185' post='2433189'] It can rightfully be considered as a hostile action as you are essentially attempting to [b]take something that belongs to them[/b], and/or to "weaken" them while you make your own stronger[/quote] So basically members of an alliance are property and not independent states [people] whose interests the alliance is supposed to further. Gotcha. Sad thing is, this is probably the most honest and straight forward post of the lot. Much more direct than the others who have posted defending the idea that poaching is a CB.

[quote name='Shakira' timestamp='1282246433' post='2423374'] [b][color="#FF0000"]I like the red, it matches my sig and avatar.[/color][/b] [/quote] You should use hot pink. If yellow got on their nerves just imagine how that will. Unreadable + pink. Their rage will never cease.

They own some of it. Another building next to the address most in the headlines is a Con Edison building with a lease extending into the decades (I forget, 70 or 90 year lease) with the option for buying the premises. The purchase of land from Con Edison would have to pass a state board review (IIRC) in order to finally go through. I don't believe there's much doubt that they'll be able to purchase it but there's a small group lobbying to block it so the community center as presently planned doesn't get completed.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282305846' post='2424390'] Directly recruiting from an alliance is just as concrete an attempt to harm them materially as attacking them and destroying their infra and land with wars. If you succeed, you're taking away numbers, stats, activity and a part of the community. Actively attempting to harm my alliance seems like a pretty good CB to me.[/quote] Intent to harm them and or doing something to you benefit without regard to how it impacts others? The two are very different which I think is irrelevant anyway partly because of the reasons others have posted and also because I don't [any more] really see sovereignty existing for alliances. It certainly exists for its members and that's what alliances typically respond to but the mere fact that members can so freely leave or return in most cases I think hurts the position of it being a strong cause for war. That isn't to say those claims don't exist. I just feel them to be rather weak.