Proposal: The DV Protocol

The DV Protocol

I. HOSTILE MISSION and ROUTINE MISSION differentiation
  A. A MISSION is an action taken by one player (the ACTIONER) directly on another (the ACTIONEE).
  B. HOSTILE MISSIONs are acts of war.
    1. The following missions are considered HOSTILE
      a. some Strike Missions
        i. Assault
        ii. Hunt Assassins
        iii. Invasion
        iv. Destruction
      b. all Assassin Missions
        i. Target Offense
        ii. Target Defense
        iii. Target Covert
        iv. Target Assassins
      c. some Covert Missions
        i. Sabotage Mission
    2. The ACTIONER accepts the following ramifications when initiating such MISSIONs
      a. hostile retaliation by the ACTIONEE in the form of HOSTILE or ROUTINE MISSIONs
      b. escalation to the ACTIONEE's Alliance (if any) for additional retaliation
      c. escalation to unrelated Alliances for additional retaliation (at the discretion of said Alliances)
      d. potential disciplinary action from the ACTIONER's Alliance (if any)
      e. denial of support from the ACTIONER's Alliance (if any)
  C. ROUTINE MISSIONs are not acts of war.
    1. The ACTIONEE has no right to retaliation to the ACTIONER except in the form of ROUNTINE MISSIONs.
    2. The following MISSIONs are not considered HOSTILE except when specified otherwise in the 
ACTIONER's Alliance's documented CODE OF CONDUCT or equivalent:
      a. some Strike Missions
        i. Attack
        ii. Raid
      b. some Covert Missions
        i. Reconnaissance Mission
II. Exemptions to the ramifications specified in I.B.2.
  A. Retaliation to an act of war
    1. As mentioned in I.B.2.a., the ACTIONEE of a HOSTILE MISSION has every right to respond 
in kind to the ACTIONER.  The original ACTIONER's action started a war, and until the two 
parties have come to a peace agreement either via both setting each other to Peace, in-game 
Messages, Aderan Wars Forum posts, Alliance-specific forum posts (in cases where both parties 
are part of the same Alliance), or other direct messaging.  Until such time a mutual peace 
agreement has been met, the parties can consider themselves at war.
  B. A mistake by a new player
    1. Especially in cases when an ACTIONEE is the recipient of a HOSTILE MISSION from an 
inferior player, it is the responsibility of the ACTIONEE (who is part of an Alliance that has signed 
The DV Protocol) to consider whether or not this act of war was made with knowledge of the true 
hostile nature of the act and its possible ramifications as documented in The DV Protocol.
    2. There are obvious reasons why a new player would innocently initiate a HOSTILE MISSION 
without the true intention of starting a war.  It could be that the new player
      a. was responding to a farming MISSION that was incorrectly assumed to be an act of war
      b. was just trying out what the HOSTILE MISSIONs do, especially since there is no 
user-interface driven distinction between HOSTILE MISSIONs and ROUTINE MISSIONs.
      c. was attempting something more "advanced", especially since game documentation refers 
to HOSTILE MISSIONs as some of the focus for the Kyora race, a race specifically recommended 
for more advanced players.
III. Responsibilities for Alliances agreeing to The DV Protocol
  A. Understanding the distinction between HOSTILE MISSIONs and ROUTINE MISSIONs is 
paramount to avoiding senseless misunderstandings.  New players are particularly susceptible 
to triggering a misunderstanding that results in them leaving game.  The Alliances are responsible for
    1. making sure their new recruits are informed of the distinction between HOSTILE MISSIONs 
and ROUTINE MISSIONs (so as to not misunderstanding farming runs, and to avoid initiating a 
war by mistake)
    2. watching out for new members that do not belong to an Alliance, but make an obvious 
mistake getting themselves into trouble
    3. making sure their member base respects new players and their mistakes outlined in 
section II.B.  These are great opportunities for recruiting, training, and building new relationships.
  B. Accepting the ramifications for your actions is the only honorable response.
    1. When a member of your Alliance initiates a HOSTILE MISSION for a war that the Alliance 
has not already declared, the Alliance does not have a place to support that member in their 
hostilities with the ACTIONEE or the ACTIONEE's Alliance.
    2. When a member of your Alliance is the ACTIONEE of a HOSTILE MISSION, the Alliance has 
a responsibility to support that member if requested to do so.  This support should be in all 
forms possible (initiating HOSTILE MISSIONs against the original ACTIONER, donating Kuwal to 
the ACTIONEE, providing moral support, documenting in Aderan Wars Forums, etc).
  C. Promulgation of support of The DV Protocol and consistent enforcement.
    1. Alliances supporting The DV Protocol should post a link to the Forum thread where The DV 
Protocol was officially agreed to along with a link to The DV Protocol itself.  The DV Protocol 
should be considered an extension of the Alliance's own CODE OF CONDUCT or equivalent.
    2. Alliance members that do not conform to The DV Protocol should be disciplined transparently 
on the Aderan Wars Forums (at least to the satisfaction of the ACTIONEE's Alliance, or the 
ACTIONEE directly if not affiliated with an Alliance).  In cases of repeat offenders, suspension 
or banishment from the Alliance is appropriate.
    3. If an Alliance that has agreed to The DV Protocol is found to be in violation, the other 
Alliances have every right to suspend said Alliance from community of Alliance that have accepted 
it, though with fair warning.  Should an Alliance be unanimously suspended, this is equivalent 
to declaring war.  The Alliances still upholding The DV Protocol have every right to engage in 
HOSTILE MISSIONs against the offending Alliance.

Jiro wrote:Also, I can remember someone setting their relationship with me to war before attacking to steal Kuwal. The declaration of war scared me much more than the attack. It had me almost try to assasinate him and then try to destroy him. I would not have stood a chance, but still it would have been nasty. Are there any universally accepted meanings to changing your relation to war or peace?

Kenzu wrote:Might be a good thing to add to the newcommer message.

attack to steal kuwal and raid to steal units is considered a normal attack, while sabotage, assassination missions, assault, invasion and destruction can lead to hate and serious wars.