SpoiL Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 When they claim they're going to rebuild and do it again and again and again and again, yeah. Obviously if they claim that they're going to do it again then they wouldn't be accepted. However, some newb sending a pm similar to YOU GUYZ R EBIL! IM GONNA WAR U 4EVER!!!1... ...is not what I have in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Seems like a decent idea, most people who get ZI-ed already had enough of a clue to be noticed, and I'm sure NSO just rejects those who had no clue about anything else but being noticed by being dumb. But we shall see how the policy works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 way to come in here and argue yourself in circles over a non-issue. i mean war guides? are you serious? this is clearly about something else for you. but this is good, let your hate consume you Providing a nation with the means to maximize it's damage to one's alliance is a very real, very tangible problem. As is an alliance inserting itself to "mitigate" the terms of a conflict which doesn't concern them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadabethyname Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Providing a nation with the means to maximize it's damage to one's alliance is a very real, very tangible problem. As is an alliance inserting itself to "mitigate" the terms of a conflict which doesn't concern them. at this point in time, for you, it is quite intangible. this is you trying to peel your face off the bottom of our boots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Obviously if they claim that they're going to do it again then they wouldn't be accepted. However, some newb sending a pm similar to YOU GUYZ R EBIL! IM GONNA WAR U 4EVER!!!1... ...is not what I have in mind. This is part of the concern. The alliances of Bob are just to take, on good faith, that the judgment of the NSO as to whether a nation deserves or doesn't deserve certain punishments for conflicts in which the NSO played no part? Again I ask, what makes the NSO more qualified to make this decision than the alliance(s) directly involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 If a nation is sentenced to ZI, it would seem that raiding would only expedite the process. As for the mitigation, are you saying that NSO will step into a conflict - which initially had nothing to do with them - to force or expedite a resolution for a ZI-sentenced nation they knowingly and willingly accepted? And should the alliance you're in discussions with ignore your attempts at mitigation, what then? There are nations, such as Gen Lee for example who desire to fight the whole way to ZI, thus other wars would not be of their interest. And as far as the mitigation goes, on occasion we've asked the alliance to let the nation off ZI which has both worked and in other instances failed. The alliance in discussion may chose to do accept or decline our request. Also these questions you're asking seem pretty self explanatory. I sense someone still has a bad taste in their mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) On the contrary, I well understand and appreciate that the NSO is at least willing to taper this policy with the disclaimer that it will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Yet it remains to be seen that, in any case, the taking-in of a nation sentenced to ZI by another alliance in a conflict that had nothing to do with the NSO, and giving said nation access to war guides whilst also lobbying for a diminution of terms for said nation is anything but interventionist by nature. And my earlier question remains, what if the involved alliance(s) object to or flatly ignore the NSO's attempts to mitigate the terms? Perhaps more poignantly, what if an alliance flatly and righteously objects to the NSO providing the enemy nation with a means for increasing cost and damage? NPO was known for grabbing any reason to war, and they weren't exactly happy with us, however we did this with them and they did not consider it a CB. So, I think it can be fairly said that it would be ridiculous to stretch something that far, and would even go to say maybe you are not worried so much about the damage, rather than you want to keep them out of a community. If we post our war guide on the forums, would you stop complaining? However, using your logic if we did that we would be giving each nation on ZI and each nation at war a means to do more damage, and many many many alliances would have a CB on us. Edited July 17, 2009 by youwish959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 at this point in time, for you, it is quite intangible. A foolish foreign policy is that which waits for bullets to fly before asking questions. this is you trying to peel your face off the bottom of our boots I have no idea what you're referencing. I assume you're referring to the tension between the NSO and GOP from a week or so ago. But that conflict was resolved diplomatically through the hard effort and long hours of myself and several NSO leaders. And that resolution, if I'm not mistaken, involved the NSO's apology to us and promise to not repeat their transgression - not the other way around. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't understand your boot reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadabethyname Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 if you say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Not months ago, the world was upset about nations kept in a permanent state of war, pursued after they were reincarnated, and denied entry to almost any community that might have given them a constructive outlet and means to contribute to something more than their nation. For many of us, though certainly not all, the most important part of this world is the community we share with our alliance. This policy helps reduce the maximum punishment an alliance can dish out by just a little bit; from denying a ruler the right to participate in a community to denying a ruler the right to grow their nation. This standard, if reasonably applied, helps limit the powers of the strongest alliances to the destruction of one's nation rather than the isolation of one's person. As long as alliances work patiently to solve diplomatic issues that arise, it's hard for me to believe that this check and balance on power is somehow not worth the slight cost to the Planet Bob community as a whole. Edited July 17, 2009 by Penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I liked this policy up until I saw the talk about mitigate the punishment and make sure the people issuing the punishment isn't 'overdoing it'. That is a policy that is directly interfering with other alliances sovereignty. That sounds like something where the methods will differ greatly depending on the size of the alliance issuing the punishment. Wich I find highly opportunistic. What is a 20 man alliance with no strong allies going to do if NSO take in a person that went nuclear rogue on them and say "you've punished this person enough you're not allowed to pusish him anymore"? Interfering with other alliances sovereignty when you have the strength to will hopefully not be accepted after this war and this sounds like something that could lead to a new low for the sith after the last recruiting incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 This is part of the concern. The alliances of Bob are just to take, on good faith, that the judgment of the NSO as to whether a nation deserves or doesn't deserve certain punishments for conflicts in which the NSO played no part? Again I ask, what makes the NSO more qualified to make this decision than the alliance(s) directly involved? See you are spinning it that NSO is stepping on the toes of other alliances right to ZI someone. Thats not the case in the least. Rather, you are trying to dictate who we can and cannot allow into our community. NSO is qualified to make that decision just like anybody else who has freedom of opinion. NSO has the right to decide who we let into our alliance on whatever basis we deem acceptable to let them into our alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 There are nations, such as Gen Lee for example who desire to fight the whole way to ZI, thus other wars would not be of their interest. So now an alliance who is accosted by a nation to the point of sentencing it to ZI must be invested in the best interest of that nation? This seems counter-intuitive. And as far as the mitigation goes, on occasion we've asked the alliance to let the nation off ZI which has both worked and in other instances failed. The alliance in discussion may chose to do accept or decline our request. The question remains, why is the NSO involving itself at all with a conflict that doesn't concern it? Also these questions you're asking seem pretty self explanatory. I sense someone still has a bad taste in their mouth. I had the same dislike of interventionism and violations of sovereignty well before the NSO ever came into existence. The last time our two alliances had a conversation, you guys apologized to us. We got what we requested out of the resolution, so I fail to see why that would leave me with a "bad taste." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I liked this policy up until I saw the talk about mitigate the punishment and make sure the people issuing the punishment isn't 'overdoing it'.That is a policy that is directly interfering with other alliances sovereignty. That sounds like something where the methods will differ greatly depending on the size of the alliance issuing the punishment. Wich I find highly opportunistic. What is a 20 man alliance with no strong allies going to do if NSO take in a person that went nuclear rogue on them and say "you've punished this person enough you're not allowed to pusish him anymore"? Interfering with other alliances sovereignty when you have the strength to will hopefully not be accepted after this war and this sounds like something that could lead to a new low for the sith after the last recruiting incident. We have said time and time again that we will not be involving ourselves, or trying to mitigate their punishment. In certain instances however, we may be willing to diplomatically work with the alliance conducting the ZI to possibly reduce the punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 So now an alliance who is accosted by a nation to the point of sentencing it to ZI must be invested in the best interest of that nation? This seems counter-intuitive. Oh, you're full of it. The alliance is free to conduct their punishment, however noone else is to raid them. Raiding them will not expedite the process, only slow it down by not using planes, cms, and nukes. The question remains, why is the NSO involving itself at all with a conflict that doesn't concern it? Probably because we feel everyone deserves a community to be involved with. I had the same dislike of interventionism and violations of sovereignty well before the NSO ever came into existence. The last time our two alliances had a conversation, you guys apologized to us. We got what we requested out of the resolution, so I fail to see why that would leave me with a "bad taste." It would leave me with a bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 NPO was known for grabbing any reason to war And those reasons for war were frequently and widely interpretted to serve as a means for policing the community by their standards. Same problem here. and they weren't exactly happy with us, however we did this with them and they did not consider it a CB. So, I think it can be fairly said that it would be ridiculous to stretch something that far, and would even go to say maybe you are not worried so much about the damage, rather than you want to keep them out of a community. No, I'm concerned with the prospect of an alliance taking a nation we've sentenced to ZI under their wing, telling it how best to do damage to our nations, and then inserting themselves into discussions about the "mitigation" of said conflict's terms. A nation ruler can be part of any community he wants without a member mask, and without the intervention of that community in his conflict, can eh not? If we post our war guide on the forums, would you stop complaining? I suppose that would elevate the one concern regarding the prospect of helping the nation increase damage, yes. Though it fails to address interventionism of the NSO "mitigating" such nations' terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I liked this policy up until I saw the talk about mitigate the punishment and make sure the people issuing the punishment isn't 'overdoing it'.That is a policy that is directly interfering with other alliances sovereignty. That sounds like something where the methods will differ greatly depending on the size of the alliance issuing the punishment. Wich I find highly opportunistic. What is a 20 man alliance with no strong allies going to do if NSO take in a person that went nuclear rogue on them and say "you've punished this person enough you're not allowed to pusish him anymore"? Interfering with other alliances sovereignty when you have the strength to will hopefully not be accepted after this war and this sounds like something that could lead to a new low for the sith after the last recruiting incident. My point exactly. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) We have said time and time again that we will not be involving ourselves, or trying to mitigate their punishment. In certain instances however, we may be willing to diplomatically work with the alliance conducting the ZI to possibly reduce the punishment. That's exactly what you did say you would do. I don't have a problem with NSO taking in the nations it was the fact that you mentioned mitigating that bothered me. Edited July 17, 2009 by neneko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 We have said time and time again that we will not be involving ourselves, or trying to mitigate their punishment. In certain instances however, we may be willing to diplomatically work with the alliance conducting the ZI to possibly reduce the punishment. This is different rhetoric than that used earlier in the thread. This is less problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 And those reasons for war were frequently and widely interpretted to serve as a means for policing the community by their standards. Same problem here. Or smart people saw it as them trying to put down future opponents, and trying to get a !@#$@#$ war. No, I'm concerned with the prospect of an alliance taking a nation we've sentenced to ZI under their wing, telling it how best to do damage to our nations, and then inserting themselves into discussions about the "mitigation" of said conflict's terms. A nation ruler can be part of any community he wants without a member mask, and without the intervention of that community in his conflict, can eh not?I suppose that would elevate the one concern regarding the prospect of helping the nation increase damage, yes. Though it fails to address interventionism of the NSO "mitigating" such nations' terms. I'm not sure how many times we have to say this, but we will not mitigate terms for a nation. We may however, conduct diplomatic discussions with the other alliance in an attempt to get the punishment lowered, however we will mitigate nothing, and over 98% of the time the burden of getting off of such lists or punishments will be on the nation's shoulders and we will have nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh, you're full of it. The alliance is free to conduct their punishment, however noone else is to raid them. Raiding them will not expedite the process, only slow it down by not using planes, cms, and nukes. Perhaps the attacking alliance lacks nations in range and would prefer raiders expedite the process. You're assuming the alliance has three nations in range to declare. Nonetheless, it is within the accosted alliance's sovereignty to dictate the terms of a nation's punishment - to include whether or not raiding of said nation is beneficial to the process. Probably because we feel everyone deserves a community to be involved with. You've yet to explain how a forum mask and an AA equates to being more a part of a community than not. I could go into NSO's IRC right now and "be a part of its community." I could post on their public forums and do the same. It would leave me with a bad taste. You overestimate your relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's exactly what you did say you would do. I don't have a problem with NSO taking in the nations it was the fact that you mentioned mitigating that bothered me. It is up to the nation on the ZI list to get themselves off. We will, however, allow them to belong to a community while serving their punishment because everyone deserves a community to belong to in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 The question remains, why is the NSO involving itself at all with a conflict that doesn't concern it? I can understand your distaste of interventionism, I don't like it either, but the last time the strongest alliances were allowed to determine who could and could not enjoy an alliance community of their own, the power was widely abused. I'd rather build checks and balances into our self-regulated global community to prevent that from happening again. Limiting the maximum punishment an alliance can give out to attacks on a nation rather than the complete segregation and isolation from the community is one such check on abuses of power that is worth whatever dent to our egos we are forced to suffer along with it. It's nice to have a policy like this in the background, even though I doubt it will find quite as much use at present as it did when it was first announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Or smart people saw it as them trying to put down future opponents, and trying to get a !@#$@#$ war. Ah... the obligatory insult to my intelligence. What conversation with your alliance would be complete without it? I'm not sure how many times we have to say this, but we will not mitigate terms for a nation. We may however, conduct diplomatic discussions with the other alliance in an attempt to get the punishment lowered, however we will mitigate nothing, and over 98% of the time the burden of getting off of such lists or punishments will be on the nation's shoulders and we will have nothing to do with it. Perhaps you haven't been reading this thread: we allow them to be part of a community and also help ensure that those exacting the ZI do not abuse their position and take it further. While we won't directly intervene, it is generally the case that having someone who is even jus timplicitly standing behind them to make sure they don't get abused and trampled on helps those nations in negotiations they may be a part of. there also is a chance that their terms will be mitigated as was a common occurrence during the first institution of this policy. If it's true that the NSO's stance is to allow these members to "just be part of the community" without directly involving itself in any way with their conflict, then I guess we're pretty much done here. I still wouldn't be happy about the prospect of a rogue nation explicitly and purposefully getting tips and guidance from the NSO on how best to optimize damage to my nations (as this seems like a blatant act of war in my mind), but I suspect I might be in the minority on this smaller point. Edited July 17, 2009 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Man oh man, I gotta tell you... I'm not anti-NSO or pro-NSO. I'm amused by some of the antics and I'm rather a closet fan of Ivan. I'm in favour of this policy and have a similar (though not exactly the same) working policy of my own right now. That said, this thread highlights, in my opinion, why so many individuals have problems with NSO. With the exception of Ivan and a few other NSO members, the vast majority of you come off offensive, abrasive and assert a sense of self-entitlement that none of you have earned. I'm not saying other people in other alliances don't do that. What I am saying is that every time one of the few NSO members who know how to make a point (and make it well) come to the OWF to make their point, it is quickly scuttled by the remainder of the NSO members whose posts only ever amount to "no u", "do something" or "ha ha... I'm going to pretend to recruit you cuz remember that one time we did that thing?" I implore those of you who fall into this category to rethink your visits to the OWF. This is merely $0.02 from someone who enjoys official posts from NSO leadership, and hates to see them ruined by the people who can barely string together a coherent thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts