Alliance Sovereignty and Messaging

[Lonely]

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.

I suppose I've been insensitive. I should've known comments about alliances that do something, relevant alliances, would touch a nerve with a member of The Moralist Front. I'm a member of the New Sith Order. I'm doing more to contribute to this community than you or your ilk ever will. 'Sovereignty' is not going to get in the way of our desire to cause things to happen in the community.

Don't like what I have to say? Why don't you do something about it?

[Vilien]

I suppose I've been insensitive. I should've known comments about alliances that do something, relevant alliances, would touch a nerve with a member of The Moralist Front. I'm a member of the New Sith Order. I'm doing more to contribute to this community than you or your ilk ever will. 'Sovereignty' is not going to get in the way of our desire to cause things to happen in the community.

Don't like what I have to say? Why don't you do something about it?

My complaint, my good man, is that you have absolutely nothing to say. You have done nothing to contribute to this community personally, although I hold your alliance in some esteem at least for its ability to cause a stir here and there. You, on the other hand, are one of the ever growing class of parasitic complainers, who are disappointed that we are not embroiled in a state of constant war, but are yet always ready to blame others for their own lack of motivation and talent. No one cares if you're waiting for something to happen. Do it, for Christ's sake. That, or spare us your indignant preaching about stagnation. You're it.

EDIT: Wording, embarrassing inability to distinguish between 'their' and 'there'.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Vilien

[Lonely]

My complaint, my good man, is that you have absolutely nothing to say. You have done nothing to contribute to this community personally, although I hold your alliance in some esteem at least for its ability to cause a stir here and their. You, on the other hand, are one of the ever growing class of parasitic complainers, who are disappointed that we are not embroiled in a state of constant war, but are yet always ready to blame others for their own lack of motivation and talent. No one cares if you're waiting for something to happen. Do it, for Christ's sake. That, or spare us your indignant preaching about stagnation. You are the stagnancy.

So what are you suggesting? That I sit here and pretend that I love the fact that nothing is happening yet? Please. Get realistic. In these sovereignty debates, perhaps people will come to recognise that sovereignty, convention, ethics and all the rest of this nonsense is obstructing the political system. If anti-establishment rabble rousers like myself persuade people here and now of those simple facts, perhaps it can contribute to shattering the boredom, and at the very least, it provides me with something to do until I blow up nations in the next war. I find it ironic and rather amusing that you claim that I am the cause of the stagnancy.

[Vilien]

So what are you suggesting? That I sit here and pretend that I love the fact that nothing is happening yet? Please. Get realistic. In these sovereignty debates, perhaps people will come to recognise that sovereignty, convention, ethics and all the rest of this nonsense is obstructing the political system. If anti-establishment rabble rousers like myself persuade people here and now of those simple facts, perhaps it can contribute to shattering the boredom, and at the very least, it provides me with something to do until I blow up nations in the next war. I find it ironic and rather amusing that you claim that I am the cause of the stagnancy.

Ah, but you are. There's no system of sovereignty, truly, that stops anyone here from doing anything. There's nothing to stop me from launching a few cruise missiles your way at my leisure. The construct of "sovereignty" is no obstruction to politics in full swing, as anyone with the capability to remember longer than a few hours ago will tell you. The only thing, again and again, causing "stagnancy" is people like you, who have no capacity or desire to actually cause any change, but would rather !@#$%* about some perceived slowing in the game. It happens after every major war. Deal with it. If you are incapable of doing so, go do something to sate your shortsighted bloodlust, or powerlust, or whatever particular lust is gripping you in the seconds that it takes to make your inane posts. What we certainly don't need is another sideliner telling everyone that they aren't doing enough to create manufactured drama for the benefit of you and yours.

[Lonely]

Ah, but you are. There's no system of sovereignty, truly, that stops anyone here from doing anything. There's nothing to stop me from launching a few cruise missiles your way at my leisure. The construct of "sovereignty" is no obstruction to politics in full swing, as anyone with the capability to remember longer than a few hours ago will tell you. The only thing, again and again, causing "stagnancy" is people like you, who have no capacity or desire to actually cause any change, but would rather !@#$%* about some perceived slowing in the game. It happens after every major war. Deal with it. If you are incapable of doing so, go do something to sate your shortsighted bloodlust, or powerlust, or whatever particular lust is gripping you in the seconds that it takes to make your inane posts. What we certainly don't need is another sideliner telling everyone that they aren't doing enough to create manufactured drama for the benefit of you and yours.

You're incorrect. The limitations you impose on yourself do restrict what you do. Thus, the widespread belief in sovereignty can certainly limit the progression of history, and people like me are contributing to the destruction of that stagnancy the best way we can. Ironically, several months ago that might have meant supporting ethics and perhaps even sovereignty, to an extent. Now, however, it does not.

You have very little idea of what motivates me and I suggest you stop attempting to guess. It only makes you look foolish.

[Schattenmann]

Poll doomed to failure. My experience is that less than 1% of rulers on Bob can define sovereignty.

[Mergerberger II]

Poll doomed to failure. My experience is that less than 1% of rulers on Bob can define sovereignty.

I was going to respond with something objecting to someone else's post, then I saw this one and found myself agreeing with it 100%. But I know what I think.

[Francesca]

I disagree with The Lonely Man. I think without respect for sovereignty, without limitations, the larger alliances can do whatever they want and exert their power so much that vast stagnation is caused. Rather than eradicating stagnation, lack of limitations causes it.

[TehChron]

I disagree with The Lonely Man. I think without respect for sovereignty, without limitations, the larger alliances can do whatever they want and exert their power so much that vast stagnation is caused. Rather than eradicating stagnation, lack of limitations causes it.

You're going to need to clarify that.

[Francesca]

You're going to need to clarify that.

Uhm..... if people start going around without respect for others' sovereignty and doing whatever the hell they want, they tend to eradicate all their opponents (because that is in their own interest) and cause a unipolar world.

[NLights]

Uhm..... if people start going around without respect for others' sovereignty and doing whatever the hell they want, they tend to eradicate all their opponents (because that is in their own interest) and cause a unipolar world.

I feel like your putting the cart before the horse here. In order to "do whatever the hell they want" the world already needs to be unipolar in that alliances favor. In a multipolar world they might risk pissing off the wrong set of alliances thereby getting themeleves attacked or setting up the proper atmosphere for later attack.

[Francesca]

I feel like your putting the cart before the horse here. In order to "do whatever the hell they want" the world already needs to be unipolar in that alliances favor. In a multipolar world they might risk pissing off the wrong set of alliances thereby getting themeleves attacked or setting up the proper atmosphere for later attack.

If they are big enough, they don't really need to worry, especially if they are prepared to take risks (which admittedly most people aren't.)

[Von Drakael]

There's an old one-word acronym that can explain the polling...

VABIC.

[Bob Janova]

VFABIC, surely?

Lonely, you need to put up or shut up. You can't have it both ways, both being terribly bored by the 'stagnancy' (by the way, if you think the world is stagnant just now you're doing it wrong, but I digress) and simultaneously not motivated enough to do anything about it (apart from whining here, which doesn't count). We are not here for your entertainment, we are here to further the interests of our nations and alliances – if the people of your nation and alliance feel that 'excitement' is in their interests, it's up to them and you to do something about it.

[Arthur Blair]

Didn't follow the discussion, but the very notion that messaging others constitutes a breach of sovereignty is absurd.

It doesn't matter if you're a government member or not.

Nothing matters.

Messaging others do not infringe on their sovereignty!

[Penkala]

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

Right. Recruiting from those who can't and won't fight back is "pushing convention". You guys sure are brave doing that, you could be publicly reprimanded by them! What a joke.

'm a member of the New Sith Order. I'm doing more to contribute to this community than you or your ilk ever will.

Uhh, what? Again, despite how much you say something, it isn't necessarily true. The New Sith Order has done nothing of substance to push the boundaries and just because you say you're an alliance on the cutting-edge of Planet Bob politics doesn't change the fact that you're not. You actually have to do something to brag about doing something.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Penkala

[Puppet Master]

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

1) Messaging for senate candidates i think should be open to all, unless the alliance has come out and specifically asked that no one from the outside sends them messages about senate votes. I'm sorry, but if your members are so inactive they don't know who to vote for... that's your fault not the people sending the messages... However an alliances wishes to not be messaged if expressed should be met by all. If an alliance has expressed that no outside messages be sent and they are, then yes this is infringement.

2) see 1

3) see 1

4) see 1

5) Depending on the friend and situation, if its a friendly offer then no problem. Really depends on the case here due to the "friend" word

6) INFRINGEMENT (recruiting from another alliance = not ok in my book)

7) Depends on the case, if its a friendly merger and everyone is ok with it, then its infringement. However if its a forced merger or one unapproved by the body of the alliance, then this is BOUND to happen. If an alliance is disbanding, then its members are opened for recruitment. Free Game, until they are flying another alliance affiliation.

8) see 7

[Tygaland]

None are really a breach of sovereignty. However, the messaging to recruit a member of an alliance across to another alliance, expecially if bulk messaging, is more an act of disrespect towards the alliance than nation or those nations are currently a member of.

If the nation or nations messaged in that manner leave their alliance and join another based on the messages then they weren't much value to their original alliance anyway but that is besides the point.

[Biff Webster]

None are really a breach of sovereignty. However, the messaging to recruit a member of an alliance across to another alliance, expecially if bulk messaging, is more an act of disrespect towards the alliance than nation or those nations are currently a member of.

If the nation or nations messaged in that manner leave their alliance and join another based on the messages then they weren't much value to their original alliance anyway but that is besides the point.

I agree. Bulk messaging an alliance is a lot like equating the alliance with "None".

To me, sovereignty is not really something that can be taken away, but can be given away.

[Achilleus]

Many of these things may be annoying, but there's no threat to your independence as a nation: a recruitment message won't conquer you. I chose the last option, because there is no threat to your sovereignty whatsoever.

[Fort Pitt]

Recruiting a friend is not infringing on an alliance's sovereignty, and voting for senate isn't either, however mass messaging an alliance is bad.

[Drai]

All except option 5: "Messaging a specific nation to switch alliances". If you know them then that's fine in my opinion. Even option 1 is an infringement because that aqua alliance might have friends on the blue sphere that they vote for with any of their blue team nations.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Drai