Don't Tread On Me

[Rooman33]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='04 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273030186' post='2287256']
Also, as an addition to my earlier response, I like the no attacking Green stance. I'm glad to see other alliances picking up on that idea after the Emerald Doctrine.
[/quote]

It's not a "don't attack Green" stance so much as it is a "don't attack for being green stance." Like I said in an earlier post, if an alliance were to try to bully a green alliance off our sphere, we would respond. Simply attacking a Green alliance does not merit our consideration. Attacking an alliance simply because it is Green (or neutral, or Conservative) would. It's a subtle nuance, I suppose...

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Rooman33' date='04 May 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1273030874' post='2287269']
It's not a "don't attack Green" stance so much as it is a "don't attack for being green stance." Like I said in an earlier post, if an alliance were to try to bully a green alliance off our sphere, we would respond. Simply attacking a Green alliance does not merit our consideration. Attacking an alliance simply because it is Green (or neutral, or Conservative) would. It's a subtle nuance, I suppose...
[/quote]

I meant you not attacking Green alliances. Unless I misread that section of your charter...

[Rooman33]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='04 May 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1273030959' post='2287271']
I meant you not attacking Green alliances. Unless I misread that section of your charter...[/quote]

Roger. We don't attack anyone, really, unless we're attacked first. But I understand what you're saying.

[Ardus]

A policy such have this would have thrilled Nordreich back in the days of the ideological wars.

[Enrage]

You have my support Roo
Kudos on the modified charter.

[Il Impero Romano]

Definitely a fan of this step. Glad to see it my fellow right leaning pachyderms.

[Xyro Gravi Flatona]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='04 May 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1273027455' post='2287200']
Intersting, good luck GOP.

Also what are you going to define as attack?

For instance: What if someone goes NSO on the nuetrals and sends recruitment messages. Will you consider that an attack on sovereignty?
[/quote]

I was GPA's MoFA at that time when NSO sent out their recruitment messages. I can't discuss what plans GPA had for a response if a resolution to the problem was not reached, but can say that I was there personally to see resolution in private channels.

IMO, any alliance should consider it an attack if another alliance directly recruits from their ranks. But also, I believe such things can be solved in private. UNLESS the instigating alliance keeps doing the same thing over and over despite diplomatic attempts to resolve the matter. At that point, it's a different story.


[quote name='Schad' date='04 May 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1273028485' post='2287222']
Interesting...kudos for doing something different. Are there any past circumstances (even prior to GOP's formation) which, viewed through the lens of this policy, would have resulted in its invocation had it been in place?
[/quote]

[quote name='Rooman33' date='04 May 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1273028847' post='2287233']
The closest, to my mind, would be the wide-ranged attack on the GPA two years ago, as it seemed to me - personally (having been in that alliance at the time) - that it was being attacked simply because it was Neutral, #1 and had no one to come to its aid. Though, there were a litany of diplomatic/political grievances (albeit flaccidly defended ones IMO) listed within the CB... so I can't say for certain how we would have responded. I seem to recall, in my fuzzier memories, some smaller alliances being bullied on or off of color spheres in the ancient past. If this kind of thing happened to a Green alliance, we would likely respond. I think that's the best I can do, but I'm sort of an OWF recluse from time to time, so maybe someone else in the GOP can offer some better anecdotes...
[/quote]

I'm sure that GOP did not intend this new charter update and DoN update to target any specific instance. But, they did state specifically in both that they reserve the right to define what is an attack on their sovereignty. GOP is level headed and cool in their relations with other alliances. I've worked with Roo personally in the past and can vouch for his words.


[quote name='Ashok' date='04 May 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1273030148' post='2287254']
Interesting move. However does this mean you would attack alliance who hold different philosophies than you, such as the NSO, that are in opposition to conservatism? And since ours is very anti-conservatism the only way to hurt our philosophy is by spreading a contrarian one yes? And defending green does that mean you'll put VE down?
[/quote]

I think the specific changes are clear in that GOP will not be declaring war on alliances who do not hold to their own values, but rather, those who ATTACK their values. It's also clear that they retain the right to defend their shared values if an alliance who is similar come under attack unjustly. As for your question about defending green and specifically stating the 'putting down' of VE, it makes no sense. VE has been a strong contributor to the green team for a very long time.


[quote name='sethb' date='04 May 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1273030204' post='2287257']
Excuse me?
[/quote]

Ditto.

On my past, to prove the relevance of my reply:

I joined GPA in Dec. of 07 and fought in the WoP. While that first nation is no more, I built the second nation with the exact nation and ruler name and kept it in the Agency up till April of 2010. I served as GPA's MoFA for multiple terms, probably over a years worth of service. I was their MoFA when NSO actively recruited directly from their ranks, even receive a message myself.

About a month after the NSO recruitment fiasco come to a close, I proposed new changes within the Agency that would have seen a new charter and DoN. The changes were specific. If they had passed, the Agency today would have the right to do the exact thing that GOP is doing today.

The specific change to the DoN was in the introduction stating that the GPA has the right to defend against any attack on neutrality. The proposed change was shot down because people on the outside would demand a definition of neutrality, and people on the inside thought that 'an attack' was to broad of a statement.

I for one have been eager to see such a policy adopted by one of the neutrals and congratulate GOP on such a move. It is noble and right. I worked with Roo in the Agency when he was their MoD and was tasked with the monitoring of GPA nations to make sure they were compliant with the specific military terms of the peace treaty between GPA and the Continuum.

Basically, what I wanted to see the Agency adopt was a 'Do not tread on us' policy. It appears my friend, Roo, in GOP, has done so first.

GPA, take a look at how this policy was received for GOP, then re-consider your own stance. You know I love you guys. Always will. It's ok to defend your way of life.

/o GOP

Very noble move indeed. Much respect from me.

Regards from,
XGF

[Rooman33]

[quote name='Xyro Gravi Flatona' date='05 May 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1273036718' post='2287361']
Basically, what I wanted to see the Agency adopt was a 'Do not tread on us' policy. It appears my friend, Roo, in GOP, has done so first.[/quote]

Thank you so much for the support, my friend. Very classy. I should point out, though, that while this step in foreign policy for the GOP has been a dream of mine for some time - it was our current Triumvir of Foreign Affairs, Willij, who managed to get the legislation passed. I just want to make sure he gets his proper credit as well

[Xyro Gravi Flatona]

[quote name='Rooman33' date='05 May 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1273037243' post='2287368']
Thank you so much for the support, my friend. Very classy. I should point out, though, that while this step in foreign policy for the GOP has been a dream of mine for some time - it was our current Triumvir of Foreign Affairs, Willij, who managed to get the legislation passed. I just want to make sure he gets his proper credit as well
[/quote]

I'm sure that you had your fair share of work in it, Roo, but duly noted. Wilij, if your watching this, please send me a pm. I'd like to speak with you. Also, Congrats on your efforts. Very noble indeed! I'm glad to see that you got a move like this passed.

From,
XGF

[Barix9]

I agree, Its a great change. The defense of ones values, is always worth pursuing.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Barix9

[Qaianna]

Hm. As long as you're not retaliating with cruise missiles for me putting 'Left is Right, Right is Wrong' bumper stickers on official II motorcade and flotilla vehicles, seems OK. I'm not too fond of wars on the basis of 'I hate your way of life' anyway; tolerance and 'live and let live' is the way to go. How liberal of you to defend it

Wonder if other neutrals would band together on this ... and make a bloc ... and start making proclamations ... excuse me, gotta brush some tinfoil out of my hair.

OK, seriousness time: looks interesting. Hope you're careful out there. And don't forget, if they try something funny on you, feel free to speak softly over here..

[DarkEra97]

This seems logical enough to me, so I think I like it.

[Bob Janova]

I like the way GOP is exploring the implications of neutrality and how to wed that with the inevitable connections and alliance has to the political system.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='04 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273030186' post='2287256']
Also, as an addition to my earlier response, I like the no attacking Green stance. I'm glad to see other alliances picking up on that idea after the Emerald Doctrine.
[/quote]
Your ego is impressive. I get the feeling that, as a neutral alliance, albeit one devoted to the wellbeing of the Green team, the no attacking Green is something that they developed on their own, and not something they adopted from you.

[Duncan King]

This is an interesting policy, but you do realize that this would mean that you would be potentially attacking an alliance that actually has allies while having no actual allies of your own? As the GPA war two years ago demonstrated, being neutral means no one will defend you. Most neutral alliances deal with this fact by not getting into wars but you have just abandoned that tactic in certain situations.

[USOFAA]

[quote name='Duncan King' date='05 May 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1273068923' post='2287630']
This is an interesting policy, but you do realize that this would mean that you would be potentially attacking an alliance that actually has allies while having no actual allies of your own? As the GPA war two years ago demonstrated, being neutral means no one will defend you. Most neutral alliances deal with this fact by not getting into wars but you have just abandoned that tactic in certain situations.
[/quote]
They have said they are ready to back up Green Aliances. So what makes you think other Green Allinces wont back them up?

[Shaka Zulu]

[quote name='Rooman33' date='04 May 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1273030477' post='2287264']
No. We defend only. To defend, we (or our way of life) must necessarily be attacked. We reserve the right to define what we consider an attack, and we reserve the right to decide how we will respond. We don't care what philosophies you hold unless you try to tread on us.



Don't attack us - and don't attack another Conservative alliance simply because it's Conservative - and we won't have any problems.



We're not interested in hurting you. Since you are neither Green, Conservative nor neutral - we don't care about you at all. Unless, of course, you give us a reason to be concerned



Absolutely... er Nevah!
[/quote]
Rooman you may not remember me but we agreed on many things during the "War on BS Peace". Either way I salute you and your comrades on this.

[Rooman33]

[quote name='Shaka Zulu' date='05 May 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1273070365' post='2287646']
Rooman you may not remember me but we agreed on many things during the "War on BS Peace". Either way I salute you and your comrades on this.
[/quote]

I do remember you! nice to see you're still around Thank you for your support my old friend!

[b]EDIT:[/b]
[quote name='Duncan King' date='05 May 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1273068923' post='2287630']
This is an interesting policy, but you do realize that this would mean that you would be potentially attacking an alliance that actually has allies while having no actual allies of your own? As the GPA war two years ago demonstrated, being neutral means no one will defend you. Most neutral alliances deal with this fact by not getting into wars but you have just abandoned that tactic in certain situations.
[/quote]

We're actually still a team protectorate of the UJA... so as of right now, that's of no concern.

When we're no longer a protectorate, I feel confident that we will have added enough value to our communities to warrant support from those communities, should we be attacked, without the (quite frequently) arbitrary trappings of political treaties. Beyond that, it is our hope that other like-minded alliances will adopt similar language in their own legislation - the implications of such a progression would clearly benefit/affect all involved.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Rooman33

[Bill Wallace]

Roo, I love you man and I think this is a step in the right direction, but doggone it, you can't be a semi-hippy and a conservative at the same time!

Anyways, congrats on your charter revision and hopefully someday in the near future someone will put this to the test.

[size="1"][color="#FF0000"]Where do you hide money from a hippy? Under the soap.[/color][/size]

[Rooman33]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' date='05 May 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1273071455' post='2287664']
Roo, I love you man and I think this is a step in the right direction, but doggone it, you can't be a semi-hippy and a conservative at the same time!

Anyways, congrats on your charter revision and hopefully someday in the near future someone will put this to the test.

[size="1"][color="#FF0000"]Where do you hide money from a hippy? Under the soap.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

We're not hippies foo!

Imagine there are two smurfs - GPA Smurf and GOP Smurf. Now let's say these two smurfs see Gargamel stomping on smurf heads simply because he hates smurfs. GPA smurf looks away and says, "That's none of my business." GOP smurf says, "WTF is that crap? We're not going to stand for it, that could just as easily be us - and so we have the right to see and respond to it as the threat to our way of life that it is!"

Of course, in this scenario, smurfs are green.

[Rooman33]

DOUBLE POST FTL - CAN A BROTHER GET A DELETE?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Rooman33

[Aguacenta]

An interesting concept to say the least. However, Although I am not entirely sure about its practicality.I do like it though.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Aguacenta

[Earl of Emyn Arnen]

o/ GOP!

An interesting move, this is the first I've heard of it!

[Haflinger]

I'm hardly a conservative, but I love this policy. It reeks of that rarest of qualities: intelligent self-interest.

[Biff Webster]

Given that you are still a "team protectorate", would you have to ask VE's permission to engage in aggressive action against a perceived threat to the GOP?

Would you solicit and accept aid from outside parties to take action against perceived threats?

Why are otherworldly ideologies a part of your charter?