International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations

[magicninja]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' date='22 July 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1279853637' post='2385265']
I suppose the main flaw in this idea is that alliances often walk away from much stronger commitments for political reasons... Such an agreement would be at the mercy of politics to an even greater degree, simply because there is no material gain in supporting it "at all costs."

If (against all odds) this were to become a reality, it is far more likely that it would be used as a CB for an oppressive war than to defend the defenseless.

-Craig
[/quote]

That is why military action needs to be approved unanimously by the council and why allowing the same 5 alliances term after term isn't allowed.

Support is in the community at large. IF we agree that this is good then I think we as an international community can pull it off.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 03:51 AM' timestamp='1279853471' post='2385259']
True enough. I think those that recruit would be doing the world a favor if they added in. If you don't want to join our alliance that is fine but switch to the AA Safe Haven so you don;t get wrecked. Will this undermine recruiting? Maybe a little but this going to be mostly for those nations that don;t want to join an alliance at any point.
[/quote]

I think this idea is okay providing you get enough commitment from alliances, Also I wouldn't place it in my recruitment messages. That said, I do get a huge portion of members that respond back saying I'm not joining Alliances, I would be more than happy to message them back with that alternative.

I doubt many would use it in there first initial recruitment letter. I could be wrong.

[MASTABADEY]

I'd love to see if GOONS and company would coordinate a massive raid against this just out of defiance. Seems to be their kind of thing.

[magicninja]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1279854621' post='2385301']
I'd love to see if GOONS and company would coordinate a massive raid against this just out of defiance. Seems to be their kind of thing.
[/quote]

I'd like to think they would sign on. There will still be plenty of Nones and small unprotected alliances.

[D34th]

A good initiative but without the support of important alliances it is doomed to fail.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1279854733' post='2385305']
I'd like to think they would sign on. There will still be plenty of Nones and small unprotected alliances.
[/quote]
I'd like this, too. Will it happen? Not in a million years. But it's good to dream... right?

[MASTABADEY]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1279854733' post='2385305']
I'd like to think they would sign on. There will still be plenty of Nones and small unprotected alliances.
[/quote]
Well I'd like to think that alliances wouldn't raid in the first place, yet we still have to deal with this because they do in fact raid. By the way, say when the next global war breaks out, what happens to this 'Safe Haven'? Surely it will become quite susceptible to attack once all the protectors are busying bashing each others faces in and even afterwards as everyone rebuilds.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='der_ko' date='22 July 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1279853300' post='2385251']
Something wrong with GPA or TDO these days?
[/quote]

I speak in my official capacity as GPA Director of Nuclear Proliferation when I say, yes, something terribly wrong.

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1279853945' post='2385272']
That is why military action needs to be approved unanimously by the council and why allowing the same 5 alliances term after term isn't allowed.

Support is in the community at large. IF we agree that this is good then I think we as an international community can pull it off.
[/quote]

I have to admit -- I've never really understood this cult of independence. It's always been hard enough to simply protect my own people from the vultures of Planet Bob. I've united with like-minded people and erected barriers, and worked hard to build relationships with friendly alliances. Why exactly does someone deserve protection when they aren't willing to contribute or compromise? People remain independent for a reason: they are unwilling or unable to participate in a community. It's not a noble trait.

I completely respect the good intentions behind ideas like this, but I'm not convinced (yet) that such people deserve protection.

-Craig

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1279855210' post='2385314']
Well I'd like to think that alliances wouldn't raid in the first place, yet we still have to deal with this because they do in fact raid. By the way, say when the next global war breaks out, what happens to this 'Safe Haven'? Surely it will become quite susceptible to attack once all the protectors are busying bashing each others faces in and even afterwards as everyone rebuilds.
[/quote]
This is a good point. Just look at the state of the Revenge Doctrine

Though I suppose it would help if it had the support of a wide array of alliances, as it would be unlikely, even in a global war, that [i]all[/i]of them would be unable to fulfill their protection obligations.

[magicninja]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1279855210' post='2385314']
Well I'd like to think that alliances wouldn't raid in the first place, yet we still have to deal with this because they do in fact raid. By the way, say when the next global war breaks out, what happens to this 'Safe Haven'? Surely it will become quite susceptible to attack once all the protectors are busying bashing each others faces in and even afterwards as everyone rebuilds.
[/quote]

That can be applied to any protectorate though.

[MASTABADEY]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1279855491' post='2385322']
That can be applied to any protectorate though.
[/quote]
True, but at least protectorates are in fact REAL alliances whose own members can mobilize and communicate properly to mount some sort of defence. Members in 'Safe Haven' would only protected by the protectors and not their alliance mates unlike in other protectorates. Either way, magicninja this is a really nice concept I will admit but not practical.

[magicninja]

In the end it may turn out it wasn't at all practical. The practicality I envision is a little diplomatic (not military) muscle in the corner of those who have none. I realize planet bob is built on the idea of community. I say invite these nations to be part of the community and become part of the landscape rather than be punished for wanting to go it alone.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='22 July 2010 - 10:47 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]
I would tend to agree.

Although, if someone can make the case that this will start more wars, I shall support it 100%.

[Mirreille]

I'm actually with Comrade Craig on this one. While it is an interesting idea, I don't really see the point either. The neutral alliances already exist, and we have more then one of them. Why encourage people to disengage? It's easy enough to pick an alliance and there are hundreds to choose from out there. If they are not joining them they are either independant-minded or not trying.

Though I am sure if you actually got this up and running it would cause drama at some point so go for it.

[wickedj]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1279854621' post='2385301']
I'd love to see if GOONS and company would coordinate a massive raid against this just out of defiance. Seems to be their kind of thing.
[/quote]
I direct your attention to a comment both Sardonic of GOONS and EmperorMarx of \m/ in my last blog about this matter, both stated they would honor the protection

[Rebounder]

I think we're all ignoring avery real potential problem with this.

If this AA becomes vastly popular among unaligned nations, who will we raid?

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Rebounder' date='23 July 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1279858918' post='2385410']
I think we're all ignoring avery real potential problem with this.

If this AA becomes vastly popular among unaligned nations, who will we raid?
[/quote]

Easy, Gondor.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Emperor Marx

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]This is really funny. I give the "Safe Haven" a period of a week before there is a massive raid on it to see if people will really go to war with their own allies over what basically amounts to people that for the most part don't even play the game.[/color]

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='23 July 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1279859211' post='2385416']
[color="#FF0000"]This is really funny. I give the "Safe Haven" a period of a week before there is a massive raid on it to see if people will really go to war with their own allies over what basically amounts to people that for the most part don't even play the game.[/color]
[/quote]

I already said \m/ would do no such thing because "Safe Haven" would be a genuine AA like any protectorate. I find it difficult to believe other raiding alliances wouldn't follow suit but of course that's up to them.

[magicninja]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='22 July 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1279859211' post='2385416']
[color="#FF0000"]This is really funny. I give the "Safe Haven" a period of a week before there is a massive raid on it to see if people will really go to war with their own allies over what basically amounts to people that for the most part don't even play the game.[/color]
[/quote]

Talk about a bad attitude. I don't think anyone would attack a legitimately protected AA like you say.

[MASTABADEY]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 July 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1279858676' post='2385404']
I direct your attention to a comment both Sardonic of GOONS and EmperorMarx of \m/ in my last blog about this matter, both stated they would honor the protection
[/quote]
I'm so glad that GOONS and \m/ can come together and back a proposal to protect unaligns from raids AND simultaneously participate in Red Safari.

[James IV]

By "Convention", does that mean you are looking for more people to hammer out a final agreement to set in motion?

[magicninja]

[quote name='James IV' date='22 July 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1279859882' post='2385431']
By "Convention", does that mean you are looking for more people to hammer out a final agreement to set in motion?
[/quote]

Just getting ideas. I tried to put in at least the basics for the treaty wording. If anyone has ideas what should be included we're all listening. This is an international effort.

[James IV]

Alrighty. I will think about it and see if I can add anything constructive that would hold up for this and let you know. I like the project though.