Announcement from Non Grata

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315696682' post='2798341']
Then you should warn your alliance mate that being in an alliance with you will get him attacked since you are a rogue. Frankly, it is obvious you care only about yourself. You don't care about any actual cause or any other person. You are letting many people get attacked or risk getting attacked simply so you can get some PR time.

You used to be kewl back in the day Meth, when you actually cared. Now you just need to stop.
[/quote]
My alliance mate wasn't against the war and isn't having a bad time because of it, the war is an alliance action.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Methrage

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315695368' post='2798327']
No, the counter argument I presented is that it is your responsibility to inform your alliance members. I stated the governments of the other alliances were responsible for their own membership.
[/quote]
It would be interesting to see if Meth or his colleague could attract payments for tech from NG or their allies via similar methods to those that he has used already.

I don't support rogues, whether in this instance, or in the instance of OP's attacks on GOD. But holding other nations responsible for Meth's conduct seems harsh.

[Charles the Great]

so if NG didn't tech raid this would not have happened in the first place?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Charles the Great' timestamp='1315712093' post='2798480']
so if NG didn't tech raid this would not have happened in the first place?


[/quote]
Yeah, what happened was,

1. Me and Non Grata got in a fight over a spy op I did messing around.
2. Peace was declared after 1 round of war.
3. My alliance merged into another one called MAD afterward.
4. Shortly after I join them Non Grata 'tech raids' this alliance.
5. I attack Non Grata in response.
6. I leave MAD since the other than me and Nicholai the rest of the alliance didn't want to fight.

So if they didn't tech raid my new AA not long after we agreed to peace we wouldn't be having this fight, but Non Grata did do something to provoke the war. You can't tech raid people on the same AA as someone and expect them to be fine with it.

[MrHavok]

This is a NG problem not every alliances

If they don't want aid than maybe they should take the onus to message every single person to tell them not to aid meth rage

See I can make silly demands of alliances as well

Clean up your own mess NG

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315696834' post='2798343']
My alliance mate wasn't against the war and isn't having a bad time because of it, the war is an alliance action.
[/quote]

So, your alliance mate is then involved in the war and thus, doing tech deals with him is aiding him while he is at war... Thanks for confirming exactly what NG was stating.

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315711696' post='2798471']
It would be interesting to see if Meth or his colleague could attract payments for tech from NG or their allies via similar methods to those that he has used already.

I don't support rogues, whether in this instance, or in the instance of OP's attacks on GOD. But holding other nations responsible for Meth's conduct seems harsh.
[/quote]

Okay.... So, should I rogue NATO while still flying the DT AA, your alliance would not approach DT gov for reps or for DT to release me so that NATO can be free to attack me? That is the same exact thing. Should DT say eff off NATO, NATO would either have to assume all of DT is compliant and attack DT or back off with a whimper and do nothing.

What do you think NATO would do?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315712901' post='2798491']
So, your alliance mate is then involved in the war and thus, doing tech deals with him is aiding him while he is at war... Thanks for confirming exactly what NG was stating.



Okay.... So, should I rogue NATO while still flying the DT AA, your alliance would not approach DT gov for reps or for DT to release me so that NATO can be free to attack me? That is the same exact thing. Should DT say eff off NATO, NATO would either have to assume all of DT is compliant and attack DT or back off with a whimper and do nothing.

What do you think NATO would do?
[/quote]
If you're attacking them, obviously they would be fighting you. Whether DT would back you in your attack is a better question.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='MrHavok' timestamp='1315712724' post='2798489']
This is a NG problem not every alliances

If they don't want aid than maybe they should take the onus to message every single person to tell them not to aid meth rage

See I can make silly demands of alliances as well

Clean up your own mess NG
[/quote]

Can't wait for a rogue to hit MCXA. I am going to be "tech dealing" with that rogue and any other rogue who hits MCXA from here on out. Then we will see what kind of demands MCXA makes.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315713019' post='2798493']
If you're attacking them, obviously they would be fighting you. Whether DT would back you in your attack is a better question.
[/quote]

Hence why I stated that in that scenario, DT tells NATO to eff off. Most alliances don't hit a rogue right off the bat but instead contact the government of the opposite alliance first.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315713249' post='2798496']
Hence why I stated that in that scenario, DT tells NATO to eff off. Most alliances don't hit a rogue right off the bat but instead contact the government of the opposite alliance first.
[/quote]
Not if they are already being attacked, then they're free to either just attack you or attack your entire alliance if they don't want to be diplomatic. I doubt they would be contacting DT about whether they can hit you back or not, they might be contacting DT to see if they want to hold your entire alliance responsible or just you. Personally I might just choose a random person on your AA to attack who's in range and skip the diplomacy, but that might just be me.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315713564' post='2798500']
Not if they are already being attacked, then they're free to either just attack you or attack your entire alliance if they don't want to be diplomatic. I doubt they would be contacting DT about whether they can hit you back or not, they might be contacting DT to see if they want to hold your entire alliance responsible or just you. Personally I might just choose a random person on your AA to attack who's in range and skip the diplomacy, but that might just be me.
[/quote]

lawlz. Well, that is the actual norm and has been for a while. Most alliances don't hit first and wait for the nation to either be established as a full-fledged rogue, or for the nation/alliance to send reps.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315714401' post='2798511']
lawlz. Well, that is the actual norm and has been for a while. Most alliances don't hit first and wait for the nation to either be established as a full-fledged rogue, or for the nation/alliance to send reps.
[/quote]
I don't think any alliance would not allow their members to fight back unless they are a micro alliance who doesn't want to fight against a bigger alliance. Although the difference between a rogue and tech raider isn't much, except the tech raider has the backing of his alliance to attack nations to steal their tech and the rogue is fighting for a reason other than wanting to steal tech. When you say rogue you're implying you would not have your alliances support, hence the term rogue.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Methrage

[mrwuss]

[quote name='MrHavok' timestamp='1315712724' post='2798489']
This is a NG problem not every alliances

If they don't want aid than maybe they should take the onus to message every single person to tell them not to aid meth rage

See I can make silly demands of alliances as well

Clean up your own mess NG
[/quote]

NG are handling the problem just fine but when that proble gets help the problem grows outside of the ability for NG to control. If you aid someone at war then you get to learn a valuable lesson. Don't aid people at war.

It's not rocket science, son it's pretty damned basic and your bias in the situation is clearly leading you to post stupidly thoughtout messages.

Meth causes a problem and people defend him, it never makes sense. A list of public defenders should be made and an example set.

PB should go ahead and clean up the remainder of the idiots and humble a few more mouths.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315715156' post='2798517']
I don't think any alliance would not allow their members to fight back unless they are a micro alliance who doesn't want to fight against a bigger alliance. Although the difference between a rogue and tech raider isn't much, except the tech raider has the backing of his alliance to attack nations to steal their tech and the rogue is fighting for a reason other than wanting to steal tech. When you say rogue you're implying you would not have your alliances support, hence the term rogue.
[/quote]

oh, the one I am hitting would most likely hit back, I was talking about NATO doing something though. Anyways, I will await Sir Humphrey's answer.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315712901' post='2798491']Okay.... So, should I rogue NATO while still flying the DT AA, your alliance would not approach DT gov for reps or for DT to release me so that NATO can be free to attack me? That is the same exact thing. Should DT say eff off NATO, NATO would either have to assume all of DT is compliant and attack DT or back off with a whimper and do nothing.

What do you think NATO would do?
[/quote]
There is a distinction between a nation that willfully and knowingly goes rogue (i.e. Methrage), and a nation that responds to a PM by the rogue out of ignorance, and engages in a tech deal with him. <Edit: The latter is what I was referring to.>

Edited September 11, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315715748' post='2798524']
There is a distinction between a nation that willfully and knowingly goes rogue (i.e. Methrage), and a nation that responds to a PM by the rogue out of ignorance, and engages in a tech deal with him. <Edit: The latter is what I was referring to.>
[/quote]

So now you are throwing semantics in to cover the fact that you were wrong. Again, I point out the fact that NATO's gov more than likely checks these forums and should inform their woefully ignorant nations that aiding a rogue is frowned upon. So, frankly, if NATO's gov or any other gov are incapable of performing this small action, then they deserve what they get.

But nice attempt at trying to change your story around.

[Sir Humphrey]

Ah, no, you changed the story around to make it appear like I was supporting Methrages's position, when I clearly stated that I was not. I presumed that you misunderstood, given that it seemed that you were equating tech dealing with a rogue as the act of going rogue.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315716457' post='2798533']
So now you are throwing semantics in to cover the fact that you were wrong. Again, I point out the fact that NATO's gov more than likely checks these forums and should inform their woefully ignorant nations that aiding a rogue is frowned upon. So, frankly, if NATO's gov or any other gov are incapable of performing this small action, then they deserve what they get.

But nice attempt at trying to change your story around.
[/quote]
I read only a small fraction of the threads here, until my war with Non Grata started I didn't bother reading their announcements. Does every alliance leader have an obligation to read every Non Grata announcement, then relay NG's orders down to their members? Are they expected to read every announcement thread from alliances they're not interested in?

Edited September 11, 2011 by Methrage

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315716759' post='2798538']
I read only a small fraction of the threads here, until my war with Non Grata started I didn't bother reading their announcements. Does every alliance leader have an obligation to read every Non Grata announcement, then relay NG's orders down to their members? Are they expected to read every announcement thread from alliances they're not interested in?
[/quote]

Frankly, yes. The gov should read all announcements, or at least OPs to see if there is anything of relevance in them. You are advocating the dumbest ways to run alliances I have ever seen. The FA guy should at the very least be scanning all threads.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315716962' post='2798541']
Frankly, yes. The gov should read all announcements, or at least OPs to see if there is anything of relevance in them. You are advocating the dumbest ways to run alliances I have ever seen. The FA guy should at the very least be scanning all threads.
[/quote]
Not 10+ pages into it, which is where someone from Non Grata said anyone who send me money for tech deals will be attacked. Not sure if they even mentioned my alliance-mate or not since it was buried so deep in the thread.

[Mr flubb]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315717429' post='2798551']
Not 10+ pages into it, which is where someone from Non Grata said anyone who send me money for tech deals will be attacked. Not sure if they even mentioned my alliance-mate or not since it was buried so deep in the thread.
[/quote]
[color="#8B0000"]sry to burst your bubble, but im pretty sure NG announced that on the first page. I think it was post 3[/color]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315716708' post='2798536']
Ah, no, you changed the story around to make it appear like I was supporting Methrages's position, when I clearly stated that I was not. I presumed that you misunderstood, given that it seemed that you were equating tech dealing with a rogue as the act of going rogue.
[/quote]

I have never stated anything other than if you aid/tech deal with a rogue, then you should expect to pay reps or be dealt with by other means. So, yes to me, they are basically the same. Should a nation rogue DT, they would either pay reps or get attacked. Should a nation aid said rogue, the aider would either have to pay reps or get attacked.

btw:

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315711696' post='2798471']
It would be interesting to see if Meth or his colleague could attract payments for tech from NG or their allies via similar methods to those that he has used already.

I don't support rogues, whether in this instance, or in the instance of OP's attacks on GOD. But holding other nations responsible for Meth's conduct seems harsh.
[/quote]

That is what you said. So basically I asked if NATO would hold DT responsible should I go rogue on NATO? Since you stated "that holding other nations responsible for Meth's conduct seems harsh", I can only assume that would hold true in all other instances.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315718850' post='2798568']
That is what you said. So basically I asked if NATO would hold DT responsible should I go rogue on NATO? Since you stated "that holding other nations responsible for Meth's conduct seems harsh", I can only assume that would hold true in all other instances.
[/quote]
Regardless, its Non Grata who is responsible for their members, with one of their members being the one to break the peace. They fired the first shots into an alliance I was a member after we had peaced out and I didn't want anything to do with them. Them tech raiding my alliance and getting free tech would of shown weakness and that I wasn't willing to do anything about it when they mess with alliance members.

[Sir Humphrey]

The last point referred to Meth's conduct in mass-messaging nations, hoping to get some bites from nations who are ignorant of his situation. I don't see a rogue and those that do tech deals with the rogue out of ignorance as the same thing, hence why I made that distinction (and was confused by your hypothetical scenario).

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315720335' post='2798583']
The last point referred to Meth's conduct in mass-messaging nations, hoping to get some bites from nations who are ignorant of his situation. I don't see a rogue and those that do tech deals with the rogue out of ignorance as the same thing, hence why I made that distinction (and was confused by your hypothetical scenario).
[/quote]

I know what it refers too but I am of the opinion that the govs of alliances, such as NATO's gov, should be ensuring their alliance members are not ignorant. If nations are still ignorant, then it is the fault of the gov and the alliance should be held accountable.

[Land of True Israel]

It's pretty much a universally understood ethic. It would even be more slippery of a slope if assisting rogue nations became acceptable under the guise of "innocent" tech deals. Ignorance of fact is never a solid excuse.

[quote name='MrHavok' timestamp='1315622851' post='2797741']
Just curious what gives you the right to dictate who nations can and can't do tech deals with?

Straight up aid I can see, however if he is fulfilling his end of the bargain in a tech deal what gives you this right?

In addition if someone does a deal with him and they are nations that don't check the OWF why is it the responsibility for every alliance to spread your edict on this subject or else suffer your wrath or your extortion demands of reps?

This is your mess I suggest cleaning it up yourself

It's a very slippery slope and a dangerous area when alliances can dictate who tech deals are done with
[/quote]