SyndicatedINC Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) at least until they decide to become involved in senate politics and tell their members they should vote for PEACE candidates. Correction, that was until you decided to involve us in Senate politics. Once again however, how does this matter either way to the issue at hand? Edited October 7, 2009 by SyndicatedINC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The underlying concept is the same. Now you are just arguing semantics.Also, the messages to SLCB have gone out. We also included our own candidate for Purple Senate since that makes it okay. Have a nice afternoon. "Punching someone out of anger is identical to shooting someone out of anger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfHoward Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 VE is hereby neutral until we do something non-neutral at which time we will be suspending our neutrality without notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I've always thought senates should be free and that alliances really have far too much to do with senate seats compared to what they should. Good job Stickmen at revolutionizing the norms of senate procedure. I'm glad you've avoided becoming purplol entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Once again however, how does this matter either way to the issue at hand? because in your initial post you say Avalon has long held a policy of political neutrality in regards to the matters of Purple Senate. To do otherwise, given our history of limited participation in other areas of the sphere politics would be unseemly of us. looks like you're being unseemly after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molleh Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) Correction, that was until you decided to involve us in Senate politics. Once again however, how does this matter either way to the issue at hand? Because a message requesting you to please vote for someone involves you and means you have to? Is it not the individual nations choice to vote or not? Edited October 7, 2009 by imbored24470 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 We understand that, but to profess you are neutral in a senate and then vote...lol. The original message was an affront to them. They gave you a chance to-as you may have been unaware of their policy-graciously step out by simply agreeing to no longer spam their members. Thus far that offer has been rebuffed. Again, you're surprised when they swing the opposite way of the people who insulted them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 You all realize that neutrality =/= pacifism or doing nothing when provoked, right? A neutral alliance, and I'm not saying Avalon is neutral, can respond when prodded and still be neutral. Taking action to defend themselves in no way cancels neutrality. Anyway, follow Stumpy's lead, for he is wise in all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The original message was an affront to them. They gave you a chance to-as you may have been unaware of their policy-graciously step out by simply agreeing to no longer spam their members. Thus far that offer has been rebuffed. Again, you're surprised when they swing the opposite way of the people who insulted them? we're not at all surprised we just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of saying "don't ask us to vote in senate races, we don't vote in senate races but since you asked us to vote in a senate race we're going to go ahead and vote in a senate race even though we previously stated that to vote in a senate race would be unseemly, but since you made us be unseemly, we're going to go ahead and be unseemly" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyndicatedINC Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 looks like you're being unseemly after all. Perhaps in your eyes. In our eyes it is Stickmen being unseemly with these messages. So again what is wrong with the proposed course of events (no more attempts to sway votes from us and we won't vote for anyone actual candidates on either side)? Seems to me doubly interesting since we both see the end to what we view as unseemly behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's interesting how many alliances claim that this is fine. I take it we should add any white nations within your alliances to our senate PM lists? Good luck Avalon. -Bama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun WuKong Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 You make a perfectly rational request, Avalon, and an understandable one. It's unfortunate that some in Stickmen will take this polite request as an excuse to mock you. Sending Senate voting messages to another alliances isn't as bad as trying to recruit their members, but I still don't like it. Back when we were on Green, there was an incident when someone (an unaligned trying to cause trouble, in fact) sent 'vote for Grämlins senators' messages to everyone on Green, and GGA were very unhappy about it – I think rightly. The attempts to equate this with NSO's recruitment messages are exaggerations, but this isn't the right way to go about getting senate votes. I'll have to agree with the above. It's not really that hard to understand. An alliance has the right to inform their members who to vote (or not vote) for. An alliance does not have the right to do so to members of another alliance without their consent. Whether or not one agrees with Avalon's taking umbrage at this is immaterial - those who are saying "what's the big deal" are being disingenuous. It is an infringement on another alliance's prerogatives. Now, what I'm curious about is that by making a formal complaint, Avalon is implying that there shall be some action forthcoming if the complaint is not addressed. What action might that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Perhaps in your eyes. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I laughed, I cried, I laughed again. Few things here.... 1) Thank you Stickmen, you have given Poseidon the needed kick in the $@! to actually start voting smarter and faster, something which should have been dealt with during the Lord Invicta senate issues. 2) Buffy, if you really want to help Poseidon turn your votes off. 3) Where the hell is Stumpys senate vote?? In short, good play dear Stickmen, may the future seante races be fun and interesting. My viewpoints do not reflect my alliance, as I am supposed to not post in this thread........ Ooops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 "Punching someone out of anger is identical to shooting someone out of anger." Your comparison doesn't fit the current situation. If I was claiming that nuking a nation was the equivalent of asking for a Senate vote then you would have a point. As it exists, you do not. The underlying issue is that every nation can read a message and determine to act on the message, regardless of its content, or not. They each have that choice. To claim that one kind of message is inherently "more" than another in regards to the choice that is left to the nation is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veneke Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Having read the entirety of the thread, I'm just going to hail Avalon for sticking up for what they saw as a violation of their political neutrality with regards to the Purple Senate. You can spin this any way you like Stickmen (and their supporters), but the fact of the matter here is that you were caught badgering an alliance for their votes, what's worse, an alliance that is known for not partaking in Senate matters. Right, wrong or otherwise on the matter at hand, your FA team is either incompetent and incapable of doing research before they recommended this approach, or ye knew about it and decided to plough on anyway and now ye're suffering the consequences, or perhaps ye didn't bother consulting FA at all? Regardless, it seems a bit of a disaster really for ye. Oh, and fair play to Avalon for bringing this to the public light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 An alliance has the right to inform their members who to vote (or not vote) for. An alliance does not have the right to do so to members of another alliance without their consent. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Doedel Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 This mass spamming of another sovereign entity is not in keeping with the standards of civilized conduct on Planet Bob. Could have fooled me, I get unsolicited trade circle messages every day, from about every alliance out there. Such tactics are the tools of underground guerrilla campaigns and the like, not for use by upstanding formal alliances of honour. It seems that there are very few upstanding formal alliances out there, including Avalon, since they decided to spam this forum. Avalon has long held a policy of political neutrality in regards to the matters of Purple Senate. By launching a campaign against a Purple Senator, it seems that Avalon's long held position of neutrality in regards to the matter of the Purple Senate just came to a screeching end. To do otherwise, given our history of limited participation in other areas of the sphere politics would be unseemly of us. You cold always continue your limited participation in this area of sphere politics. Intended or not, this spam constituted a direct attempt to undermine Avalon's policy of non-involvement in Purple senate matters. Correct, since Avalon just got involved. By doing otherwise the Stickmen have created an unnecessary burden upon our bureaucracy and have undermined our policy of political neutrality. I've never seen Avalon's citizens as a herd of cows, doing everything they've been told to do without checking from whom the order came from. Therefore, I'm not sure how this action has put a burden on your bureaucracy. As for undermining your policy of political neutrality, Avalon decided to break said neutrality by the OP. Avalon does not seek any sort of apology or other political mechanization. We are seeking only to make a public awareness of how and why such violation of common political etiquette can be construed as rude. It is our desire to see this rectified by the cessation of further such occurrences. I'll be happy to ask Arexes to stop his senate campain if you can make sure I won't get any unwanted messages. If you cannot do this, then unsolicited messages seem to be commonplace on planet Bob, and thus I won't have any reason to ask Arexes to stop with unsolicited messages. This incident has started off relations with our new Purple brethren in the Stickmen on the wrong foot. I'd recommend apologizing to them. Regards, Jan Doedel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Perhaps in your eyes. In our eyes it is Stickmen being unseemly with these messages. So again what is wrong with the proposed course of events (no more attempts to sway votes from us and we won't vote for anyone actual candidates on either side)? Seems to me doubly interesting since we both see the end to what we view as unseemly behavior. lol avalol lol unseemly A+++++++++++++++++ BEST POST EVER LEGIT LOL WILL READ AGAIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Your comparison doesn't fit the current situation. If I was claiming that nuking a nation was the equivalent of asking for a Senate vote then you would have a point. As it exists, you do not.The underlying issue is that every nation can read a message and determine to act on the message, regardless of its content, or not. They each have that choice. To claim that one kind of message is inherently "more" than another in regards to the choice that is left to the nation is ridiculous. The underlying concept of inflicting physical harm on another out of anger is the same in punching or shooting someone. One is just more severe than the other. When considering that, how does my comparison not fit the current situation? Unless you're equating voting for a senator and recruiting members of another alliance, it most certainly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. They also have the right to stop it, which they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Having read the entirety of the thread, I'm just going to hail Avalon for sticking up for what they saw as a violation of their political neutrality with regards to the Purple Senate. the second they told their members to not vote for our candidate and to vote for the PEACE candidates, they became, de facto, not politically neutral. You can spin this any way you like Stickmen (and their supporters), but the fact of the matter here is that you were caught badgering an alliance for their votes, what's worse, an alliance that is known for not partaking in Senate matters. to suggest that we were caught is to suggest that we wished to do what we did in secret. since we did not wish for it to be secret we weren't "caught" in any way shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 They also have the right to stop it, which they are doing. No they're not, they're just complaining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The underlying concept of inflicting physical harm on another out of anger is the same in punching or shooting someone. One is just more severe than the other. When considering that, how does my comparison not fit the current situation? Unless you're equating voting for a senator and recruiting members of another alliance, it most certainly does. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 No they're not, they're just complaining about it. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts