Jump to content

Alliance Sovereignty and Messaging


Jyrinx

  

312 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

'Messaging specific, individual nations off-team to vote for a senate candidate'

'Messaging specific, individual nations on-team to vote for a senate candidate'

'Mass messaging all nations in an alliance to switch alliances'

These three are mostly the ones which I regard as not infringing upon an alliance's sovereignty,

but as with all of them it largely depends upon the alliances in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I fail to see how messages can infringe upon sovereignty, could someone explain that to me?

Simple, if the glue that holds an alliance together is ignorance and apathy, then the light of knowledge - regardless of the sort - is a threat to alliance security.

Edited by heggo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are consequences for all actions - what those consequences are is up to the alliance in question that you messaged. Each will perceive it differently and therefore handle it differently. If you message Kronos nations with any of the above without speaking to gov first, those consequences will probably differ from the consequences if you did the same to, let's say, TOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are consequences for all actions - what those consequences are is up to the alliance in question that you messaged. Each will perceive it differently and therefore handle it differently. If you message Kronos nations with any of the above without speaking to gov first, those consequences will probably differ from the consequences if you did the same to, let's say, TOP.

Well spoken; everyone will react different, however i personally don't view any as infringement upon sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these are violations of another alliance's sovereignty, although a few are a bit tasteless. The only difference is how the target alliance reacts - I mean I've been recruiting from NSO for months now and we haven't had a problem. I guess it's more of a problem with your alliance if your members don't know who to vote for in senate elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these are violations of another alliance's sovereignty, although a few are a bit tasteless. The only difference is how the target alliance reacts - I mean I've been recruiting from NSO for months now and we haven't had a problem. I guess it's more of a problem with your alliance if your members don't know who to vote for in senate elections.

I didn't realize the Moralist Front had signed onto the NSO declaration of national sovereignty.

Thank you for letting me know that it has. We will start drawing up recruitment lists accordingly.'

EDIT: I hate Halloween.

Edited by Ivan Moldavi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how messages can infringe upon sovereignty, could someone explain that to me?

I think that most of the people, myself included, voted for the options that we would react adversely to. You're right, they don't infringe on sovereignty, they're just PM's. However, that will not stop the targeted alliance from taking offense and potentially escalating things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize the Moralist Front had signed onto the NSO declaration of national sovereignty.

Thank you for letting me know that it has. We will start drawing up recruitment lists accordingly.'

EDIT: I hate Halloween.

We'd love to have your recruitment letters, mainly because we need to learn how to recruit effectively. Thanks a bunch, Ivan.

EDIT: As someone who has made my own share of Halloween mistakes, I'll acknowledge the edit.

Edited by Vilien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think messaging an entire alliance or partial-amount of an alliance to do anything without consent of their government is asking for trouble. You should never take it upon yourself to message an entire alliance for anything unless you are in that alliance or they have given you approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people just like to scream "Sovereignty!" whenever something happens that they don't like. A lot of people don't like these things, and so even though none of them have anything to do with alliance sovereignty people still scream it as a knee-jerk reaction if/when it happens.

We have a lot of words that are used like that around here, without regard to what they actually mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people just like to scream "Sovereignty!" whenever something happens that they don't like. A lot of people don't like these things, and so even though none of them have anything to do with alliance sovereignty people still scream it as a knee-jerk reaction if/when it happens.

We have a lot of words that are used like that around here, without regard to what they actually mean.

Don't get Ramirus started on White Peace again... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None - else nations become like Bates in Henry V and divest themselves of any moral free agency.

Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us

Henry V: Act 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people just like to scream "Sovereignty!" whenever something happens that they don't like. A lot of people don't like these things, and so even though none of them have anything to do with alliance sovereignty people still scream it as a knee-jerk reaction if/when it happens.

We have a lot of words that are used like that around here, without regard to what they actually mean.

I agree with this. Mass messaging a sphere to vote for a candidate isn't infringing upon sovereignty. I've received numerous PMs regarding voting on the red team, and I don't view it as a breach of Nevermore sovereignty. It doesn't attempt to tell you as an alliance should support for a candidate, simply advertising an alternative person. Ultimately it is the nations choice who to vote for, if voting at all.

I do feel that mass messaging could be construed as rude, insulting, or something along those lines though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of every social order is to motivate a certain pattern of conduct in humans, to make them abstain of actions that are considered hazardrous to society and to make them execute actions that are considered utile to society.

There are various types of social orders that characterize itself with specific motivation.

Motivation can be direct or indirect. An order can associate certain advantages to the following of a certain conduct and certain disadvantages to not adhering to it, making the desire for the promised advantage or fear of the threat of disadvantage act as a motivation of conduct.

Sometimes sanctions can be established and defined by social orders, and in other situations communities might react instantly in a non-established way, effectively establishing a sanction for certain patterns of behavior.

It is undeniable that, considering the entire digiterra as a community, there is the notion that alliances have the innate right to message the nations under the sphere of their law to vote on senate candidate(s) and to stay an a determined alliance affiliation. It is considered a government function, and as such it is exclusive of the government that the nation accepts. Violating that monopoly is viewed as violanting the monopoly of governance of alliances, which is known by many as sovereignity. Its not at all at random that people scream sovereignity or that they do not like it being violated, and even though there isn't exactly a formal establishment of inter-alliace laws, there is a clear understanding of right, wrong, and of violation of individual alliance laws by third parties.

That to me is as clear as water, but (OOC:as in RL) power and influence come in the way and alliances get to twist the notion of lawful and unlawful according to their own interests, due to the fact that there isn't an established leviathan to make the customary law into an established through force. In the absence of a stronger party to force them to obey the law, they believe their might is enough to back whatever agenda they have, but they forget that communities at some point do react.

edit: typos. Really awful.

Edited by deSouza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not twisting it in any way. I simply asked you to explain why you thought an alliance had the right to control what enters their members' message boxes. There's no twist. It's just a simple request for you to explain yourself. Surely you have reasons for the opinions you hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a little ridiculous, all of these options really have nothing to do with sovereignty, and Ill explain:

First off, I voted "None of these infringe on an alliance's sovereignty" because technically an alliance has no control over the in-game messaging system thus nothing can be infringed. I think Sovereignty should have been defined in the OP, but since it was not, I'm just going to go with Wikipedia's definition: "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory." If we consider the messaging system a territory of the game, then an alliance can have no sovereign clam to it as they do not have supreme, independent authority over what messages their members send or receive therefor they have no "sovereign right" to claim over it simply because the game mechanics do not allow it.

Does this make these things ethically right? well that's another discussion/poll in its self :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not twisting it in any way. I simply asked you to explain why you thought an alliance had the right to control what enters their members' message boxes. There's no twist. It's just a simple request for you to explain yourself. Surely you have reasons for the opinions you hold.

It was a poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't trying to call you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, if the glue that holds an alliance together is ignorance and apathy, then the light of knowledge - regardless of the sort - is a threat to alliance security.

You Sir, are a genious. I'd try to recruit you for my alliance, if it wasn't that...

Wait! Maybe I can do that! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't trying to call you out.

Call me out? For what? You're doing an awfully poor job of it. I don't think you really thought this through.

Still don't want to tell me why you think alliances have sovereignty over their members' inboxes? At this point it seems obvious that you can't and are just trying to cover it up with some nonsense about calling me out.

Edited by Sal Paradise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, it all depends on the alliance on the recieving end.

If they want to control what their nations get told and sent ingame then thats their choice. Other alliances should respect the others wishes, but I don't think it's a massive deal if they don't either, not unless they keep doing it dispite you telling them not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...