Mr Gross Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1330009783' post='2926657'] It is a policy IRON already practices and holds in belief. There is nothing GOONS needs to do. Adding our signature to something we already do by practice is no big deal to us. [/quote] Yeah, I originally posed the question using IRON ain the example, then remembered that IRON has a lower tier. That is why I used Umbrella for the example instead. In short, if a high NS alliance signed on this, would a low NS alliance come to help them despite lack of political friendship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 WE, the faithful employees of the Crimson Permanent Assurance Company, approve this move by Doomhouse to stabilize world markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I like this policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1330012418' post='2926690'] Guess what Legion can do, GOONS cannot. [/quote] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9xDHU.gif[/IMG] such a jokester this nutkase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I have no problems with this policy, in fact I think it is common sense. I do, however, believe that nations attempting to purchase technology from UE are entering into a different "contract" then the one you have detailed in the OP. I don't see how you can contend that nations attempting to buy tech from UE nations with this policy being in effect are somehow entering into the same agreement as if the policy did not exist. The existance of this policy (and the knowledge of it by the nation attempting to purchase tech) significantly changes the inferred contract. UE has made a reasonable effort to make their new policy known about. Its not as if they've drafted up this policy, kept it hidden, and when somebody sends aid to a UE nation, they jump out from behind the bushes and yell 'SURPRISE !@#$%*!'. If your a serious tech-buyer who really cares about not having botched tech deals, you're probably going to do a little research into the nations your buying tech from, and the alliance that they are in. If you were to do such research for UE, you would find this policy. If you don't like the policy, don't send aid to UE nations. It really is as simple as that. It is fully within UE's sovereign right to adopt policies as they see fit. Obviously when a member joins an alliance, they are giving up some of their national sovereignty as they agree to adhere to the directives of their alliance. Depending on the alliance, the amount of sovereignty individual nations give up varies. If UE so desired, it would be fully within their rights as an alliance to direct its nations to reject tech deals from non-approved alliances, as well as to issue refunds rather then tech payments on deals which have been mistakenly accepted. I see absolutely no reason why UE should not be able to tell their nations to issue refunds in lieu of payment on non-approved deals [b]because they have warned you that is what you can expect if you attempt to purchase technology from UE nations.[/b]. Again, they aren't hiding in the bushes attempting to ambush you with this policy. I fail to see how you can expect a different result then the one you have been informed will occur. UE is not attempting to hoodwink anybody, they are not attempting to steal anybody's money. They have informed you exactly what to expect if you attempt to purchase tech from UE nations. If you choose to attempt to purchase tech from them anyway, you are consenting to the terms of the policy and are agreeing that the terms of the policy will be applied to future attempts to purchase technology from UE nations. You are consenting to a "contract" which varies from the one with members of an alliance without such a policy. [OOC]It is exactly like certian websites, that display the terms up front and say "by clicking to enter, you are agreeing to the terms". You can't click to enter and then say "I don't agree to these terms"[/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1330012418' post='2926690'] Guess what Legion can do, GOONS cannot. [/quote] Spend an entire war in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1329998724' post='2926513'] Okay, keep that in mind, though. I don't necessarily applaud the UE thing, but given the practices endorsed by those who wrote this document, I support it as a matter of being against them. Call it a policy of joining any battle against certain alliances I can. [/quote] So you discard individual responsibility and rationality because you don't like someone? Those view points are hardly compatible with principles of justice now are they Roq? Statements like this really eat away at your credibility and seriously impede your ability to present well reasoned arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1330016867' post='2926735'] [OOC]It is exactly like certian websites, that display the terms up front and say "by clicking to enter, you are agreeing to the terms". You can't click to enter and then say "I don't agree to these terms"[/OOC] [/quote] Thank you for perfectly analogizing my policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1330017037' post='2926739'] Thank you for perfectly analogizing my policy [/quote] You know the websites I'm talking about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1330016926' post='2926736'] Spend an entire war in peace mode. [/quote] Guessing you have selective memory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1330017344' post='2926747'] Guessing you have selective memory? [/quote] Well yeah because in the past they actually have spent an entire war in peace mode therefore they can spend an entire war in peace mode which is something that GOONS cannot do. See when I have to explain the joke like that it stops being funny. Buzzkill. Edited February 23, 2012 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Don't send out unsolicited, or not-agreed upon deals to other alliances' members without making arrangements with their Econ dept and this wouldn't be 'necessary'. [i]You're[/i] taking the [i]risk[/i] of [i]interjecting into another alliances business[/i] and slot usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Mr Gross' timestamp='1330013656' post='2926703'] Yeah, I originally posed the question using IRON ain the example, then remembered that IRON has a lower tier. That is why I used Umbrella for the example instead. In short, if a high NS alliance signed on this, would a low NS alliance come to help them despite lack of political friendship? [/quote] This statement doesn't require or imply any military action or cooperation/coordination out of alliances that are not already allied. It's merely a document stating that they have similar ideas and principles on this topic. If someone was ripped off it's up to them to figure out how to react to it. It doesn't mean if CoJ signs this (they won't) that GOONs has to defend their honor. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL12.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reptyler Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 This seems reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1330016867' post='2926735'] UE has made a reasonable effort to make their new policy known about. [/quote] No they haven't. Posting a policy in a place that is not necessary to view in order to send a tech deal to a UE nation isn't a "reasonable effort" by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1330018844' post='2926778'] No they haven't. Posting a policy in a place that is not necessary to view in order to send a tech deal to a UE nation isn't a "reasonable effort" by far. [/quote] With the understanding that this information should trickle down, and that the policy is easily found by nations who make a reasonable effort to research the nations from which they are purchasing tech (and their alliances), I see no reason why ignorance should be an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1330018844' post='2926778'] No they haven't. Posting a policy in a place that is not necessary to view in order to send a tech deal to a UE nation isn't a "reasonable effort" by far. [/quote] Exactly. My proven method of finding tech sellers has always been simple. I open my alliance aid transactions and look for a nation that's sent 50 tech and has something like 1 of 2, first 50, 50 of 100, etc... If they have an open slot, I send them an offer with 3M/100 tech listed. If they accept, I expect 50 tech 10 days later and 50 more tech 10 days after that. If they cancel, I move down the list. I like to find someone who's sent tech the last couple days so I know they are active, so I will go to world transactions to find a seller by the same method if I can't find one already dealing with my alliance. If you enter a tech arrangement with my nation, you will deliver it, arrange for someone else to deliver it, or have it manually extracted by a nation in your range. EDIT: Just wanted to add that yes, now that I know UE has a list of alliances they only want to tech deal with, I won't consciously send them an offer with the hope it is accepted. Tech deals are beneficial to both nations and I prefer a partner from an ally I can count on anyway. Edited February 23, 2012 by TBRaiders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 So is intentionally ghosting other people's AA's part of this policy, or are you just finding even newer ways to do dumb things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 We were just experimenting with newer ways to do dumb things. Experiment failed, apologies given, moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='TBRaiders' timestamp='1330021229' post='2926821'] We were just experimenting with newer ways to do dumb things. Experiment failed, apologies given, moving on. [/quote] Quite a track record of poor choices you guys are assembling. Maybe you should write a book, "How to make enemies and infuriate people without really trying." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Do you feel the ghosting to test UE's policy in general was dumb, or just that you ghosted Grämlins and they noticed? I somehow doubt the same apology would've been offered to TPF (or 64Digits, but they no longer exist.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Whatever gave you the idea we are not trying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'll take the latter for 500 please Alex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1330019401' post='2926791'] With the understanding that this information should trickle down, and that the policy is easily found by nations who make a reasonable effort to research the nations from which they are purchasing tech (and their alliances), I see no reason why ignorance should be an excuse. [/quote] Ignorance is in fact a perfectly good excuse, and UE themselves have acknowledged this with their (completely brainless) refund procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 [quote name='Ninja Colt' timestamp='1329969976' post='2926193'] roll ponies [/quote] I like you [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1329970319' post='2926208'] Doomhouse, bringing law to a lawless world. [/quote] rabble rabble hegemony rabble [quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1329975726' post='2926290'] i think all of us wear pants [/quote] Barbarians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.