ShinRa Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 '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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I fail to see how messages can infringe upon sovereignty, could someone explain that to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) 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 October 26, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) 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 October 26, 2009 by Ivan Moldavi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) 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 October 26, 2009 by Vilien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juana La Loca Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) 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 October 27, 2009 by deSouza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I like how people try to turn it around so it's the governments infringing on the rights of their members. You could say we're trying to infringe on foreign alliances right to mass message other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fronz Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) 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 October 28, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOOFER Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I voted all but the merging options. That is only because I believe msging a disbanding alliance is ok, however a merging alliance is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Messaging another nation that is already in an alliance asking (or telling) it to switch to another AA is quite possibly the worst violation of sovereignty you can get. Poaching members is always frowned upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Messaging another nation that is already in an alliance asking (or telling) it to switch to another AA is quite possibly the worst violation of sovereignty you can get. Please explain first why it's a violation of sovereignty at all and second why it's the worst. 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.