TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

by Lord Ishurue Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:36 am

a recent situation has happened

nothing serious . but i think in the future it should be covered to prevent escalation .

earlier a CO was exercising his rights as a CO to protect his officer resulting in some damage to a player.

the recent issue will be solved diplomatically and will not escalate.

so until a treaty is made involving this .

a max of 2 hostile missions when exercising your rights as a Commander & exercising your personal policy rights .

by curumo Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:38 am

EDIT:

0 hits until this correction is annexed into the treaty.

If LI agrees with this, then I'm signing this in the name of TIE.

by Lord Ishurue Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:43 am

curumo wrote:EDIT:

0 hits until this correction is annexed into the treaty.

If LI agrees with this, then I'm signing this in the name of TIE.

agreed . .

I will inform the rest of TOC .

by ian Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:42 am

Since there seems to be some confusion about what happens if a T.O.C member performs hostile acts against a T.I.E member.... I ll clarify it nice and clearly:

1.) Sabbing/assassinations = already covered by the treaty, they are deemed hostile and therefore a act of war - albeit the peace treaty does allow them chance to compensate for damages + 30% fine before they get responded to with military force.

2.) Assaults, invasions, destruction - TIE's stance on these has NOT changed. If a hostile act was done against a TIE member before the war it was deemed a act of war by that player against all of TIE... and likewise, if a act of war is done against a TIE member after the war, its still a act of war and will be responded to as such.

That means if a T.O.C member decides to mass a TIE member - TIE WILL strike back if it chooses to and eradicate that T.O.C member.

The ONLY exception is if the T.O.C member has contacted TIE *before* he declares war on a TIE member to make known his reasons... and if they are acceptable there won't be a problem and it ll be deemed a personal war.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone even remotely thinks they can perform hostile acts against TIE and get away with it - they are mistaken.

If someone throws a punch at TIE... we ll take their head off regardless of their alliance tag or empire tag or regardless of whether it leads to war or not.

So... its very very very very very very simple then: Contact TIE beforehand (and await a response first) before conducting hostile actions against TIE, or your actions WILL be deemed a act of war and dealt with as such.

There is no exceptions or loopholes. We are either contacted before a hostile act is done, or we aren't.

If someone can't be bothered to contact us then they deserve whatever TIE throws back at them in response.

I d rather see the server burn in eternal never-ending war than see people thinking they can target TIE members and that the rest of TIE will just sit back and watch as their ally gets blown up...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Vaako's act of war against a TIE member... given TIE failed to make this clear beforehand he's the only exception to the rule.

I ll leave Curumo to deal with resolving the situation for him since he's more uptodate on the relevant details.....

But for future reference, the above is now how it stands regarding hostile actions done against TIE members.

Which to clarify is simply:

- Contact TIE with the relevant information and a request to conduct hostile actions without fearing a TIE military response.... and await a response from TIE BEFORE conducting any hostile act.

- Failure to contact TIE first will result in your act being deemed a act of war and TIE will respond however it see's fit.

If you have good reasons to perform a hostile action.... there won't be a problem. But you need to contact us FIRST and await a response back *before* conducting hostile actions.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ll admit I m not in a very happy mood with T.O.C at the moment.

Only last night a very very very high-ranking T.O.C member tried to "reserve the right" to mass a TIE member because I refused to reveal the identity of the TIE member who informed me a alliance-wide PM of TIE's member base was sent out to Mujengen... and then today I find a TIE member has come under attack by a T.O.C member.

Not exactly the most peaceful actions the last day or so...

I hope in the interests of TIE & TOC's peace and prosperity that this will be the last of the situations which happen....

by seaborgium Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:30 am

ian wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone even remotely thinks they can perform hostile acts against TIE and get away with it - they are mistaken.

If someone throws a punch at TIE... we ll take their head off regardless of their alliance tag or empire tag or regardless of whether it leads to war or not.

So... its very very very very very very simple then: Contact TIE beforehand (and await a response first) before conducting hostile actions against TIE, or your actions WILL be deemed a act of war and dealt with as such.

There is no exceptions or loopholes. We are either contacted before a hostile act is done, or we aren't.

If someone can't be bothered to contact us then they deserve whatever TIE throws back at them in response.

I d rather see the server burn in eternal never-ending war than see people thinking they can target TIE members and that the rest of TIE will just sit back and watch as their ally gets blown up...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will have to disagree with you Ian.
I and the marauders will not wait for contact to be made. I have seen the 'turtle' in action.
If a massing or other action needs to be taken. Then the best contact you will most likely get is a post here on the forums.

by Admin Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:48 am

ok, the section of the forum needs some system. I'm counting 10 topics with the start and aftermath of the TIE TOC war

by seaborgium Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:52 pm

I see mainly 1 person starting most lol

by ian Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:22 pm

seaborgium wrote:
I will have to disagree with you Ian.
I and the marauders will not wait for contact to be made. I have seen the 'turtle' in action.
If a massing or other action needs to be taken. Then the best contact you will most likely get is a post here on the forums.

Then you and Marauders will find themselves at war very quickly if you try massing or conducting a hostile mission against TIE without having the decency to speak to us first.

I d expect at least that little bit of mutual respect from you or SA, given your own previous links with TIE - or is that too much to ask? Clearly I place considerable more weight on "petty" thing's like past friendship, history and cooperation than yourself. So be it.

by buhcoreTheGreat Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:13 pm

ian wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone even remotely thinks they can perform hostile acts against TIE and get away with it - they are mistaken.

If someone throws a punch at TIE... we ll take their head off regardless of their alliance tag or empire tag or regardless of whether it leads to war or not.

So... its very very very very very very simple then: Contact TIE beforehand (and await a response first) before conducting hostile actions against TIE, or your actions WILL be deemed a act of war and dealt with as such.

There is no exceptions or loopholes. We are either contacted before a hostile act is done, or we aren't.

If someone can't be bothered to contact us then they deserve whatever TIE throws back at them in response.

I d rather see the server burn in eternal never-ending war than see people thinking they can target TIE members and that the rest of TIE will just sit back and watch as their ally gets blown up...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treat others as you would like to be treated
guess who will find themselves at war very quick

by seaborgium Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:24 pm

against who?
theres only a handful of players who can take on any one of the top 3-5 alliances, and they are busting each other, not many outside of them are worth much of a fight.

by ian Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:45 pm

LOL.

Sorry I think I just died from laughter at this message I recieved from Vaako which I think deserves to be published for its funny content Smile

I randomly messaged him the following:

"You know I think I m going to greatly enjoy farming your officers as much as I can Smile

"

(All but 1 of his officers is inactive incase your wondering - and the active officer is a member of Mujengen and therefore protected by the farming-policy agreed upon)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His response:

"I would appreciate it if you don't provoke things Ian. Our alliances are trying to build a solid foundation towards peace and your attitude is not helpful. Please do your best to contain your warmonger tendencies. If violence is purely what you enjoy, let me know and I will link some zen guides and stress management websites for you.
~Vaako"

This is coming from the guy who massed a TIE member and who's MOTD consists of:

"All officers are under my PERSONAL protection. I reserve the right to retaliate with full military force at my discretion. Anyone that farms my officers must pay 10% of the hit back to me. Afterall, that was the salary I paid them for the UU."

Kettle calling the teapot black anyone?

My response to his message incase anyone is interested:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol.

I m just seeing whether you ll have the strength of conviction to try and force your mis-guided MOTD onto a strong player like myself, as you so willingly did on a defenceless player like Shadowrha who stood no chance of retaliating back against you.

How many more players who stood no chance have you forced that MOTD on? How many more players have avoided hitting your inactive (bar 1) officers out of fear you ll target them or demand some form of reparations from or face being targetted by you?

You accuse me of violence when its you threatening violence and blackmail in your MOTD.... Ironic don't you think?

Don't worry though - I have my sights firmly set on you. I ll be watching your actions very carefully for now on... and the moment you set your foot out of place and give me the slightest cause to act, I ll be having your head as a trophy.

I suspect a large chunk of TIE will also bare a similar policy given your lovely MOTD and the way you treat other new players who ve just joined the game (like Shadowrha).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

Incase anyone was wondering what the "not too serious" situation LI was referring to at the start of this topic - here's a copy of the logs from Shadowrha:

[11 Aug] 10:15 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 718;961;111;43 ????
[11 Aug] 10:14 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 868;1162;134;52 ????
[11 Aug] 10:14 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 847;1133;130;51 ????
[11 Aug] 10:14 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 794;1062;122;48 ????
[11 Aug] 10:14 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 1073;1436;165;64 ????
[11 Aug] 10:14 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 998;1335;153;60 ????
[11 Aug] 10:12 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 882;1180;136;53 ????
[11 Aug] 10:12 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 972;1300;149;58 ????
[11 Aug] 10:12 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 1069;1430;164;64 ????
[11 Aug] 10:12 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 972;1301;150;58 ????
[11 Aug] 10:12 vaako Sabotage Mission Failed 5,00

Assault:

[11 Aug] 10:16 vaako 1095 1503 606,714,217 343,755,601
[11 Aug] 10:15 vaako 1656 1650 683,175,757 360,081,072

Offense assassinated:

[11 Aug] 10:21 ???? Offense Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:21 ???? Offense Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:21 ???? Offense Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:11 ???? Offense Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Offense Success ????

Defence Assassinated:

[11 Aug] 10:11 ???? Defense Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Defense Success ????

Covert Assassinated:

[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Covert Success ????

Assassins Assassinated:

[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Assassin Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Assassin Success ????
[11 Aug] 10:10 ???? Assassin Success ????

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shadowrha is a 656,702 army size player
Vaako is a 5,406,850 army size player.

According to Vaako I m the "violent" and "warmongering" one? lol

As soon as I can catch Curumo Online I ll be briefed on the situation with regard to Vaako and find out how much compensation Vaako has offerred to Shadowrha for his various breaches of the peace treaty.... Something I m kinda hoping Vaako will fail to do so TIE can have his head sooner rather than later.

by seaborgium Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:01 pm

So does this mean I have to be concerned?

[06 Aug] 08:16 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,036,596,300 details
[05 Aug] 17:35 spyder44 248,453,525 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,449,614,880 details
[05 Aug] 01:31 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,477,211,715 details
[01 Aug] 07:06 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,952,699,479 details

[09 Aug] 18:32 Spiracy2con 738,669,140 Kuwal Stolen 10 119 208 146,070,016 890,700,867 details

I have his other officers on my farm list, but they never have enough out.

by ian Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:04 pm

seaborgium wrote:So does this mean I have to be concerned?
[06 Aug] 08:16 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,036,596,300 details
[05 Aug] 17:35 spyder44 248,453,525 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,449,614,880 details
[05 Aug] 01:31 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,477,211,715 details
[01 Aug] 07:06 spyder44 298,144,230 Kuwal Stolen 10 0 0 0 1,952,699,479 details

[09 Aug] 18:32 Spiracy2con 738,669,140 Kuwal Stolen 10 119 208 146,070,016 890,700,867 details

I have his other officers on my farm list, but they never have enough out.

LOL.

Yes according to Vaako's MOTD. Perhaps you should preemptively strike him before he enforces it? Very Happy

Actually for that matter since he's reserved rights to use military force against those who farm his officers - and clearly shown he will (i.e. as the case of Shadowrha shows)... and since I ve just farmed his officers... that would surely mean if I preemptively strike him noone in T.O.C can remotely complain that I wasn't acting in self-defence given his MOTD and his actions showing he WILL enforce that MOTD means I m in very real peril - something made even more dangerous for me given I haven't done as the MOTD says and sent him his 10% cut of my farming Wink

I m going to give serious through to preemptively striking Vaako before he enforces his MOTD against me... and the best bit is T.O.C can't really complain given his MOTD + his actions against Shadowrha show he DOES enforce it (albeit against player's who can't possibly hit back against him most likely a.k.a. a pathetic cowardly bully).

@ Kenzu - I believe your the one who always stands up for the little guys and is forever going on about my (former) MOTD which asked not to be farmed. Its only fair you now apply the same level of interest in "fairness" and "justice" for the little players in Vaako's MOTD as you took in mine.... so I look forward to reading your comments on this matter... since otherwise a failure to comment on Vaako's (TOC member) when you ve shown such dedication to making publically known how unjust and unfair my own (TIE member) MOTD was could perhaps be accused by others as a "flexible moral stance" to reflect your political interests.... could it not?

None of us would want that accusation to be levelled against someone who's shown such dedication to defending the interests of the smaller players (such as Shadowrha) and showing such passion for fairness and justice to all - so I, like i m sure many others of AW forum's - look forward to reading your fine comments on this matter wrote with such zeal in the name of the small players Wink

The above also applies to Aworon... I believe it was Emperor's only term that TIE abandon "hostile" MOTD's....

by Kenzu Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:49 pm

Admin wrote:ok, the section of the forum needs some system. I'm counting 10 topics with the start and aftermath of the TIE TOC war

Don't worry about this. Afterall TOC and TIE make up for majority of players, this obviously means that they will be involved in most issues and thus it should be clear that most threads will have to do something with TOC or TIE.

When looking at empire wars/treaties, then it's clear that 100% of all threads will be aboue TOC and TIE, because these are the only empires right now.

There is no need to merge/edit any topics, unless of course there are 2 discussing the same thing.

Lord Ishurue wrote:

a recent situation has happened

nothing serious . but i think in the future it should be covered to prevent escalation .

earlier a CO was exercising his rights as a CO to protect his officer resulting in some damage to a player.

the recent issue will be solved diplomatically and will not escalate.

so until a treaty is made involving this .

a max of 2 hostile missions when exercising your rights as a Commander & exercising your personal policy rights .

I would like to know what exactly happened. If the CO responded with massing a player who massed his officer, then this is obviously acceptable, however if the CO responded to profitable farming then a hostile mission is unjustified.

Not exactly sure what is meant by this, however I recommend a CO will never use hostile missions against someone who didnt use hostile missions themselves (exception, a player breached the farming policy and doesnt pay compensation in timely manner). WR for example will retaliate against anyone who uses hostile missions against our members. I believe other alliances have the same policy. Making hostile missions against people who didn't use them is a safe way to get massed by their allies.

Also, I think we should counter the recent problems that arise, namely players on AW issuing threats for non-hostile missions. I recommend working out some policy to get rid of these threats.

Ian said:
"As soon as I can catch Curumo Online I ll be briefed on the situation with regard to Vaako and find out how much compensation Vaako has offerred to Shadowrha for his various breaches of the peace treaty.... Something I m kinda hoping Vaako will fail to do so TIE can have his head sooner rather than later."
=> This isn't a good idea to post. Makes people like you less

by Lord Ishurue Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:56 pm

ian why don't you quit acting like an ass. you clearly saw the situation got handled with diplomacy , and if shadowrha should get compensation is being discussed.

considering the fact you massed ayayai when she was 4 times smaller then you . don't go posting stuff about vaako being a bully .
Not to mention you never asked my permission to mass ayayai .

If you want ian i too can act like an ass. Vaako joins me as an officer, any officer who gets premptively struck gets massed.

Self defense in the name of premptive strikes is not self defense .

considering your trying to provoke vaako by taunting him then try to claim self defense. that can be consider that an act of war . ( Vaako's hands are tied with the recent agreement of no hostile actions from CO's till Annex is added in )

If you play the pick on someone your own size game ian I will gladly play that game too.

The situation is being handled in a CIVILIZED MANNER . yes shadowrha issue was not too serious, mainly because it was handled with swift diplomacy .

To get back on track, and end the useless banter.

what to do about the CO and personal policy Annex to the treaty ?

ideas . officers not in TOC or TIE can be covered by CO's policy with a limit of hostile attacks . like 1 assault to get the point across that you protect your officers multiply breeches from a culprit can go case by case basis .

Personal policies same thing .

or enforce it at your own risk . Some ideas to discuss .

by curumo Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:53 pm

Shadow has been 80 % compensated - the rest is being discussed atm - the kuwal is with me and will shortly be in Shadow's possession.

by seaborgium Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:30 pm

Marauders will defend there officers for just 1 hostile act.

by ian Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:49 pm

Kenzu wrote:I would like to know what exactly happened. If the CO responded with massing a player who massed his officer, then this is obviously acceptable, however if the CO responded to profitable farming then a hostile mission is unjustified.

Not exactly sure what is meant by this, however I recommend a CO will never use hostile missions against someone who didnt use hostile missions themselves (exception, a player breached the farming policy and doesnt pay compensation in timely manner). WR for example will retaliate against anyone who uses hostile missions against our members. I believe other alliances have the same policy. Making hostile missions against people who didn't use them is a safe way to get massed by their allies.

Also, I think we should counter the recent problems that arise, namely players on AW issuing threats for non-hostile missions. I recommend working out some policy to get rid of these threats.

Regarding what happened:

Shadowrha farmed Spiracy2con *once* for 959,005,788 Kuwal Stolen. His losses were 487 attack supers armed with APC's - so his hit was *well* within the TOC/TIE farming policy agreement

Vaako then proceeded to conduct the above attacks against him without warning.

The issue has since been resolved, after a bit of discussion, with Shadowrha being given 100% compensation.

I agree with a lot of what you said - something needs to be agreed to prevent any more unjust and unwarranted attacks being conducted against innocent players such as Shadowrha - whether they be TOC or TIE.

Consequently I suggest what you ve already suggested ingame - that TOC & TIE agree that any future hostile missions should be done only after contacting the respective leadership and getting a response back confirming the actions can be taken.

Failure to contact the leadership and await a response before the action is done should at best result in the victim being fully compensated by the aggressor and/or his alliance, at worst the attacker being targeted back if he refuses to compensate/cease hostilities.

We should also discuss MOTD's... since in the past TOC was unhappy with MOTD's similar to what I used to have, and in turn TIE & Myself aren't happy with MOTD's such as what Vaako has....

by Capt_Blood Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:06 am

Ok, so having read through all of this prattle it appears that a TIE member made a legal farm (according to your treaty) on a TOC member. Then another TOC member breached the Treaty and attacked the TIE farmer simply because he felt that his policy around his officers superseded the TOC TIE Treaty.

I see that this matter has itself has been dealt with - Congratulations.

I also see that you are now looking to make exclusions for your treaty already. It looks a bit like you want to not only have your cake but to eat it as well.

One seriously has to wonder just what the point of your treaty is if you are going to keep coming up with changes and qualifications. One also seriously has to wonder if you are in fact Alliances in the full sense or just a group of individuals that have come together just so that you can say look at us, we're the best, the biggest etc.

I think that the first thing you guys need to sort out is what is going to take precedence, the Treaty that as an alliance you have agreed to or the decisions of individual members.

@ Ian - Why would anyone need to clear actions against TIE if one of TIE's members breached someone else's publicly stated policy. In this case the aggressor was TIE and like TIE everyone else has the right to act as they feel best suits their needs and when TIE's at fault no one need's TIE's permission to do anything. This also applies to any other alliance.

by curumo Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:14 pm

I'm in a bad mood so please excuse my launguage but how the HELL was TIE the aggressor now? Seriously ... and before you stick your nose into business that's got nothing to do with you I sugggest thinking twice about the matter. Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of being the nice guy atm ...

And what takes precedence is the treaty. Hence the compensation.

Sheesh ...

by ian Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Capt_Blood wrote:Ok, so having read through all of this prattle it appears that a TIE member made a legal farm (according to your treaty) on a TOC member. Then another TOC member breached the Treaty and attacked the TIE farmer simply because he felt that his policy around his officers superseded the TOC TIE Treaty.

I see that this matter has itself has been dealt with - Congratulations.

I also see that you are now looking to make exclusions for your treaty already. It looks a bit like you want to not only have your cake but to eat it as well.

One seriously has to wonder just what the point of your treaty is if you are going to keep coming up with changes and qualifications. One also seriously has to wonder if you are in fact Alliances in the full sense or just a group of individuals that have come together just so that you can say look at us, we're the best, the biggest etc.

I think that the first thing you guys need to sort out is what is going to take precedence, the Treaty that as an alliance you have agreed to or the decisions of individual members.

@ Ian - Why would anyone need to clear actions against TIE if one of TIE's members breached someone else's publicly stated policy. In this case the aggressor was TIE and like TIE everyone else has the right to act as they feel best suits their needs and when TIE's at fault no one need's TIE's permission to do anything. This also applies to any other alliance.

*sighs*

How many times must you be told this? NOONE has to do anything TIE says or asks - it is THEIR choice to act how they see fit, not TIE's.

All TIE is saying is WE can also act how we see fit & the choice is ours how WE choose to respond to actions by other players - the farming policy & the procedure for dealing with hostile actions against a TIE member merely is there for the public to know that as long as they play by those rules they are virtually garanteed they won't come into conflict with TIE.

People don't have to follow or respect such thing's as the TIE farming policy or to contact us before taking hostile action against a TIE member... but if they choose not to follow or respect such thing's, consequently there is absolutely zero garantee that TIE won't make its own decisions and choices (no different to the person choosing to ignore TIE's policy/ procedure for dealing with hostile actions) which may be detrimental to those players.

Simply put then - if someone wants a pretty solid garantee they won't ever come into conflict with TIE they can choose to follow TIE's policy when it comes to how they act to TIE members.

If someone wants to retain the decision on how they act with regard to TIE members and the way they treat those TIE members - that is their choice... but in such an event they have absolutely zero garantee's on how TIE will act with regard to them....

At the end of the day its TIE's right to decide how we choose to act - and we ve chosen to lay down some guidelines for what player's can do with regard to TIE (i.e. how much they can farm etc...) and be fairly confident it won't prevoke a hostile response from TIE.

I don't see why that can be a bad thing? By TIE setting out such guidelines player's know where we stand on matters and can consequently make a educated decision on how they act.... if TIE doesn't set down any guidelines and instead just acts on a case by case basis or on a whim.... then no players would really know what to expect and then if someone has unwittingly done something which prevokes a TIE hostile response.... its arguably more unfair on that player than if someone does something knowing that they will likely get a TIE hostile response....

by Capt_Blood Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:29 am

@Curumo - first my apologies as you are correct TIE was not the aggressor and second, thanks for the clarification around precedence.

@Ian = The question was more of a rhetorical one and I'm sure everyone knows and understands TIE's position. I also agree with you that TIE has the right to decide what TIE will do. All I was simply trying to point out was that every other Alliance can do exactly the same thing then when it is a TIE member who is the aggressor TIE will also know the consequences.

I'm sure that generally most players will respect TIE's policies but I am also fairly sure that they would also expect TIE to respect any reasonable policies that any other alliance cares to post.

by ian Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:31 am

Capt_Blood wrote:@Curumo - first my apologies as you are correct TIE was not the aggressor and second, thanks for the clarification around precedence.

@Ian = The question was more of a rhetorical one and I'm sure everyone knows and understands TIE's position. I also agree with you that TIE has the right to decide what TIE will do. All I was simply trying to point out was that every other Alliance can do exactly the same thing then when it is a TIE member who is the aggressor TIE will also know the consequences.

I'm sure that generally most players will respect TIE's policies but I am also fairly sure that they would also expect TIE to respect any reasonable policies that any other alliance cares to post.

Well, on the flip side if ever TIE decides to conduct hostile actions to enforce a policy... we must take the responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

If another alliance decides to conduct hostile action to enforce a policy.... they must also take responsibility for the consequence of those actions.

In all honesty - TIE has never targeted or had to perform any hostile action yet to enforce our policies. The only time (we as a organisation) have had to mass someone is when we ve been in a state of war with another alliance/empire.... so hopefully this discussion is just academic.

Thus... if we ever decide to conduct hostile actions the odds are strongly it ll be after numerous attempts to solve the issue in a more peaceful manner and after talking it through with the relevant parties involved in the matter (i.e. alliance leaders). We are actually generally a much more peaceful alliance than other's give us credit for Wink

If ever another alliance decides to conduct hostile action against a TIE member consequently... TIE's view is it should be as a last resort after trying to find alternative solutions... and if they ve tried to find a alternative solution to solve the dispute, it inevitably means they ll have contacted TIE anyway....

If someone jumps straight to using force and hasn't tried to find a alternative solution... then that is unacceptable (as far as we are concerned) and TIE would immediately mobilise to protect & defend its member, and to retaliate with full-force against the aggressors - regardless of the circumstances leading up to the situation... since if someone jumps straight to massing/nuking someone without trying to find a peaceful solution... that makes them no better than the original aggressor which prevoked the initial situation in the first place.

On a side note - TIE does follow other alliance-policies provided they are reasonable (i.e. a unreasonable policy would be one such as a "No farming" policy or one which basically has that effect in reality).

by Steveanaya Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:20 am

curumo wrote:I'm in a bad mood so please excuse my launguage but how the HELL was TIE the aggressor now? Seriously ... and before you stick your nose into business that's got nothing to do with you I sugggest thinking twice about the matter. Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of being the nice guy atm ...

And what takes precedence is the treaty. Hence the compensation.

Sheesh ...

Chill out curumo remember that you're pro-diplomacy! I don't see why we couldn't just countermass vaako but I guess this situation has been resolved.

For those of you who don't know me that well, I'm more of
A war type of guy, as curumo would probably tell you.

I'm not pissed about this anymore, but I'm gonna remember this.

That is all! Smile

by Sponsored content

TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights

Re: TOC & TIE CO & personal policy rights