|
|
Post by Lorhayden on Jan 20, 2013 19:36:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 20, 2013 21:14:36 GMT -6
I think it's probably a discussion worth participating in. I'd be wary of committing to it too much until it's a bit more defined though. Sounds like a job for our diplomats.
|
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 20, 2013 23:51:30 GMT -6
I just think we need to approach this delicately. It could do some serious damage to our reputation for non-aggression if or non-aggression policy suddenly doesn't apply to known griefers.
I think the Treaty of Ravagug is a great idea, I'm just not sure our organization can take that kind of stance and maintain our non-aggression policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 21, 2013 3:09:17 GMT -6
Arguably, by being "known griefers", they've already initiated the aggression. I think it's important to remember that non-aggression does not mean non-violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 21, 2013 12:13:30 GMT -6
I'm not sure we need to sign any formal treaties. Our stance on aggression (and our response to aggression against us) is clear and known. We're also very clear about our policy on griefing (non-toleration). I concur with Dario, that griefing is a form of aggression - moreover, it is a pattern of continual aggression and I don't think we're going to associate with people like that. It wouldn't be aggression to neutralize a known serial aggressor who shows up on your doorstep. You don't have to be kind to Charles Manson when he shows up at your house, and if he tries to approach you, you're not bound (by non-aggression) to not shoot him. He's a credible threat with a history of aggression. Should we go out hunting them down and murderhobo'ing everyone who may have griefed? Probably not. Should we put them six feet under if they harass or target our members? Absolutely.
I'm unconvinced about the treaty, I'd prefer we treated everything a bit more case-by-case.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Jan 21, 2013 13:29:14 GMT -6
I'm not sure we need to sign any formal treaties. Our stance on aggression (and our response to aggression against us) is clear and known. We're also very clear about our policy on griefing (non-toleration). I concur with Dario, that griefing is a form of aggression - moreover, it is a pattern of continual aggression and I don't think we're going to associate with people like that. It wouldn't be aggression to neutralize a known serial aggressor who shows up on your doorstep. You don't have to be kind to Charles Manson when he shows up at your house, and if he tries to approach you, you're not bound (by non-aggression) to not shoot him. He's a credible threat with a history of aggression. Should we go out hunting them down and murderhobo'ing everyone who may have griefed? Probably not. Should we put them six feet under if they harass or target our members? Absolutely. I'm unconvinced about the treaty, I'd prefer we treated everything a bit more case-by-case. I'm glad you said this, reading through the thread, I think TEO might have gone about this the wrong way. They sure have a lot of people questioning whether the treaty is a good thing or not. I don't think it's a good thing for us, but I'll support whatever decision we make. I guess it's got that "world cop" feeling to it. Kind of like the US has done and to sure not helped us out any! |
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 21, 2013 18:24:29 GMT -6
My problem is the funding/ethical implications of becoming global cops. I think we might do better, as a guild, to stay as neutral in politics as possible. I don't think we have the power at the upper levels to force our members into a treaty of this magnitude. Now, if TEO wanted to hire out members of KoTC to help find a theoretical Goonsquad invasion, I don't imagine we would restrict that. And if Goonsquad attacked us/our trade partners, I imagine we'd end up involved to some degree. But this feels more like, as Kvalandur said, world cop-business. Is that us? I'm not sure it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 21, 2013 18:36:26 GMT -6
I also have a problem labeling ourselves "Global Cops" as you say. And the issue I have with this "treaty" is that it is very Meta. Gintigael doesn't know what griefing is (Andrew does, though), he only knows when someone destroys his buildings and attacks him. I would like things to stay as In Character as possible when playing the game and signing a Meta treaty totally breaks the 4th wall... and not in a cool Deadpool way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 21, 2013 18:44:34 GMT -6
Hrod, what are your thoughts on mutual defense treaties, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 9:32:21 GMT -6
So, having watched the discussion on this treaty on the Paizo forums, I think I'm forced to revise my assessment. I think we're going to be better off staying away from this thing. Noble intent, but the more insight I'm getting into the execution, the more nervous it's making me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 22, 2013 10:15:54 GMT -6
Mutual defense is a bit different. Personally, I'm not sure I would sign one without some significant benefit and a lot of research on our partner - how aggressive/likely is our partner to get into fights, how much do we think it will cost us to stand by them, would we be better off staying out of everything that doesn't affect us directly, etc. Piling into a mutual defense treaty with a larger power may put us in the path of things we can't overcome, but it provides (assuming they fulfill their obligation in turn) reasonable "free" defense.
I'm more in favor of mutual defense, but only so long as it is clear that it only kicks in under circumstances of direct warfare - in other words, I don't want to get pulled into your conflict over colonies or disputes over trade or whatever. If someone attacks you under X, Y, or Z circumstances, we'll come to your aid. We have to have zero obligation in helping them if they are aggressing though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 10:36:17 GMT -6
If someone attacks you under X, Y, or Z circumstances, we'll come to your aid. We have to have zero obligation in helping them if they are aggressing though. This, I think would be a critical component of any such treaty. We will help with your *defense* not your *offense*. |
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 22, 2013 11:03:13 GMT -6
Exactly. What Andius seems to be suggesting is a much more active and offense-related treaty than a mutual defense pact. With the way the discussions have been going and the nature of the treaty, I think we might be better to just stay clear of it. If and when the Goonswarm arrives, I imagine it will take a lot of united guilds to push them back. That would be a clear response to aggression, which I could get behind. This treaty proposal seems to be beyond the scope I would be comfortable signing on to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 22, 2013 13:23:18 GMT -6
I'm not up to speed yet on the full thread, but my initial response is caution as well. The focus on non-aggression is definitely a key element for our treaties and pacts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 22, 2013 15:50:36 GMT -6
I think the treaty is great in the fact that it a widely seen statement that evil does not equal griefing. That the discussion serves to reach across the alignment aisle and agree upon one thing is great.
That being said, I am in agreement that we should not be signing it. It is extremely meta and I feel like it does go against the one thing we stand for.
I haven't read through the threat myself, but the thing that would worry me the most is if it came down to fighting fire with fire. If we preemptively stop their actions by camping them in force then we are giving them what they want imo.
|
|
