Chatul

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1285079182' post='2459972'][quote='Chatul']((OOC: In a game of, say, basketball, is it morally wrong to steal the ball?)) Is it morally wrong to violently take what you could have gained peacefully? Is it wrong to spread destruction rather than beauty, famine rather than plenty, death rather than life? Is it evil to do the opposite of what the Creator does? If these things are not wicked, please sir, tell me what is! ((OOC: Translation: Raiding is wonderful because it provides villains to a nation's story ;] )) [/quote] Basketball is an excellent sport and I think that I speak for everyone in Basketball Ninjas when I say that every nation on Planet Bob would do well to have their own team! Regarding your question, I don't think it makes a good comparison. There are rules in basketball, which include rules about stealing. A steal in basketball occurs when a DEFENSIVE player LEGALLY gains control of the ball from an offensive player. Thus it would be more like a nation getting tech raided and then successfully fighting back and "stealing" his or her original tech back. Also, the steal is considered "foul" if the person doing the stealing touches the offensive player's hands. A "touching" is a given in the case of declaring war. Finally, there is the entire issue that the players in a basketball game agree that 1) it is a game 2) X and Y are the rules and 3) no one is killed as a result (OOC: I'm role-playing, thank you). A nation that is attacked for technology never agreed to the war in the first place. [/quote] ((OOC: You do realize that you've responded to something no character said, right? Chatul agreed fully with you at that moment in his development. The real me was brushing off what Chatul was about to say next. So I guess I can't really respond IC because it doesn't quite make sense... I should maybe have picked a different game as an example, though; thanks.))

I would like to note, to give both sides fuel for their argument (which I find entertaining), Chisrael's entrance story as an example: I joined the game with the naive assumption that relatively few nations would be blood thirsty (enjoying war for its own sake) or criminal (since I didn't know yet that tech and such would become easier to steal than to buy with the rising price). We also had hoped to find a place of freedom from authorities other than those we chose for ourselves*, so most alliances we looked into, and later the very idea of an alliance (which doesn't mean quite what we had hoped it would mean**) became very unattractive.*** My visible reaction to these events were, of course, peculiar (as I tend to be in all situations), but I'm sure, based on what I've read in these debates, they were in the same spirit as many new nations that end up withering to nothing. One recruiter in particular (and I do see this as good for him and his alliance) informed me that alliances were crucial for protection from raids like the one I was going through which his alliance could make stop if I joined them. It was good advice, but you know what many new leaders (again, based on what I've read) really hear? "You can have protection if you join our team in what you thought would be a mostly solo sport****, or you can go solo if you stay in peace mode or get raided when you come out." My answer to him was that [b]we'd rather just[/b] enjoy anarchy for a while (again, peculiar; not the point) and then [b]quit than make a choice like that.[/b] Also note that, other than my trades and tech deals, I haven't made much contribution to the community yet. Perhaps raiding is good for weeding would-be non-contributors out early. The Creator does do similar; many planets are formed but few develop life, and many seeds are scattered but few grow up. And though Bob has more land than I can comprehend, it must have some type of spacial limit ((OOC: servers, bandwidth,...)). Of course, it's just as easy to believe the opposite is true. I may, when I'm good and ready, become one of the greatest contributors to the planet yet. But then, I'm peculiar. What about all those that join alliances and then are still non-contributors? Um, I haven't heard, do many of them also go inactive? If so, then they are victim to this system just as much as those who get raided; they chose the other side of the coin, but natural selection is still at work. So perhaps those that would contribute find a way to contribute whether they get raided or not. They may not do enough research to discover [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92250"]these awesome people[/url] or an alliance that's more like they hoped, but they may do something that's just enough to get a referral to one of these (in my case, a reverse charter, but that's extreme). If they aren't willing to do just enough interacting to find something right for them (and with so many alliances and protectorates, their bound to find something they like if they keep interacting), would they have been good for Bob? But perhaps I haven't read enough to notice the case of someone who started off like a non-contributor and ended up a contributor... An interesting note on war from another angle: is ghost busting very young nations moral? You see, my attacker was ghosting TDO at the time, and it hadn't occurred to me that was a common strategy so I held TDO as at least part of the problem. I assume they made him leave, at which point he began ghosting another, and then another, and then another alliance. Finally when he was asked to leave MHA he'd had enough, refused to leave, and was attacked. During all that time, he and I had made up, and I had given him some (probably noobish) advice on other matters (like tech deals), so he saw me as a potential source of aid from this attack. That's when I realized he probably didn't understand. I wonder how many leaders see the options in the AA selection list just like those in team and fail to realize they can't simply pick one without getting accepted first. Every alliance he had ghosted was in that list. I explained to him that you have to apply for an alliance and directed him to the forums, and some time later found he had finally changed AA to something not on the list, and not a party of one or few - an actual alliance. I think he's finally actually gotten in one. He probably never even got a recruitment letter because of the AA choice made at the start. I wonder if there are many that start like that and whether these innocent ghosts quit when they realize they can't beat the ghost busters. But maybe that's more natural selection... *which is just happens to be me at this moment; when the people change their minds, I will change with them, but I know for certain they will not chose to follow anyone entirely outside our citizenship **a group of allies - simply friends and partners - not a government ***For the record, we have since seen at least one alliance like our hope, so the idea itself no longer discourages us, but we're quite comfortable being a RIA Trade Partner now anyway. ****Mostly solo meaning you can play alone until you make friends in a more natural way than rushing into an alliance. ((OOC: all of the above is IC; my character and his people (and I) often see (real) life as a game to be played ;] . So please don't warn me.))

((OOC: In a game of, say, basketball, is it morally wrong to steal the ball?)) Is it morally wrong to violently take what you could have gained peacefully? Is it wrong to spread destruction rather than beauty, famine rather than plenty, death rather than life? Is it evil to do the opposite of what the Creator does? If these things are not wicked, please sir, tell me what is! ((OOC: Translation: Raiding is [b]wonderful[/b] because it provides villains to a nation's story ;] ))

Two or more people expressed interest in seeing what would become of this, and in my experience one person expressing interest is indicative of several who are also interested but don't voice it. I wonder if these people grow a fraction as tired of waiting as I do; I wanted this done the day before yesterday. It seems my favorite offer was in actuality a hope to recruit us as a member. They were not honestly ready to handle an ally nation that wasn't a member, but told us "you would still keep your reverse charter" as if that would mean anything signed together with an alliance charter. [size="1"](I imagine something like "Yes, of course you're a free nation! Now let me introduce you to your superior...")[/size] They may get back to me, I don't know, but meanwhile I'm going to assume they won't and fall back on my second favorite offer: become an RIA Trade Partner. If I had seen that as an option back when examining alliances, I wouldn't ever have bothered with this reverse charter. Of course I'm grateful for the experience, but now feel I aught to apologize for making a big to do about nothing. Those things Poyplemonkeys mentioned really aught to be easier for a new ruler, unexperienced in the ways of this forum, to find. I'm vaguely curious how many offers people think I received. I wasn't looking for quantity, though; just quality. I stopped accepting "offers" when I realized most of what I was getting was recruitment propaganda customized to me. Two offers didn't ask for any change of my document, so I decided if I didn't get anything better than that I didn't want any more at all and made that post. Especially since one of the offers was ready before I got here. Interest was also expressed at what exactly I would end up signing. Most of the document is unchanged; here is the latest Attack Clause. It looks changed at first blush, but really I just added something each signer would do and took out the part about how long we'd deliberate because I realized how obvious it is even without that part that nation on nation wars (compared to alliance wars) are extremely rare anyway. [quote][center][size="5"]Attack Clause:[/size][/center] We will not attack for the the mere sport or profit of ourselves or our allies. If we do attack, we will inform our allies but may choose not to await their approval. We will not expect our allies to either aid us in or help us recover from a war we initiated without their approval, though they are welcome to. If our allies find our reason for attacking legitimate they will send aid to help in the fight, usually militarily but otherwise financially.[/quote] It is still implied that we don't have to go to war for any reason, but of course if we saw a good reason we would. So, the RIA Trade Partner terms are plenty loose enough that I can keep this document available in case anyone wants to "steal" us away from them. Unless, of course, the group I was negotiating with decides they could use an allied nation that isn't a member, in which case we'll grant it to them, but meanwhile we're ready to begin building and so will wait no longer. So that should satisfy everyone's curiosity. Thank you to the providers and maintainers of this international forum for humoring me, insignificant as I currently seem. [size="1"]Indeed, having seen the state of the world more clearly, I am amazed you'd even give anyone with so relatively few supporters a computer to access these things, much less allow us to contribute to them! It is very much appreciated![/size] And sorry for the anti-climax to anyone who cared. I find it disappointing as well.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1283873021' post='2445350'] Each to their own of course...[/quote] Of course

[quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1283820871' post='2444594'] What is this I don't even [/quote] Is that considered normal grammar here? I can answer the first three words: This is an attempt to get protection from raids without having to be involved with the rest of the alliance drama. Did I answer it or do the last three words contribute a meaning beyond my present comprehension?

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1283790084' post='2443890'] Odd. I'd suggest selling tech to Nueva Vida as they protect their tech sellers with very few conditions if I recall correctly. I may be wrong, but I believe FOK also do this. RIA are also running a protection scheme for their trade partners on Maroon with very few conditions too. Essentially it reads like you're looking for a one man protectorate agreement, and those are the closest to it that are already established and would have very little infringement on your sovereignty. [/quote] Thank you, I hadn't heard of two of those yet! These things should be made easier to find if their providers want them to be taken. I had in fact been considering one of them as one of my favorite offers But, yes, you see what I'm after exactly now. (Except I see it as "one nation", not "one man". I am for my people as much as they are for me.) And, oddly enough, the reverse charter I'm currently preparing to sign isn't even one of those you mentioned. But I will look into the other two just in case they look better (which I doubt, but anything's possible). Thank you again

Ah, I see my attack clause isn't clear. It is NOT that I won't go to war with my allies if I think the opponent is too hard. It's that I won't go to war on the offensive for what I judge as a poor reason (sport or profit). That's NOT to say that I think these are poor reasons for everyone - if that's what your people want have at it - but my people will not risk their lives on an attack for entertainment or to make a quick bit of tech or land or whatever can be "gained" in a war. It is also that if I do see a good reason to go to war, it will be partly because I feel we can take the target without help and so needn't get permission, and that we will take full responsibility for the consequences of attack without permission. I do NOT explicit say that I will not go to war for my allies for other reasons; although that is intentionally implied, it is not set in stone. Further, if I were looking for 'membership', I'd be surprised if anyone would accept this agreement as well. But, again, [b]I am NOT looking for membership[/b]. I'm only looking for allies who will protect my nation from senseless attacks in exchange for most of our trades and aid (as we will be a generous nation once we have something tangible to offer). But your pointing this out does remind me to say that I've been a bit misleading with my "no longer accepting actual changes". I meant by that we will not be giving up any freedoms explicitly mentioned in our reverse charter, but if some responsibility needs to be added that doesn't contradict those freedoms and tacking them on at the end doesn't look good, we may change the document to include the new responsibility for aesthetic reasons. For instance, if there is a specific reason for war you want to know we would attack for... But I think I'll be finishing this today, so if anyone wants to try and change my mind they'd better hurry. I'll give a hint: the reverse charter I'm currently looking to sign does have a new Attack Clause. It still explicitly states that I will not go to war for those two reasons, and that I can attack without awaiting approval if I'm willing to accept the consequences of that, but it also has more responsibility for me and an implication of more possible help from my allies. Thank you for your comments.

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1283740714' post='2443266'] I personally find this fascinating and look forward to learning where you finally decide to call home. No matter what your decision, come visit us and make friends. [url="http://s4.zetaboards.com/Pax_Corvus/index/"]Link to Pax Corvus Forum[/url] [/quote]Why thank you , I'll certainly stop by and have a look. To answer your question: Chisrael will be my home. We will be affiliated with an alliance, not absorbed into an alliance. At least that's how it looks based on the offers I have now. [quote name='Mandolus' timestamp='1283744706' post='2443328'] Would you mind providing a summary for those of us whose eyes glaze over at the thought of wading through a mountain of dense legal mumbo jumbo? Thanks in advance[/quote] I was hoping the simplification would not be taken as legal mumbo jumbo. Ah well, here's the crux of it: The nation of Chisrael will do whatever the Heaven it wants, will almost always trade with and give aid to the group that protects it, will be protected from random attacks but will take full responsibility for its own aggressive actions, and will be known as an allied nation rather than part of a big group. All clear?

[quote name='Lord to the Gizzle' timestamp='1283704350' post='2442679'] Changed. Welcome to CN [/quote] Thank you for the change and the welcome

[quote name='Lord to the Gizzle' timestamp='1281254776' post='2404410'][center][u][b][size="7"]NEWS FROM YESTERDAY[/size][/b][/u][/center] [size="6"][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90318&view=findpost&p=2442393"]4th of September, 2010[/url][/size] [size="4"][list] [*][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91718"]Kbliss22 wanted to sell tech and posted in the wrong place[/url] [*][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91758"]Heinlander wrote a beautiful piece about a Goon soldier fighting on a Methrage Mountain[/url] [*][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91713"]Chatul posted a reverse charter for alliances to "bid" for his membership"[/url][/list][/size]....... [/quote] Well would you look at that! Hardly a national leader for a week and I'm in an international headline! This shall be a fun world to live in If I may request a tiny change, we were not actually seeking "membership" per se. Our goal was to become an independent ally of some group, and so far it seems we will achieve this goal Whether you'll change this or not, we'd like to add our thanks for this service you're providing to the world; it is much appreciated

I have recently been informed that a simpler version of our reverse charter would be appreciated. I will make an attempt here to simplify it, but the product of said attempt is not to be taken as a legal document. In other words, if there is conflict between the two documents our original reverse charter should be honored. [quote][size="6"]The Simplified Reverse Charter of Chisrael[/size] [size="5"]Reasons for this writing:[/size] We, the people of Chisrael, want freedom to follow our True King without breaking any laws (such as an alliance charter), happiness for our people, freedom to share any wealth we acquire with those in need, and to grow in population, and we want these four things more than anything else. To gain happiness, wealth to share, and greater size we will also gain things of value to raiders, and for that reason need protection. We will try to return the value of this protection to those who agree to this writing and give us the protection we need. [size="5"]Section concerning our protection:[/size] Those who agree to this writing will protect us from attacks that we did nothing to deserve. If Chisrael is damaged by an attack we did not deserve, those who agree to this writing will make sure we get help rebuilding either from themselves or from whoever should give the help according to those who agree to this writing. In return we will usually aid and trade with those who agree to this writing, and with their friends, and not with their enemies. [size="5"]Section concerning guides and advice:[/size] Our leaders will appreciate any help learning how to raise our nation, but we will not promise to do exactly as taught because whoever came up with the advice may not care about the same things we care about in the same ways. Our leaders do promise to prove in writing they read and understood any guides or advice offered if those who agree to this writing want proof of that. [size="5"]Section concerning our military's offence:[/size] We will not start wars as if they were a game to see who is stronger. We will not start a war to gain technology, money, land, infrastructure, or any other material thing. We may start a war, but only rarely and only when we believe we can be victorious over the nation in question and anyone helping them. We would take so long making a decision to attack that we will not wait for permission when we finally do. We would not ask for help in fighting a war we started, and we would not ask for help recovering from a war we started, but we will not refuse help if offered it. [size="5"]Section concerning our aid:[/size] We will give aid to whoever we want and will give aid as much as we can without hurting our freedom or happiness. We will usually want to give aid first to those who agree to this writing, second to their friends, third to their friends' friends, and so on. We will usually want to give aid to the enemies of those who agree to this writing [b]last[/b], to those enemies' friends before that, to those enemies' friends' friends before that, and so on. We'll never want to give to anyone who can't improve much by our giving to them. We may want to give in a different order than just listed, but with so many nations to give to it's not likely we'll give to the enemies of those who agree to this writing. [size="5"]Section concerning our trades:[/size] We will trade and do tech deals with whoever we want. We will never want to accept a trade or deal that would hurt our environment. We will usually want to trade first with those who agree to this writing, second with their friends, third with their friends' friends, and so on. We will usually want to trade with the enemies of those who agree to this writing [b]last[/b], with those enemies' friends before that, with those enemies' friends' friends before that, and so on. We'll never want to trade with anyone who can't improve much by our trading with them. We will change our team color to match those who agree to this writing, but we do have preferences if more than one group makes the same offer to agree to this writing. We will usually want to trade with nations on the same team. We will usually want to trade with nations offering resources that help us get what we want more than anything else. We may want to trade in a different order than just listed, but almost never. [size="5"]Section concerning our communications:[/size] We will try to stay in communication with those who agree to this writing but will not make any specific promises how much we will communicate. We will not usually communicate in real time. [size="5"]Section concerning our identity:[/size] We will be known as a unique nation and nothing else. Our alliance affiliation can be anything as long as it shows we are under the protection of those who agree to this writing. If those who agree to this writing would like us to fly their flag, we will fly it if we like it, and if we don't like it we'll fly the closest thing we can to it that we do like.[/quote] ------------------------- On a separate note, my earlier attacker has changed alliance affiliation from The Democratic Order to The Legion (possibly without the latter's permission) and probably as prompted by TDO, so I apologize for any damage to TDO's name my post may have contributed. They are, as far as I can tell, an honorable alliance I would consider working with.

Responders to this seem to prefer private messages. I respect that, but it also requires me to update this myself when significant developments happen. (That is, significant in my eyes. If it's arrogant of me to presume anything happening to my currently tiny nation is significant, so be it; I have nothing to lose anyway.) The offers have gotten to the point that I'm no longer accepting actual changes to our reverse charter. Additions yes, changes and deletions no. Just in case anyone else might make an offer. I've no reason to rush this, after all. But in case I'm still getting responses longer than expected (improbable but possible) I think we'll finalize our decision no later than 9/6/2010 so we can have all the documents signed by all concerned parties by the time the parties end

[code]Date Declared By Declared On 9/4/2010 4:48:49 AM aljama Chisrael Ruler: thelorder Ruler: Chatul The Democratic Order Alliance: None[/code] Well, now we really are holding all the cards.[img]http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/836910377/Cheshire_Cat_Tattoo_2_by_CatONineTa_normal.jpg[/img] I see it was naive of me to assume no one would attack with nothing more to gain than our tiny land and infrastructure, but at least now we don't even have that to offer. And as we've already lost all we care about, all we have left is that potential value. I am patient. I don't have to begin rebuilding until after we have some promise of protection. We have all the cards. (And, honestly, these mad parties are rather fun. I believe we will celebrate today as a national holiday in which we were freed from all need for an alliance and so gained, by an odd turn of events, complete sovereignty. Our King works in mischievous ways. Mhm. Mhmhmhm. MhmhmhmhahahahaHAHAHAHA![img]http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/559/chesirecatlaugh.jpg[/img]) I do know now that I will not be dealing with [nation='421855']aljama[/nation], thelorder, or The Democratic Order for allowing such mafia like behavior as attempting to force our allegiance ([i]that[/i] was an [b]epic[/b] FAIL), but otherwise I'm still open to offers from anyone. We'll be having an impromptu burning man festival until 9/7/2010 whatever I do now anyway. [size="1"]Heh[/size] [img]http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/465497897/logo_normal.png[/img] [size="1"]HAHA[/size] [size="2"]HAHA[/size] [size="3"]HAHA[/size] [size="4"]HA[/size]! EDIT: We would like to retract the bit about The Democratic Order. See the bottom of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91713&view=findpost&p=2442280"]this post[/url].

[quote name='Moufassa' timestamp='1283613423' post='2441400'] Here at the IAA we completely agree with this reverse charter of your's and we will respect it. There is just one minuscule discrepancy within it that I'm going to send you in a Personal Message that I know you will understand.[/quote]For "understand" in the sense that I comprehend each of the words and what they mean when put together in that order, I understand perfectly. For "understand" in the sense that I agree to changing my reverse charter, I will consider the change and accept this as an offer to accept the agreement with said changes. But I must admit this document was inspired largely by what I liked in the many charters I read, yours being one of them. There should be no surprise if several alliances see similarities. [quote name='Moufassa' timestamp='1283613423' post='2441400']Here is a thread about us that I would love for you to read: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89372"]Link to: Why Should I Join IAA?[/url] [/quote] I read it. Frankly, having read it, I still see little relavant difference between IAA and other alliances I liked. "Each and every member has a say in everything that goes on in the alliance" does not seem important to me at this time. "We care about you. Plain and simple. The Imperial Assault Alliance leaves no one behind." These statements are sweet nothings to my ears; I like the sound but don't know how they set IAA apart from many other alliances. "We will fight to the last pixel for every member. Not every alliance can guarantee you that either." Am I to believe the others are all weaklings? Or am I to believe the others are all contract breakers? These are strong allegations. And if you do not mean either of them, what do you mean? I'm sure I "will feel right at home in IAA" because I'll feel right at home anywhere. I've learned to be content in whatever state I'm in. That doesn't mean I'll leap head first into any state, but once I'm there I'll make myself at home. Whenever possible, I do not "try out" relationships. If I sign a charter, I intend to honor it for life. Hence my deliberation joining anyone. Thank you again for your offer. I do appreciate it, especially because it is the first and it asks for very little change. But, just in case, I will wait a while and see if anyone can do better.