Policy Clarification from The Resistance

[Penkala]

This was a dumb move. You guys aren't very good at politics are you?

[janax]

Good luck with this.

Enjoy your new policy!

[Yankees Empire]

This was a dumb move. You guys aren't very good at politics are you?

Good sir, can you tell me what an MDP is?

[Lenex]

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?

Well the same could be said to you about your opinion. Why do you care so much about their policy? "SO WHAT?!? *$#*% happens. GET OVER IT!"

See wut I did thar?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lenex

[SkonesMickLoud]

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.

So, you just pulled this 99% figure out of thin air?

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.

You dictate my alliances recruiting rules now? If my alliance says that I can send recruitment messages to anyone that I want to, and I send one to you (by the way, I sent you one, still waiting on that DoW), then surely I should get an exemption too, right?

[JWConner]

Well the same could be said to you about your opinion. Why do you care so much about their policy? "SO WHAT?!? *$#*% happens. GET OVER IT!"

See wut I did thar?

Yes, but you see, my opinion was made with common sense in mind. This policy, well, isn't. And neither was your retort, for that matter.

And that was blatant plagiarism. You owe me $5.

[Rebel Virginia]

Well the same could be said to you about your opinion. Why do you care so much about their policy? "SO WHAT?!? *$#*% happens. GET OVER IT!"

See wut I did thar?

THEY MADE A MISTAKE!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE!?!

If tR's idiocy in making this announcement wasn't enough to make my day, their allies attempting to justify their incompetence surely is. There is nothing that brings me more joy than seeing people vigorously defend incompetence.

[jerdge]

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.

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.

I completely agree with these two fine people.

The rudeness of points a, b, c and d in the OP, and the comment about the treatment of allies (that basically denies the principles one could have thought this policy was based upon), are - each one of them - other reasons to think that a lot of thought has been put in drafting this policy. The wrong type of thought.

For reference:

<SNIP!>

We no longer care if the nation in question is-

a) inexperienced at recruiting.

b) not aware of alliance politics or affiliations.

c) scanning our nations with some kind of program that accidently put our member on your list.

d) any other reason that was recently given to us.

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.

[chris8967]

Recruiting from other alliances isn't cool at all, but you have to keep in mind mistakes are sometimes made.

[Prodigal Moon]

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.

Is there reason to think that The Resistance is getting more of these kinds of recruitment messages than anyone else? Or from a particular alliance/bloc? If so, I could see how you could lose patience with a particular group that just won't stop despite your warnings. But if not, I can't understand why TR should be any more offended or threatened by some mis-sent messages than any other alliance.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Prodigal Moon

[bay102174]

Do Do occurs. Get over something that small and unintentional.

[Yankees Empire]

Is there reason to think that The Revolution is getting more of these kinds of recruitment messages than anyone else? Or from a particular alliance/bloc? If so, I could see how you could lose patience with a particular group that just won't stop despite your warnings. But if not, I can't understand why TR should be any more offended or threatened by some mis-sent messages than any other alliance.

The Resistance, not The Revolution

[Prodigal Moon]

^ Ah, my bad on that Edited previous post.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Prodigal Moon

[Lord GVChamp]

The maturity level of both this policy and the response to it is quite underwhelming.

[Duncan King]

And the award for most unreasonable policy goes to: The Resistance for their wonderful portrayal of a temper tantrum after having a newbie recruiter accidentally sent one of their members a message.

I only hope that the next time one of your members makes that mistake that the recipient nation's alliance is as reasonable as you are.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Duncan King

[edikroma]

What a terrible policy to just throw out there. No diplomacy. No asking "Hey man, WTF?". Just straight up war?

There's a difference between a noobish mistake that you can just laugh off and a plot to steal your members.

EDIT: In the OP, it would have been interesting to know exactly how many different recruitment offers from different alliances were sent to your people. Was it just a couple noobs from a single alliance in the span of a couple days? Or is it something like 10 offers from 10 alliances over the span of a couple months? Have there been repeat offers?

Edited January 15, 2010 by edikroma

[Yankees Empire]

And the award for most unreasonable policy goes to: The Resistance for their wonderful portrayal of a temper tantrum after having a newbie recruiter from Krynn accidentally send one of their members a message.

I only hope that the next time one of your members makes that mistake that the recipient nation's alliance is as reasonable as you are.

The Krynn recruiter sent messages to at least four different members, including myself and mattski. We also had another incident regarding recruitment messages in the last couple days.

The award for assuming facts goes to: Duncan King. Congratulations.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Yankeesfan924

[JWConner]

The Krynn recruiter sent messages to at least four different members, including myself and mattski. We had another incident regarding recruitment messages in the last couple days.

The award for assuming facts goes to: Duncan King. Congratulations.

And it was a noob, as Krynn divulged. Who cares who he sent them to. He's a noob, he has no clue who you are. Heck, I've been here for nearly 3 years and I couldn't have named off your government either just as I'm sure you couldn't name off the majority of CN's leadership.

Krynn went well above and beyond by making a public apology over something so petty. Good job in making them out to be the good guys in this. That's quite an accomplishment.

[edikroma]

The Krynn recruiter sent messages to at least four different members, including myself and mattski. We had another incident regarding recruitment messages in the last couple days.

The award for assuming facts goes to: Duncan King. Congratulations.

The first part doesn't imply any insidious plot to destroy your alliance.

The second part is probably more important, if the same nation or alliance keeps trying to go after your alliance members (especially your smaller members).

[Yankees Empire]

And it was a noob, as Krynn divulged. Who cares who he sent them to. He's a noob, he has no clue who you are. Heck, I've been here for nearly 3 years and I couldn't have named off your government either just as I'm sure you couldn't name off the majority of CN's leadership.

Krynn went well above and beyond by making a public apology over something so petty. Good job in making them out to be the good guys in this. That's quite an accomplishment.

Shush. Don't reveal our scheme to make Krynn look good. We're trying to keep it hush hush.

[Bob Janova]

The issue here is not that you made a statement saying 'please don't recruit from us'. That is fair and reasonable if it has been a major problem. The issue is that you made a blustering, aggressive and sabre-rattling statement which stated that you'd go to war with anyone that sent you a message, and you have absolutely no way to back that up – as you can clearly appreciate considering the backpedalling you've done since.

Good sir, can you tell me what an MDP is?

That is a treaty which does not protect you if you start a war.

[JWConner]

Shush. Don't reveal our scheme to make Krynn look good. We're trying to keep it hush hush.

Yeah, not such a good secret according to the OP. OPSEC FTW!

Oh, and I'd garner a guess that tR wasn't the only alliance that received these recruiting messages from this Krynn noob. However, you are the only alliance posturing on the OWF over something so petty.

[Lord Boris]

The first part doesn't imply any insidious plot to destroy your alliance.

The second part is probably more important, if the same nation or alliance keeps trying to go after your alliance members (especially your smaller members).

To the best of my knowledge, the other incident they are referring to is unrelated to the incident with one of my members.

*walks away from the thread again to keep lurking.

EDIT: Also, as far as Krynn is concerned, the issue with tR was resolved last night. We wish them well in their future endeavors and announcements.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lord Boris

[JWConner]

Good sir, can you tell me what an MDP is?

That is a treaty which does not protect you if you start a war.

I'm sorry, but I normally don't agree with Bob's posts, but this was probably the funniest thing I've read in quite some time. Kudos Bob.

[scottimus prime]

I'll be damned if you attack a member of mine over a mistake.

Probably shouldn't attack any polars either...if one us recruits someone, send us a letter...it works much better