Policy Clarification from The Resistance

[PhysicsJunky]

We had somebody intentionally spam most of our alliance with recruitment messages recently, our response was to try and buy tech off them. To each their own I suppose.

[eesmith4]

You do realize that this is tantamount to asking every alliance out there to spam your entire alliance with recruitment messages, don't you?

I can't imagine why they'd want to do that.

Seriously? you've been here 1,139 days(according to your nation creation date) and the thought of how folks would react to your OP never crossed your mind? Admin help you.....

If you've got people jumping ship due to a spammed recruiting message, well, I'll just say the problem lies in-house, and not with some overenthusiastic recruiter. We in FAN still get them from time to time, the only thing that happens is the more amateurish and poorly written ones get posted up for a laugh.

[Yankees Empire]

So what you're trying to say is that this policy was a clear overreaction and a mistake?

What I'm saying is that this post was made out of frustration. Are we going to declare war the second any member of ours gets a recruitment message? No. But like I said, don't try to recruit us.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Yankeesfan924

[Voodoo Nova]

What I'm saying is that this post was made out of frustration. Are we going to declare war the second any member of ours gets a recruitment message? No. But like I said, don't recruit us.

Then why make a topic such as this stating you will attack over recruitment messages without attempting diplomacy first?

[Biff Webster]

What I'm saying is that this post was made out of frustration. Are we going to declare war the second any member of ours gets a recruitment message? No. But like I said, don't try to recruit us.

Messages made in jest and messages made in frustration are ok. Messages sent by accident are met with FURY.

[Believland]

And you my friend are an idiot less then 10members no treaty's no nothing its not recognized as an alliance. You just made your DOE a few weeks ago if im not mistaken.. So stop trying to !@#$ stir.

I recognize ZDP as an alliance. I believe a couple of alliances do too. Maybe math isn't your forte, but I count them having 15 members. But, why are you trying to penalize people who have good intentions? Another question. Will you keep your nations to the same standards?

[William Blake]

I wish you guys would have put a little more thought into this during the discussion phase and decided that it was a silly idea that would in no way benefit your alliance. Good luck with this, though I imagine nothing will come of it.

[astronaut jones]

We're obviously not going to respond to what I would classify as joke recruitment messages sent out of frustration and boredom.

Sending a recruitment letter to someone already in an alliance that is displayed on their nation is not a mistake. Whether the nation didn't check, or the alliance didn't bother to hand their recruiter a guide so they'd know to check before sending them out to gather other alliance's government officials up, there is a deal of disrespect there.

The statement stands.

The resistance will be the first stop on my world peace tour this summer. I suggest you prepare accordingly.

[D34th]

Sovereign alliances have all right to take whatever dumb moves they want and I respect you decision of doing it. That being said I have to say that do not try diplomacy firt is a awesome idea, go for it.

[Rebel Virginia]

Of course.

Let's leave it at this: Recruitment messages will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Don't try and recruit us.

So what you're trying to say is this: "If the alliance of the nation which accidentally sends us recruitment message is comparatively small and unconnected, we will attack. If it is large connected alliance, however, we can let it slide. DON'T MESS WITH US!!!!!"

Gotcha.

[SilentFury]

I recognize ZDP as an alliance. I believe a couple of alliances do too. Maybe math isn't your forte, but I count them having 15 members. But, why are you trying to penalize people who have good intentions? Another question. Will you keep your nations to the same standards?

If i cant count then you cant read this happened quite awhile ago when they had little to no members but that is irrelevant.

[astronaut jones]

Ignorance is not an excuse for recruiting from other alliances, do not allow brand new people or people that seem to be inept at understanding the basic concept of not sending messages to people that are under an alliance affiliation.

I would say TR's response to it is just, this here is diplomacy. They are letting people know now that it will be met with war.

And I am stating, for the record, that I hope whenever they $%&@ up, and they will, in a very minor way (just how accidentally recruiting from an alliance is a very minor $%&@ up) that they AND their allies, which I see includes your alliance, are attacked accordingly.

Why play favourites? Why enact a policy that makes no sense? Let's hope they screw up soon, and you screw up soon too, and both of your alliances are attacked over something petty and insignificant like the resistance is stating they will do.

[Yankees Empire]

So what you're trying to say is this: "If the alliance of the nation which accidentally sends us recruitment message is comparatively small and unconnected, we will attack. If it is large connected alliance, however, we can let it slide. DON'T MESS WITH US!!!!!"

Gotcha.

Glad you've caught on so quickly.

[ty345]

I recognize ZDP as an alliance. I believe a couple of alliances do too. Maybe math isn't your forte, but I count them having 15 members. But, why are you trying to penalize people who have good intentions? Another question. Will you keep your nations to the same standards?

At the time, they hadn't DoE'd yet, and were under 10 members. So, at the time, we didn't consider them a full alliance.

And no, none of our members left us because of these recruitment messages.

[eesmith4]

What I'm saying is that this post was made out of frustration. Are we going to declare war the second any member of ours gets a recruitment message? No. But like I said, don't try to recruit us.

Protip: NEVER make a public statement that you're not willing or able to back up 100%. Once you make the pronouncement that, "If someone does X, we will respond with Y", people here WILL call you on it in an attempt to test you. If you fail to follow through on your word, all you've accomplished is to destroy your credibility.

The only thing the OP has accomplished is make your alliance look weak and foolish, not to mention petty. Next time, think before you post.

[Lord Panda]

This is the best fake policy thread I've seen in awhile.

Kudos, La Resistance, thank you for posting up such an entertaining piece of drivel.

Let it be known that if you fail to follow through on this policy unless the offending alliance is weaker than you, you will face a harsh retaliation from most of planet bob.

Congratulations on setting the stage for the next global war.

[AlmightyGrub]

Protip: NEVER make a public statement that you're not willing or able to back up 100%. Once you make the pronouncement that, "If someone does X, we will respond with Y", people here WILL call you on it in an attempt to test you. If you fail to follow through on your word, all you've accomplished is to destroy your credibility.

The only thing the OP has accomplished is make your alliance look weak and foolish, not to mention petty. Next time, think before you post.

As I look at it, the OP lacks the ability to make good on his threat without hurting himself more. It is good to clarify a position but to paint yourself in a corner may be a little unwise.

When I send recruitment messages to your alliance, I will not be joking, bored or anything other than looking for new members. So what will transpire? Global war over something your membership could delete without even reading if they so wished? Seems like a plan.

[wickedj]

Huh, well whatya know! The Resistance actually grown some pubs...

Though in all seriousness, I cant believe you would make a mistake such as this with a poor nuke count. This would be interesting to watch if NSO makes anything of it... eh ivan?

You assume that the OP isnt talking about NSO, they are well known for doing this type of stuff

@Grub, just stop man....

Edited January 15, 2010 by wickedj

[mattski133]

The policy is not changing. If you're confused go back and read it so that you have no questions about it. It is not garunteed we will attack an offending nation, and I did not say we would just go straight to war with that nation without talking to an alliance's government first. If you can truly prove, without a doubt, that your nation is not capable of reading or understanding your rules about recruitment, then surely you could get an exemption.

Like yankees said, it's a case by case. I just don't see many cases of ignorance, so much as laziness.

We're not doing this roll any small alliance or provoke any big alliance. We're doing this because we are sick of these messages and wanted to reduce the confusion most alliance leaders express when we state our case for war against their member.

That being said, diplomacy never solved anything, the fun way.

[eesmith4]

As I look at it, the OP lacks the ability to make good on his threat without hurting himself more. It is good to clarify a position but to paint yourself in a corner may be a little unwise.

When I send recruitment messages to your alliance, I will not be joking, bored or anything other than looking for new members. So what will transpire? Global war over something your membership could delete without even reading if they so wished? Seems like a plan.

No I agree, to attempt to actually enforce it would be stupid as it would get his alliance stomped in short order. However, NOT enforcing it makes him look weak and impulsive, so the OP put himself in a lose/lose situation that he's now trying to crawfish out of.

All in all, a pretty good example of how NOT to handle this problem.

[Lenex]

And I am stating, for the record, that I hope whenever they $%&@ up, and they will, in a very minor way (just how accidentally recruiting from an alliance is a very minor $%&@ up) that they AND their allies, which I see includes your alliance, are attacked accordingly.

Why play favourites? Why enact a policy that makes no sense? Let's hope they screw up soon, and you screw up soon too, and both of your alliances are attacked over something petty and insignificant like the resistance is stating they will do.

Well as head of recruitment for ODN, I promise you it will not happen, fortunately we sufficiently educate our members that do our recruiting. So much for Jones' usual pacifism.

Again, this is diplomacy. They have not attacked anyone have they? And their members have received messages, so clearly this is diplomacy.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lenex

[magicninja]

Always use diplomacy.

[The AUT]

Yeah, and VE doesn't support EZI.

Good luck with this policy, can't wait until you're forced into rescinding it later.

[JWConner]

The policy is not changing. If you're confused go back and read it so that you have no questions about it. It is not garunteed we will attack an offending nation, and I did not say we would just go straight to war with that nation without talking to an alliance's government first. If you can truly prove, without a doubt, that your nation is not capable of reading or understanding your rules about recruitment, then surely you could get an exemption.

Like yankees said, it's a case by case. I just don't see many cases of ignorance, so much as laziness.

We're not doing this roll any small alliance or provoke any big alliance. We're doing this because we are sick of these messages and wanted to reduce the confusion most alliance leaders express when we state our case for war against their member.

That being said, diplomacy never solved anything, the fun way.

I put the the possibility of the next instance of our members getting recruitment messages being met with war on the offending nation at 99%. Our allies will of course receive a kinder form of diplomacy.

Um, 99% you're gonna attack right away, 1% you're not. Sure, you never said you'd just attack without diplomacy

But I love how it started off with mattski saying you recruit us, we're attacking. Then middle of the way through people started in with...well, we'll use diplomacy first. Now even mattski is contradicting himself.

Yay for joke policy threads.

As to recruitment methods and whether or not you train and educate your recruiters. Yeah, we educate our recruiters, have it in bold letters to not send messages to nations in alliances. But you know what, it happens. We get recruitment letters as VA members. SO WHAT?!? *$#% happens. GET OVER IT!

Just for the hell of it I may start sending some messages tR's way. What are you gonna do, nuke me some more?

Edited January 15, 2010 by JWConner

[sethb]

Yeah, and VE doesn't support EZI.

Ummm... What?