Siberian Tiger Alliance Announcement

[Penguin]

So he chose his target well and you wish you'd had a chance to trick him into wasting a few nukes?

The simple explanation is that we want a chance to defend our own without third parties meddling because they think it's fun to get involved in a fight that they have no stake in. My preferred answer is for raiders to just stop attacking rogues without asking the attacked alliance if they want help first. Do you think Kronos can muster enough restraint to do that in the future? That would greatly improve my opinion of them.

[Nizzle]

I would welcome any opportunity to suck up nukes for any of my fellow members, regardless of which one was the target and whether they were well chosen in your eyes or not. It's a pretty basic obligation to have as a member of an alliance and I take it seriously, which is why I took issue with Bob Janova's post.

With all respect, I just don't see that as a reason to look for reps.

"I didn't get a chance to suffer damage to my nation in defense of my fellow member, so pay me tech."

A stern talking to (lol) would have been more appropriate.

[Penguin]

With all respect, I just don't see that as a reason to look for reps.

"I didn't get a chance to suffer damage to my nation in defense of my fellow member, so pay me tech."

A stern talking to (lol) would have been more appropriate.

This is not the first time a rogue's slots have been filled by raiders and it will not be the last. I'm much more concerned about setting a good precedent than the compensation. If raiders begin to think twice before filling a rogue's slots and coordinating re-declarations with them, then we'll have made some progress here at least.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[Eden Taylor]

I would welcome any opportunity to suck up nukes for any of my fellow members, regardless of which one was the target and whether they were well chosen in your eyes or not. It's a pretty basic obligation to have as a member of an alliance and I take it seriously.

The implication was that someone who chooses his target carefully will likely not waste enough nukes on those assisting his target to actually decrease the damages to his actual target that he has chosen to go rogue on. That's just logical to me.

This is not the first time a rogue's slots have been filled by raiders and it will not be the last. I'm much more concerned about setting a good precedent than the compensation. If raiders begin to think twice before filling a rogue's slots and coordinating re-declarations with them, then we'll have made some progress here at least.

And this gets me back to my previously stated belief that with politically mighty allies STA has here managed to change the rules of roguery (and dealing with them).

edit: sorry, I unnecessarily quoted someone else too.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Eden Taylor

[acrux]

This is still going on? will one of you just blitz at update already.

[Penguin]

And this gets me back to my previously stated belief that with politically mighty allies STA has here managed to change the rules of roguery (and dealing with them).

That's simply not true. I haven't interfered with the resolution beyond offering support to a close ally, which is something expected on both sides. I don't need philosophical reasons to support an ally. I am personally stating the way I would like things to be, somewhat unrelated to the current resolution. That is something I did not do in public or in private, to ally or to non-ally, until well after the issue was resolved.

I am sensing that you disagree with me. I'd be happy to continue the discussion about why I think my way of dealing with rogues is better than yours if you are able to discuss things without assuming that I have unfairly interfered in this particular negotiation process.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[jer]

The implication was that someone who chooses his target carefully will likely not waste enough nukes on those assisting his target to actually decrease the damages to his actual target that he has chosen to go rogue on. That's just logical to me.

That would be a fair implication to make were it not for the fact that it has been clearly stated that any STA nations which had managed to engage Heracles would have been nuked. If a rogue is attempting to repeatedly nuke several extra nations (with SDIs) on top of their original target then I'd say it's very unlikely that he/she will be able to hit the original target with as many nukes as he/she would've been able to if they were only concentrating on hitting that one target.

But we are both speculating here. The point is that we never got the chance to find out what would've happened.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Ragashingo]

This issue fell too close to home with one of your allies being the one that I'm criticising? Being rogued on is unfortunate but it seems rather silly to me for an alliance to expect to be paid because it hasn't been able to take more nukes than it actually did, particularly given that in this instance Kronos anarchied another of their nations before he could attack STA nations and saved them hundreds of millions of dollars in damages by doing so.

It's not too often that you're wrong, but you are here. Or, if not wrong, you are certainly doing this issue a disservice by limiting yourself to one side of it. I think we both agree that expecting money or even being mad at an alliance for their help in defeating a rogue is wrong. Did Kronos help us with the rogues? Sure, especially with the one they took down for spying. But they also, by their own admission and apology, willfully hindered our ability to defend our member. That is what we took issue with. To pretend or suggest otherwise as you were doing above, is silly.

[Ragashingo]

And this gets me back to my previously stated belief that with politically mighty allies STA has here managed to change the rules of roguery (and dealing with them).

No, what we did was put out a notice that aiding a rogue in his roguery will not be tolerated. When a member of your alliance goes rogue he is no longer your friend. Supporting him, even if his target is one you dislike, is not the kind of action that honorable alliances engage in. Kronos made a mistake, but they realized it, and I have no doubt that they have learned from it. They are, after all, an honorable alliance.

[Masterof9puppets]

This is real simple. Kronos admitted they made a mistake. They agreed to pay for it. Case closed.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Well, we didn't agree to pay for it, we just agreed that what was already sent would be kept without any problem from us.

I'll only ask you this once to go back and read what I said. The compensation was for denying the STA a chance to defend their member by colluding with the rogue to re-fill war slots in a coordinated move that required full cooperation from the rogue. Kronos has admitted this was an error of judgement and when I asked what they wanted for a resolution they stated the 300 tech was an "apology" for that action.

You may be of the opinion that we had no right to request compensation but I disagree. Coordinating with a rogue to prevent the alliance of the rogue target from defending their member I find to be a low act worthy of such an apology.

The first half is full truth and not arguable guys.

The second half- you didn't request compensation for us mistakenly refilling Heracles war slots, you requested reps for Kronos' "colluding with rogues to impact max damage upon STA", or something like that.

Yes, rogues do have nothing to do with the alliance they come from, and the alliance obviously doesn't have to pay reps for that, but that isn't really what the argument was about.

If you had seen the war declarations, it was very suspicious. Basically right after Heracles declared war on Tyga people from Kronos occupied his defensive war slots. It seemed to me that at least some communication between Heracles and Kronos had happened, and I would rightfully be annoyed as STA if a person that went rogue on their leader was not able to be counter-attacked. Then comes White Majik and his DoW, and it all just adds up to some very suspicious circumstances.

Yup, he told us he was quitting and that we could have his tech. Not really an option to be turned down. Then he went rogue on Tyga and someone else took the third defensive slot. Yay tech.

Just wanted to add that one or two (I don't remember exactly) of the Kronos members declared on Heracles before Heracles attacked Tyga. That in itself was what stemmed everything, then add on everything else that happened who wouldn't be suspicious and annoyed?

Yup, he told us he was quitting and that we could have his tech. Not really an option to be turned down. Then he went rogue on Tyga and someone else took the third defensive slot. Yay tech.

[Kilkenny]

The simple explanation is that we want a chance to defend our own without third parties meddling because they think it's fun to get involved in a fight that they have no stake in. My preferred answer is for raiders to just stop attacking rogues without asking the attacked alliance if they want help first. Do you think Kronos can muster enough restraint to do that in the future? That would greatly improve my opinion of them.

This quote is so true.

The ironic part is when faced with this same situation with teh STA nation being the raider, they told the upset alliance to go pound sand. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, reps are the order of the day. Goose, gander and all that stuff, cough cough new world order cough cough same world order cough cough. Seems my cough is still here but I do have the number to a good podiatrist 462-279-2229 or toll free at 1-800-279-2229

[Penguin]

This quote is so true.

The ironic part is when faced with this same situation with teh STA nation being the raider, they told the upset alliance to go pound sand. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, reps are the order of the day. Goose, gander and all that stuff, cough cough new world order cough cough same world order cough cough. Seems my cough is still here but I do have the number to a good podiatrist 462-279-2229 or toll free at 1-800-279-2229

I'm glad you agree with me (I think?), but you're not a cry baby.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[Sulmar]

Yup, he told us he was quitting and that we could have his tech. Not really an option to be turned down. Then he went rogue on Tyga and someone else took the third defensive slot. Yay tech.

Well, I would say that explanation is what caused doubt to be shed on what was really going on for STA. Nothing wrong with a quitting member letting people raid them for tech. I would say though it would have been nice to give STA at least one slot on Heracles, as it is very frustrating when an alliance member is being attacked and you can do nothing about. As well, I know that I personally would want to get in on the rogue just to have some fun.

I would have to agree with what Penguin said about letting the attacked alliance deal with the rogue.

[Alicia]

This quote is so true.

The ironic part is when faced with this same situation with teh STA nation being the raider, they told the upset alliance to go pound sand. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, reps are the order of the day. Goose, gander and all that stuff, cough cough new world order cough cough same world order cough cough. Seems my cough is still here but I do have the number to a good podiatrist 462-279-2229 or toll free at 1-800-279-2229

I'm going to save Tyga some time.

The flaw in your analogy is that the rogue that IRON had issue with was not a former STA member, nor were the rogue's slots filled entirely by STA members. Nor did the STA arrange to re-fill the slots before the original war expired.

Other than that, you are doing a fantastic job!

[Ragashingo]

I'm going to save Tyga some time.

Nice job... ahem, I mean... How dare you come to unasked defense of the STA? We demand tech!

[philp110]

Wow, we are a picky bunch lately.

So suddenly, it's not ok for an ally to mediate? Since when? Sometimes it's just easier to have another party help, if the original parties are too frustrated with each other. Or various other reasons.

/me waves at empirica

Just to reiterate:

...this wasn't the issue at hand. The issue is that a particular member of TOP did the complete opposite of what Kronos wanted. I assume deliberately. I have no doubt it was done with good intentions, but it was a breach of trust and sovereignity.

TOP has apologized to Kronos several times, privately and publicly for this. Which is excellent. But the OP in this "yay peace" thread does not convey this in the least. It makes Kronos look like a bunch of war-monger children who don't have the balls to back it up, and that is what I don't like.

That said, clearly this situation should not have come this far - and the possiblity of bringing about a massive global war over something so trivial is silly (though certainly not without precedent, lol).

[Drostan]

I have fought the urge to respond to this announcement for days now but I am going to say something about it somewhere eventually. So why not do so here? I was going to post a chain of events but honestly nobody would read it anyway so instead I'll cut right to the commentary.

Kronos was right to stand its ground in refusing to pay reps to the STA. (only 2 rogues and more of our members got nuked out of this than theirs).

TOP or that one lone TOP guy should not have tried to close the books on this issue against Kronos' wishes. This was a huge betrayal and I am curious what punishment, if any, awaits a non-government member who takes it upon himself to negotiate against his allies' wishes in a situation that brought us to the brink of war.

The ball was in STA's court. If they wanted to declare war with such flimsy reasons, Kronos had decided that we would rather risk that than bend our knee to an absurd request. Those hailing STA for being peaceful seem to forget that they threatened war over a ridiculously piddling issue. Nobody should have had to appease them and TOP was in no position to do so.

The clean-up job done after everyone got caught with their pants down thanks to that RoK guy is just embarrassing. I don't know if any of our government members agreed to take responsibility for the tech sent out by whatever third party, but know that Kronos sent no tech to STA. I feel like this announcement reads like we signed some sort of guilt clause, but I do not accept that and nor should you. This was not a peace won by cooler heads but rather shady dealings, convenient politics, and a healthy dose of incompetence. It seems a joke to call this peace at all. There are appropriate times for war, and had STA wished to push the issue and bring war to our doorstep, this would have been one of those appropriate times. Then perhaps we would have seen whether STA deserved these peaceful hails, but unfortunately we will never know.

I do not blame STA. If I were in their shoes, I would likely have handled things remarkably similarly. Of course, I never would have expected that so many people would be ready to back down so easily. Merry Christmas, STA, this time you got to have your cake and eat it too.

I have been stewing over these recent events for so long now it seems that I am barely able to fully express the depths of my disgust with them. But I assume you've now got the gist of it.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Drostan

[Bilrow]

TOP or that one lone TOP guy should not have tried to close the books on this issue against Kronos' wishes. This was a huge betrayal and I am curious what punishment, if any, awaits a non-government member who takes it upon himself to negotiate against his allies' wishes in a situation that brought us to the brink of war.

Kissgoodbye is most definitely a member of TOP's government.

We were speaking with KGB and Crymson.

Seems to me they did talk to TOP Government. Might need to get your story fixed.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Bilrow

[Matthew Conrad]

other than that you are doing a fantastic job cough cough new NPO cough cough

Are you still using this line?

[LiquidMercury]

This is not the first time a rogue's slots have been filled by raiders and it will not be the last. I'm much more concerned about setting a good precedent than the compensation. If raiders begin to think twice before filling a rogue's slots and coordinating re-declarations with them, then we'll have made some progress here at least.

At the same time I'd hope we do not set precedence and hold an alliance accountable for a rogue, which is a very slippery slope we are currently traveling down. I will not say that STA has done this, but I will say that this is maybe step 1 or 2 in a 5 step program to that being the case. Waterfall effect would say that sometime in the future, going down this line of thought it's possible that rogues will start to effect their alliances in a much more negative way thus possibly diminishing rogues or at least making them join another alliance officially before going rogue to not only destroy NS, but political capital within the alliance they are leaving. I would hope this never comes to be. Others who think rogues are the end-all to be-all of evil may think this is an appropriate way of dealing with rogues, it's quite subjective, just like tech raiding as a whole.

It's not too often that you're wrong, but you are here. Or, if not wrong, you are certainly doing this issue a disservice by limiting yourself to one side of it. I think we both agree that expecting money or even being mad at an alliance for their help in defeating a rogue is wrong. Did Kronos help us with the rogues? Sure, especially with the one they took down for spying. But they also, by their own admission and apology, willfully hindered our ability to defend our member. That is what we took issue with. To pretend or suggest otherwise as you were doing above, is silly.

And the other side of the picture is that STA hindered Kronos' ability to raid a target. I'm not saying they were not within their right, I believe that should an alliance want to take nooks for their members then they should be able to do so. I also believe that this slightly nullifies the concept of the meat shield in alliance war should everyone start using this philosophy. "No! you cannot activate that treaty, we want to take those nooks for our members!" Whether this is a good thing or not is highly debatable.

[Heft]

At the same time I'd hope we do not set precedence and hold an alliance accountable for a rogue,

No one ever attempted to hold an alliance accountable for a rogue here, so we can all stop repeating it.

[Tygaland]

And the other side of the picture is that STA hindered Kronos' ability to raid a target.

Haha, oh please.

I'm not saying they were not within their right, I believe that should an alliance want to take nooks for their members then they should be able to do so. I also believe that this slightly nullifies the concept of the meat shield in alliance war should everyone start using this philosophy. "No! you cannot activate that treaty, we want to take those nooks for our members!" Whether this is a good thing or not is highly debatable.

I think there is quite a difference between inter-alliance war and wanting to defend a member of your alliance from a nuclear rogue. One of many differences being that should an alliance war breakout then the allies of those involved will usually contact their ally asking how they can assist rather than declaring all over the place without notice and blowing staggers/ruining target assignments etc.

[Moridin]

At the same time I'd hope we do not set precedence and hold an alliance accountable for a rogue, which is a very slippery slope we are currently traveling down. I will not say that STA has done this, but I will say that this is maybe step 1 or 2 in a 5 step program to that being the case. Waterfall effect would say that sometime in the future, going down this line of thought it's possible that rogues will start to effect their alliances in a much more negative way thus possibly diminishing rogues or at least making them join another alliance officially before going rogue to not only destroy NS, but political capital within the alliance they are leaving. I would hope this never comes to be. Others who think rogues are the end-all to be-all of evil may think this is an appropriate way of dealing with rogues, it's quite subjective, just like tech raiding as a whole.

Just because A happens doesn't mean we are automatically on a slippery slope to C. I'm not sure where you get the idea that any of this could potentially lead to punishing alliances simply for having rogue members; this was only something more than a regular rogue situation because of the apparent involvement of the former alliance in intentionally or unintentionally preventing the STA from defending its own. You could take any event in history and use your same argument to say it is a slippery slope to something worse than it really is.

[LiquidMercury]

Haha, oh please.

I think there is quite a difference between inter-alliance war and wanting to defend a member of your alliance from a nuclear rogue. One of many differences being that should an alliance war breakout then the allies of those involved will usually contact their ally asking how they can assist rather than declaring all over the place without notice and blowing staggers/ruining target assignments etc.

Just presenting multiple points of view, most definitely on the basic level Tyga. I am neither defending or attacking either party's decisions/beliefs about the issue at hand, just proposing that there are always [ooc] two sides to a coin even if the coin is super old and no one knows what country it's from [ooc].

In regards to the difference between inter-alliance war and roguery. I like to think that raiding/roguing are somewhat of a microcosm of inter alliance war. As far as blown staggers/ruining target assignments I can absolutely say that alliances do this in alliance war for their allies and coalition members. By accident or on purpose is of course subjective, for the most part I'd say it's on accident even though some may say "screw it, we're in a coalition together but we're not allies." As far as allies contacting each other, I've seen communication lines fail to the highest degree many times.

[Penguin]

At the same time I'd hope we do not set precedence and hold an alliance accountable for a rogue, which is a very slippery slope we are currently traveling down. I will not say that STA has done this, but I will say that this is maybe step 1 or 2 in a 5 step program to that being the case. Waterfall effect would say that sometime in the future, going down this line of thought it's possible that rogues will start to effect their alliances in a much more negative way thus possibly diminishing rogues or at least making them join another alliance officially before going rogue to not only destroy NS, but political capital within the alliance they are leaving. I would hope this never comes to be. Others who think rogues are the end-all to be-all of evil may think this is an appropriate way of dealing with rogues, it's quite subjective, just like tech raiding as a whole.

I'm not worried about that so much. I don't think there is a real danger of holding alliances accountable for rogues if the alliances make a small effort not to take advantage of the advanced knowledge and privileged social connections to raid the rogue. I know I am not the only one who gets extremely irritated when tech raiders (in general, not necessarily from the rogue's former alliance) snatch war slots on rogues that attacked our members that ought to be ours to coordinate the counteroffensive. The community hasn't yet settled on an acceptable way of dealing with this issue and it's a bit overdue. I'd suggest an international summit on roguery!

And the other side of the picture is that STA hindered Kronos' ability to raid a target.

I'm not sure many people would see it that way. One of these two alliances was defending their member and had no choice but to attack. One of these two alliances attacked for the fun of it. Which alliance has more cause to be concerned about the hindered war efforts, the one who was defending their own or the one who had no reason for war altogether?

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin