Siberian Tiger Alliance Announcement

[LiquidMercury]

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 snatch war slots on rogues that attacked our members and should 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!

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?

I don't think the community will likely come to an agreement on how to rogues (even though we are much more likely to do so then to come to an agreement on tech raiding).

EDIT: I know I personally get irritated when alliances get in my way of raiding someone that may be going rogue that happens to be in my range as raid targets appear very little for me. (Yes TOP forbids raiding, doesn't mean I don't like to raid or have anything against it, also means my own alliance gets in the way of me raiding rogues but alas, it's something I'll live with).

In regards to the matter of who was more right or more wrong is for the most part irrelevant in what I said. In pure black and white terms (which I know are truly never applicable in CN) it can be said that STA prevented Kronos from raiding by wanting those slots. It can be said that Kronos prevented STA from taking more nooks for the glory of STA/comraderie/love of each other by having said military slots filled. I was merely pointing out the other side. Whether or not someone is more right or more wrong is an individual/alliance issue. I hold my opinions, they may differ or may be the same to that of STA or Kronos or they may be wildly off basis and only make sense to me which is also quite possible and one I'm okay with. We're all a bit [ooc] insane in the membrane [ooc]

Edited November 25, 2009 by LiquidMercury

[Ragashingo]

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.

Heh, Nuke rogue political terrorists is what you are talking about, and I agree that would be very bad. Perhaps we should start thinking about trying to get alliances to adopt some sort of standard rogue response plan or something. I would like to see a system that both allowed for a very quick response to rogues but also peaced out wars and declared new wars in order to get the nations best suited to attacking the rogue a war slot. Wishful thinking on my part? Probably. But then when have I ever not been an optimists?

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.

Hindered the ability to raid a target? Are you being serious here or just playing devil's advocate? I fully agree that we have to be careful in not letting rogues become political terrorists, but I also think its lunacy to let the rogue's former alliance treat their rogue's as mere tech raid opportunities. To treat them as such is highly disgraceful and highly disrespectful to the alliance(s) who are the victims of the rogue's roguery. I see rogues as an embarrassment to the alliance which they came from (the correct way to quit is to quit, not to try and cause damage and political fallout on the way out) and as military targets who should be taken out as quickly as possible.

As for this "no you" treaty stuff. Thats just silly. It's certainly not what the STA was attempting here. This really was a communications failure from several directions, not us wanting to take unnecessary damage for no reason. I'm sure you understand this, so again I get the feeling you're playing devil's advocate. At to that I say stop. If you want to debate the issue then debate it. Don't throw around well worded what ifs then refuse to take a side. Its annoying.

I hold my opinions, they may differ or may be the same to that of STA or Kronos or they may be wildly off basis and only make sense to me which is also quite possible and one I'm okay with.

What are your opinions then? (Yeah, as noted above, it annoys me when people speak of having opinions but refuse to share them. )

Edited November 25, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Moridin]

I don't think the community will likely come to an agreement on how to rogues (even though we are much more likely to do so then to come to an agreement on tech raiding).

EDIT: I know I personally get irritated when alliances get in my way of raiding someone that may be going rogue that happens to be in my range as raid targets appear very little for me. (Yes TOP forbids raiding, doesn't mean I don't like to raid or have anything against it).

In regards to the matter of who was more right or more wrong is for the most part irrelevant in what I said. In pure black and white terms (which I know are truly never applicable in CN) it can be said that STA prevented Kronos from raiding by wanting those slots. It can be said that Kronos prevented STA from taking more nooks for the glory of STA/comraderie/love of each other by having said military slots filled. I was merely pointing out the other side. Whether or not someone is more right or more wrong is an individual/alliance issue. I hold my opinions, they may differ or may be the same to that of STA or Kronos or they may be wildly off basis and only make sense to me which is also quite possible and one I'm okay with. We're all a bit [ooc] insane in the membrane [ooc]

Yes, there are two sides to every issue, but that doesn't mean they are both equally valid or deserving of mention. If anyone actually believes STA defending their members is unfair to tech raiders, they can say it themselves.

[Penguin]

I don't think the community will likely come to an agreement on how to rogues (even though we are much more likely to do so then to come to an agreement on tech raiding).

In regards to the matter of who was more right or more wrong is for the most part irrelevant in what I said. In pure black and white terms (which I know are truly never applicable in CN) it can be said that STA prevented Kronos from raiding by wanting those slots. It can be said that Kronos prevented STA from taking more nooks for the glory of STA/comraderie/love of each other by having said military slots filled. I was merely pointing out the other side. Whether or not someone is more right or more wrong is an individual/alliance issue. I hold my opinions, they may differ or may be the same to that of STA or Kronos or they may be wildly off basis and only make sense to me which is also quite possible and one I'm okay with. We're all a bit [ooc] insane in the membrane [ooc]

I think the community would mostly prefer to have at least 24 hours to deal with their own rogues before the tech raiders pile on, or at least have the raiders ask permission before striking. Maybe not everyone feels strongly about it, but surely this irritates a lot of folks, no? It's particularly important to alliances like mine who prefer not to tech raid, or alliances that allow it but don't emphasize it, to make the most of these rare opportunities to give our members war experience.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[LiquidMercury]

Heh, Nuke rogue political terrorists is what you are talking about, and I agree that would be very bad. Perhaps we should start thinking about trying to get alliances to adopt some sort of standard rogue response plan or something. I would like to see a system that both allowed for a very quick response to rogues but also peaced out wars and declared new wars in order to get the nations best suited to attacking the rogue a war slot. Wishful thinking on my part? Probably. But then when have I ever not been an optimists?

Hindered the ability to raid a target? Are you being serious here or just playing devil's advocate? I fully agree that we have to be careful in not letting rogues become political terrorists, but I also think its lunacy to let the rogue's former alliance treat their rogue's as mere tech raid opportunities. To treat them as such is highly disgraceful and highly disrespectful to the alliance(s) who are the victims of the rogue's roguery. I see rogues as an embarrassment to the alliance which they came from (the correct way to quit is to quit, not to try and cause damage and political fallout on the way out) and as military targets who should be taken out as quickly as possible.

As for this "no you" treaty stuff. Thats just silly. It's certainly not what the STA was attempting here. This really was a communications failure from several directions, not us wanting to take unnecessary damage for no reason. I'm sure you understand this, so again I get the feeling you're playing devil's advocate.

Definitely wishful thinking. It'd be like getting everyone to sign that no-ZI pact that iirc (correct me if I'm wrong) VE originally launched a long while back.

Most definitely playing devils advocate. Also going by your logic, is it disgraceful for all people that treat a rogue as a raid as disgraceful/disrespectful or only if they come from that person's alliance? If that is the case then could I not hold Athens accountable for raiding Azaghul who is going rogue on TOP as we speak?

In regards to rogue being the proper way to quit or not, well to each their own. Just like most will never agree on raiding being moral or not, most will never agree on rogue being the way to go out or not. I know for one I will go rogue when I get this:

30k tech, 10B warchest, Senate Seat, Secret Trades, absolutely bored/[ooc] drunk [ooc] and will most definitely cause as much havoc and chaos as possible for the shear enjoyment of it all.

[LiquidMercury]

Yes, there are two sides to every issue, but that doesn't mean they are both equally valid or deserving of mention. If anyone actually believes STA defending their members is unfair to tech raiders, they can say it themselves.

I'm sure the most avid tech raiders would see this as a breach of sovereignty and their right of whatever alliance that allows them to raid. Validity is always in the eye of the beholder, and in this case I do believe it is worth mentioning. Before you go to war with someone, [ooc] walk a mile in their shoes [ooc] and ask would you feel wronged if something that you hold as a sovereign right were violated, would you be pissed? That way you're a mile away and you have their metaphorical shoes (tech).

[Penguin]

30k tech, 10B warchest, Senate Seat, Secret Trades, absolutely bored/[ooc] drunk [ooc] and will most definitely cause as much havoc and chaos as possible for the shear enjoyment of it all.

That's all well and good. Just don't deprive the target of the opportunity to derive the same enjoyment you are getting while hurting them by calling in three friends to fill your slots and I have no problem with that.

[LiquidMercury]

I think the community would mostly prefer to have at least 24 hours to deal with their own rogues before the tech raiders pile on, or at least have the raiders ask permission before striking. Maybe not everyone feels strongly about it, but surely this irritates a lot of folks, no? It's particularly important to alliances like mine who prefer not to tech raid, or alliances that allow it but don't emphasize it, to make the most of these rare opportunities to give our members war experience.

For a long while the community mostly preferred to allow NPO to trample over alliances left and right. It wasn't until many greivances occurred that the community as a whole rose up against hegemonistic rule. Sure I'm correlating events that would seem to have very little in common, but my main point is that what the majority of the community believes, does not always make right. The inherent flaw in democracy/community opinion is majority rule but that the majority is generally just a mob.

That's all well and good. Just don't deprive the target of the opportunity to derive the same enjoyment you are getting while hurting them by calling in three friends to fill your slots and I have no problem with that.

Never. Anyone that has a war slot with me is getting nooked, pillaged and burned to the ground. I'll DoE just to DoW just to DoS any who join me and find a way to do any other Do'S that do not include surrendering for the mere fact that I despise "Do'S" Side rant/rhetorical quesiton: Why can't DoW's be "I'm gonna rock you all night longs", or "say my name like you mean it explicative."

Edited November 25, 2009 by LiquidMercury

[Penguin]

For a long while the community mostly preferred to allow NPO to trample over alliances left and right. It wasn't until many greivances occurred that the community as a whole rose up against hegemonistic rule. Sure I'm correlating events that would seem to have very little in common, but my main point is that what the majority of the community believes, does not always make right. The inherent flaw in democracy/community opinion is majority rule but that the majority is generally just a mob.

Well, I don't think I'm asking for much here. Just the opportunity to defend our own without external interference. I noticed you haven't stated your personal opinion. Do you mind when tech raiders fill the slots of rogues attacking TOP?

Never. Anyone that has a war slot with me is getting nooked, pillaged and burned to the ground. I'll DoE just to DoW just to DoS any who join me and find a way to do any other Do'S that do not include surrendering for the mere fact that I despise "Do'S"

That is what I like to hear. None of this giving out war slots as parting gifts to friends nonsense.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[Moridin]

Most definitely playing devils advocate. Also going by your logic, is it disgraceful for all people that treat a rogue as a raid as disgraceful/disrespectful or only if they come from that person's alliance? If that is the case then could I not hold Athens accountable for raiding Azaghul who is going rogue on TOP as we speak?

What you do with Athens is your business, and I don't think anyone here is going to try and stop you from talking to them about the issue if you feel it is important.

I'm sure the most avid tech raiders would see this as a breach of sovereignty and their right of whatever alliance that allows them to raid. Validity is always in the eye of the beholder, and in this case I do believe it is worth mentioning. Before you go to war with someone, [ooc] walk a mile in their shoes [ooc] and ask would you feel wronged if something that you hold as a sovereign right were violated, would you be pissed? That way you're a mile away and you have their metaphorical shoes (tech).

If tech raiders believe they have a sovereign right to attack everyone within range then they need to get over themselves. It is a well established that alliances have the sovereign right to defend themselves, but the notion that one has the sovereign right to attack anybody they want without repercussions is frankly ridiculous and I don't honestly think that anybody believes that.

[Ragashingo]

Definitely wishful thinking. It'd be like getting everyone to sign that no-ZI pact that iirc (correct me if I'm wrong) VE originally launched a long while back.

Most definitely playing devils advocate.

Ha! I knew it.

Also going by your logic, is it disgraceful for all people that treat a rogue as a raid as disgraceful/disrespectful or only if they come from that person's alliance? If that is the case then could I not hold Athens accountable for raiding Azaghul who is going rogue on TOP as we speak?

Yes, it is disrespectful for all, but it is more disrespectful for the person's original alliance because they should already be embarresed that one of their own betrayed them, etc.. Like Penguin said it's the difference between defending your alliance from a threat and engaging in a meaningless war for fun and profit.

As to your Azaghul problem, I would hope you could talk to Athens and your two alliances could find an agreeable solution. To me that would be them either getting the heck out of your way or them making sure they have their best people in that strength range striking full force at the rogue.

In regards to rogue being the proper way to quit or not, well to each their own. Just like most will never agree on raiding being moral or not, most will never agree on rogue being the way to go out or not. I know for one I will go rogue when I get this:

30k tech, 10B warchest, Senate Seat, Secret Trades, absolutely bored/[ooc] drunk [ooc] and will most definitely cause as much havoc and chaos as possible for the shear enjoyment of it all.

Meh. I've "quit" three times now I think and I've never gone rogue. Not even when I did have a nation that was truly capable of doing damage. To each his own and I'll certainly condemn your roguery if I'm still around.

[Ragashingo]

For a long while the community mostly preferred to allow NPO to trample over alliances left and right. It wasn't until many greivances occurred that the community as a whole rose up against hegemonistic rule. Sure I'm correlating events that would seem to have very little in common, but my main point is that what the majority of the community believes, does not always make right. The inherent flaw in democracy/community opinion is majority rule but that the majority is generally just a mob.

This is why I always suggest people follow my lead. I'm always on the side of Truth and Justice and So On. And yes, those capital letters mean you can't spin it as an eye of the beholder thing.

[LiquidMercury]

Well, I don't think I'm asking for much here. Just the opportunity to defend our own without external interference. I noticed you haven't stated your personal opinion. Do you mind when tech raiders fill the slots of rogues attacking TOP?

I personally see no problem with it. Generally, the reason for someone going rogue on someone else is for malcontent towards that person/group. If I have generated enough malcontent that someone rogues me (which I most undoubtedly have and have intel that someone is indeed planning to go rogue on me within the month) then I'll deal with them myself and probably talk to the raiders to see if they'd like to coordinate. Should someone want the help I would not demean them for asking for it. I'm at a place in my [ooc] CN career [ooc] where 1v1 cage matches to settle a wrong that I may have inflicted on someone else (again validity is subjective here dependent upon the eye of the beholder) is "ok" in my mind. If asked for help by someone to deal with a rogue in my alliance I will most undoubtedly offer assistance of course but that does not mean I will be asking for it myself.

[LiquidMercury]

This is why I always suggest people follow my lead. I'm always on the side of Truth and Justice and So On. And yes, those capital letters mean you can't spin it as an eye of the beholder thing.

Truth is fickle, Justice is obtainable in the eyes of man but by what right?

[ooc] Side note: Yes I'm an absolutely odd mood tonight [ooc]

[Penguin]

I personally see no problem with it. Generally, the reason for someone going rogue on someone else is for malcontent towards that person/group. If I have generated enough malcontent that someone rogues me (which I most undoubtedly have and have intel that someone is indeed planning to go rogue on me within the month) then I'll deal with them myself and probably talk to the raiders to see if they'd like to coordinate. Should someone want the help I would not demean them for asking for it. I'm at a place in my [ooc] CN career [ooc] where 1v1 cage matches to settle a wrong that I may have inflicted on someone else (again validity is subjective here dependent upon the eye of the beholder) is "ok" in my mind. If asked for help by someone to deal with a rogue in my alliance I will most undoubtedly offer assistance of course but that does not mean I will be asking for it myself.

Let's say it's not you and your godly nation, but some brash, young whippersnapper under your care that's been attacked by a rogue much larger than him with all defensive slots filled by his friends. Still no problem?

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[LiquidMercury]

Let's say it's not you and your godly nation, but some brash, young whippersnapper under your care that's been attacked by a rogue much larger than him with all defensive slots filled by his friends. Still no problem?

I would impart my thoughts/beliefs to the young whippersnapper, but ultimately leave the decision for my course of action to them.

[ooc] Kind of like in pearl harbor when they all ask the Colonel what he'd do if he had to surrender, and he says "I'd have my crew bail, find the biggest military installation I could and ram my plane right into the middle of it killing as many of those japs as I could. That's what I'd do." Or something like that [ooc].

[Ragashingo]

Truth is fickle, Justice is obtainable in the eyes of man but by what right?

[ooc] Side note: Yes I'm an absolutely odd mood tonight [ooc]

Well, since you asked:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, basically, by the right of Admin?

[LiquidMercury]

Well, since you asked:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, basically, by the right of Admin?

You hold that all men are created equal, I hold that all men are created inequal and that it is through these inequalities that allow the leaders to lead, the followers to follow, and for the overlords of the world to feed on the bones of the weak. Or vice versa, I hold that all are inequal and it is up to those of a superior strength of character or one who is morally incorruptible to lead against oppression. [ooc] Admin [ooc] deemed that those with the WRC pwn those without. This is [ooc]Admin [ooc] law.

[Penguin]

I would impart my thoughts/beliefs to the young whippersnapper, but ultimately leave the decision for my course of action to them.

[ooc] Kind of like in pearl harbor when they all ask the Colonel what he'd do if he had to surrender, and he says "I'd have my crew bail, find the biggest military installation I could and ram my plane right into the middle of it killing as many of those japs as I could. That's what I'd do." Or something like that [ooc].

And say they request some military assistance, as young ones that suddenly find themselves in over their heads are wont to do, wouldn't you, as an alliance leader, want to be able to provide your member with that assistance? I know I would, which is why I prefer tech or casualty raiders stay clear of rogue war slots to keep that option open.

[LiquidMercury]

And say they request some military assistance, as young ones that suddenly find themselves in over their heads are wont to do, wouldn't you, as an alliance leader, want to be able to provide your member with that assistance? I know I would, which is why I prefer tech or casualty raiders stay clear of rogue war slots to keep that option open.

I'd absolutely provide the member with that assistance, and it would indeed make things easier if tech/casualty raiders stay clear of the situation, but a simple diplomatic talk can usually bring them around. By diplomatic talk I do not mean "GTFO the rogue or I gonna eat you" most raiders are quite cordial, we're not the super evil people that everyone makes us out to be.

[Penguin]

I'd absolutely provide the member with that assistance, and it would indeed make things easier if tech/casualty raiders stay clear of the situation, but a simple diplomatic talk can usually bring them around. By diplomatic talk I do not mean "GTFO the rogue or I gonna eat you" most raiders are quite cordial, we're not the super evil people that everyone makes us out to be.

Well sure, the raiders are cordial. They still have some politician bossing them around. The rogue, on the other hand, is not always so willing to peace out his three buddies.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin

[LiquidMercury]

Well sure, the raiders are cordial. They still have some politician bossing them around. The rogue, on the other hand, is not always so willing to peace out his three buddies.

So true. I wouldn't if I was the rogue. But alas, it is what it is. It's a paradox and we're back to where we started. Hold the alliance accountable for the raiders not being ABLE to peace out?

[Penguin]

So true. I wouldn't if I was the rogue. But alas, it is what it is. It's a paradox and we're back to where we started. Hold the alliance accountable for the raiders not being ABLE to peace out?

Set a standard that alliances do not tech raid active rogues in the first place.

[LiquidMercury]

Set a standard that alliances do not tech raid active rogues in the first place.

Getting all of CN to sign such a standard or at least agree to it as a common gentleman's law would be quite unlikely. Also, many raiders see the none AA or some random AA and don't bother to check wars, just click "declare war" and hope they got there before someone else. If that is the case, then the rogue may keep them in war to avoid taking on someone who would be doing full attacks. The only true solution is to ban all raiding which I of course am against.

[Penguin]

Getting all of CN to sign such a standard or at least agree to it as a common gentleman's law would be quite unlikely. Also, many raiders see the none AA or some random AA and don't bother to check wars, just click "declare war" and hope they got there before someone else. If that is the case, then the rogue may keep them in war to avoid taking on someone who would be doing full attacks. The only true solution is to ban all raiding which I of course am against.

I would wager a lot of money that many raiders find their large rogue targets by either knowing the rogue to begin with or by scanning the Wars Across the Globe public listing for unfamiliar AAs. Either way they know what's going on and I think they can handle this responsibility. There are also plenty of mild ways of making it unprofitable to raid rogues in the act. One such way is to set a standard where one would pay a small tech or cash penalty for the error in judgment.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Penguin