64Digits Announcement

[HeroofTime55]

[center][img]http://64digits.com/users/HeroofTime55/64D_Flag.png[/img][/center]

I look at the most recent war, the trend of tech raiders having difficulty finding targets, and attacking rogues, gaining them a little tech but causing great harm to the alliances victimized by the rogue. For some reason, not everyone sees this for what it is, and what it is, is an aggressive attack that causes real damage to alliances. This problem is unacceptable, and 64Digits is taking steps to resolve this.

Basically, what we are doing, is declaring, as a sovereign alliance with the sovereign right to do so, that any nation who 'goes rogue' against 64Digits is [i]under the protection of 64Digits from outside attack.[/i] That means, basically, that if a guy goes rogue on us, we own his war slots. Your raid is, under this policy, an attack on 64Digits. That's how it always should have been interpreted, but now, it is, by this legal proclamation and by widely accepted precedent of adopting nations and alliances under the protection of a sovereign alliance.

I only make this announcement because convention dictates that protected alliances and individuals must be declared; This policy serves as our declaration. It's up to the raiders to check the war slots, just as they are supposed to check the wiki, forums, and nation bios before raiding. Presumably you'll be checking the war slots anyway to see if there are openings for you to raid, so this shouldn't be a problem.

I encourage other alliances to adopt a similar policy. A line has to be drawn, and it has to be drawn at the point where actions cause direct harm to a sovereign alliance.

The current form of this policy in its entirety, subject to modification, is available [url="http://cybernations.64digits.com/forums/index.php?topic=109.msg399"]here[/url].

Thank you.

-HeroofTime55, Lead Programmer

[Chet Ubet]

Wow this is cool.

[JWConner]

Considering we at VA have been subject to nosy outsiders interfering with our rogues, I fully understand where you're coming from. I just hope that you're able to back up your policy, otherwise it's just words.

[Axolotlia]

Very good decision.

Hope it works well!

[Kim Jaym Il]

I don't see this ending well for you, there isn't really a precedent for successful protection of a nation on "none", even in alliances considered on "the big side".

PC protecting a group of nations on none who were sent there "magically" comes to mind.

(Hint: They still got raided)

[KingEd]

This will definitely cause a war down the line, thus, I approve!
GL!

[Skippy]

Makes sense, good luck with it.

[Gopherbashi]

So what happens in a case where a rogue goes up against you and two other alliances? Do you own all three slots and forbid the other alliances from defending their members, or do you only claim one slot and leave the other two open?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1289177361' post='2505429']
So what happens in a case where a rogue goes up against you and two other alliances? Do you own all three slots and forbid the other alliances from defending their members, or do you only claim one slot and leave the other two open?
[/quote]If you read the full policy, linked in the OP, this question will be answered for you.

The full policy explicitly gives permission to any other alliance attacked by the rogue to counter the rogue. Without such an exception the policy would become hypocritical.

Naturally, it would be preferable anyway if all the aggrieved alliances were to coordinate their counter-rogue operations, and 64Digits would of course be willing to coordinate as such with any other aggrieved parties.

This policy is not an attempt to restrict anything other than raiders jumping in to an issue that isn't their business and causing more damage to victims of a rogue. It is designed to ensure that any rogue who crosses us is put down as quickly as possible.

Edited November 8, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Omniscient1]

This seems similar to \m/'s attack-torate thing. Interesting concept I guess.

[Gopherbashi]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289177849' post='2505450']
If you read the full policy, linked in the OP, this question will be answered for you.

The full policy explicitly gives permission to any other alliance attacked by the rogue to counter the rogue. Without such an exception the policy would become hypocritical.

Naturally, it would be preferable anyway if all the aggrieved alliances were to coordinate their counter-rogue operations, and 64Digits would of course be willing to coordinate as such with any other aggrieved parties.
[/quote]
Ah, sped past the last paragraph, thanks.

[Bob Ilyani]

Interesting. I would like to see how this plays out. Good luck with the policy.

[Michael von Prussia]

While I can't say I personally approve of protecting people from outside harm so you yourself can see to their destruction, I will at least say this is better than arbitrarily picking a defunct alliance affiliation and doing the same so you may raid it. At the same time, however, I will say that announcing that you're officially implementing a policy that another alliance was just defeated in war for trying to do themselves is kind of funny. I can only hope, for your sake and the sake of peace, that you have better connections than they did.

[TheyCallMeJeezy]

[i]brilliant[/i] political move


oh, we back!

[LittleRena]

Best of luck

[9dj12]

Nice, that is pretty smart.

[Believland]

[quote name='JWConner' timestamp='1289176686' post='2505402']
Considering we at VA have been subject to nosy outsiders interfering with our rogues, I fully understand where you're coming from. I just hope that you're able to back up your policy, otherwise it's just words.
[/quote]

Sorry we caused more damage than you could...

[Kevanovia]

Very interesting. Should cause future drama.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1289179101' post='2505479']
While I can't say I personally approve of protecting people from outside harm so you yourself can see to their destruction
[/quote]

Why not? When people tech raid rogues it's pretty annoying, because they often mess up staggers, and even if they don't there's no guarantee that they won't suddenly peace out with the rogue and let him slip into peacemode.

I'm not going to hail this announcement, because it's not worth hailing and it's pretty minor, but eh, I don't see any problems with this policy. *shrugs*

[Aurion]

The plot thickens.

...Maybe. Hopefully?

[lordliam]

I used to not like you very much. But I can't help but think that this is a very good move.

[Kim Jaym Il]

Also, [b]the honeypot emerges.[/b]

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1289179101' post='2505479']
While I can't say I personally approve of protecting people from outside harm so you yourself can see to their destruction, I will at least say this is better than arbitrarily picking a defunct alliance affiliation and doing the same so you may raid it. At the same time, however, I will say that announcing that you're officially implementing a policy that another alliance was just defeated in war for trying to do themselves is kind of funny. I can only hope, for your sake and the sake of peace, that you have better connections than they did.
[/quote]
This isn't about pretending to feel tough or ensuring that we have raid targets. This is about ensuring the protection and well being of all members of 64Digits from outside threats, which is part of my job as the leader of this alliance. It's about minimizing the damage caused by rogues. Eating up precious war slot space for a tech raid can cause millions in additional damages, and a rogue being allowed to escape to peace can easily cause billions in excess damages.

AcTi was not defeated, not technically, not legally, and not theoretically. In fact, they won, because Sirius declared white peace as the public masses rejected their claims of righteousness, and declared the same thing that this policy declares, that raiding a nation that is roguing on an alliance is an offense against that alliance.

64Digits will defend its interests. That is not negotiable. If you don't approve of us defending ourselves, then you have a radically different view on what is right and what is wrong.

[Kalasin]

What will you do if a member of say, GOONS, decides to raid a rogue who hits you? I mean, it's their sovereign right to do so, and if you attacked GOONS in retaliation, you'd just get rolled. In that respect it seems a fairly pointless policy.

[Believland]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289180133' post='2505522']
This isn't about pretending to feel tough or ensuring that we have raid targets. This is about ensuring the protection and well being of all members of 64Digits from outside threats, which is part of my job as the leader of this alliance. It's about minimizing the damage caused by rogues. Eating up precious war slot space for a tech raid can cause millions in additional damages, and a rogue being allowed to escape to peace can easily cause billions in excess damages.

AcTi was not defeated, not technically, not legally, and not theoretically. In fact, they won, because Sirius declared white peace as the public masses rejected their claims of righteousness, and declared the same thing that this policy declares, that raiding a nation that is roguing on an alliance is an offense against that alliance.

64Digits will defend its interests. That is not negotiable. If you don't approve of us defending ourselves, then you have a radically different view on what is right and what is wrong.
[/quote]

Hey Spin Doctor,

How will you manage to minimize damage when you put 6 guys on him instead of 3? Also, what would you do if I rogued [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]this guy?[/url] You have no one in my range so will you let me be raided by others or what?