War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection

[Alterego]

Excuse me. You've consistently been on Pacifica's "side", and only have raised the issue of preventing raiding now, to my understanding.

Your rewriting what it means to be an ally. We allow tech raiding, there are so many checks and balances along with the fact most of us were, until recently so big it was a waste of time. Check out the "do you allow tech raiding" thread and you will see my post confirming what I have just said.

[neneko]

Are you kidding me? You guys make it sound like the poor poor unaligneds doesn't have the option of joining a alliance any time they want or even one of the trade protection guilds wich wouldn't give them any obligations at all.

If they want to stay out of politics and stay safe from having to participate in alliance wars then they can join a trade guild or stay peaceful (ooc: hippy mode). I do not want NPO replaced by another world police no matter how well meaning they are. That is not the freedom I'm fighting for.

[Vilien]

Are you kidding me? You guys make it sound like the poor poor unaligneds doesn't have the option of joining a alliance any time they want or even one of the trade protection guilds wich wouldn't give them any obligations at all.

If they want to stay out of politics and stay safe from having to participate in alliance wars then they can join a trade guild or stay peaceful (ooc: hippy mode). I do not want NPO replaced by another world police no matter how well meaning they are. That is not the freedom I'm fighting for.

You should not be forced to join any kind of organization because of the greed of others.

Also, the freedom to steal from the weak? I wasn't aware that was what Karma stood for.

[Un4Gvn1]

You should not be forced to join any kind of organization because of the greed of others.

Also, the freedom to steal from the weak? I wasn't aware that was what Karma stood for.

I agree you should not have to join an alliance (look at what is happening to some alliances now, because of their treaty obligations) or a trading guild or anything else if you don't want.

It does look like some Karma alliances are selective in their ideas of what it is to be free.

[neneko]

You should not be forced to join any kind of organization because of the greed of others.

Also, the freedom to steal from the weak? I wasn't aware that was what Karma stood for.

Freedom. Nothing more nothing less.

A whole bunch of people will use the freedom to do bad things but overall freedom will bring more good than bad. Reinstating another world police isn't benificial for anyone.

I even agree with you that it's dishonorable to attack those that are weaker just for profit but what other alliances decide to do shouldn't be up to either you or me.

[Vilien]

Freedom. Nothing more nothing less.

A whole bunch of people will use the freedom to do bad things but overall freedom will bring more good than bad. Reinstating another world police isn't benificial for anyone.

I even agree with you that it's dishonorable to attack those that are weaker just for profit but what other alliances decide to do shouldn't be up to either you or me.

I understand that no one wants their sovereignty violated. However, this policy should also apply to the unaligned. That is why there should be one color where the unaligned can stay without fear of being attacked. It does no harm to anyone's liberty to allow those with no affiliation a place where they can be safe.

[der_ko]

You should not be forced to join any kind of organization because of the greed of others.

Also, the freedom to steal from the weak? I wasn't aware that was what Karma stood for.

OOC: To use a RL example. You don't want to pay taxes (join an alliance), but you want the goverment (an alliance) to grant you rights/protection.

Planet Bob will never be talior suited after your needs and desires. Get over it.

Edited May 4, 2009 by der_ko

[x Tela x]

Instead of separate alliances committing themselves to protect nations in their color sphere, why don't they move against tech raiding in general? All this protection wouldn't be necessary, then.

Sparta tried that once. Ask them how well it worked.

[Vilien]

OOC: To use a RL example. You don't want to pay taxes (join an alliance), but you want the goverment (an alliance) to grant you rights/protection. Planet Bob will never be talior suited after your needs and desires. Get over it.

To use an in-game example: You don't want to be dragged into a meaningless war, or you feel no need to join an alliance for whatever reason. Why should you then be subject to attacks by others for no other reason than "I want your technology"? If you wouldn't support glorified tech raids of alliances by those more powerful than them, then you certainly should not be supporting the actual tech raid.

[Rebel Virginia]

I see no reason to allow the NPO to decide my alliance policies.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to point this out, but the argument does work both ways. Either way, a doctrine is only legitimate if it can be enforced. If the NPO is unable to defend their doctrine after the war, then it can be challenged and will fail.

[neneko]

I understand that no one wants their sovereignty violated. However, this policy should also apply to the unaligned. That is why there should be one color where the unaligned can stay without fear of being attacked. It does no harm to anyone's liberty to allow those with no affiliation a place where they can be safe.

No that would probably not do any harm but then the first thing to figure out is who decides who can be attacked and for what reasons? If someone appears that are stronger will they still defend the unaligneds from them?

What I'm most worried about though is that this would start as a little snowball that gets bigger when it gets rolling. That's why I'm against any form of a world police.

Freedom goes for everything. Including war. If a alliance decide to attack a smaller alliance without any reason others that see it might come to help the weak without any treaties. I think that's every alliances right. A unaligned is basically a one man alliance. They're free to do what they want but other alliances should be allowed to declare war on them if they want. If the nation got friends to protect it then they have the right to do so.

Who would decide what a valid reason to attack someone is anyway? Should the world police handle CBs too? Checking them and making sure that they're in order before allowing any alliance to declare any wars against unaligneds or another alliance?

No thank you. I'd rather have a world with a few stray bandits than another world police with the risk of it being just as corrupt as the old one.

Edited May 4, 2009 by neneko

[Vilien]

No that would probably not do any harm but then the first thing to figure out is who decides who can be attacked and for what reasons? If someone appears that are stronger will they still defend the unaligneds from them?

What I'm most worried about though is that this would start as a little snowball that gets bigger when it gets rolling. That's why I'm against any form of a world police.

Freedom goes for everything. Including war. If a alliance decide to attack a smaller alliance without any reason others that see it might come to help the weak without any treaties. I think that's every alliances right. A unaligned is basically a one man alliance. They're free to do what they want but other alliances should be allowed to declare war on them if they want. If the nation got friends to protect it then they have the right to do so.

Who would decide what a valid reason to attack someone is anyway? Should the world police handle CBs too? Checking them and making sure that they're in order before allowing any alliance to declare any wars against unaligneds or another alliance?

No thank you. I'd rather have a world with a few stray bandits than another world police with the risk of it being just as corrupt as the old one.

And thus, any alliance that wished to protect the unaligned is free to do so, without cries of "tyranny".

[neneko]

And thus, any alliance that wished to protect the unaligned is free to do so, without cries of "tyranny".

Yes if they want to protect a unaligned that seeks help then that's in their full right. If they make a global rule for a sphere then I would protest them because I don't think any alliance have the right to claim a sphere as their own.

You also realise of course that a alliance is a group of people protecting eachother. If these unaligneds don't want to give protection to others I don't see where they get the right to protection from. When joining a alliance you make a tradeoff. You sacrifice some of your freedom for protection. You agree to protect the alliance and they agree to protect you. If you don't want to help protecting anyone else you can't expect people to protect you.

[Haflinger]

No thank you. I'd rather have a world with a few stray bandits than another world police with the risk of it being just as corrupt as the old one.

A few stray bandits?

Tech raiders have already destroyed far more alliances than the NPO ever did.

[Vilien]

Yes if they want to protect a unaligned that seeks help then that's in their full right. If they make a global rule for a sphere then I would protest them because I don't think any alliance have the right to claim a sphere as their own.

You also realise of course that a alliance is a group of people protecting eachother. If these unaligneds don't want to give protection to others I don't see where they get the right to protection from. When joining a alliance you make a tradeoff. You sacrifice some of your freedom for protection. You agree to protect the alliance and they agree to protect you. If you don't want to help protecting anyone else you can't expect people to protect you.

Protecting unaligned players from raiding on a color is not claiming a sphere. Besides, you just argued that alliances have the right to do as they please. You are not recognizing that there is a line between exercising your liberties and infringing upon the liberties of others. Senseless attacks, whether on an individual or an alliance, clearly violates the freedoms of others. That's where we draw the line.

As to protection, I believe you might talk to Opethian about the alliance structure.

A few stray bandits?

Tech raiders have already destroyed far more alliances than the NPO ever did.

I'd like to see some proof that tech raiders have ever destroyed alliances like NAAC and LUE as prolifically or as consistently as the NPO has done.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Vilien

[der_ko]

To use an in-game example: You don't want to be dragged into a meaningless war, or you feel no need to join an alliance for whatever reason. Why should you then be subject to attacks by others for no other reason than "I want your technology"? If you wouldn't support glorified tech raids of alliances by those more powerful than them, then you certainly should not be supporting the actual tech raid.

You're demanding a service (protection) without paying for it (joining an alliance). Why should anyone protect you when you are unwilling to return the favour?

[Haflinger]

I'd like to see some proof that tech raiders have ever destroyed alliances like NAAC and LUE as prolifically or as consistently as the NPO has done.

Nine alliances gone in just one incident.

[neneko]

Protecting unaligned players from raiding on a color is not claiming a sphere. Besides, you just argued that alliances have the right to do as they please. You are not recognizing that there is a line between exercising your liberties and infringing upon the liberties of others. Senseless attacks, whether on an individual or an alliance, clearly violates the freedoms of others. That's where we draw the line.

Yes if you say that nobody is allowed to attack unaligneds on a sphere then you have implied that you are allowed to make rules for that sphere thus you have claimed it as your own.

I still think that alliances have any right to defend whoever they want. What I don't think they have the right to do is to tell others what reason they can or cannot use to attack others.

Replacing NPO with another world police would leave a bad taste in my mouth and I'd feel like we accomplished nothing. If that happened then everyone that cries 'same taste different name' might be able to say 'I told you so' in a few months.

[Vilien]

You're demanding a service (protection) without paying for it (joining an alliance). Why should anyone protect you when you are unwilling to return the favour?

If your alliance was neutral, and you were attacked by a larger alliance for no reason, would you complain? Tech raiding is stealing, plain and simple. Not joining an alliance is not a sign of weakness, nor is it simply because you do not wish to protect someone else. There are many reasons why someone would stay unaligned, but they shouldn't be punished simply because they choose not to affiliate themselves with a group.

Nine alliances gone in just one incident.

I'd like to see some proof that tech raiders have ever destroyed alliances like NAAC and LUE as prolifically or as consistently as the NPO has done.

Yes if you say that nobody is allowed to attack unaligneds on a sphere then you have implied that you are allowed to make rules for that sphere thus you have claimed it as your own.

I still think that alliances have any right to defend whoever they want. What I don't think they have the right to do is to tell others what reason they can or cannot use to attack others.

Replacing NPO with another world police would leave a bad taste in my mouth and I'd feel like we accomplished nothing. If that happened then everyone that cries 'same taste different name' might be able to say 'I told you so' in a few months.

Saying that no one can attack unaligneds on a sphere is not saying you control the sphere. It is saying that you do not believe in tech raiding, and saying that you want to protect those who choose not fly an alliance's flag. I don't see why it's somehow wrong to protect the weak from attack, but not wrong to attack the weak simply for being so. If we have the right to do whatever we wish, as you continue to assert, then it is certainly within our rights to protect unaligneds from tech raiding.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Vilien

[Kindom of Goon]

I agree you should not have to join an alliance (look at what is happening to some alliances now, because of their treaty obligations) or a trading guild or anything else if you don't want.

It does look like some Karma alliances are selective in their ideas of what it is to be free.

Yet you're in an alliance that actively encourages tech raiding, or at least it used to.

Anway, I'm not a fan of tech raiding but I have little sympathy for the unalligned. If you don't want to be apart of an organisation in favour of freedom thats fine, but you can't then turn around and moan about not getting the benifits of being in an alliance.

[neneko]

Saying that no one can attack unaligneds on a sphere is not saying you control the sphere. It is saying that you do not believe in tech raiding, and saying that you want to protect those who choose not fly an alliance's flag. I don't see why it's somehow wrong to protect the weak from attack, but not wrong to attack the weak simply for being so. If we have the right to do whatever we wish, as you continue to assert, then it is certainly within our rights to protect unaligneds from tech raiding.

As I said in the last 3 posts. If you want to protect a unaligned asking for help that's fine. There's a huge step from there and making a rule on a sphere that nobody can attack unaligneds there. Would you decide what valid CBs for attacking unaligneds would be too?

The problem here I think is that we see this form two different viewpoints. I belive the natural state of digiterra is war. If the natural state was peace there wouldn't bea reason for it to be any alliances. People joined together in groups to protect eachother.

Just because you're bigger you say that you should be allowed to make rules telling alliances what they can and cannot do? I don't buy it. There would be more rules in time. Starting to make rules for a sphere or even global rules that everyone must obey is bound to lead to the power in charge of maintaining those rules. The alliance or bloc that will act both judge and executioner to eventually become corrupt.

If I wanted someone else to make rules for what I can do on digiterra I would have voted for keeping npo in charge.

[Vilien]

Just because you're bigger you say that you should be allowed to make rules telling alliances what they can and cannot do? I don't buy it. There would be more rules in time. Starting to make rules for a sphere or even global rules that everyone must obey is bound to lead to the power in charge of maintaining those rules. The alliance or bloc that will act both judge and executioner to eventually become corrupt.

Just because you're bigger you can attack whoever you want? Pardon me if I don't see how your viewpoints on this issue mesh together.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Vilien

[neneko]

Just because your bigger you can attack whoever you want? Pardon me if I don't see how your viewpoints on this issue mesh together.

Because I belive it's a alliances sovereign right to attack anyone for any reason they want. If the attack is unjust people will stand up to them.

What I don't belive in is one alliance or bloc making global rules and make themselves both judge and executioner. Who gives them the right to decide what's right and wrong?

It seems like you think I'm splitting hairs when saying that an alliance have all the right in the world to protect a unaligned if they choose to but I don't agree with them making global rules for tech raiding. The difference is tremedous to me though. I don't want to appoint a new world police no matter how good intentions they have because it gives them the illusion of power in the eyes of others and will eventually just lead to corruption.

The day karma forms a bloc that starts making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra is the day I'm joining the hedgemony.

[Vilien]

Because I belive it's a alliances sovereign right to attack anyone for any reason they want. If the attack is unjust people will stand up to them.

What I don't belive in is one alliance or bloc making global rules and make themselves both judge and executioner. Who gives them the right to decide what's right and wrong?

It seems like you think I'm splitting hairs when saying that an alliance have all the right in the world to protect a unaligned if they choose to but I don't agree with them making global rules for tech raiding. The difference is tremedous to me though. I don't want to appoint a new world police no matter how good intentions they have because it gives them the illusion of power in the eyes of others and will eventually just lead to corruption.

The day karma forms a bloc that starts making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra is the day I'm joining the hedgemony.

Saying that someone is the "world police" does not make them so. I understand your concern. Understand this: I will defend anyone, whether an individual or an alliance, from warrantless aggression as best as I can. There is no right to attack others without repercussions. There is no existing concept of freedom that says I can steal from others with impunity. This is fundamentally a moral issue. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to attack others for no reason other than "they were asking for it by being unaligned". Saying that I will offer protection to unaligned nations on Red, or any other color for that matter, is not some kind of evil "world police" action.

Furthermore, one sphere is not the world. I do not believe in tech raiding. I would be offering them a place to stay should they not wish to come under attack. There is nothing wrong in assisting others in their struggle to survive. There is nothing wrong in protecting the unaligned from attack.

[neneko]

Saying that someone is the "world police" does not make them so. I understand your concern. Understand this: I will defend anyone, whether an individual or an alliance, from warrantless aggression as best as I can. There is no right to attack others without repercussions. There is no existing concept of freedom that says I can steal from others with impunity. This is fundamentally a moral issue. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to attack others for no reason other than "they were asking for it by being unaligned". Saying that I will offer protection to unaligned nations on Red, or any other color for that matter, is not some kind of evil "world police" action.

Furthermore, one sphere is not the world. I do not believe in tech raiding. I would be offering them a place to stay should they not wish to come under attack. There is nothing wrong in assisting others in their struggle to survive. There is nothing wrong in protecting the unaligned from attack.

If a alliance had a CB for attacking a unaligned would they be able to submit it to the alliance in charge so they could review it and see if this sovereign alliance was allowed to attack without reprecautions?

Any alliance that would announce global rules of the world would at least be a aspiring world police in my eyes and yes saying 'nobody can attack unaligned on sphere x' is a global rule.

The second part of your post show where our opinions differ. You belive that the natural state of digiterra is peace. That the ones that attacks are the ones breaking these ground rules. I don't belive that's true. From the start we were all unaligned. If the natural state on digiterra was peace we would have stayed unaligned. The natural state of digiterra is war though. So nations made agreements to protect eachother and formed alliances. Alliances agreed to protect eachother by signing treaties. You talk about unaligneds as weaker ones being picked on but they're in the same position we were in when we arrived on digiterra. If they don't want to be part of a group that protects eachother that's fine but they do not have any admin given right to peace.

This only make sense if you see the natural state of digiterra as war. You don't but that doesn't matter since I'm not planning to tell you that you're not allowed to think the way you want. I don't see why anyone should have the right to make rules stating that my beliefs are wrong and yours are right or the other way around for that matter.