An End to the VE-GDI Conflict

[jerdge]

Ghosting an affiliation and attempting to scam aid, as exemplified during the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, is a legitimate tactic in war, especially under impossible odds. I fail to see why, exactly, it warrants additional punishment, though I imagine that there is more than one reason, at any rate.

My congratulations to the Global Defence Initiative on their achievement of peace.

TBH I was going to talk in disagreement with your statement - GDI and Vox were quite different cases - but when I tried to write down my arguments I realized that they were weak. In fact I basically agree that ghosting and scamming are legitimate tactics in war.

I don't know (I didn't checked) how big the three nations involved are, but in case their ZI implied a prolonged state of warfare (say, more than another round of wars), I'd try to work some other kind of peace, instead (e.g.: reparations for what has been scammed, if anything).

The sum of Ryan's actions may warrant an harsher punishment for him - maybe having him pay all the reparations would do.

Or maybe not. Nothing about this case is up to me, anyway...

[Hydro]

We shouldn't drive another person out of the game. o/ Viridia on white peace.

On that matter, I respectfully disagree; however, I'm veering off topic and I'll just leave it at that.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Hydro

[Poyplemonkeys]

I'm not really sure there are any illegitimate tactics of war really. Certainly some are frowned upon by most, but if you don't want to be on the receiving end of guerilla tactics, don't declare a war. I realise there's little complaining going on, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular, just a general comment.

[ooc: aside from ooc actions]

[Kevin McDonald]

What's a Task Force Alpha?

Also, congrats on peace.

[Solaris]

TBH I was going to talk in disagreement with your statement - GDI and Vox were quite different cases - but when I tried to write down my arguments I realized that they were weak. In fact I basically agree that ghosting and scamming are legitimate tactics in war.

I don't know (I didn't checked) how big the three nations involved are, but in case their ZI implied a prolonged state of warfare (say, more than another round of wars), I'd try to work some other kind of peace, instead (e.g.: reparations for what has been scammed, if anything).

The sum of Ryan's actions may warrant an harsher punishment for him - maybe having him pay all the reparations would do.

Or maybe not. Nothing about this case is up to me, anyway...

While ghosting and scammings may be legitimate tactics in war, it is a legitimate strategy to ZI those who do that to us. Our strategy wasn't to destroy them forever and ever and ever, and thus it gives us some answers available for the most common question - "what are you going to do about it?"

Others may rather talk and discuss reparations all they want, but I prefer blood over blood money.

[Hunterman1043]

Shouldn't it be Defense? Lolwow.

Otherwise, glad most of them have peace.

[Mechanus]

Just a follow-up to this, I've requested an appeal for the single ZI, however it will be taken swiftly should the appeal fall through.

This is the only thing that struck me peculiar as you can see in the original post:

RyanGDI, Technician1578, and I await it have been sentenced to a single ZI by the Viridian Entente. The reason for this is, by his own admission, RyanGDI asked his own members to join our alliance under false pretenses and scam aid from tech deals (OCC: also to possibly break an in game rule, however that's an issue for moderation, not here).

Yet here you are stating that you are requesting an appeal after admitting guilt. I'm curious why you would even bother after admitting to such things.

[Sonata]

I'm not really sure there are any illegitimate tactics of war really. Certainly some are frowned upon by most, but if you don't want to be on the receiving end of guerilla tactics, don't declare a war. I realise there's little complaining going on, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular, just a general comment.

[ooc: aside from ooc actions]

Almost anything (IC) is fair game in war, however for every action there will be a reaction. Look at how the entire conflict evolved, starting with a GDI member targeting a Pacifican nation. This was followed by GDI members counterattacking the Entente when the Viridians began engaging the raider in a police action, and the GDI proving to be difficult/stalling regarding paying for the raid. The Virdians then expanded their measured response to focus as a police action against the alliance as a whole, providing terms to allow GDI nations to surrender from on the onset and clearly focused on offering white peace to the innocents Ryan had dragged into the charnel house. Rapdily defeated on the battlefield GDI members instead opt to be warfare targetting the name of the Virdian Entente, as opposed to surrendering. In every case you can see where GDI expands the conflict in some manner and the Viridians merely increase their measured response.

Nothing is off the table in war, but the more you chose to put on the table in the war the more you're going to lose at the end of the war (if you lose). War is not purely the numbers and little markers on map, how you move your pieces around has military and political consequences.

Edit: Grammar

Edited August 20, 2009 by Sonata

[Marcus Guildenstern]

Congratulations to VE on a very charitable conclusion to the war. o/

Just a follow-up to this, I've requested an appeal for the single ZI, however it will be taken swiftly should the appeal fall through.

Please tell me this is for the two nations you convinced to follow your ill-considered orders, and not for yourself.

[ChairmanHal]

Almost anything (IC) is fair game in war, however for every action there will be a reaction. Look at how the entire conflict evolved, starting with a GDI member targeting a Pacifican nation. This was followed by GDI members counterattacking the Entente when the Viridians began engaging the raider in a police action, and the GDI proving to be difficult/stalling regarding paying for the raid. The Virdians then expanded their measured response to focus as a police action against the alliance as a whole, providing terms to allow GDI nations to surrender from on the onset and clearly focused on offering white peace to the innocents Ryan had dragged into the charnel house. Rapidly defeated on the battlefield GDI members instead opt for warfare targeting the name of the Virdian Entente, as opposed to surrendering. In every case you can see where GDI expands the conflict in some manner and the Viridians merely increase their measured response.

Nothing is off the table in war, but the more you chose to put on the table in the war the more you're going to lose at the end of the war (if you lose). War is not purely the numbers and little markers on map, how you move your pieces around has military and political consequences.

I corrected the spelling a bit, but this is as good of summation of what happened as has been written to date. Well done.

Also, I agree with your sentiments regarding warfare. Always make the screwing you give worth the screwing you will receive in return or don't go there.

[Dom Zak]

yay peace

[PhysicsJunky]

I'm not really sure there are any illegitimate tactics of war really. Certainly some are frowned upon by most, but if you don't want to be on the receiving end of guerilla tactics, don't declare a war. I realise there's little complaining going on, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular, just a general comment.

I agree with your general sentiment that any tactic available while still following the game rules can be used. However the other side of that stance is that if you're going to wage some version of total/guerrilla warfare then there is nothing from stopping the other party from not accepting your surrender and using other technically game legal tactics like EZI in response.

Following what can loosely be referred to as "legitimate conduct", i.e. ways of waging war vaguely accepted by the community, offers protections to both sides of the conflict and depending on the circumstance is not necessarily a bad idea. As much as it hampers the losing side's ability to disrupt their attacker by preventing spying and other non-military tactics it does enforce that the winning side will present surrender terms (at least in a non-hegemonic world where alliances need to manage their image), often lighter terms the more "honorably" their opponent fought.

There is a lot of gray area. My main point is that some of these "rules" can be broken but not at a free cost as it is likely to alter the nature of the war. While they might hamper the reaction of the smaller alliance they also go a long way to preventing the larger side from using even harsher tactics like PZI/EZI/Mass Sanctioning lest they open the Pandora's box of a perma-war with all the press and spying that often accompanies it.

The system breaks down when those outside of the affair turn a blind eye, often in favor of the larger alliance, and develop a lopsided code of acceptable conduct. Which I think is the largest danger of having one particularly large group or another controlling the game. Though perhaps as recently shown this could be a self correcting situation with a long enough time frame.

Edit: I apologize for the extensive scare quoting but the terms used in these debates are slippery

Edited August 20, 2009 by PhysicsJunky

[Goldie]

Ghosting an affiliation and attempting to scam aid, as exemplified during the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, is a legitimate tactic in war, especially under impossible odds. I fail to see why, exactly, it warrants additional punishment, though I imagine that there is more than one reason, at any rate.

My congratulations to the Global Defence Initiative on their achievement of peace.

Why cant you see why it warrants additional punishment? we offer individual surrender terms, extreme leniency. we had someone surrender to us, then go back to gdi and declare on us again. we let him surrender a second time. what we do not accept is trying to work for peace terms on one hand, and on the other having nations resort to trickery to attack our nations. ryan convinced us to cease fire on him, and then turned around and did this. that is why these people will be sentenced to a zi, and that is why ryan will i guess not be able to fund his 'little ones' for a while.

[11:19] <RyanGDI[TFA]> I'm at 3.3k infra

[11:19] <RyanGDI[TFA]> Falling below 3 means I risk having to revert to selling tech

[11:20] <RyanGDI[TFA]> Which doesn't help me fund the little ones at all

[11:21] <RyanGDI[TFA]> I know it sounds like I'm concerned over myself, but my economy's crucial to getting FA out to my teammates for recovery

[11:21] <RyanGDI[TFA]> So the sooner this ends, the better.

he will fall pretty significantly below 3, we have nukers lined up all the way down to the bottom.

[Gondor]

Nice ZI clause. Hey if you lose a war you have to see this coming.

[Goldie]

put it this way, if a 10 man alliance fights a 100 man alliance, and everyone knows the war is going to be a short one, then people act accordingly. war is conventional, no nations are getting demolished and set back months, and everyone just goes through the motions knowing its going to be a crushing victory for one end, because nothing the 10 man alliance can do tactically can win the war, and nothing they can do strategically other than bring a bigger alliance in will do anything. if a tactic could help them win, then by all means use it.

but if one of the people in the 10 man alliance decides to toss a nuke, when it comes time for peace youd better believe that person who lobbed the nuke when it served no strategic or tactical purpose is going to be punished. at that point the nuke is not a legitimate war method, it is just a way to inflict pain after the war has been decided. these acts being punished by zi are along the same lines. no strategic or tactical victory could or would be achieved by virtue of what they did, it existed solely to hurt people after the war had been decided (and ryangdi was actively looking for terms).

if a large nation invades a small nation, and occupies them, treats them well, lets them do as they please, and tells them that within days itll all be over, sure its not the best of situations but it could be worse. but when a group of a few people decide to sabotage people in the larger army, and are caught doing it, while that smaller nation will be released and allowed to be free, the 3 who committed the war crimes would be detained further, and not be allowed to just go free. thats the analogy for here.

[Jyrinx]

I still want to know why on digiterra Ryan defended that original raider (who attacked NPO while under VE's protection) anyway.

And yes, aid scamming is bad. I'm torn on whether or not this warrants ZI personally, but that is completely VE's prerogative.

[Lord GVChamp]

I don't even object to them dropping nukes on us, personally. They're a weapon of war. Go knock yourselves out.

However, alliances typically don't enter a full mobilization period for squashing little alliances, and forcing to elevate alert statuses for a 10 man alliance war because they're playing a trick annoys me to no end, and the penalties should reflect that.

[Poyplemonkeys]

<quote shortened for ease>

Nothing is off the table in war, but the more you chose to put on the table in the war the more you're going to lose at the end of the war (if you lose). War is not purely the numbers and little markers on map, how you move your pieces around has military and political consequences.

I completely agree with everything you've said. Using the guerilla tactics is all well and good, providing that you can accept the consequences should you lose the war. I should make it clear that I have no issue with what VE has done to punish the nations engaging in these tactics. I only take issue with describing them as illegitimate.

I agree with your general sentiment that any tactic available while still following the game rules can be used. However the other side of that stance is that if you're going to wage some version of total/guerrilla warfare then there is nothing from stopping the other party from not accepting your surrender and using other technically game legal tactics like EZI in response.

Whilst technically legal, I find EZI to be a despicable measure and would not condone it's use or consider it a legitimate tactic of war in any circumstance. [ooc: due to it being an ooc attack, which I believe is always illegitimate]

Following what can loosely be referred to as "legitimate conduct", i.e. ways of waging war vaguely accepted by the community, offers protections to both sides of the conflict and depending on the circumstance is not necessarily a bad idea. As much as it hampers the losing side's ability to disrupt their attacker by preventing spying and other non-military tactics it does enforce that the winning side will present surrender terms (at least in a non-hegemonic world where alliances need to manage their image), often lighter terms the more "honorably" their opponent fought.

I agree with you here, I'm by no means suggesting everyone should just go out and use these tactics in every war. I think they were misused in this war myself really. The ends need to justify the means, and what was the end for GDI here? They were never going to win the battle, and there was no long term war for them to win (unlike Vox and FAN) so the use of these tactics have only ended up costing a lot, with very little potential gain for them. In the vast majority of situations, 'legitimate conduct' so to speak is far more favourable.

There is a lot of gray area. My main point is that some of these "rules" can be broken but not at a free cost as it is likely to alter the nature of the war. While they might hamper the reaction of the smaller alliance they also go a long way to preventing the larger side from using even harsher tactics like PZI/EZI/Mass Sanctioning lest they open the Pandora's box of a perma-war with all the press and spying that often accompanies it.

The system breaks down when those outside of the affair turn a blind eye, often in favor of the larger alliance, and develop a lopsided code of acceptable conduct. Which I think is the largest danger of having one particularly large group or another controlling the game. Though perhaps as recently shown this could be a self correcting situation with a long enough time frame.

No argument here with any of that. Particularly with it being a self correcting situation. There are always people unwilling to turn a blind eye to perceived injustices.

[TypoNinja]

And yes, aid scamming is bad. I'm torn on whether or not this warrants ZI personally, but that is completely VE's prerogative.

Well in all fairness ZI isn't as harsh a punishment as you might think in this case. These guys are so small, ZI isn't all that long of a way down.

[aineshane]

Ghosting an affiliation and attempting to scam aid, as exemplified during the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, is a legitimate tactic in war, especially under impossible odds. I fail to see why, exactly, it warrants additional punishment, though I imagine that there is more than one reason, at any rate.

My congratulations to the Global Defence Initiative on their achievement of peace.

We were not at war when they ghosted us and scammed money from our membership. They deserve to be annihilated.

o/ Peace for the innocent parties

[jerdge]

While ghosting and scammings may be legitimate tactics in war, it is a legitimate strategy to ZI those who do that to us. Our strategy wasn't to destroy them forever and ever and ever, and thus it gives us some answers available for the most common question - "what are you going to do about it?"

Others may rather talk and discuss reparations all they want, but I prefer blood over blood money.

I agree that ZI is a legitimate strategy to discourage others to ghost and scam you.

The discussion was about Ghosting+TechScamming being or not an aggravating circumstance that warrants ZI. The answer is obviously in the eye of the beholder, as ti involves an evaluation based on one's values. I'd say that protracted warfare isn't necessary when there are more peaceful means to be indemnified by, assuming of course that the other party agrees to them; you say that you prefer blood; both stances are equally "legitimate", I don't think there's much to discuss over that.

I also didn't understand your sentence about the answers available, but don't feel too compelled to explain if it's a secondary issue (I may even never return to this discussion...)

[Solaris]

I also didn't understand your sentence about the answers available, but don't feel too compelled to explain if it's a secondary issue (I may even never return to this discussion...)

If we would be in the state of mind that we'd never give peace to them, no matter what, we couldn't discourage any destructive action against us by the threat of violence. As long as one doesn't go to the extremes in terms of violent responses (such as warfare), one has the ability to discourage certain destructive actions such as ghosting/scamming by the threat of violence.

[Hell Scream]

I do not see how ZI is a harsh punishment for scam. People would PZI back in the old days.

[jerdge]

If we would be in the state of mind that we'd never give peace to them, no matter what, we couldn't discourage any destructive action against us by the threat of violence. As long as one doesn't go to the extremes in terms of violent responses (such as warfare), one has the ability to discourage certain destructive actions such as ghosting/scamming by the threat of violence.

Thank you, now I got it.

[Teddyyo]

I do not see how ZI is a harsh punishment for scam. People would PZI back in the old days.

I know I would

Anyways, go get 'em VE! I know I've been scammed before, so I'd hope the scamming fools get what was coming for them