A New Day Approaches

[Haflinger]

What the hell...you say they aren't different and then you describe the differences between them?

Reread my post.

I used the word entirely, you seem to have missed it completely.

[Hell Scream]

There is no such thing as innocent nations. When someone joins your alliance, you must take responsibility of whatever the nation does. Every single nation of the alliance represents it, especially the government. When your government accepts members, you take responsibility for their actions, if you don't want to, leave the alliance.

[Starcraftmazter]

First, that is highly debatable as when you hit a certain member of the alliance, the whole alliance tends to hit back. Second, that is open to tremendous abuse as a certain member could then engage in gross acts of misconduct against the enemies of an alliance, for the expressed benefit of the alliance, then throw themselves on a sword (OOC: or reroll) to avoid all responsibility. Third, that is largely irrelevant because the innocent victims are no less innocent.

To address your points;

1) That is why it is appropriate to have a discussion with the government of said alliance, and to ask them to expel said member. If there is legitimate evidence that they truly did engage in a serious OOC attack, then it is highly probably that the government of that alliance will kick them out.

2) If the member does it with government consent or on a government mandate, then the issue is with the whole alliance, but otherwise, I fail to see how this can be classified as abuse - because at the end of the day the alliance had nothing to do with it, and so to punish it would be unethical.

3) I beg to differ - if they had nothing to do with it, then they are clearly innocent.

That is your opinion, and while it is a very simple concept, it also does not capture the reality of things. The reality is alliances are almost always collective defense pledges, by joining you become the soldiers the leaders send to war should war arise. Alliances are an exercise of collective reward when things go well and collective responsibility when things go poorly, by signing up you assume all the risks that go with it in case your faith was misplaced. At best you make a case for individual surrender terms, but even then I'd say it is a weak argument.

By your logic, every single alliance presents such a risk because any alliance could be infiltrated by an agent who seeks to do harm to that alliance, if said agent really wanted it to. That makes it impossible to trust any alliance. Should that then be a reason to not join any alliance? Furthermore, that means the enemies of an alliance can easily instigate such a stunt. Should that then be a valid excuse for anyone to declare war upon said alliance? I must protest with this level of reasoning, because it is ridiculous and leads to evil alliances conducting unscrupulous business.

A simple example is an alliance planting an agent into an enemy alliance who then "accepts" screenshots of their alliance's forums, and subsequently creates what would be a legitimate CB - according to your argument - against the alliance which they infiltrated.

Clearly, this is an inadequate way to do things as that truly leads to abuse.

I used the word entirely, you seem to have missed it completely.

Then you admit they are different. They are different or they are not, now let's leave it here.

[Walt Schmidt]

WOLVERINES!

QFT

[Walt Schmidt]

Following some of what was written above, I feel compelled to quote (for some perhaps remind, for others perhaps provide for the first time):

Ian looked down at him. And it seemed to Tyburn that the Dorsai face had gone away from him, somehow become as remote and stony as a face carved high up on some icy mountain's top.

"But I'm not just a man of the military," Ian said. "That was the mistake Kenebuck made, too. That was why he thought that stripped of military elements, I'd be easy to kill."

Tyburn looked up at him, felt a chill run down his spine as icy as wind off a glacier.

"Then, in heaven's name," cried Tyburn. "What are you?"

Ian looked from his far distance down into Tyburn's eyes and the sadness rang as clear in his voice finally, as iron-shod heels on barren rock.

"I am a man of war," said Ian, softly.

Shai Dorsai!

[King Death II]

My my........ looks like NPO's propaganda team has gained a few new members.

[Augustus Autumn]

My my........ looks like NPO's propaganda team has gained a few new members.

It's all according to the plan - for more information please refer to page 641 of Pacifican Plans for World Domination v5.3 - How We Make the Bears Do It.

Also, hey KD

[Brenann]

o/ to a bright new future... when the prison guards say its ok.

Glad to see that people think we are still the Ebil NPO...

[Schattenmann]

I just thought I'd point out the irony in that bloc of text.

There's nothing ironic about it. [OOC]The mention of forums, IRC, etc is allowed in this forum. However, this forum is IC (thus no discussions of "the game." I was discussing the representation of forums as the Temple of Justice, or the Red Dawn forums as an international center, which is OOC due to the nature of the discussion, the same way that calling Planet Bob "CyberNations" is OOC.[/OOC]

The only thing ironic was that you tried to school the teacher.

To clarify, the difference is, when you attack a nation, you punish the perpetrator. When you attack an alliance, you are punishing the perpetrator (if there is one), as well as hurting a lot of innocent nations, which is morally unacceptable.

It's morally unacceptable to you. It's morally unacceptable to me that an alliance--which is a collective, not a bunch of individuals--would get away with destroying or tampering with another alliance's forums on the double-sided grounds that when things are good they're all one, but when things get bad the alliance is a free-for-all.

Riveting tale chap. If that is indeed the case, then I am relatively adequately satisfied with why it's there, but I maintain that it is wrong to mix IC/OOC and the fact that that article of the treaty is damned odd, and if you are concerned about NPO or some other signatory doing it, then you could have definately worded it better.

If it's my meaning that I will kick your butt if you screw with our forums, then why would I word it differently?

I am not wrong - it is a matter of opinion, and I must that, that I find yours despicable. Time will perhaps tell whether it is acceptable or not, though I really doubt such a CB would fly with the community, if you did not attempt to solve the issue diplomatically, and go after the individual(s) involved rather than the whole alliance.

If that were true, which it may well be, I don't see how it justifies the launching of IC attacks for OOC reasons in the reverse. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Once again, there is nothing OOC about an alliance's forums. If forums were OOC, then Admin could not make law regarding Viceroys, and we could not discuss forums here. You are simply wrong in your application of this "OOC" you keep railing about.

-----------------

Basically this is going nowhere. You think it's awful to attack a whole alliance for the actions of its leaders because Polaris totally wtfpwned you and your alliance over that trivial IRC event last year. That's understandable, it was a gross exaggeration of the situation. Your personal experience with Polaris does not translate to actual application of formal clauses, though.

Most alliances that are currently signatories to Red Dawn are deeply rooted in morality--Cult of Justitia, Crimson Guard, The Destiny Project, The Moralist Front. Frankly, I find it insulting that you are basically pre-accusing us all of inserting an OBR-style "death cookie" into the Red Dawn treaty.

[Starcraftmazter]

There's nothing ironic about it

[OOC?] Actually, claiming that forums are not OOC, and then having to encapsulate that statement inside an OOC bloc, means that it is in fact OOC. This makes it very ironic.

It's morally unacceptable to you. It's morally unacceptable to me that an alliance--which is a collective, not a bunch of individuals--would get away with destroying or tampering with another alliance's forums on the double-sided grounds that when things are good they're all one, but when things get bad the alliance is a free-for-all.

Firstly, your very statement is flawed. The "alliance" had nothing to do with the tempering - it was one individual.

Secondly, if you were to hold a poll of the community's opinion on this, I would bet your perception of what is and what isn't morally unacceptable would lose to mine. In regards to this specific issue.

If it's my meaning that I will kick your butt if you screw with our forums, then why would I word it differently?

Well you have earlier claimed that you are most concerned about signatories conducting such acts of tempering, yet it is worded as though you are in fact weary of other alliances conducting such acts. It just seems odd to me.

Once again, there is nothing OOC about an alliance's forums. If forums were OOC, then Admin could not make law regarding Viceroys, and we could not discuss forums here. You are simply wrong in your application of this "OOC" you keep railing about.

OOC: The admin has rules regarding many things completely OOC, hence I find your argument flawed.

Basically this is going nowhere. You think it's awful to attack a whole alliance for the actions of its leaders because Polaris totally wtfpwned you and your alliance over that trivial IRC event last year. That's understandable, it was a gross exaggeration of the situation. Your personal experience with Polaris does not translate to actual application of formal clauses, though.

Reducing my argument to a personal issue is a pathetic attempt to get around it, and I do not care for it.

[Harry Tuttle]

What is allowed:

* telling the world about your alliance/alliance business or sharing your opinion about other alliances/alliance business as a leader of your nation.

* mention of IRC and forums. These are considered as means of communications between leaders.

Source

Drop it. Now.

[Bob Janova]

This has gone rather off topic, but I want to address the OP and the discussion about the treaty. It is good to see a friendly and united Red – even if NPO aren't allowed to sign this at the moment, which does make a little sense as any wars they declared in defence of unaligned nations would be against their peace terms, making them unable to fulfil this treaty completely.

However, with the NPO unable to commit to protecting those nations, I can't see the protection lasting long. There are a lot of alliances who will delight in raiding Red and you will either have to scratch the doctrine or get killed defending them. The same will apply to NPO when they are able to sign up, with large and well connected alliances using this as a way to bait them into war or loss of face (like GGA with CNARF/GATO), but without their weight behind it the defence clauses are meaningless.

[Zeta Defender]

My my........ looks like NPO's propaganda team has gained a few new members.

New policy from page 11 of Pacifica's Plans for World Domination v5.3, teaching the members that they can and should have pride in themselves no matter what is said by the undesirables in any foreign local.

However, with the NPO unable to commit to protecting those nations, I can't see the protection lasting long. There are a lot of alliances who will delight in raiding Red and you will either have to scratch the doctrine or get killed defending them. The same will apply to NPO when they are able to sign up, with large and well connected alliances using this as a way to bait them into war or loss of face (like GGA with CNARF/GATO), but without their weight behind it the defense clauses are meaningless.

I disagree, on Planet Bob, Walford's legacy is fading fast, tech raiders are no longer able to raid without concern for who they raid. Anyone in most legitimate alliances never raid in the 1st place [ooc]and with CN:TE, you can raid there to your heart's content[/ooc].

If the other [Alliances] wish to taint themselves by [raiding for the sole purposes of short term games to the create chaos], so be it. I personally take pride in belonging to the only major [Alliance] which exercises hygiene."

Edited August 12, 2009 by Zeta Defender

[Colonel Radec]

WOLVERINES!

Yay for red unity.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Colonel Radec

[Kochers]

Hmm... Very interesting to say the least.

[Vladimir]

I would point out to Comrade Janova that the article protecting red nations does not mandate military action, and so Karma's rejection of the treaty remains nonsensical. The treaty states that signatories "will endeavour to resolve" attacks "by available means"; if military defence will get everyone involved destroyed in nuclear Armageddon then it does not meet either of these clauses.

[Bob Janova]

Ah, so red nations aren't protected, unless it's convenient? Well, that solves the issues I raised, even if by rendering the clause fairly meaningless.

I'm not sure raiding is dead, even if the big name raiders are no longer with us. We'll see, I guess, but I expect to see plenty of raids on Red.

[scythegfx]

Hey, I'm pretty sure there are other ways to resolve issues besides millitary force, such as you know...talking.

[Vladimir]

It is not meaningless just because you misread it. It is a statement that Red Dawn will do what it can to protect nations on its team -- there are many ways that this can be done. To jump straight into military engagement (something which even the Revenge Doctrine avoided wherever possible) would be self-defeating and would not benefit red nations.

[Shimmer]

People will attempt to spin what this treaty is to meet there own personal opinion.

It's a senate and economic treaty as its stated. It has no form of aggression or defense...The Red Protection Court may have the same name, but will only be used for diplomatic missions. No one raided Red before the only reason to now would be to spit in the face of Pacifica. However, I don't control any alliances policy and you may all do as you wish.

[Ivellios]

Glad to see Red looking after Red. Good luck to our freinds in NPO

[Yuthura Ban]

Ah, so red nations aren't protected, unless it's convenient? Well, that solves the issues I raised, even if by rendering the clause fairly meaningless.

I'm not sure raiding is dead, even if the big name raiders are no longer with us. We'll see, I guess, but I expect to see plenty of raids on Red.

Speaking from personal experience as a former alliance leader of around 12 nations -- talking actually works. Of all the raids we were involved in (around 4 or so), dialogue between both the attacker and their alliance, resulted in peace almost every time. Echoing what Comrade Vladimir said, I don't think it's meaningless, simply because you've failed to grasp the concept of a peaceful resolution or otherwise non military applications of pressure.

[Rafael Nadal]

I would point out to Comrade Janova that the article protecting red nations does not mandate military action, and so Karma's rejection of the treaty remains nonsensical. The treaty states that signatories "will endeavour to resolve" attacks "by available means"; if military defence will get everyone involved destroyed in nuclear Armageddon then it does not meet either of these clauses.

No, it does not remain nonsensical, because we did not reject your signing of it due to any clauses in the treaty.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Tsar Vserossijskij]

No, it does not remain nonsensical, because we did not reject your signing of it due to any clauses in the treaty.

So it's just a generalized pettiness, then?

[RenderJack]

This is a great way for red to build itself back up, I really did like this.

o/red

EDIT: Also will we be seeing a red MDP bloc in the near future?

Edited August 13, 2009 by RenderJack