Protection

[Iserlohn]

No, it's a fair assumption of CN process. When MASH merged into Legion, did that mean their treaty with GGA or CIA carried over to Legion? No.

Was the protection of the MASH AA implied or explicitly stated? It was [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88128&view=findpost&p=2353027]explicitly[/url] stated. When FPA merged into GOONS, we also explicitly stated the protection and its length of time in the thread.

Contrary to a "double standard" as some people put it, GOONS strives for a single standard that can be applied to all of CN, regardless of power or position. People may call us amoral, but you can't really call us inequitable.


edit: thanks to Ardus for the diction catch

Edited July 25, 2010 by Iserlohn

[Emporor]

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1280082618' post='2388485']
As long as you posted it on the forums, then you're fine. It's not like I'm saying add it ONLY to the wiki, but the more places you add it is better.

Also, nice smuggo smack talk.
[/quote]


Oh, yes because it's not like MA doesn't have the treaty posted here on the forums... heh.

And there is more where that came from, maybe you should come take care of that?? Oh, that's right... you guys only attack those weaker than you, or those you think you can push around. I'd call that a cowardly act.. wouldn't you?

[Ardus]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280084303' post='2388522']
Contrary to a "double standard" as some people put it, GOONS strives for a single standard that can be applied to all of CN, regardless of power or position. People may call us amoral, but you can't really call us [b]unethical[/b].
[/quote]
I believe the word you're looking for is "inequitable".

[Van Hoo III]

Your defense was that the merge was not "publicly announced". Using that logic, the cancellation of the MA/SoL MADP was never "publicly announced" either and could have still been in effect despite SoL being a three man AA.

It is usually wise to, you know, ask before raiding. A simple "Hey, is this AA protected?" goes a long way. It is much better than refusing to peace out when asked politely to cease attacks citing BS reasons to continue the raid.

Lastly, the decision to protect the remnants of a merged alliance is up to the alliance that was merged into ... as well as the length of time said protection lasts. Just because no public announcement was made detailing this, that does not mean that you can safely assume that there is no protection. Again, asking and confirming before attacking is always the smart thing to do.

I like GOONS and all, but I would have just rolled you the second you initially refused.

[Uralica]

Me agree with Hoo?

Wait a minute, that's actually not that far fetched.

Y'know I love ya, nip, but I have to disagree with you here.

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1280085402' post='2388540']
I believe the word you're looking for is "inequitable".
[/quote]
Whoops, you're right. My mistake. Editing now.

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1280085422' post='2388543']
Your defense was that the merge was not "publicly announced". Using that logic, the cancellation of the MA/SoL MADP was never "publicly announced" either and could have still been in effect despite SoL being a three man AA.

It is usually wise to, you know, ask before raiding. A simple "Hey, is this AA protected?" goes a long way. It is much better than refusing to peace out when asked politely to cease attacks citing BS reasons to continue the raid.

Lastly, the decision to protect the remnants of a merged alliance is up to the alliance that was merged into ... as well as the length of time said protection lasts. Just because no public announcement was made detailing this, that does not mean that you can safely assume that there is no protection. Again, asking and confirming before attacking is always the smart thing to do.

I like GOONS and all, but I would have just rolled you the second you initially refused.
[/quote]

We count the wiki as "public", which is why it was a surprise that CptGodzilla posted this thread. Simply quietly editing something into the wiki would have been fine. Oh well.

Also, our members do in fact already follow an [b]extremely[/b] high degree of due diligence. For the raided AA they are required to check the wiki, OWF, [u]and[/u] IRC. Likewise for any listed active protectors in the raided AA's wiki or OWF info. We do not require them to ask on IRC whether a private unannounced merge implies de facto protection.

The question here is [u]not[/u] about due diligence, as you implied, but rather whether the inactive remnants of a merge implicitly retain any of their treaties. I personally don't believe so, but I can ask our gov whether there is room for compromise in that stance.

Still, it should be noted that GOONS will honor private protectorates if this fact is politely communicated to them, but we do not believe in retroactive protection. This means that in this case and similar cases, our compromise position is to let current wars expire, declare no new ones, and put them on our permanent raid immunity list, which is exactly what was offered, along with the [i]suggestion[/i] that the OWF or wiki contain a notice of this. I praise Beefspari for her perfect handling of the situation.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Iserlohn

[Schad]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280086967' post='2388562']
Still, it should be noted that GOONS will honor private protectorates if this fact is politely communicated to them, but we do not believe in retroactive protection. This means that in this case and similar cases, our compromise position is to let current wars expire, declare no new ones, and put them on our permanent raid immunity list, which is exactly what was offered, along with the [i]suggestion[/i] that the OWF or wiki contain a notice of this. I praise Beefspari for her perfect handling of the situation.
[/quote]

Given Sardonic's statement earlier that the raiders have been ordered to peace out (which was well-handled), is it a safe assumption that you've compromised on your compromise position in this instance?

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280086967' post='2388562']The question here is [u]not[/u] about due diligence, as you implied, but rather whether the inactive remnants of a merge implicitly retain any of their treaties. I personally don't believe so, but I can ask our gov whether there is room for compromise in that stance.[/quote]

Except that it is not up to you ... or GOONS. That is between the merged alliance and the alliance that they merged into. This isn't something you can e-lawyer.

[quote]... our compromise position is to let current wars expire and declare no new ones, which is exactly what was offered.[/quote]

Well now, how big of you.

No, there is no reason for a "compromise". You were politely approached and advised that you were attacking a protected AA. The response should have been an offer to peace out and not "Oh, ok ... we're going to finish our wars though." That is absolutely ridiculous.

Again, Zilla was far nicer than I would have been. The moment you refused to peace out, you would have had RoK nations in your defensive war slots.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280086967' post='2388562']
We count the wiki as "public", which is why it was a surprise that CptGodzilla posted this thread. Simply quietly editing something into the wiki would have been fine. Oh well.

Also, our members do in fact already follow an [b]extremely[/b] high degree of due diligence. For the raided AA they are required to check the wiki, OWF, [u]and[/u] IRC. Likewise for any listed active protectors in the raided AA's wiki or OWF info. We do not require them to ask on IRC whether a private unannounced merge implies de facto protection.

The question here is [u]not[/u] about due diligence, as you implied, but rather whether the inactive remnants of a merge implicitly retain any of their treaties. I personally don't believe so, but I can ask our gov whether there is room for compromise in that stance.

Still, it should be noted that GOONS will honor private protectorates if this fact is politely communicated to them, but we do not believe in retroactive protection. This means that in this case and similar cases, our compromise position is to let current wars expire, declare no new ones, and put them on our permanent raid immunity list, which is exactly what was offered, along with the [i]suggestion[/i] that the OWF or wiki contain a notice of this. I praise Beefspari for her perfect handling of the situation.
[/quote]
If you see an alliance has merged into another one and there are people still on the old AA, how is it due diligence to raid them without asking the alliance they merged into whether it is ok or not?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280086967' post='2388562']
Also, our members do in fact already follow an [b]extremely[/b] high degree of due diligence. For the raided AA they are required to check the wiki, OWF, [u]and[/u] IRC. Likewise for any listed active protectors in the raided AA's wiki or OWF info.
[/quote]

This is extremely puzzling statement, given the amount of time GOONS .gov spends apologizing in threads like this one. Either your raiders aren't following through as they should because they aren't aware of the rules (doing do diligence), or you have a percentage of them that know the rules, but are simply ignoring them.

[quote]We do not require them to ask on IRC whether a private unannounced merge implies de facto protection.[/quote]

Getting to that point it appears, unfortunately....

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1280087382' post='2388569']
Again, Zilla was far nicer than I would have been. The moment you refused to peace out, you would have had RoK nations in your defensive war slots.
[/quote]

Because starting huge wars is cool, right?

Also, read Sardonic's post. The moment they got this intel, the nations were asked to peace out, so I'm not seeing where you've seen that the raiders are continuing their raids.

[Emporor]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280086967' post='2388562']
We count the wiki as "public", which is why it was a surprise that CptGodzilla posted this thread. Simply quietly editing something into the wiki would have been fine. Oh well.

Also, our members do in fact already follow an [b]extremely[/b] high degree of due diligence. For the raided AA they are required to check the wiki, OWF, [u]and[/u] IRC. Likewise for any listed active protectors in the raided AA's wiki or OWF info. We do not require them to ask on IRC whether a private unannounced merge implies de facto protection.

The question here is [u]not[/u] about due diligence, as you implied, but rather whether the inactive remnants of a merge implicitly retain any of their treaties. I personally don't believe so, but I can ask our gov whether there is room for compromise in that stance.

Still, it should be noted that GOONS will honor private protectorates if this fact is politely communicated to them, but we do not believe in retroactive protection. This means that in this case and similar cases, our compromise position is to let current wars expire, declare no new ones, and put them on our permanent raid immunity list, which is exactly what was offered, along with the [i]suggestion[/i] that the OWF or wiki contain a notice of this. I praise Beefspari for her perfect handling of the situation.
[/quote]


Oh, so I see what you guys do now... You basically set your own policies which can be contradicted if you guys choose to do so, and everyone else in CN has to deal with it, like it or not... I am surprised that you guys still exist. Pathetic if you ask me.


I agree with Hoo on this one, Cpt was WAY to nice.

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1280087379' post='2388568']
Given Sardonic's statement earlier that the raiders have been ordered to peace out (which was well-handled), is it a safe assumption that you've compromised on your compromise position in this instance?
[/quote]
Whoops, sorry, I should have said "initial" compromise and "initial" raid policy. Yes, Sardonic deemed it wise to alter our raid policy and offer peace immediately. I believe future cases will actually be handled the way Sardonic handled it, so don't worry I was focusing more on the "due diligence" part of my post.

[quote]If you see an alliance has merged into another one and there are people still on the old AA, how is it due diligence to raid them without asking the alliance they merged into whether it is ok or not?[/quote]
Well, the most realistic answer is that this is a very rare circumstance. It's not often that an AA that was active enough to post treaties merges without the slightest peep. Additionally, precedent for the last few merges seemed to support the notion that protection needs to be explicit for the remnants.

In any case, my point was generally to state that this was handled properly and equitably, both in the initial response and in Sardonic's wise compromise to settle the situation, but this rare occurrence did serve to highlight a blind spot in our raid policy which will likely be remedied.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Iserlohn

[Emporor]

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1280087986' post='2388579']
Because starting huge wars is cool, right?
[/quote]

Lol, you guys would be the one to start it for acting with extreme stupidity.

[nippy]

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1280085237' post='2388537']
Oh, yes because it's not like MA doesn't have the treaty posted here on the forums... heh.

And there is more where that came from, maybe you should come take care of that?? Oh, that's right... you guys only attack those weaker than you, or those you think you can push around. I'd call that a cowardly act.. wouldn't you?
[/quote]
We're about 10 times bigger than you are and we don't push you around due to your treaties. You're an AA with ties, which makes you quite safe from techraids.

[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1280085733' post='2388546']
Y'know I love ya, nip, but I have to disagree with you here.
[/quote]
That's fine, my brother. I have no qualms with disagreement...I have qualms with lack of respect for other's perspectives. People need not be insulting to demonstrate disagreement, yet that occurs more often than not here.


[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1280087379' post='2388568']
Given Sardonic's statement earlier that the raiders have been ordered to peace out (which was well-handled), is it a safe assumption that you've compromised on your compromise position in this instance?
[/quote]
Yes, it's not unheard of that we'll peace out before the wars expire, based upon how the request to peace out is conducted.


[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1280087382' post='2388569']
Except that it is not up to you ... or GOONS. That is between the merged alliance and the alliance that they merged into. This isn't something you can e-lawyer.
[/quote]
Actually, it's up to the nation being merged into to post how long the AA is being protected for. Take, for instance, Celestial Being. They accept nations onto their applicant AA for indefinite periods of time, simply to protect nations from techraids. Although this practice irritates us, we also respect it and do not engage nations on their applicant AA.


[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1280087492' post='2388571']
If you see an alliance has merged into another one and there are people still on the old AA, how is it due diligence to raid them without asking the alliance they merged into whether it is ok or not?
[/quote]
When an alliance merges into another, a period of protection over the merging AA is posted. If this important step is neglected, all the world's raiders take notice. This isn't a GOONS-only occurrence.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1280087862' post='2388578']
This is extremely puzzling statement, given the amount of time GOONS .gov spends apologizing in threads like this one.
[/quote]
I don't recall apologizing. Do you have a source, perhaps?

[Iserlohn]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1280087862' post='2388578']
This is extremely puzzling statement, given the amount of time GOONS .gov spends apologizing in threads like this one. Either your raiders aren't following through as they should because they aren't aware of the rules (doing do diligence), or you have a percentage of them that know the rules, but are simply ignoring them.
[/quote]
If you notice, many of the threads are not stemming from issues in our members' due diligence. USSR was an instance in which Schattenmann decided to try and cheat us and threaten us. Putting aside whether you like raiding or not, the raid on USSR was not against our rules. This thread was due to an unusual situation not covered by the policy.

When it is brought to our attention that our members violated due diligence, we suspend them from raiding and often send them to the mercy board themselves.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1280087862' post='2388578']
Getting to that point it appears, unfortunately....
[/quote]
Yes, that was the point. As mentioned in my previous post, this is a pretty unusual occurrence that highlighted a blind spot which will be remedied. Thank you, CptGodzilla.

[Shakira]

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1280087986' post='2388579']
Because starting huge wars is cool, right?


[/quote]
It makes things pretty fun.

[nippy]

[quote name='Shakira' timestamp='1280088776' post='2388601']
It makes things pretty fun.
[/quote]

Oh, you card.

Your avatar is naughty and I want to spank it.

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1280088431' post='2388593']
Lol, you guys would be the one to start it for acting with extreme stupidity.
[/quote]

Is that why when people screw up, the wrath of Bob, so to speak, comes down upon them from our .gov?

Chill out on the

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1280087986' post='2388579']
Because starting huge wars is cool, right?

Also, read Sardonic's post. The moment they got this intel, the nations were asked to peace out, so I'm not seeing where you've seen that the raiders are continuing their raids.
[/quote]


No, it isn't cool. Perhaps you should consider such consequences next time?

And no, you did not command anyone to send peace "the moment you got the intel". Had you done so, there would not have been an issue. Instead, you tried to tell MA that you were going to finish your raids regardless of their protection and place these nations on a "do not raid list" for the future. A response that I deem completely unacceptable.

You did not decide to send peace until after this went public and your decision to do so was news to both myself and MA.

[D34th]

You are in the right track GOONS, keep pushing the line.

[Emporor]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1280088734' post='2388598']
We're about 10 times bigger than you are and we don't push you around due to your treaties. You're an AA with ties, which makes you quite safe from techraids.
[/quote]

Which backs up my point that you guys only pick on those you think you can push around... Quite farankly, You don't have to worry about our treaties.. as it would cost you enough just by attacking us alone, without our allies.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1280089074' post='2388607']
Is that why when people screw up, the wrath of Bob, so to speak, comes down upon them from our .gov?

Chill out on the
[/quote]

So wait, you guys don't like getting called out for your stupid mistakes but, yet you like to call others out?? So not only do you act with stupidity, and act cowardly, but you also are hypocritical? Wow... way to go dude. Just keep talking.. you guys are looking so cool right now.

[nippy]

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1280089453' post='2388616']
Which backs up my point that you guys only pick on those you think you can push around... Quite farankly, You don't have to worry about our treaties.. as it would cost you enough just by attacking us alone, without our allies.
[/quote]
Hahahaha....ah, man. You're hilarious.

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1280089453' post='2388616']
So wait, you guys don't like getting called out for your stupid mistakes but, yet you like to call others out?? So not only do you act with stupidity, and act cowardly, but you also are hypocritical? Wow... way to go dude. Just keep talking.. you guys are looking so cool right now.
[/quote]
Buzz words! Let's see....stupid, stupidity, cowardly, hypocritical...what else can you pull out of nowhere? You're quite a magnificent insult factory. It's just too bad that your verbal flailing cancels out your arguments so neatly. Learn to argue like an adult and you'll be treated like one.

Edited July 25, 2010 by nippy

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1280089453' post='2388616']
Just keep talking.. you guys are looking so cool right now.
[/quote]

I could say the same thing to you, kind sir.

Also, this is a link to our raiding policies (for those who are confused/wrong/what have you):

http://cngoons.com/Board/index.php?topic=4609.msg45782#new