An apology to the GPA

[Voodoo Nova]

Their denying that poaching is a DoW, while I'm saying that poaching is a DoW depending if the alliance that was poached upon sees it as a DoW.

If the alliance does not see it as a DoW (as GPA saw it) then it's not a DoW, but if an alliance saw it as a DoW then its war.

The word you're looking for is Casus Belli. It fits in a bit better.

[bzelger]

To claim that recruitment messages are a violation of sovereignty doesn’t make any sense to me. It in no way infringes on the powers of the sovereign of the nation being solicited. Heck, as long as there is an option to block messages from another nation there isn’t even a violation of their tenuous right to control information traffic within their nation.

Even then it’s a reach to consider those messages recruitment messages; it’s obvious to anyone that read their content that nobody expected to gain any members from that.

Not being a violation of sovereignty doesn’t mean it was a good move though. I don’t think that recruitment messages are that big of a deal, but I’m glad that the stigma is there so that I don’t constantly have to wade through spam correspondence from the hordes that are eager to have my illustrious self grace their alliance.

Intentionally violating a social norm with the seeming intention of raising hackles is surely expected to cause some measure of ire. The deliberately insulting content of the messages is a step worse in a big way, which everyone seems to agree on. Since analogies seem to be well-received here, I think I’ll make one. This act is in no way similar to (or on the level of) an invasion of their territory or a restriction of their rights (as in a violation of sovereignty). It’s more like walking up to a guy in a bar and waving your finger in their face, or casting aspersions on their parentage.

Just because it isn’t a violation of sovereignty doesn’t mean it doesn’t merit a bloody nose. Had the affronted parties elected to hit NSO in the chops they would have been fully justified, as long as the nature of the fight was appropriately reflective of the insult. Even though it would have been impractical, I think a week-long, conventional brawl followed by a clean armistice in response to this would have been perfectly fitting. It would have been an excellent precedent, in my opinion.

In this case the aggrieved parties have instead elected to ask the guy waving his finger around to knock it off, which he has. That is also a respectable response, and the continued bluster from friends and standers-by after everyone involved has reached an accord is unbecoming.

[King Silas]

I was not referring to the literal real world, but rather the CN world.

edit: What sarcasm? I was being completely serious. Ivan Moldavi, Corinan, heft. They have been around forever and ruled some of the largest alliances this game has ever seen. They should have known better than this.

*shrugs* then I read it wrong/ you made a bad post. I think I'll go with both.

you where? sorry, I didn't see it that way and yes they ALL should have known better.

[TehChron]

What I don't get here is that a one of the role playing foundations of an alliance's community is determining their real world courses of action. This isn't Star Wars, this is CN. We play by an entirely different rule book here, and your seasoned line up of members should have mastered it by now.

I think its pretty commonly acknowledged that they have mastered the political mechanics of Planet Bob...Therefore, wouldnt this action (not the regrettable tone, but the sending of messsages) indicate that perhaps the concept of poaching as CB is itself without merit within the confines of this world?

[Hyperion321]

I think its pretty commonly acknowledged that they have mastered the political mechanics of Planet Bob...Therefore, wouldnt this action (not the regrettable tone, but the sending of messsages) indicate that perhaps the concept of poaching as CB is itself without merit within the confines of this world?

Perhaps they thought so, but the public backlash is quiet a strong signal that they were wrong and that there is still a strong public stance against poaching, no?

[ChairmanHal]

To claim that recruitment messages are a violation of sovereignty doesn’t make any sense to me. It in no way infringes on the powers of the sovereign of the nation being solicited. Heck, as long as there is an option to block messages from another nation there isn’t even a violation of their tenuous right to control information traffic within their nation.

Even then it’s a reach to consider those messages recruitment messages; it’s obvious to anyone that read their content that nobody expected to gain any members from that.

No, I'm certain they did.

Not being a violation of sovereignty doesn’t mean it was a good move though. I don’t think that recruitment messages are that big of a deal, but I’m glad that the stigma is there so that I don’t constantly have to wade through spam correspondence from the hordes that are eager to have my illustrious self grace their alliance.

This has been overlooked, but is probably the most important reason of them all. Alliances PM their members directly for a variety of reasons, some of them very serious business.

Intentionally violating a social norm with the seeming intention of raising hackles is surely expected to cause some measure of ire. The deliberately insulting content of the messages is a step worse in a big way, which everyone seems to agree on. Since analogies seem to be well-received here, I think I’ll make one. This act is in no way similar to (or on the level of) an invasion of their territory or a restriction of their rights (as in a violation of sovereignty). It’s more like walking up to a guy in a bar and waving your finger in their face, or casting aspersions on their parentage.

A reasonable analogy. I believe in another thread I also made the analogy of someone walking up to girlfriend in a bar, hitting on her, and asking you to hold his drink while he does it. Insulting to you. Shows a complete and utter lack of respect on any level.

Just because it isn’t a violation of sovereignty doesn’t mean it doesn’t merit a bloody nose. Had the affronted parties elected to hit NSO in the chops they would have been fully justified, as long as the nature of the fight was appropriately reflective of the insult. Even though it would have been impractical, I think a week-long, conventional brawl followed by a clean armistice in response to this would have been perfectly fitting. It would have been an excellent precedent, in my opinion.

It wouldn't go down that way of course, but you can can dream I suppose. You, Rommel, each in either own tank, having drink together then shooting it out to determine the winner of the whole war...

In this case the aggrieved parties have instead elected to ask the guy waving his finger around to knock it off, which he has. That is also a respectable response, and the continued bluster from friends and standers-by after everyone involved has reached an accord is unbecoming.

It's what we do for entertainment around here during the slow months.

Also, other parties have seen it as an opportunity. Neither side seems to want to back down either.

[Angrator]

Perhaps they thought so, but the public backlash is quiet a strong signal that they were wrong and that there is still a strong public stance against poaching, no?

People have always hated new ideas at first. It is only over time that they eventually get accepted.

[TehChron]

Perhaps they thought so, but the public backlash is quiet a strong signal that they were wrong and that there is still a strong public stance against poaching, no?

That fact has been acknowledged publically and in the OP, actually. Hence the continued facepalming at the dragging on of this discussion.

[bzelger]

It wouldn't go down that way of course, but you can can dream I suppose. You, Rommel, each in either own tank, having drink together then shooting it out to determine the winner of the whole war...

I know. I acknowledged it's infeasibility in passing. It really is lamentable, though, that the only options available to deal with a petty insult are to either more or less take it, or else a crippling nuclear holocaust.

[Thomasj_tx]

Therefore, wouldnt this action (not the regrettable tone, but the sending of messsages) indicate that perhaps the concept of poaching as CB is itself without merit within the confines of this world?

Somewhere earlier in this thread, the NSO said that this was done to challenge the accepted norms. They chose to challenge recruiting other alliances which seemed to be an admission that not doing so is an accepted “norm”. They also said that they chose to levy this “challenge” against the GPA because it is an alliance “most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint”.

I have few questions.

1) If the intent was to “challenge” an accepted norm, then why not challenge the norm through discussions of the validity or need of the norm and then either gain acceptance that the norm should stand or not?

2) Why do you think that the GPA is “most opposed to you from an ideological standpoint”? In what ways?

3) Do you accept and/or reject norms based on the ideology of the alliance? In other words, would you accept a norm for one alliance and reject it for another?

4) What other norms do you feel should be “challenged”? Do you accept the norm that sending or accepting aid while a nation or their alliance is at war is not acceptable? Do you accept the norm that a nation has the right to trade resources with any other nation? Do you accept the norm that OOC personal attacks are taboo?

I look forward to your replies and thank you in advance for them.

[Hyperion321]

People have always hated new ideas at first. It is only over time that they eventually get accepted.

Nuclear proliferation and power blocs are a lot different than recruiting directly from other alliances. Most common ideals that evolved into normalcy today have done so out of necessity to preserve power, or deter threats. Recruiting from other alliances is done so out of intent to undermine the efforts of other alliances, which in turn allows aggressiveness, and dare I say "!@#$%baggery", to rule the day. Given the recent shift in global attitude and power, I highly doubt people will allow such a barbaric practice like poaching to become commonplace.

Sparta, for instance, would sooner flatten poachers than commend their edginess and forward thinking, and boy would we enjoy it.

[KainIIIC]

So yeah, it's sort of a stretch to make it legitimate, but it can certainly be legitimate.

"legitimacy", as important as it is, is completely subjective and within the eye of the beholder. This experiment did show a few things: That social mores and norms change within time and are completely artificial, and that an action like this would elicit a response akin to "it's wrong because it's wrong! (mmkay)"

[Corinan]

Given the recent shift in global attitude and power, I highly doubt people will allow such a barbaric practice like poaching to become commonplace.

This gets better and better. Now sending out recuitment messages is "barbaric." How so, exactly? No one has given me a decent answer yet. What is wrong with sending a recruitment message to a nation already in an alliance?

Think of it this way, why would you want a nation in your ranks if they're so easily swayed to leave by a recruitment message? Wouldn't you want them to leave? It's better than them leaving when you truly need them.

What I'm getting at is an alliance should be thankful for losing their wishy-washy member. It's addition by subtraction. I'll let it sink in for you all. You can thank us later.

[Sylar]

This gets better and better. Now sending out recuitment messages is "barbaric." How so, exactly? No one has given me a decent answer yet. What is wrong with sending a recruitment message to a nation already in an alliance?

Think of it this way, why would you want a nation in your ranks if they're so easily swayed to leave by a recruitment message? Wouldn't you want them to leave? It's better than them leaving when you truly need them.

What I'm getting at is an alliance should be thankful for losing their wishy-washy member. It's addition by subtraction. I'll let it sink in for you all. You can thank us later.

the real question should be why would YOU want a nation that was so easily swayed to your side in your alliance.

All semantics.

[Hyperion321]

This gets better and better. Now sending out recuitment messages is "barbaric." How so, exactly? No one has given me a decent answer yet. What is wrong with sending a recruitment message to a nation already in an alliance?

It undermines the efforts of other alliances to retain their members. For example, if an alliance, NSO for instance, came along and started recruiting new players from a hypothetical alliance that I ran, I would be very pissed. Those new players might not know any better, and might leave our alliance based on all of the glitz and glamor rhetoric that you throw at them in that message. My alliance would not only be losing a member because of you, but all of the money that we invested into that member.

Think of it this way, why would you want a nation in your ranks if they're so easily swayed to leave by a recruitment message? Wouldn't you want them to leave? It's better than them leaving when you truly need them.

More importantly, why would you want to recruit such nations. If you see those who fall for your messages as the bottom of the barrell, what is your motivation for recruiting them?

edit: grrr Sylar beat me.

What I'm getting at is an alliance should be thankful for losing their wishy-washy member. It's addition by subtraction. I'll let it sink in for you all. You can thank us later.

Smugness does not a good argument make.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Hyperion321

[Corinan]

the real question should be why would YOU want a nation that was so easily swayed to your side in your alliance.

All semantics.

That's an easy question to answer. Perhaps their old alliance just wasn't a right fit for them? Maybe their old alliance was poorly run? Maybe it was just plain boring?

Just because a nation can't show undying loyalty to one alliance doesn't mean he/she can't for any. I would like to give that nation the opportunity to test his/hers mettle in the Sith.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Corinan

[KainIIIC]

I highly doubt people will allow such a barbaric practice like poaching to become commonplace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU

like that?

[Aeternos Astramora]

Yup, no passive aggressiveness against TDO with this announcement.

[youwish959]

Yup, no passive aggressiveness against TDO with this announcement.

Yup, Citadel has shown no passive aggressiveness against FrostBite.

[Bob Janova]

Isn't this a thread about the GPA?

Corinan: I explained this in the TDO thread, perhaps you missed it. Recruiting from within another alliance is wrong because you are actively weakening that alliance, just as surely as if you attacked it to reduce its NS (perhaps more so, since by stealing members you also steal knowledge, aid slots and a member of the community). To deliberately weaken another alliance in such a way is an aggressive act.

Your argument about 'surely if they are so easy to sway they are not worth keeping' ignores the fact that recruitment messages will always make the new alliance sound misleadingly appealing, and similarly overstate the bad part of the nation's current situation.

[SpoiL]

Isn't this a thread about the GPA?

Corinan: I explained this in the TDO thread, perhaps you missed it. Recruiting from within another alliance is wrong because you are actively weakening that alliance, just as surely as if you attacked it to reduce its NS (perhaps more so, since by stealing members you also steal knowledge, aid slots and a member of the community). To deliberately weaken another alliance in such a way is an aggressive act.

Your argument about 'surely if they are so easy to sway they are not worth keeping' ignores the fact that recruitment messages will always make the new alliance sound misleadingly appealing, and similarly overstate the bad part of the nation's current situation.

Tell that to this forum. The only difference between the two is found in the box that you are living in.

[youwish959]

Isn't this a thread about the GPA?

Corinan: I explained this in the TDO thread, perhaps you missed it. Recruiting from within another alliance is wrong because you are actively weakening that alliance, just as surely as if you attacked it to reduce its NS (perhaps more so, since by stealing members you also steal knowledge, aid slots and a member of the community). To deliberately weaken another alliance in such a way is an aggressive act.

Your argument about 'surely if they are so easy to sway they are not worth keeping' ignores the fact that recruitment messages will always make the new alliance sound misleadingly appealing, and similarly overstate the bad part of the nation's current situation.

It is strengthening the alliance by removing the unloyal, undedicated and weak.

Edited July 5, 2009 by youwish959

[Doitzel]

It is strengthening the alliance by removing the unloyal, undedicated and weak.

Such people do thrive amongst the Sith.

[youwish959]

Such people do thrive amongst the Sith.

Did I say they didn't?

[Doitzel]

Did I say they didn't?

No. It's simply a telling admission on your part.