Assisting in wars

[Vespassianus]

[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]


What about Créole and your charter? Are you nuclear rogues too?
[quote]Any member joining or applying to the alliance agrees to abstain from declaring unapproved wars or spy activity that is offensively oriented in nature while they remain on the Créole AA and for ten days after they leave the Créole alliance affiliation. [/quote]

Or does Créole gov approve going into Fark AA? In a brave new world it would mean that iFOK+PC should have rolled you...

[greenacres]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293555599' post='2556254']
What about Créole and your charter? Are you nuclear rogues too?


Or does Créole gov approve going into Fark AA? In a brave new world it would mean that iFOK+PC should have rolled you...
[/quote]

Like I said above, we only ever put stock in charters when it's someone else who has "violated" theirs.

[Vespassianus]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293555740' post='2556257']
Like I said above, we only ever put stock in charters when it's someone else who has "violated" theirs.
[/quote]

Créole at least had balls and helped Fark, i respect them for this, but moralizing about charters isn't cool. More fighting and less "you did this stuff wrong so you are evil" "i know this better then you" talk would make CN better.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293555956' post='2556259']
Créole at least had balls and helped Fark, i respect them for this, but moralizing about charters isn't cool. More fighting and less "you did this stuff wrong so you are evil" "i know this better then you" talk would make CN better.
[/quote]

Oh, definitely. Charters shouldn't be made public, or at least, the meat of the charter shouldn't be made public. Let people know how to join, but there's too much e-lawyering going on about this, when it's clear that both sides of this war have accepted members to help them fight one another, and really, does it even matter in the end? It's just a sticking point for people to argue over and hold over each other's heads.

[Trinite]

While I don't think having members leave alliance A and join alliance B while B is at war is a CB, it does have consequences. If, for example, alliance A says they will remain out of a conflict unless someone else attacks alliance B, and then 10% of alliance A joins the battle under AA B, this might weaken their earlier statement of neutrality. This is of course completely hypothetical.

[Kahnite]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1293553458' post='2556237']
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.
[/quote]
Chairman, fact is pretty much as Daeryon glibly described it, it might put the alliance in a bad position (if it were a significant percentage of members), but unless the alliance that was the source of the mercs officially endorsed the action, holding said alliance responsible for what their members do after they leave is completely irrational.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Kahnite

[ChairmanHal]

[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.[/quote]

You may have noticed that I identified those switching to the NEW AA as 'mercenaries'. That was purposeful. I seriously doubt that any of those who left PC for NEW had a sudden insight into the languages of Indonesia or felt some cultural connection to Indonesia beyond the context of Planet Bob and the fact that NEW was fighting and PC was not. They did see a nice hot fight in progress and it looked like fun. When it's no longer fun or NEW gives up, they'll probably return to PC, lighter some tech, and a whole lot of land and infra.

They therefore are not nuke rogues, though I do see your point about the technicalities.

FYI: Back during GWIII, I was in a neutral alliance that had a few members go off and fight for the Aegis coalition because they simply didn't like NPO. After their return when the war ended, some very "polite" GGA thugs showed up and shook down all three of them for "reparations" and when one of them balked, he was ZIed.

Being a mercenary is a dangerous occupation, so if those who jumped to the NEW AA think the war with Fark and its allies will be over quickly and end like a satisfying amusement part ride, not so fast...unless of course PC wants to condone what the mercenaries did after the fact by giving them safe haven from anything the winning coalition wants to do to them as a result of their participation.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293555599' post='2556254']Or does Créole gov approve going into Fark AA? In a brave new world it would mean that iFOK+PC should have rolled you...[/quote]

We explicitly waived the ten day non-military clause by proper parliamentary procedures within our charter. If you consider removing that restriction, which puts us temporarily at parity with the rest of the CN world, as an act of war you're welcome do so as much as anybody is able to consider anything an act of war. People will sort it out and promptly do what they wanted to do in the first place anyways.

You'll also notice I never objected to the legality of PC members ghosting NEW, merely that some particular people can spend a week waxing upon the "legality" of an MDP or protection clause and then ignore "legality" whenever it doesn't suit their needs. I'd be happy if everybody went treaty-less from the start, that's sort of our thing.

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1293550090' post='2556209']
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.
[/quote]

Ha! I have one of those!

-Craig

Edited December 28, 2010 by Comrade Craig

[Comrade Craig]

[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]

Normally I have a lot of respect for you and your positions, but in this case you're dead wrong. No treaty should be a license for one-sided aggression. People who treat treaties as commodities to "cash in" are the problem, not the victim.

-Craig

[Prodigal Moon]

The only way to address this trend is after the fact, as alliance leaders can plausibly deny any endorsement of the mass ghosting effort, and ultimately they really don't have control over members leaving. But if PC accepts all those nations back, I think Fark would have a decent case for considering that a endorsement of what took place.

It'll be interesting to see if this tactic catches on in future wars. At the very least I hope it might lead some alliances to realize that it makes more sense to just merge rather than be independent yet completley devoted to an ally.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1293561357' post='2556337']
Normally I have a lot of respect for you and your positions, but in this case you're dead wrong. No treaty should be a license for one-sided aggression. People who treat treaties as commodities to "cash in" are the problem, not the victim.

-Craig
[/quote]

I judge treaties by what they actually say and how people act on them.

I know, I know....it's a minority position.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Trinite' timestamp='1293556406' post='2556265']
While I don't think having members leave alliance A and join alliance B while B is at war is a CB, it does have consequences. If, for example, alliance A says they will remain out of a conflict unless someone else attacks alliance B, and then 10% of alliance A joins the battle under AA B, this might weaken their earlier statement of neutrality. This is of course completely hypothetical.
[/quote]

Well a good indication of intent would be the presence/absence of membership applications in their new AA. If said membership applications are present this is still open for debate.

If there are no membership applications then we have a problem.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1293572586' post='2556520']It'll be interesting to see if this tactic catches on in future wars. [/quote]
Depends, if the snowball effect of wars will be hampered again by realpolitik.

The very fact that 10% of alliances are skipping ships shows that some bonds are put aside for stone cold political gains and no matter how one sentence straight forward treaties are abused in their meanings one can not change this simple obvious to everybody fact.

And before everybody jumps on me, I am not actually criticizing (!), nor am I in a position to (!). Calling spade a spade. It is a rational call, but it also has this couple of side effects which always have a potential to be sticky points somewhat.

I doubt this will happen again soon. It really just takes some better wording in treaties (like writing more then just one sentence), but of course, e paper is e paper and its the relationship that counts. So, I dunno what is their relationship and what are the actual parameters of it. Anyway, probably not a big issue in the future nor would be now if NEW wasn't really an unique alliance that really doesn't back down and doesn't play politics.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Branimir

[Sephiroth]

It seems both sides are accepting new members during this war for the purpose of fighting, so I don't see reason for either side to complain about it. Although iFOK and PC are preventing new alliances from entering the war which is the reason why this is causing them a problem and they need new members to fight, so that could be a CB right there against Pandora's Box if Fark wanted to expand the war.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Methrage

[shahenshah]

Shows the leadership and certain parts of membership arent on the same wavelength, there is enough variance to cause attrition.

This is something people should not be surprised to see if there are more high-profile limited engagements. Here both or all the three sides managed to stop the escalation on their fronts. Realpolitik from everyone, cannot see how you can criticise one side and not the other. Realpolitik may not be for everyone and that appears to be part of the reason here.

Getting back to the main agenda, stopping individual nations from leaving or joining, or penalizing them for making there own decisions is really going to be a step back for everyone.

Edited December 29, 2010 by shahenshah

[greenacres]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1293572586' post='2556520']
The only way to address this trend is after the fact, as alliance leaders can plausibly deny any endorsement of the mass ghosting effort, and ultimately they really don't have control over members leaving. But if PC accepts all those nations back, I think Fark would have a decent case for considering that a endorsement of what took place.

It'll be interesting to see if this tactic catches on in future wars. At the very least I hope it might lead some alliances to realize that it makes more sense to just merge rather than be independent yet completley devoted to an ally.
[/quote]

And what if all those nations that joined fark or tpe or int go back to their former alliances? Or is it only bad when NEW gets members?

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.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1293581611' post='2556664']
It seems both sides are accepting new members during this war for the purpose of fighting, so I don't see reason for either side to complain about it. Although iFOK and PC are preventing new alliances from entering the war which is the reason why this is causing them a problem and they need new members to fight, so that could be a CB right there against Pandora's Box if Fark wanted to expand the war.
[/quote]

Except you said yourself that everyone is accepting new members, so why is it only a CB against Pandora's Box?

I don't know what the $%&@ you're smoking, but stop it.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293589317' post='2556801']
Except you said yourself that everyone is accepting new members, so why is it only a CB against Pandora's Box?

I don't know what the $%&@ you're smoking, but stop it.
[/quote]

This is methrage, he never stops smoking it.

[General Scipio]

I personally think Fark should declare on PC cause of it. Just because that would be interesting

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293589317' post='2556801']
Except you said yourself that everyone is accepting new members, so why is it only a CB against Pandora's Box?
[/quote]

Well his name is Methrage...

Oddly, he does have a point. Actually [i]everyone[/i] being attacked by mercenaries, not just those being attacked by mercenaries from PB, would have a CB against any alliance that ordered/encouraged their members to change their AA and fight for either side. Same would go for alliances harboring mercenaries after the fact in specific circumstances.

[mushi]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1293560788' post='2556330']
We explicitly waived the ten day non-military clause by proper parliamentary procedures within our charter. If you consider removing that restriction, which puts us temporarily at parity with the rest of the CN world, as an act of war you're welcome do so as much as anybody is able to consider anything an act of war. People will sort it out and promptly do what they wanted to do in the first place anyways.

You'll also notice I never objected to the legality of PC members ghosting NEW, merely that some particular people can spend a week waxing upon the "legality" of an MDP or protection clause and then ignore "legality" whenever it doesn't suit their needs. I'd be happy if everybody went treaty-less from the start, that's sort of our thing.
[/quote]
so you authorized cerole to ghost FARK to help FARK out? Nice, Derwood/mike here is your CB against cerole please roll them!

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293588971' post='2556793']
And what if all those nations that joined fark or tpe or int go back to their former alliances? Or is it only bad when NEW gets members?

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]

My shorts are riding up a bit (I haven't worn panties since I passed out in Palma de Mallorca) because of the large number of "volunteers" that came over from one alliance. Since that alliance had also just stated publicly that they would stay out of the conflict the situation brought up some questions which remain unanswered.

The OP brought up the question of what will happen to the volunteers should they try to re-join their original AA, and if they are allowed to do so will Planet Bob at large approve or disapprove of the move. One question I haven't seen posed here is what happens to an alliance's reputation when so many of it's members disregard it's wishes? In the future when signing a treaty with them do you assume that you're only signing with 80-90% of the alliance or if they make an announcement are we to trust them only 85% of the time?

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='mushi' timestamp='1293593728' post='2556845']
so you authorized cerole to ghost FARK to help FARK out? Nice, Derwood/mike here is your CB against cerole please roll them!
[/quote]
Generally if you're going to misspell something while pushing for a global war you're going to want to make it witty, something catchy. Ce[b]Roll[/b]e perhaps but that's a stretch. Maybe a slogan, Knock a hole in Creole, Put Creole on Parole, Rid Fark of the Creole Mole... work with me here.

Any of our members on Fark left the alliance in the same fashion that any of the Poison Clan members that left for NEW did. We can't authorize anybody do anything being a direct democracy. I think people would be less than amused if Poison Clan declared on somebody for some of their members leaving the alliance to ghost an ally.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293588971' post='2556793']
And what if all those nations that joined fark or tpe or int go back to their former alliances? Or is it only bad when NEW gets members?

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]
I only mentioned Fark taking issue issue with PC because I couldn't imagine a scenario in which NEW actually wins and is able to pursue further grievances with allies who've contributed ghosts to Fark.

I'm sure this has happened before, but in this quantity and to this significant an effect? I assure you my panties are completely unbunched; it semed to be a very effective tactic.