magicninja

[quote name='Chris Kaos' timestamp='1280296895' post='2392241'] Not true. We did it because we wanted to explore the world outside of familiar territory. GATO we know and love. They'll always be there, and we'll always have friends with them. I'm sure our paths will cross again eventually. [/quote] Ahhhh cool. Just assuming like I know how. Again best of luck fellers.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1280296398' post='2392235'] Happy to see but probably won't join when I retire [if I ever do]... UPN? Seriously? Was GATO too hard to get? You'd think old timers might be protected by them. [/quote] We take it as a slight and are thinking about digging up our copyright claim to the GARO acronym. Nah....... Honestly, C_K probably thought there was no way he'd get a GATO protectorate considering we've denied his application twice now in the last year or so.

Just making a de facto bloc reality if you look at it hard enough. Just another reason to heap praise on eachother and show we are good pals. I like it. You like it.

Never heard of any of these people. Good luck anyway I guess.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421'] Alliances can also choose to raid who they like. There is a huge difference between a real alliance and a manufactured AA used to hide none nations. Some alliances dont recognise alliances with less than 5, 10 or more as a real alliance. These alliances have a gov a charter and members rules made by themselves. Why would people recognise this bogus manufactured alliance when it has no attributes required to be called one. If a word in the AA slot is all they need then none is already an alliance just go and protect none instead of pretending this inst none 2. There was no rule for Pacifica but one of the 1st things dismantled was their limited protection of red, colour and fake AA are just semantics they are both protecting unalligned nations. They can do as they please just dont expect people to sit back and have alliances dictate which unaligned nations I can raid. My alliance makes the raiding rules I follow not GATO none 2 is still none. They want to protect unaligned nations. For the love of admin read the topic title. It says protection of unaligned nations. You are assuming real alliances will recognise a fake alliance as a genuine one [/quote] There are many alliances that define an alliance simply as an AA that has more than X number of members or an alliance that has a protectorate agreement. I don't think I've read where an AA has to have forums and IRC and a charter just to be called an alliance. The difference between this and protecting none as you say is that no one is out to protect unaligned nations. Nations that join this would no longer be unaligned. Protecting none as you say would piss off the raiding community and that isn't what we want to do here. Like I said there will still be thousands of tech raid targets available to raiders. Out of curiosity what are the raiding rules of your alliance? Also, this has nothing to do with GATO. I don't even think GATO has looked at it officially yet.

I watch with great curiosity as we see the beginning of the move to protected, ungoverned AA's.

[quote name='King Puffington' timestamp='1279940931' post='2386916'] is this sarcastic or not i cant tell [/quote] I would say yes.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1279942843' post='2387019'] Most alliances let them go, ninja. POW camps are a pain to run. [/quote] Not even about POW status, really just making sure they check out on the way out the door.

[quote name='dragonknight1000' timestamp='1279941125' post='2386927'] I feel just the same, but congrats to the signatories in this new found unity - also hi TOOL ) [/quote] I know man. 4 years! WOW. Nothing on GATO but still pretty neat. All that other stuff is ok too.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1279935237' post='2386826'] Not everyone has a month to get something done. [/quote] Where have you been the last year? GATO could scratch this out in 2 maybe 3 weeks today. It would mostly be up to the guy attacked if the warring party didn't want to listen. So timing is on them. That's GATO for you though. All diplomaticy and !@#$.

Fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu- Don't know what else to say really.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1279936963' post='2386853'] So this is essentially what Celestial Being does already? Cool. [/quote] My understanding of CB is it does diplomacy for unaligned nations after they are attacked. The hope for this is that it will prevent the raid in the first place.

[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='23 July 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1279934895' post='2386817'] I'd be very interested in this and fully support this idea. If you want a LOT of people to sign it however you need to make it 2 tier'd. A group of people that run it and handle any issues that arise and a secondary tier of people who will support and honour the document. This ensures people who aren't interested in the actual running of it can still pledge their support to it and show that they've honoured and and recognise the consequences of breaking it without them having to put in work for other peoples tech raiding mishaps. If that was put into place i think this could be a very good idea and might finally slow down the amount of crying we get with regards to tech raiding. [/quote] It is two tiered when you look at it MT. You have the Council of 5 which do the real work and then everyone else. I put it in as an elected body so no one power group could seize it. Can you think of anything in what I've done to make it two tiered better?

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1279933248' post='2386779'] No you're pretty much dead on, except Schatt also had nemesis threaten us over it. [/quote] Yeah, I was just pointing out in the usual chain where things went wrong in this case. Everything after that is just an effect of that piece going awry. Not everyone has to do it like GATO would but it works for us.

[quote name='der_ko' date='23 July 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1279932803' post='2386774'] In most cases these alliances will actually fight for you if there is a war. The safe haven will not. [/quote] That's true enough and if that's enough for alliances not to be connected to it I can agree with it. There's alway no-chaining clauses too though.

I see where GOONS is coming from on the principle. If those same nations had run to GATO we would've told them flat out that they needed to get peace from GOONS before we could accept them. If they still wanted to apply we would have went to GOONS and asked if they could peace them out since they applied. If GOONS said they need to post a story and pictures we would have let them know and told them to let us know when it was cleared up. Then when they came back and told us it was cleared up we would've confirmed it with GOONS just to be safe. THEN if everything was cool their apps would be processed. I think that is the standard protocol in this situation from most alliances. Where it went wrong in CoJ's was when Schatt wrote the story for the guys at war. He should've let the guys do it on their own and it seems there wouldn't have been a problem. That's what I got out of it though. I could be wrong.

[quote name='der_ko' date='23 July 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1279931083' post='2386751'] There are no rules on Bob. The difference between an neutral alliance like GPA and this Safe Haven is GPA protects itself where as the Safe Haven has to be protected by an outside force and by proxy the allies of the protector. Most people don't like it when their political capital is being spent on nations who doesn't give a !@#$ about you. [/quote] The way the web works people are spending their political capital on many alliances that don't give a !@#$ about them. Whether they know it or not.

[quote name='The Iggy' date='23 July 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1279928298' post='2386700'] Using the term "community standards" in defending "double standards" is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I don't see why this individual leaving their alliance in a defensive alliance war should continue to be persued. [/quote] Say TFD and GATO went to war for whatever reason. TFD had the upper hand and GATO nations started leaving to other alliances instead of accepting individual surrender. Does TFD let them go and run the risk of them rebuilding and coming back into the fight or do they say whoooaaaaa horsey you need to peace out right?

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 July 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1279926421' post='2386672'] Except most alliances dont give a damn to defend their ghosts, i know CSN doesnt Peace mode has been addressed MULTIPLE times, dont be dense Why are people putting so much effort into trying to paint tech raiding as some sort of horrible-puppy-kicking event? this isnt 2007 when you could live for months alone on none. if several alliances want to put the effort into this project i personally applaud them and will offer any help i can *broken record* Not everyone wants to be in an alliance. look at the former Gremlin whos 200k NS and just chilling on none, look at PPF, hell Schattenman himself has said many times when he got here he was on NONE for several months. Why is there so much nit picking and hate for this? The anti tech raiders want something done about tech raiding so here, something is being done but wait now you're coming here to !@#$%* and moan that if you dont want raided you should join an AA...funny the tech raiders are saying the *SAME* damn thing. Hell has anyone from Red Dawn even posted here? what about Polar gov? One would think with the RRS and the Polar-\m/ war both parties would be very eager to get something like this up and running [/quote] There have been multiple people tell me they have proposed something similar to their govs or had something like this in the works. I just made it easy for all of those people to get together. They all have a common goal but on their own it seems it dies because it isn't brought to the forefront and actually discuss and looked at. When I see Lintwad and wickedJ supporting the same thing it goes to show that support for this goes betond party lines but would Lintwad and WickedJ have come together to work on this in private? CSN and NSO working to build a better world? My God. What have the people that inspired me to put this out done?

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 July 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1279924074' post='2386628'] Don't protectorate agreements have something in them about the protected alliance helping defend the protector should the need arise? (Not sure). This agreement does not have such a clause. [/quote] Some do, some don't. It's more common these days than it used to be but that really doesn't have anything to do with putting the protectorate alliance first. If you begin to neglect your own alliance to help a protectorate then yes you are putting them first. I don't think any alliance with a capable gov would allow that to happen in any case.

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 July 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1279923479' post='2386620'] If GATO became a protecting alliance of "Safe Haven", we'd be asking our member nations to defend them. Isn't that putting Safe Haven before GATO? [/quote] Only if we don't ask our member nations to defend our AA first and foremost.

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 July 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1279921324' post='2386589'] If its an AA thats intentionally set up to allow none nations continue as none nations under a different word. Like a new suit on a hobo he is still a hobo. Hes just wearing a new suit. Its a one way MDP that will backfire on whoever decides to put the defense of none over the welfare of their own alliance. [/quote] Nobody is defending "none". $%&@ "none". They are on their own. I doubt anyone puts anyone else in front of their own alliance.

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 July 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1279919335' post='2386549'] They would still be none nations. A sleight of hand wouldnt change that. I was refering to ghosts. They allow people to ghost them no matter what team they are on. They also protect their ghosts. [/quote] I don't see how a nation with an AA other than none is a none nation.

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 July 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1279917974' post='2386513'] UPN accept anyone. People dont even have to sign up to their forum to get protection from them. If unaligned people dont want to get attacked they already have two options. They can join an alliance or sit in peace mode. Why would people be willing to put so much effort into doing this when the same effort getting unaligned nations into an alliance and get them active is much better for everyone. He wins, the alliance wins and the planet wins. If people want to go out into the wilderness, leave themselves out in the open with a "none" target on their forehead and turn their back on society then let them fend for themselves. [/quote] This is just option 1 joining an alliance. They just don't have any responsibility to the alliance. They can vote for whatever sphere senators they want. They can be on whatever sphere they want. I agree that joining a "real" alliance is the best option but there are those you don't want to deal with that. This just gives them the ability to partake in the join an alliance option without all the usual hassle.

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='23 July 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1279917147' post='2386484'] On the other hand, it could provide a place for the nations in unprotected micro alliances to stay while they go through the process of finding someone to protect them and sorting out the details of the treaty. [/quote] I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Good point.