Do platipi have balls?

[Alterego]

If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members.

Are you kidding? You think alliances should be held responsible for the actions of their former members. By that logic alliances should be required to protect their former members too. That makes no sense whatsoever. No AA = no responsibility.

[wickedj]

Not quite accurate, boss. They just finished elections. And as you can see here, surprise surprise, Joe Stupid lost. I find it really hard to blame an alliance for the actions of an elected officer, which was unsupported and disavowed by higher ups, who was then unelected within days. Really, the only way they could distance themselves further would be to kick him out entirely.

PS - Blacky, you really one to talk about unsanctioned threads reflecting on an alliance? Jus' sayin' bro.

Joe said the elections ended sometime yesterday, so i presume he knew he wasnt re-elected when this thread was created

Are you kidding? You think alliances should be held responsible for the actions of their former members. By that logic alliances should be required to protect their former members too. That makes no sense whatsoever. No AA = no responsibility.

Sadly and painfully, i agree. If you're dense enough to hold an alliance responsible for the actions of a lone member(pending their former AA isnt aiding him or anything) then thats one way to get a swift kick in the backside

[Shodemofi-NPO]

Because this hasn't been posted in a few pages, and people seem to have forgotten/deliberately misinterpreted yet again, let's go over this one more time. The 300 tech was not to compensate us for the damage done by the rogue. It was to compensate us for their cooperation with the rogue to refill his war slots, thereby denying us the right to defend our members.

[Nizzle]

No..not really

BAPS, anyone?

[Bob Janova]

Looks like I missed that election thread.

[Jeeooh]

"Government members don't represent their alliance."

"Rogue former government members represent their former alliance."

Great to know.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Jeeooh

[Locke]

"Government members don't represent their alliance."

"Rogue former government members represent their former alliance."

Great to know.

Bobian Logic: It's what's for dinner

Edited November 25, 2009 by Locke

[empirica]

Really, when your MoFA makes a thread, it represents the alliance. That goes for all government members, but aside from a Minister of Communications in those alliances that have one, MoFA is the single most important person in terms of the foreign face of an alliance.

Re Dilber, that is an old Hegemony practice that I never agreed with (for example the BAPS war). I would certainly not hold NPO responsible if you went rogue on us, unless there was good evidence that the NPO was supporting you in your war (making it more than just roguery).

Not in all alliances. My MoFA is able to speak whatever he wants within reason. If the announcement doesn't have the signature of the Trinity on it, it's not alliance policy. Not every alliance has the same type of gov, and MoFA isn't be-all, end-all of .gov positions

[enderland]

Not in all alliances. My MoFA is able to speak whatever he wants within reason. If the announcement doesn't have the signature of the Trinity on it, it's not alliance policy. Not every alliance has the same type of gov, and MoFA isn't be-all, end-all of .gov positions

So basically - "our gov can say whatever they want but the time anyone should care is when the entire gov agrees on it."

ooc:

If so, everyone should just put you, and all other gov on ignore on these forums and just bother reading the OPs of threads involving you.

?

[Penguin]

Not in all alliances. My MoFA is able to speak whatever he wants within reason. If the announcement doesn't have the signature of the Trinity on it, it's not alliance policy. Not every alliance has the same type of gov, and MoFA isn't be-all, end-all of .gov positions

This is the case with our alliance and Ragnarok too I imagine. Our Minister of Truth is the primary organizer and maintainer of external communications, but the Emperor is the face of the alliance and has the final say on all policy decisions, foreign or domestic. Everyone's government positions may have the same general descriptions but they often play very different roles in different alliances.

[Bob Janova]

It may not be alliance policy, as in fact this thread wasn't, but it's certainly going to be taken as indicative of the feeling within your alliance. Alliances have been rolled in the past for the actions of government members (BAPS, NADC) even though the rest of the government made it clear it wasn't supporting them. If your MoFA says something stupid it will reflect badly on you even if it's not official policy.

However, RoK have done the sensible thing and elected someone else, which goes a long way to mitigating JS's stupidity.

[empirica]

So basically - "our gov can say whatever they want but the time anyone should care is when the entire gov agrees on it."

ooc:

If so, everyone should just put you, and all other gov on ignore on these forums and just bother reading the OPs of threads involving you.

?

It's only alliance policy if all the sigs are there. Otherwise, it's a member's opinion. Which they are entitled to express under our protocols. As for the OOC, I'm not following. Can you clarify, possibly in a PM?

[enderland]

It's only alliance policy if all the sigs are there. Otherwise, it's a member's opinion. Which they are entitled to express under our protocols. As for the OOC, I'm not following. Can you clarify, possibly in a PM?

If what you say individually has no reflection on your alliance, nothing you say should really be relevant at all unless it has an official "stamp of approval" on it.

It therefore makes no sense to even bother addressing points or reading posts made by individual members, since, naturally, they should have no relevance to readers (they aren't alliance policy and therefore do not reflect at all upon Genesis).

[empirica]

If what you say individually has no reflection on your alliance, nothing you say should really be relevant at all unless it has an official "stamp of approval" on it.

It therefore makes no sense to even bother addressing points or reading posts made by individual members, since, naturally, they should have no relevance to readers (they aren't alliance policy and therefore do not reflect at all upon Genesis).

This would be an incredibly boring place if everyone had to tow party line. Which to a point most people had to pre Karma war, if they were smaller and wanted to exist. So, no need to just spout alliance opinions. So long as respectfulness is maintained, I don't care much what my members say.

Edited November 25, 2009 by empirica

[enderland]

This would be an incredibly boring place if everyone had to tow party line. Which to a point most people had to pre Karma war, if they were smaller and wanted to exist.

So which is it then?

I mean, you can't have it both ways, either what people do reflects upon their alliance (like this thread, started by a member of RoK gov - at the time, is either irrelevant completely, or it reflects upon RoK).

And considering I do not think that you would consider your own posting to be irrelevant, it's likely the latter of those two, something we both agree on.

[Penguin]

It may not be alliance policy, as in fact this thread wasn't, but it's certainly going to be taken as indicative of the feeling within your alliance. Alliances have been rolled in the past for the actions of government members (BAPS, NADC) even though the rest of the government made it clear it wasn't supporting them. If your MoFA says something stupid it will reflect badly on you even if it's not official policy.

However, RoK have done the sensible thing and elected someone else, which goes a long way to mitigating JS's stupidity.

I certainly agree that government member's actions can reflect poorly on the alliance. We were only commenting on the part of your reply where you refer to the MoFA the intended primary public face of the alliance (or at least I was). While it might be true for some, that is simply not the case for many of us.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[empirica]

My posting is just as relevant as anyone else's, as a member of this community. Whether it's alliance policy or not doesn't affect that.

Personally, I would have considered this thread pretty irrelevant. I mainly read it the first place because I consider Joe Stupid a friend.

[Jimi Hendrix]

I mean, you can't have it both ways, either what people do reflects upon their alliance (like this thread, started by a member of RoK gov - at the time, is either irrelevant completely, or it reflects upon RoK).

It therefore makes no sense to even bother addressing points or reading posts made by individual members, since, naturally, they should have no relevance to readers

Between these two posts my understanding of your argument is that the only posts on these forums should be alliance announcements and all other topics and replies are not to be bothered with cuz they hold no importance?

As far as I can see, that is a matter of opinion for you and others will have their own opinion so why are you arguing? I might go as far as to say why are you reading this post and all it's replies if you truly believe that?

[uaciaut]

No, it certainly doesn't. You're doing that inferring-without-bothering-to-research thing again, Bob. As for Joe, he's an elected member of government and they're in the middle of elections.

You're joking, right?

In this matter, TOP doesn't hold the whole of ROK responsible for some stupid fella mouthing off.

That do you?

If you were gov and spouted some !@#$ somewhere that annoyed me or fell against my alliance's interest it would most likely be held against all of your alliance. Actually something like that did happen during the karma if you remember mr big daddy

Point is - you're gov, you're responsible, especially for the stuff that comes outta your pie hole. You can't be a representative that gets all the privileges and no responsibility - it just doesn't work that way.

Edited November 25, 2009 by uaciaut

[ChairmanHal]

A few quick points...

1. At Rok, unless something has radically changed since I was there, the LoFA/MoFA has as their primary duties the maintenance of foreign embassies and Rok ambassador credentials. While they speak with foreign dignitaries pretty regularly in private, they have no real power to determine the direction of FA, are almost never present at treaty negotiations, and do not speak for Rok government on the OWRP. This is not to say it isn't an important job--just as the executive assistant who sits at the receptionist desk is a key to a smooth running office--but if you want to know what Rok really thinks about anything FA related, go to Hoo.

2. Context is important. A government official making strictly OOC remarks about something going on with Planet Bob has far less weight than if that same official were speaking IC. Same for a low level member of government who insists on routinely shooting his/her mouth off publicly without prior approval of their alliance. A member of government going rogue doesn't necessarily generate a CB for a war. However, to say it should have no impact on relations whatsoever is at best naive.

3. Conventional wisdom would suggest that because this affair went public and was so hotly debated that it actually made war more likely than if everything had been mostly hidden from view. I would suggest that just perhaps it made war *less* likely. Public scrutiny was brought to bear on both parties and faults were found with both. There was no real way to spin a good CB and make it stick long enough to get tanks rolling as we have seen with past wars.

[astronaut jones]

As the situation has been handled by all parties (kudos to TOP, STA, and Kronos), the continued escalation of hostilities is unnecessary. I do believe that, as the original grievance has been taken care of, a policy of "forgive and forget" would be in order for everyone.

Again, kudos to TOP, STA, and Kronos for being able to work things through in an amicable fashion.

[Drostan]

As the situation has been handled by all parties (kudos to TOP, STA, and Kronos), the continued escalation of hostilities is unnecessary. I do believe that, as the original grievance has been taken care of, a policy of "forgive and forget" would be in order for everyone.

Again, kudos to TOP, STA, and Kronos for being able to work things through in an amicable fashion.

I'd like to but there's something about your posts (ooc: your avatar) that keeps bringing everyone's blood to a boil.

[NoFish]

You're joking, right?

If you were gov and spouted some !@#$ somewhere that annoyed me or fell against my alliance's interest it would most likely be held against all of your alliance. Actually something like that did happen during the karma if you remember mr big daddy

Point is - you're gov, you're responsible, especially for the stuff that comes outta your pie hole. You can't be a representative that gets all the privileges and no responsibility - it just doesn't work that way.

So you hold Rok responsible for this thread even though they officially disavowed it - this isn't the same as saying government members' opinions don't reflect the feelings of the alliance, so much as it is government members' opinions don't reflect the feelings of the alliance when the alliance specifically says they don't agree with said government member and then removed him from office.

[Poyplemonkeys]

PS - Blacky, you really one to talk about unsanctioned threads reflecting on an alliance? Jus' sayin' bro.

I'd say Blacky probably knows better than most about that to be honest

[astronaut jones]

I'd like to but there's something about your posts (ooc: your avatar) that keeps bringing everyone's blood to a boil.

The good people over at The Moralist Front made both of those for me, and they really did do a good job. that being said, if the parties involved have decided on peace, have come to an amiable conclusion to this tense affair, would it not be wise for people to simply forgive and forget? STA and Kronos have, with the kind help of TOP.