Carthage Announcement of Transgressions

[wickedj]

So if someone ghosts your AA, are you not responsible for flushing them out and making sure they don't re-join said AA? It's called protecting the AA. By Ryan not protecting his AA, he is allowing for these shenanigans to carry on not only to mine but others as well. He should be actively hunting and keeping it clean. That's what any good alliance leader would do, anyways.

Question for you. how do you force someone to remove an AA? if i decided to ghost your alliance you can threaten, sanction and even attack me but you still cant make me drop the AA

[Mathias]

Question for you. how do you force someone to remove an AA? if i decided to ghost your alliance you can threaten, sanction and even attack me but you still cant make me drop the AA

Not accepting them into your alliance is a good way to do that. And if that doesn't work, attacking them is pretty much evidence enough that they are indeed a ghost, making the alliance not liable for their actions.

[Penkala]

Question for you. how do you force someone to remove an AA? if i decided to ghost your alliance you can threaten, sanction and even attack me but you still cant make me drop the AA

I don't know, but when I go rogue I may switch to his alliance's AA. He will have to kick me off the AA or get rolled, right?

[Kzoppistan]

While a lot of people have made some good points, I have to disagree with this assumption that alliances are not responsible for the actions of a ghost.

To be sure, you cannot control if another nation decides to join your alliance, that does not mean that the alliance is somehow not responsible for removing it.

Consider this, if rogues and bandits are camped on your side of a border, wear your insignia or claim to be sanction by you, who then attack a nation on the other side of the border, is it not reasonable for the aggrieved nation to demand that you do something about it?

If a terrorist uses your good name to commit atrocities, and continues to do so, at what point are you obligated to stop just saying "He's not one of ours" and to start working to eliminate this threat and protect your reputation?

This is not something that is entirely black or white, but rather a situation that occupies a gray area of proper conduct, dependent on the context of the situation.

When an alliance approaches another because of an attack by a ghost, it is a courtsey to overlook that ghost's AA and to take the word of the host that the perpetrators are indeed brigands and rogues. It is done to ensure good diplomacy, avoid unneeded escalation, and to work together in order to identify the proper target.

When attacks become frequent, I don't see using the threat of force on an alliance to motivate it to establish some measure of control over its AA as being unreasonable.

Frankly, if The AUT did exhaust his diplomatic options at resolving this to no avail, I think this was an appropriate next step.

I'm glad to see a peaceful resolution to this and that both Ryan and The AUT are capable of cooperative efforts.

Good Job, again, AUT.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Man think about how much trouble TOOL would have been in its early days if people expected them to attack all the ghosts that joined them. You people are ridiculous.

[Felix von Agnu]

Glad to see this got resolved. If I were you, I wouldn't be letting that rogue see peace until he hit ZI. I'll be hoping he doesn't hit you guys again in the future.

[Kzoppistan]

Man think about how much trouble TOOL would have been in its early days if people expected them to attack all the ghosts that joined them. You people are ridiculous.

Thankfully, not every situation requires the use of force of by the host. But sometimes it does and it depends on the situation.

[Goldie]

gdi did this same stuff to ve at the tail end of our war with them and afterward, while we were still zi'ing ryan. this is not one of the nations that was doing it to us, meaning that either it is some strange coincidence if this is what is happening, that someone else from an alliance ryan is affiliated with picked up on it and started doing it, or that it is actually being explained and/or advocated by ryan and his alliance.

ve doesnt practice ezi, but personally i think if anyone were to get it it would be ryan and his cronies.

bah peaceful solutions suck!

Edited October 2, 2009 by goldielax25

[General Ozujsko]

Glad to see this worked out. Still baffled by AUT's "logic."

[Tygaland]

While a lot of people have made some good points, I have to disagree with this assumption that alliances are not responsible for the actions of a ghost.

To be sure, you cannot control if another nation decides to join your alliance, that does not mean that the alliance is somehow not responsible for removing it.

Consider this, if rogues and bandits are camped on your side of a border, wear your insignia or claim to be sanction by you, who then attack a nation on the other side of the border, is it not reasonable for the aggrieved nation to demand that you do something about it?

If a terrorist uses your good name to commit atrocities, and continues to do so, at what point are you obligated to stop just saying "He's not one of ours" and to start working to eliminate this threat and protect your reputation?

This is not something that is entirely black or white, but rather a situation that occupies a gray area of proper conduct, dependent on the context of the situation.

When an alliance approaches another because of an attack by a ghost, it is a courtsey to overlook that ghost's AA and to take the word of the host that the perpetrators are indeed brigands and rogues. It is done to ensure good diplomacy, avoid unneeded escalation, and to work together in order to identify the proper target.

When attacks become frequent, I don't see using the threat of force on an alliance to motivate it to establish some measure of control over its AA as being unreasonable.

Frankly, if The AUT did exhaust his diplomatic options at resolving this to no avail, I think this was an appropriate next step.

I'm glad to see a peaceful resolution to this and that both Ryan and The AUT are capable of cooperative efforts.

Good Job, again, AUT.

The problem with your border analogy is that if a ghost does not want to remove your AA from their nation there is nothing you can do about it. You can ZI them, sanction them and send them big scary messages but the only thing that can remove them from that AA is the nation leader themselves. You can't escort them across your border to use your analogy, they have to voluntarily exit your borders.

If an STA ghost attacks someone I am happy to let the aggrieved alliance tear them a new arsehole but in no way are the actions of that ghost reflective of the STA nor is the STA responsible for that nation's actions. If leaders of alliances had the power to admit people to their AA rather than anyone being able to use that AA without consent of the alliance's leadership then you may have a point. But as it stands, I disagree with you entirely.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Tygaland

[General Scian]

The Aut vs RyanGDI. Oh boy... That's all I'm going to say...

[Schattenmann]

Vox Populi settled the question of what an alliance can do about ghosts last year when we forced GGA to lose their sanction by forcing TOP to gain one in a mass ghosting campaign. The answer was nothing. The answer is still nothing.

I think the hilarity of this thread is that everyone that was hee-hawing about AUT's multiple small alliance fiascos last year is now siding with him to hee-haw about RyanGDI.

The bottom line is that attacking TFA in order to force them to handle ghosts in a manner that you desire is a violation of sovereignty and an aggressive act of war, not a defensive measure. Do you think that anyone would have supported a GGA attack on TOP to force TOP to run off Vox ghosts?

Edited October 2, 2009 by Schattenmann

[D34th]

Peace Prevail

Damn no war

[Kzoppistan]

The problem with your border analogy is that if a ghost does not want to remove your AA from their nation there is nothing you can do about it. You can ZI them, sanction them and send them big scary messages but the only thing that can remove them from that AA is the nation leader themselves. You can't escort them across your border to use your analogy, they have to voluntarily exit your borders.

If an STA ghost attacks someone I am happy to let the aggrieved alliance tear them a new arsehole but in no way are the actions of that ghost reflective of the STA nor is the STA responsible for that nation's actions. If leaders of alliances had the power to admit people to their AA rather than anyone being able to use that AA without consent of the alliance's leadership then you may have a point. But as it stands, I disagree with you entirely.

Well the funny thing about having groups of people around you don't want like ghosts, as long as there is always one person, such as a rogue nation leader, they can always reassemble. It's like trying to grab water with a fist, you may get some, the majority of it is always going to escape through your fingers.

You are correct, you cannot remove some one from an AA and by that same token, you cannot completely eradicate a terrorist network. You can smash their cells, convince the leadership to depart your lands by threat of violence or some other enticement, but if they are determined to stay, there's nothing much that can be done except make their life hell.

Because of that, there is a wide scope of leniency in the matter. Why, if every attack by a ghost could be construed as a causa belli, there would be utter chaos in the world.

When I said it was the responsibility of the host, I did not mean that others could use that as a reason to attack, but that it is in the interest of the host to make sure that it is dealt with properly. If a nation was ghosting on STA's AA, attacking a member of another AA, and they came to notify you of it, would you tell them to take a hike? Of course not, you would, as you stated, take responsibility for it by granting permission to a foreign alliance to conduct attacks on your AA.

Now, if there was a situation like above, where there is some doubt as to whether the offender was really a ghost or not, how would you clarify the situation? You could certainly say to world: "I don't care what you all think, this nation is not one of ours and we're not going to do anything about it." One would certainly have a task of constructing a CB out of that. Or you could attack those unwanted brigands and emphasize your point. That would be a matter of style.

Now, if a nation really was a member but the leaders of the AA kept proclaiming them as a ghost to avoid getting in hot water, would that be a proper CB for an aggrieved AA?

The bottom line is that attacking TFA in order to force them to handle ghosts in a manner that you desire is a violation of sovereignty and an aggressive act of war, not a defensive measure. Do you think that anyone would have supported a GGA attack on TOP to force TOP to run off Vox ghosts?

I think you, and Tygaland, are right on that point. To attack members not involved in the ghost attacks would be most dishonorable. However, if there is enough evidence to suggest that ghost is really a member, is it not reasonable to demand that an alliance clarify that situation or suffer repercussions?

Edited October 2, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Tygaland]

Well the funny thing about having groups of people around you don't want like ghosts, as long as there is always one person, such as a rogue nation leader, they can always reassemble. It's like trying to grab water with a fist, you may get some, the majority of it is always going to escape through your fingers.

You are correct, you cannot remove some one from an AA and by that same token, you cannot completely eradicate a terrorist network. You can smash their cells, convince the leadership to depart your lands by threat of violence or some other enticement, but if they are determined to stay, there's nothing much that can be done except make their life hell.

Because of that, there is a wide scope of leniency in the matter. Why, if every attack by a ghost could be construed as a causa belli, there would be utter chaos in the world.

When I said it was the responsibility of the host, I did not mean that others could use that as a reason to attack, but that it is in the interest of the host to make sure that it is dealt with properly. If a nation was ghosting on STA's AA, attacking a member of another AA, and they came to notify you of it, would you tell them to take a hike? Of course not, you would, as you stated, take responsibility for it by granting permission to a foreign alliance to conduct attacks on your AA.

Now, if there was a situation like above, where there is some doubt as to whether the offender was really a ghost or not, how would you clarify the situation? You could certainly say to world: "I don't care what you all think, this nation is not one of ours and we're not going to do anything about it." One would certainly have a task of constructing a CB out of that. Or you could attack those unwanted brigands and emphasize your point. That would be a matter of style.

Now, if a nation really was a member but the leaders of the AA kept proclaiming them as a ghost to avoid getting in hot water, would that be a proper CB for an aggrieved AA?

You would need proof they were a member of the alliance. From sign ups or something else on their forum. IRC activity or soemthing similar. I think saying "the rogue is a member of your alliance unless you prove otherwise" is not the best way to approach such a situation.

[Poyplemonkeys]

If Ryan can't control his alliance and those who wear his tag, then yes I have umbrage with it and this isn't the first incident.

So I'll change my AA Carthage. You can't control what tag I wear. What are you going to do? Attack me? That won't change my AA. Besides you have nobody in my range. It's your problem though for not being able to change my AA.

This is a completely ridiculous thread in which you seem to be under the impression that you have the right to control another sovereign alliance's policies on ghosting nations. You don't. Good day to you.

Edit: Grammarllama

Edit the 2nd: Oh cool, thread is over, I love being late to parties.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys

[Haflinger]

Our logistics and firepower are spread thin enough as it is.

If this is the case, then you probably need a protectorate agreement.

They're handy for small alliances who are having a difficult time protecting themselves.

Vox Populi settled the question of what an alliance can do about ghosts last year when we forced GGA to lose their sanction by forcing TOP to gain one in a mass ghosting campaign. The answer was nothing. The answer is still nothing.

Actually, this is inaccurate. TOP didn't get sanctioned until after this campaign had ended.

[Chasmic Descent]

So I'll change my AA Carthage. You can't control what tag I wear. What are you going to do? Attack me? That won't change my AA. Besides you have nobody in my range. It's your problem though for not being able to change my AA.

This is a completely ridiculous thread in which you seem to be under the impression that you have the right to control another sovereign alliance's policies on ghosting nations. You don't. Good day to you.

Edit: Grammarllama

Edit the 2nd: Oh cool, thread is over, I love being late to parties.

In this case I would say you didnt just turn up late, you completely missed it, and now the host wants you to help him with the clean up before his parents come back from their weekend away

[Zeta Defender]

Is this how everyone of Ryan's alliances will end?

[jer]

Is this how everyone of Ryan's alliances will end?

What?

[ChairmanHal]

Two things:

1. You should all be ashamed for taking part in this thread. My brain is bleeding just from reading some of the posts here.

2. If you get attacked by a ghost, the alliance that he is ghosting is not responsible for his actions. For example, asking them to attack the ghost is much like you asking reps for the damages hes done. This is stupid. It is not their fault that some idiot decided to switch to their AA and dick around. If you feel like this particular ghost/rogues actions deserve him getting rolled, you should do it. Expecting other people to do it for you is silly.

1. Ashamed? Not really. It was mildly entertaining for a while. It also brought up some important points regarding ghosting of alliances that deserved to be aired out. The knee jerk reaction when seeing RyanGDI come up as a topic in a thread is to yell, "KILL IT!" and assume that RyanGDI did something wrong again. Nine times out of ten, that would be the correct reaction.

2. Standard operating procedure is to immediately contact the AA being ghosted to make sure that alliance is aware of what you are doing, then attack. If you are unable to attack, it is proper to ask for help with the rogue--through private channels. Frequently the alliance being ghosted by a rogue will want to attack them anyway. Providing this assistance is voluntarily, though to be honest if it were requested and refused, I might be a bit miffed. Then again, I wouldn't be asking the alliance behind the rogue's AA for help unless I were desperate and couldn't get an ally to assist.

Of course there are alliances that actually delight in taking on rogues for target practice/war experience for their people. I might know of one in particular, actually.

[Chasmic Descent]

Of course there are alliances that actually delight in taking on rogues for target practice/war experience for their people. I might know of one in particular, actually.

What alliance is that?

[shahenshah]

Man think about how much trouble TOOL would have been in its early days if people expected them to attack all the ghosts that joined them. You people are ridiculous.

TOOL fortunately cannot match the repute of RyanGDI, even from its early days.

However, I do beleive that the drama could have been handled better, which usually is the case with alot of dramas.

o\ TOOL

Edited October 2, 2009 by shahenshah

[magicninja]

Yeah, AUT I love ya man but you can't dictate how another alliance handles people that aren't members even if it is RyanGDI. I know it is the policy of almost every alliance that ghosts are fair game if they mess up. That's as fair as it can get when dealing with ghosts. If an offended alliance is incapable of handling a GATO ghost on their own I'd be more than happy to oblige a polite request for help. However, if someone came to me as you acted here, demanding things without a leg to stand on, it would be a sure way to guarantee they didn't get what they wanted from me.

That said I'm glad to see you guys came to peaceful resolution.

[ShadowDragon]

Well nice to see this hilarious mess solved.

Actually, this is inaccurate. TOP didn't get sanctioned until after this campaign had ended.

Actually they were shortly sanctioned back when Vox did that (near the end of November 2008). It was only for eight days so they didn't get their flag in game but they were sanctioned nonetheless.