DoE @ 11:08 PM, attacked by GOONS @ 11:36:21 PM

[nippy]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='26 June 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1277517941' post='2350539']
No, but reading threads from people who post and then are later attacked because they were "found" due to the post prevents people (those who pay attention and/or listen to the advice of others) from doing so.
[/quote]

Please cite your sources.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that the only possible result is for people to stop posting on OWF, while completely ignoring the possibility that perhaps people reading threads like this might learn something from every single bit of advice that has been thrown into this thread like confetti. Nobody in this thread has suggested "stop posting until you have protection". They have, however, suggested that posting a DoE before meeting very specific guidelines is a bad idea.

[lamuella]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='26 June 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1277534755' post='2350789']
You know, Hal isn't an outspoken poster like many of us, but he is known as a poster for the quality of and sometimes lack of bias in his posts.
[/quote]

hahaha what? Are we talking about the same ChairmanHal?

who the hell knows him for lack of bias? when has he [i]ever[/i] exhibited this particular trait?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='26 June 2010 - 07:47 AM' timestamp='1277552818' post='2350880']
hahaha what? Are we talking about the same ChairmanHal?

who the hell knows him for lack of bias? when has he [i]ever[/i] exhibited this particular trait?
[/quote]

You know what's funny...watching GOONS, particularly nippy but yourself included, going nuts every time I take a stick and poke your hornet's nest. For an alliance that seems to take absolute delight at other people whining at being bullied, and you can sure dish it, you simply can't take it. Then again, bullies are generally very insecure people...your insecurity is showing.

That's my 30 seconds of psychological analysis for you. Enjoy your day.

[lamuella]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='26 June 2010 - 07:28 AM' timestamp='1277555304' post='2350888']
You know what's funny...watching GOONS, particularly nippy but yourself included, going nuts every time I take a stick and poke your hornet's nest. For an alliance that seems to take absolute delight at other people whining at being bullied, and you can sure dish it, you simply can't take it. Then again, bullies are generally very insecure people...your insecurity is showing.

That's my 30 seconds of psychological analysis for you. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

There's something amusing about someone who spends so much of their time whining from the sidelines about the behavior of others then turning around and acting smug when people point out he's a pathetic demagogue.

speaking of insecurity, how secure would you say someone is if they keep involving themselves in threads that really aren't anything to do with them, just because they can't stand for one second the thought of not being in the limelight? You can confer with Lord Boris on this one if you like.

oh, and supercoolyellow, is this the quality and lack of bias you were talking about?

[Locke426]

Just out of curiosity, if a new alliance who had already formed on an AA but hadn't DoE'd came to GOONS asking for a protectorate, would GOONS protect them or raid them? This isn't a shot at anybody, I just think I'd lol either way.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='25 June 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1277521877' post='2350580']
If (as is often the case) you are leaving an alliance to found your own, might I suggest trying to get a treaty with your old alliance?
[/quote]
This is usually a terrible idea. You guys founded here using connections from another world to get your starting protectorate agreement, so you probably don't know why.

New protectorate governments are generally inexperienced. However, at their core, they are either competent or incompetent. The old large or medium-sized alliance they come from is also either competent or incompetent.

If a competent protectorate government leaves a competently-run possible protector, the possible protector has to be at least slightly annoyed at losing competent government members. This is bad for the relationship.

If an incompetent protectorate government leaves a competently-run possible protector, the possible protector is going to probably be quite a bit more than slightly annoyed by the idea of still having to work with a bunch of idiots. This is bad for the relationship.

If a competent protectorate government leaves an incompetently-run possible protector, the possible protector is probably going to be next to useless for the protectorate. This is bad for the relationship.

If an incompetent protectorate government leaves an incompetently-run possible protector, the possible protector may well be enthused by the idea of continuing to work with a bunch of idiots. This is good for the relationship, but a bad idea for other reasons, which should appear obvious.

Sometimes competent protectors will sign agreements with terrible protectorates just in order to get tech. Occasionally these work out in the short term for the protector, but they're rarely worth the effort.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='27 June 2010 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1277558912' post='2350924']
This is usually a terrible idea. You guys founded here using connections from another world to get your starting protectorate agreement, so you probably don't know why.

New protectorate governments are generally inexperienced. However, at their core, they are either competent or incompetent. The old large or medium-sized alliance they come from is also either competent or incompetent.

If a competent protectorate government leaves a competently-run possible protector, the possible protector has to be at least slightly annoyed at losing competent government members. This is bad for the relationship.

If an incompetent protectorate government leaves a competently-run possible protector, the possible protector is going to probably be quite a bit more than slightly annoyed by the idea of still having to work with a bunch of idiots. This is bad for the relationship.

If a competent protectorate government leaves an incompetently-run possible protector, the possible protector is probably going to be next to useless for the protectorate. This is bad for the relationship.

If an incompetent protectorate government leaves an incompetently-run possible protector, the possible protector may well be enthused by the idea of continuing to work with a bunch of idiots. This is good for the relationship, but a bad idea for other reasons, which should appear obvious.

Sometimes competent protectors will sign agreements with terrible protectorates just in order to get tech. Occasionally these work out in the short term for the protector, but they're rarely worth the effort.
[/quote]

This entire post becomes pointless as soon as you realise not everyone who forms an alliance just left a gov spot.

EDIT: More or less pointless, almost missed the "usually" at the start.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ryuzaki

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Locke426' date='26 June 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1277556537' post='2350896']
Just out of curiosity, if a new alliance who had already formed on an AA but hadn't DoE'd came to GOONS asking for a protectorate, would GOONS protect them or raid them? This isn't a shot at anybody, I just think I'd lol either way.
[/quote]
We don't really give protectorates. They would have to be extremely convincing that they deserve it.

[lamuella]

I take Halfinger's words on board, but they seem a lot more pessimistic than my usual outlook on the world.

In other worlds, at other times, I've been part of alliances where someone left to form their own alliance, and I've never wished them anything but the best. It's a little sad that some people are cynical to the point that someone founding an alliance is met by distrust and dislike rather than well wishes.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='25 June 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1277521410' post='2350577']
No, it really isn't. You can get a protectorate or you can be raided, it's that simple. There's nothing catch 22 about it.
[/quote]

Yup...just walk on down to the local "protectorate shop" and pick one up
(I'm being sarcastic, I figure most of you know but possibly not someone new)

Perhaps times have changed, but when I was the leader of an unprotected alliance under 16 members, I'd be lucky if a big alliance capable of offering protection paid ANY attention to me when I went on their forum. Some even had rules saying don't ask unless you're in an alliance over X amount of members. Couldn't even find someone to tech trade with until signing up on an alliance forum of 100ish members - and then it took about a month of tech trading before we started talking about a protectorate relationship. We didn't DoE prior,we NEVER did, even after getting the protectorate - I forgot about it. I might have done it early just from following what other alliances do and being clueless about the danger, but I got good strategic advice previous from another alliance leader about NOT doing so.

Edited June 26, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Fizzydog]

When I read this, this song played in my head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpg48MJz7ik




But of all alliances GOONS, why this one?

[abdur]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='26 June 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1277571654' post='2351046']
When I read this, this song played in my head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpg48MJz7ik




But of all alliances GOONS, why this one?
[/quote]
Here they are
[quote name='Beefspari' date='25 June 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1277444968' post='2349772']
Excuse me, but I'm offended at the suggestion that we attacked you "for no reason." As such I've compiled a list of my top ten reasons we attacked you.

10) Your AA name is far too long
9) You're flying our flag
8) You think a DoE for a one-man AA means you can't be attacked
7) We tend to war for the fun of it
6) We like land
5) We like money
4) We like tech
3) You made a spectacle out of your one-man AA and brought it to our attention
2) Because of threads like this one
1) We were paid to
[/quote]


My advice would be to be part of an established alliance, see how things work, make friends, and then ask them for an agreement. (BMv2 did it, albeit a bit late, GOONS are justified in this according to their charter.)

[NoFish]

28 minutes, GOONS? I am disappoint.

Everyone knows a gentleman waits at least thirty.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='nippy' date='26 June 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1277543503' post='2350840']
Please cite your sources.
[/quote]


Since you asked, http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88014
Help for a small alliance

and in particular the following response
[quote name='General Scipio' date='23 June 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1277326310' post='2348006']
I didn't attack because they asked for help, I attacked because I say a micro-alliance without a protectorate. If they had posted an announcement about their creation and they didn't have a protector I would have done the same thing. Raiding targets are hard to find, you gotta take what you can get.
[/quote]

He found the alliance to attack because they asked for help on OWF due to an attack from a different alliance. So much for (anyone who is paying attention) asking for help on OWF in the future. At least, I wouldn't advise anyone to do so. I'd advise them to find groups like FoS or a non-raiding alliance that may be sympathetic and go to their private forum and request assistance.

Also, seems to me that the advice of "get a protectorate before you announce a DoE" that other people are suggesting comes from the danger that otherwise you'll just attract attention and be more likely to be attacked.

[quote name='nippy' date='26 June 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1277543503' post='2350840']If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that the only possible result is for people to stop posting on OWF,
[/quote]

either that or take the RISK of getting noticed if you do so. Also, IF the person gets raided after the post and complains about it, he or she can expect a number of people to respond "well, you shouldn't have posted" in response.

So, at the very least, I'd advise alliances that have not found a protector yet to only post responses to threads (don't start one) and to avoid saying anything potentially controversial that will get you noticed.

[quote name='nippy' date='26 June 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1277543503' post='2350840']while completely ignoring the possibility that perhaps people reading threads like this might learn something from every single bit of advice that has been thrown into this thread like confetti.[/quote]

I hope people are learning by reading threads like this. It's the primary reason I'm posting in them.

[quote name='nippy' date='26 June 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1277543503' post='2350840']Nobody in this thread has suggested "stop posting until you have protection". They have, however, suggested that posting a DoE before meeting very specific guidelines is a bad idea.
[/quote]

I agree that posting a DoE before meeting "very specific guidelines" (you mean the GOONS guidelines, just admit it ) is necessary. I also already made the point that things like posting a DoE help in getting new members, which micro alliances need to meet these "guidelines." NOT being able to do so stunts their growth.

I am NOT arguing that all alliances must stop tech raiding. I dislike the practice however I'm pragmatic enough to know that will not happen so why waste my time. I'll even say that it can result in good now and then. (that last part is a big concession!!! ) However, there are consequences (I'm not sure if they are intended or not by GOONS leadership) in being so...zealous as tech raiders. Discouraging (by your actions) people from posting what they might otherwise is one of them.

Edited June 26, 2010 by White Chocolate

[flak attack]

[quote name='NoFish' date='26 June 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1277575293' post='2351076']
28 minutes, GOONS? I am disappoint.

Everyone knows a gentleman waits at least thirty.
[/quote]
I disagree. GOONS are among the finest of gentlemen

[Captain Enema]

Blind Murder painted a target on himself, Blind Murder is now getting murdered, so what is the problem here?


/0 goons!

[kitex]

Good jobs GOONS. Let this be a lesson to all those with ridiculously long alliance acronyms.

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='NoFish' date='26 June 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1277575293' post='2351076']
28 minutes, GOONS? I am disappoint.

Everyone knows a gentleman waits at least thirty.
[/quote]
In a certain lunar locale, GOONS cut that down to 6 minutes. Beat that

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Locke426' date='26 June 2010 - 06:49 AM' timestamp='1277556537' post='2350896']
Just out of curiosity, if a new alliance who had already formed on an AA but hadn't DoE'd came to GOONS asking for a protectorate, would GOONS protect them or raid them? This isn't a shot at anybody, I just think I'd lol either way.
[/quote]
This is an interesting question. Although something like walking into the lion's den and seeing if they'll help you. It's also possible they'll just eat you.

As Sardonic mentioned we don't really do protectorates unless it's a worthwhile endeavor. I don't think we'd raid them for asking though. Unless they were jerks.

[nippy]

[quote name='flak attack' date='26 June 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1277577398' post='2351113']
I disagree. GOONS are among the finest of gentlemen
[/quote]

HEY JERK I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS :argh:

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='26 June 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1277563289' post='2350962']
This entire post becomes pointless as soon as you realise not everyone who forms an alliance just left a gov spot.

EDIT: More or less pointless, almost missed the "usually" at the start.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't.

Most of the people in that category come under "incompetent"

There isn't a competent alliance out there that wants intelligent, competent members to leave. Period.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 June 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1277599385' post='2351414']
There isn't a competent alliance out there that wants intelligent, competent members to leave. Period.
[/quote]

Sadly, the desire to keep someone around won't prevent them from leaving if they really feel like starting out on their own or trying a new thing or whatever.

No matter how competent the alliance or the person/people in question are. I don't really think not being gov=usually incompetent, especially when they come from an alliance that has a high level of governmental stability.

About the only thing being gov can give you is experience, imo. You can't really fix being an idiot.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Aurion

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 June 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1277599385' post='2351414']
Most of the people in that category come under "incompetent"
[/quote]
I don't know about Invicta, but I know plenty of people in MK that are fit to lead but aren't in gov.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='27 June 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1277599385' post='2351414']
No, it doesn't.

Most of the people in that category come under "incompetent"

There isn't a competent alliance out there that wants intelligent, competent members to leave. Period.
[/quote]

Maybe in Invicta people aren't in gov are incompetent.

Wanting people to leave, true. That doesn't mean they will be resentful of those who do.

[Jakome]

If competent people leave the alliance its usually because they no longer believe in the leadership of said alliance, they are going to help out friends or they just no longer have the time needed to add to the alliance. Of those reasons I wouldn't see why any alliance would not extend a helping hand to the former member really.