A Philosophy of Foreign Relations

[nippy]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='20 May 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1274358773' post='2304975']
If GOONS has no argument about respecting "Protected by" comments in nation bios, then they are in agreement with me and shall be found less unpalatable in the world view.
[/quote]

Case in point: [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=226976]THIS NATION[/url] is one I decided to raid back in the beginning of April. I took a look at his time in AA, the number of people in his AA, checked Monos Archein's wiki, checked the CN boards, and found no possible way this person was actually protected by Monos Archein. Through friendly PM's with this person, he stated that he was amazed that it had taken people that long to figure out his AA was bogus. I peaced out with him while suggesting he join a real alliance, possibly GOONS, if he was interested. He said he'd give it some thought. A month passes, he's still sitting in his bogus AA and is not being raided because people see 'Monos Archein' in his bio and AA. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. This means any damn nation out there can change their bio to say 'protected by (insert random real alliance here)' and this means they're off-limits. As a techraider and alliance leader on this planet, I strongly disagree with your 'paperless protection' policies, and I hope you can see why after this statement. We teach our raiders to research targets prior to attacking...if there's no documentation, there's no valid documentation of actual protection, and the only solid evidence is the word of the nation being targeted.

[ktarthan]

I will give my opinion on the OP, and how it relates to GOONS policy. But as an individual ruler, not as a policy maker of GOONS.

I trust the word of NV. If NV says they protect someone, I have no reason to think it is anything but truth.

However, this is not the case for all.

I believe that if GOONS were to take the stance that all paperless treaties are to be honored, then any alliance at any time for any raid could simply claim the raidee has protection and we would have to cease, whether the protectorate was real or conjured. Some may say this is a good thing - but it has the potential to be greatly abused.

It is difficult to establish any sort of concrete metric for "trust" to establish which alliances we should honor paperless treaties for. The way that I see we have so far avoided this conflict is by generally only honoring paper-bound protectorates. This is a concrete indication of protection, something that cannot be disputed regardless of the trustworthiness of the parties involved. While not a perfect solution, solutions rarely are. I see this as the most economical policy we can currently take.

Again, this is simply the opinion of a nation, not of GOONS. GOONS may hold a similar stance, but it is not my stance to decide.

Edit: spelling

Edited May 20, 2010 by ktarthan

[zzzptm]

Suggestion: In your research, GOONS, perhaps contact the alliance the target claims as protector? It's a quick PM, doesn't take any fancy math, and that provides a sure and certain point of evidence, superior to the bio itself.

And if the person is a nobody ghosting a protection scheme, I'm sure he'd prefer to change his bio and take a GOONS raid instead of facing a punitive war from the alliance he's scamming.

[nippy]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='21 May 2010 - 02:22 AM' timestamp='1274401331' post='2306090']
Suggestion: In your research, GOONS, perhaps contact the alliance the target claims as protector? It's a quick PM, doesn't take any fancy math, and that provides a sure and certain point of evidence, superior to the bio itself.

[/quote]

This isn't always possible, as alliances (especially the mid-range ones) tend to be placed within similar timezones, ones that may conflict with our own timezones. That being said, we'll be more vigilant in regards to training our newer members on finding valid targets. They're not searching for protectorates to raid, and this was simply an unfortunate occurrence. Either way, we appreciate your professionalism in your dealings with us.

[Sardonic]

I would just like to thank NV for being extremely reasonable during this event, a lesser alliance would have played to the peanut gallery, rather than the reasonable diplomacy that ensued.

[Auctor]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='20 May 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1274403156' post='2306144']
I would just like to thank NV for being extremely reasonable during this event, a lesser alliance would have played to the peanut gallery, rather than the reasonable diplomacy that ensued.
[/quote]
it's a good thing they have so many lesser alliances as allies for next time.

[CptGodzilla]

[quote name='nippy' date='20 May 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1274396848' post='2305923']
Case in point: [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=226976"]THIS NATION[/url] is one I decided to raid back in the beginning of April. I took a look at his time in AA, the number of people in his AA, checked Monos Archein's wiki, checked the CN boards, and found no possible way this person was actually protected by Monos Archein. Through friendly PM's with this person, he stated that he was amazed that it had taken people that long to figure out his AA was bogus. I peaced out with him while suggesting he join a real alliance, possibly GOONS, if he was interested. He said he'd give it some thought. A month passes, he's still sitting in his bogus AA and is not being raided because people see 'Monos Archein' in his bio and AA. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. This means any damn nation out there can change their bio to say 'protected by (insert random real alliance here)' and this means they're off-limits. As a techraider and alliance leader on this planet, I strongly disagree with your 'paperless protection' policies, and I hope you can see why after this statement. We teach our raiders to research targets prior to attacking...if there's no documentation, there's no valid documentation of actual protection, and the only solid evidence is the word of the nation being targeted.
[/quote]

If he feels the need to say it's a bogus AA, then attack him. But over a year ago, a deal was struck between a previous leader and him to provide him with protection for one reason or other.

[Xiphosis]

[quote] If GOONS has no argument about respecting "Protected by" comments in nation bios, then they are in agreement with me and shall be found less unpalatable in the world view.[/quote]

Given how incredibly easy and commonplace it is to make !@#$ up in bios, I don't consider that worth anything. AA's and treaties matter, and if the AA says Protected by... or ___ Applicant or whatever, it's worth checking out. Just slapping any old !@#$%^&* up doesn't qualify though.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Auctor' date='21 May 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1274406027' post='2306228']
it's a good thing they have so many lesser alliances as allies for next time.
[/quote]

we only associate ourselves with quality.

your company excluded, of course.

[NoFish]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='20 May 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1274358773' post='2304975']
If GOONS has no argument about respecting "Protected by" comments in nation bios, then they are in agreement with me and shall be found less unpalatable in the world view.
[/quote]
[URL=http://img80.imageshack.us/i/protected.png/][IMG]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6138/protected.png[/IMG][/URL]

Clearly I am now under you protection and have no need to worry about any attackers in future wars. No one would ever lie about anything in their largely unregulated and unsearchable nation bios.

[hizzy]

[quote name='NoFish' date='21 May 2010 - 07:09 AM' timestamp='1274407732' post='2306277']
Clearly I am now under you protection and have no need to worry about any attackers in future wars. No one would ever lie about anything in their largely unregulated and unsearchable nation bios.
[/quote]

It's our job to monitor who tries to take advantage of us, not anyone else's. In fact, your argument is even more idiotic when you consider that Nueva Vida does not announce treaty cancellations... so, just as someone can put fake info in their bio, so can someone find a treaty announcement that is no longer valid. Knowing this, are you now going to assume all our treaties have been cancelled and we have no allies? Good luck.

Edited May 21, 2010 by hizzy

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='nippy' date='20 May 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1274396848' post='2305923']
Case in point: [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=226976]THIS NATION[/url] is one I decided to raid back in the beginning of April. I took a look at his time in AA, the number of people in his AA, checked Monos Archein's wiki, checked the CN boards, and found no possible way this person was actually protected by Monos Archein. Through friendly PM's with this person, he stated that he was amazed that it had taken people that long to figure out his AA was bogus. I peaced out with him while suggesting he join a real alliance, possibly GOONS, if he was interested. He said he'd give it some thought. A month passes, he's still sitting in his bogus AA and is not being raided because people see 'Monos Archein' in his bio and AA. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. This means any damn nation out there can change their bio to say 'protected by (insert random real alliance here)' and this means they're off-limits. As a techraider and alliance leader on this planet, I strongly disagree with your 'paperless protection' policies, and I hope you can see why after this statement. We teach our raiders to research targets prior to attacking...if there's no documentation, there's no valid documentation of actual protection, and the only solid evidence is the word of the nation being targeted.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]So, you checked the Wiki and the boards and found nothing. You did all that work but it never occurred to you to go and ask NV? And you simply taken that one last step this could have all been avoided.

And NoFish, are you serious? Do you not realize how ridiculous your example is. Anyone willing to put in a second of work can go check with NV and they'll tell you that you're not protected by them.[/color]

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Archanis' date='20 May 2010 - 06:56 AM' timestamp='1274352978' post='2304883']


In further news: We at GOONS apologise for the actions taken by a few of our younger, less intelligent members and hope that this matter gets worked out well with NV. We are not in the business of hitting protectorates, but unfortunately sometimes, apparently, the rules are harder to follow for the younger of our members. We do, truly, hope this all works out in the end.

As I said in the thread started by RV, we may be a war happy group, but I assure you - we have NO interest in warring the peace loving group known as Neuva Vida
[/quote]
Looks like it's back to Meatspin for somebody.

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 May 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1274407732' post='2306277']
Clearly I am now under you protection and have no need to worry about any attackers in future wars. No one would ever lie about anything in their largely unregulated and unsearchable nation bios.
[/quote]
SWEET BABY ADMIN!! And you were the LAST and ONLY nation left to raid before you created that bogus line! NOW WHO WILL THE RAIDERS RAID? Don't be stupid.

[NoFish]

[quote name='hizzy' date='20 May 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1274408061' post='2306285']
It's our job to monitor who tries to take advantage of us, not anyone else's. In fact, your argument is even more idiotic when you consider that Nueva Vida does not announce treaty cancellations... so, just as someone can put fake info in their bio, so can someone find a treaty announcement that is no longer valid. Knowing this, are you now going to assume all our treaties have been cancelled and we have no allies? Good luck.
[/quote]
Not posting treaty cancellations seems rather silly, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that if someone ran around saying that they had a treaty with you when they didn't word would get to you pretty quickly and you'd disavow it. If I hadn't posted that screencap, would you even know I had that in my bio? People routinely lie about who's protecting them in their bios, and many alliances can take days to hear back from. It's just not feasible to contact every alliance's government for every target you may want to hit on an unprotected AA who happens to have one (or three) "protected by"s in their bio. If your primary objective was providing them serious protection you'd put them on an AA and announce you were protecting it if it wasn't obvious.

You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 May 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1274409104' post='2306311']
You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.
[/quote]
You heard it here first! GOD now raiding with abandon, willing to take the kick in the teeth for hitting protected targets now rather than pick a valid target later.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 May 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1274409104' post='2306311']
Not posting treaty cancellations seems rather silly, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that if someone ran around saying that they had a treaty with you when they didn't word would get to you pretty quickly and you'd disavow it. If I hadn't posted that screencap, would you even know I had that in my bio? People routinely lie about who's protecting them in their bios, and many alliances can take days to hear back from. It's just not feasible to contact every alliance's government for every target you may want to hit on an unprotected AA who happens to have one (or three) "protected by"s in their bio. If your primary objective was providing them serious protection you'd put them on an AA and announce you were protecting it if it wasn't obvious.[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I don't think NV has ever claimed to know of every nation that has "protected by NV" in its bio. Nonetheless had GOONS approached them and informed them of the suspect nation(s) they would have found that NV would have been able to confirm or deny protection. Instead, however, GOONS decided to just jump the gun without thinking and attack the nations, hoping it would turn out that they were not protected. If they were, oh well, claim ignorance and make excuses as you're doing now.[/color]

[quote]You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Cry me a river. Quit making it seem like expecting you to take the simple step to check to see who you're raiding, and if they have any friends, is asking that much. It isn't like they're interfering in your raids when they have no treaty. That I suppose you can protest. But attacking their protectorate and never even bothering to check with them about it prior, yeah, I can see why they'd be a little peeved.[/color]

[Biff Webster]

[center][img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5650/emotqq.gif[/img][img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5650/emotqq.gif[/img][img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5650/emotqq.gif[/img][/center]

[center][i]But, but my raid targets! [/i][/center]

[Archanis]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='20 May 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1274409331' post='2306317']
You heard it here first! GOD now raiding with abandon, willing to take the kick in the teeth for hitting protected targets now rather than pick a valid target later.
[/quote]Odd. I don't see him saying that in his post.

But then, I don't [s]twist words[/s] read between the lines as well as you.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Archanis

[PrinceArutha]

[quote name='NoFish' date='21 May 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1274409104' post='2306311']
Not posting treaty cancellations seems rather silly, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that if someone ran around saying that they had a treaty with you when they didn't word would get to you pretty quickly and you'd disavow it. If I hadn't posted that screencap, would you even know I had that in my bio? People routinely lie about who's protecting them in their bios, and many alliances can take days to hear back from. It's just not feasible to contact every alliance's government for every target you may want to hit on an unprotected AA who happens to have one (or three) "protected by"s in their bio. If your primary objective was providing them serious protection you'd put them on an AA and announce you were protecting it if it wasn't obvious.

You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.
[/quote]


It seems to me that raiders are trying to make raiding harder for raiding alliances. ONE simple PM to a leader of the alliance that is "protecting" the smaller alliance would have saved countless hours of headache. It is not that NV has anything against raiders or even want to make it harder. I would hope that if you did come across a bio that claimed in that looked suspicious that you would bring it to our attention anyways, whether you were going to raid them or not.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='20 May 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1274409331' post='2306317']
You heard it here first! GOD now raiding with abandon, willing to take the kick in the teeth for hitting protected targets now rather than pick a valid target later.
[/quote]
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Global%20Order%20of%20Darkness&anyallexact=exact

Oh yeah. Just LOOK at all those tech raids. NO ONE IS SAFE!

I'm calling out what I see as a stupid policy on NV's part. I haven't personally tech raided since the UJW era, and as Lord of War I've done my best to discourage it as it's generally inefficient. That doesn't change the fact that NV is clearly acting to make things harder for tech raiders instead of taking measures to ensure their protectees don't get attacked.

Edit: I just read the post below mine. I suppose NV could simply be too lazy to afford the most reasonable protection for their interests, but honestly I have too much respect for NV to believe that.

Edited May 21, 2010 by NoFish

[Owned-You]

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 May 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1274409104' post='2306311']
Not posting treaty cancellations seems rather silly, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that if someone ran around saying that they had a treaty with you when they didn't word would get to you pretty quickly and you'd disavow it. If I hadn't posted that screencap, would you even know I had that in my bio? People routinely lie about who's protecting them in their bios, and many alliances can take days to hear back from. It's just not feasible to contact every alliance's government for every target you may want to hit on an unprotected AA who happens to have one (or three) "protected by"s in their bio. If your primary objective was providing them serious protection you'd put them on an AA and announce you were protecting it if it wasn't obvious.

You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.
[/quote]

Anyone can claim our protection, but not everyone will actually be titled too it. Your point is moot, as we ultimately decide whom falls under our protections and whom doesn't. We don't need a treaty for every person we protect, because if you've not gathered the list is extensive and we've got better things to do then simply create new topics for every nation we protect. That being said, we aren't trying to make anyone's life difficult NV permitted raiding for over a year of it's existence so we've got little against the practice; we are simply running our affairs as we see fit were not going to accommodate anyone's expectations aside from our own. Furthermore, we have been handling this in private so there is little point for you to try and interject your opinion...your a day late and free to try though, albeit expect it to fall on deaf ears.

[hizzy]

[quote name='NoFish' date='21 May 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1274409104' post='2306311']
Not posting treaty cancellations seems rather silly, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that if someone ran around saying that they had a treaty with you when they didn't word would get to you pretty quickly and you'd disavow it. If I hadn't posted that screencap, would you even know I had that in my bio? People routinely lie about who's protecting them in their bios, and many alliances can take days to hear back from. It's just not feasible to contact every alliance's government for every target you may want to hit on an unprotected AA who happens to have one (or three) "protected by"s in their bio. If your primary objective was providing them serious protection you'd put them on an AA and announce you were protecting it if it wasn't obvious.

You're trying to make life harder for raiders. I get it. Don't expect raiding alliances to just fall in when you're doing it to them, though.
[/quote]

We'd have found out you were lying in your bio as soon as someone even slightly competent looked you up for a raid. You make it sound as though confirming something like that is a pain in the $@!. However, 1) it's not, because we do it for many other raiders pretty regularly, and 2) even if it's a pain in the $@!, I couldn't possibly give less of a !@#$. You're the aggressor, and if our personal dealings are getting in your way, then so be it. The onus is on YOU to make sure you're not ignorant of the facts, not us.

Edit: as to NV's measure's for protecting our assets, we give them a simple rule: if you do not announce your protection in your Bio, then we will not go out of our way to help. And while NV as a whole is not out to ruin a tech-raiders day, I personally take great pleasure in telling people that their target is, in fact, protected by us. And who knows, maybe I'll even back up someone who's lying about being protected by us just out of spite?

Edited May 21, 2010 by hizzy

[Archanis]

[quote name='PrinceArutha' date='20 May 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1274410063' post='2306336']
It seems to me that raiders are trying to make raiding harder for raiding alliances. ONE simple PM to a leader of the alliance that is "protecting" the smaller alliance would have saved countless hours of headache. It is not that NV has anything against raiders or even want to make it harder. I would hope that if you did come across a bio that claimed in that looked suspicious that you would bring it to our attention anyways, whether you were going to raid them or not.
[/quote]I THINK what we're asking for (Don't quote me on this; I'm not in GOONS gov, so I'm only speaking for myself and thus may be wrong) is just, could you at least update your wikia more frequently? Even if you don't post a huge, long thread every time saying "We've now got a protectorate with such and such" or "Our protectorate has expired", updating your wikia whenever one of these two things happen would be a huge help. People ghost protectorates about as frequently as they ghost alliances these days, perhaps even more often, so it becomes really hard to keep track of them all when you aren't even keeping track of them YOURSELF. You know?

[zzzptm]

Sorry, Biff. But you can't raid no more.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Archanis' date='20 May 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1274410538' post='2306352']
I THINK what we're asking for (Don't quote me on this; I'm not in GOONS gov, so I'm only speaking for myself and thus may be wrong) is just, could you at least update your wikia more frequently? Even if you don't post a huge, long thread every time saying "We've now got a protectorate with such and such" or "Our protectorate has expired", updating your wikia whenever one of these two things happen would be a huge help. People ghost protectorates about as frequently as they ghost alliances these days, perhaps even more often, so it becomes really hard to keep track of them all when you aren't even keeping track of them YOURSELF. You know?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]They're under no obligation to make starting your little wars more convenient. The burden is yours to find out all the facts before raiding. NV has said if it is approached it will let you know whether or not a nation is a protectorate. So tell me, is it really that hard to go and ask one of their government members?[/color]