HM Solomon I

By saying this, you're implying that alliances do have the right to exclusive communication with their members, which means you need to justify that. It isn't enough to just say that it violates sovereignty, how and why both need to be answered. I've outlined above some reasoning why I think they don't possess such a right, if you think otherwise, then systematically refute it. Trust me, I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong.

I don't think such a distinction is necessary, communication is communication; alliances do not possess the right to exclusive communication and so by default anyone, whether they be alliances en masse or individuals, can message anyone else. Nations though can draw a distinction and decide not to accept some but accept others.

This part of a new series called Practical Ethics, which will be about the ethics of affairs across the Cyberverse. This entry will be on poaching, which for the purposes of this article is defined as soliciting a member of a foreign alliance to join your alliance without that alliance's explicit permission to do so. The question is whether this is ethically permissible. This is actually a rather complicated question because for many the gut reaction is to say no, but it brings up issues of consent, ownership, and even the nature of alliances themselves. What does it mean to be a member of an alliance? Does being a member give that alliance exclusive rights over you? It seems that the answer is yes. Joining an alliance does mean giving up certain freedoms, and it certainly gives alliances the right to a level of control over you and your nation, but the interesting question is where does this end? How much control is really turned over upon joining? There must be a limit as nations can and do leave alliances and join others. Certainly there is a limit to be found there. That limit is that alliances can never really possess ownership. Alliances never own their members, which means that those members don't give irrevocable exclusive rights to the alliances that they join. Because of this, nations can revoke those rights and grant them to another. By virtue of this, can others solicit nations to exercise their ownership? While nations possess a right of revocation, if you will, this doesn't necessarily mean that foreign alliances can solicit its use. For one, only the nation can exercise it and until they do, the alliance it is currently in possesses exclusive rights, that, while revocable, are valid until revoked. So do alliances have as one of these exclusive rights the right to exclusive communication with their members? It seems difficult to justify this because a right to exclusive communication hardly seems necessary to the functioning of an alliance, and nations really only grant those rights which are truly necessary to the functioning of an alliance when joining. Any rights that are not necessary are never granted by implication, they must be explicitly granted by a given nation, and are not automatically provided upon joining. To state otherwise would be to violate principles of consent by assuming too much without reason to do so. No reasonable nation would assign rights beyond which are necessary for membership itself since it can be assumed that reasonable people will want to reserve as many rights to themselves as they can. If alliances do not normally possess the right to exclusive communication, then other alliances would be within their rights to message nations with solicitations of membership. However, there is a massive caveat to this. If alliances do not possess this right, then nations do, which means that they must, by implication, have the right to control communication with themselves. So they can decide not to accept such solicitations, and alliances should respect this stance because to do otherwise would be to harass, which by definition is unwanted communication. I think we can all agree that harassment is something that is not ethically permissible. What it comes down to is this: poaching is allowed in the sense that alliances do not really have the right to control who their members communicate with, but that said nations do have such a right and thus nations, and not alliances, decide when poaching is over the line and when it isn't. By default (i.e., in the absence of a nation deciding to exercise its rights over who may communicate with it), poaching is ethically allowed as there is nothing inherent to alliance membership to indicate otherwise, and there would have to be if it was by default not ethically permissible.

Bambi can't explode, one word: carbotanium. Also congrats R&R on not allowing them to take control, you know who you are! [url]http://www.dramabutton.com/[/url]

This game actually has very little to do with collecting taxes, paying bills and all the stuff done inside the actual game, the real meat of this world is found in the expansive universe that surrounds it. All the politics, intrigue, and all the real fun and sense of community (which is what makes playing worth it, at least for me and I'm sure there are many others that would agree) takes place within and between alliances. Almost all of that "action" takes place off-site on countless forums, IRC, and even Skype in some cases. Selling this game as just a text-based nation simulator really does it a disservice, and I wish people would stop doing it. Nobody comes here to click a few buttons everyday, they come here for the community that surrounds it, plain and simple.

The Web is a curious place. A land populated chiefly by cats and porn stars is also a land that helps to overthrow governments, spread awareness of important social and societal issues, and ensure that nobody has less than 200 "friends". It is also the land of text. For as much as some decry CN as outdated for its entirely text-based appearance and game play, the vast majority of communication on the web takes the form of text. Written language reigns supreme in the realm of interconnected microprocessors, speech is relegated to second place. However, this yields an important side effect: the !@#$%^& effect. Humans by and large are risk averse. As a species, we tend to avoid risk because where there is risk, there may be death. And life must find a way, or whatever BS Jeff Goldblum spouted in that small-time sci-fi indie movie. But it wasn't all BS: life, as a general rule, prefers to continue on living, and those that are living will do almost anything to remain living. So of course living beings tend to avoid anything that can get in the way of this drive. (Don't worry, there will be a point soon, I promise.) Given that as true, enter the !@#$%^& effect. The !@#$%^& effect states that we tend to, in the absence of contravening evidence, assume that others may not have the best of intentions. We may not necessarily assume they are #$%^&*!+, but we definitely don't assume they're angels either. We go with !@#$%^& over angel because we have nothing to fear from angels, it's the #@$*&(!+ we have to worry about, and if we wrongly assume that an !@#$%^& is an angel, we may be in for some serious trouble. The problem lies in where we find most of this contravening evidence: body language and tone of voice. The content of communication rarely offers enough insight to contravene the immediate assumption of less than beneficent intent. The largest exception to this is in fiction, where we are not generally interested in the author's intentions but in the intentions of the characters, and since they are in a whole constructed world, their intentions can be made clear even within the confines of text. In the real world though this usually is not the case. The internet thus finds itself with a problem. Even in cases where another has good intentions or is being entirely genuine in what they are saying, we have a hard time assuming or accepting this because we don't have enough evidence to the contrary. We can't hear their tone and we can't see what they are doing while they say it. Hence the !@#$%^& effect runs rampart, which makes genuine communication over the internet very difficult. Since this game is played almost entirely through text, the !@#$%^& effect runs this world, for better or worse. We can attempt to combat it by asking ourselves what intentions we would have if we said what another has said. Run the test of reasonableness (ToR) and see if the intentions we are ascribing to this other person make sense in the context. We must assume not that the other has less than beneficent intentions but rather that most here are reasonable people and it is unlikely that their intentions in given contexts are all that different from ours. We must do this because while the !@#$%^& effect is actually helpful off the web (since we rarely lack contravening evidence where it exists, and thus when the !@#$%^& effect takes hold, we are likely correct in our assumptions of intent), it is nearly useless here because we are almost never at risk of losing anything significant. This is a place where it's usually OK to give another the benefit of the doubt.

Well I definitely disagree on the raiding issue, as whether you're doing it to acquire land or to maintain dominance in the super tier (by keeping others down), either way it seems as though it's necessary. Since you are all in the super tier, maintaining dominance in that tier would seem to be necessary for your collective security. It's not as if you have a tier spread akin to "traditional" alliances which affords you risk mitigation, if you don't maintain sufficient power projection in the super tier, you wouldn't be in a very good position. The FA plan, as you put it, wasn't really meant as an actionable plan, it was entirely a thought exercise on my part to see if, assuming the rest of my post was sound (which it may or may not be, but the assumption was merely a tool of logic), then what would a logically possible outcome be that would rectify the problems pointed to in the above. It didn't assume any other material conditions other than the ones in the blog article.

Damn it Ogaden, you've actually made me agree with Tywin. :/

Anyone here who thinks anyone outside of this game thinks they're anything other than a nerd is kidding themselves. That's ok thought, nerds run the planet anyway. :P

Well that's certainly your (referring to you, your alliance, and your alliance's allies) prerogative, but it's easy to see how this might fuel misunderstanding in the world at large.

It's not mandatory, but it is very helpful. Alliances are where most of the politics of the game take place, where most of the real action transpires, so joining one makes the game much more interesting. Alliances also provide aid and assistance, help you learn the game, and provide a community for you to grow in. Besides all that, not joining an alliance leaves you open to raiders, and you will not enjoy them.

The only thing that rational argument requires is logic, which always exists. 1 always equals 1, Lima is never both the capital and not the capital of Peru. This may seem trivial, but philosophy has built substantial arguments on these humble foundations, so surely we can too.

"Fair and Balanced" Thanks, I needed a laugh today. The ones I've read never seemed even remotely fair and balanced. They're almost the definition of biased and partisan, in which one starts with the conclusion as a premise. Then everything flows from that flawed start.

It almost seems like the OWF is made up entirely of straw men. Is this the way it has to be? Rational argumentation should have a prominent place here. Why? Some may say arguing a point logically is boring, but to those that say that I say "You must never have studied philosophy." Rational arguments are chess matches, they require finesse, they require strategy. In other words, they're difficult. I know it's easier to eat the chips rather than the eggs or chicken, but the chips aren't worth it. You end up just as bloated and worthless as much of this place has become. Attempting to misdirect, mislead, go around, avoid the points made by another only leads to circular and entirely meaningless discussions out of which nothing arises, nothing is gained, and nothing is changed. Where's the fun in that? Claiming you don't care is patently ridiculous. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be here. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't log in and comment, and participate, and put huge effort into doing so. You'd sit on your couch and watch TV, read a book, or do anything other than come here. Responding to a claim shouldn't be put down with shouts amounting to a sacrifice on the altar of common sense, such responses should be lauded. And no, responding to a point is not just semantics, it is not just semantics to respond if it's only a response to one small part of an argument or even to a part that seems trivial on its face. An argument is only ever made up of these small points, and one falling can ruin the jenga tower; sometimes the smallest of points can mean the most, and it can be hard to always know when this is the case and when it isn't. Mountains have been moved with less. My point is thus: we can do better, we should do better, and we must do better. We want this place to be a place of fun, not a place that discourages all but the most jaded to flock to its walls. It shouldn't be a setting for flinging feces, it should be a setting to move the world in which we find ourselves. This is the epicenter of the Cyberverse, and it sets the tone whether we like it or not. Changing the spirit here can improve everything else. And before you say it's too hard or it can't be done or this is the way it's always been, know that none of those points are an excuse or justification for the utter !@#$e that gets thrown around here. This place is us, in so far as it's made up of us. If we do better, so will this place become.

Yeah it's a legitimate strategy, it's been used as such and it will probably continue to be used as such. That said, I'm not so sure about this: Mostly because 25% of MI6 nations above 30k NS are in PM right now (14/56); in fact ~36% of MI6 nations that are in PM are above 30k NS (14/39). Sure that means most of their PM nations are firmly in the lower tiers, but it's not even close to exclusively their lower tier nations. I mean I frankly don't care that much, but I just wanted to point this out because the rhetoric that it's about protecting lower tier nations against Kaskus's wonder heavy monsters down there isn't entirely accurate.

That all may be true, but besides the recruiting niche that they occupy, there's also the fact that they have more land, by a long way, than any other alliance in the game including all the sanctioned alliances (yes, even GPA and WTF). Much of their growth besides recruiting has been fueled by this land, as they certainly don't have anywhere near the most tech or infra among alliances. It is economically infeasible to get large quantities of land any other way besides raiding, so, assuming they want to continue to remain land heavy and grow, they'll likely need to continue raiding whether they are supposedly stable or not.

I never said you have to raid to survive, I said you have raid to survive and thrive. Or more accurately, I said that in the intro paragraph, but when I went into more detail, I clarified. And when I said "connections" I meant more than just official (even non-disclosed) treaties, I was also referring to connections that are less formal (i.e., not written down or even formally agreed to, but that nonetheless exist in implicit understandings), given that DBDC often tends to go that route.

DBDC has many relationships with many alliances, many of which have significant upper tiers. The alliances best in a position to destroy DBDC are also unlikely to do so because of these connections. However they all have something in common: most view DBDC as a partner of necessity to keep their upper tiers safe so they can focus on other threats and keep aid flowing. However, they all share a common interest, being significant upper tier forces, in preventing DBDC from becoming too much to manage. More importantly, DBDC needs to raid in the upper tier to survive but most of the nations in their range are in alliances with whom they share a connection or are in neutral alliances and are too strong to attack. Eventually they will be forced to attack those nations in the non-neutral alliances with whom they have a relationship of one kind or another, and those alliances may feel they share a common interest in destroying this threat. Even if they don't, DBDC has to raid to survive and thrive but also has to keep connections with those that most pose a threat to them. This is a very tenuous situation as is a string under tension, one prick of a pin and it will snap. DBDC could avoid this by gradually reducing the number of those connections keeping just enough others on their side to avoid destruction while neutralizing the threat posed by those they drop. However, a sudden blow against too many of them will likely prove disastrous. This is an incredibly fine balancing act, one unlikely to be executed successfully. The fact is that too many things can go wrong, and when so many things can go wrong, something probably will go wrong. Given this, I find it likely that DBDC will not survive for as long as many think. But there is a caveat to this prediction: if DBDC changes their game such that it no longer needs to raid to keep thriving, none of the other problems will exist in a state of tension and the alliance's situation will stabilize. Let me close by stating that this is just my view of the current situation, and is not intended to represent the views of my alliance or anyone else. More importantly, I'm not necessarily hoping any of this will come to pass (though it'd probably be fun if it did because, well, war ), but looking at things it seems likely that it will.

Cuba I know you're an intelligent person, so I know you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that this meow is the OWF where reason and education go to die a long, slow, and painfully agonizing death over a fire. While covered in bees. And jam, surrounded by bears. In a field. In the Arctic.

You wish you were Ubuntu.

I'm sorry this thread already has plenty of nonsense, it doesn't need yours added to it.

This sucks, that was my favorite micro! :(

That's true, but that won't stop some such sphere from existing so long as spheres are connected, and they are. I agree that much of the time, that sphere would be a terrible place to sit as an alliance.

That it works some of the time doesn't make it a good idea. Our world would be immeasurably better if it wasn't used. As to the second point, in those cases it isn't a straw man and so what I said above doesn't really apply.