Avalon Lodges a Formal Complaint

[Sun WuKong]

SLCB retains the right to message anyone about single trades, tech deals, trade circles and/or senate voting. for you to state otherwise is an attempt to violate our sovereignty.

those on the receiving end of any of the above messages retain the right to respond to, ignore or otherwise block the sender of said messages. to state otherwise is an attempt to violate their sovereignty.

While I disagree with your concept of rights, you certainly have the right to try and make this stick. As does Avalon and their espousal of rights.

So that again begs the question: the two alliances are having a clash over a conflicting view of their 'rights' - what is going to be done about it?

[Jan Doedel]

I take it we should add any white nations within your alliances to our senate PM lists?

Seeing I get trade circle offers from White nations, I don't see this as (more) unseemingly if you were to add me to your message list.

Regards, Jan Doedel.

[SyndicatedINC]

not at all, lol. we were the ones initially asking you to vote in a senate race (along with, i might add, just about everyone else on purple) so how on earth would you actually voting in the race be "unseemly" in our eyes. i remind you that you were the ones that made the statement that for avalon to vote in a senate race is "unseemly"... so it follows that if you make that statement and then proceed within hours of that statement to vote in a senate race, you're being unseemly in your own eyes.

Not at all, unseemly to us would be if Avalon was actively involving itself in playing Senate politics without actively involving itself in the rest of the sphere. We stayed out of Politics out of respect for the alliances who were more actively involved in them and had an actual stake in things. Given our lack of interest in that world of things, it seemed the only 'Polite' choice.

Therefore we do not see it as unseemly to endorse involvement at this time, given that we are not actively involving ourselves this round, only redressing an injustice. Given that those who committed no offense to us (PEACE) understand our neutrality and accept our deviation this one time, we do not see it as rude or unseemly behavior.

The apparent disconnect here is that Avalon policy revolves around specific code of honour and a desire to be polite. We view what the Stickmen did as violating that and are acting within the confines of utmost class in responding. If PEACE wishes Avalon to cease the votes we shall, since it would be rude to ignore that. If Stickmen cease vote spam, it would likewise be rude for Avalon to hold a grudge or continue to cast votes.

[xoindotnler]

lol avalol lol

unseemly

A+++++++++++++++++ BEST POST EVER LEGIT LOL WILL READ AGAIN

yeah! and he kicked me from the IRC channel when I tried to explain what was up!

-
* You were kicked from #invicta by Haf (masturbate by yourself please)

You really do not know why you got kicked? SLCB members act like !@#$%^& on IRC.

[GopDrager]

You really do not know why you got kicked? SLCB members act like !@#$%^& on IRC.

What'd you do to them? They've always been very respectful and polite to me.

[SonOfHoward]

This thread just got better.

uhh make relevant post relevant.....

So what's going to happen when senates are reset and this happens again?

[Ivan Moldavi]

This thread just got better.

uhh make relevant post relevant.....

So what's going to happen when senates are reset and this happens again?

Well, since I was told I had to be involved in the Purple Senate discussion I think everyone should vote for Lord Phillip.

[Kellory]

at least until they decide to become involved in senate politics and tell their members they should vote for PEACE candidates.

They became involved because the Stickmen involved them.

We, as other Purple alliances, do not involve Avalon in Senate politics because we respect their wishes not to be. We could even have asked them to have voted for us, but we did not.

I was on #Avalon last night when we started getting these PM's. And realized it was a mass Purple spam. I could have told Avalon about it, but I did not. Because it was a Senate matter and to do so would not be respecting their desire to remain out of it. I knew that if they got the same PM's that they would act accordingly as they saw fit. I respected their decisions and in turn they respected Purple Unity's.

The difference here is that we respected the desires of Avalon, as we have respected the wish of the Stickmen to go their own way. Are we happy they chose to set themselves apart from us? No, but we respected their decision to do so.

However, with this the Stickmen have obviously decided not to reciprocate that same respect back. Nor even take a few minutes to get to know some of the alliances they were spamming. Even should we have decided to spam all of Purple (and this has been considered and voted down in the past) we never would have spammed Avalon because we respect their decision to remain above this all. The Stickmen did not. Whether they even know about Avalon's policy is not relevant because they never sought to learn it in the first place.

This really has nothing to do with the Senate seats, it is about respecting other alliances on the same sphere. If the Stickmen do not want to, that is of course their choice. But a simple apology to Avalon would have probably sufficed to keep them out of it all.

Sending a PM to an officer requesting assistance is a query. Mass spamming an entire sphere to try to get a certain result is at best simply insulting. It is not about whether people can think for themselves. It is about respecting other alliances, especially those on your own color whether you agree with them or not. Perhaps that is not how it is done on other spheres. So be it. Everyone is different. It is, however, how we've done things on Purple. Perhaps that makes us weak to some. So be it. Perhaps that makes us lolpurple to others. So be it. But even so we have respected the wishes of others because that is how Purple rolls. To have that respect thrown back at us is not a nice thing.

Purple has done nothing but try to respect decisions and ways of the Stickmen. We have tried to work with the Stickmen as much as possible and let them do their own thing because it is how we operate. In return we have been mocked and ridiculed and insulted by the Stickmen at every turn. This is not about the Stickmen's right to send those messages out either. Certainly they have that right. As every Purple alliance (including Avalon) has a right to feel insulted by it. And request that it stop. That is our sovereignty. I'm sure the Stickmen are free to continue to do as they wish, we have no desire to infringe on their sovereignty even as they do not care if they infringe on ours.

But at the end of the day the record will show even while the Stickmen did whatever they wanted and chose to use whatever tactics they wanted for their goals, the rest of Purple choose to respect the sovereignty of everyone else on Purple even to our own detriment. Because we are about respect, even if others do not reciprocate.

[Il Impero Romano]

Not at all, unseemly to us would be if Avalon was actively involving itself in playing Senate politics without actively involving itself in the rest of the sphere. We stayed out of Politics out of respect for the alliances who were more actively involved in them and had an actual stake in things. Given our lack of interest in that world of things, it seemed the only 'Polite' choice.

Therefore we do not see it as unseemly to endorse involvement at this time, given that we are not actively involving ourselves this round, only redressing an injustice. Given that those who committed no offense to us (PEACE) understand our neutrality and accept our deviation this one time, we do not see it as rude or unseemly behavior.

The apparent disconnect here is that Avalon policy revolves around specific code of honour and a desire to be polite. We view what the Stickmen did as violating that and are acting within the confines of utmost class in responding. If PEACE wishes Avalon to cease the votes we shall, since it would be rude to ignore that. If Stickmen cease vote spam, it would likewise be rude for Avalon to hold a grudge or continue to cast votes.

Hey, at least your doing something about it, unlike the other affected alliances. You should embrace that.

Also, congrats to our allies in iFOK, glad to see you on the senate page

Edited October 7, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Jan Doedel]

Therefore we do not see it as unseemly to endorse involvement at this time, given that we are not actively involving ourselves this round, only redressing an injustice.

It seems to me that the OP implicitly warns Purple nations not to vote for Michiel de Ruyter, which sounds rather active to mo.

Given that those who committed no offense to us (PEACE) understand our neutrality and accept our deviation this one time, we do not see it as rude or unseemly behavior.

Except for the fact that you're not being neutral, maybe.

The apparent disconnect here is that Avalon policy revolves around specific code of honour and a desire to be polite.

To me, making yourself look 'neutral' while clearly you are not doesn't look very honourable to me.

Regards, Jan Doedel.

[Jingoist]

Of all people you?

I was trying to make a point were he says: "SLCB retains the right to message anyone about single trades, tech deals, trade circles and/or senate voting. for you to state otherwise is an attempt to violate our sovereignty." He is saying it is violating their sovereignty, which Avalon is not doing, and when Avalon tells/asks/complains to stop doing it, and they don't then you can also consider that violating their sovereignty.

we've already messaged them about this month. they then post this thread. how is it you can see 30 days into the future?

[Jingoist]

While I disagree with your concept of rights, you certainly have the right to try and make this stick. As does Avalon and their espousal of rights.

So that again begs the question: the two alliances are having a clash over a conflicting view of their 'rights' - what is going to be done about it?

considering that avalon is the "offended" party I'd very much like to hear from them on this.

[Jan Doedel]

They became involved because the Stickmen involved them.

You mean 'They became involved because they chose not to ignore a message'? It was Avalon's own choice to become involved. They were not forced.

Regards, Jan Doedel.

[Jingoist]

You really do not know why you got kicked? SLCB members act like !@#$%^& on IRC.

I don't generalize about your members actions on IRC, I'll thank you to not generalize about mine.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Jingoist

[Jingoist]

They became involved because the Stickmen involved them.

We, as other Purple alliances, do not involve Avalon in Senate politics because we respect their wishes not to be. We could even have asked them to have voted for us, but we did not.

I was on #Avalon last night when we started getting these PM's. And realized it was a mass Purple spam. I could have told Avalon about it, but I did not. Because it was a Senate matter and to do so would not be respecting their desire to remain out of it. I knew that if they got the same PM's that they would act accordingly as they saw fit. I respected their decisions and in turn they respected Purple Unity's.

The difference here is that we respected the desires of Avalon, as we have respected the wish of the Stickmen to go their own way. Are we happy they chose to set themselves apart from us? No, but we respected their decision to do so.

However, with this the Stickmen have obviously decided not to reciprocate that same respect back. Nor even take a few minutes to get to know some of the alliances they were spamming. Even should we have decided to spam all of Purple (and this has been considered and voted down in the past) we never would have spammed Avalon because we respect their decision to remain above this all. The Stickmen did not. Whether they even know about Avalon's policy is not relevant because they never sought to learn it in the first place.

This really has nothing to do with the Senate seats, it is about respecting other alliances on the same sphere. If the Stickmen do not want to, that is of course their choice. But a simple apology to Avalon would have probably sufficed to keep them out of it all.

Sending a PM to an officer requesting assistance is a query. Mass spamming an entire sphere to try to get a certain result is at best simply insulting. It is not about whether people can think for themselves. It is about respecting other alliances, especially those on your own color whether you agree with them or not. Perhaps that is not how it is done on other spheres. So be it. Everyone is different. It is, however, how we've done things on Purple. Perhaps that makes us weak to some. So be it. Perhaps that makes us lolpurple to others. So be it. But even so we have respected the wishes of others because that is how Purple rolls. To have that respect thrown back at us is not a nice thing.

Purple has done nothing but try to respect decisions and ways of the Stickmen. We have tried to work with the Stickmen as much as possible and let them do their own thing because it is how we operate. In return we have been mocked and ridiculed and insulted by the Stickmen at every turn. This is not about the Stickmen's right to send those messages out either. Certainly they have that right. As every Purple alliance (including Avalon) has a right to feel insulted by it. And request that it stop. That is our sovereignty. I'm sure the Stickmen are free to continue to do as they wish, we have no desire to infringe on their sovereignty even as they do not care if they infringe on ours.

But at the end of the day the record will show even while the Stickmen did whatever they wanted and chose to use whatever tactics they wanted for their goals, the rest of Purple choose to respect the sovereignty of everyone else on Purple even to our own detriment. Because we are about respect, even if others do not reciprocate.

do you actually have anything of value to say or add to this conversation? judging by the above blatherings, the answer is no.

[Diogenes]

No, because your comparison removes the right of the other party to not receive the inflicted harm.

No harm is done with a message, regardless of the content, insofar as Cyberverse relations are conducted. If I sent a recruitment message and the receiving nation was forced to join my alliance by opening it then your comparison would hold true. As I said, it does not.

Those hurt physically might not have a choice, but the person attacking them does. Similarly, the person receiving a message can't choose whether or not to receive a message (they can choose whether or not to open the message, but they still have to receive it). When sending a message, though, you have a choice of whether or not to send the message.

Either way, this argument is pretty pointless since we're obviously not going to agree.

[BamaBuc]

SLCB retains the right to message anyone about single trades, tech deals, trade circles and/or senate voting. for you to state otherwise is an attempt to violate our sovereignty.

those on the receiving end of any of the above messages retain the right to respond to, ignore or otherwise block the sender of said messages. to state otherwise is an attempt to violate their sovereignty.

Disagreeing with an action you take doesn't constitute infringing your sovereignty. One cannot violate your sovereignty merely by stating an opinion.

-Bama

[porksaber]

You really do not know why you got kicked? SLCB members act like !@#$%^& on IRC.

What's a !@#$%^&?

[Jingoist]

Disagreeing with an action you take doesn't constitute infringing your sovereignty. One cannot violate your sovereignty merely by stating an opinion.

-Bama

fair enough. the point is we claim the right to do something and someone telling us "lol stop" isn't going to change what we claim as a sovereign right.

[BamaBuc]

fair enough. the point is we claim the right to do something and someone telling us "lol stop" isn't going to change what we claim as a sovereign right.

Agreed. Though I think "sovereignty" is something a lot of people twist around. Basically we all have the "sovereign right" to do absolutely anything, provided we don't break the law or the rules. Where a lot of people go wrong is that they assume that they have the sovereign right to do absolutely anything without consequences. This is not the case.

-Bama

[The Reccesion]

we've already messaged them about this month. they then post this thread. how is it you can see 30 days into the future?

I never said anything about the future?

[Ivan Moldavi]

Those hurt physically might not have a choice, but the person attacking them does. Similarly, the person receiving a message can't choose whether or not to receive a message (they can choose whether or not to open the message, but they still have to receive it). When sending a message, though, you have a choice of whether or not to send the message.

Either way, this argument is pretty pointless since we're obviously not going to agree.

You are right, it is pointless, but I will push forward regardless.

The issue that you bring up however isn't what I was addressing. Of course the shooter has the right not to fire, but the one being shot does not have the right (or has lost it) to avoid being so. It is not logical to equate the reception of a message in your diplomatic correspondence, which is a normal everyday part of the national discourse, to being fired upon, which is an abnormal aberrant situation.

So you can't equate the rights of the victim of a shooting to those of a national leader receiving a normal message via normal common means.

[Jingoist]

Agreed. Though I think "sovereignty" is something a lot of people twist around. Basically we all have the "sovereign right" to do absolutely anything, provided we don't break the law or the rules. Where a lot of people go wrong is that they assume that they have the sovereign right to do absolutely anything without consequences. This is not the case.

-Bama

i see the point and even concede it. however it appears that the consequences in this event are "lol stop" followed by "please" followed closely by "we've tried nothin and we're all out of ideas".

[Ivan Moldavi]

Disagreeing with an action you take doesn't constitute infringing your sovereignty. One cannot violate your sovereignty merely by stating an opinion.

-Bama

Aren't messages just opinions in penned form?

[Jingoist]

I never said anything about the future?

the point is that we've already sent the messages and they've said "dont do it again"... we've not gotten to the next senate reset yet so there's no way anyone can know that we're going to ignore their request.