A debate on accepting nations at war

[Omniscient1]

Attacking members leaving alliances sounds too much like what NPO done to Legion way back when. I don't really think it's fair so I'm going to have to disagree with not peacing the guy out honestly. Of course it would depend on how the other alliance approached the alliance warring the member, whether that guy continued aiding the alliance at war, and other things of course. Overall though I'd have to disagree with continuing the attack.

[Bob Janova]

Because if you say 'you have a right to do X' [i]that's what it means[/i] ... it means you can do X and expect not to be stopped. Otherwise the phrase is completely meaningless. You'd have the right to free speech in an oppressive theocracy ... sure, there'll be [i]consequences[/i], but you can still do it! 'You have the right to ...' doesn't mean 'it is physically possible to ...', it means 'you can do X and the law will protect you'.

Rights are a pretty meaningless concept in inter-alliance matters because there is no law which guarantees them, and almost all such matters are simply solved by force of arms (not through war, but through the side with the biggest threat of war getting its way). The only rights that are relevant are those guaranteed to members for internal matters (and no, raiding is not an internal matter, unless you raid other members of the alliance), because the alliance documents there [i]are[/i] relevant law that all parties accept.

In this case GOONS attacked an alliance, one of the members of that alliance has gone somewhere where he's not helpless any more and as such the balance of arms is no longer so in GOONS' favour. Rights are irrelevant as there's no international treaties signed by CoJ, GOONS and USSR; both sides will push it as far as they dare without actually doing anything because to do something would be dangerous.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 July 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1279920449' post='2386576']
Because if you say 'you have a right to do X' [i]that's what it means[/i] ... it means you can do X and expect not to be stopped. Otherwise the phrase is completely meaningless. You'd have the right to free speech in an oppressive theocracy ... sure, there'll be [i]consequences[/i], but you can still do it! 'You have the right to ...' doesn't mean 'it is physically possible to ...', it means 'you can do X and the law will protect you'.
[/quote]

[ooc]but there [i]is[/i] no law in CN apart from the rules laid down by admin.

I have the right to attack any nation in the game, and my nation will not be deleted because of it. I do not have the right to indulge in slot-filling to stop my nation being attacked, and if I do so it could lead to my nation being deleted.

if we're using "the right to do X" only to mean things you can do without fear of any consequences at all, then nobody in this game has any rights at all. You can vote for the senate, but wars have been fought over senate votes. You can move to a color sphere, but wars have been fought over this, too.
[/ooc]

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Baldr' date='23 July 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1279918382' post='2386522']
There are many Gramlins nations now residing under other AA's, having left Gramlins in the middle of a war that still continues by Gramlins choice.
[/quote]
Excuse me, I wasn't perfectly clear. I meant to say a nation with active wars on their nation. Of course, nations could join a new alliance if the new alliance and the alliance at war with the nation agrees. I'm not saying it's unheard of, but we all know that accepting a nation with current wars upon their nation is certainly not the standard and not the norm.

To use this situation for example, the nation with a current war would need CoJ and GOONS' approval seeing as GOONS obviously have outstanding issues with the nation in question. That is the standard and how things generally work to avoid this exact kind of thing. To bring a third alliance (Nemesis, as much as I love them) into the equation is ludicrous and unnecessary.

[nippy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 July 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1279919160' post='2386542']
So um you know where I said it would be better if it didn't turn into an EBIL GOONS thread about this particular incident? Yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhh ...

Both sides in this argument are being stubborn and silly, in all honesty. This is why I don't agree with raiding alliances (and yes a micro-alliance that has the coordination to strike back against unprovoked attack certainly [i]is[/i] an alliance), it blurs the line between raids and wars and leads you into this kind of situation (and yet another raiding incident hitting the OWF).
[/quote]

A fair enough post. I disagree with you on raiding, as always, but also agree that this could have been handled better from both sides.

Quick note to anyone wanting to conduct diplomacy with us: we're approachable as long as you're not making demands. We take offense quite quickly to persons whom consider themselves above us. It's blatantly obvious that disagreement with our policies led to attempts to circumvent them in this case, something we don't take kindly to.

[shahenshah]

If the member is victim of a tech raid, then they should definitely be accepted.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='23 July 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1279919789' post='2386566']
I do wonder why people confuse "the right to do x" with "the right to do x without consequence"
[/quote]

Your alliance raided a smaller alliance, then got upset when that alliance fought back. You then got more upset when one of the people in the alliance that you had attacked joined a different AA who told you "He's ours, you best leave him alone".

And now you want to talk about the rights without consequences.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Baldr' date='23 July 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']
Your alliance raided a smaller alliance, then got upset when that alliance fought back. You then got more upset when one of the people in the alliance that you had attacked joined a different AA who told you "He's ours, you best leave him alone".

And now you want to talk about the rights without consequences.


[/quote]

I'm not seeing where we got upset.

Also, considering one of our members just said "Being allowed to raid targets of our choosing does not free us from consequences of raiding." seems to belie your argument, if argument is the word for you stumbling blindly into a thread and trying to join in without knowing what is going on.

[nippy]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='24 July 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1279925127' post='2386648']
If the member is victim of a tech raid, then they should definitely be accepted.
[/quote]

Accept away. That doesn't mean we're going to immediately peace out automatically.


[quote name='Baldr' date='24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']
Your alliance raided a smaller alliance, then got upset when that alliance fought back.
[/quote]
No we didn't. I've addressed this already in this thread. Learn to read.

[quote name='Baldr' date='24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']
You then got more upset when one of the people in the alliance that you had attacked joined a different AA who told you "He's ours, you best leave him alone".
[/quote]
We could give a rat's $@! what people attempt to tell us what do to. If you're fine with being told what to do by other alliances, I'll have to remember that next time I conduct 'diplomacy' with you.

[quote name='Baldr' date='24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']
And now you want to talk about the rights without consequences.
[/quote]
And now you want to talk to hear yourself talk.

[quote name='Baldr' date='24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']

[/quote]

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Baldr' date='23 July 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1279925271' post='2386650']
Your alliance raided a smaller alliance, then got upset when that alliance fought back.
[/quote]
Upset? You must be talking about some other alliance, we thrive on conflict. Moreover, they escalated the raid into a full scale conflict by attacking uninvolved nations. At that point it was no longer a tech raid, it was a war. Had they just kept their attacks to the members who attacked them, then that would have been a different story.
[quote]
You then got more upset when one of the people in the alliance that you had attacked joined a different AA who told you "He's ours, you best leave him alone".
[/quote]
So you really think it's okay to accept people into your alliance who are at war with another group?

[lamuella]

[ooc]I don't know about anyone else, but for me "rights" is an in-character way of talking about the rules of the game. The rules are absolute, and define freedoms entirely. The opinions of others are constantly shifting.[/ooc]

by the way, there seem to be people who think that when we discuss things like this, we're getting upset or angry. I'm fairly well aware of when I'm angry and when I'm not, and it usually takes a lot more than a disagreement in a thread like this to get me there. I know it's standard bargain basement politics to accuse your opponent of losing control of their emotions (and I've made similar accusations myself) but it seems a little weird in this circumstance.

[Kzoppistan]

Depends on the value of the person in question. If the individual is a high value asset, and the alliance has the ability to defend the acquisition, do it. Basically it's a question of cost.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='24 July 2010 - 03:58 AM' timestamp='1279925897' post='2386662']
So you really think it's okay to accept people into your alliance who are at war with another group?
[/quote]
If they did not initiate a conflict, I see nothing wrong with it. If they're victims of unprovoked aggression, they certainly would try and find the means to avoid it in future. If I recall correctly, GOONs has in the past facilitated protection, if they do it themselves instead of asking for mediator, why not.

Tho, if they initiated the drama and conflict, I doubt anyone would take them anyway.

Edited July 23, 2010 by shahenshah

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1279925897' post='2386662']
Moreover, they escalated the raid into a full scale conflict by attacking uninvolved nations. At that point it was no longer a tech raid, it was a war. [/quote]

It was a war as soon as your nations clicked the "declare war" button. The people they declared war on were, up until that point, uninvolved nations. After that point, the alliance that you had attacked fought back.

[nippy]

[quote name='Baldr' date='24 July 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1279926994' post='2386680']
It was a war as soon as your nations clicked the "declare war" button. The people they declared war on were, up until that point, uninvolved nations. After that point, the alliance that you had attacked fought back.
[/quote]

None of which was the reason for this thread.

[OldSelf]

Using the term "community standards" in defending "double standards" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

I don't see why this individual leaving their alliance in a defensive alliance war should continue to be persued.

[magicninja]

[quote name='The Iggy' date='23 July 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1279928298' post='2386700']
Using the term "community standards" in defending "double standards" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

I don't see why this individual leaving their alliance in a defensive alliance war should continue to be persued.
[/quote]

Say TFD and GATO went to war for whatever reason. TFD had the upper hand and GATO nations started leaving to other alliances instead of accepting individual surrender. Does TFD let them go and run the risk of them rebuilding and coming back into the fight or do they say whoooaaaaa horsey you need to peace out right?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 July 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1279919160' post='2386542']
Both sides in this argument are being stubborn and silly, in all honesty.
[/quote]
I will not argue that the philosophical stance we have taken is stubborn; however, as I've pointed out several times now, GOONS, Nemesis, CoJ, and MK have settled upon a new essay and pictures, and I've said we're working with members of USSR to get that. Nothing stubborn in it.

[quote name='nippy' date='23 July 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1279924983' post='2386644']
Quick note to anyone wanting to conduct diplomacy with us: we're approachable as long as you're not making demands. We take offense quite quickly to persons whom consider themselves above us. It's blatantly obvious that disagreement with our policies led to attempts to circumvent them in this case, something we don't take kindly to.
[/quote]
I'd love to know how you [b]asking[/b] nations to accept a peace offer, or CoJ giving you the essay you wanted is "demanding" or "circumvention."

Edited July 23, 2010 by Schattenmann

[BlkAK47_002]

So one of your raids goes south and now you're trying trying to appeal to the court of public opinion?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='23 July 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1279928700' post='2386712']
So one of your raids goes south and now you're trying trying to appeal to the court of public opinion?
[/quote]
No. I don't know why you think that.

[OldSelf]

[quote=magicninja]

Say TFD and GATO went to war for whatever reason. TFD had the upper hand and GATO nations started leaving to other alliances instead of accepting individual surrender. Does TFD let them go and run the risk of them rebuilding and coming back into the fight or do they say whoooaaaaa horsey you need to peace out right? [/quote]

I don't think the situations are comparable (though please convert me with a pragmatic analogy), is there an expectation this "X" is going off to build a warchest and return to the fight?

Also, tech raiding a microalliance must always end in individual surrender of its members? (I would take inaction - the 'deemed' best choice, a tacit act of surrender)

edit: I seem unable to use the quote feature

Edited July 23, 2010 by The Iggy

[lamuella]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='23 July 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1279928700' post='2386712']
So one of your raids goes south and now you're trying trying to appeal to the court of public opinion?
[/quote]

oh excellent, everyone! BlkAK47002 is here to entirely misunderstand the thread and jump to a conclusion that 2 minutes reading could have avoided! Now the party can REALLY start!

[Baldr]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='23 July 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1279928892' post='2386715']
No. I don't know why you think that.
[/quote]


Perhaps because of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89562&view=findpost&p=2386391"]this post[/url], by Sardonic who started the thread.

[quote]The fact of the matter, Schatt, despite all your flailing about over the mercy board terms, is that you knowingly accepted a nation which was at war with us, then got your ally to threaten us to peace out. Your crime is far more severe than ours, and I hope the community can look past our name and see that.
[/quote]

He's calling it a crime to protect the guy you are attacking, a nation who has joined CoJ. And he's asking "the community" to back him up.

[lamuella]

no, I'm not seeing how that translates to a raid going south or an appeal to the court of public opinion.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='23 July 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1279929784' post='2386725']
Perhaps because of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89562&view=findpost&p=2386391"]this post[/url], by Sardonic who started the thread.

He's calling it a crime to protect the guy you are attacking, a nation who has joined CoJ. And he's asking "the community" to back him up.
[/quote]
Locate where this is about a raid going south.

Edited July 24, 2010 by ktarthan