Should alliances allow spying on their own members?

[Baldr]

I can see one other option that might work. Alliance A goes to Alliance B and says "We suspect that you have a nation which sent aid, we want to spy him to be sure." Alliance B could say "You go ahead and spy him. If you are correct, and he sent the aid, we'll kick him from the alliance since he should not have done that. However, if you are wrong, and he did not send this aid, then we will have 3 nations attack the spying nation for one round of war."

Something along that line would ensure that the alliance who is making the accusation and requesting permission to spy would not do so without being fairly sure that they have the right target up front.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1284665323' post='2455949']
I can see one other option that might work. Alliance A goes to Alliance B and says "We suspect that you have a nation which sent aid, we want to spy him to be sure." Alliance B could say "You go ahead and spy him. If you are correct, and he sent the aid, we'll kick him from the alliance since he should not have done that. However, if you are wrong, and he did not send this aid, then we will have 3 nations attack the spying nation for one round of war."

Something along that line would ensure that the alliance who is making the accusation and requesting permission to spy would not do so without being fairly sure that they have the right target up front.
[/quote]
I can see this useful in a situation where there is little to no evidence, to avoid abuse of trust, but I don't see why obtaining definitive proof in a [b]plausible[/b] situation would require such punitive measures, as well the situation changes a bit if trusted Alliance C is asked to do the spying. Although, I suppose that is a better compromise than "No, get lost".

[Ardus]

[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]
Res Ipsa Loquitor. When it is fundamentally unreasonable to place the burden of proof on the plaintiff because it is simply beyond their ability to acquire the proof, they may instead provide enough circumstantial evidence to prove that [i]something[/i] occurred and that the defendant possibly caused that something. Once a strong enough inference is presented, the burden may be shifted to the defendant to refute the circumstantial claims of the plaintiff. This is vaguely similar to the course of action GOONS have pursued in the Methrage cases: they provide circumstantial evidence to the alliance of the individual in question and ask that the alliance or individual refute the inference they're drawing. This refutation comes in the form of a spy operation conducted by a trusted party. Either the spy op absolves the accused or reveals their crime beyond a doubt, at which point they are punished. Refusing to refute the inference (refusing the spy op) suggests guilt and, in our circumstance, the whole alliance may be rolled. I for one am perfectly fine with this.

And before Impero comes in here high and mighty, yes, I'm aware that RIL is a tort theory, not criminal, and I'm liberally mixing the two.

[Venizelos]

if spying wasnt costing money, i'd support having random spy ops on members of your alliance to check the validity of WCs reported and such.

when you join an alliance you hand over a lot of control over your nation, dont see why you shouldnt accept a harmless spy-op as nothing more than it is- harmless

Edited September 16, 2010 by Venizelos

[Egwaterboy61]

Personally, unless evidence was presented showing blame upon the accused, I would not let this happen in my alliance.

The best analogy I can think of it the right to lawful search. Yes, if the government looked into my computer files no physical harm would be done, but that doesn't mean I would want them to do it.

Evidence showing the accused is at fault is needed to break an alliance mate's privacy.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I don't know what case prompted this (seems to be about STA or something) but, on its face, if I was leading an alliance, I'd trust the words of my member and would refuse any spying on him. Likewise, I'd refuse to be spied on and, if my leaders can't take me at my word alone, I'd leave. Should they decide to proceed with the spying, I'd likely consider it an act of war.

[Haflinger]

Spying on a 100K nation with a gather intel costs about 400K. Who pays for the spy mission should not be a factor, really; it's dirt cheap. You might get 2M in spy replacement costs tacked on to that, but that's it.

Res ipsa isn't applicable to international law. If you're going to be making arguments based on legal systems, you should really try to avoid legal systems designed to be applied only to citizens.

[iamthey]

I think it is heavily dependent on the evidence. In this case the only reason the aider was uncovered was that attention was specifically called to him by a third party. That being said, if alliance A just thought some member of alliance B did the aiding, I don't think it would be a fair demand for them to scan the entire alliance. Such a demand not only compromises strategic information, but it is also an extreme and disproportional expenditure of resources for something as small as 3m. I also think consent should be sought, an unconsented spy attack (especially one that doesn't produce evidence justifying it) is an act of war imo.

Edited September 17, 2010 by iamthey

[mrcalkin]

To address the OP: If it is my alliance, I really don't care what anyone thinks, we'll do what we see fit. If we want an ally to spy on one of our members, I don't see how it is anyone's business but ours. I think its pretty damn silly to ask whether an alliance should be "allowed" to spy or have an ally spy on their members. Unless you are going to coerce us to not do something with enough force to ensure we can't operate as an alliance anymore, there isn't anything anyone can say or do that will take away our ability to do what we want with our own members, regardless of OWF pundits or people telling [i]us[/i] how we should interpret [i]our[/i] charter ( ).

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1284754277' post='2456746']
To address the OP: If it is my alliance, I really don't care what anyone thinks, we'll do what we see fit. If we want an ally to spy on one of our members, I don't see how it is anyone's business but ours. I think its pretty damn silly to ask whether an alliance should be "allowed" to spy or have an ally spy on their members. Unless you are going to coerce us to not do something with enough force to ensure we can't operate as an alliance anymore, there isn't anything anyone can say or do that will take away our ability to do what we want with our own members, regardless of OWF pundits or [b]people telling [i]us[/i] how[/b] we should interpret [i]our[/i] charter ( ).
[/quote]

Why does this keep coming up? Maybe I'm not picking it up so could you point out the posts where I order people around?

I stated my opinion, but just because I don't agree with you that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you what to do.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284784625' post='2457023']
Why does this keep coming up? Maybe I'm not picking it up so could you point out the posts where I order people around?

I stated my opinion, but just because I don't agree with you that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you what to do.
[/quote]

Once upon a time disagreeing with someone in an alliance like mrcalkin's meant you were a rebel or dissident. Nowadays, disagreeing with someone like mrcalkin makes you an oppressor. It is a curious rhetorical technique.

As to my opinion on the OP, same thing.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Bavaricar

[pezstar]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284596326' post='2455249']
It seems that this boils down to those who would keep this in house and others who would allow an outsiders to handle it. For those that would let outsiders handle this situation what about this - [b]are you at all worried that this could become a weapon[/b]?

If another alliance sees that you allow 2nd or 3rd party spying on your own members couldn't they just level accusations at your membership over and over again? Even if the accusations aren't true, members would be questioned and then subjected to spy attempts. If it happens enough or even to one particularly vocal member that alliance could suffer a big backlash against the leadership as the trust factor breaks down.
[/quote]

We asked MK to do it because the laws of Admin state that you can't spy on members of your own alliance. It's really that simple.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1284681038' post='2456127']
I don't know what case prompted this (seems to be about STA or something) but, on its face, if I was leading an alliance, I'd trust the words of my member and would refuse any spying on him. Likewise, I'd refuse to be spied on and, if my leaders can't take me at my word alone, I'd leave. Should they decide to proceed with the spying, I'd likely consider it an act of war.
[/quote]
You know, this stance keeps coming up a lot and it brings up a question of my own. Not just you Yev, but I see a few people that keep saying "We absolutely will not allow spying whatsoever," and then go on to say they'd simply ask the member.

Given you're putting full support behind the word of this member and refusing to do a check to clarify their validity (after all, the member could easily just lie), would you accept it being a valid CB if the accusing party can still prove that the person did it?

[the rebel]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1284796687' post='2457119']
You know, this stance keeps coming up a lot and it brings up a question of my own. Not just you Yev, but I see a few people that keep saying "We absolutely will not allow spying whatsoever," and then go on to say they'd simply ask the member.

Given you're putting full support behind the word of this member and refusing to do a check to clarify their validity (after all, the member could easily just lie), would you accept it being a valid CB if the accusing party can still prove that the person did it?
[/quote]

I dont see whats the harm in asking said member if the allegations are true, then if you dont trust their word and think they are lying, then you clarify it with a spy attack or not...

Most of us are adults who like to be spoken to and not treated like children, but its fair enough if some alliances want to treat their membership like children its their choice...

Edited September 18, 2010 by the rebel

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284784625' post='2457023']
Why does this keep coming up? Maybe I'm not picking it up so could you point out the posts where I order people around?

I stated my opinion, but just because I don't agree with you that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you what to do.
[/quote]

When you use words like "allow" or "disallow" in regards to something my alliance can or cannot do, it generally denotes some sort of higher authority forcing a will upon my alliance. At Umbrella, we will not allow other alliances or authorities to restrict us from taking action we see as correct. Our members realize this and choose to remain in the alliance anyway.


[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1284784982' post='2457029']
Once upon a time disagreeing with someone in an alliance like mrcalkin's meant you were a rebel or dissident. Nowadays, disagreeing with someone like mrcalkin makes you an oppressor. It is a curious rhetorical technique.

As to my opinion on the OP, same thing.
[/quote]

Funnily enough, I have always felt like people telling us what we can and cannot do with regard to our own members is oppressive. I don't really remember a time when it was considered cool or anything to try to force one's will on the way other alliances handle situations internally.

Edited September 18, 2010 by mrcalkin

[Tautology]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1284840840' post='2457406']Funnily enough, I have always felt like people telling us what we can and cannot do with regard to our own members is oppressive. I don't really remember a time when it was considered cool or anything to try to force one's will on the way other alliances handle situations internally.[/quote]
As long as there are people willing to listen to moralizers and charlatans, there will be moralizers and charlatans. I doubt there are many (if any) of those listeners reading this topic but when you rely on a low content message, you're using a shotgun approach so you don't really care if it gives a low yield.

Anyway, all we've learned from this topic is that alliances have different views on spying on their own members, and that most approach it on a case-by-case basis. I hope the thread didn't receive a research grant.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1284848079' post='2457506']
As long as there are people willing to listen to moralizers and charlatans, there will be moralizers and charlatans. I doubt there are many (if any) of those listeners reading this topic but when you rely on a low content message, you're using a shotgun approach so you don't really care if it gives a low yield.

Anyway, all we've learned from this topic is that alliances have different views on spying on their own members, and that most approach it on a case-by-case basis. [b]I hope the thread didn't receive a research grant.[/b]
[/quote]

No I just missed. Maybe I shouldn't have submitted my grant request to the University of Don't Give a Damn.

On a little more serious note your moralizer point made me think of another aspect of this.

I don't think many (if anybody) would dispute that the overall population is declining taking average alliance membership along with it. Long gone are the days of 1000+ member alliances. As average alliance population declines the relative importance of a single member increases. As the alliance/member relation dynamic shifts more towards individual members the importance of trust between the alliance and their members increases as well.

Most of the respondents here, myself included, come from alliances with large membership bases where the loss of one or two members doesn't have a large impact, but what of smaller alliances? If trust is damaged enough that 1, or more, members leave a 30 person alliance the negative effect would be much greater. So do they too hold with the notion that the alliance can and will do whatever it pleases with it's members?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284665799' post='2455952']
I can see this useful in a situation where thar be little to no evidence, to avoid abuse of trust, but I don't see why obtaining definitive proof in a [b]plausible[/b] situation would require such punitive measures, as well the situation changes a bit if trusted fleet C be asked to do the spying. Although, I suppose that be a better compromise than "No, get lost".
[/quote]

If thar was little to no evidence then I would not permit a spy op at all.

Rather than use the thinly veiled hypothetical posted in the OP, I'll go over it all for ye again.

Methrage was the recipient of a secret dubloons transaction which was easily verifiable by looking at his dubloons history. GOONS had a "watchlist" of sorts as to who may have sent the dubloons to Methrage on which TheRebel was listed due to his comments concerning the Methrage/Corinan/GOONS issue. Verifiable evidence exhibit A and B.

Checking TheRebel's dubloons history showed he had 5 active dubloons transactions and a Disaster Relief Agency wonder which meant he should have one dubloons transaction available to him. GOONS verified that a secret dubloons transaction had been sent by TheRebel by attempting to send him dubloons. They could not as they were informed that all TheRebel's dubloons slots were in use. Verifiable evidence, exhibit C.

This be reasonably significant evidence that perhaps TheRebel has sent the dubloons. The final piece of evidence that swayed us to allow a spy operation to gather intelligence on TheRebel to clear his name or confirm he sent the dubloons was that after a long, long period of time on the white team TheRebel switched teams briefly at around the time the dubloons was sent. Methrage was and still be sanctioned on the white team so TheRebel's temporary team switch was the extra information we needed to allow a spy op. Verifiable evidence, exhibit D.

So, rather than "no evidence" thar be four pieces of verifiable evidence which, when put together at the same time, paint a picture whereby reasonable suspicion was reached.

GOONS wanted to spy him themselves but the STA disagreed. We wanted to perform the spy op ourselves but due to the possibility it would be considered war slot filling it was agreed a mutual, trusted me hearty would do the spy op. This be what then occurred.

So, in brief, for those who continue to prattle on about no evidence and the assumption of guilt. ye be wrong on both counts. We did not assume TheRebel was guilty and we did not allow a spy op on our privateer without significant evidence to show it was a distinct possibility that our privateer had sent the dubloons that was in question. I'm happy for ye all to discuss hypotheticals but if ye be going to refer to an actual incident ye'd be best to get your facts straight before commenting.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1284876335' post='2457907']
Wall of text[/quote]

thar be a couple of factual errors in that statement, but i wont go into details as yours and me post isnt really on topic

[Mandolus]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1284830713' post='2457280']
Most of us be adults who like to be spoken to and not treated like children, but its fair enough if some alliances want to treat their membership like children its their choice...
[/quote]

Here's the thing: [b]ye sent the dubloons[/b]. If ye don't want to be treated like a child ye shouldn't act like one.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Mandolus' timestamp='1284921764' post='2458285']
Here's the thing: [b]ye sent the dubloons[/b]. If ye don't want to be treated like a child ye shouldn't act like one.
[/quote]

yar i sent him dubloons like im now sending your fleet dubloons, that doesnt make me a child it makes me a bank manager and they invest in many things, sometimes mistakes happen, done just one in over 1000days so not a bad banking record

Edited September 19, 2010 by the rebel

[Haquertal]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1284899338' post='2458067']
thar be a couple of factual errors in that statement, but i wont go into details as yours and me post isnt really on topic
[/quote]

"I can refute those points, but I won't"

If ye can do it, then do it, and I find that his post was perfectly on topic. This be due to the fact that he was talking about the situation that STA allowed the spy op to happen to their own members in a topic about spying on your own AA members.

[pezstar]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1284899338' post='2458067']
thar be a couple of factual errors in that statement, but i wont go into details as yours and me post isnt really on topic
[/quote]

thar be zero factual errors in that statement. That be 100% exactly how it happened.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1284876335' post='2457907']
exhibit A and B.

Checking TheRebel's dubloons history showed he had 5 active dubloons transactions and a Disaster Relief Agency wonder which meant he should have one dubloons transaction available to him. GOONS verified that a secret dubloons transaction had been sent by TheRebel by attempting to send him dubloons. They could not as they were informed that all TheRebel's dubloons slots were in use. Verifiable evidence, exhibit C.

This be reasonably significant evidence that perhaps TheRebel has sent the dubloons. The final piece of evidence that swayed us to allow a spy operation to gather intelligence on TheRebel to clear his name or confirm he sent the dubloons was that after a long, long period of time on the white team TheRebel switched teams briefly at around the time the dubloons was sent.
[/quote]


[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1284927181' post='2458366']
thar be zero factual errors in that statement. That be 100% exactly how it happened.
[/quote]

The first paragraph be false, as if i had 5 active (visible) dubloons slots used, then please tell me how would it of been possible for GOONS to have had sent me a pending grog dubloons and leave it thar 30mins before cancelling?

Secondly please point me out to where it shows ye your team seniority? as ive looked since ye told me that and cant find it anywhere.

[pezstar]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1284937688' post='2458498']
The first paragraph be false, as if i had 5 active (visible) dubloons slots used, then please tell me how would it of been possible for GOONS to have had sent me a pending grog dubloons and leave it thar 30mins before cancelling?

Secondly please point me out to where it shows ye your team seniority? as ive looked since ye told me that and cant find it anywhere.
[/quote]

1- Someone attempted to send ye dubloons. They got an error message, rather than a confirmation request. The error message indicated that your slots were full. Because ye have an FAC, and ye had five visibly full dubloons slots, it was clear that your sixth slot was used for secret dubloons. No one said anything about 30 minutes. I have no idea where yer getting that from.

2- Go to any ship page. Hover over the team color. Ta-da.

Like I said. Everything was 100% accurate.

Edited September 19, 2010 by pezstar