Jyrinx Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I want to see what the consensus is for these. If you are a government member acting in official capacity for your government, does messaging an alliance's members for the following reasons constitute an infringement on that alliance's sovereignty? 1) Messaging to vote for a senate candidate, when the alliance member is located off-team (not on the alliance's team) For example, you're blue and there's a member of a predominately aqua alliance in your blue trade circle right now. Would it infringe on said aqua alliance's sovereignty to message this member and ask him to vote for your alliance's blue senator? 2) Messaging to vote for a(nother) senate candidate, when the alliance member is located on-team (located on the alliance's team) Similar to 1) but the instead of it being an aqua alliance, the guy is in a predominately blue alliance. Would it infringe on said blue alliance's sovereignty to ask him to vote for a blue senator other than the one his alliance officially supports? 3) Situation 1 but with mass messaging Instead of messaging a specific person you know or are in a trade circle with, you message indiscriminately everyone in an orange team alliance but only if they're on the blue team. In the message you ask them to vote for your blue team senator. 4) Situation 2 but with mass messaging Self-explanatory 5) Messaging a friend or other specific nation you know in another alliance, asking them to switch over to either your or another alliance (OOC: By "friend" here, I mean a nation you know through playing the game, not someone you know in real life. I don't think anybody in their right mind would seriously consider you asking a co-worker or significant other to switch to your alliance being questionable behavior) 6) Mass Messaging all members in another alliance, asking them to switch over to either your or another alliance 7) Situation 6 but said alliance has either just or is in the process of disbanding/merging AND you DID have something to do with the previous alliance For example, Alliance A merges with Alliance B. You don't like B and, as you are a member of A, decide to officially leave A and either form your own alliance or join another existing alliance. You mass message everyone still on A telling them to come to your alliance. 8) Situation 6 but said alliance has either just or is in the process of disbanding/merging AND you had nothing to do with the alliance before Edited October 26, 2009 by Jyrinx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Voted all, because technically they all infringe on an alliance's sovereignity. An alliance reacting to it or not is a different question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Can we have a "none" option please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted October 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Can we have a "none" option please? Does "null vote" not count in the total results? I thought it did. Ok, I'll add a none option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Does "null vote" not count in the total results? I thought it did. Ok, I'll add a none option. Ah, voting now and looking at the vote count, looks like it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I want there to be an option "In contradiction of the alliance's policies." There's probably some alliance out there (I can think of a couple examples that get close) that bans its members from all outside contact entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I would say all do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) None of them do. It's just messages. They do no harm at all and can be deleted. Edited October 26, 2009 by Corinan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) None of that has anything to do with sovereignty. Though you might think so if you considered nations the property of their alliance. Well that's not true... rulers rightfully consider their nations property and such messages still aren't violations of sovereignty for a nation without an alliance. Yeah, none of that has anything to do with sovereignty. Edited October 26, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool It's all PMs, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 The only ones that would raise my hackles were the recruiting from another alliances, a la NSO. Other than that, its cool Please explain why an alliance has this right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Please explain why an alliance has this right. Because that's, like, the way it's always been! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Someone is trying to play e-lawyer. "Infringe on sovereignty?" Probably not. But it's extremely rude and provocative. That's enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted October 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) Someone is trying to play e-lawyer. "Infringe on sovereignty?" Probably not. But it's extremely rude and provocative. That's enough. If I wanted to know whether people thought it was rude and provocative, I would've asked that in the poll. No, what I'm curious about is how predominant a view it is that those situations are all out infringements on sovereignty. Getting a few explanations for the responses would be cool too. Edited October 26, 2009 by Jyrinx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Please explain why an alliance has this right. I understand the reasoning that the NSO used during the whole scandal, but I still don't like that they were doing it. It speaks volumes about the amount of respect that the NSO held for the neutrals and was essentially a slap in the face to them. Twist it what ever way you want, it was uncalled for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 It doesn't even really infringes on the sovereignty, but people are free to feel pissed off when things like that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 and was essentially a slap in the face to them. If that's true then I guess we have something in common, no? Anyways, voted none, can't wait for the inevitable trainwreck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Recruiting from other alliances is the only "not-done" scenario for me. Hai NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I voted for the last option. I think that members of an alliance are citizens, not subjects, and that asking/proposing anything to them isn't infringing on their alliance's sovereignty. That alliance is also within its rights to take offence for it, anyway, and to "do something" about it. Any CB is good for the people in the military... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Bypassing the diplomatic route and an alliance's leadership to contact the membership directly over matters that an alliance deals with (tech selling, senate voting, etc.) is poor form in my opinion and any alliance suffering this has every right to be cheesed off. However it's one of those things that has always happened and unfortunately nine times out of ten it's dealt with completely the wrong way. "That's not the way things are done" is increasingly become an obsolete argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I voted all apart from #5, 7 and 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Voted a resounding meh, or none of the above. At the most I could see that it would be infringing the country's "personal" sovereignty but not the Alliance's1. Senate: well there is probably some Alliance-wide request/order to vote for one particular candidate, and if the member is moved to vote for some one else then s/he either has a will of their own (good!) or their Alliance has failed to make them understand what to do and why (bad!). Change Alliance: if the member is so influenced by that message that he leaves for another Alliance, then he and/or the original Alliance really was not fit for each other so who cares? Let them leave. 1unless it happens to be Purple, when apparently saying hello counts as a horrible offense against good taste and decency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm not going to vote because I don't want to get tied up in a semantic argument about what is or isn't part of an alliance's sovereignty. But all of those things are poor form and are likely to result in, at least, diplomatic consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I honestly don't see anything wrong with any of these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.