Originally
posted by
Vic:
i don't know the specifics of this matter ... didn't know who was at war . i just know we are talking about some nubs and all i know is the general concept of an alliance not being able to retal fairly - if they can't retal fairly, and then they make a new hit on someone else in that alliance that hit them, it's an escalation. from a perspective of pact terms, you are right - unless explicitly stated otherwise, it will be treated as a new hit. but in terms of diplomatic tensions, it's a clear and obvious and stupid escalation that will warrant stomping 99.9% of the time
I can agree to this theory, although I think we're flip-flopping individual vs. alliance responsibility when it's convenient.
Ideally, imag (and other 'joke' alliances) would refine their retaliation methods in an intelligent manner that doesn't lead to escalation. Passive aggressive grabs after a set time interval, for instance. I know this is asking a lot...
The real issue here is the message of intent from the Imag member. Had he said something like, 'friendly grab, mate, enjoy the rest of your set!", mrford would have had nothing to rant about (though I'm sure he would anyway) and no recourse other than a retal of his own. As it stands, with the current accepted political doctrines of retal responsibilities and procedures, mrford has every right to be pissed in this case.