64Digits Announcement

[Seerow]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289420634' post='2509570']
You're misunderstanding. Magic is sitting on 2 billion.
[/quote]

Okay that is far less embarrassing. Carry on.

[bhane]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289420583' post='2509569']
If it was obvious to everyone, I wouldn't have felt the need to announce it. But it obviously is not, judging by the last war.
[/quote]
There's going to be people who do things like this regardless of your or even their own alliance policies. There's no need to announce such things because the outcome of these actions is going to be only determined by the diplomacy between involved alliances and nothing is changed. So, like I said - totally pointless.

[GulagArchipelago]

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1289405835' post='2509383']
Because TIO considers 2 hours more than enough time to fill the slots of a rogue, if you can't do it that quickly then clearly you're not going to bother and it's ok to attack them
[/quote]
It's been done before. You just have to get enough active members...

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='bhane' timestamp='1289422090' post='2509591']
There's going to be people who do things like this regardless of your or even their own alliance policies. There's no need to announce such things because the outcome of these actions is going to be only determined by the diplomacy between involved alliances and nothing is changed. So, like I said - totally pointless.
[/quote]Often times raiding alliances will refuse to pay reps if protectorates are not announced or otherwise identified, and announcing this policy is the only way we can publicly identify who it is that is under our 'protection.' It also serves to note that, depending on how bad they screw up the war, they may be paying a lot more in reps then would normally be expected of a 'raid incident,' because, say, screwing up the stagger and letting him restock his nukes in peace mode would be extensively damaging to the victim alliance.

That's not to say a ruined stagger automatically means giant reps, if a raider then proceeds to smash him with everything, and especially if they can help prevent the guy from hitting hippie when wars expire, there will probably be no reps demanded at all, or drastically reduced reps in the former case alone.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='GulagArchipelago' timestamp='1289424761' post='2509637']
It's been done before. You just have to get enough active members...
[/quote]A 2 hour 'deadline' is horribly ignorant of the principle of staggering war slots.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289426438' post='2509663']
Often times raiding alliances will refuse to pay reps if protectorates are not announced or otherwise identified, and announcing this policy is the only way we can publicly identify who it is that is under our 'protection.' It also serves to note that, depending on how bad they screw up the war, they may be paying a lot more in reps then would normally be expected of a 'raid incident,' because, say, screwing up the stagger and letting him restock his nukes in peace mode would be extensively damaging to the victim alliance.

That's not to say a ruined stagger automatically means giant reps, if a raider then proceeds to smash him with everything, and especially if they can help prevent the guy from hitting hippie when wars expire, there will probably be no reps demanded at all, or drastically reduced reps in the former case alone.
[/quote]
As a heads up, GOONS has never recognized unilaterally declared protection when it comes to establishing culpability for reparations. That being said, we are quite aware of the necessity in being able to deal with rogues efficiently, so it isn't to say that we'd be uncooperative in resolving the situation in another manner.

Edit: This being in the unlikely situation that we raid a rogue in the first place - they tend not to be very profitable.

Edited November 10, 2010 by ktarthan

[Spaarlaamp]

I do not recognize this policy as valid. A none is a none, and I'll raid every damn none I want to.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Spaarlaamp

[Caliph]

Clarification: If someone goes rogue on 64Digits [b]and[/b] someone else, how will you handle that?

[The Corrupt Teacher]

This is actually not a bad policy. All with all recent events considered its not a bad idea to say it in public. On the otherhand good luck being able to enforce it when push comes to shove.

[Locke]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1289433588' post='2509774']
Clarification: If someone goes rogue on 64Digits [b]and[/b] someone else, how will you handle that?
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he stated that the other aggrevied parties would get their shot too.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1289441078' post='2509868']
I'm pretty sure he stated that the other aggrevied parties would get their shot too.
[/quote]
This is correct. If the rogue hits anyone else, those parties automatically get to do whatever they want to the guy.

[quote]I do not recognize this policy as valid. A none is a none, and I'll raid every damn none I want to. [/quote]Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that you have no intention of respecting our sovereignty. When you attack, now we know it's blatant aggression and not just a mistaken raid.

[Spaarlaamp]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289443268' post='2509936']
Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that you have no intention of respecting our sovereignty. When you attack, now we know it's blatant aggression and not just a mistaken raid.
[/quote]
No problem. It's naive of you to think that everyone will check if a none is protected by some policy from some random alliance.

[Kowalski]

It's a common sense policy, but I really don't see how this announcement makes it any different from just having it internally. It doesn't make it any easier to enforce, especially since there are alliances who have policies of claiming ex-members' war slots should they decide to leave the game.

[Sarmatian Empire]

Awesome policy, good idea 64

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1289462069' post='2510249']
No problem. It's naive of you to think that everyone will check if a none is protected by some policy from some random alliance.
[/quote]Well, now that you've made a fuss about this, you are well aware of this policy and I hope you will respect our sovereignty.

[Priest Kahn]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289443268' post='2509936']
This is correct. If the rogue hits anyone else, those parties automatically get to do whatever they want to the guy.

Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that you have no intention of respecting our sovereignty. When you attack, now we know it's blatant aggression and not just a mistaken raid.
[/quote]

You don't have unlimited sovereignty. MK can't declare that all none are protected by us and then proceed to raid them only ourselves while claiming that anyone else raiding none is performing blatant aggression.

That's not to say I disagree with this policy though, only that you can only "get away" with this because it's the accepted norm already, not because you have some sort of magical sovereignty that lets you do whatever you want.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Priest Kahn

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Priest Kahn' timestamp='1289601544' post='2511400']
You don't have unlimited sovereignty. MK can't declare that all none are protected by us and then proceed to raid them only ourselves while claiming that anyone else raiding none is performing blatant aggression.

That's not to say I disagree with this policy though, only that you can only "get away" with this because it's the accepted norm already, not because you have some sort of magical sovereignty that lets you do whatever you want.
[/quote]


This policy in no way effect all of none. It only effects those going rogue on 64 Digits. Imagine that once they go rogue on 64 Digits their new AA is "64 Digits Rogue" and it becomes much more clear as to how this policy goes into effect. And it's a very good one, one that should be obvious but often isn't at all. We've had several cases of either slot filling on rogues or raiders refusing to do more than GA.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Priest Kahn' timestamp='1289601544' post='2511400']
You don't have unlimited sovereignty. MK can't declare that all none are protected by us and then proceed to raid them only ourselves while claiming that anyone else raiding none is performing blatant aggression.

That's not to say I disagree with this policy though, only that you can only "get away" with this because it's the accepted norm already, not because you have some sort of magical sovereignty that lets you do whatever you want.
[/quote]This is not a raiding policy, this is a defense policy. I just want to clear any misconceptions you might have. This isn't so we can have fun raiding, this is so we can look out for ourselves and ensure that rogues are dealt with in a proper manner.

The fact of the matter is, raids on rogues cause great harm to alliances. They cause harm to alliances on all sides of the political spectrum. If someone decided to 'tech raid' Metherage while he was raging against GOONS, I do not suspect they would be all too happy.

Everyone has rogues. That's why nearly everyone agrees with this. I'm just spelling out what 90% of alliances accept for the truth, because there are 10% who still think it's their Admin given right to raid rogues no matter the damage they cause to the people defending against the rogue. And when you spell it out in legal terms, you need a legal rationale, which sovereignty provides.

And FYI, I suspect that if MK were to declare Aqua off-limits to tech raiders... Well, a week ago, I would have said they could get away with it, but now, I'm not so sure.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289430097' post='2509714']
Edit: This being in the unlikely situation that we raid a rogue in the first place - they tend not to be very profitable.
[/quote]

This is what I was thinking, why would a tech raider ever want to attack a known rogue, somebody pretty much guaranteed to fight back and cost you money?

Assuming they are not turtleing and you actually get GA's in, I'm thinking 2 CM's a day would evaporate your profit margin pretty damn fast.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1289472355' post='2510299']
It's a common sense policy, but I really don't see how this announcement makes it any different from just having it internally. It doesn't make it any easier to enforce, especially since there are alliances who have policies of claiming ex-members' war slots should they decide to leave the game.
[/quote]

I always viewed it as a common courtesy thing, every alliance always wants to give its people more war experience, you don't go swiping war slots without getting the go ahead from the alliance who got attacked first. Its their target practice, you shouldn't ruin their fun.

[Sang Amurwabhumi]

[quote]basically, that if a guy goes rogue on us, we own his war slots. Your raid is, under this policy, an attack on 64Digits.[/quote]
If in fact the raider is really hit the rogue you should be thankfull to them instead of accussing that it is a blatant aggression.I think you should implement policy this only to someone that raid your rogue as slot-filling while he's not really hurt the rogue.

I am agree that slot filling is a bad act done by someone to help his coward friend. But you're not own anyone war slot until you fill it. Best way to solve your rogue problem is to activate your counter team a.s.a.p. and make a clear statement on your DoW so every raiders would know that you are dealing with rogue, not some common raid.

If they decided to slotfilling your rogue, then you have your cases
If they decide to hit the rogue, i guess you should considered yourself lucky when someone has the job done for you

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sang Amurwabhumi' timestamp='1289612309' post='2511517']
If in fact the raider is really hit the rogue you should be thankfull to them instead of accussing that it is a blatant aggression.I think you should implement policy this only to someone that raid your rogue as slot-filling while he's not really hurt the rogue. [/quote]
If you read the discussion in the following pages, this is pretty much the case. We strongly discourage people declaring without us giving the go-ahead, but if you make up for the error and give the war your all (And provided you didn't let him escape to peace mode), we're probably not going to ask for a damn cent at the end of the day.

[quote]I am agree that slot filling is a bad act done by someone to help his coward friend. But you're not own anyone war slot until you fill it. Best way to solve your rogue problem is to activate your counter team a.s.a.p. and make a clear statement on your DoW so every raiders would know that you are dealing with rogue, not some common raid.[/quote]
Again, no. The biggest issue is staggering the rogue so he can't reload in hippie mode. Getting 3 guys on him as fast as possible runs counter to this goal. That third slot is still ours even if we're waiting 'till after update to fill it.

[quote]If they decided to slotfilling your rogue, then you have your cases
If they decide to hit the rogue, i guess you should considered yourself lucky when someone has the job done for you
[/quote]
I don't consider it lucky. I can't trust that they are going to coordinate with our responders. It would be better to have people we know and trust take him out. We're not some UPN here that can't handle this ourselves (and/or between our allies).

[Sang Amurwabhumi]

I agree that all raid effort that happen after the rogue attack you should ask you first.

I just don't want to see respectful alliances like yours and others get played by some sneaky lil rogue jut because technically they can.

I'm no fan of this policy, but will respect it.

[Horatio Longworth]

This makes perfect sense to me. Best of luck enforcing it.

[Kowalski]

lol I didn't realise 64 digits only had nine nations, I'd be interested in seeing how you fill war slots if anyone attacks one of your top two nations given that the other seven are under 20k NS.

[Priest Kahn]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289603044' post='2511408']
This is not a raiding policy, this is a defense policy. I just want to clear any misconceptions you might have. This isn't so we can have fun raiding, this is so we can look out for ourselves and ensure that rogues are dealt with in a proper manner. [/quote]
It is both a raiding and a defense policy. It's a defense policy for you and an anti-raiding policy for others. In essence whenever you declare a group of nations unraidable, you are allowing only yourselves to raid them. Now, your intention is obviously to destroy the nation instead of just getting tech and land, but raiding is still involved.

[quote]The fact of the matter is, raids on rogues cause great harm to alliances. They cause harm to alliances on all sides of the political spectrum. If someone decided to 'tech raid' Metherage while he was raging against GOONS, I do not suspect they would be all too happy.
Everyone has rogues. That's why nearly everyone agrees with this. I'm just spelling out what 90% of alliances accept for the truth, because there are 10% who still think it's their Admin given right to raid rogues no matter the damage they cause to the people defending against the rogue. And when you spell it out in legal terms, you need a legal rationale, which sovereignty provides.

[/quote]
Again, I agree with your policy. I'm just saying you don't have any God-given right to make it your policy and have that be the end of it. You have no sovereignty. In order for a policy to be valid, first your allies have to recognize it (at which point it turns into a CB), and secondly your enemies must recognize it (at which point it becomes a standard of conduct).

[quote]
And FYI, I suspect that if MK were to declare Aqua off-limits to tech raiders... Well, a week ago, I would have said they could get away with it, but now, I'm not so sure.
[/quote]
I don't see much difference between your policy and protecting a single color sphere. In both cases, all nations involved are affecting the alliance making the policy (with color spheres, they contain NONE nations that people would like to trade with; raiding may scare them off). And, again, whether we could get away with it would be not about our sovereignty but how other alliances view us.


[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1289602874' post='2511406']
This policy in no way effect all of none. It only effects those going rogue on 64 Digits. Imagine that once they go rogue on 64 Digits their new AA is "64 Digits Rogue" and it becomes much more clear as to how this policy goes into effect. And it's a very good one, one that should be obvious but often isn't at all. We've had several cases of either slot filling on rogues or raiders refusing to do more than GA.
[/quote]
I understand the policy and was making a comparison to a more extreme situation. To use your words, imagine that once a person creates a nation their new AA is "Protected by MK". We may be a sovereign alliance but we have no sovereign right to do this.