Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jesse End

Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

38 posts in this topic

ImperialFlag.png


Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order


General Declaration Regarding Poaching


 
To the present and future nations and alliances of Project Terra:
 
It has come to our attention that the International Order of AWU has attempted to recruit from the New Pacific Order's ranks through in-game messages. This practice is also known as "poaching.” Notwithstanding the fact that we have already contacted the leadership of the AWU about this issue, we believe that it is necessary for us to publicly affirm the New Pacific Order's opposition to the practice of poaching and for us to clarify the consequences of poaching from Pacifica. We also believe that other alliances should encourage proper recruitment techniques in Terra.
 
The NPO condemns the practice of poaching and all organizations and persons that endorse its use. The Order considers poaching to be an act of war against Pacifica. Poachers directly, rudely, and unethically undermine the prosperity of The Pacific for the sake of cheaply bulking up their own alliance affiliation, and, in the process, poachers violate sovereignty. Members are the lifeblood of any alliance, and without quality members, which are gained by recruiting, an alliance cannot survive; hence, the NPO considers acting against our recruitment efforts in such an intentionally malicious manner to be an act against the health of The Pacific. Poaching is considered to be an act of war against the New Pacific Order, and the Order will treat it as such both in this instance and in the future.
 
Our internal policies aside, the Order also believes that poaching is a practice that not only affects Pacifica; indeed, it is in international issue. Every alliance can be targeted by poachers, unfortunately. We encourage all of Terra's alliances to also condemn poaching and to promote reasonable and respectful recruitment policies on Terra. If the world's alliance can take a stand against this act and make it evident to alliances, be they new or old, intentional or ignorant, that it is unacceptable to poach from other alliances, unfortunate incidents of aggressive misconduct such as this will occur less frequently in the future.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jesse End,
Emperor of the New Pacific Order
 
The Body Republic of the New Pacific Order

Edited by Jesse End

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can proudly support this statement and a recruiting environment that is free of rude conduct and poaching.

 

Ever forward.  :ninja:

Edited by Milograd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poaching is considered to be an act of war against the New Pacific Order, and the Order will treat it as such both in this instance and in the future.

 

:runfire::psyduck::badger: NPO is gonna declare war on y'all, watch out. o/ NPO  :badger::psyduck::runfire:  

2SwS0fw.jpg

Edited by dane0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o/ Pacifica. The United States of Terra shoulder-to-shoulder next to our Pacifican friends, as we too condemn such acts of poaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Commerce Union stands by the New Pacific Order on this issue. One alliance in particular has repeatedly attempted to poach our members, myself included. I'm sure they won't be the last to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emperor is great, kind and wise.  He gave a warning well in advance.  Remember this in the future when the tears start to flow.  o/

 

Also, hello.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emperor is great, kind and wise. He gave a warning well in advance. Remember this in the future when the tears start to flow. o/

Also, hello.

RED. <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poaching member nations from established alliances is particularly unwise. I would suggest the poachers think twice before committing such acts in the future. You have been warned.

o/ Pacifica

o/ Those who stand by us in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Versutian Federation officially supports the NPO's stance on poaching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This policy is absurd.

 

Either your alliance isn't worth leaving, in which case the messages from other alliances are at worst a nuisance, or your members are already considering abandoning your alliance, in which case your problems are far deeper than the mere fact that someone is messaging people asking them to jump ship.

 

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of a larger overreaction that wouldn't be hyperbolic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome to interpret this policy however you wish. Although, you cannot say we did not give a fair warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poachers will be mercilessly destroyed where we find them.

Just gonna stop ya right there and say that saying stupid ******** like this is what makes your alliance and your announcement look like a joke. Please don't take that road NPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna stop ya right there and say that saying stupid ******** like this is what makes your alliance and your announcement look like a joke. Please don't take that road NPO.

What is your problem,dane0! :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This policy is absurd.

 

Either your alliance isn't worth leaving, in which case the messages from other alliances are at worst a nuisance, or your members are already considering abandoning your alliance, in which case your problems are far deeper than the mere fact that someone is messaging people asking them to jump ship.

 

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of a larger overreaction that wouldn't be hyperbolic.

Not really. Poaching can be rather annoying and is potentially dangerous to the alliance being poached. NPO has the right to try to stop it in a manner they see fit. Their war declaration is probably there to either convince people they are being serious or because they really like war. (I'm thinking it's both). Either way NPO and the global community has taken a stand against poaching, and I advise you not to poach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This policy is absurd.

 

Either your alliance isn't worth leaving, in which case the messages from other alliances are at worst a nuisance, or your members are already considering abandoning your alliance, in which case your problems are far deeper than the mere fact that someone is messaging people asking them to jump ship.

 

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of a larger overreaction that wouldn't be hyperbolic.

 

I must respectfully disagree. The policy is very sensible.

 

Poaching is a force for unnecessary chaos that no one reasonable can advocate for: your criticism of the policy is limited in its content and in its perspective. The NPO's statement addresses the issue of upholding sovereignty and preserving a respectful recruitment environment, and any alliance that is worth its own marbles will agree that violating their sovereignty is something that cannot be tolerated, lest they leave the door for abuse open. The threat of retaliation is a necessary reminder and definition of what the alliance considers to be under its sovereignty. Overall, this clarifies the obvious expectation that The Pacific won't let people recruit from their ranks, ensuring that the expectation is well-known and that ignorance cannot be feigned later. It also calls for others to do the same, so that the whole world can be free from barbaric recruitment.

 

Notwithstanding the obvious reasons for upholding an expectation of respectful reactions with their alliance, the decree suggests the other aspects of poaching that are problematic, though you seemed to touch on only one of them. You yourself noted that poaching entails sending messages to alliance members, but you don't seem to care that most of them don't want to be bothered by recruitment messages. Your marginalization of the extent of this annoyance doesn't make it any less annoying for players who aren't you. Your comments about some nations leaving disregards the fact that these messages will be unceasing irritants to most nations. I'm a committed member of the New Pacific Order and I won't be leaving any time soon. I don't welcome spam messages from recruiters in my inbox, since I've already chosen where I want to be. But poaching and spam disrespect my choice and are a pain in the ass, and this is also true for every other nation that decided to pick their alliance because they wanted to be there. 

 

But that isn't really the point. There's no excuse for violating an alliance's sovereignty in such a blatantly rude way, or allowing world recruitment to devolve into savagery. The last thing the game needs is an environment of recruitment where members are spammed with recruitment messages to no end, where the most basic sovereignty is non-existent, and where alliances exchange lie-filled recruitment propaganda and escalate hostility in a misguided pursuit of growth, and that's the trade-off for poaching.

 

It is fully understandable that the NPO strives to prevent this chaotic possibility and to discourage violations of its sovereignty. There is nothing "absurd" about an alliance taking a stand for its sovereignty and acting to curtail a recruitment mess before it gets out of hand.

Edited by Milograd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept that an alliance's "sovereignty" (such that there is such a thing) extends all the way to its members' mailboxes is equally absurd. And the fact that two different people felt the need to justify it (one in several paragraphs) just demonstrates how ridiculously seriously you all take yourselves.

 

But let's entertain your supporting arguments, anyway.  First, Lost Heroes said "Poaching . . . is potentially dangerous to the alliance being poached," but as I described in my original response, there is no "danger" unless the nation being recruited was already at risk of leaving (in which case the recruitment message is at most a catalyst), and so the alliance must have systemic problems that have nothing to do with the "poaching." Not to mention the fact that it is a nation that is poached, not an alliance. But that is just a minor grammatical issue.

 

Milograd's justification is equally hyperbolic, massively exaggerating what he describes as "a force for unnecessary chaos that no one reasonable can advocate for." He then goes on to suggest that an entire alliance declaring war on another alliance is a reasonable response to some members of that alliance receiving unwanted personal messages. Not to mention the fact that his argument shifts the responsibility for monitoring a nation's inbox away from the receiving nation and onto the alliance itself, as if the alliance has nothing better to do than read its members' mail.

 

I'm not saying that NPO doesn't have the right to enact a policy like this: of course it does. I'm not even saying that it would be reasonable to act against NPO's decree: obviously that would be foolish once the war system is in place. I'm just saying that I think NPO is being ridiculous, and wasting its own time on an issue that is at worst an irritant.

 

But I suppose when there is nothing else to create any inter-alliance tension over, this ridiculous affront is as good as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun and games.
 

I'm not saying that NPO doesn't have the right to enact a policy like this: of course it does. I'm not even saying that it would be reasonable to act against NPO's decree: obviously that would be foolish once the war system is in place. I'm just saying that I think NPO is being ridiculous, and wasting its own time on an issue that is at worst an irritant.

 
That's quite the contrarian cop-out. Why would you acknowledge these things, which aren't in dispute, if you're going to follow it up with the falsehood in dispute for the purpose of putting it in the same shelf as actual truths?
 
Encouraging players to desert their alliance is nothing short of an act of aggression against the targeted group, and is thus an obvious cause for war. Your argument stems from your opinion that the members of an alliance are not under its sovereignty, but even by that logic it's hard to deny that a volitional attempt to sap the growth of a competing (that is, they have something to gain by undermining you) alliance by directly trying to persuade its members to abandon ship should not be looked kindly upon by the impacted alliance. It is within the interests of the alliance to prevent that action, and thus a policy about it is anything but absurd. If no alliance would poach from The Pacific or other alliances that have chosen to implement similar policies because the benefits of doing so are not worth the consequences, then it's safe to say that it's an effective and reasonable policy insofar as it achieves the goal of ending the prominence of a would-be irritant. The result is exactly what the policy sets out to do, and it benefits its enactor in a clear way. Evidently, it's a reasonable means to a desirable ends. A policy that benefits the members of an alliance and an alliance with such a degree of success is a reasonable one.
 
If you can acknowledge the fact that poaching is a negative force on alliances such as the NPO, then you should be able to see that the policy makes perfect sense. Your quoted statement above shows this.
 

The concept that an alliance's "sovereignty" (such that there is such a thing) extends all the way to its members' mailboxes is equally absurd. And the fact that two different people felt the need to justify it (one in several paragraphs) just demonstrates how ridiculously seriously you all take yourselves.

 
Oh please, spare me the "I'm too cool to play the game as a game" nonsense. I'm in this for the fun. It's the people who rant about people taking themselves too seriously who don't get it. :P
 
The mischaracterization aside, when you recruit from an alliance, you are attacking that alliance and undermining its success in favor of another body. That is directly contradictory to the interests of the team and is an obvious reason for conflict on both a strategic and gamemanship level. You say that this expands sovereignty to "mailboxes", but this clearly isn't a question about "the mailboxes": it's a question of disturbing the peace in a group of players that effectively function as a unit and attempting to undermine the prosperity of that unit.
 
The mechanics of a nation simulator only allow us to go so far in terms of defining what sovereignty is, what law is, et cetera, but protecting the membership from irritating bombardment and protecting the success and growth of the team is certainly within the interests of an alliance. It's about as good a cause for conflict as you'll get in any simulator short of straight-up attacking an organization via a war system.
 
 

But let's entertain your supporting arguments, anyway.  First, Lost Heroes said "Poaching . . . is potentially dangerous to the alliance being poached," but as I described in my original response, there is no "danger" unless the nation being recruited was already at risk of leaving (in which case the recruitment message is at most a catalyst), and so the alliance must have systemic problems that have nothing to do with the "poaching." Not to mention the fact that it is a nation that is poached, not an alliance. But that is just a minor grammatical issue.

 
In an ideal world where a nation truly doesn't feel their alliance is working out is approached with an honest campaign once in a blue moon? Maybe you'd be right. Maybe.
 
But that's not how these things work. Assuming the best of circumstances fails to ignore the inevitable shift towards dishonest campaigning and taking players who have just joined an alliance, and also enables messy recruiting. An opportunity for an edge will be taken if the door is open to it, especially in a field with as many visible benefits recruitment. You say that sovereignty doesn't work "this way", but what would you do if I bribed new members of your alliance to join mine, or told your members that they should leave because you eat babies? Or if I started targeting players who haven't even gotten a chance to get their feet wet in your alliance? Would you still defend that?
 
It'd be a pretty annoying experience for you, most likely. And it'd be an annoyance for other alliances that would have to engage in similar practices to stay competitive; to save everyone the trouble of an unnecessary obstacle and irritant that would ultimately yield no greater benefit if it became popular than the current system, it makes more sense to avoid the practice entirely.
 

Milograd's justification is equally hyperbolic, massively exaggerating what he describes as "a force for unnecessary chaos that no one reasonable can advocate for." He then goes on to suggest that an entire alliance declaring war on another alliance is a reasonable response to some members of that alliance receiving unwanted personal messages. Not to mention the fact that his argument shifts the responsibility for monitoring a nation's inbox away from the receiving nation and onto the alliance itself, as if the alliance has nothing better to do than read its members' mail.

 
You have either misinterpreted my comments or chosen to twist the context of them. The chaos is not a part of the basic situation that you have framed your argument in. It concerns how it would effect the recruiting environment if it were to become common.
 
Your mail fraud analogy is also rather confusing. The NPO's entire membership was targeted with poaching messages and most of the active nations found it highly irritating. There was a surge of complaints about it on the NPO forum and thus the NPO found itself in a situation where the alliance as a body and its members individually were subverted by poaching. Throughout its history, the NPO has stated its desire to serve the interests of its membership and the alliance as a whole, so the choice to take a stand against something that bothers most Pacificans and acts against alliance interests is an obvious one.

Edited by Milograd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these long posts on the matter.

The heart of it is, it is dang annoying getting pointless recruitment messages, and if the IO's did not do something about it they would be faced with an extremely grumpy moaning at from me and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I suppose when there is nothing else to create any inter-alliance tension over, this ridiculous affront is as good as any.

 

 

Standards must be set, and challenged, in order for an engaging political climate to begin.  Without a community actively working to acheive that dynamic, the world would fall into a state apathy and disrepair.  Pacifica has set a standard. It's not an unreasonable standard, nor is it unheard of. It benefits our Order and in fact, benefits any alliance that chooses to adopt it.  If you think it's ridiculous, you are of course welcome to challenge it.  Just bare in mind that we are an Order.  That means everything you think it means.  We do take ourselves seriously, we have exceptionally long memories, and when the Emperor speaks he means exactly what he says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0