Assisting in wars

[MrMuz]

So far, the following indirect war assists have been considered a valid reason for war, and used as a CB for full war:
[list]
[*]Giving money/tech to enemies
[*]Messing up a stagger on an enemy nation
[/list]

However, with the recent war, some alliances have been doing actions that do more damage than the above.

Does mass ghosting an alliance count as valid war help? You can clearly see people leaving some alliances to fight for others (without outright declaring war). How far could this tactic be pushed? Someone could shove most of their alliance into another AA without openly declaring war.

What about temping a nation uranium? Uranium and nukes do significant damage to any alliance, far more so than directly aiding or messing up staggers. What happens if say, a nation temps a few nations in an alliance with uranium, not knowing about wars that alliance is in. Or what if it was deliberate, supplying uranium to an embargoed rogue or a warring alliance?

[Lord Curzon]

There is no such thing as a valid reason for war. What matters is whether or not an alliance wants to expend major amounts of political capital making any one of those things a precedent. I'm sure someone will try and make it so at some point.

[Vanilla Napalm]

Typically happens during all wars really. Individuals will move or jump AA's without a second thought if they consider the cause to be more important than remaining in their alliance, just as volunteers will involve themselves in something not directly affecting them.
I suppose it could be interpreted as an intervention by the original alliance, but typically the volunteers aren't welcomed back until the war has concluded and can easily be dismissed as ghosts/rogues/etc in any case so it'd be a pretty empty gesture.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1293517373' post='2556023']
So far, the following indirect war assists have been considered a valid reason for war, and used as a CB for full war:
[list]
[*]Giving money/tech to enemies
[*]Messing up a stagger on an enemy nation
[/list]

However, with the recent war, some alliances have been doing actions that do more damage than the above.

Does mass ghosting an alliance count as valid war help? You can clearly see people leaving some alliances to fight for others (without outright declaring war). How far could this tactic be pushed? Someone could shove most of their alliance into another AA without openly declaring war.[/quote]

This one is pretty circumstantial in my opinion, Number of members leaving from an individual alliance matters, if a hand full of (non-gov) goes, from a 100+ member alliance, well !@#$ happens. If it is more wide spread you start considering just where it might be going.

Relationship of the alliance people are leaving from to the alliance they are joining, and the alliance they are fighting is important. Are you moving to a treaty partner? Are you fighting a friend of the alliance you left under your new AA?

Are you actually changing membership vs opportunistic. There's nothing like a nuclear war and your own alliances responses to it to highlight philosophical differences you might have had.

Are you gov? This automatically ups the stakes. This includes deputy level positions for most alliances.

Do your actions contravene an existing diplomatic resolution? If your alliance pledged limited engagement conditions, and your actions bypass those limitations it may be viewed as the other side trying to weasel out of the deal. This puts the AA you left from in a bad position, and probably the AA you joined as well. A lot of people like to talk up their love of war and their disdain for their infrastructure, but at the end of the day Politics is still king. There is a fine line between brave and stupid and many have boasted while charging across it.

[quote]
What about temping a nation uranium? Uranium and nukes do significant damage to any alliance, far more so than directly aiding or messing up staggers. What happens if say, a nation temps a few nations in an alliance with uranium, not knowing about wars that alliance is in. Or what if it was deliberate, supplying uranium to an embargoed rogue or a warring alliance?
[/quote]

While there could be a case made for this, its just too huge a can of worms for any sane person to want to deal with.

Lets face it getting stable trades can be a pain. A lot of us take them where we can get them. Are those of us with native uranium supposed to cancel all their trades every time a war breaks out? How do we differentiate between somebody just getting their trades where they can (having set up multiple trade rings my self I would not begrudge anybody their trade ring, under any circumstances (barring poaching from mine:P)) and somebody actually trying to do damage to your alliance?

Edited December 28, 2010 by TypoNinja

[CCCP Leader]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1293517373' post='2556023']
So far, the following indirect war assists have been considered a valid reason for war, and used as a CB for full war:
[list]
[*]Giving money/tech to enemies
[*]Messing up a stagger on an enemy nation
[/list]

However, with the recent war, some alliances have been doing actions that do more damage than the above.

Does mass ghosting an alliance count as valid war help? You can clearly see people leaving some alliances to fight for others (without outright declaring war). How far could this tactic be pushed? Someone could shove most of their alliance into another AA without openly declaring war.

What about temping a nation uranium? Uranium and nukes do significant damage to any alliance, far more so than directly aiding or messing up staggers. What happens if say, a nation temps a few nations in an alliance with uranium, not knowing about wars that alliance is in. Or what if it was deliberate, supplying uranium to an embargoed rogue or a warring alliance?
[/quote]


how about helping my war on 12/31 buy sending us some helping hands in war we can use some nukes since we dont have any since were new

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1293517373' post='2556023']
[b]Does mass ghosting an alliance count as valid war help?[/b]
[/quote]

The bolded question is the most intriguing to me out all your comments. Most of the alliances who had volunteers (I call them shadow reinforcements) leave their AA to go to one which was at war in the most recent conflict only had one or two nations join the fight. Poison Clan on the other hand had 8 or more out of it's 80 members join NEW in fighting Fark. TypoNinja brought up a point that goes hand in hand with PC's situation:

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1293519362' post='2556045']
If your alliance pledged limited engagement conditions, and your actions bypass those limitations it may be viewed as the other side trying to weasel out of the deal. This puts the AA you left from in a bad position, and probably the AA you joined as well.
[/quote]

Considering that PC made a public statement saying that they would stay out of the NEW conflict, 10% of an alliance jumping ship is a pretty big deal. I could see one or two nations going over, but 10% of the entire alliance? I'm very curious to see where the PC "volunteers" end up after NEW gives in to the pressures of war.

[Banksy]

Unless PC et al ordered their members to ghost NEW, then they have done nothing wrong. It just sucks to be Fark.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293533279' post='2556117']
Unless PC et al ordered their members to ghost NEW, then they have done nothing wrong. It just sucks to be Fark.
[/quote]

What I believe is correct, unless PC govt gave approval you cannot hold them responsible.

Nations are free to leave and join AA's at their own will.

[Vespassianus]

Defending friends/have war for fun is cool, altough bandwagon on a curbstomped alliance isn't cool.

Also why all people talk about PC and NEW when LSF sent more people to Int and good amount of Creole is in Fark? (and hehTPE has some "ghosts" too, i counted 21 for Fark, 20 for Int, 6 for TPE and 33 fresh members for NEW, but it's possible that i can't count)

I guess if this war would became a GW none would left their original AA, so we can safely blame diplos if we want to blame someone for this situation. Altough i admit 2 big wars in one year would be way too much fun

[mrcalkin]

At least with the dudes that left from Umbrella, there is literally no chance they will ever be re=accepted. Personally, I would have liked our alliance to roll them as rogues the first day. I really have zero sympathy for any "curbstomped" alliance that walked right into their curbstomping knowing full well what they were to expect, and even less for people who take the ns and tech we helped them build to help idiots who would throw everything away for little gain.

Edited December 28, 2010 by mrcalkin

[Petrovich4]

If it's gov't sanctioned (explicit or implicit), roll the alliance.

If it's individuals (no matter how many), drive them to ZI.

[Monster]

Honestly, it is absurd that Fark is being targeted for looking out for its disbanded ally. Big props for the Creole guys for ghosting. While people leaving and ghosting isn't an act of war, it strains relations between the alliance they ditch and the alliance the ghosts attack in this case and there has to be some sense of responsibility on someone's head for that.

[Ashoka the Great]

This would be a non-issue if folks had followed their treaties.

[Monster]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1293549660' post='2556201']
This would be a non-issue if folks had followed their treaties.
[/quote]

What treaties? NEW was the aggressor. They raided DF despite protection notices and refused to give an apology to avoid getting retaliated against. I don't know any treaties that cover that. NEW as a collective whole decided to start their own curbstomping and it was made clear when their representative said that by apologizing he said he would betraying his membership by doing so. In what world is endorsing that following your treaties? Get off it. At this point, you either are upset you didn't get your chance to jump on some people or you just like rattling cages. So this tired old line isn't gaining anymore currency than it had before.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[zzzptm]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1293548038' post='2556187']
At least with the dudes that left from Umbrella, there is literally no chance they will ever be re=accepted. Personally, I would have liked our alliance to roll them as rogues the first day. I really have zero sympathy for any "curbstomped" alliance that walked right into their curbstomping knowing full well what they were to expect, and even less for people who take the ns and tech we helped them build to help idiots who would throw everything away for little gain.
[/quote]

Perfect awesome truth.

I see any departure from an alliance during a period of high international tensions as a breach of alliance discipline - and that such nations would not be very welcome back in the bosom of the alliance from which they departed. By jumping over to another alliance to fight on their behalf, they effectively made liars out of their leaders that promised that NS would not be part of the conflict. Poor show, that.

We in Nueva Vida watch one nation, in particular, for when he switches AA. He's 100% accurate at abandoning alliances that are about to be attacked within 48 hours. Once he switches AA, we get ready to roll. The identity of this nation is an alliance secret... unless he's bailed on your alliance in the past, then you know who I'm talking about. But we never plan to readmit him because we know he can't be counted on to stand with us in a fight.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1293549999' post='2556207']
What treaties? NEW was the aggressor. They raided DF despite protection notices and refused to give an apology to avoid getting retaliated against. I don't know any treaties that cover that. NEW as a collective whole decided to start their own curbstomping and it was made clear when their representative said that by apologizing he said he would betraying his membership by doing so. In what world is endorsing that following your treaties? Get off it.
[/quote]


[quote]Both NEW and PC understand the meaning of Mutuality and which we will defend each other till the end[/quote]
[quote]We will defend each other, share information and may even go to war together.[/quote]

I see nothing in there about "unless one party is the aggressor." In fact, that second quote is the [b]entire[/b] treaty between NEW and iFOK.

But hey, whatever lets you and your buddies sleep well at night. It seems that unless a specific situation is explicitly written into an Agreement, either party can weasel out of it.

Enjoy your precious Infra.

[Monster]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1293550399' post='2556211']
I see nothing in there about "unless one party is the aggressor." In fact, that second quote is the [b]entire[/b] treaty between NEW and iFOK.

But hey, whatever lets you and your buddies sleep well at night. It seems that unless a specific situation is explicitly written into an Agreement, either party can weasel out of it.

Enjoy your precious Infra.
[/quote]

Considering the PC treaty even mentions chaining and I mentioned that the implications of the NEW-iFOK treaty being chaining would put it above the rest of their treaties and that would be an absurd conclusion to draw, this doesn't hold water.

I will.

Enjoy missing out on your desired fight.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Kahnite]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1293517373' post='2556023']
However, with the recent war, some alliances have been doing actions that do more damage ....

Does mass ghosting an alliance count as valid war help? You can clearly see people leaving some alliances to fight for others (without outright declaring war). How far could this tactic be pushed? Someone could shove most of their alliance into another AA without openly declaring war.
[/quote]
Where have you been? Mercenaries have been a part of CN since I joined 1 1/2 years ago. From my past experience, most are not "ghosting", but have actually joined the alliance they fight for on a temporary basis.

To be perfectly blunt, I see no practical way to stop it without causing massive headaches for the admins.

[Vespassianus]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1293548038' post='2556187']
At least with the dudes that left from Umbrella, there is literally no chance they will ever be re=accepted. Personally, I would have liked our alliance to roll them as rogues the first day. I really have zero sympathy for any "curbstomped" alliance that walked right into their curbstomping knowing full well what they were to expect, and even less for people who take the ns and tech we helped them build to help idiots who would throw everything away for little gain.
[/quote]

Just for curiousity, how many ns did you help me to build up? I always had my own tech sellers, you only offered one inactive tech seller for me. And heh helping out friends is a big gain for me and the lost infra is a small for it.

All the Umb did for me is giving out my warchest info Fark and natan trying to spy on our coordination channels. I enjoyed my time in Umb, good community and fine leaders, but we don't share the same ideas about wars, treaties and friendship. (also based on my experience i guess in next war Umb would destroy lots of alliances, i hope i won't fight against you )

Also what kinzog said, mdp-s are mdp-s, you can try to e-lawyer but they remain the same.

[Daeryon]

Nevermind the admins, headaches for the alliance they came from.

Player - "SuperCool Alliance just declared on SuperUNCool Alliance. I hate SuperUnCool, and I'm bored of just collecting taxes, so SEE YA!".

Playersgovrep - "If you resign you can't come back".

Player - "So?"

Playersgovrep - "it makes us look bad"

Player - "So?"

Playersgovrep - "we have really exciting things going on here too...like.....um..collecting taxes".

Playersgovrep - "Hello?"

Playersgovrep - "Hello?"


At that point you can either waste resources chasing down some guy who really...did nothing more than leave, probably on fairly good terms, and make yourself look like a tyrant, or you can let him go have some fun.

Fact is, until this game gets exciting for nations not at war (Something not likely to happen any time soon), this is going to happen.

[Monster]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293551719' post='2556224']
Just for curiousity, how many ns did you help me to build up? I always had my own tech sellers, you only offered one inactive tech seller for me. And heh helping out friends is a big gain for me and the lost infra is a small for it.

All the Umb did for me is giving out my warchest info Fark and natan trying to spy on our coordination channels. I enjoyed my time in Umb, good community and fine leaders, but we don't share the same ideas about wars, treaties and friendship. (also based on my experience i guess in next war Umb would destroy lots of alliances, i hope i won't fight against you )

Also what kinzog said, mdp-s are mdp-s, you can try to e-lawyer but they remain the same.
[/quote]

It doesn't apply to as you as much as Methax, so don't take it personally. While what you did was disappointing, it's not same level of severity as you actually did have some sort of connection to NEW even though what you did was wrong.

At the end of the day, your line makes all MDPs de facto MADPs. I disagree with that.

Unfortunately for you even NEW hasn't been in line with your way of seeing things: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79126

Edited December 28, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293533279' post='2556117']
Unless PC et al ordered their members to ghost NEW, then they have done nothing wrong. It just sucks to be Fark.
[/quote]

I agree with you for the most part (encouraging their members to volunteer would also be crossing the line).

However, I can also see a scenario where if Fark wanted to use the PC mercenaries as a CB against PC, particularly if PC copped an attitude about it when confronted with the issue, then that would be have equal validity.

There's a reason why alliances discourage members from playing mercenary--aside from potential member loss, there is the absolutely awkward position it places the alliance government.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1293553458' post='2556237']There's a reason why alliances discourage members from playing mercenary--aside from potential member loss, there is the absolutely awkward position it places the alliance government.[/quote]

There is a tenuous barrier between the definition of a nuclear rogue that is most widely accepted and what the PC et al. nations that left for NEW are doing here. In some cases nations wait to clear the application process before engaging in offensive attacks but in many they launch attacks first and apply later further limiting any claim to a difference. In NEW's particular case most of the rogues couldn't join without a direct and flagrant violation of their own charter.

[quote][1] To apply for a membership in the Nusantara Elite Warriors, one has to be: a. Fluent in Indonesian language and familiar with its culture. b. Not a member of any other alliance. c. Is not in state of war against any foreign country. [/quote]

I'm of the opinion that all this legalese nonsense isn't more valuable than a lost pickle that's been sitting behind the couch all week and doesn't deserve much more attention, but for all of the folks that keep talking about MDP and what constitutes a protection notice it is clear cut that those ghosting NEW are nuclear rogues by NEW's own definition and are open for sanctions and foreign action. Pick one path here and stick with it. You can go around screaming Fark bad, NEW good all you'd like without needing to try and justify it deep in some web of idiocracy.

[greenacres]

I don't believe it's ghosting at all, by either side. Alliances do not own their members, they are free to come and go as they please, and if they leave one alliance for their own reasons, whether that be due to boredom, or to help out friends during war, if they apply to and are accepted by another alliance, they're in that alliance. The only reason this is an issue right now, is because there is a war going on, but again, alliances do not own their members and they are free to come and go as they please, for whatever reason.

[edit:] once someone leaves an AA, it should be assumed by that alliance that they left, resigned, whatever. It would be nice if everyone posted a resignation, but often enough, people are shunned in the resignation thread(s), so once you've left an AA, you've left the alliance (at least, that's how I think it should be interpreted)

Same goes for actual rogues, if they leave an AA, switch to none, or their own AA, their actions are no longer the responsibility of the alliance they just left.

Edited December 28, 2010 by greenacres

[greenacres]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1293554624' post='2556245']
There is a tenuous barrier between the definition of a nuclear rogue that is most widely accepted and what the PC et al. nations that left for NEW are doing here. In some cases nations wait to clear the application process before engaging in offensive attacks but in many they launch attacks first and apply later further limiting any claim to a difference. In NEW's particular case most of the rogues couldn't join without a direct and flagrant violation of their own charter.



I'm of the opinion that all this legalese nonsense isn't more valuable than a lost pickle that's been sitting behind the couch all week and doesn't deserve much more attention, but for all of the folks that keep talking about MDP and what constitutes a protection notice it is clear cut that those ghosting NEW are nuclear rogues by NEW's own definition and are open for sanctions and foreign action. Pick one path here and stick with it. You can go around screaming Fark bad, NEW good all you'd like without needing to try and justify it deep in some web of idiocracy.
[/quote]

Charters can be re-written.. modified to fit whatever your needs are. Charters should be nothing more than a code of conduct, 99% of alliances violate their own charters in some way anyway, we only ever put stock in charters when it's someone else who has "violated" theirs.

Honestly, I don't think charters should be made public anyway, because they really are just codes of conduct all dolled up for other people to fuss over when it's convenient for them to do so. There's little sense in making a code of conduct public knowledge, good leadership will hold their members accountable anyway, or at least should, based on what they deem to be acceptable behaviour.

Edited December 28, 2010 by greenacres