Should alliances allow spying on their own members?

[bzelger]

Thank you for your concern.

We asked the Mushroom Kingdom to lend us a hand in part because we were uncertain whether it was permissible to spy someone in our own alliance. More importantly, The Rebel had a lot of spies for his nation strength and we didn't have anyone handy who was in range who could compete with his defenses. Fortunately MK did have someone qualified available. I don't see how asking for help with limits our sovereignty.

I can assure you, and I bet many would happily corroborate this, that love for GOONS or desire to get closer to them is not a strong motivating factor in the STA.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1285202389' post='2461565']
Now that that's out of the way I have some questions:

[list=1][*]Why, when presented with the accusation, was your first course of action to request help outside your alliance?[*]Is this a common practice in the STA and do you seek outside assistance in other areas of alliance business?[*]Since you felt you needed outside assistance for this problem; do you still consider the STA to be a sovereign alliance?[*]When are STA members trusted, or at least given the benefit of the doubt, above the wants of other alliances?[*]Considering that these actions resulted in the expulsion of the member in question, why weren't they questioned first?[/list]Speaking to question 5; if they admitted to wrong-doing they could be punished, then if they refused punishment or didn't answer the questions they could have still been expelled for insubordination. I'm not understanding why the extra risk was taken because if the accusations proved false, but the spy op discovered STA would have still lost a member, but if the member admitted to the problem and accepted punishment a high-value nation could have been kept in the alliance while at the same time averting a problem with GOONS.

But wait there's more.

As I was writing this another thought occurred to me which leads to yet another question. You are the STA's Minister of Foreign Affairs and as such are responsible for the STA's relationship with other alliances, correct? (that's not the ? this is -->) Due to your position do you think that you were the best person to make a decision like this? GOONS have made some very significant strides over the past months, and if they kept their current growth up would make a very good treaty partner. If plans were in place for a future STA-GOONS treaty I could see why you would be so quick to acquiesce to GOONS.
[/quote]
I'm not STA but I can answer these for you.

To answer your first three questions, spying inter-alliance is prohibited by the laws that govern us on this planet called Bob. Besides which there were spy ratios that were causing issues even if they wanted to. They asked a neutral party who wouldn't misuse the information to do the spying for them. This has nothing to do with infringing upon rights or anything of the sort, it has to do with maintaining law and order. A neutral party is a good way to go about it. That way nobody can said the proof was fabricated one way or the other.

For question four, I'm sure STA trusts its members enough to avoid worrying about baseless accusations. It's only when a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence is produced that it becomes worth looking into. There's a large difference between "trusting your member's word over some random alliance" and "looking at evidence the random alliance produced that proves that even if your member isn't doing what they said, he's doing SOMETHING he shouldn't be doing."

Question five, the member betrayed the trust of the alliance by not consulting them first. Even if he didn't aid Methrage it was clear he was secret aiding SOMEONE. STA chose to act on that fact, which I believe was the right way to go. If a member of my alliance was sending secret aid we'd check it out immediately, regardless of what that member believes his rights are concerning the issue. He's a member of our alliance and sending secret aid is not part of what our members should be doing.

As for the last one, I like to think we've gotten to know STA a bit better, but there are still some significant differences between our alliances that would probably prevent a treaty. I'm starting to like STA, but we'll likely never be that close.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1285202389' post='2461565']
Now that that's out of the way I have some questions:

[list=1][*]Why, when presented with the accusation, was your first course of action to request help outside your alliance?[/quote][/list]It wasn't. Our first course of action was to request evidence to support the allegation being made against our member. This has been stated a number of times in this discussion.

[quote]

[list=1][*]Is this a common practice in the STA and do you seek outside assistance in other areas of alliance business?[/list][/quote]

If we cannot do something that needs to be done we do request assistance from allies if they are able. Yes. Is it a common occurance? No.

[quote]

[list=1][*]Since you felt you needed outside assistance for this problem; do you still consider the STA to be a sovereign alliance?[/list][/quote]

Yes. Do you consider yourself less of an individual if you require someone to assist you in a matter where you are unable to carry out a task for whatever reason? You argument is nonsense.

[quote]

[list=1][*]When are STA members trusted, or at least given the benefit of the doubt, above the wants of other alliances?[/list][/quote]

Our members have the full trust of the alliance. When accusations are levelled at our members we request evidene to support the allegation. If none is forthcoming then no action is taken by the STA. If sufficient evidence is tables to warrant further action we believe it is our duty as a citizen alliance of the Cyberverse to assist in any such investigation.

[quote]

[list=1][*]Considering that these actions resulted in the expulsion of the member in question, why weren't they questioned first?[/list][/quote]

Because there was sufficient evidence to allow a spy operation on our member to determine for certain whether the allegation were true.


[quote]
Speaking to question 5; if they admitted to wrong-doing they could be punished, then if they refused punishment or didn't answer the questions they could have still been expelled for insubordination. I'm not understanding why the extra risk was taken because if the accusations proved false, but the spy op discovered STA would have still lost a member, but if the member admitted to the problem and accepted punishment a high-value nation could have been kept in the alliance while at the same time averting a problem with GOONS.
[/quote]

Which is where the evidence preceding the spy op comes into account. That evidence, which you continually ignore, showed the STA that it was highly likely he did send the aid. And he did.

[quote]
But wait there's more.

As I was writing this another thought occurred to me which leads to yet another question. You are the STA's Minister of Foreign Affairs and as such are responsible for the STA's relationship with other alliances, correct? (that's not the ? this is -->) Due to your position do you think that you were the best person to make a decision like this? GOONS have made some very significant strides over the past months, and if they kept their current growth up would make a very good treaty partner. If plans were in place for a future STA-GOONS treaty I could see why you would be so quick to acquiesce to GOONS.
[/quote]

Another example of your naivete and determination to make a conspiracy out of nothing. The STA, while wanting to maintain good relations with all alliances where possible, have no interest in a treaty with GOONS. The facts of the matter are, GOONS had a legitimate grievance and sufficient evidence against our member nation for the STA to allow a mutual, trusted ally to conduct a minor spy operation on the nation in question to get to the bottom of the issue. If you want to dream up conspiracy theories or ignore large chunks of what occurred to have a dig at the STA then knock yourself out.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Tygaland

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1285228489' post='2461990']
It wasn't. Our first course of action was to request evidence to support the allegation being made against our member. This has been stated a number of times in this discussion.[/quote]

My point here was that your first action wasn't to speak to a long-trusted member of your own alliance, but rather to go to the accuser for evidence.

[quote]Yes. Do you consider yourself less of an individual if you require someone to assist you in a matter where you are unable to carry out a task for whatever reason? You argument is nonsense.[/quote]

My argument would be nonsense IF the STA wasn't capable of investigating one of their own members. How hard would it have been to ask the member in question what happened? Then if he refuses to answer charge him with insubordination. If he says he had nothing to do with the issue you have the evidence that you say you requested. If it was as substantial as you claim you would have had ample cause to expel him. Still none of those steps involve spying on your own members by an outside party.

[quote]Our members have the full trust of the alliance. When accusations are levelled at our members we request evidene to support the allegation. If none is forthcoming then no action is taken by the STA. If sufficient evidence is tables to warrant further action we believe it is our duty as a citizen alliance of the Cyberverse to assist in any such investigation.[/quote]

Not really getting a trusty vibe from this situation or any of it's myriad explanations. Still that is just my opinion to this point.

[quote]Because there was sufficient evidence to allow a spy operation on our member to determine for certain whether the allegation were true.

Which is where the evidence preceding the spy op comes into account. That evidence, which you continually ignore, showed the STA that it was highly likely he did send the aid. And he did.[/quote]

I'm not ignoring the evidence I'm trying to get across that this situation could have very easily been handled without 3rd party spying. But, now that you've brought it up what was the evidence?

[quote]Another example of your naivete and determination to make a conspiracy out of nothing. The STA, while wanting to maintain good relations with all alliances where possible, have no interest in a treaty with GOONS. The facts of the matter are, GOONS had a legitimate grievance and sufficient evidence against our member nation for the STA to allow a mutual, trusted ally to conduct a minor spy operation on the nation in question to get to the bottom of the issue. If you want to dream up conspiracy theories or ignore large chunks of what occurred to have a dig at the STA then knock yourself out.
[/quote]

I admit my last theory was a bit of a stretch, and I extend my apologies. However I started this thread as a [u]general policy discussion[/u], and attempted to keep it that way. It was Pezstar who refused my request to leave the argument with an ex-STAer out of this. She specifically stated that this thread was to directly speak to the STA spy issue. Since she's the one that opened the door I complied with several questions that I had directly pertaining to the matter. Those questions have yet to be answered by her by the way, but I will patiently wait until they are.

[pezstar]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1285384906' post='2463876']

It was Pezstar who refused my request to leave the argument with an ex-STAer out of this. She specifically stated that this thread was to directly speak to the STA spy issue. Since she's the one that opened the door I complied with several questions that I had directly pertaining to the matter. Those questions have yet to be answered by her by the way, but I will patiently wait until they are.
[/quote]

I didn't respond to you because Tyga already has. Were you somehow under the impression that I didn't seek his permission and that he didn't support the course of action we took? Did you think I did it on my own?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1285384906' post='2463876']
My point here was that your first action wasn't to speak to a long-trusted member of your own alliance, but rather to go to the accuser for evidence.
[/quote]

No, the accusers came to us at which time we requested evidence.

[quote]
My argument would be nonsense IF the STA wasn't capable of investigating one of their own members.
[/quote]

The laws of the Cybervesre prevent us from running the spy operation on our own member. This has been mentioned numerous times yet, just as with the evidence we gathered, you ignore it and soldier on with your baseless accusations.

[quote]
How hard would it have been to ask the member in question what happened? Then if he refuses to answer charge him with insubordination. If he says he had nothing to do with the issue you have the evidence that you say you requested. If it was as substantial as you claim you would have had ample cause to expel him. Still none of those steps involve spying on your own members by an outside party.
[/quote]

So, you demand we ask our member before running a spy op to determine whether he sent the aid or not conclusively and in the same statement you are fine with us expelling a member based on the evidence presented prior to any spy operation. Methinbks you are spinning so hard now you have made yourself dizzy.

[quote]
Not really getting a trusty vibe from this situation or any of it's myriad explanations. Still that is just my opinion to this point.
[/quote]

That is probably because you keep ignoring the part where a member of our alliance betrayed our trust by sending secret aid to a nuclear rogue in full knowledge that getting caught could cause serious issues for the alliance as a whole. TheRebel had our trust up until the point where the evidence strongly suggested he had betreayed ours. The spy op was to determine once and for all that the aid was sent by him.

[quote]
I'm not ignoring the evidence I'm trying to get across that this situation could have very easily been handled without 3rd party spying. But, now that you've brought it up what was the evidence?
[/quote]

I've pointed it out myself a number of times in this thread. If you are too lazy to read then I'm not repeating it for you. For someone who commenced this discussion and has such an interest in it, I find it amazing that you have not bothered to read about the evidence presented prior to the spy op being okayed. You are right, you haven't ignored the evidence, you haven't even bothered reading it. Good grief.

[quote]
I admit my last theory was a bit of a stretch, and I extend my apologies. However I started this thread as a [u]general policy discussion[/u], and attempted to keep it that way. It was Pezstar who refused my request to leave the argument with an ex-STAer out of this. She specifically stated that this thread was to directly speak to the STA spy issue. Since she's the one that opened the door I complied with several questions that I had directly pertaining to the matter. Those questions have yet to be answered by her by the way, but I will patiently wait until they are.
[/quote]

Well, when you open a "discussion" with a very clear intent then you cannot complain when people want to address your tpoic using the example you based the entire topic on. I answered the questions you asked so I fail to see why Pez needs to re-answer them.

[OldSelf]

Now that probing slots is against admin;

(unless you are willing to risk the final death if wrong, or otherwise scheme such that the aid offered considered legitimate by the receiver should it go through- Which is a ruse that may contradict admin, and likely be inadmissible evidence for such)

What would constitute acceptable suggestion/evidence of secret aiding to approach an uncooperative party to permit a spy op on their member (excluding confession)? And how would you proceed if the request was denied (eg. towards a unverified CB, or declining relations).

Edited September 26, 2010 by The Iggy

[pezstar]

[quote name='The Iggy' timestamp='1285502054' post='2465093']
Now that probing slots is against admin;

(unless you are willing to risk the final death if wrong, or otherwise scheme such that the aid offered considered legitimate by the receiver should it go through- Which is a ruse that may contradict admin, and likely be inadmissible evidence for such)

What would constitute acceptable suggestion/evidence of secret aiding to approach an uncooperative party to permit a spy op on their member (excluding confession)? And how would you proceed if the request was denied (eg. towards a unverified CB, or declining relations).
[/quote]


Where is this stated? I've not been able to find it anywhere.

[OldSelf]

It's on the OWF main page announcements-
Or at least no longer permitted in the method previous used, where GOONS for example could provide verifiable evidence to STA leadership secret aid was used by sending mock aid.

Without which proof, the suspicion against rebel would have been based on a forum comment and visually an unused slot.

Not specifically a question to STA, though I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Edited September 26, 2010 by The Iggy

[pezstar]

Ahh.

I don't think you have to actually send the aid, but I could be wrong. If you go to a nation with full aid slots and try to send aid, you get an error before the aid is even sent. If you can send the aid, the slots aren't full. If they're full, you can't even get to the actual "send" area. The only actual problem would come in if someone was wrong and actually sent aid.

[Biazt]

[quote name='The Iggy' timestamp='1285515283' post='2465180']
It's on the OWF main page announcements-
Or at least no longer permitted in the method previous used, where GOONS for example could provide verifiable evidence to STA leadership secret aid was used by sending mock aid.

Without which proof, the suspicion against rebel would have been based on a forum comment and visually an unused slot.

Not specifically a question to STA, though I'd be interested in your thoughts.
[/quote]
It's unfortunate that admin has decided to ban the method after we were told it was permitted but there are other ways to find secret aid other than visual aid slots and forum comments.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285517129' post='2465197']
It's unfortunate that admin has decided to ban the method after we were told it was permitted but there are other ways to find secret aid other than visual aid slots and forum comments.
[/quote]

So now you are left with forum comments/ team colour changes and also asking the receiver of aid, to find suspects. Its good that they got rid of aid slot spamming as its annoying.

[potato]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285520025' post='2465226']
So now you are left with forum comments/ team colour changes and also asking the receiver of aid, to find suspects. Its good that they got rid of aid slot spamming as its annoying.
[/quote]

Follow your alliance's rule, don't try to aid (rogue) nations at war and guess what? You won't be "annoyed".

[the rebel]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1285520132' post='2465229']
Follow your alliance's rule, don't try to aid (rogue) nations at war and guess what? You won't be "annoyed".
[/quote]

Innocent or guilty, aid spamming is annoying, if you been reading the other topics you will know innocents have been aid slot spammed, the fact is when it happens now the said nations can counter the spam.

Dont be upset that one of the tactics have been removed from the arsenal.

[potato]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285520496' post='2465235']
Innocent or guilty, aid spamming is annoying, if you been reading the other topics you will know innocents have been aid slot spammed, the fact is when it happens now the said nations can counter the spam.

Dont be upset that one of the tactics have been removed from the arsenal.
[/quote]

My oh my! The infamy! Some people have had their slot filled for about a minute! What is the world coming to? We really are The Monster[sup]TM[/sup]!

Who says I'm upset?

[Aurion]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285520496' post='2465235']
Innocent or guilty, aid spamming is annoying, if you been reading the other topics you will know innocents have been aid slot spammed, the fact is when it happens now the said nations can counter the spam.

Dont be upset that one of the tactics have been removed from the arsenal.
[/quote]

I can't help but feel that you're misrepresenting the hell out of this, given that this message comes up:

[quote]That nation has too many active foreign aid agreements at this time. Please wait until these agreements expire before attempting to send aid.[/quote]

Instead of even having the option to send to a nation with full slots.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1285708719' post='2467182']
I can't help but feel that you're misrepresenting the hell out of this, given that this message comes up:



Instead of even having the option to send to a nation with full slots.
[/quote]

Not misrepresenting anything, the thing you're pointing out happens when they have one visible slot open, which indeed you would get that message if they had sent secret aid, but if they got 2-3+ slots open then aid spam would have to be used to find secret aid.... simples

[Aurion]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285736957' post='2467774']
Not misrepresenting anything, the thing you're pointing out happens when they have one visible slot open, which indeed you would get that message if they had sent secret aid, but if they got 2-3+ slots open then aid spam would have to be used to find secret aid.... simples
[/quote]

I still think you're greatly overstating and misrepresenting it (a couple two-sentence pms, no harebrained circle offers or anything?), but for some reason I feel as though a higher power has decreed that arguing it too far is...unwise.

[LeonidasRexII]

Hey Pez is this the official STA stance on MK's treaty dump?

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1286324727' post='2476558']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93121&view=findpost&p=2476558"]I think we'll all defend them until we see where they are going next.[/url] And I think the offer is only good for so long. They can't just sit in this treatyless state forever and expect all of us to come to their aid.
[/quote]

That brings up another question. Now that MK is not your treaty partner anymore (at least temporarily) who will you get to spy on your members for you?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1285520132' post='2465229']
Follow your alliance's rule, don't try to aid (rogue) nations at war and guess what? You won't be "annoyed".
[/quote]
Actually, aid slot spamming only annoys the innocent, as the guilty have full aid slots.

[pezstar]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1286331364' post='2476699']
Hey Pez is this the official STA stance on MK's treaty dump?



That brings up another question. Now that MK is not your treaty partner anymore (at least temporarily) who will you get to spy on your members for you?
[/quote]


The official stance is in our Press Conference thread.

We have plenty of other allies who would be willing to lend a hand, should the situation ever arise again. Given that it arose once in three years, we don't expect to have to worry about it for quite awhile.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1286331364' post='2476699']
That brings up another question. Now that MK is not your treaty partner anymore (at least temporarily) who will you get to spy on your members for you?
[/quote]

Yes, because what happened with TheRebel is such a common occurence in the STA that we now have to find someone else to do a spy op on our members who are reasonably suspected of aiding a nuke rogue. Why, its been once in almost 4 years, whatever will we do now?

Seriously, you are just being a moron now. Go away.

[Jacob Reiffenstein]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1286331364' post='2476699']
Hey Pez is this the official STA stance on MK's treaty dump?



That brings up another question. Now that MK is not your treaty partner anymore (at least temporarily) who will you get to spy on your members for you?
[/quote]


It's none of your business, bub, so get lost.

[Lord Roper]

When it becomes necessary to spy on one of your own, leadership is lacking. The leader should have a solid standing with the members of his own alliance. He should be confident enough in his own government to conduct an internal investigation, without spying on his own members. If it is necessary to use an ally to spy on your own, you are betraying the trust the members have in you ass leader. It could lead to irreperable damage.

[Udelar Johnson]

[quote name='Lord Roper' timestamp='1286403953' post='2477470']
When it becomes necessary to spy on one of your own, leadership is lacking. The leader should have a solid standing with the members of his own alliance. He should be confident enough in his own government to conduct an internal investigation, without spying on his own members. If it is necessary to use an ally to spy on your own, you are betraying the trust the members have in you ass leader. It could lead to irreperable damage.
[/quote]
Unless, of course, the member turns out to be guilty, and the suspicion turns out to be well founded, as it has been every time.