An apology to the GPA

[Farrin Xies]

While I don't agree with their actions, it is refreshing to see that Ivan and the NSO can admit that he made a mistake.

I think that, really, this argument will never be solved - those of us who feel that "poaching" has occurred will always think that and be dismayed by the breach of sovereignty, while those who believe that inter-alliance recruiting is alright will similarly never change their positions. [ooc]28 pages[/ooc] of arguing doesn't really change that.

[heggo]

A woman (GPA) is walking down a street, a man (NSO) comes from behind and touches her.

I'd like to issue a personal apology to any national leaders I may have accidentally sexually assaulted throughout this entire ordeal. Truly, I am deeply sorry and, not that it makes it better, but I didn't even realize that I was grabbing your behinds.

Oh yes, and Silas- please don't give me 3-6.

[Bob Janova]

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

Incorrect. The recruiting forum here is passive; national rulers will only browse it if they are already disillusioned with their current home, and posting there is simply providing a service to nations looking for a new alliance. Sending recruitment PMs directly to nations is not equivalent to leaving information available to those who want it.

Farrin, this difference in ethical systems will be solved in the usual way: either through diplomacy and debate, or through projection of power. In this instance, the NSO has accepted that it made a mistake, and recognises that (most of) the rest of the world does not agree with its position, and so the issue is solved through diplomacy and debate.

[Helpma]

I'd like to issue a personal apology to any national leaders I may have accidentally sexually assaulted throughout this entire ordeal. Truly, I am deeply sorry and, not that it makes it better, but I didn't even realize that I was grabbing your behinds.

Oh, how many times have I heard that line. It's alright Heggo, my booty is indeed incredible, embrace your passion

Funny that everyone seems to be ignoring the very pertinent questions that Thomasj_tx asked. It's almost as if this whole discussion is a mirage, seemingly about NSO and GPA but really, fundamentally, all about something entirely different.

Nah, that surely can't be ....

[HeinousOne]

Oh, how many times have I heard that line. It's alright Heggo, my booty is indeed incredible, embrace your passion

Funny that everyone seems to be ignoring the very pertinent questions that Thomasj_tx asked. It's almost as if this whole discussion is a mirage, seemingly about NSO and GPA but really, fundamentally, all about something entirely different.

Nah, that surely can't be ....

At this point it is well past being an NSO and GPA issue. With the one person you have a nation ruler that is part of a micro alliance and he is afraid that if such actions are left without severe punishment that his tiny little alliance will be hit with recruitment messages non-stop. A very irrational fear but an obvious fear none the less. Just look at him calling for NSO blood when he has nothing to do with any of this. You take the good, you take the bad and there you have the facts of OWF.

At this point I have no idea what questions this Thomas guy asked.

[Corinan]

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

I think youwish misunderstood you. Either that or you pulled off a mind trick on him.

Just for clarification, we do not consider a nation to be weak or undedicated simply because they choose to leave an alliance. A nation may resign for a myriad of reasons, none of which may have anything to do with their strength or loyalty.

Jedi scum......

[Sileath]

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.

I agree with this. NSO is an alliance unlike any other, and quite a few people who were considered louses in their previous alliances have done well as a Sith.

This was also why Karma POW nations were targeted, because more than likely they were in that status because their previous alliance was substandard, not that they would be completely incapable of honorable service in any alliance.

[Heft]

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?

Actions are more effective than words. If we had simply posted a thread putting the issue up for debate then the subsequent debate would not have been anywhere near as lively. These sorts of things ultimately only get changed if actual action is taken. If you want to put forth the correctness of a minority position, then you will have to demonstrate that position. It can certainly be argued that we didn't do that as well as we could have, of course.

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

The Sith embrace passion and conflict. Neutrality necessarily does not, and while it does not necessarily mean passivity or defenselessness, it does tend to promote peace and seemingly inaction as well. You moderate or refuse your opinions or emotions or stances on incidents based on an ideological dedication to maintaining neutrality and non-interference. Ideologically speaking, that does put you about as far away from the NSO as an alliance can be.

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?

Not to dodge a question, but I'm not quite sure what you mean, to be honest.

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?

Well, we have already challenged a few, with varying success. We accepted ZI and PZI nations for our first few weeks, and we challenged the idea that wars must be extensive punitive affairs with complicated peace terms when we attacked CDC, and we challenged the idea that treaties are necessary for assisting an alliance in war when we declared against Molon Labe. Of those you mention, in a general sense I see no need to challenge them.

[HeinousOne]

Basically guys, NSO was trying to see if they could bring the action out of alliances that state they do not do such. While the Jedi use peace and words as their method, these Sith use action and aggression.

I would say they were defeated in this action in the most effective way possible. The neutral alliances did not break their principles at all and they come out of this with some great PR where as just the opposite is true for the Sith.

Had those alliances actually attacked NSO they might have actually done what the Sith wanted them to do. As it has been pointed out, alot of the NSO members are old timers whom are probably bored with the status quo of build nations until massive wars break out and last for mere moments compared to the build up.

Seems to me that NSO's true desire was for conflict rather then additional members. The simple act of alliance building is not so much their MO as is what they say it is, passion and conflict. They tried to cause the Neutrals to do both and they failed at both so why dont some of you folks take a moment to breath and look over the situation. You might just find that the Neutrals are of clearer mind then any of you as they seem to have sniffed the truth in all of this out.

[Corinan]

I would say they were defeated in this action in the most effective way possible. The neutral alliances did not break their principles at all and they come out of this with some great PR where as just the opposite is true for the Sith.

With all due respect, everything played out exactly how we expected it to play out. We got exactly what we wanted out of this.

[HeinousOne]

With all due respect, everything played out exactly how we expected it to play out. We got exactly what we wanted out of this.

Which goes to show that you did not send recruitment messages to those alliances for the conventional reasons that most alliances send such. That seems to be the issue that most people are not understanding.

[Doitzel]

With all due respect, everything played out exactly how we expected it to play out. We got exactly what we wanted out of this.

OOC: A little bit of fun in lieu of the XBOX?

[Aeternos Astramora]

Yup, Citadel has shown no passive aggressiveness against FrostBite.

I can not recall any such instances, but nice red herring. Even if Citadel has shown passive aggressiveness against Frostbite, that doesn't negate the passive aggressiveness displayed by the OP against TDO, which, may I remind you, is unaffiliated with Citadel and everyone else.

[Heft]

I really don't see any passive aggressiveness in the OP.

[Thomasj_tx]

First, thanks for addressing my questions.

Not to dodge a question, but I'm not quite sure what you mean, to be honest.

Let me see if I can be more clear.....

NSO chose to challenge the recognized norm against recruiting other alliances. NSO 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”.

Is your challenge against norms based upon the ideology of a given Alliance or does it apply to all Alliances? Since a "norm", by definition, applies to all Alliances of varying ideology, why did you challenge this norm by targeting a very small subset of all of the Alliances with vastly different ideologies? Why didn't you target a random sampling of Alliances with varying ideologies? Or even those with ideologies that are like the NSO?

Also, if I may follow up on this response of yours:

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

The Sith embrace passion and conflict. Neutrality necessarily does not, and while it does not necessarily mean passivity or defenselessness, it does tend to promote peace and seemingly inaction as well. You moderate or refuse your opinions or emotions or stances on incidents based on an ideological dedication to maintaining neutrality and non-interference. Ideologically speaking, that does put you about as far away from the NSO as an alliance can be.

I have no basis to challenge the fact that the NSO embraces passion and conflict. However, I do take exception with your assumption that Neutrality does not contain passion and equates to inaction or passiveness. I doubt that you could find many members of the GPA that are dispassionate about their values. And I can assure you that maintaining these values is not a passive undertaking. In many ways, maintaining these values are more difficult in CN then the values of conflict and pot-stirring.

If I may sum up what the differences you pointed out in my words....

While the NSO and GPA have equal levels of passion for their values, NSO values conflict and aggression while the GPA values friendly, diplomatic and impartial conduct when dealing with other nations and Alliances. If this a fair summation?

Thanks again for addressing my questions.

[Unko Kalaikz]

This apology doesn't mean we aren't barbarians anymore.

Barbaric!

[Heft]

First, thanks for addressing my questions.

Let me see if I can be more clear.....

NSO chose to challenge the recognized norm against recruiting other alliances. NSO 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”.

Is your challenge against norms based upon the ideology of a given Alliance or does it apply to all Alliances? Since a "norm", by definition, applies to all Alliances of varying ideology, why did you challenge this norm by targeting a very small subset of all of the Alliances with vastly different ideologies? Why didn't you target a random sampling of Alliances with varying ideologies? Or even those with ideologies that are like the NSO?

It made sense to send the messages to those alliances that we perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be obviously distant and distinct from us in a real ideological way, so that was what we did. Which alliances received the messages didn't seem to have much bearing on the norm challenging aspect of it.

I have no basis to challenge the fact that the NSO embraces passion and conflict. However, I do take exception with your assumption that Neutrality does not contain passion and equates to inaction or passiveness. I doubt that you could find many members of the GPA that are dispassionate about their values. And I can assure you that maintaining these values is not a passive undertaking. In many ways, maintaining these values are more difficult in CN then the values of conflict and pot-stirring.

If I may sum up what the differences you pointed out in my words....

While the NSO and GPA have equal levels of passion for their values, NSO values conflict and aggression while the GPA values friendly, diplomatic and impartial conduct when dealing with other nations and Alliances. If this a fair summation?

Thanks again for addressing my questions.

The GPA, as a rule, keeps those passions to themselves and does not seek to have a significant impact on the rest of the world. I'm not so sure we value "aggression," but we certainly don't value impartiality, so you're more or less correct I suppose. (On a sort of side note, I think proper diplomacy is something most alliances these days aren't too good at, probably a result of all the hegemony stuff spoiling everyone)

This apology doesn't mean we aren't barbarians anymore.

Barbaric!

OOC: That video is hilarious.

[TehChron]

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.

(Bold Mine) And I pointed out that reasoning is absurd because one can do the same by canceling a trade with members of an alliance. Fundamentally, it is the same thing. Acting to weaken an alliance by reducing its NS or financial capability of growth or whatever.

Canceling trades clearly isnt considered a valid CB. Your reasoning fails.

[Thomasj_tx]

I appreciate your replies, Heft. It is always good to gain a little better understanding of all the nations and Alliances.

Norms are something that develop over time and without any real concerted effort. They are kind of like the unwritten rules of society. I agree that there is an ebb and flow to all norms, but any lasting change in norms does not come from a single incident or the attempt of a fraction of society to change them.. They just have to evolve or they have to be agreed to by the majority of the society. Or else they become unilateral declarations and not real norms.

Personally I would like to see a change in the norm about sending and accepting aid while involved in a war. If the aid is obviously the legal completion of a Tech Deal, that should not be considered taboo. But no doubt, that would take a recognition by the CN society.

As to the other point, passion manifests itself in many forms on PB. Internal community verses external interaction. Friendly interactions verses confrontations. Economic growth verses military strength.

Neither is better at the expense of the other. Just imagine how much more boring PB would be if there was no diversity of approach or ideology. Just imagine how uninteresting this world would be if everyone marched to the same drummer. Just imagine how much smaller this world would be if there were not varied options.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Thomasjtx

[Heft]

I appreciate your replies, Heft. It is always good to gain a little better understanding of all the nations and Alliances.

Norms are something that develop over time and without any real concerted effort. They are kind of like the unwritten rules of society. I agree that there is an ebb and flow to all norms, but any lasting change in norms does not come from a single incident or the attempt of a fraction of society to change them.. They just have to evolve or they have to be agreed to by the majority of the society. Or else they become unilateral declarations and not real norms.

Personally I would like to see a change in the norm about sending and accepting aid while involved in a war. If the aid is obviously the legal completion of a Tech Deal, that should not be considered taboo. But no doubt, that would take a recognition by the CN society.

As to the other point, passion manifests itself in many forms on PB. Internal community verses external interaction. Friendly interactions verses confrontations. Economic growth verses military strength.

Neither is better at the expense of the other. Just imagine how much more boring PB would be if there was no diversity of approach or ideology. Just imagine how uninteresting this world would be if everyone marched to the same drummer. Just imagine how much smaller this world would be if there were not varied options.

I think it's clear that this particular norm has not been changed for good by this incident, but it's also clear that it has raised the issue in a dramatic way and has spurred real discussion about it, which may lead to it changing. I do agree that the rigid ban on aid to nations at war is often a bit over the top and certain situations a harsh response is uncalled for, but someone else is going to have to get the ball rolling on that one, most likely.

As for the rest, I think that we can both agree that the values of our alliances are quite distinct. I do have to give the GPA and similar alliances credit for actually having values and an ideology and actually sticking to it, though, even if I do disagree with it.

[Lord Philip]

It's refreshing to see a thread such as this evolve into a real discussion and, as such, make good reading.

tl:dr-

o/ GPA & NSO

[KahlanRahl]

The Sith embrace passion and conflict. Neutrality necessarily does not, and while it does not necessarily mean passivity or defenselessness, it does tend to promote peace and seemingly inaction as well. You moderate or refuse your opinions or emotions or stances on incidents based on an ideological dedication to maintaining neutrality and non-interference. Ideologically speaking, that does put you about as far away from the NSO as an alliance can be.

We don't refuse our opinions. We just don't share them in public. Or well some of us don't.

With all due respect, everything played out exactly how we expected it to play out. We got exactly what we wanted out of this.

... and you got what from this? I'm a bit confused as to how you got exactly what you wanted.

[Thomasj_tx]

I think it's clear that this particular norm has not been changed for good by this incident, but it's also clear that it has raised the issue in a dramatic way and has spurred real discussion about it, which may lead to it changing. I do agree that the rigid ban on aid to nations at war is often a bit over the top and certain situations a harsh response is uncalled for, but someone else is going to have to get the ball rolling on that one, most likely.

As for the rest, I think that we can both agree that the values of our alliances are quite distinct. I do have to give the GPA and similar alliances credit for actually having values and an ideology and actually sticking to it, though, even if I do disagree with it.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss the real topic of this thread.

Norms take a general movement and not individual actions. But I agree that a good discussion is the way to get real change more so than individual attempts. Let's see what happens on this topic and the other topics that have been discussed.

I do agree that our values, while no more or less passionate, are distinct. And I am pleased that you can see that different values are not a bad thing, but in fact a good thing for the future of Planet Bob. While you may disagree with the values of other nations and alliances, I could never bring myself to do so. At best I look forward to different values. And at worse, I could care less.

Differences in values are what makes PB spin. Without that, it would be very boring.

[xxghx0xstxx]

Flaming/attacking the GPA is like.... Well, flaming or attacking a really big nice guy. You're going to agitate him until he decimates you.

Smooth move on biting the bullet and manning up, Ivan. It takes less courage to insult a giant than it does to take those words back (EDIT) and be sincere about it.

[Bob Janova]

And I pointed out that reasoning is absurd because one can do the same by canceling a trade with members of an alliance. Fundamentally, it is the same thing.

1. Cancelling a trade does not have such an effect, in most cases – unless the nation is on its 19th day, or an anniversary, your trade can almost certainly be replaced before collection and the damage will be zero. The damage from removing a nation from the alliance is immediate and large.

2. Sanctioning a nation – effectively the same as cancelling all its trades – certainly is a hostile act.

3. A coordinated cancellation of all trades with nations of a particular alliance might be seen as a hostile act. I don't believe that this has ever been done, as cancelling a trade has as much effect on you as on your trade partner, so it has not been tested. This is what you should compare it to: a single NSO nation sending a recruitment message would not be thought of as particularly hostile (which is equivalent to 'cancelling a trade'); what you did is to arrange a coordinated spamming of recruitment messages, which is equivalent to simultaneously cancelling all trades with that alliance.