Question for those of you who have had a Viceroy

[kevin32891]

How about you drop it then?

Woah hold the phone! You're telling him to drop it when all of Karma cries about how we did it

and how we are being condemned for it?

I believe you're talking to the wrong person.

[Sal Paradise]

Woah hold the phone! You're telling him to drop it when all of Karma cries about how we did it

and how we are being condemned for it?

I believe you're talking to the wrong person.

No, I'm telling him to drop when it's not the topic of the thread.

[kevin32891]

No, I'm telling him to drop when it's not the topic of the thread.

My mistake.

[enderland]

No it isn't, but I'm not surprised the subject is being raised. If our karma foes even suggested a viceroy for the NPO, no we wouldn't disband. We'd just laugh and tell them to get lost. So it would be a total waste of their time and energy trying.

What if that was the only term?

[kevin32891]

I'm confused isn't Viceroyship not allowed anymore in the game?

[Sal Paradise]

OOC: you're not allowed to use the game to force someone to give you their private property, which is what most viceroyalties did (i.e. the forum owner had to give their forums to the victorious alliance). Importantly, it's no longer allowed here because it's illegal. Viceroys can be technically 'allowed' I suppose, if it didn't involve any sort of illegal activity. However, I would consider the suggested alternative to be of dubious legality myself (i.e. forcing members of an alliance to join a new forum).

Edited July 17, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[bzelger]

A viceroy can do a great deal still: they can claim authority over treaties, military activities/troop levels, membership, and aid flow. I don't see a viceroy as a bad thing in principle as long as the person appointed has the appropriate goals, and the viceroyship has clearly-defined powers, and there is a rigidly-set duration.

In fact, a viceroy that does what I've outlined above should be preferable to terms that outright ban all treaties, strictly limit troop levels, and eliminate outside aid. An authority that can readily make exceptions for rogue attacks, paying outstanding debts or getting people out of bill-lock, and even allow low-level or low-risk treaties to begin sounding out new allies seems desirable compared to having to dash around to the 18 people you've surrendered to in order to deal with daily surrender-term vicissitudes.

If you word it right you could even use it to ameliorate the NPO's fears (which are asserted to be unfounded) that they will be attacked for not meeting payments. Say, make the viceroy responsible for managing (or at least, overseeing) aid movements and having the NPO only militarily accountable if they refuseto cooperate. I.e., the viceroy will determine how much aid is reasonable to move in a given period (and as he will be Karma-appointed he has no reason to be gentle), and the NPO will demonstrate to him that they've made a good-faith effort to meet those goals. If it becomes an issue that they can't do it because of inactive nations they will be able to present evidence that nations have not read their instructions (OOC: screenshots of unopened pms), or if there are obstinately noncompliant nations they can be expelled.

If the protocol is clearly defined and the viceroy has authority to be flexible I would think that alliances receiving heavy terms (especially when delivered from an unwieldy coalition) would prefer a viceroy. It's not any greater a violation of sovereignty than the terms already are.

[Waterana]

No, I'm telling him to drop when it's not the topic of the thread.

Just for the record, I'm a her.

That was going to be my one and only post in this thread, and was posted to put an NPO voice behind a no response to any future suggestions of a viceroy for us.

As the NPO is constantly told by karma, the victor gets to decide what peace terms are offered. As karma are constantly told by the NPO, the defeated alliance gets to decide to accept said terms. Viceroys were accepted by defeated alliances in times past as a part of their surrender. They didn't have to accept it, but they chose to. Whether it ended up working out good or bad, it was their decision.

For Legion members, I have a question. Honestly don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard a rumour that some of you came to the NPO and asked for the viceroy during the purplegate debacle, and that it wasn't forced on you. Is that true?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Waterana

[ShinRa]

As the NPO is constantly told by karma, the victor gets to decide what peace terms are offered. As karma are constantly told by the NPO, the defeated alliance gets to decide to accept said terms. Viceroys were accepted by defeated alliances in times past as a part of their surrender. They didn't have to accept it, but they chose to. Whether it ended up working out good or bad, it was their decision.

If a leader accepts terms when given to him at gunpoint, when he knows that rejecting them will ultimately result in his ultimate end and the ends of those who follow him, does he have a choice?

The only choice you ever seemed to give alliances was the choice between accepting whatever terms you delivered to them, or eventually be either driven into a weakened and besieged state hiding in peace mode or alternatively destroyed.

Look into my sig, compare the different terms you offered alliances, do you honestly think that if they had another option that the alliance leaders would have accepted such terms to be imposed upon their alliance?

Does anyone here who has been in an alliance under the control of a Viceroy say that they honestly enjoyed having a member of an enemy alliance in near total control, or agreed with the actions they made while in power?

Edited July 17, 2009 by ShinRa

[Jipps]

If a leader accepts terms when given to him at gunpoint, when he knows that rejecting them will ultimately result in his ultimate end and the ends of those who follow him, does he have a choice?

The only choice you ever seemed to give alliances was the choice between accepting whatever terms you delivered to them, or eventually be either driven into a weakened and besieged state hiding in peace mode or alternatively destroyed.

We are coming up on 3 months now, are the attackers of NPO acting any different? Last I checked they were still saying they weren't going to budge from the terms they offered.

Theres always a choice on terms.

[ShinRa]

Theres always a choice on terms.

Not when the people who are winning are pulling acts such as stating that any nation who enters peace mode shall be sentenced to EZI.

And yes, I still hold that against them. The NPO's choice here is simple, they can surrender or die out as CN slowly stagnates due to their own pride and arrogance. This is supposedly a choice, but only one allows for them to continue to eventually rebuild, grow and become stronger.

The same can be said of the gunpoint diplomacy (or gunboat diplomacy if you prefer) used by the NPO, there was a choice but it was a choice between surrendering or ending up like FAN.

Edited July 18, 2009 by ShinRa

[Hymenbreach]

For Legion members, I have a question. Honestly don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard a rumour that some of you came to the NPO and asked for the viceroy during the purplegate debacle, and that it wasn't forced on you. Is that true?

I asked "what can the Legion do to survive this?" and got those terms. It appears these terms where offered to Pezstar during an earlier crisis but were turned down, thinking that we would not accept them (and probably rightly at that time, when I accepted them we were in a far more perilous place).

[King Death II]

Well the only viceroy I ever was under was when I was in Northern Treaty Organization and GGA put a viceroy over us after that whole mess to avoid a war with GGA. The time under the viceroy was meh, partially because the viceroy wasnt that in our throats and wasnt that active so it kind of eased the whole thing. It still was kind of a pain since we in NTO were a loud and rowdy bunch, it was hard. I dont like viceroys but yea thats my experience.

[Waterana]

I asked "what can the Legion do to survive this?" and got those terms. It appears these terms where offered to Pezstar during an earlier crisis but were turned down, thinking that we would not accept them (and probably rightly at that time, when I accepted them we were in a far more perilous place).

Ok, thanks for the answer.

[Daedalus27]

As a GATO member, I pushed for the acceptance of the viceroy because we had no other option. Our banks were forced out of peace mode thanks to the NPO EZI declaration, our nations were destroyed. The war was over after the declaration but given the history, the NPO would accept nothing short of total victory. The only way to salvage some sort of community was to accept a viceroy or risk fragementation due to unending war. A viceroy is never a good option and is a tool of humiliation of the victors.

I have to say I don't have an opinion on the effectiveness of a viceroy because I was in the initial purge for questioning what the viceroy and his associates were doing. I had no warning, no opportunity to be heard, simply thrown out without any notice. I had to get the message on the absurd charges from members. I don't know how they worked or didn't work for GATO.

I don't believe viceroys should be used, but I can't say I would shed a tear if the Karma forces imposed it as a required peace term on NPO. Of course the NPO would have to accept such a term and right now they are still in their blustering stage where they feel they can effect negotiations. We will see how long they can accept lacking relevance on planet bob and the fragmentation that will occur as the war drags on.

[enderland]

I'm confused isn't Viceroyship not allowed anymore in the game?

It's not allowed because people aren't creative enough.

[Prime minister Johns]

Not when the people who are winning are pulling acts such as stating that any nation who enters peace mode shall be sentenced to EZI.

And yes, I still hold that against them. The NPO's choice here is simple, they can surrender or die out as CN slowly stagnates due to their own pride and arrogance. This is supposedly a choice, but only one allows for them to continue to eventually rebuild, grow and become stronger.

The same can be said of the gunpoint diplomacy (or gunboat diplomacy if you prefer) used by the NPO, there was a choice but it was a choice between surrendering or ending up like FAN.

A major problem with agreements signed at gunpoint is that they tend to be conveniently forgotten when they can no longer be enforced.

Consider the virtues of diplomacy as a force for change rather than brute force.

A person who has been persuaded by reason and diplomacy to change will stay that way for good, but change that has been forced will not stay after the force has been removed.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[kerschbs]

Viceroys are never a good thing, they do too much damage to an internal community. NPO did give GATO a lot of aid in getting our nations out of bill lock, and helped clean up our forums(after 6 months of war, our ministries needed to be rebuilt to an extent,) but these are not things GATO could not have done by herself. Though the NPO did give us some tools we probably never would have come up with.

Viceroys may not be as bad as many people think, but I would still never advocate(seriously) that a viceroy be placed on an alliance. And yes, I did vote in favor of a NPO viceroy for GATO, but mainly because I thought(probably correctly) that we had no other options out of war.

[Jipps]

Not when the people who are winning are pulling acts such as stating that any nation who enters peace mode shall be sentenced to EZI.

And yes, I still hold that against them. The NPO's choice here is simple, they can surrender or die out as CN slowly stagnates due to their own pride and arrogance. This is supposedly a choice, but only one allows for them to continue to eventually rebuild, grow and become stronger.

The same can be said of the gunpoint diplomacy (or gunboat diplomacy if you prefer) used by the NPO, there was a choice but it was a choice between surrendering or ending up like FAN.

Even if someone tell you that you are on their EZI list, you still have choice mate. It may not be easy or the right choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.

I don't think anyone who really knows the NPO could ever see them die out. They are making choices to not take into the surrender terms and no one can force them too, just as FAN decided to do for an even much longer period of time.

Some alliances don't have the will power or strength to hold out for better terms, but if your alliance isn't capable of doing the most basic parts of an alliance like defending your rights then you should probably just call it quits anyways. I'm not saying its right that alliances are forced into this poition to make tough decisions, but at the end they are still making the decisions.

[Francesca]

OOC: you're not allowed to use the game to force someone to give you their private property, which is what most viceroyalties did (i.e. the forum owner had to give their forums to the victorious alliance). Importantly, it's no longer allowed here because it's illegal. Viceroys can be technically 'allowed' I suppose, if it didn't involve any sort of illegal activity. However, I would consider the suggested alternative to be of dubious legality myself (i.e. forcing members of an alliance to join a new forum).

(OOC) Not quite accurate- a victorious alliance cannot force their defeated opponent to give someone outside of the alliance root admin access, as I understand it. That doesn't rule out a see-all mask. (OOC)

Edited July 19, 2009 by Francesca

[SleepiB]

[ooc]AFAIK you can't demand any privileges on user-hosted forums, this includes any masks admin or no. You can however demand that the viceroy be kept informed of everything CN-related, and word the terms such that a see-all or whatever mask is the easiest way to fulfill that term.

Edited July 19, 2009 by SleepiB

[Sal Paradise]

(OOC) Not quite accurate- a victorious alliance cannot force their defeated opponent to give someone outside of the alliance root admin access, as I understand it. That doesn't rule out a see-all mask. (OOC)

OOC: I think it would. In fact, that's even more dubious than forcing everyone to change forums. But I don't think this is the place to explain it.

[Nolissar]

OOC: I think it would. In fact, that's even more dubious than forcing everyone to change forums. But I don't think this is the place to explain it.

Listen to this Jedi, for he is wise and has posted the truth, or as close to it as you can get with a quasi-legal opinion.

[Lizardo]

I created the initial opening for a Viceroy and helped push it through. This was a conscious choice to preserve the community from extinction. A little humility in exchange for survival isn't such a bad thing. We're still here.

Initially we had assigned to us the socially maladroit Koona, but subsequent appointees adjusted to our community and I hope they were able to depart better people for the experience.

A Viceroy, no matter the intent or practice, has by its nature a harmful impact. We can measure this by GATO recruitment in the aftermath of GWIII, during the Viceroy, and the post Viceroy period. In short the period of occupation was a period of stasis compared to our former and current growth. A long period of stasis.

That said, a Viceroy is no more onerous or illegal than any other post ceasefire terms whether you call them reparations, extortion or justice. The admin has adjusted the TSO to curb expropriation of OOC property, that's all. Short of that we have no laws so I don't know how anything can be labeled a crime.

To be direct, any peace terms are better than none at all. But the present war is simply not yet at a place where total defeat is at hand and inescapable so it is understandable that the NPO is reluctant to take up whatever is on the table. And I'm not aware that a Viceroy is being offered.

To answer the OP question, the imposition of a Viceroy is no more immoral than any other condition, relative to the 'morality' of the conflict. If the war was unjust so are any and all imposed conditions. If the war is just, then the conditions imposed must correspond to the right to make the injured party whole and may include what is necessary, and proportional, to impose a disincentive to repeat the offending acts.

If the imposition of a Viceroy furthers this then this tool is principled. A positive feature of a Viceroy is that it relieves the controlled alliance of any responsibility for compliance and is reasonably good assurance of not being warred against for that duration.

In regards to the contradiction of imposing a 'condemned' tactic by those who condemn it one must point out that it is no more a contradiction than when those who oppose war must engage in it to defend themselves. The originators and practitioners of a practice open the door to its use upon themselves as they have made it plain by their own actions that it is an acceptable practice in their case. A principal of symmetry.

Once the asymmetry is restored to balance (hostilities ended) and conditions are generally agreed upon as to what is unacceptable, we go from there.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Lizardo