A debate on accepting nations at war

[Duncan]

Under normal circumstances Alpha Omega will not admit an applicant if they are involved in a war. Our normal policy is to wait until a proper conclusion has been obtained....be it through diplomacy or other channels. That is not to say that we have not. We have, on occasion, accepted members with active wars but that has usually been on a case by case basis.

One notable occasion actually involved a raid by GOONS nations. The situation was resolved without any problems through diplomacy. We understood and accepted the fact that the GOONS members were under no obligation to cease attacks. We did not demand that attacks ceased. We merely asked that the sitation be resolved and it was.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='23 July 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1279929072' post='2386717']
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!
[/quote]
Awww man do I love the ones who use the simple "You didn't read the thread!" tactic followed by a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ive seen you GOON arguing in circles about people who have challenged you on this issue that makes up a large portion of these 11 pages.

You press because people aren't buying it, I am not buying it. And this will continue because people are becoming fed up with your antics.

[magicninja]

I see where GOONS is coming from on the principle. If those same nations had run to GATO we would've told them flat out that they needed to get peace from GOONS before we could accept them. If they still wanted to apply we would have went to GOONS and asked if they could peace them out since they applied. If GOONS said they need to post a story and pictures we would have let them know and told them to let us know when it was cleared up. Then when they came back and told us it was cleared up we would've confirmed it with GOONS just to be safe. THEN if everything was cool their apps would be processed. I think that is the standard protocol in this situation from most alliances.

Where it went wrong in CoJ's was when Schatt wrote the story for the guys at war. He should've let the guys do it on their own and it seems there wouldn't have been a problem.

That's what I got out of it though. I could be wrong.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1279932675' post='2386771']
I see where GOONS is coming from on the principle. If those same nations had run to GATO we would've told them flat out that they needed to get peace from GOONS before we could accept them. If they still wanted to apply we would have went to GOONS and asked if they could peace them out since they applied. If GOONS said they need to post a story and pictures we would have let them know and told them to let us know when it was cleared up. Then when they came back and told us it was cleared up we would've confirmed it with GOONS just to be safe. THEN if everything was cool their apps would be processed. I think that is the standard protocol in this situation from most alliances.

Where it went wrong in CoJ's was when Schatt wrote the story for the guys at war. He should've let the guys do it on their own and it seems there wouldn't have been a problem.

That's what I got out of it though. I could be wrong.
[/quote]

No you're pretty much dead on, except Schatt also had nemesis threaten us over it.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Biazt' date='23 July 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1279907879' post='2386141']
Greed. Greed and tears. Those are the reasons.

You can keep trying to push the mistakenly completed tech deal as [u][b]A CLEAR ACT OF WAR[/b][/u] but that's quite the stretch.

Not to mention we offered 50t to compensate you.
[/quote]

sweet. from here on out, i hope everyone "mistakenly" aids nations at war with GOONS. time to go look at the war screen to see if i can find some nations willing to tech deal...

[magicninja]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1279933248' post='2386779']
No you're pretty much dead on, except Schatt also had nemesis threaten us over it.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was just pointing out in the usual chain where things went wrong in this case. Everything after that is just an effect of that piece going awry. Not everyone has to do it like GATO would but it works for us.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1279934121' post='2386802']
Yeah, I was just pointing out in the usual chain where things went wrong in this case. Everything after that is just an effect of that piece going awry. Not everyone has to do it like GATO would but it works for us.
[/quote]
GATO is a very wise alliance in this respect, I wish more people were so reasonable.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1279934121' post='2386802']
Yeah, I was just pointing out in the usual chain where things went wrong in this case. Everything after that is just an effect of that piece going awry. Not everyone has to do it like GATO would but it works for us.
[/quote]
Not everyone has a month to get something done.

[kulomascovia]

Well I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept nations being raided with certain conditions. Celestial Being accepts raided nations as Temporary Members and protects them against any wars after they have joined our AA. We usually request the raiding nation/alliance to stop raiding. Mostly they stop raiding. If they don't, we just let the war expire.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1279935237' post='2386826']
Not everyone has a month to get something done.
[/quote]

Where have you been the last year? GATO could scratch this out in 2 maybe 3 weeks today. It would mostly be up to the guy attacked if the warring party didn't want to listen. So timing is on them. That's GATO for you though. All diplomaticy and !@#$.

[abdur]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1279941253' post='2386936']
Where have you been the last year? GATO could scratch this out in 2 maybe 3 weeks today. It would mostly be up to the guy attacked if the warring party didn't want to listen. So timing is on them. That's GATO for you though. All diplomaticy and !@#$.
[/quote]
In about 2-3 weeks, war will already have expired (I still GATO)

tbh, what I see here is a mountain being made out of a molehill.
If the two parties agree to compromise on a solution, this would be over swiftly.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1279917243' post='2386485']
The argument could be made on our side that NV escalated the conflict to a full scale war, we could easily justify this escalation as aggression, if proper diplomatic steps were not taken by NV beforehand.
[/quote]
If escalation is aggression, then FOK aggressively attacked the Polars a few months ago.

(Hint: It's not.)

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1279919618' post='2386556']
Okay, sure. But once USSR attacked nations uninvolved in the tech raid, it was no longer confined to a tech raid.
[/quote]
Why is this?

You define a "tech raid" as a beatdown on a less-well-connected nation or nations that do not fight back.

If they retaliate against the alliance that attacked them, suddenly it's no longer a raid?

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1279925782' post='2386658']
Also, considering one of our members just said "Being allowed to raid targets of our choosing does not free us from consequences of raiding."
[/quote]
You guys say that a lot, but sometimes don't manage to walk the talk.

This is one of those cases.

The root of this whole affair is GOONS nerdrage over an alliance that actually fought back when you launched a raid against it, instead of doing the usual thing and rolling over and letting their nations delete.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1279928459' post='2386704']
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]
Most alliances let them go, ninja. POW camps are a pain to run.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1279942843' post='2387019']
Most alliances let them go, ninja. POW camps are a pain to run.
[/quote]

Not even about POW status, really just making sure they check out on the way out the door.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1279933248' post='2386779']
No you're pretty much dead on, except Schatt also had nemesis threaten us over it.
[/quote]
Might makes right

[Hiro Nakara]

I thought it was a standard practise for all nations to peace out before being accepted into alliances. Well every alliance I have been in has been that way. I have seen the likes of Nemesis trying to negotiate peace on there behalf. But to threaten someone is pretty poor show, especially when you know they won't come through with it. Not that I'm saying Nemesis are cowards, I'm just saying they are not stupid.

Also Daggarz quit acting a tough guy!!!!! We know you are a cuddly singing ozzie.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1279943997' post='2387048']
Might makes right
[/quote]
Go ahead and tell yourself that when might comes rolling along your way.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1279949575' post='2387152']
Go ahead and tell yourself that when might comes rolling along your way.
[/quote]
I think you missed his point.


Happily, GOONS and CoJ have reached resolution to our particular issue. Now you can get back tot he subject at hand: The merits of accepting nations at war.

[eyriq]

1. What is the nature of the aggressive war being waged by alliance A?
2. What does alliance C have to gain by accepting member X?
3. What does alliance D have to gain by declaring war on alliance A?

In the case of GOONS tech raiding the micro-alliance, the nature of the war is for the procurement of wealth.

In the case of the CoJ, they gain additional membership while also taking a stance against this particular type of aggressive war.

In the case of Nemesis they gain prestige by taking a stand against this type of aggressive war.

So honestly I'd say I feel all 4 parties are justified. GOONS can raid; aggressive war in general and raiding in specific are very dependent on having the might to back up the action. Might is relative, which justifies the micro in fighting back, CoJ in accepting member X, and Nemesis for taking a stand against raiding.

Edited, grammar

Edited July 24, 2010 by eyriq

[nippy]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1279942843' post='2387019']
You define a "tech raid" as a beatdown on a less-well-connected nation or nations that do not fight back.

If they retaliate against the alliance that attacked them, suddenly it's no longer a raid?
[/quote]

Retaliations are also techraids? How did you come up with that one? Are all wars that result from a techraid still a techraid, no matter who declares on who? [i]Are you trying to say that the Second Unjust War was just one big worldwide techraid????[/i]

[eyriq]

Parameters set clearly define the nature of an aggressive war. If those parameters change so does the aggressive war. As a tech raid is clearly aggressive war for the procurement of wealth (i.e. tech and land) the parameters of the war are that the war is profitable (if in the procurement of a good you lose more of a good than you gain the nature of the action ceases to be defined as procurement). You set parameters based on behavioral predictions, [b]and the entire validity of your action depends on those predictions being accurate[/b]. In the specific case of the validity of a tech raid, for the parameters of profiting to be met your predictions that the raided party will accept peace without retaliating must be realized. When you inaccurately predict the behavior of your target your action is proven invalid. You must then decide to redefine the parameters of the aggressive action you undertook and admit the defeat of your initial stratagem. In this particular case it seems that GOONS chose to redefine the parameters of their aggressive action as the defeat of a micro-alliance. The other option was to admit that the tech raid failed and move on to another tech raid and hope that you predict the behaviors of that target more accurately.

[nippy]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1279962775' post='2387310']
Parameters set clearly define the nature of an aggressive war. If those parameters change so does the aggressive war. As a tech raid is clearly aggressive war for the procurement of wealth (i.e. tech and land) the parameters of the war are that the war is profitable (if in the procurement of a good you lose more of a good than you gain the nature of the action ceases to be defined as procurement). You set parameters based on behavioral predictions, [b]and the entire validity of your action depends on those predictions being accurate[/b]. In the specific case of the validity of a tech raid, for the parameters of profiting to be met your predictions that the raided party will accept peace without retaliating must be realized. When you inaccurately predict the behavior of your target your action is proven invalid. You must then decide to redefine the parameters of the aggressive action you undertook and admit the defeat of your initial stratagem. In this particular case it seems that GOONS chose to redefine the parameters of their aggressive action as the defeat of a micro-alliance. The other option was to admit that the tech raid failed and move on to another tech raid and hope that you predict the behaviors of that target more accurately.
[/quote]

This certainly fails to address the post directly above it. The techraids that took place were neither 'failed' nor were the raiders 'defeated' in any way. Retaliatory attacks do not fit into the 'tech raid' portion of the storyline, otherwise there would be no need to call them retaliatory attacks. Regardless of all of that, the main issue was clearly that a nation switched AA's in the middle of a war. As Schatt said, this has been resolved. The only thing left to do is to argue about semantics and perspective as a means to cure boredom.

[eyriq]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1279965513' post='2387324']
This certainly fails to address the post directly above it. The techraids that took place were neither 'failed' nor were the raiders 'defeated' in any way. Retaliatory attacks do not fit into the 'tech raid' portion of the storyline, otherwise there would be no need to call them retaliatory attacks. Regardless of all of that, the main issue was clearly that a nation switched AA's in the middle of a war. As Schatt said, this has been resolved. The only thing left to do is to argue about semantics and perspective as a means to cure boredom.
[/quote]

When the alliance you decided to raid fought back the techraid was over, the techraid ceased being profitable. So the retaliatory attacks were not part of a techraid but instead part of an alliance war of your choosing but that you mislabeled as a techraid when you initially failed to predict your targets behavior correctly. So your techraid failed. It was then your choice to proceed with a curb-stomp, much different in nature than the tech raid you initially planned. All this was stated in my previous post.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1279961319' post='2387304']
Retaliations are also techraids? How did you come up with that one? Are all wars that result from a techraid still a techraid, no matter who declares on who? [i]Are you trying to say that the Second Unjust War was just one big worldwide techraid????[/i]
[/quote]
Actually, all wars are wars. This is my stance. I don't think tech raids are not wars. That's your stance.

[nippy]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1279966551' post='2387332']
When the alliance you decided to raid fought back the techraid was over, the techraid ceased being profitable. So the retaliatory attacks were not part of a techraid but instead part of an alliance war of your choosing but that you mislabeled as a techraid when you initially failed to predict your targets behavior correctly. So your techraid failed. It was then your choice to proceed with a curb-stomp, much different in nature than the tech raid you initially planned. All this was stated in my previous post.
[/quote]
The techraid went off without a hitch. The nations that were raided were sufficiently sapped of tech, money, and land. Regardless of AA, a retaliatory attack is a retaliatory attack and that doesn't affect the success of the techraid (nor the lack thereof). We've had several rogues declare on our nations recently because they consider themselves to be fighting against the mean ol' bullies in GOONS. Being declared on by rogues over our techraid policies does not equate to all our techraids being failures, therefore having a nation or two retaliate for techraids done on nations they share an AA with [i]also[/i] does not equate to a failed techraid. This doesn't even take into account the general lack of fighting ability most low-level rogues have. Our techraiders have a better grasp of the warring system, and they often make a profit from [i]being declared on[/i].

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1279974825' post='2387373']
Actually, all wars are wars. This is my stance. I don't think tech raids are not wars. That's your stance.
[/quote]
Glad to see you're aware of our stance. I assume that since I've explained it to you and you seem to grasp it now, there are no further questions?

[eyriq]

If you are able to still profit when the alliance you hit hits back then good on you, you'd still have a techraid. It does however sound like you break up their varying responses to your initial techraid to allow for the blame to shift to the target if your initial prediction of their behavior fails and your aggressive action ceases to be profitable. This is incongruous with an honest attempt to justify techraiding, and puts your other assessments of the techraids success into doubt. Let me just illustrate what I mean.

1. Aggressive war is defined, including behavioral predictions for both the aggressor and the target
2. Aggressive war within these predicted parameters is labeled "techraiding"
3. A target for a successful raid is chosen
4. The target does not behave in a way that fits the definition of a tech-raid
5. The techraid fails. The new behaviors constitute something else entirely
6. A new analysis is taken to retroactively define the aggressive war more accurately

So, your reference to the targets behavior as being "rogue" would be ironically correct, rogue in the sense that they didn't behave as you predicted and have caused a failure in your initial stratagem. However, to assume their behavior to be rogue in the abstract would be horribly incorrect and dishonest, hence the need for a retroactive reevaluation, starting back at step one.