Should alliances allow spying on their own members?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1284523150' post='2454393']
I guess I'm OK with it. But I would agree that such matters would best be solved in a method that's as internal as possible.
[/quote]


[quote name='JackSkellington' timestamp='1284523852' post='2454414']
If I were leading Alliance B, I would probably try and use one of my own members to spy on said nation, unless I was unable for some reason or another. Then I would use a trusted ally if they had the ability.

As for whether trust would be lost or not...I'm not sure it would be. Considering I'd be using the means available to me that happens to be a trusted ally, I would hope my members would be fine with the decision and understand where I'm coming from. But again, I would probably need a reason to use an ally over one of my own members.
[/quote]


[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1284524511' post='2454430']
I wouldn't do it. In a case like Dopp or The Rebel, I'd want us to do the spy op ourselves.
[/quote]


[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1284551383' post='2454667']
The answer to this one is simple: it depends what the charter says. Most charters don't say anything about this either way so it's down to the judgement of the government. The premise of an alliance is that nations give up certain rights (typically the right to declare war on whoever they like, the right to speak freely in public, but also control over their spy ops, sometimes their aid slots and wonder programmes, etc) in exchange for protection. That means that alliance government can order a nation to take being spied on if it is reasonable to do so.

I'd normally want to do the operation 'in house', because no ally, however trusted, is as trusted as my own alliance with the information you get from an intel operation. [OOC: I would hope that the game staff would permit that as it wouldn't be spy slot filling, it would be a genuine operation to find out information.] In the case of a serious accusation like using an FAC to send secret aid to a nation at war, it seems reasonable to either get that information or permit another alliance so to do.
[/quote]

As much as you all would like things to revolve around yourselves and your "special" situations, this question is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17"]already answered in very clear terms[/url].
If you don't trust your member, get rid of him. If you do, defend him. Spying on your own members, or on your allies' members in war time, is more than underhanded it's a sin against Admin. You're not special.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Believland]

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1284524731' post='2454442']
EDIT: Read the question wrong - thought it was talking about an alliance spying on its own members.
[/quote]

This. I was hoping I wasn't the only one doing it.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1284604166' post='2455383']
As much as you all would like things to revolve around yourselves and your "special" situations, this question is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17"]already answered in very clear terms[/url].
If you don't trust your member, get rid of him. If you do, defend him. Spying on your own members, or on your allies' members in war time, is more than underhanded it's a sin against Admin. You're not special.
[/quote]

So would you consider allowing an ally to spy on your own members an attempt to circumvent Admin's rule of spy slot filling?

[lonewolfe2015]

You should spy the person who received the hidden aid, not running around wild pointing fingers at people who could have sent the foreign aid, no matter how plausible the aid package could be.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1284607553' post='2455460']
You should spy the person who received the hidden aid, not running around wild pointing fingers at people who could have sent the foreign aid, no matter how plausible the aid package could be.
[/quote]

BingBingBingBingBingBingBingBing! Give that man (or lady) a lollipop!

Best suggestion posted in either thread.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1284607553' post='2455460']
You should spy the person who received the hidden aid, not running around wild pointing fingers at people who could have sent the foreign aid, no matter how plausible the aid package could be.
[/quote]

While this is a viable suggestion, the problem is that it uses an opportunity for a spy operation which might be better used sending agents to attack the military command, logistical support base or other institutions of the nation at war (OOC: change DefCon, destroy money, etc.).

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1284614632' post='2455569']
While this is a viable suggestion, the problem is that it uses an opportunity for a spy operation which might be better used sending agents to attack the military command, logistical support base or other institutions of the nation at war (OOC: change DefCon, destroy money, etc.).
[/quote]

You're innocent until proven guilty, I don't believe spying my members is righteous proof and would tell any alliance requesting that those very same instructions. If the aid sent is so important to you and you would rather find out than just destroy it yourself, you'll gather intel on that nation. Not to mention it's impossible to prove aid was not sent from the rogue nation instead of to the rogue nation without gathering intel.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1284615355' post='2455581']
You're innocent until proven guilty, I don't believe spying my members is righteous proof and would tell any alliance requesting that those very same instructions. If the aid sent is so important to you and you would rather find out than just destroy it yourself, you'll gather intel on that nation. Not to mention it's impossible to prove aid was not sent from the rogue nation instead of to the rogue nation without gathering intel.
[/quote]
Two facts about secret aid:

1) Spying on the nation that received the aid does not reveal its source.
2) The aid screen of the sending nation does not show any "???" aid history.

Based on these two things, it's easy to know the recipient of secret aid, but difficult to find the sender.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284608300' post='2455474']
BingBingBingBingBingBingBingBing! Give that man (or lady) a lollipop!

Best suggestion posted in either thread.
[/quote]
It [b]would[/b] be a good suggestion if it did anything. Spying the person who got it doesn't tell you anything. You can only determine secret aid by spying the sender.

To answer the question, GOONS would allow spying (probably by a neutral party) on a member if there was reasonable evidence that they've sent secret aid. The only reason to not allow spying is if you have something to hide. If you actually care about the warchest being exposed (literally the only reason to say no), have a neutral party who won't misuse the information do it. Other than that, you're hiding something.

It should also be noted that the only two times we've ever asked to spy on someone we were absolutely right about that person having been the one to send secret aid. I'm not at liberty to discuss the actual evidence we have given the people we're asking, but it's the kind of thing I'd be pretty suspicious about the people saying no to.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Beefspari

[Freelancer]

[quote name='KCToker' timestamp='1284537378' post='2454620']
You say alliances should handle it internally, yet you post a topic here.

[/quote]

I blame the programing director of this TV station, re-runs of Hogan's Hero's and the adventures of Stalag 13 are amusing every once and awhile, however we saw this episode and already know what "Col Klink's" about to say.

[Quinoa Rex]

Why is this even a subject of debate? Who cares? STA handles their internal affairs how they want to, and it's not for you to decide whether or not legitimate agreements between allies should be allowed.

[Aurion]

I'd probably ask them about it first, but I don't see why not. A gather intel spy op can't do any damage to the nation being spied upon.

[Denial]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1284641523' post='2455741']
Why is this even a subject of debate? Who cares? STA handles their internal affairs how they want to, and it's not for you to decide whether or not legitimate agreements between allies should be allowed.
[/quote]
I agree. The only thing more ludicrous than this thread is the fact that it provoked analyses that are as useless as they are lengthy.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284623912' post='2455667']
Two facts about secret aid:

1) Spying on the nation that received the aid does not reveal its source.
2) The aid screen of the sending nation does not show any "???" aid history.

Based on these two things, it's easy to know the recipient of secret aid, but difficult to find the sender.
[/quote]

1) I'll admit, I had to read the in-game help screen for this the first time. "Successful 'Gather Intelligence' spy operations can expose the sender of a secret foreign aid agreement and who they send secret foreign aid to."

Am I missing something where someone did actually try this out and it never worked? Because it appears by this text spying either the sender or receiving nation will reveal the opposite.

2) Good point, I did not think about that.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1284641523' post='2455741']
...and it's not for you to decide whether or not legitimate agreements between allies should be allowed.
[/quote]

Haha! See, this is where you're wrong.

[LeonidasRexII]

* edit - deleted due to repeat

Edited September 16, 2010 by LeonidasRexII

[D34th]

Answering the question: If the alliance has a reason good enough to do that, and if this is just to gather information(an harmless spy op), then yes.

[Sir Keshav IV]

I don't even understand why this up for debate. If the said alliance is okay with spying on it's members what's it to you? As in this case STA asked MK to do it, as long as they both agree to it I don't see any wrong in it. On the other hand if it isn't agreed by both alliances then it's a valid CB

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1284641523' post='2455741']
1. Why is this even a subject of debate? 2. Who cares? STA handles their internal affairs how they want to, and 3. it's not for you to decide whether or not legitimate agreements between allies should be allowed.
[/quote]

1. It's a subject of debate because there was a difference of opinion. Several posters here have stated that they wouldn't have allowed spying by a 2nd or 3rd party and some have supported it.

2. I care or I wouldn't have asked. The reason that I care is that I believe that the alliance relationship works both ways. Members join alliances for protection and alliances draw power from their members. My contention is that relationship could be damaged by the mistrust generated when alliance leadership allows this kind of thing. I also believe that sovereign alliances should place their members trust and well being above the needs and wishes of even the closest treaty partner.

3. As I've said before I'm not "deciding" anything. I've stated what I believe and asked others for their opinion.

[Michael von Prussia]

I'm being asked to consider if my alliance should be allowed to spy on me (or allow others to do so), but I'm criticized for thinking people who don't want to join alliances shouldn't have to to avoid being raided.

Ironic.

No, I don't think they should. If you can't trust the member enough to believe you'd get an honest answer from him, maybe you shouldn't let him in in the first place.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Michael von Prussia

[ktarthan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1284655760' post='2455836']
1) I'll admit, I had to read the in-game help screen for this the first time. "Successful 'Gather Intelligence' spy operations can expose the sender of a secret foreign aid agreement and who they send secret foreign aid to."

Am I missing something where someone did actually try this out and it never worked? Because it appears by this text spying either the sender or receiving nation will reveal the opposite.
[/quote]
The wording isn't particularly great, but "expose the sender of a secret foreign aid agreement and who [b]they[/b] send secret foreign aid to" means if you spy the sender. The last time secret aid was an issue for us we verified this fact with a mod.

[Kryievla]

Alliances *should* allow whatever they like. There are natural consequences. For example, some folks won't stay in alliances that allow foreign entities to spy on them, no matter the reason. Some will see sense behind the action & so will continue to support the alliance by staying.

As an alliance policy, I am not particularly fond of it. But I don't have to be. It's STA's business, to handle how they like.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284659180' post='2455877']
The wording isn't particularly great, but "expose the sender of a secret foreign aid agreement and who [b]they[/b] send secret foreign aid to" means if you spy the sender. The last time secret aid was an issue for us we verified this fact with a mod.
[/quote]

Hmmm, thanks. Then my points from before would no longer be valid.

Happy trails.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1284524830' post='2454447']
One would need a big enough trust-factor on the part of the aggrieved alliance [the one making the request for the spy op] to take the spy ops results at face value, if the accused's alliance were the one carrying out the op.
[/quote]
Frankly, the same is true in reverse. I wouldn't just believe someone who came to me out of the blue aggressively claiming that one of our members had done something wrong without proof that I could verify.

The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused. And I don't like handing out information like the names of trade partners and warchest values on the say-so of foreign powers.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1284662491' post='2455915']
Frankly, the same is true in reverse. I wouldn't just believe someone who came to me out of the blue aggressively claiming that one of our members had done something wrong without proof that I could verify.

The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused. And I don't like handing out information like the names of trade partners and warchest values on the say-so of foreign powers.
[/quote]

I think the STA recently handled a similar situation rather well. They were presented with circumstantial evidence which they needed to arrive at a decision to have the member spied. They side stepped the trust issues as well as the 'let the accuser take the swing' issues by having a mutually acceptable party do it, a party that was trusted by both alliances. This way neither the trade partners nor the warchest nor anything else was exposed to the accuser [and the spy attempts failed.. but it still is a good plan].

e: spelfail

Edited September 16, 2010 by Alfred von Tirpitz