Jumping Ship?

[Archon]

It is always hilarious to see people argue back and forth on this topic, fairly reliably, each war. If I had more time (and no life), I'd actually keep a record of each person's stance and their relative position in the war, and see how it changes from war to war. Then again, we all would already know the outcome of that.

[jerdge]

[quote name='LucasSnow' date='04 March 2010' post='2213802']Where I come from, changing your AA, in the off chance of getting the chance the hit peace, is considered cowardice. I personally have to much pride and respect in my own AA, and honor in myself, to consider such an action. Ever. I'd hoped the nations I was warring against had the same amount of pride, respect, and honor. I have no doubt most do, but it seems there are some "bad eggs". If I were you guys I'd frown upon such tactics.[/quote]
Going into peace mode to be able to stock 25 nukes and to come out to DoW on targets of your choosing for damage maximization has nothing to do with "cowardice".


[quote name='tamerlane' date='04 March 2010M' post='2213863']if they arent flying the TOP AA, they are not a member of TOP. If this is not the case, then the etiquette of raiding have evolved to a whole new level.[/quote]
Does this mean that you support giving peace to whoever leaves your enemies' Alliance Affiliation? Don't they have to become POWs to obtain peace individually?
Or would you like to decide about their membership in place of their alliances, depending on what you find convenient at the moment?

Because you know, either you fight those that dropped the AA because you're at war with their alliance, that is thus [i]their alliance[/i], or you don't have any reason to continue fighting them, unless you are then switching to a raid type of aggression.

Or you can personally have it both ways, just don't claim that the public should share your "peculiar" vision on this subject, or that retaliatory sanctions shouldn't start raining against you/your allies when you started sanctioning those "rogues".

[jer]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='04 March 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1267741053' post='2214078']
It is always hilarious to see people argue back and forth on this topic, fairly reliably, each war. If I had more time (and no life), I'd actually keep a record of each person's stance and their relative position in the war, and see how it changes from war to war. Then again, we all would already know the outcome of that.
[/quote]
I am fighting on the opposite side of TOP in this war yet I disagree with this new definition of a rogue that has been used to justify the possible sanctioning of their nations. Does that fit with your obvious outcome?

Maybe you could attempt to answer some of the questions raised here instead of wading in and patronising the entire debate by declaring it as partisan, biased, etc. as though it's impossible for anyone other than yourself to have any principles.

[Lord Brendan]

I can certainly understand how someone would wish to enact retribution against those who disguise themselves as non-combatants to boost their war effort. I'm not sure it's really worth the risk of starting a sanction war though, especially seeing as TOP/IRON/TORN could probably snag two senate seats after the reset if they wanted to.

[Epiphanus]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='04 March 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1267744984' post='2214159']
I am fighting on the opposite side of TOP in this war yet I disagree with this new definition of a rogue that has been used to justify the possible sanctioning of their nations. Does that fit with your obvious outcome?

Maybe you could attempt to answer some of the questions raised here instead of wading in and patronising the entire debate by declaring it as partisan, biased, etc. as though it's impossible for anyone other than yourself to have any principles.
[/quote]
For the most part it is partisan bias.

[Virillus]

[quote name='LucasSnow' date='04 March 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1267726071' post='2213802']
Where I come from, changing your AA, in the off chance of getting the chance the hit peace, is considered cowardice. I personally have to much pride and respect in my own AA, and honor in myself, to consider such an action. Ever. I'd hoped the nations I was warring against had the same amount of pride, respect, and honor. I have no doubt most do, but it seems there are some "bad eggs". If I were you guys I'd frown upon such tactics.
[/quote]

Refusing to fight because you are scared of getting hurt is cowardice.
Intentionally making it easier to get hit is stupidity.


You do your AA no "Respect" by getting your face kicked due to overweening pride.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Virillus

[SilentFury]

Fail thread .. Thread is fail.. Why is it important if he switched his AA seriously stop riding him..

[agafaba]

[quote name='SilentFury' date='05 March 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1267750074' post='2214282']
Fail thread .. Thread is fail.. Why is it important if he switched his AA seriously stop riding him..
[/quote]
People are trying and failing to turn it into a pr stunt, and possibly an excuse to start sanctioning nations they are at war with.
Its clear a large number of players have decided that the new definition of rogue is wrong and everything at this point is redundant.

[JimKongIl]

Is this really worthy of 7 pages? It's not that uncommon.

[Sephiroth]

I find this amusing, if MK wants to turn it into a sanction war they can do that, but TOP does have quite a bit of senate control of their own even if not Aqua anymore.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='04 March 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1267729866' post='2213863']
if they arent flying the TOP AA, they are not a member of TOP. If this is not the case, then the etiquette of raiding have evolved to a whole new level.

No room for your reason, Auctor. That makes too much sense.

:Edit: Oh wait.. I realize where this is going... The good ol' GGA hidden bank defense. Gotta love that.
[/quote]

MK is fairly well known for having members that like to fool around with their in game AA. Are we to assume they lose membership to MK everytime they do so, and then get it back without reapplying everytime they change their AA back again?

[Prime minister Johns]

I have had one TOP fellow try and change his AA to a POW AA and then keep attacking.

This hasn't fooled me for a second because until he sends me a PM linking to his post in the surrender thread I am not going to stop. And unless he finds some way to change his nation ID number then he is staying on my target list.

Exhibit 1:
[IMG]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/Mihoshi2005/c5e4c024.jpg[/IMG]

[Auctor]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='05 March 2010 - 06:18 AM' timestamp='1267788176' post='2214757']
MK is fairly well known for having members that like to fool around with their in game AA. Are we to assume they lose membership to MK everytime they do so, and then get it back without reapplying everytime they change their AA back again?
[/quote]

Scenarios are only superficially similar, but for the sake of argument, if you switch your AA from Nemesis(while remaining a member) to "none", and get raided, is Nemesis liable to protect you or did you get what you deserved?

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Methrage' date='05 March 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1267771753' post='2214676']
I find this amusing, if MK wants to turn it into a sanction war they can do that, but TOP does have quite a bit of senate control of their own even if not Aqua anymore.
[/quote]The conversation has run in MK private areas. We know it would be silly to do it to LM and the like, but we know that if it did escalate to that, we have more senate coverage. That seems to be the general consensus, ain't no PR stunt about it.


[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='05 March 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1267788176' post='2214757']
MK is fairly well known for having members that like to fool around with their in game AA. Are we to assume they lose membership to MK everytime they do so, and then get it back without reapplying everytime they change their AA back again?
[/quote]That's not really the issue, the issue is having TOP members ghost Sparta, MK and PoW AAs (which I have seen on our target lists).

Would you not agree that that is cowardice? My personal view is that nations doing that are OK to sanction.

[jer]

It's not cowardice, they are doing what they can to help their war effort. It's pretty sad that you seem to want to go down the road of punishing the (heavily outnumbered) opponent simply for doing what it can to war effectively. What next, sanctions for using peace mode? Sanctions for using nukes?

Edited March 5, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[Rocky Horror]

Those days are gone. But Mushroom Kingdom have a claim to the "Mushroom Kingdom" AA, don't they? And joining a PoW AA is endangering all the PoWs in the game.

Sovereignty and PoW protection are some of the most important, long-standing and agreed upon principles in this game. The right to $%&@ about to protect yourself has long been questioned.

I'd like to see you try and stretch out your argument here.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1267796513' post='2214813']
Would you not agree that that is cowardice? My personal view is that nations doing that are OK to sanction.
[/quote]

I disagree with the cowardice aspect. Though it may be frowned upon, cowardice is leaving the entity rather than the AA, which is changeable at will if need be. Should these people be sanctioned? A part of me says no, but another side says yes as if they wish to resort to guerrilla warfare, any means necessary should be taken into consideration in terms of disposing said tactics. Cowardice, no, sanctioning guerrilla warfare: Why not? Both are arguable tactics and when one exists, the other should be used to exterminate said practices.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='05 March 2010 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1267798127' post='2214835']
I disagree with the cowardice aspect. Though it may be frowned upon, cowardice is leaving the entity rather than the AA, which is changeable at will if need be. Should these people be sanctioned? A part of me says no, but another side says yes as if they wish to resort to guerrilla warfare, any means necessary should be taken into consideration in terms of disposing said tactics. Cowardice, no, sanctioning guerrilla warfare: Why not? Both are arguable tactics and when one exists, the other should be used to exterminate said practices.
[/quote]Yeah, but there's a line being crossed.

Hiding under "Orders of the Paradox" or other TOP-related AAs, even AAs that no one makes any claim to, that's attempting to take advantage of an enemy's complacency, that's fair game, asymmetric warfare. What can you do there? Cancel any trades you happen to have with them I guess.

Hiding in opposing AAs and PoW places, that's trying to exploit your opponents' good nature. That's hiding behind civilians, it's terrorism.

[jer]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1267797905' post='2214833']
Those days are gone. But Mushroom Kingdom have a claim to the "Mushroom Kingdom" AA, don't they? And joining a PoW AA is endangering all the PoWs in the game.

Sovereignty and PoW protection are some of the most important, long-standing and agreed upon principles in this game. The right to $%&@ about to protect yourself has long been questioned.

I'd like to see you try and stretch out your argument here.
[/quote]
How is joining a PoW AA endangering all the PoWs in the game?

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='05 March 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1267798717' post='2214842']
How is joining a PoW AA endangering all the PoWs in the game?
[/quote]It's bringing war to PoW AAs. It means they're not safe.

Luckily, CnG are organised enough that no harm will come to PoWs in all likelihood.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Schattenmann]

Conversely, Kingdom of Goon was constantly attacked on accident during the GOONS extermination.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='05 March 2010 - 06:44 AM' timestamp='1267789773' post='2214766']
I have had one TOP fellow try and change his AA to a POW AA and then keep attacking.

This hasn't fooled me for a second because until he sends me a PM linking to his post in the surrender thread I am not going to stop. And unless he finds some way to change his nation ID number then he is staying on my target list.

Exhibit 1:
[IMG]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/Mihoshi2005/c5e4c024.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]
This right here is what annoys me, and these guys should get sanctioned. You want to change AA, sure, but you move to one that's claimed by another alliance, you face the same actions any other person moving there without there permission would, possibly including sanction.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010' post='2214841']Hiding in opposing AAs and PoW places, that's trying to exploit your opponents' good nature. That's hiding behind civilians, it's terrorism.[/quote]
Who are the civilians you're talking of, and how are they terrorizing you/anybody with a friendly/POW AA?


[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010' post='2214860']It's bringing war to PoW AAs. It means they're not safe.[/quote]
Do you mean that, speaking at large, someone could DoW on unrelated POW nations because someone else that they're at war with switched to that AA, and do you mean that it would be the "false" POW's responsibility?
Do you mean that, for example, was LiquidMercury to switch to the MK AA, ShawnNL (currently at war with him) and/or his friends in FOK would then have any justification/excuse to DoW on MK nations? Would you then try to cast all the blame on LiquidMercury?

...Maybe citing civilians and/or "terrorism"?...

[Meer Republic]

I don't see the big deal, people do this every war. The Foreign Division tried to do exactly the same thing against Umbrella in this one as I'm sure many others have. Go for it if your enemy is incompetent enough for it to work good for you.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Auctor' date='05 March 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1267795714' post='2214806']
Scenarios are only superficially similar, but for the sake of argument, if you switch your AA from Nemesis(while remaining a member) to "none", and get raided, is Nemesis liable to protect you or did you get what you deserved?
[/quote]

If I switched to 'none' whilst being a member of Nemesis chances are I'd be looking to be raided. I switched to 'Nueva Vida' for a couple of days a while ago and would have had no qualms if they attacked me for ghosting, certainly wouldn't have asked Nemesis to get involved. As you said though, significantly different scenarios.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1267796513' post='2214813']That's not really the issue, the issue is having TOP members ghost Sparta, MK and PoW AAs (which I have seen on our target lists).

Would you not agree that that is cowardice? My personal view is that nations doing that are OK to sanction.[/quote]

Cowardice, no. I don't agree at all that it is cowardice. We're long past the stage where cowardice would become evident by now. They're at war with you, they're hoping to inconvenience you. Sure ghosting PoW AAs isn't the most tasteful way to do things, but I doubt they think they'll vanish from sight just by changing AA. It encourages mistakes with staggering so they can rebuild their nuke supplies in peace mode and come out firing again.

My main issue is with the labelling of them as rogues in order to get the sanction off. Honestly, I've stated before that I think sanctions should be used in a war. Use every weapon you have available to you. Just find it stupid the way it's attempting to be justified. You're at war, you want to commit acts of war against them (sanctioning their nations) then do so. You don't need further justification and all it comes across as is trying to scramble to reduce the PR hit you'd take from doing so.