Alliance Sovereignty and Messaging

[Prime minister Johns]

Please explain first why it's a violation of sovereignty at all and second why it's the worst.

Recognising that an alliance has sovereignty involves also recognising its members as being aligned to that alliance, and by messaging a nation already in an alliance with recruiting spam is effectively refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the alliance that they are in and that they are effectively unaligned. Thus sending recruiting messages to a nation already in an alliance is effectively the same as saying that their alliance is not an alliance and thus has no sovereignty, and denying the existence of their sovereignty is the worst violation possible.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Sal Paradise]

Recognising that an alliance has sovereignty involves also recognising its members as being aligned to that alliance, and by messaging a nation already in an alliance with recruiting spam is effectively refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the alliance that they are in and that they are effectively unaligned.

Nonsense. That's only refusing to recognize that alliance's exclusive control over the alignment of their members, which in most alliances doesn't exist. Alliances decide who gets in, but none force members to join, and as far as I know most, if not all, allow their members to leave freely. Rulers exercise a great deal of that control themselves. Sending them a recruitment message affects neither the alliance's nor the ruler's control over the alignment of the nation.

Thus sending recruiting messages to a nation already in an alliance is effectively the same as saying that their alliance is not an alliance and thus has no sovereignty, and denying the existence of their sovereignty is the worst violation possible.

So you would more aggrieved if I denied the existence of your sovereignty than if tech raided you?

Edited November 1, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with any of these.

I agree and, for the life of me, I simply cannot see how anyone could not vote"none of the above."

I mean come on... messaging a nation that your alliance is better than the one they are in... violates anything???

[Prime minister Johns]

Nonsense. That's only refusing to recognize that alliance's exclusive control over the alignment of their members, which in most alliances doesn't exist. Alliances decide who gets in, but none force members to join, and as far as I know most, if not all, allow their members to leave freely. Rulers exercise a great deal of that control themselves. Sending them a recruitment message affects neither the alliance's nor the ruler's control over the alignment of the nation.

So you would more aggrieved if I denied the existence of your sovereignty than if tech raided you?

This is not about how I would react, but about how alliances would react and I do not have the luxury of being in charge of an alliance.

But if you are really keen to find out what would happen try this, send a stack of recruiting spam to all the sanctioned alliances and find out how they react? But I think you already know what would happen there.

The NSO tried this stunt a while ago and it took some heavy duty diplomacy to get them out of that one.

[Sal Paradise]

But if you are really keen to find out what would happen try this, send a stack of recruiting spam to all the sanctioned alliances and find out how they react? But I think you already know what would happen there.

It's possible you don't know what's being discussed here, or that you simply cannot justify your position.

I was expecting more out of this. Hell, I could think of some round about reasons why poaching violates alliance sovereignty, but all I'm getting out of this thread is "hurr durr why don't you try it?" Disappointing.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

It's possible you don't know what's being discussed here, or that you simply cannot justify your position.

I was expecting more out of this. Hell, I could think of some round about reasons why poaching violates alliance sovereignty, but all I'm getting out of this thread is "hurr durr why don't you try it?" Disappointing.

Aye, it is beyond disappointing to see we are still stuck in a dark age of thoughtlessness.

Is is most distressing to see that so many leaders of nations still confuse the whispers of infantile insecurity with international security in their alliance affairs.

What strength does an alliance truly have when it cannot trust its member nation leaders to receive and read what most here should readily recognize as junk mail?

Further, is there any message any nation can send another that can challenge the sovereignty of your alliance?

If there is, your alliance has its work cut out for you.

[Prime minister Johns]

It's possible you don't know what's being discussed here, or that you simply cannot justify your position.

I was expecting more out of this. Hell, I could think of some round about reasons why poaching violates alliance sovereignty, but all I'm getting out of this thread is "hurr durr why don't you try it?" Disappointing.

I also pointed out what happened last time it was tried, I suggest you look at the public records to see what happened during that incident, the whole issue of the morality of poaching was discussed at length then.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

I also pointed out what happened last time it was tried, I suggest you look at the public records to see what happened during that incident, the whole issue of the morality of poaching was discussed at length then.

Could ya link a bro out? I have no idea what "last time" you are talking about.

Thank you,

Shmiggy

[Bob Janova]

Okay, I said I wasn't entering the semantic debate, but I changed my mind. Re 'sovereignty': When joining an alliance, a nation submits some of its own sovereignty to the jurisdiction of the alliance; for example, you generally forfeit some of your rights to declare war or aid whoever you wish. The fact that you usually retain the right to leave (although not always; many alliances have 'exit clauses', old GOONS and GGA being the well known ones, and many more won't let you leave in times of actual or imminent war) doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you are subjecting yourself to alliance jurisdiction by choosing to remain a member.

A challenge to that alliance jurisdiction by an external party is a violation of sovereignty. The most obvious one (and one which I imagine few would disagree with) is the military challenge to it caused by declaring war on a member nation; this is universally accepted as placing you in an aggressive war against the alliance. It is quite reasonable, although not universally accepted, to consider the communication channels used to coordinate the alliance [OOC: in game PMs as well as IRC or forum PMs] to be a part of the alliance's jurisdiction, and using it without permission of the alliance would therefore be a violation of its sovereignty.

In my opinion it's within each alliance's rights to determine what is and is not within its jurisdiction, as long as it doesn't claim anything belonging to nations outside the alliance. So if an alliance says that communication channels are part of its jurisdiction, and it doesn't give you permission to message its members through them, doing so is a violation of its sovereignty.

[Heft]

This is not about how I would react, but about how alliances would react and I do not have the luxury of being in charge of an alliance.

But if you are really keen to find out what would happen try this, send a stack of recruiting spam to all the sanctioned alliances and find out how they react? But I think you already know what would happen there.

The NSO tried this stunt a while ago and it took some heavy duty diplomacy to get them out of that one.

Heavy duty diplomacy? Not really. Once you got past all the indignant posturing there wasn't much left to deal with. Most people, when it comes down to it, recognize that it's not that big of a deal, and certainly not worth starting anything over.

[New Frontier]

Voted none of the above.

Didn't bother to read the thread.

[AnCapistan]

None of these infringe on an alliance's sovereignty (IF YOU CHOOSE THIS OPTION DO NOT CHOOSE ANY OTHER)

Chose 'em all just to mess wit' ya.

Seriously though none of them do.

B)

[Style #386]

Chose 'em all just to mess wit' ya.

Seriously though none of them do.

B)

Be right back, mass recruiting from MCXA.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Style #386

[Mathias]

Be right back, mass recruiting for MCXA.

That's certainly a nice thing to do.

[Style #386]

Nice for MCXA, I suppose. Think of the applicants. D:

Also, damn you Mathias.

[ChairmanHal]

Problem with this poll is that some of the things listed are not technical violations of an alliance's sovereignty, but they are considered unfriendly acts (and could possibly constitute a CB) or at best in poor taste.

[Wu Tang Clan]

Problem with this poll is that some of the things listed are not technical violations of an alliance's sovereignty, but they are considered unfriendly acts (and could possibly constitute a CB) or at best in poor taste.

I agree, but that's a different topic all together.

[terveis]

If someone wants to message me, or my alliances members about some stuff, i have no objections about it. If someone leaves because one of these messages, i say good riddance, i wont miss them.

[Lonely]

Oh, for the love of God, [OOC] Cyber Nations is a GAME. [/OOC] That means exploring boundaries, breaking conventions, and daring to do what nobody else dares to do. Toy with things however possible! This sovereignty crap shouldn't come into it. Of course, not everyone is like this, only a select few who dare to make things exciting. That is why I am proud to be a Sith.

[Bob Janova]

[OOC: The boundaries, conventions and discussions about sovereignty are part of the game too. 'It's a game' doesn't mean everyone has to play it your way ... or that we all have to permit you to play your way without causing any political friction over it, which is also part of the game.]

IC: If alliance sovereignty is 'crap', why do you subject yourself to an alliance in the first place? If all sovereignty is 'crap', why do alliances, blocs and treaties respecting the sovereignty of other alliances exist?

One man's excitement is another's major headache. Starting a war is exciting for a lot of people, maybe you should 'dare' to do that.

[Penkala]

Oh, for the love of God, [OOC] Cyber Nations is a GAME. [/OOC] That means exploring boundaries, breaking conventions, and daring to do what nobody else dares to do. Toy with things however possible! This sovereignty crap shouldn't come into it. Of course, not everyone is like this, only a select few who dare to make things exciting. That is why I am proud to be a Sith.

Only problem with this is that you guys haven't 'pushed any boundries' yet because you're not in a political position to do so. Maybe when you guys do you can be proud to be a Sith.

[OOC: The boundaries, conventions and discussions about sovereignty are part of the game too. 'It's a game' doesn't mean everyone has to play it your way ... or that we all have to permit you to play your way without causing any political friction over it, which is also part of the game.]

IC: If alliance sovereignty is 'crap', why do you subject yourself to an alliance in the first place? If all sovereignty is 'crap', why do alliances, blocs and treaties respecting the sovereignty of other alliances exist?

One man's excitement is another's major headache. Starting a war is exciting for a lot of people, maybe you should 'dare' to do that.

Because the Sith follow the same basic principles as every other alliance and adhere by the same norms because they dare not put their alliance in a position to be hurt. Despite how much they proclaim to be 'bold' and 'different' and 'daring' they still, at their core, operate as every other alliance does - in a non-daring, conservative, survival-above-all manner. This isn't a bad thing, but it's very funny to see NSO proclaiming to be daring and bold when in fact their 'inventions' - i.e. the 1-week-war, isn't so 'bold' as it is the opposite. They know that in some borderline situations one week of war won't be enough to prompt another bloc to come in and roll them and deal with their friends and allies, but that if they declared a real, longer-term war with reparations and the like that they'd be rolled pretty quickly.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Penkala

[Lonely]

[OOC: The boundaries, conventions and discussions about sovereignty are part of the game too. 'It's a game' doesn't mean everyone has to play it your way ... or that we all have to permit you to play your way without causing any political friction over it, which is also part of the game.]

[OOC] Correct, but I maintain my own views on the best way to play this game. [/OOC]

IC: If alliance sovereignty is 'crap', why do you subject yourself to an alliance in the first place? If all sovereignty is 'crap', why do alliances, blocs and treaties respecting the sovereignty of other alliances exist?

I suppose sovereignty in itself is not crap, but there's a lot of crap surrounding the extent of sovereignty that simply detracts from the excitement in the political situation at the moment, and things are already quite stagnant enough, in my opinion. I'm tired of waiting for something to happen.

One man's excitement is another's major headache. Starting a war is exciting for a lot of people, maybe you should 'dare' to do that.

Maybe we will. I'm personally too inactive to cause anything.

Only problem with this is that you guys haven't 'pushed any boundries' yet because you're not in a political position to do so. Maybe when you guys do you can be proud to be a Sith.

On the contrary, we push convention all the time, see the recruitment from neutrals incident.

Because the Sith follow the same basic principles as every other alliance and adhere by the same norms because they dare not put their alliance in a position to be hurt. Despite how much they proclaim to be 'bold' and 'different' and 'daring' they still, at their core, operate as every other alliance does - in a non-daring, conservative, survival-above-all manner. This isn't a bad thing, but it's very funny to see NSO proclaiming to be daring and bold when in fact their 'inventions' - i.e. the 1-week-war, isn't so 'bold' as it is the opposite. They know that in some borderline situations one week of war won't be enough to prompt another bloc to come in and roll them and deal with their friends and allies, but that if they declared a real, longer-term war with reparations and the like that they'd be rolled pretty quickly.

Rather, we have a revolutionary new challenges system that allows for new members to achieve high government and shatters the glass ceiling. This sets us apart from every other alliance I can think of. We've got a real pair of balls and dare to behave dangerously quite frequently. I fail to see how this supports your premise that 'the Sith follow the same basic principles as every other alliance.' I see no similarity between the Sith and, for example, the Optional Defense Network.

Edited November 4, 2009 by The Lonely Man

[Vilien]

I suppose sovereignty in itself is not crap, but there's a lot of crap surrounding the extent of sovereignty that simply detracts from the excitement in the political situation at the moment, and things are already quite stagnant enough, in my opinion. I'm tired of waiting for something to happen.

If you, like so many others of your ilk, are so tired of waiting for something to happen (dear me, it's been almost three months since the last major war) why don't you do something? Make your own fireworks, and for Admin's sake, stop your incessant whining.

[Lonely]

If you, like so many others of your ilk, are so tired of waiting for something to happen (dear me, it's been almost three months since the last major war) why don't you do something? Make your own fireworks, and for Admin's sake, stop your incessant whining.

Three whole months since the Karma War? But that's three whole months with nothing to live for!

Why don't I do something? There's only so much you can do as a non-government member, and I'm not active or motivated enough for such a thing right now. I can't even be bothered passing the Sith academy. Instead, I like to contribute to these forums with content-filled posts, which is rather unusual in this lunatic asylum.

[Vilien]

Three whole months since the Karma War? But that's three whole months with nothing to live for!

Why don't I do something? There's only so much you can do as a non-government member, and I'm not active or motivated enough for such a thing right now. I can't even be bothered passing the Sith academy. Instead, I like to contribute to these forums with content-filled posts, which is rather unusual in this lunatic asylum.

I'm glad that you've graced us with your complaints of stagnancy. You're not doing anything about it. You're not going to. What exactly are you complaining about? None of the rest of us are here for your entertainment. Do it yourself or get lost.