War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection

[octovanyo]

If you don't want to get curb stomped then join the Hegemony. Same mentality, same !@#$%^&*.

Not even, they made their choice knowing the risks. This is simply making an easy way out for them, alliances have nothing to gain for protecting them, people join alliances for protection. Why would people join an alliance knowing they will receive all the benefits of being in an alliance with no costs entailing it by simply moving to this color or that color?

[Vilien]

Not even, they made their choice knowing the risks. This is simply making an easy way out for them, alliances have nothing to gain for protecting them, people join alliances for protection. Why would people join an alliance knowing they will receive all the benefits of being in an alliance with no costs entailing it by simply moving to this color or that color?

You, of all people, should understand that an alliance isn't just about offering protection. Again, the bolded parts look ridiculous when taken in the context of alliance politics.

[octovanyo]

You, of all people, should understand that an alliance isn't just about offering protection. Again, the bolded parts look ridiculous when taken in the context of alliance politics.

Mmmmm ok well most alliances are about offering protection. New nations choose what alliance to join on a basis of two things (generally) protection and start up aid. Defending your alliance in times of war is part of the responsibilities that goes along being in an alliance. But you know that your alliance will work very hard to get you back to your pre-war level after the war is done. Just as not joining an alliance has risks entailing it so does joining an alliance.

Edited May 6, 2009 by octovanyo4

[Vilien]

Mmmmm ok well most alliances are about offering protection. New nations choose what alliance to join on a basis of two things (generally) protection and start up aid. Defending your alliance in times of war is part of the responsibilities that goes along being in an alliance. But you know that your alliance will work very hard to get you back to your pre-war level after the war is done. Just as not joining an alliance has risks entailing it so does joining an alliance.

Risks I accept. But that doesn't make it right for nations in alliances to steal from others with impunity, which is essentially what tech raiding is. I don't see what the issue is with keeping one sphere free of raiding.

[Chief Savage Man]

Making NPO the protectors of the Red Sphere makes them the Lords of the Red Sphere. Good peace terms would strip the NPO of any exceptionalism they've created for themselves over the years and force them to play the same game we do.

[Vilien]

Making NPO the protectors of the Red Sphere makes them the Lords of the Red Sphere. Good peace terms would strip the NPO of any exceptionalism they've created for themselves over the years and force them to play the same game we do.

That isn't the issue here. It's whether or not anyone should accept the mantle of protecting the red sphere unaligned.

[octovanyo]

That isn't the issue here. It's whether or not anyone should accept the mantle of protecting the red sphere unaligned.

They shouldn't the unalignes made their choice they will have to live with it. Or try Walford's thing w/e works.

[Tomcat]

If you don't want to get curb stomped then join the Hegemony. Same mentality, same !@#$%^&*.

You're right that the mentality is similar, however the entire reason alliances were created in the first place was for mutual protection. Before alliances, the cyberverse was one big free for all and anybody could attack anybody for whatever reason.

But slowly, nations started banding together and said "hey if i get attacked you back me up and if you get attacked i'll back you up". That's all alliances really are when you get down to it. So having an entire sphere declared as "protected" from raids basically creates a free rider problem in which you have nations being protected by others without being under any obligation to protect anybody else themselves.

Anyway, you aren't the first person to believe in setting up some sort of anti-raiding system to protect unaligns. You may or may not be familiar with CNARF or Yellow Number 5, but heres the links to them just in case.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/CNARF

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Yellow_Number_5

Ironically both of these anti-raiding systems were heavily criticized by the NPO and it's allies.

[Kzoppistan]

Risks I accept. But that doesn't make it right for nations in alliances to steal from others with impunity, which is essentially what tech raiding is.

Might makes right. While tech raiders do enjoy a sense of protection by hiding within the ranks of an alliance, there are measures that can be taken to handle them.

I don't see what the issue is with keeping one sphere free of raiding.

So get it organized.

[Nintenderek]

If they really want protection that badly, they can join an alliance. It doesn't take much. In fact, they don't even have to actually join one. If they just set their custom AA to something that isn't none (and it doesn't have to be a real alliance) then chances are that most tech raiders won't even notice they are there and just skip over them.

[Vilien]

Anyway, you aren't the first person to believe in setting up some sort of anti-raiding system to protect unaligns. You may or may not be familiar with CNARF or Yellow Number 5, but heres the links to them just in case.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/CNARF (Was there for this)

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Yellow_Number_5 (not for this)

Ironically both of these anti-raiding systems were heavily criticized by the NPO and it's allies.

I understand the precedent that has been set.

So get it organized.

I'm trying.

[Fort Pitt]

Im in semi-support of this, personally i believe Noir (the black team bloc) could possibly do this, not sure of other black team alliances agree with me though

[Haflinger]

If they really want protection that badly, they can join an alliance. It doesn't take much. In fact, they don't even have to actually join one. If they just set their custom AA to something that isn't none (and it doesn't have to be a real alliance) then chances are that most tech raiders won't even notice they are there and just skip over them.

This works up until a certain NS level.

Once a nation grows to be of large size, it either needs to join a "real" alliance (i.e. one with enough clout to intimidate raiders) or expect to get raided.

Frequently.

[Seipher Caim]

My 2 cent on that matter...

"We dont care to have a global plan about protection..."

If one sphere decides to protect its non-aligned (and none others offer the same protection), this sphere will give incentive for ALL non aligned to join it... And we will see responses from others spheres to keep their non aligned for trades and all sort of stuff... and those responses are likely to be "gnagnagna doctrine" or "stuffstuff protection"...

And of course, it exists some byproducts for protection without too heavy alliance link : CTC, RoTR...

You will always find alliances and people to think of that matter, and followers to recreate their system...

The real question is one of hypocisy : if you offer such a protection (saying to the whole planet bob : "Hey this is our turf, don't ouch it") you cant allow raid for yourselves... So... what about an "international conference on tech raid"... ^^

[Bob Janova]

We have seen in the past that offering protection does relatively little to attract the unaligned to your colour. Most unaligned nations are not interested in politics, do not read these boards and do not respond to PMs, and therefore will either not know or not care about your offer of protection. You can clearly see this in the numbers of unaligned on Red before and after Revenge: they hardly changed. (I don't expect much of an exodus now, either, apart from the 'hidden' NPO banks.) On the other hand, protecting those nations is a large administrative burden and potentially a big military or political liability (à la CNARF).

An opt-in approach like CTC or the Church of Maroon, where the 'unaligned' nation has certain responsiblities in exchange for protection (at the very least setting their AA to a known protected tag) brings the protection in line with legal conventions, and provides a greater benefit with a lower burden.

There is no reason for an alliance (or group of alliances) to attempt blanket protection of a colour unless:

- they have lots of people who need to be kept busy, and can be given the administration of the protection

- they want to be able to hide some strategically important nations off AA, but keep them protected

- they have a very strong moral position against raiding and are willing to pay for its enforcement

CNARF was the third reason, the NPO is the first two. YN5 was for a different reason, partly a show of power and partly a genuine attempt to attract more nations to Yellow, but I think its failure will have shown people that trying to attract trades in this fashion is a mistake. I don't think anyone currently in a position to implement such a doctrine has any of those three reasons.

[Col John S Mosby]

This discussion isn't about a non-aligned complaining about being raided nor is it about taking a moral position against the simple reality that the international arena on Planet Bob lies is a state of nature.

This is about practical, demonstrable interests. It is about whether alliances on the same color team should consider collaborating to protect their own trading resources rather than standing idly by as their non-aligned partners are driven off just because they don't want to play the game the same way we do.

[White Chocolate]

In my opinion, The Revenge Doctrine was one of the smart moves by NPO. Notice, I didn't say "ethical" or "moral" - but smart. Most of the reasons why have already been mentioned in one form or another. Personally, and as an alliance leader, thus far I've supported most of the policies that are considered "moral" by CN standards. However every time I have thought about what position to take, I've considered the growth potential for US from a rather selfish perspective in addition to altruistic reasons. Believe it or not, they often match. The best deals (either written or unwritten) are win-win.

Edited May 6, 2009 by White Chocolate

[bzelger]

Out of idle interest, do larger spheres really have an easier time getting the trades they want? More nations means more competition for resources to the same degree that they bring new resources in.

[Col John S Mosby]

In my opinion, The Revenge Doctrine was one of the smart moves by NPO. Notice, I didn't say "ethical" or "moral" - but smart. Most of the reasons why have already been mentioned in one form or another. Personally, and as an alliance leader, thus far I've supported most of the policies that are considered "moral" by CN standards. However every time I have thought about what position to take, I've considered the growth potential for US from a rather selfish perspective in addition to altruistic reasons. Believe it or not, they often match. The best deals (either written or unwritten) are win-win.

There is a significant difference between what I propose and a singular hegemon claiming a color sphere [no non-NPO Senators, no non-NPO alliances on Red] as a minority by threat of force.

We should consider why the color teams were created in the first place and explore that aspect. We on the same color team are dependent upon each other and should look out for each other because it is in our interest to do so.

Whether it is in our interests for independent players of all colors to be continually pruned back as many quit in disgust rather than surrender their sovereignty is a related matter. I don't think that it is realistic or desirable to eliminate tech-raiding, but it would serve us well to consider if it should be curbed in some way by making it more risky. It is completely unrestricted now and we all suffer for it. That is a simple fact.

[Wu Tang Clan]

Fodder for recruitment? If, in my nation's youth, someone raided me and gave me that offer, I'd be more inclined to research their political enemies. Recruiting by raiding is pretty low class, if you ask me. I'd say somewhere on par with recruiting in disbandment threads or from another alliance. Though, I suppose some here could argue, "I'm only raiding your alliance for members, so it's okay."

I'm in a bit of a silly mood tonight. Don't take me too seriously.

I didn't say raid for recruitment. I said the aspect of raiding is used as fodder. As in, if you don't join an alliance you will get raided, so you should join mine.

[Col John S Mosby]

I didn't say raid for recruitment. I said the aspect of raiding is used as fodder. As in, if you don't join an alliance you will get raided, so you should join mine.

It is also fodder for people quitting the game, which is why the number of non-aligned is less than half of what it was 2 years ago. The might-makes-right culture that has dominated ever since that time has kept the total number of nations flat also, IMO.

Those who had been around since before that time can tell us all whether it was easier to get and keep trades then compared to now.

[Portugal]

Those who had been around since before that time can tell us all whether it was easier to get and keep trades then compared to now.

It's pretty much the same imo. Well, it's a bit easier, as there are more nations in alliances it's easier to acess trade-circles or trade-swap groups, and it's easier to attest for the reliability of partners, something much harder when everyone is unaligned.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Portugal

[Nobel]

Protecting unaligned nations from rading might be moral ,but its impractical. The only two choices are a hegemonic alliance like NPO protecting a color sphere; or a cluncky, inefficient inter-alliance organization that eventually wouldn't be able to fully read all of the pages in the list of all the wars going on.

[Thermidor]

The immediate aftermath of the Karma War will definitely be a time of political instability for the Red Team as a whole. I see no mandates from anyone stopping that. The long term stability and protection of the Red Team depends on what is done with the New Pacific Order -- whether or not it is condemned to perma-ZI (as I feel it should be) or it is left to rebuild and return.

As for other viable options, I think the Revenge Doctrine is a sound and positive precedent and should be practiced in other united and stable teams. The Orange Team, in my mind, would be a great candidate for a similar doctrine on account of its political and economic unity (however, the current state of IRON casts that certainty into question, the Orange Unity Treaty notwithstanding.)

[alpreb]

It is also fodder for people quitting the game, which is why the number of non-aligned is less than half of what it was 2 years ago. The might-makes-right culture that has dominated ever since that time has kept the total number of nations flat also, IMO.

Those who had been around since before that time can tell us all whether it was easier to get and keep trades then compared to now.

Before early 2007 the Alliance Affiliation didn't really exists and we relied on having it written in the nation description.

Since it is a tad easier to type "none" and attack instead of manually looking through every nations in range of you (which you pretty much had to). In the old days it was much easier to hide in the masses than it is now.