Treatise/Open Forum on Alliance Applicant Status

[Moon Man]

I seek to discuss the nature of the Alliance Applicant in an open manner, so as to form an internationally agreed upon set of guidelines and/or rules about their existence and concepts of Sovereignty and Raiding.

 

first off, I would like to go about setting up some operational definitions for this treatise.

 

Inactive: When a nation's leader has not been active in maintaining his or her nation for a period of no less than 10 days (without given reason on nation page).

 

Raiding: When a nation attacks a member of an alliance with whom the raiders alliance is not currently in a state of war with.

 

Vagrant State: A nation not officially being a member of an alliance.

 

Vacation: An option that can be done by a leader who knows that he or she will not be able to lead his or her nation for a period of time, ensuring that the nation will not be obliterated upon return from the break.

 

 

I would like to start this treatise by saying that this is not meant to condone or endorse raiding active members of any alliance. If a nation wishes to carry out such an act, they are responsible for whatever diplomatic and military turmoil that they will bring upon themselves and their alliance.

 

The purpose of this treaty is to explain what an applicant is and what an applicant is not. An applicant, by definition, is a nation that is applying to join an alliance. Just like anything else, applying to something does not imply that you are a member. If I apply to a job, that does not mean that I am going to necessarily be hired. By this definition, it would not make sense that an applicant nation would have any benefit from the alliance, as they are not formally accepted into the alliance. If the applicant is raided by somebody, it is the responsibility of the defenders alliance to inform the raider that the nation is under protection of the alliance. If this is the case, than the raider should be given the option to peace out with no recourse from the applicant's alliance.

 

If the Applicant happens to be Inactive, the nation should be treated as a Vagrant State in accordance with international law. Since alliance applicants do not have access to the alliance bank, the defeat of an inactive applicant constitutes no harm to the alliance. If an alliance wishes to stop the Inactive applicant from being attacked, it is the duty of the alliance to inform the raider, and ask for co-operation. The raider should then be able to ask for 1/3 of the per-turn monetary spoils that would be received from the raid, as a result of tying up a war spot for 5 days.

 

In order to avoid these incidents, there are several steps that can be taken. The first and most basic step would be to have the nation enter vacation mode before becoming inactive. Alternatively, the nation can leave the alliance if he or she knows that they do not plan on coming back. This is useful to the community as a whole, as it allows that nations resources to be distributed towards everyone. Alliances and/or nations should also post their policy towards applicants openly on the alliance page for all to see, or risk having more incidents follow.

 

I am putting this out here, so as to form a sort of international treaty on this issue. I would appreciate feedback on this, and I am open to suggestions. If you like, please comment and/or like.

 

[Greatnate]

Inactive: 7 days.

 

Raiding: A war for cash, not infra damage.

 

Vagrant State: You mean unaligned inactive?

 

Vacation: The separator from valid inactives and invalid inactives. You're gone for a week? Vacation mode. You aren't? No vacation mode.

 

-snip-

 

TL;DR you want to raid inactive applicants. The validity of this act depends on whether Sheepy coded applicant raiding properly or not. Does it hit the bank? If it does, expect a response. Instead you want universal and mathematical rules for treatment, those will never happen. Also, rules where the raidee pays the raider? Good luck.

[Avruch]

It does hit the bank. So all that "treatise" is wrong. 

[Mutwa]

You won't get agreement on this since most alliances don't want to be told how they should handle applicants. They will insist on being able to decide for themselves. If you want a rule of thumb then if a member is listed on the alliance members list, which includes applicants, don't attack unless you are willing to accept the chances of alliance retaliation.

[Boony]

Don't raid applicants of alliances you don't want to fight?

[Moon Man]

Don't raid applicants of alliances you don't want to fight?

if you apply to an alliance, you arnt in it though, thats just logic. That would be like going to court for punching some guy who was applying to be a police officer. Since he is not a police officer at the time, you just would get a regular assault, not assault on a police officer. And I'm just saying that if they insist on extending protection to applicants, than they should post this clearly on the alliance page

[Greatnate]

if you apply to an alliance, you arnt in it though, thats just logic. That would be like going to court for punching some guy who was applying to be a police officer. Since he is not a police officer at the time, you just would get a regular assault, not assault on a police officer. And I'm just saying that if they insist on extending protection to applicants, than they should post this clearly on the alliance page

 

Protection is extended to applicants because raiding applicants raids the alliance bank. Nobody is going to not protect their cash.

[Kadin]

The way I see it, and the way I operate, is that If a nation is still listed as an applicant in-game, then that nation is under the protection of the alliance. Period. End of discussion. Don't attack my applicants, and I won't attack yours. Sounds fair to me.

[Moon Man]

Protection is extended to applicants because raiding applicants raids the alliance bank. Nobody is going to not protect their cash.

so by this logic, I could have war declared on me, apply to an alliance I dont particularly care for, and lose the war, causing the winner to steal resources from the alliance bank. Sounds like an exploit waiting to happen.

 

 

The way I see it, and the way I operate, is that If a nation is still listed as an applicant in-game, then that nation is under the protection of the alliance. Period. End of discussion. Don't attack my applicants, and I won't attack yours. Sounds fair to me.

and if you want to protect someone, why not just have them join your alliance?

[Greatnate]

so by this logic, I could have war declared on me, apply to an alliance I dont particularly care for, and lose the war, causing the winner to steal resources from the alliance bank. Sounds like an exploit waiting to happen.

 

No, you would have to apply and then get war declared on you for the raid to go through. As always, your bank status at the start of the war is what counts at the end of the war.

[Saopha Calas Vaduum]

Raiders have no rights to ask for compensation money for getting tied up in a war if they are asked to stop.

 

They got themselves into the situation, no one else did.

[Crust]

It makes absolutely no sense that a raider should get compensation for raiding a would-be member for an alliance. You either comply with the demands the alliances sends, or you don't. If you don't you'll just have to face the consequences.

[ReaverIC]

I used to raid a lot and raiding applicants in my experience is one of the most profitable since they are usually not that well armed and you get to steal some dosh from the alliance. But if you don't want to get rekt mate, I suggest you pick your raiding targets well an gauge if you'll get profit out of it, anything else that balances profit out is an automatic NO. 

[Kadin]

so by this logic, I could have war declared on me, apply to an alliance I dont particularly care for, and lose the war, causing the winner to steal resources from the alliance bank. Sounds like an exploit waiting to happen.

 

 

and if you want to protect someone, why not just have them join your alliance?

 

First of all, it is not your decision how we handle applicants. We will handle them how we want to, and you will deal with it.

 

Second, If someone is an applicant then they are currently applying to be a member. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Kadin

[Moon Man]

First of all, it is not your decision how we handle applicants. We will handle them how we want to, and you will deal with it.

 

Second, If someone is an applicant then they are currently applying to be a member. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Just because I am applying to be a member of a credit union does not grant me any of the rights of said credit union. Same could be said about literally anything else. Just because I am applying to join the army does not grant me any of the benefits of said establishment. All im saying is that if you want to treat applicants as members, post this in your alliance page. There is no reason why applying to something should grant you any benefit. Give me one example where applying to something grants you the immediate benefit of said organization. This concept is contrary to common sense, and borders on the line of insanity. Why even bother joining then if you can apply, get granted the benefits, and not have to pay taxes?

[Boony]

Just because I am applying to be a member of a credit union does not grant me any of the rights of said credit union. Same could be said about literally anything else. Just because I am applying to join the army does not grant me any of the benefits of said establishment. All im saying is that if you want to treat applicants as members, post this in your alliance page. There is no reason why applying to something should grant you any benefit. Give me one example where applying to something grants you the immediate benefit of said organization. This concept is contrary to common sense, and borders on the line of insanity. Why even bother joining then if you can apply, get granted the benefits, and not have to pay taxes?

The only benifit they get is protection, and they get it because they are applying to the alliance, and thus might be a part of it in the future. I don't understand how you don't understand the differences between this scenerio and the scenerios you described.

[Kadin]

Just because I am applying to be a member of a credit union does not grant me any of the rights of said credit union. Same could be said about literally anything else. Just because I am applying to join the army does not grant me any of the benefits of said establishment. All im saying is that if you want to treat applicants as members, post this in your alliance page. There is no reason why applying to something should grant you any benefit. Give me one example where applying to something grants you the immediate benefit of said organization. This concept is contrary to common sense, and borders on the line of insanity. Why even bother joining then if you can apply, get granted the benefits, and not have to pay taxes?

Okay, you don't seen to be understanding what I'm saying.

 

It is not up to you to decide how our alliance handles applicants. Our alliance views applicants as being under our protection, and this is a common practice. I don't care whether or not you think it is contrary to common sense because you have no input into the matter. You can't just post a thread here and start acting like you are the one who gets to decide. The government of each alliance get to decide, and it isn't your place to argue against it.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Kadin

[Magicboyd25]

if you apply to an alliance, you arnt in it though, thats just logic. That would be like going to court for punching some guy who was applying to be a police officer. Since he is not a police officer at the time, you just would get a regular assault, not assault on a police officer. And I'm just saying that if they insist on extending protection to applicants, than they should post this clearly on the alliance page

 

Doesn't matter. If someone hits an applicant of an alliance, chances are the alliance isn't going to be happy and let it be brushed off. That alliance will be helping that member grow one day and to have them be damaged while in the process of becoming a member is hurting the alliance's future efforts. Therefore, if you want to raid applicants, get some brain cells and realize that it is not smart

[Zoot]

Just because I am applying to be a member of a credit union does not grant me any of the rights of said credit union. Same could be said about literally anything else. Just because I am applying to join the army does not grant me any of the benefits of said establishment. All im saying is that if you want to treat applicants as members, post this in your alliance page. There is no reason why applying to something should grant you any benefit. Give me one example where applying to something grants you the immediate benefit of said organization. This concept is contrary to common sense, and borders on the line of insanity. Why even bother joining then if you can apply, get granted the benefits, and not have to pay taxes?

 

The issue with your stance is that it is contrary to the established norm. Alliances protect their applicants that is simply a fact.

 

You are in no position to demand that alliances write anything on their alliance page. The correct assumption to make would be that alliances protect their applicants, which is what everyone, that isn't you, have been saying.

 

As for the example you are asking for. It is quite simple. ALLIANCES IN THIS GAME. There, you've got your example. When applying to join an alliance you are immediately granted the benefit of protection. Oh, you were looking for a real world example? Well how about this: When someone applies for asylum, they are given certain benefits while their application is being processed. 

 

As for your "why even bother joining" line. Well how about this: Most alliances will kick out an applicant that fails to follow procedure.

 

Now you are free to disagree with how things work. That is your right. But until you are in a leadership position in an alliance capable of doing something about it or manages to convince a significant part of the community, you won't get anything changed. And you certainly won't get anything changed by creating topics with your own definitions of things and then pretending that they are the only thing that makes sense...

[Moon Man]

The issue with your stance is that it is contrary to the established norm. Alliances protect their applicants that is simply a fact.

 

You are in no position to demand that alliances write anything on their alliance page. The correct assumption to make would be that alliances protect their applicants, which is what everyone, that isn't you, have been saying.

 

As for the example you are asking for. It is quite simple. ALLIANCES IN THIS GAME. There, you've got your example. When applying to join an alliance you are immediately granted the benefit of protection. Oh, you were looking for a real world example? Well how about this: When someone applies for asylum, they are given certain benefits while their application is being processed. 

 

As for your "why even bother joining" line. Well how about this: Most alliances will kick out an applicant that fails to follow procedure.

 

Now you are free to disagree with how things work. That is your right. But until you are in a leadership position in an alliance capable of doing something about it or manages to convince a significant part of the community, you won't get anything changed. And you certainly won't get anything changed by creating topics with your own definitions of things and then pretending that they are the only thing that makes sense...

The only real benefit of an alliance is protection, and if you get that protection for just applying, it does not make sense to actually seek acceptance. It would make sense to abuse this position, and just keep alliance application hopping to every alliance in the game as soon as you lose the protection status.

 

And what about alliance applicants who also happen to be inactive? Extending protection to these nations seems to be damaging to the world economy as a whole. If there is to be protection offered to applicants, than there should be a deadline of length of applicant status. It should realistically take no more than 10 days to determine if an applicant is worthy of joining your alliance. Perhaps at least a deadline of some variety could be agreed upon

[ComradeMilton]

Nope. You still don't get a say.

[Doktor Avalanche]

We do not have to agree with anything or anyone here. No one nation or alliance has a say as to the standards set by each individual nation or alliance in this world. This is one of the most ridiculous threads this game has seen, and that in itself is an impressive feat to accomplish.

 

If an alliance wants to extend its protection to the nations applying to join said alliance that is their choice to let the world of Orbis know or not. You, however, do not have any control over this, nor does anyone else when it is not your nation or alliance.

[Zoot]

The only real benefit of an alliance is protection, and if you get that protection for just applying, it does not make sense to actually seek acceptance. It would make sense to abuse this position, and just keep alliance application hopping to every alliance in the game as soon as you lose the protection status.

Under the assumption that no alliances talk to each other and no one checks the alliance history of their applicants, sure. But if we assume that those two completely unrealistic things doesn't happen, well then you wouldn't get away with it.

 

Also if you think the only benefit of being in an alliance is protection, then I might suggest you try to get a bit more involved with your alliance as I'm sure your alliance has much more to offer than simply protection...

 

And what about alliance applicants who also happen to be inactive? Extending protection to these nations seems to be damaging to the world economy as a whole. If there is to be protection offered to applicants, than there should be a deadline of length of applicant status. It should realistically take no more than 10 days to determine if an applicant is worthy of joining your alliance. Perhaps at least a deadline of some variety could be agreed upon

No. You see most alliances could give a flying !@#$ if some raider would like to be able to raid someone sitting as an applicant on their AA, so some deadline of some sort couldn't be agreed on. The alliances that want to have a policy for when they remove people for inactivity have such a policy and the ones that doesn't do not.

 

Now if you want to try and establish some sort of UN in order to be able to impose these kinds of restrictions on all alliances then by all means try. I'll be the one sitting back and laughing while you fail miserably.

[Pax]

An alliance can choose to protect it's applicants if it wants to. I personally choose to, because I want to encourage more people to apply to my alliance (and therefore get more members). Just because they aren't yet officially a member, does not mean I can't choose to assist them.

[Valakias]

I find this thread and the reasoning behind it worthy of a shark. My Corporate sense tingled.

 

An applicant is an possible investment, all alliances grow thanks to new blood becoming members. Not protecting applicants would be extremely negative to an alliance reputation, especially if its just to appease a couple of raiders.

 

This thread is but a giant trolling