Trinite Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 So you'll sign a document against E-ZI while at the same time supporting E-ZI by granting your strength to those that practice it? That's crap. There's more to an alliance than EZI policy. I very much doubt anyone is being helped by you calling those who support this document hypocrites. Nobody agrees with everything their alliance does. If someone left an alliance over this then I would look down on them much more than if they stayed and tried to change the policy of the their alliance. Alliance loyalty means something to some people and they don't just run away if they disagree with one policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickCooley Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) So you'll sign a document against E-ZI while at the same time supporting E-ZI by granting your strength to those that practice it? In a simplified form the pact states that the signed nation rulers will not condemn a nation to E-ZI if they gain a position of power or reveal a nation ruler if they discover he/she is a E-ZI re roll. I do not hold a seat of power and find E-ZI distasteful. Therefore I signed. Edit: Clarity Edited March 23, 2009 by NickCooley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 So you'll sign a document against E-ZI while at the same time supporting E-ZI by granting your strength to those that practice it? Again, you don't necessarily "support" EZI by being a member of an alliance which practices it. There are plenty of reasons to join alliances, and typically whether or not they practice EZI isn't one of them. You're implying that individual thought doesn't exist within a collection of individuals, and it most certainly does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatsam Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 So you'll sign a document against E-ZI while at the same time supporting E-ZI by granting your strength to those that practice it? The funny thing is, according to your logic, you would leave said alliance instead of working to have the EZI option abolished, thus effectively abandoning your cause. Don't be so quick to throw such loaded words as hypocrisy around so easily. With that in mind, I offer my signature should WC find it suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theragu40 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would like to add my signature to this noble declaration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'll sign. Bandwagoning ftw! No really, though, a very good thing you have here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'll sign this if a provision is added for certain OOC crimes... Donation scamming, for example. We once had a member lose 20 real life dollars to a scammer. I believe that scammer remains the only person we've ever PZIed. Since donation deals are not an actual ingame function, this person could not be banned. If an exception is added for things like that, I'll sign.-Bama I have to admit I hadn't considered this before, and would like to hear what my fellow signatories opinion on this is before changing something which you all have signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Donation scamming is against the rules I think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 That's crap. There's more to an alliance than EZI policy. I very much doubt anyone is being helped by you calling those who support this document hypocrites. Nobody agrees with everything their alliance does. If someone left an alliance over this then I would look down on them much more than if they stayed and tried to change the policy of the their alliance. Alliance loyalty means something to some people and they don't just run away if they disagree with one policy. Considering that some alliances have gone to war over EZI, I think it's a huge issue to be taken to heart. If there were no wars over EZI, I'd agree, but considering that all nations are expected to fight for the cause, you are either a hypocrite, or a fool if you join an alliance that supports EZI, when you yourself do not. War is the most reprehensible thing in the cyberverse, and isn't to be taken lightly. (At least, if you're not a rogue ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 That's crap. There's more to an alliance than EZI policy. I very much doubt anyone is being helped by you calling those who support this document hypocrites. Nobody agrees with everything their alliance does. If someone left an alliance over this then I would look down on them much more than if they stayed and tried to change the policy of the their alliance. Alliance loyalty means something to some people and they don't just run away if they disagree with one policy. Again, you don't necessarily "support" EZI by being a member of an alliance which practices it. There are plenty of reasons to join alliances, and typically whether or not they practice EZI isn't one of them. You're implying that individual thought doesn't exist within a collection of individuals, and it most certainly does. I absolutely agree that there's more to an alliance than their E-ZI policy and there are many other reasons to join an alliance. I also agree that it's better to try to change your alliance's policy from within than leave because of it. However, if your alliance's policies are fundamentally in opposition to your own and have not changed despite voicing your opinion on the matter and doing what you can to have them changed, either you accept that the policy is set in stone, and through your continued presence effectively support it; or you leave. And if you support it, how can you sign a document condemning it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Donation scamming is against the rules I think? It is. If it's not, that part of the ToS should be fixed. (Although, this is all moderation issues outside of moderation forums >_>) My opinion on the matter is that OOC crimes go to OOC authorities/mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Donation scamming is against the rules I think? I believe we reported it, but were told that it was a handshake agreement, not an actual ingame one, so it was not under the mods' jurisdiction. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Updated to this point, and yes I did believe donation scamming was against the rules unless someone would clarify for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Signed Arrnea of The Barony of Arrnea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would gladly sign it, however future plans, and the restrictions they will place on my ability to sign any such international documents, prevent me from doing so. =( I agree with it in spirit, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithis Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Signed, Sithis of Realm. Edited April 1, 2009 by Sithis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I have to admit I hadn't considered this before, and would like to hear what my fellow signatories opinion on this is before changing something which you all have signed. WC, I'd be the first to admit, I spend my fair share of RL money for the game, If I got scammed which is highly doubtful, I only do deals with people I know , I'd want to see them burn, if they re-rolled, I sure wouldn't go looking for them, however that nation would be at a constant state of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpma Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Never liked such concepts. Signed with relish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Enough is enough. Signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dggilluminatus Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Add my light to this pact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
519 Nigras Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 please place me on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorum Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'll happily put my name to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I absolutely agree that there's more to an alliance than their E-ZI policy and there are many other reasons to join an alliance. I also agree that it's better to try to change your alliance's policy from within than leave because of it. However, if your alliance's policies are fundamentally in opposition to your own and have not changed despite voicing your opinion on the matter and doing what you can to have them changed, either you accept that the policy is set in stone, and through your continued presence effectively support it; or you leave.And if you support it, how can you sign a document condemning it? Support, by definition, requires that you offer assistance to whichever organization, person or cause you wish to promote. By being a member of an alliance, you are supporting only the alliance. You are not, inherently, supporting all of its policies and/or ideological beliefs. You can plausibly, but you don't necessarily. Further, it is not as if "stone" is unchangeable. It might be difficult to alter, and I will attest to that certainly, but it's far from impossible. Were one to leave an alliance because of their ZI policies, they would almost irrefutably be giving up on the idea of changing those policies from within the alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Support, by definition, requires that you offer assistance to whichever organization, person or cause you wish to promote. By being a member of an alliance, you are supporting only the alliance. You are not, inherently, supporting all of its policies and/or ideological beliefs. You can plausibly, but you don't necessarily. Further, it is not as if "stone" is unchangeable. It might be difficult to alter, and I will attest to that certainly, but it's far from impossible. Were one to leave an alliance because of their ZI policies, they would almost irrefutably be giving up on the idea of changing those policies from within the alliance. Did you go to war with MK? EDIT: Or GR, most probably. Edited March 23, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 i sign this. 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.