Assisting in wars

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1293905089' post='2560163']
You are correct. I would have no say on who leaves. But what I have a say in is who comes back. When you make a decision to leave an alliance and take actions that go against the alliance charter/leadership, then the alliance is under no obligation to welcome you back and could consider you a ghost when you return and treat you accordingly.

Simple.
[/quote]

You would, yeah, but you're a neutral alliance.

For the non-neutral portion of CN it's going to be their decision whether or not they want to accept people and how they view their previous actions and how it will reflect upon them. We were considered rogues by those opposing NEW along with their allies. Take a step back and look at CN. People go rogue all the time and usually will not quit the game. They'll either reach some sort of agreement with the alliance they fought, or simply reroll. Tell me, what is the big difference? We fought to honor a friendship yet people cry about where we might end up afterward. Nobody ever gives two !@#$% where a legit rogue will end up, which is typically their previous alliance.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293588971' post='2556793']
And this tactic has been used before, many times, I have no idea why people decided to get their panties in a bunch over it this time around, probably because people were expecting a curbstomp and they kind of $%&@ed those plans up by joining NEW.
[/quote]

The big difference this time is that it really had a significant impact on the war. Before this, you might have many mid tier people at around 70k NS ghosting or joining an alliance that they love. They did a bit of extra damage, but would never have turned the tide. With the NEW war, you had many 150k+ NS nations beating the hell out of Fark's top tier. Even if it didn't win the war, it really brought in a lot of medium term pain and NS loss.

You could even go further and dump 30% or more of your alliance into hitting a strategic weakness to help a friend, without outright declaring war. It's a lot safer than directly giving war aid and actually has a significant impact on the war.


[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293652097' post='2557540']
If the government doesn't endorse it, then no, it's not a CB. I'd hope that the alliances from which they deserted won't let them back in, since they've shown that they can't follow orders and they will leave in times of crisis.
[/quote]

What happens if an alliance puts out a statement that it doesn't endorse it, but privately encourage their members to do so? They might not let them back in for a while, but instead wait for the situation to cool down for a few months before allowing them to come back? Just as there's an argument for people who leave the alliance out of their personal interests, there's also an argument that those people coming back would be given a second chance. How can you tell a real non-endorsement from an insincere one?

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1293906354' post='2560178']
People can always leave an alliance in peacetime, for whatever purpose. It just shows a distinct lack of thought for their former alliance mates to do so to fight for a cause which the alliance government explicitly disagrees with.
[/quote]


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the reasons people on the Fark side are upset about this particular situation is that some government members were included in the people who came over to help NEW? That shows there was a divided opinion within those AA's, what a surprise. Now usually when people leave their alliance this way they are doing what Poyple said,"voting with their feet." Quite often they don't end up with their old AAs anyway, after a disagreement like this. Losing the member is probably what the government is actually upset about.

This case is more obvious then most because of the larger then typical numbers, and the fact that they were all fairly strong nations, but it isn't any different then similar situations. You are never going to stop people from doing things like this if they want to, and I think if you really tried to you would end up losing even more members. The only reason this even warrants a discussion is whether or not anyone wants to use this as a CB for an extension of the conflict, or a CB for another one.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293900137' post='2560097']
Question. Who are you to say people can and can't leave an alliance to help out friends? The spirit of the treaty is not yours to interpret, as much as you'd like to think so. People disagreed with the decision and left. What the $%&@ is the big deal? It happens all the time, stop pretending like it is something new in this world. We're not all mindless inactive drones that take orders and don't think twice about how it impacts our beliefs and values.
[/quote]

Maybe you missed the discussion topic, that's kind of the point. We're trying to decide what is and is not acceptable in this situation.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1293929796' post='2560381']
Maybe you missed the discussion topic, that's kind of the point. We're trying to decide what is and is not acceptable in this situation.
[/quote]

And I'm saying it's the decision of whoever is directly involved. You can't tell another alliance who is and isn't a member of it. It's nothing new, people just whined and !@#$%*ed about it in this situation because it didn't fit their political agendas.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293932683' post='2560421']
And I'm saying it's the decision of whoever is directly involved. You can't tell another alliance who is and isn't a member of it. It's nothing new, people just whined and !@#$%*ed about it in this situation because it didn't fit their political agendas.
[/quote]

Sure you can, if a bunch of people hop AA's to join a war and there's not even any membership applications then clearly you just have a bunch of opportunistic turds, not members. When they immediately hop back to their old AA after the war is over its even more proof they were not actual members.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1293517905' post='2556029']
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.
[/quote]

Reply number 1 nails it...

I wish some alliances would have some fun and run with this theory to declare wars with unconventional CB's. A crusade war against CCC due to religion... a war against TPC to destory the colour pink... a war against an alliance cause their leader has insulted your alliance etc. Sometimes I think we take the CB system way to serious and it hurts the game.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1293936852' post='2560452']
Sure you can, if a bunch of people hop AA's to join a war and there's not even any membership applications then clearly you just have a bunch of opportunistic turds, not members. When they immediately hop back to their old AA after the war is over its even more proof they were not actual members.
[/quote]

Just as VE members jumped to PC's AA during Karma to get shots in on TPF?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

sorry, nothing to say. (where's that delete button? )

Edited January 2, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293944325' post='2560563']
Just as VE members jumped to PC's AA during Karma to get shots in on TPF?
[/quote]

I never noticed, but assuming they did;

1. They should not have been. We were engaged to NPO at the time, plenty of targets there.

2. Leaving the AA at war is a big deal. Unlike moving from an AA at peace to join a war which is merely questionable. Most alliances take a dim view of members who take off during wars. While I was not gov at the time ((had just returned)) I can't imagine that went over too well.

[Monster]

I don't remember any VE people jumping. I do remember a few OV people though.

[mushi]

A VE nation or 2 joined PC in Bipolar as well.

[Penkala]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1293530444' post='2556100']
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:



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.
[/quote]

Just as a note, it may have been 10% of their members, but it was 1/3 of their NS, too.... that's a really big deal.

[quote]Just as VE members jumped to PC's AA during Karma to get shots in on TPF? [/quote]

I didn't hear of this happening, at least not in any appreciable quantity.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Penkala

[Zoomzoomzoom]

So the issue really isn't whether people "ghost" or go "rogue" for another alliance, but whether the movement itself is popular enough to attract more than a handful of people? Gotcha.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1294002133' post='2561083']
I don't remember any VE people jumping. I do remember a few OV people though.
[/quote]

It was brought up by multiple people during the period before PB formed when PC and VE were talking. I asked Twisted to verify it as well. He did mention a few in OV joining as well.

[Mixoux]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1293937399' post='2560456']
A crusade war against CCC due to religion...
[/quote]

To be fair, it's already been done.

[Glen MoP]

I think this is a great solution for the whole "the treaty web stifles conflict" problem. People should alliance hop in war; governments should offer Ghost Brigades to allies they can't or won't declare in favor of. This will allow the bigger, more uncertain conflicts everyone claims to want (and which I want) in a realistic way. "Untangling the treaty web" is not going to happen, no matter how much people complain about it. People moving to another AA and having an influence in the war? Happened. Governments discussing asking/telling their members to ghost another alliance to reinforce an alliance they were not going to declare for? Happened. Governments actually doing so? Might have happened.

That made this whole war a lot more interesting, even if it did not turn the tide. Why is making this place more interesting bad?

My compliments to those who ghosted and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Thank you for making things more interesting.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Glen MoP' timestamp='1294027188' post='2561505']
I think this is a great solution for the whole "the treaty web stifles conflict" problem. People should alliance hop in war; governments should offer Ghost Brigades to allies they can't or won't declare in favor of. This will allow the bigger, more uncertain conflicts everyone claims to want (and which I want) in a realistic way. "Untangling the treaty web" is not going to happen, no matter how much people complain about it. People moving to another AA and having an influence in the war? Happened. Governments discussing asking/telling their members to ghost another alliance to reinforce an alliance they were not going to declare for? Happened. Governments actually doing so? Might have happened.

That made this whole war a lot more interesting, even if it did not turn the tide. Why is making this place more interesting bad?

My compliments to those who ghosted and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Thank you for making things more interesting.
[/quote]

Well world powers have been fighting proxy wars like this in real life for years... look at the cold war period where like America would ghost South Vietnam AA at times and China North Vietnam etc ... same for the Korean War... or to a lessor extent wars like the Russian Occupation of Afghanistan where you'd have American Stinger Missiles taking down russian aircraft in a war that aparently had nothing to do with america... Bay of Pigs incident in Cuba etc. Hell if CN played its cards right you could have two small AA's super inflate into a huge war if we used this idea over actual treaty activations. Im not saying its right Im just saying it would be an interesting change in tactics.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1294009872' post='2561182']
So the issue really isn't whether people "ghost" or go "rogue" for another alliance, but whether the movement itself is popular enough to attract more than a handful of people? Gotcha.
[/quote]

It's one of those sticky problems. Well within the rights of the nations involved to do this, however if there is any evidence of their alliance .gov encouraging or sanctioning it THAT could be taken as an offense. I'd say more likely than not in such a case there is such evidence, but it isnt likely to simply fall in the lap of the party with standing to object, so we are talking about a lot of work with no guarantee you turn up anything. Therefore as long as the ghosting isnt widespread enough to justify the effort, they wont investigate, and it's effectively OK regardless. But if enough/large enough nations do it to become a real PITA then the chances of investigation rise. No?

[Ashoka the Great]

I look at this situation, compare it to the dozens of nations who flicked to Vox during the noCB War and think, "No big deal."

One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist/mercenary/spy/rogue Red Senator or whatever. About the only constant we can expect is that peoples' perceptions about who's who will differ.

From my vantage point, I can only repeat what I have said previously. Those who joined with NEW during this past conflict are precisely the kind of people that any alliance would be proud to call friends.