Poaching from our ranks- NSO

[Hydro]

Actually, member poaching is one of the most valid CBs.

If that's the case, then please feel free to elaborate and repudiate Heggo's arguments. None have yet done so and you're not going to be the first either, although I look forward to your response, if for nothing else but the entertainment value.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Hydro

[enderland]

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.

Is there another incident in which a government sponsored recruitment of an entire alliance took place though? I cannot remember anything of this nature, most often it is some new recruiter sending messages to nations erroneously found in a mistaken search and/or a new natino who joined an alliance immediately.

[deSouza]

We've been here for awhile and we didn't punch anyone.

Analogies in political discussions almost always fail terribly.

Its also a fail analogy, given that no one is neutral in prison and punching someone would likely get you killed in the aftermatch.

Oh dont give me that crap. You wanted to raise your own strength by poaching from the "weakest link" in the cyberverse. An alliance that has no treaties and is all on its own while you can fall back on your MDP partners should this turn out to evolve into war.

You're no better then the school bully always picking on the weakest kid on the yard.

Except that the "weakest link" in question is actually stronger than the "bully" in size.

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.

Id say the value of an alliance is not its size or influence, but at the core of its principles.

If we cull out the unneutral from neutral alliances, we are actually giving them more neutrality, and thus more value.

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.

GPA was rolled because it was number 1.

It was attacked in all sides and it was even attacked by people who were once friendly with it/championed it at the old owf.

Mostly because humans are ambitious, and GPA was basically the largest amount of targets possible in a war game.

I think it is common sense that the woodstock massacre took place because GPA wasnt able to stay out of everyone's radar anymore.

So if we did poach or attempt to poach a neutral alliance 's members, it was with the best of intentions.

By helping them to stay out of everyone's radar and ensuring that their core beliefs are preserved, we're be prolonging their existance as a community.

[TehChron]

Is there another incident in which a government sponsored recruitment of an entire alliance took place though? I cannot remember anything of this nature, most often it is some new recruiter sending messages to nations erroneously found in a mistaken search and/or a new natino who joined an alliance immediately.

Then clearly it is not a valid CB if it is some kind of a new phenomenon introduced by us. You're contradicting yourself here, Ender.

[iamthey]

Is there another incident in which a government sponsored recruitment of an entire alliance took place though? I cannot remember anything of this nature, most often it is some new recruiter sending messages to nations erroneously found in a mistaken search and/or a new natino who joined an alliance immediately.

Hence the next layer of answering applies which is criticizing why poaching itself is bad.

[heggo]

You are arguing a double standard here. Apparently, it is ok to recruit from neutral alliances because they are neutral.

It isn't a bad thing to treat two different groups of things differently if you can isolate reasons for why they ought to be treated differently. And hark, what is that I see up in the smaller numbered pages of this thread? Why it is unrefuted arguments for why the cases of neutral and non neutral alliances ought to be treated differently in this regard! Haha, it's like magic it is.

[enderland]

Then clearly it is not a valid CB if it is some kind of a new phenomenon introduced by us. You're contradicting yourself here, Ender.

Really?

I could think of a ton of examples of things NSO or TDO could do to create a valid CB against them that have never been done before. Simply because it is "new and original!" does not mean it cannot be a valid CB.

[Heft]

Is there another incident in which a government sponsored recruitment of an entire alliance took place though? I cannot remember anything of this nature, most often it is some new recruiter sending messages to nations erroneously found in a mistaken search and/or a new natino who joined an alliance immediately.

In that case there is no precedent establishing it as a CB.

Also, NSO members, let's not be too hyper or excitable. I think we've largely made our point at this point and can pull ourselves back some.

[Merrie Melodies]

Really?

I could think of a ton of examples of things NSO or TDO could do to create a valid CB against them that have never been done before. Simply because it is "new and original!" does not mean it cannot be a valid CB.

Indeed, you are correct, thing is no CB will come of this.

[enderland]

In that case there is no precedent establishing it as a CB.

I do not think anyone ever said there was precedent. As I told Chron, a CB's validity does not have to be based on precedent.

[enderland]

Indeed, you are correct, thing is no CB will come of this.

The more important question is however why no CB will come out of this.

The answer is simple at it's root: TDO and/or GPA would be militarily destroyed by NSO and their allies if they attempted military response. Unfortunately for TDO, they just gave themselves an ultimatum - if Ivan does not apologize they are almost forced to declare against NSO or seem even more impotent than is given by the very nature of being a neutral alliance.

[iamthey]

I do not think anyone ever said there was precedent. As I told Chron, a CB's validity does not have to be based on precedent.

Great, then argue its validity as a CB; most of the arguments I have seen against poaching as a CB have been largely unanswered.

[Meer Republic]

You guys should mass pm ODN, to check to see if they still don't have a spine either.

In the name of science, obviously.

[Heft]

I do not think anyone ever said there was precedent. As I told Chron, a CB's validity does not have to be based on precedent.

A CB cannot be considered accepted if it has never had the opportunity to be accepted.

In any case, I must leave now. NSO members behave and that sort of thing.

[bart416]

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 are forgetting that those members also include newer players who might be easily influenced.

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.

Well, GPA was severely out gunned. I wonder how NPO would have done against GPA in a 1 vs 1. I don't think they'd be at the top of the alliance rankings any longer. If you hit any alliance with several alliances in their weight class they'll lose (unless if the attackers are total idiots).

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.

Yet it's not uncommon for some alliances to simply approve mass tech raiding.

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.

Same response as my earlier one as well. And really you could look at it this way: sending some of your members off to a neutral alliance for a month or so to get them loads of free aid and then call them back.

[TehChron]

I do not think anyone ever said there was precedent. As I told Chron, a CB's validity does not have to be based on precedent.

But what I told you was that admitting that it is not precedented is contradicting what you've said earlier in the thread about it being a long-established CB. I am only commenting on the double standard you are espousing rhetorically.

[heggo]

I do not think anyone ever said there was precedent. As I told Chron, a CB's validity does not have to be based on precedent.

Then it must be based on argument, and you have yet even to present one for why recruiting from neutral alliances is unethical, much less for why it is a cause for war.

If I wake up in the daylight hours to see you have posted still more such statements, but have refrained from presenting any such argument, then I and all others who have faith in the power of reason to find truth will be severely disappointed.

[Sal Paradise]

How many drinks until you join NSO? We do have excellent curves here.

I'd be tempted to join the NSO if you could tell me how might I save my pregnant girlfriend who I am sure is going to die in childbirth. Naturally, I'll end up killing her myself, destroying all motivation for joining, but I will nevertheless still join.

[KagetheSecond]

I'd be tempted to join the NSO if you could tell me how might I save my pregnant girlfriend who I am sure is going to die in childbirth. Naturally, I'll end up killing her myself, destroying all motivation for joining, but I will nevertheless still join.

I see what you did there.

[TehChron]

I'd be tempted to join the NSO if you could tell me how might I save my pregnant girlfriend who I am sure is going to die in childbirth. Naturally, I'll end up killing her myself, destroying all motivation for joining, but I will nevertheless still join.

Skills you would learn...

But not from a Jedi.

[Merrie Melodies]

The more important question is however why no CB will come out of this.

The answer is simple at it's root: TDO and/or GPA would be militarily destroyed by NSO and their allies if they attempted military response. Unfortunately for TDO, they just gave themselves an ultimatum - if Ivan does not apologize they are almost forced to declare against NSO or seem even more impotent than is given by the very nature of being a neutral alliance.

I can't say I disagree with you on this point either, I almost feel sorry for the position they put themselves in.

[enderland]

Then it must be based on argument, and you have yet even to present one for why recruiting from neutral alliances is unethical, much less for why it is a cause for war.

If I wake up in the daylight hours to see you have posted still more such statements, but have refrained from presenting any such argument, then I and all others who have faith in the power of reason to find truth will be severely disappointed.

Is government sponspored mass PM recruiting from non-neutral alliances ethical or a cause for war?

If you can answer yes, and no, to those questions respectively I will be happy to give an explanation.

[TehChron]

Is government sponspored mass PM recruiting from non-neutral alliances ethical or a cause for war?

If you can answer yes, and no, to those questions respectively I will be happy to give an explanation.

We already have. In fact Heggo was even so kind as to reiterate the reasons several times throughout the thread.

I guess you are mixing up more than your own posts, then.

[enderland]

We already have. In fact Heggo was even so kind as to reiterate the reasons several times throughout the thread.

I guess you are mixing up more than your own posts, then.

Its a little difficult to keep track of around 5+ NSO member posts and who said what. If you could link me to the post you just looked up I would appreciate it.

[youwish959]

Its a little difficult to keep track of around 5+ NSO member posts and who said what. If you could link me to the post you just looked up I would appreciate it.

Or you could do the dirty work and read back through it, and find where you made the mistake.