64Digits Announcement

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289184610' post='2505628']
If they arrange a rogue to go off on us, they have committed an act of war against us, and it would be treated as such. Incidentally, then raiding the 'rogue' would be a violation of divine law and powers greater than any of us would mystically intervene.
[/quote]
Sure, but I'd imagine if a rogue were arranged it would be completely denied by the offending party. If the rogue were on a new AA and the raider launched some token attacks, I'm not sure a higher power would necessarily intervene. But I admit I have not seen the divine laws on this matter recently.

Either way, my concern is that you'll be put in a position in which an alliance flagrantly violates your policy and yet you appear to be the aggressor because they technically haven't directly hurt you. But this kind of murkiness makes the world a lot more interesting.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1289185129' post='2505639']
IF you're "protecting" a nation or group, you should not also be attacking said nation or group. "Protection" is NOT what you're talking about in this case- so why confuse matters by using the word?

I see what you're doing and have no problem with the idea that if a nation attacks a member of your alliance, the alliance has the right to defend itself without interference from raiders. Also, maybe announcing this to the world(in light of current events) isn't a bad idea.

I also realize GOONS used the word, but that's GOONS. No reason you have to copy them. Besides, when GOONS made that announcement it was in reference to a defunct alliance THEY wanted to raid, not a raider attacking someone attacking GOONS. Very different situation.

What you're talking about is a "right" - perhaps even a "doctrine." Certainly NOT "protection." (maybe if you hurry up and rewrite the announcement, you'll have a doctrine named after you That would far more cool.)
[/quote]
A couple things:

-The word "protection" was appropriately qualified to indicate that it was [i]only[/i] from "outside attack," in other words, attack not sanctioned by us under this policy. The wording is accurate.
-This has nothing to do with anything GOONS or \m/ or anyone else has announced, in regards to protection. While I acknowledge the slight resemblance to those prior motions, this is nowhere close to being the same, and the wording was not chosen based on those former situations.
-It is permissible to refer to this as the "Hero Doctrine" if you must.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='THRILLHO' timestamp='1289185593' post='2505654']
Could a nation that is already being raided receive protection by attacking 64Digits?
[/quote]Doubtful, and it's doubtful we'd need the slots. In the unlikely event that something like this does happen and we need slots to hurt a rogue, we would make requests, but they would be just that, requests. Odds are we could still stagger him when the raids expire (as [i]additional[/i] raids certainly would fall under this policy), so again, I doubt it will be an issue.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289186162' post='2505671']
The word "protection" was appropriately qualified to indicate that it was [i]only[/i] from "outside attack," in other words, attack not sanctioned by us under this policy. The wording is accurate.
[/quote]

I realize you qualified it. I just think it's easier NOT to use the word "protection" at all as it's confusing. The point is to better protect the alliance, yes - but that's a given. You're not "protecting" the nation attacking the alliance - you're protecting your right to effectively deal with a threat.

The "protection" for the nation attacking comes after that nation surrenders to you, in whatever fashion you deem fit...not before.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289186162' post='2505671']
-It is permissible to refer to this as the "Hero Doctrine" if you must.
[/quote]

So be it. All hail the "Hero Doctrine"

Edited November 8, 2010 by White Chocolate

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1289185855' post='2505665']
Sure, but I'd imagine if a rogue were arranged it would be completely denied by the offending party. If the rogue were on a new AA and the raider launched some token attacks, I'm not sure a higher power would necessarily intervene. But I admit I have not seen the divine laws on this matter recently.

Either way, my concern is that you'll be put in a position in which an alliance flagrantly violates your policy and yet you appear to be the aggressor because they technically haven't directly hurt you. But this kind of murkiness makes the world a lot more interesting.
[/quote]
This policy serves to basically define us as the defender and them as the aggressor in this situation. They would, literally, be attacking a protectorate of ours. Unless something has changed in the past two years that I missed, that's an aggressive act on their part.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1289186860' post='2505680']
I realize you qualified it. I just think it's easier NOT to use the word "protection" at all as it's confusing. The point is to better protect the alliance, yes - but that's a given. You're not "protecting" the nation attacking the alliance - you're protecting your right to effectively deal with a threat.

The "protection" for the nation attacking comes after that nation surrenders to you, in whatever fashion you deem fit...not before.
[/quote]
I am the only one who declares who is and is not under our protection, and in what manner. I only qualified it for the convenience of the reader.

There are numerous examples of this kind of qualified protection through history. These include \m/ protecting GGA (Which even STA acknowledged as they fought against the policy), and whoever it was that protected FnKa nations against non-GOONS attacks. MHA protected NPO during Karma from band-wagoners, and GOONS has raided their disbanded protectorates. It's the same principle.

Edited November 8, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Rush Sykes]

This is seriously among the dumbest threads I have ever encountered.

[Locke]

Oh hey, you state how alliances already function; good job! [IMG]http://imgur.com/nuruk.gif[/IMG]

[Merrie Melodies]

HoT55, this is very much like the "attactorate" we tried to pull off about 3 months ago, I can say for fact, it didn't work well. Just something to think about.

[nippy]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1289191989' post='2505767']
This is seriously among the dumbest threads I have ever encountered.
[/quote]

This. This basically equates to the Bob version of someone calling dibs on the bathroom.

Also, despite you having allies, I seriously doubt any respectable alliance would 'defend' you by 'retaliating', should Believland decide to declare on someone from the 'none' AA. I understand you're attempting to set a precedent here, but it's just not going to work.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1289193699' post='2505809']
HoT55, this is very much like the "attactorate" we tried to pull off about 3 months ago, I can say for fact, it didn't work well. Just something to think about.
[/quote]This only resembles that in an extremely superficial way, and others have executed the 'attactorate' concept far better than you (See: GOONS)

This isn't about securing raid targets, or about mocking an ancient alliance that just died (as much as that latter was, for sure, merited). It's about protecting ourselves. Therein lies the difference. It's not about having fun, it's about defense.

And, speaking of GOONS...

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1289193761' post='2505811']
This. This basically equates to the Bob version of someone calling dibs on the bathroom.

Also, despite you having allies, I seriously doubt any respectable alliance would 'defend' you by 'retaliating', should Believland decide to declare on someone from the 'none' AA. I understand you're attempting to set a precedent here, but it's just not going to work.
[/quote]


We aren't setting a precedent, the precedent was set and has been set since the ancient times. [i]They are under our protection from outside attacks.[/i] If you would intentionally disrespect that that is the same as intentionally disrespecting the protection we provide to our members, the protection any alliance provides to its own members.

We understand the issues raiding alliances face, and we understand that issues may arise. I do think they would, however, be rare, in the absence of raw malice towards us where you would aim to pull what TKTB pulled on AcTi. Regardless, this is not a policy that is seeking war, and we will of course, as always, talk things over before we even consider alternate courses of action. We want to work with you here, not against you, here. But it does have to start with raiders acknowledging the damage they cause by attacking rogues and dumping just a couple of GA. If GOONS comes to my doorstep and says they want to turn the rogue nation into a full-scale weapons testing grounds, my answer is probably going to be "Go for it."

In the absence of malice, I suspect an exchange between the parties would most likely be "Help us smash him with more than just GA," "OK, we like war, sounds cool," "Awesome, problem solved," no reps required from anyone. Even if GOONS accidentally raid a rogue. This is not a war seeking policy, it is not an aggressive policy. There is a real problem many alliances face, and it needs to be addressed. This policy does that.

I would like to reiterate, anyway, that 'raiding' out of pure malice is, again, a violation of divine law, and subject to retribution by powers greater than any man. Since that's the only issue I could see as spawning a conflict, well, I don't see how this could go wrong unless somebody reeeeally wants to start trouble. In which case they might as well just attack us directly anyway, 'cause this doesn't really grant a whole lot of wiggle room on top of such blatant aggression.

[Alterego]

If it stops the stagger intentionally or unintentionally being messed up by external forces then it’s a good move.

[Haflinger]

Just a reminder, I'm not speaking for my alliance. But I support this completely, and consider it a very good idea.

Hopefully some of the Umbrella posters who have recently espoused similar ideas in the AcTi threads will be able to persuade their alliance to adopt it.

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1289210923' post='2505952']
Just a reminder, I'm not speaking for my alliance. But I support this completely, and consider it a very good idea.

Hopefully some of the Umbrella posters who have recently espoused similar ideas in the AcTi threads will be able to persuade their alliance to adopt it.
[/quote]

Pretty much this ^

I think a lot of posters are missing the fact that this topic boils down to "Sirius claim that if I haven't hit the rogue within 2 hours, I'm not going to. So I'll say in advance I'm hitting it." It's nothing new on Bob, it just apparently needed putting into writing (see NSOs Moldavi Doctrine for another example of common sense needing to be written down.)

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1289177972' post='2505453']
This seems similar to \m/'s attack-torate thing. Interesting concept I guess.
[/quote]

Trust me when I say we're happy to have been an inspiration

[MinuteVariance]

The is a cool policy, nice idea.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1289185623' post='2505657']
[color="#0000FF"]This, and the simple fact that if GOONS did hit one of these nations by mistake, I am sure they'd be willing to use everything they have, and just not a mere cruise missile a day or something. And I'm sure they'd do that and more without much of a fuss, unlike our friends the turtle guys, among other recent examples.[/color]
[/quote]

If a raider (regardless of alliance) did this and messed up a stagger in the process (allowing the rogue to slip into peace mode), they would have done damage to the alliance attacked regardless of how much damage the raider did or did not do to the nation he/she raided. My understanding of the Hero Doctrine is that it's more about strategic concerns.

As a metaphor - it's like driving a "get away" car because the raider can slip into peace mode after the 7th day of war. Consider the tech gained "payment" for the services

Edited November 8, 2010 by White Chocolate

[nippy]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289198176' post='2505879']


We aren't setting a precedent, the precedent was set and has been set since the ancient times. [i]They are under our protection from outside attacks.[/i] If you would intentionally disrespect that that is the same as intentionally disrespecting the protection we provide to our members, the protection any alliance provides to its own members.

We understand the issues raiding alliances face, and we understand that issues may arise. I do think they would, however, be rare, in the absence of raw malice towards us where you would aim to pull what TKTB pulled on AcTi. Regardless, this is not a policy that is seeking war, and we will of course, as always, talk things over before we even consider alternate courses of action. We want to work with you here, not against you, here. But it does have to start with raiders acknowledging the damage they cause by attacking rogues and dumping just a couple of GA. If GOONS comes to my doorstep and says they want to turn the rogue nation into a full-scale weapons testing grounds, my answer is probably going to be "Go for it."

In the absence of malice, I suspect an exchange between the parties would most likely be "Help us smash him with more than just GA," "OK, we like war, sounds cool," "Awesome, problem solved," no reps required from anyone. Even if GOONS accidentally raid a rogue. This is not a war seeking policy, it is not an aggressive policy. There is a real problem many alliances face, and it needs to be addressed. This policy does that.

I would like to reiterate, anyway, that 'raiding' out of pure malice is, again, a violation of divine law, and subject to retribution by powers greater than any man. Since that's the only issue I could see as spawning a conflict, well, I don't see how this could go wrong unless somebody reeeeally wants to start trouble. In which case they might as well just attack us directly anyway, 'cause this doesn't really grant a whole lot of wiggle room on top of such blatant aggression.
[/quote]

Fair enough. This is certainly a policy I can get behind, and more than I expected from you. Kudos.

[James IV]

This a common sense policy and its sad that people don't understand that.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I object to the notion that it has to be announced like this. You really want everyone to spam announcements of such trivial and obvious policies?

[Erixxxx]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1289240925' post='2506303']
I object to the notion that it has to be announced like this. You really want everyone to spam announcements of such trivial and obvious policies?
[/quote]
It should be taken for granted, I agree. But people don't. Hence why these announcements are apparently necessary.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1289240925' post='2506303']
I object to the notion that it has to be announced like this. You really want everyone to spam announcements of such trivial and obvious policies?
[/quote]
Have you been paying attention to what has happened the last few days?

[Jens of the desert]

This anything to do with the AcTi war?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1289245295' post='2506415']
This anything to do with the AcTi war?
[/quote]Sort of. The AcTi incident was a culmination of other problems that have been persistent in the practice of raiding rogue nations. This policy seeks to not only address the concerns of the AcTi incident, where malice was combined with poor raiding practices to incite a war, but to also address the poor raiding practices themselves.

I hope that a mutually beneficial relationship can arise between raiders and alliances defending from rogues. Ultimately, raiders can 'purchase' the right to raid rogue nations at the abstract 'price' of going all out to destroy the target and nullify the threat, and by properly staggering, and in general, coordinating with the victimized alliance.

It's mutually beneficial, it resolves huge issues that burden alliances dealing with rogues, while demanding comparatively little from tech raiders, a small sacrifice that would improve upon, rather than detract from, the relationship between raiders and the alliance under attack. Some alliances might even actively approach willing raiders to seek their 'services' in such events, opening up more opportunities for raiders.

At least, that's the ideal outcome. A symbiotic, rather than parasitic, relationship.

[penguino]

Good luck 64Digits