International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1279921874' post='2386599']
Nobody is defending "none". $%&@ "none". They are on their own. I doubt anyone puts anyone else in front of their own alliance.
[/quote]

If GATO became a protecting alliance of "Safe Haven", we'd be asking our member nations to defend them. Isn't that putting Safe Haven before GATO?

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 July 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1279923479' post='2386620']
If GATO became a protecting alliance of "Safe Haven", we'd be asking our member nations to defend them. Isn't that putting Safe Haven before GATO?
[/quote]
And if GATO protects any other microalliance, wouldn't that be the same thing? If GATO's not up for taking on protectorates, don't sign on to protect it. But if GATO has or would protect any other alliance, there's really no difference between that and this.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 July 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1279923479' post='2386620']
If GATO became a protecting alliance of "Safe Haven", we'd be asking our member nations to defend them. Isn't that putting Safe Haven before GATO?
[/quote]

Only if we don't ask our member nations to defend our AA first and foremost.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' date='23 July 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1279923601' post='2386622']
And if GATO protects any other microalliance, wouldn't that be the same thing? If GATO's not up for taking on protectorates, don't sign on to protect it. But if GATO has or would protect any other alliance, there's really no difference between that and this.
[/quote]
Don't protectorate agreements have something in them about the protected alliance helping defend the protector should the need arise? (Not sure). This agreement does not have such a clause.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 July 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1279924074' post='2386628']
Don't protectorate agreements have something in them about the protected alliance helping defend the protector should the need arise? (Not sure). This agreement does not have such a clause.
[/quote]

Some do, some don't. It's more common these days than it used to be but that really doesn't have anything to do with putting the protectorate alliance first. If you begin to neglect your own alliance to help a protectorate then yes you are putting them first. I don't think any alliance with a capable gov would allow that to happen in any case.

[Volatile]

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 July 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1279921324' post='2386589']
If its an AA thats intentionally set up to allow none nations continue as none nations under a different word. Like a new suit on a hobo he is still a hobo. Hes just wearing a new suit. Its a one way MDP that will backfire on whoever decides to put the defense of none over the welfare of their own alliance.
[/quote]

Agree with this, putting 'None' nations in an artificial 'Safe Heaven' alliance doesn't change anything.
They can and will be raided as such, being 'None' nations that is.

[shahenshah]

Under the present political circumstances, I can think of only 3 alliances that can jointly enforce this: VE, Sparta and MHA. Tho, that does not mean they have any obligation to do so, just that they have the political capital do so if they choose to exercise this option.

I think it will greatly boost the image of these alliances across the political spectrum, likewise some wouldn't like this, again, across the political spectrum.

Edited July 23, 2010 by shahenshah

[Wad of Lint]

If a group of alliances are willing to set this up and enforce it, why do you have the right to say it is against the "rules"?

Beyond the ease of joining this organization, how is it fundamentally different from GPA? Why are you alright with nations joining a neutral AA, but not a neutral commune protected by a group of alliances?

Would you feel better if a "none" nation wrote a charter exactly as MagicNinja has outlined it and created his own AA? He could even have a rule that there will be "optional" forums, but joining requires only an affiliation switch. Or are you guys just worried you won't have anyone to push around anymore?

[wickedj]

[quote name='Alterego' date='23 July 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1279917974' post='2386513']
UPN accept anyone. People dont even have to sign up to their forum to get protection from them. If unaligned people dont want to get attacked they already have two options. They can join an alliance or sit in peace mode. Why would people be willing to put so much effort into doing this when the same effort getting unaligned nations into an alliance and get them active is much better for everyone. He wins, the alliance wins and the planet wins. If people want to go out into the wilderness, leave themselves out in the open with a "none" target on their forehead and turn their back on society then let them fend for themselves.
[/quote]
Except most alliances dont give a damn to defend their ghosts, i know CSN doesnt

Peace mode has been addressed MULTIPLE times, dont be dense

Why are people putting so much effort into trying to paint tech raiding as some sort of horrible-puppy-kicking event? this isnt 2007 when you could live for months alone on none. if several alliances want to put the effort into this project i personally applaud them and will offer any help i can

[quote]if a nation has it together enough to change their AA to Safe Haven, surely don't they have it together enough to join an alliance?[/quote]
*broken record* Not everyone wants to be in an alliance. look at the former Gremlin whos 200k NS and just chilling on none, look at PPF, hell Schattenman himself has said many times when he got here he was on NONE for several months.

Why is there so much nit picking and hate for this? The anti tech raiders want something done about tech raiding so here, something is being done but wait now you're coming here to !@#$%* and moan that if you dont want raided you should join an AA...funny the tech raiders are saying the *SAME* damn thing. Hell has anyone from Red Dawn even posted here? what about Polar gov? One would think with the RRS and the Polar-\m/ war both parties would be very eager to get something like this up and running

[magicninja]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 July 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1279926421' post='2386672']
Except most alliances dont give a damn to defend their ghosts, i know CSN doesnt

Peace mode has been addressed MULTIPLE times, dont be dense

Why are people putting so much effort into trying to paint tech raiding as some sort of horrible-puppy-kicking event? this isnt 2007 when you could live for months alone on none. if several alliances want to put the effort into this project i personally applaud them and will offer any help i can


*broken record* Not everyone wants to be in an alliance. look at the former Gremlin whos 200k NS and just chilling on none, look at PPF, hell Schattenman himself has said many times when he got here he was on NONE for several months.

Why is there so much nit picking and hate for this? The anti tech raiders want something done about tech raiding so here, something is being done but wait now you're coming here to !@#$%* and moan that if you dont want raided you should join an AA...funny the tech raiders are saying the *SAME* damn thing. Hell has anyone from Red Dawn even posted here? what about Polar gov? One would think with the RRS and the Polar-\m/ war both parties would be very eager to get something like this up and running
[/quote]


There have been multiple people tell me they have proposed something similar to their govs or had something like this in the works. I just made it easy for all of those people to get together. They all have a common goal but on their own it seems it dies because it isn't brought to the forefront and actually discuss and looked at.

When I see Lintwad and wickedJ supporting the same thing it goes to show that support for this goes betond party lines but would Lintwad and WickedJ have come together to work on this in private? CSN and NSO working to build a better world?

My God.

What have the people that inspired me to put this out done?

[SirDelirium]

This is very similar to things that have been done in the past. Firstly I remember the red sphere back when NPO was in power was essentially a safe haven. The little known Citadel Trading Company was a leaderless, peaceful AA. Any non-warrior alliance would also essentially be the equivalent. I believe the OBR has a portion of it's Rosular Kingdom devoted to exactly this as well.

Seriously, I don't see a plea to CN at large ever working in this system. Discuss this with a smaller unit (preferably a bloc) to get it started.

[der_ko]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 July 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1279925853' post='2386661']
If a group of alliances are willing to set this up and enforce it, why do you have the right to say it is against the "rules"?

Beyond the ease of joining this organization, how is it fundamentally different from GPA? Why are you alright with nations joining a neutral AA, but not a neutral commune protected by a group of alliances?
[/quote]
There are no rules on Bob.

The difference between a neutral alliance like GPA and this Safe Haven is GPA protects itself where as the Safe Haven has to be protected by an outside force and by proxy the allies of the protector. Most people don't like it when their political capital is being spent on nations who doesn't give a !@#$ about you.

Edited July 24, 2010 by der_ko

[magicninja]

[quote name='der_ko' date='23 July 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1279931083' post='2386751']
There are no rules on Bob.

The difference between an neutral alliance like GPA and this Safe Haven is GPA protects itself where as the Safe Haven has to be protected by an outside force and by proxy the allies of the protector. Most people don't like it when their political capital is being spent on nations who doesn't give a !@#$ about you.
[/quote]

The way the web works people are spending their political capital on many alliances that don't give a !@#$ about them. Whether they know it or not.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='der_ko' date='23 July 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1279931083' post='2386751']
There are no rules on Bob.

The difference between a neutral alliance like GPA and this Safe Haven is GPA protects itself where as the Safe Haven has to be protected by an outside force and by proxy the allies of the protector. Most people don't like it when their political capital is being spent on nations who doesn't give a !@#$ about you.
[/quote]
This is exactly why I'm sure a lot of unaligned nations don't join GPA/TDO/GOP/<insert neutral alliance here>. It's not [i]all[/i] about avoiding war; it's about avoiding alliance politicking.

[der_ko]

[quote name='magicninja' date='24 July 2010 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1279931405' post='2386753']
The way the web works people are spending their political capital on many alliances that don't give a !@#$ about them. Whether they know it or not.
[/quote]
In most cases these alliances will actually fight for you if there is a war. The safe haven will not.

Edited July 24, 2010 by der_ko

[magicninja]

[quote name='der_ko' date='23 July 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1279932803' post='2386774']
In most cases these alliances will actually fight for you if there is a war. The safe haven will not.
[/quote]

That's true enough and if that's enough for alliances not to be connected to it I can agree with it. There's alway no-chaining clauses too though.

[FlogYou]

The only way this could gather enough traction to stick, would be to come to the mutual agreement that raiding is bad and this "safe haven" needed to be protected by [u]all[/u]. Only with each seperate bloc and significant player could there be an opportunity for success. And since, we can even agree on which way the TP sits on the holder, we might be better off just buring this thread and any future thread with a similar idea.


Rabble, rabble.

[MagicalTrevor]

I'd be very interested in this and fully support this idea.

If you want a LOT of people to sign it however you need to make it 2 tier'd. A group of people that run it and handle any issues that arise and a secondary tier of people who will support and honour the document. This ensures people who aren't interested in the actual running of it can still pledge their support to it and show that they've honoured and and recognise the consequences of breaking it without them having to put in work for other peoples tech raiding mishaps.

If that was put into place i think this could be a very good idea and might finally slow down the amount of crying we get with regards to tech raiding.

[magicninja]

[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='23 July 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1279934895' post='2386817']
I'd be very interested in this and fully support this idea.

If you want a LOT of people to sign it however you need to make it 2 tier'd. A group of people that run it and handle any issues that arise and a secondary tier of people who will support and honour the document. This ensures people who aren't interested in the actual running of it can still pledge their support to it and show that they've honoured and and recognise the consequences of breaking it without them having to put in work for other peoples tech raiding mishaps.

If that was put into place i think this could be a very good idea and might finally slow down the amount of crying we get with regards to tech raiding.
[/quote]

It is two tiered when you look at it MT. You have the Council of 5 which do the real work and then everyone else. I put it in as an elected body so no one power group could seize it. Can you think of anything in what I've done to make it two tiered better?

[MagicalTrevor]

[quote name='magicninja' date='24 July 2010 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1279935027' post='2386821']
It is two tiered when you look at it MT. You have the Council of 5 which do the real work and then everyone else. I put it in as an elected body so no one power group could seize it. Can you think of anything in what I've done to make it two tiered better?
[/quote]
Im not sure some people will even want to vote, and when voting time comes round it'll be a pain in the arse to get round to everybody who has signed. A simple group of alliances, even if they're from a similar sphere would suffice for me.

Make it simple and make it clear cut, i dont see what issues can arise. It's a safe haven for people from tech raiding, not from ZI lists or the like. That is explicitly clear. People who join while being raided dont gain protection from their current wars. That is explicity clear. What i dont want to see is this becoming a place for people on ZI lists to run to so that they can gain easy publicity on the owf by being attacked while on the AA.

Any other issues (i cant really see them) will just be talked over but to be honest they should all be cut and dry, anything that arises will, as usual, be dealt with depending on circumstance.


As a note i'd be very interested in this proposal, as i've told you on IRC.

[Beefspari]

I support this idea since it allows people who are interested in the community who are becoming involved with their surroundings to grow and build unhindered. It's not an attempt to control any sphere or group of people, and nobody who isn't aware of what's going on is covered. It would require people to actively seek protection rather than just being granted it. That's the sort of thing GOONS is in favor of; people who care enough to do something.

As a GOONS gov I'd be in full support of this.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='23 July 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1279935910' post='2386836']
Im not sure some people will even want to vote, and when voting time comes round it'll be a pain in the arse to get round to everybody who has signed. A simple group of alliances, even if they're from a similar sphere would suffice for me.
[/quote]

That would leave the system open for great abuse. If someone on the "Safe Haven" AA wasn't liked by that particular sphere, even if they're not on a ZI list, they could still be raided with no consequences to the raiders.

[MagicalTrevor]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' date='24 July 2010 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1279936572' post='2386844']
That would leave the system open for great abuse. If someone on the "Safe Haven" AA wasn't liked by that particular sphere, even if they're not on a ZI list, they could still be raided with no consequences to the raiders.
[/quote]
Anybody who does that will take such a massive PR blow that they'd be utter morons and deserve to be rolled within the hour for such blatant retardation.

A pact that is signed by a large portion of the active alliances on CN WILL be honoured even if only one sphere is currently running it. Idealy you'd want diversity of course but that isn't always possible.

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='22 July 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1279853244' post='2385247']
The main issue with an idea like this that the people most likely to be tech raided won't know about it. So it is more or less a fruitless endeavour.
[/quote]


^^^ This

It would be more beneficial for the same alliances to band together and protect the nations being tech raided on their color spheres. Overall, that would be beneficial for all as the trade spheres would grow and encouragement of younger nations would prevail.

[WarriorConcept]

So this is essentially what Celestial Being does already? Cool.