International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280091804' post='2388675']
That same alliance you are praising for a couple of comments have about 100 active wars. So lets have a reality check.
[/quote]

That's a gross mischaracterization. The number is closer to 88, last I checked.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280091804' post='2388675']
So lets have a reality check.
[/quote]
Yes, let's: if Safe Haven is established, and if you [i]do[/i] raid Safe Haven while it is protected, regardless of the rules of your alliance, you will be forced to either pay full reparations or face military attack. Raid away, but your raiding will not result in any benefit for yourself.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280092658' post='2388695']
Yes, let's: if Safe Haven is established, and if you [i]do[/i] raid Safe Haven while it is protected, regardless of the rules of your alliance, you will be forced to either pay full reparations or face military attack. Raid away, but your raiding will not result in any benefit for yourself.
[/quote]
Sometimes you just have to stick it to the man no matter what it costs.

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280092628' post='2388694']
That's a gross mischaracterization. The number is closer to 88, last I checked.
[/quote]

Sorry

Edited July 25, 2010 by Alterego

[heggo]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280092628' post='2388694']
That's a gross mischaracterization. The number is closer to 88, last I checked.
[/quote]
Only 88? GOONS, I am disappoint.

[Guffey]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1280083160' post='2388495']
No. You give protection to people instead of them trying to earn it. I could be wrong but Freedom Of The Seas intervenes whenever they feel a need to, not when nations comes to a signatory about being raided.

On the off-chance that I am wrong in my assessment (or just having memory issues because I really didn't read too much into the treaty) then please show me what I overlooked.
[/quote]

We look for raid victims, send them a message giving them access to a general purpose guide, which includes how to avoid future raids, economics and military along with explaining alliances. If they respond to our message saying they want protection, we switch them to one of our applicant AA's and get the raider to cease. We generally send rebuilding funds as well. The nations we protect don't know about us unless we contact them generally, because they are not familiar with CN politics, and if they were, would most likely be in an alliance. Our main focus is on new nations that get raided, not nations who choose not to be in an alliance for whatever reason.

The "safe Haven" AA would not be under FoS at all, but we would use it as an AA to place all those people we rescue and let them go to that AA as a multi-alliance protectorate. Along with any other nations who wish to join it. A protectorate is a protectorate regardless if it is an applicant AA, a small alliance, or a safe haven.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Guffey

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1280083160' post='2388495']
No. You give protection to people instead of them trying to earn it. I could be wrong but Freedom Of The Seas intervenes whenever they feel a need to, not when nations comes to a signatory about being raided.

On the off-chance that I am wrong in my assessment (or just having memory issues because I really didn't read too much into the treaty) then please show me what I overlooked.
[/quote]

I allow people to live peacefully and if they are attacked for no reason I try to help get them out of the situation and offer them a safe haven till they can decide what to do from there instead of leaving Planet Bob. And yes FoS does allow people to intervene whenever they want, just like any alliance has the sovereign right to attack whomever they want.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280037647' post='2388127']
I certainly wouldn't expect you to spend resources to protect the AA. Would you be willing to agree to not raid the AA? That's not so different. There are lots of AA's you don't raid, and there will still be lots of nations you can raid.

The benefit for raiding alliances is good will and fewer complaints about tech raids. Even someone like myself who is strongly opposed to raiding will feel like if they have a simple way to avoid it and still choose to fly the None flag, they had their chance.
[/quote]
We may agree not to raid the AA due if it has more than 19 members, which is our criteria for not raiding an AA.
Thats the best I can say without a meeting with the rest of our gov.

[EgoFreaky]

Okay i'm gonna be selfish for a minute here:

Nations that can change their AA to "safe haven AA" are enlightened enough to know the basics around here. So what's stopping them from joining an alliance?

And then i take it one step further, the haven AA will have no obligation to defend us while we would have one to defend them. Why should i agree to put R&R on the line for nations that don't wanna join us and will not do the same for us when needed?

Now let's say that a group of raiding alliances (let's for arguments sake take the usual suspects \M/ and goons seeing they probably won't mind), would decide they don't see Haven as a valid alliance. now why would we act in defense of haven and probably start a war which would put us on the opposite sides of some of our allies while it has absolutely no benefit for us.

The only way i see this work is if every alliance in the top 150 or so would agree with it and that will never happen.

Edit: So for any final decisions i would have to discuss it with other gov. But i really don't see this work nor us supporting it actively. Although since we don't allow raiding anymore we won't do that either.

Edited July 26, 2010 by EgoFreaky

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421']
My alliance makes the raiding rules I follow not GATO none 2 is still none.
[/quote]

Any rules would not be GATO's, but those of any alliances that choose to defend the safe haven.
Magic' is floating the idea. It isn't official GATO policy (as far as I know), nor have we discussed it.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1280167103' post='2389838']
Nations that can change their AA to "safe haven AA" are enlightened enough to know the basics around here. So what's stopping them from joining an alliance?
[/quote]
Yes, [i]everyone[/i] who knows what an alliance is wants to join one. I've already made the point that alliance politicking is enough of a reason to not want to join one, it's a pity people either don't read or don't care.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280172149' post='2389957']
Yes, [i]everyone[/i] who knows what an alliance is wants to join one. I've already made the point that alliance politicking is enough of a reason to not want to join one, it's a pity people either don't read or don't care.
[/quote]

Yes... and you are in that category.. I'm not saying people that know how to join an alliance want to be in one.

I'm talking as someone who has to act in the best interest of an alliance, not in the best interest of some unaligned nations that don't wanna join an alliance. And from that perspective I ask, without judging anyone, why would any alliance commit to something like that. Something you would have figured out if your attention span lasted past the first line.

Sell it to me, because you thinking it's a good idea is not really something i care about one way or the other.

As for the one line you did read, that was in response to the everyone will be free to recruit off this AA line. Since the majority of the people on that AA will not want to join an alliance it's not something that will have a lot of benefit for an alliance.

Edited July 26, 2010 by EgoFreaky

[kotic]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' 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]
That's not an issue ryuzaki since the 5 alliance will come to the defense of said nation. It's a win win nation gets protection while the alliances get raiders to attack...hmmm rok should look into this. We tend to get trigger happy Hehehehe

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1280176987' post='2390130']
Yes... and you are in that category.. I'm not saying people that know how to join an alliance want to be in one.

I'm talking as someone who has to act in the best interest of an alliance, not in the best interest of some unaligned nations that don't wanna join an alliance. And from that perspective I ask, without judging anyone, why would any alliance commit to something like that. Something you would have figured out if your attention span lasted past the first line.

Sell it to me, because you thinking it's a good idea is not really something i care about one way or the other.

As for the one line you did read, that was in response to the everyone will be free to recruit off this AA line. Since the majority of the people on that AA will not want to join an alliance it's not something that will have a lot of benefit for an alliance.
[/quote]

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding. And I'm not trying to "sell" it to you. Facts, even those that can be proven, rarely influence people's beliefs.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='kotic' timestamp='1280178192' post='2390165']
That's not an issue ryuzaki since the 5 alliance will come to the defense of said nation. It's a win win nation gets protection while the alliances get raiders to attack...hmmm rok should look into this. We tend to get trigger happy Hehehehe
[/quote]
He's referring to the fact that it may be difficult to get unaligned nations to find and change to the Safe Haven AA in the first place, before getting raided.

[Baldr]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1280185145' post='2390384']
He's referring to the fact that it may be difficult to get unaligned nations to find and change to the Safe Haven AA in the first place, before getting raided.
[/quote]

I would expect that the majority of the people who would use it will hear about it after having been raided a time or two. Perhaps a few would use it as a temporary AA if they left one alliance and hadn't decided which alliance they wanted to join.

I would expect very few people to join the game, do enough research to know about it, and use it right away. People who put that much time/effort in are more likely to join a real alliance, I think.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421']
Alliances can also choose to raid who they like. There is a huge difference between a real alliance and a manufactured AA used to hide none nations. Some alliances dont recognise alliances with less than 5, 10 or more as a real alliance. These alliances have a gov a charter and members rules made by themselves. Why would people recognise this bogus manufactured alliance when it has no attributes required to be called one. If a word in the AA slot is all they need then none is already an alliance just go and protect none instead of pretending this inst none 2.

There was no rule for Pacifica but one of the 1st things dismantled was their limited protection of red, colour and fake AA are just semantics they are both protecting unalligned nations. They can do as they please just dont expect people to sit back and have alliances dictate which unaligned nations I can raid. My alliance makes the raiding rules I follow not GATO none 2 is still none.


They want to protect unaligned nations. For the love of admin read the topic title. It says protection of unaligned nations.



You are assuming real alliances will recognise a fake alliance as a genuine one
[/quote]

There are many alliances that define an alliance simply as an AA that has more than X number of members or an alliance that has a protectorate agreement. I don't think I've read where an AA has to have forums and IRC and a charter just to be called an alliance. The difference between this and protecting none as you say is that no one is out to protect unaligned nations. Nations that join this would no longer be unaligned. Protecting none as you say would piss off the raiding community and that isn't what we want to do here. Like I said there will still be thousands of tech raid targets available to raiders.

Out of curiosity what are the raiding rules of your alliance?

Also, this has nothing to do with GATO. I don't even think GATO has looked at it officially yet.

Edited July 27, 2010 by magicninja

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280188262' post='2390462']
I would expect that the majority of the people who would use it will hear about it after having been raided a time or two. Perhaps a few would use it as a temporary AA if they left one alliance and hadn't decided which alliance they wanted to join.

I would expect very few people to join the game, do enough research to know about it, and use it right away. People who put that much time/effort in are more likely to join a real alliance, I think.
[/quote]
That is why I say "may". There's far too many variables to be able to give a very accurate prediction of how well this will work, and what parts of it will be successful or not. The only way we'll know for sure is if enough support is gathered to get it off the ground in the first place.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1280167103' post='2389838']
Okay i'm gonna be selfish for a minute here:

Nations that can change their AA to "safe haven AA" are enlightened enough to know the basics around here. So what's stopping them from joining an alliance?

And then i take it one step further, the haven AA will have no obligation to defend us while we would have one to defend them. Why should i agree to put R&R on the line for nations that don't wanna join us and will not do the same for us when needed?

Now let's say that a group of raiding alliances (let's for arguments sake take the usual suspects \M/ and goons seeing they probably won't mind), would decide they don't see Haven as a valid alliance. now why would we act in defense of haven and probably start a war which would put us on the opposite sides of some of our allies while it has absolutely no benefit for us.

The only way i see this work is if every alliance in the top 150 or so would agree with it and that will never happen.

Edit: So for any final decisions i would have to discuss it with other gov. But i really don't see this work nor us supporting it actively. Although since we don't allow raiding anymore we won't do that either.
[/quote]
Any investment in this would never yield immediate returns for any alliance but it does still hold the potential for some. They might be in the form of applications directly from the AA or by some forming an alliance after having been protected and feeling a degree of loyalty or allegiance towards those who had previously acted as their protector. From the perspective of selfishness it could be used as a means around the generic recruitment messages in order to reach those that require said intimate relationship or that special feeling before comitting to any alliance. Ideally towards that end some programs to help these unaligned nations develop economically could be instituted by using it as a pool to obtain tech deals or complete a trade circle. The two most important questions that I can think of on this topic are with how much manpower and resources will need to be invested and not only what kind of returns one will see but how long it will take for them to materialize. Both of those have answers which could vary widely based upon what's done and how. There's the chance for no noticeable benefit while there's the chance for a significant one.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Hyperbad

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421']
Alliances can also choose to raid who they like.
[/quote]

Alliances can also choose to protect who they like from raiders. These treaties happen all the time. I don't see the difference (except that there may be more than one alliance being the protector in this case.)

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421']
There was no rule for Pacifica but one of the 1st things dismantled was their limited protection of red, colour and fake AA are just semantics they are both protecting unalligned nations.
[/quote]

Protecting red non-aligned nations made sense for NPO when they had the power to do so because it provided additional nations for trade, etc. Removing that advantage made sense when NPO's enemies had the power because it takes away the advantage.

This proposal is different. It isn't a proposal to protect one particular color. The benefit would be spread to whoever trades with the nations in question.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1280079945' post='2388421']
You are assuming real alliances will recognise a fake alliance as a genuine one
[/quote]

Define a Planet Bob wide agreed upon definition of what a "real" alliance is as opposed to a "fake" alliance. I've never heard that distinction made by people. At best, there are different opinions about how many nations there need to be under the same AA - and this only matters IF the alliance is NOT protected by another group.

It's certainly not heard in reference to a group of nations holding the same AA that is protected by another group of nations that hold a different AA.

Trust me on this, we don't want to go there People have enough problems trying to understand the unwritten rules of Planet Bob now and there is enough drama just around the small distinctions.

[Gorbie]

This is a bit belated, but I'd like to take a few moments to respond to some questions and statements made in reference to GPA that have come up in this discussion.

[quote name='der_ko' timestamp='1279853300' post='2385251']
Something wrong with GPA or TDO these days?
[/quote]
[color="#2e8b57"][b][color="#008000"]Not in GPA. We're doing just fine over here.[/color][/b] [/color]


[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1279904846' post='2386027']
A lot of people are saying why not join a "real" neutral alliance. Well for one even neutral alliances have rules that some nations wouldn't want to go by. I think GPA requires nations to be on the Green sphere (correct me if I'm wrong). --
[/quote]
[quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1279925853' post='2386661']
Beyond the ease of joining this organization, how is it fundamentally different from GPA? --
[/quote]

[color="#008000"][b]Yes, you are required to remain in the Green team in order to be a member of the GPA. We also impose some pretty strict guidelines on admission of new members, and conduct of the existing ones, not to even mention our very strict foreign aid policy. Many nations either are not comfortable with this, or just want a place to bulk up for a bit before trying something else. GPA is not that kind of a place; it's a place for people who are truly committed to our ideals and community. And that's the way we intend to keep it.


As for the idea that GPA could possibly be taking some part into this project, I think most of you are forgetting the GPA [/b][/color][url="http://forums.cn-gpa.com/showthread.php?tid=32973"][color="#008000"][b]Charter[/b][/color][/url][color="#008000"][b] and the [/b][/color][url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Green_Protection_Agency_Declaration_of_Neutrality"][color="#008000"][b]DoN.[/b][/color][/url][color="#008000"][b] Neither of them would allow us to take part into the management or defense of this group.

As always, please feel free to stop by our IRC channel or our [/b][/color][url="http://forums.cn-gpa.com/index.php"][color="#008000"][b]Forums[/b][/color][/url][color="#008000"][b] if you have any questions.[/b]
[/color]

[King Chill I]

I have never raided anyone in my CN career but I promise to raid anyone in range under this flaky AA.

[Jens of the desert]

What, exactly are you trying to productively achieve with this in the long run?

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1280272874' post='2391738']
What, exactly are you trying to productively achieve with this in the long run?
[/quote]
To protect nations that don't want to be tech raided or join an alliance. That much was rather clearly pointed out, I thought

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280272991' post='2391742']
To protect nations that don't want to be tech raided or join an alliance. That much was rather clearly pointed out, I thought
[/quote]
And why would you want to do that?

[Aurion]

Maroon Church?

Well, that was my first thought anyways. If I recall my history lessons from way back correctly, that was an unmitigated disaster...