Jump to content

Poaching from our ranks- NSO


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm only 10 pages in, but it's my fondest wish that someone will have taken this argument seriously in the subsequent 36 pages. It's an attack on the fundamental idea that poaching is wrong. A strong attack at that.

Why *does* poaching infringe on alliance sovereignty? All it does it possibly remove those members who aren't committed to the alliance. Do alliance leaders think their members aren't smart/informed enough to decide to stay on their own? Should alliance members not be free to leave if they please? Information about their choices limited? Smells like GOONS in here.

Good question.

Well, I can attempt to answer that from a perspective of a person in a small alliance. If you're trying to start an alliance with only a dozen or so initial members then recruitment is an exceptionally hard job. You can not offer your members the same protection and money that larger alliances have. So if someone from a larger alliance attempts to recruit within your ranks, the nations you've worked hard to recruit will most likely join the other alliance. My alliance sends 200 or so messages a day. We'd be lucky to get a nation a week. With that in mind, I don't believe that poaching small alliances is fair, since they probably labored hours every day to recruit nations and it wouldn't be fair someone from a large alliance to recruit those nations with ease. Also, think of why that would mean: the strong will remain strong and the weak will remain weak. World power will probably remain unchanged if large alliances stifle the growth of smaller alliances. This would lead to a monotonic period which wouldn't be fun [ooc] since there would be nothing of interest to individual players who like CN politics [/ooc]

What about recruiting from large alliances? Well, I don't really see why that's bad. As you said, it weeds out weak members.

I know some of my assumptions may be wrong but that's the best I can do with my level of knowledge about CN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is an impingement on our sovereignty and just plain out spam.

The big question is, how do you feel about other alliances mass recruiting your members? I think you will find an answer there.

*How* is it an infringement on your sovereignty?

It wouldn't bother me one bit. I'm not sure if you're up on your recent history, but having been on the wrong end of a massive beat-down, Polaris has already lost all of our members who aren't at least a little serious about being on-board.

Sure, it might be a little irritating to always be getting a bunch of PMs from alliances, but I'm sure there are worse things in this world. I already get that kind of thing in relation to trade circles.

Wait a second, why haven't we gone to war over people trying to poach my valuable resources?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like too see an actual apology like they wanted from Ivan Moldavi and Doppleganger...

I'd like a pony but Ivan refuses to give me one :(

The NSO and TDO made up, apology was made and brought here for all to see.

Diplomacy FTW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like too see an actual apology like they wanted from Ivan Moldavi and Doppleganger...

I'm sorry for being so damned entertaining. I should have never provided you all with hours of drama like I have.

Good luck to you, TDO.

As for the rabble, you all reacted as I anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for being so damned entertaining. I should have never provided you all with hours of drama like I have.

Good luck to you, TDO.

As for the rabble, you all reacted as I anticipated.

Does this mean Initiative 487B was a success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was NSO's original move of recruiting from Neutral Alliances. The pot shouldn't make a habit out of calling the kettle black.

Oh yes, because striking out and attempting to challenge the status quo and imaginary rules of "sovereignty" and proprietary hegemonic issues of national ownership is exactly the same as calling an entire group of people mentally challenged in an angry rage.

Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ooc] Except that people, especially minors and those playing a game, tend to act far differently when the biggest thing at stake is a few pixels... not actual human lives including their own... [/ooc]

yes, that's what I meant when saying that the circumstances and grounds under what you're operating in is significantly different. People will naturally react different given the consequences for their actions. In real life, going to war may mean your death. In this it means losing some pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it...because unless I'm mistake, which I could be, was it Ivan that made the apology that Voodoo posted?

Are you honestly trying to convince TDO and NSO that an issue between TDO and NSO isn't over despite the fact that both TDO and NSO have agreed that it is and moved on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...