Zero-One Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 If you can't protect your own members as a sovereign alliance, what's the point of having an alliance in the first place besides a meaningless AA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So now we're punching a guy in what used to be a prison? Are we still discussing the analogy, or is this some new tangent? I don't believe we ever were discussing the analogy. There was an analogy posted and then just some back-and-forth stupidity. Now we are most assuredly on "some new tangent." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart416 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This was a silly argument last night and it's still silly today. What we did was not in any sense an act of war, and I am well aware that similar actions seldom end in war. To assume that the natural response is to go to war is wrong. Actually, member poaching is one of the most valid CBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I don't believe we ever were discussing the analogy. There was an analogy posted and then just some back-and-forth stupidity. Now we are most assuredly on "some new tangent." Have we touched the curve yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So many of you just went to war over precieved wrongs and rights in the game, yet sit here and debate whether this is wrong or right? Bloody hell alliances are just as ignorant as they where when they followed NPO to their death. Sadly nothing has changed... I don't think we are discussing what is right or wrong that's is not the point because there aren't CN laws about it, just what is moral and immoral or in my case if it's a act of war or not. But are you comparing NSO to NPO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Thats left for you to worry about. I dont think you frankly are in any position to make comments we should be taking seriously to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Lower government officials making policy? Where did this happen? Surely you dont mean the Dark Council that is empowered to act in Ivan's behalf by the charter. No way.Surely you're making a legitimate point here. Please elaborate, Id love to see this example of someone overstepping their authority. Actually, I was merely asking a question. Such a concept may be foreign to someone who always has the answer to everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So many of you just went to war over precieved wrongs and rights in the game, yet sit here and debate whether this is wrong or right? Bloody hell alliances are just as ignorant as they where when they followed NPO to their death. Sadly nothing has changed... And you did a hell of a job trying to change it too! What a tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Because I like to argue... A neutral alliance that loses members loses its value. The value of a neutral alliance isn't defined by in game statistics but by the size of the alliance (community) around it. Anyone who would leave their alliance because of an unsolicited, non-specific recruitment message clearly wasn't putting much into that community. If anything they were probably just contributors to their respective alliance's paper tiger section of its stats (eg they were just inflating the external appearance of that alliance). You're wrong on this one.If a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main asset. Neutral alliances also use the safety in numbers concept. A large neutral alliance won't get attacked as easily as a small one. I'm fairly certain if a 30 member neutral alliance posted a reply to your poaching messages like TDO just did that they would be at war already right now. In other words, bigger neutral alliance = safer neutral alliance. Well this just isn't true, a neutral alliance ultimately is always going to be unsafe. As it really only takes another alliance to out gun and out number them. Good example, GPA; minding their own business and then they were hit by several other alliances in their weight class. The only true safety a neutral alliance has is the commitment of the community to CB integrity. If the community doesn't give a $%&@ then no alliance is safe, but if at least some measure of CB is required then a neutral alliance can avoid conflict by not incurring the wrath of stronger entities. On another note you may be correct on a very small scale. An alliance if three to five people could have trouble keeping raiders off their backs, but once you get above 30-50 people this is generally no longer an issue. Additionally if a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main reason for existence. Most people that join neutral alliances do so for the community. Most neutral alliances have active boards and private irc channels. In other words, by losing members you're killing off their community. Same response as at the top. If the community was really worth it, or if the person was really committed to it they would obviously not leave it. If they were a committed member and they happen to leave, chances are they were already planning to. While I don't entirely agree with the person who you are responding to (their analysis of it actually making it easier for you to implement neutral policies) they were theoretically right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I have a feeling that there is more to blame on singular members of NSO, rather than the entire alliance. All the same, this is still very wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So many of you just went to war over precieved wrongs and rights in the game, yet sit here and debate whether this is wrong or right? Bloody hell alliances are just as ignorant as they where when they followed NPO to their death. Sadly nothing has changed...The only thing that ever changes about the mob is who they support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, member poaching is one of the most valid CBs. Anything can be a valid CB. The fact is that these sorts of incidents rarely end in war. Some do, depending on the temperment of the offended alliance and the response of the alliance which sent the messages, but certainly not all, and it certainly is not an immediate reaction, as has been portrayed by some here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Lower government officials making policy? Where did this happen? Surely you dont mean the Dark Council that is empowered to act in Ivan's behalf by the charter. No way.Surely you're making a legitimate point here. Please elaborate, Id love to see this example of someone overstepping their authority. Oh snap. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, member poaching is one of the most valid CBs. Yep right up there with spying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This was a silly argument last night and it's still silly today. What we did was not in any sense an act of war, and I am well aware that similar actions seldom end in war. To assume that the natural response is to go to war is wrong. Don't listen to them TDO these Sith Lords are trying to play mind games with you. You can do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnzwHqim4I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Have we touched the curve yet? You're gonna have to at least buy me a few more drinks before we do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Thats left for you to worry about. LMAO, I'm not worrying to much, ever seen a gas bag before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, I was merely asking a question. Such a concept may be foreign to someone who always has the answer to everything. Sometimes I feel its a curse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Thats left for you to worry about. So you aren't going to man up, because you are afraid you may have live up to your word in the future, rather than just going through with it if it fits your agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 You're wrong on this one.If a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main asset. Neutral alliances also use the safety in numbers concept. A large neutral alliance won't get attacked as easily as a small one. I'm fairly certain if a 30 member neutral alliance posted a reply to your poaching messages like TDO just did that they would be at war already right now. In other words, bigger neutral alliance = safer neutral alliance. Additionally if a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main reason for existence. Most people that join neutral alliances do so for the community. Most neutral alliances have active boards and private irc channels. In other words, by losing members you're killing off their community. Well bart, I'd like to first begin by saying that I preemptively answered all of your objections in prior comments, comments which you evidently didn't bother to read. But to help out anyway, I'll reiterate those points: 1. Neutral alliances will not lose community members due to our recruitment- as I said earlier, we will only be able to peel of people who aren't a part of the community since only people who aren't really a part of the community would be enticed by a recruitment message. As such, we actually will improve the integrity of their community by removing the misfits and malcontents which are working to ruin it. 2. Safety in numbers does not apply to neutral alliances in the way you are describing. It takes a low threshold to ward off rogue attacks (no more than twenty are needed really) and an incredibly high one to ward off attacks from other alliances. In fact, because no true neutral alliance is part of a bloc, they will obviously be at a severe disadvantage should another bloc move against them. Since most non neutral alliances are in blocs, safety in numbers has no bearing on their security with respect to other alliances. My empirical evidence? See: the GPA being rolled as the number 1 alliance in the game. And as a final note, you conceded through silence all of my other independent reasons for why the poaching was good- for instance, that it reassures their neutrality by removing subversive non neutral elements. That's not good for your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This was a silly argument last night and it's still silly today. What we did was not in any sense an act of war, and I am well aware that similar actions seldom end in war. To assume that the natural response is to go to war is wrong. Try sending the recruiting message to any of the sanctioned alliances and see what happen. You are arguing a double standard here. Apparently, it is ok to recruit from neutral alliances because they are neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Try sending the recruiting message to any of the sanctioned alliances and see what happen. You are arguing a double standard here. Apparently, it is ok to recruit from neutral alliances because they are neutral. We DID apologize for that, and assumed the matter was over with. It was the OP that decided to kick us while we were down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well, the question is if you ever had a good name or any commitments. I mean you are Sith... Very well played good sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Try sending the recruiting message to any of the sanctioned alliances and see what happen. Funny that you mentioned that. TDO is sanctioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 You're gonna have to at least buy me a few more drinks before we do that. How many drinks until you join NSO? We do have excellent curves here. Try sending the recruiting message to any of the sanctioned alliances and see what happen. You are arguing a double standard here. Apparently, it is ok to recruit from neutral alliances because they are neutral. I have at no point argued any such thing. 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.