Jump to content

The Freedom of The Seas


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='04 April 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1270358236' post='2247283']
I'd wish you good luck, but...

[img]http://i42.tinypic.com/25kq1ig.png[/img]
[/quote]
I remember with fondness when we [i]did[/i] stop the last bunch that used that graphic.

This has been in the works for some time. I am glad it has come to fruition; while it has long been a Jedi policy not to associate ourselves with those who prey on the weak, it is good to stand united with those who share our philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]TRY AND STOP US[/quote]

Perhaps I'm misreading the document, but I don't think anyone's trying to stop you; they merely wish to assist nations who are being victimized.

In any case, this looks like a wonderful effort that could really help young nations in our harsh little world. I wish all alliances involved the best of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]3. It's not anyone's right to assist unaligned nations or alliances without protectorate agreements. I understand that some nations wish to stay unaligned in order to not get mixed up in alliance politics. It's an admirable decision, however, that nation still needs to be able to protect itself (I've seen plenty of unaligned nations being defended by larger alliances in exchange for tech deals). Failing that, well, admin invented peace mode for a reason.[/quote]

People can do whatever they want, without a treaty or protectorate etc, and in the same respect, the community at large has the right to grumble about it. I mean, theres nothing that is stopping them from doing it.

As for the larger picture, it seems strange to me, how far are you going to take it? Are you going to try to stand up against alliance raiding policies, or are you just going to bully the unaligned who raid other unaligned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='04 April 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1270367803' post='2247379']
As for the larger picture, it seems strange to me, how far are you going to take it? Are you going to try to stand up against alliance raiding policies, or are you just going to bully the unaligned who raid other unaligned?
[/quote]

That depends on which alliance is helping the particular victim and how they choose to enact the article quoted below.

[quote]ARTICLE III: Raid Victim Assistance
*An optional agreement to come to the aid of non-aligned nations that are the victims of piracy through an application of optional diplomatic, economic or military force commensurate with the strength of the offending pirate and according to the attackers alliance status or lack thereof.[/quote]

That could mean contacting an alliance who's member is raiding a unaligned nation to try to find a diplomatic solution (say if the nation who attacks refuses to peace out). It also means that military force may be used at the signatory's discretion if they so choose. Though I find it unlikely that that particular option will be used against any alliance. It's much more likely to affect those unaligned nations who refuse to stop attacking another.


I'm not sure how you figure we'll be bullying anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arcades057' date='04 April 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1270360114' post='2247322']
I'm almost tempted to join a tech raiding alliance for a week of raiding to see just how durable this pact turns out to be...
[/quote]

Hey guess what's not optional? Our protectorates with two of the signatories. Funny how that works out, right?


Also good luck, glad to see this come to realization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very nice to see.............stop by the Lodge some time we have a long running program called "hand of mercy" in which we try to help tech raid victims. Of course ours is geared more toward recruitment but, we try anyway.

I especially liked the line about how tech raiding equates to piracy.

O we have beer maidens
[img]http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens4429272_1241466020beer_maiden_3.jpg[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azural' date='04 April 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1270369047' post='2247390']
That depends on which alliance is helping the particular victim and how they choose to enact the article quoted below.



[b]That could mean contacting an alliance who's member is raiding a unaligned nation to try to find a diplomatic solution (say if the nation who attacks refuses to peace out). It also means that military force may be used at the signatory's discretion if they so choose. Though I find it unlikely that that particular option will be used against any alliance. It's much more likely to affect those unaligned nations who refuse to stop attacking another.[/b]


I'm not sure how you figure we'll be bullying anyone.
[/quote]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but diplomacy to protect nations, military force, sounds alot like, gasp, the functions of an alliance except perhaps optional. Your taking the basic function of an alliance, the only difference is that the members dont have to contribute back.


I can only hope this ends up a complete failure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='03 April 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1270356036' post='2247241']
It's not anyone's right to assist unaligned nations or alliances without protectorate agreements.
[/quote]

There are no laws that forbid one nation or a group from doing so if they so desire. Even "common practice" is something that does change over time.

Speaking generally, I don't see the pact itself (at least the way I read it) as having much in it that I would call controversial. Even the section regarding tech trades...well, alliances have essentially the same policy when it comes to alliance wars - i.e. tech deals end as it's seen as "aiding" the enemy. I suppose I could be reading it wrong, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='octovanyo' date='04 April 2010 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1270383259' post='2247445']
sounds a lot like, gasp, the functions of an alliance except perhaps optional. Your taking the basic function of an alliance, the only difference is that the members don't have to contribute back.
[/quote]

The difference, in this case, between optional and mandatory is huge. I have never heard of an alliance that makes protecting it's membership "optional" - at least not one that survives for very long as an alliance. Who would stay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='04 April 2010 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1270386495' post='2247463']
I hate to agree with Alterego here but if they don't want to be techraided they can always join an alliance.
[/quote]


many of the small unaligned nations are new to the game. The get tons of messages about alliances, don't really know what to do. Suddenly they find themselves being attacked for what they think is no reason. Our goal is to inform them of what is happening to them, the protections of alliances, etc. Its giving a helping hand to new players of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be the right of an individual to live peaceful unaligned and not join an alliance. I applaud this move. I don't know most of you guys signing this pact but i will learn your names as you have gone way up in my book. I wish you luck in your endeavor. I am sure when it comes to dealing with tech raiders on red you will find some help ;D. I would wish some bigger alliances would also join up to give it some more teeth but i have trust you guys will give it some teeth yourself. Good luck my friends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...