International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]Bah moralism.

The whole premise of a protected Alliance affiliation, is that the people that are raided by opurtunistic alliances actually have a right to a say-so in whether or not they are raided. By creating a "None 2.0" alliance affiliation and recongizing such AA as being protected, raiding alliances are inadverantly recognizing that people that have no intrest in the team aspect of the game, or do not even play the game at all, have a right to play the game without fear of indiscriminate warfare.

This begs the premise, then why not just do away with tech raiding altogether? Of course this is incrediably impractical, and makes the game increadibly boring for some people, that it will not happen. The next best thing, would to have a conference on what are permissable standards of tech raiding, and what is not.[/color]

[magicninja]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='22 July 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1279859351' post='2385419']
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.
[/quote]

You think \m/ would be willing to sign such a document? Doesn't say you can't raid. Just that you'll protect these guys from being raided. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1279859463' post='2385422']
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.
[/quote]
"Recognize" and "back" are not the same thing though. We would never protect the unaligned. I still maintain that the unaligned are not worthy of protection.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Sardonic

[magicninja]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='22 July 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1279860405' post='2385443']
[color="#FF0000"]Bah moralism.

The whole premise of a protected Alliance affiliation, is that the people that are raided by opurtunistic alliances actually have a right to a say-so in whether or not they are raided. By creating a "None 2.0" alliance affiliation and recongizing such AA as being protected, raiding alliances are inadverantly recognizing that people that have no intrest in the team aspect of the game, or do not even play the game at all, have a right to play the game without fear of indiscriminate warfare.

This begs the premise, then why not just do away with tech raiding altogether? Of course this is incrediably impractical, and makes the game increadibly boring for some people, that it will not happen. The next best thing, would to have a conference on what are permissable standards of tech raiding, and what is not.[/color]
[/quote]

OR...we can set up a safe haven AA and then nones would really have no excuse.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='22 July 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1279860542' post='2385446']
"Recognize" and "back" are not the same thing though. We would never protect the unaligned. I still maintain that the unaligned are not worthy of protection.
[/quote]

So I guess we count GOONs out then eh? That's fine. As long as you recognize the protection that's cool. It's all we can ask.

[MASTABADEY]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1279860542' post='2385446']
"Recognize" and "back" are not the same thing though. We would never protect the unaligned. I still maintain that the unaligned are not worthy of protection.
[/quote]
Glad that's cleared up. Though if GOONS does in fact pledge to not hit 'Safe Haven', I'd most certainly would expect the same hold true for any targets protected under the Revenge Doctrine. Holding double standards is such foolery.

[magicninja]

[quote name='MASTABADEY' date='22 July 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1279861028' post='2385455']
Glad that's cleared up. Though if GOONS does in fact pledge to not hit 'Safe Haven', I'd most certainly would expect the same hold true for any targets protected under the Revenge Doctrine. Holding double standards is such foolery.
[/quote]

I think GOONS is saying there is a difference in a protected AA and a protected sphere. Maybe not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless.

[Jgoods45]

Very interesting proposal to be quite honest, and it would be fun to see it in action. Although Athens would most likely not sign on to the accord (Why should we commit the resources of our alliance to the defense of nations we do not know?),we would probably recognize the protection it provides.

Best of luck with it.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Jgoods45

[magicninja]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='22 July 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1279861591' post='2385480']
Very interesting proposal to be quite honest, and it would be fun to see it in action. Although Athens would most likely not sign on to the accord, we would probably recognize the protection it provides.

Best of luck with it.
[/quote]

Then I hate you and love you. Thanks JGoods.

[Yamin Auk Zafar]

[quote]Article VI Military Action

Military Action may only be taken against an offending nation through a unanimous vote of the Council of Five. [/quote]

So...a rouge that's decimating our members can continue until the 5 get together and vote? Or does this line not apply to the stipulations in Article II?

And the biggest problems I see with this are alliances not pulling their weight in helping to defend, and nations just plain not knowing about it. Obviously alliances would rather recruit nations to their own AA, rather than Safe Haven. And there should be an Article in there to that affect. Something about no recruiting from Safe Haven.

[General Rex]

No.

[MASTABADEY]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1279861146' post='2385462']
I think GOONS is saying there is a difference in a protected AA and a protected sphere. Maybe not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless.
[/quote]
I don't see why. 'Safe Haven' will basically become a gated community with guards for people not wishing to participate in alliances. Under the Revenge Doctrine, the Red Sphere is basically a gated community with guards for people not wishing to participate in alliances. Either way, both offer protection to those not wishing to participate the the dabbles of alliance politics and by vowing to uphold one and antagonize another is completely hypocritical in my eyes.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Yamin Auk Zafar' date='22 July 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1279862080' post='2385498']
So...a rouge that's decimating our members can continue until the 5 get together and vote? Or does this line not apply to the stipulations in Article II?

And the biggest problems I see with this are alliances not pulling their weight in helping to defend, and nations just plain not knowing about it. Obviously alliances would rather recruit nations to their own AA, rather than Safe Haven. And there should be an Article in there to that affect. Something about no recruiting from Safe Haven.
[/quote]

If there is a raider that won't send peace then yes the Council of 5 has to get together to approve military action. This will prevent people from attacking first or for grudges and prevent Safe Haven from being used as a political tool.

[Guffey]

We have been discussing something like this for a while in FoS. I am all for it, though we will need to rework some of the wording.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='magicninja' date='22 July 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1279860726' post='2385451']
OR...we can set up a safe haven AA and then nones would really have no excuse.
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]By doing so, you are creating and enforcing the premise that nations who do not belong to an alliance have the right to play the game without the inconveniences of indiscriminate warfare from raiding alliances.

There are already recognized sphere's that are under protection, and so far, there are no of the protecting alliances that are willing to sacrifice their pixels for the sake of a few nations that are uncommitted players.

Another major problem is just getting the majority of the world to recognize the protection of a 'None 2.0' affiliation, and therefore negate the culminating consequences of the treaty web. This agreement in it of itself is a 'Fair Weather' agreement, that is too fragile to succeed, because alliances will choose to disregard the validity of the agreement at convenience.

In the end, what you are left with is a hollow agreement, that is only amounts to a deterrent for small and incompetent alliances, and a tool for other well connected alliances to cause mischief, as well as a bit of painful hypocrisy on both ends of the tech raiding question.

If it is agreed that an unaligned nation has the right to not be raided solely on the premise that it does not belong to a well connected alliance, then it is universal regardless of a None or None 2.0 affiliation, because both are one of the same in form and function.

On the contrary, it is equally hypocritical for raiding alliances to recognize the protection of one group of nones over another, and the whole moral justification of raiding is false. By recognizing the right of some to not be raided over others even though they are identical is a moral conundrum.[/color]

[magicninja]

I know that people will recognize this as a legitimate protection agreement. I have no worry there. Two major raiding alliance and a 3rd if you add Athens have already stated they would recognize this. Considering who we are talking about here that's pretty big imo and an important step in making this a reality.

What I think some people are missing is this really isn't about protecting the unaligned. Those wearing the Safe Haven AA will technically be aligned. It's loose maybe but it is enough to be recognized. A protectorate agreement reinforces this. What Safe Haven is is an alliance for people who do not wish to participate in interalliance politics and global wars. In reality all this needs is one alliance to sign on and this is a valid protectorate agreement. Then they can start moving people who wish to be part of it onto the AA.

This isn't just for nones. It can also be a place for those who want to leave their current alliance but want to take some time to decide on where to go next without having to peace it.

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]It's another needless complication to the existing treaty web and a hypocritical one at that.[/color]

[Chief]

I fail to see the purpose of this. Nations which are unwilling or unable to join an established alliance
for protection should not have the ability to slap on an AA tag and automatically be put under the aegis
of what would most likely be an unstable group of actual alliances.
As previously stated by others, if this actually worked the game could potentially have a large block of
nations that fail to interact at all with the larger community... which would suck.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='23 July 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1279863706' post='2385537']
[color="#FF0000"]It's another needless complication to the existing treaty web and a hypocritical one at that.[/color]
[/quote]

Wait, it's hypocritical because alliances that raid None would be protecting nations that are aligned? Or is there something I'm missing here?

Just because you like raiding doesn't mean you can't support this. As was previously stated, there will still be plenty of unaligned nations that won't know about this [i]because[/i] they don't participate in international politics.

[quote name='Chief' date='23 July 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1279863902' post='2385543']
I fail to see the purpose of this. Nations which are unwilling or unable to join an established alliance
for protection should not have the ability to slap on an AA tag and automatically be put under the aegis
of what would most likely be an unstable group of actual alliances.
As previously stated by others, if this actually worked the game could potentially have a large block of
nations that fail to interact at all with the larger community... which would suck.
[/quote]

Seriously, you think that just because a nation doesn't want to put up with the nonsense of alliance politics it doesn't have the right to exist peacefully? And we [i]already[/i] have "a large block of nations that fail to interact at all with the larger community". [i]They're unaligned[/i].

Edited July 23, 2010 by Michael von Prussia

[magicninja]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='22 July 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1279863706' post='2385537']
[color="#FF0000"]It's another needless complication to the existing treaty web and a hypocritical one at that.[/color]
[/quote]

I don't see it as a complication at all. Maybe if there were a NAP clause or something the signatories had to follow but this isn't for that. It's an agreement to protect an AA. IF Alliance A and Alliance B want to go to war and both are signatories so be it. They have no tie to each other other than each is protecting this AA.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1279863955' post='2385547']
I don't see it as a complication at all. Maybe if there were a NAP clause or something the signatories had to follow but this isn't for that. It's an agreement to protect an AA. IF Alliance A and Alliance B want to go to war and both are signatories so be it. They have no tie to each other other than each is protecting this AA.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]Simple. Alliance A raids 'None 2.0', which Alliance B and C are protectors of. C is actually allied to A, so claims conflicting treaties. Alliance A says to B "$%&@ off". Treaties get activated. We end up in another global war over a !@#$%* tech raid over the protection of a 200 NS nation who hasn't checked his account for 15 days.[/color]

[Kalasin]

The best part about this is that it would shut up the whining about tech raids. The unaligneds wouldn't have an excuse anymore. I mean, personally I find tech raiding rather crass, but I tire of the endless debates over it.

[General Rex]

If nations don't want to get raided they might as well find an alliance. Raiding introduces new nations to the game. Like a welcoming present.

[Max Cristof]

[quote name='wickedj' date='22 July 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1279853292' post='2385250']
Adjust your glasses my friend
[/quote]

Oops!

Gotta lrn2read

[magicninja]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='22 July 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1279864629' post='2385561']
[color="#FF0000"]Simple. Alliance A raids 'None 2.0', which Alliance B and C are protectors of. C is actually allied to A, so claims conflicting treaties. Alliance A says to B "$%&@ off". Treaties get activated. We end up in another global war over a !@#$%* tech raid over the protection of a 200 NS nation who hasn't checked his account for 15 days.[/color]
[/quote]

Alliance A would have to be complete my idols to attack a protectorate of their allies don't you think?