The Refugee (Defined)

[DeletedUser]

Im not saying tak in players running from attacks but i would question why a player should be left alone if he/shes not been attacked, especially if that player can prove their worth to your alliance by hitting the alliance hard they have just left.
This shows some form of loyalty to the new alliance and it could also show they had genuine reasons in some circumstances for that person leaving their old alliance.
Just my personal thoughts.

I would tend to agree, if they prove useful, etc. however an important factor is if its not ok by the attacker and that attacker is a NAP/PACT/Ally of your alliance, then expect issues. In those circumstances some good negotiation skills should smooth over the issue if a potential NAP/PACT/Ally break ensues (ie offer them something in return, like another player, some inactive towns of yours, help in conquering certain towns, a 'refugee' swap like your alliance takes 1 their alliance takes the next of equal size/value, etc)...ahhh the art of diplomacy and negotiations.

 

[DeletedUser1405]

I like your train of thought Qlander, problem being is that you occasionally get alliances that seem to think they can do what they want while moaning at others when the act is repeated across the board.
Both alliances have to accept that if a player is available and there is no proof of attacks then the player is not a refugee and should be allowed to flourish.
The one thing ive found hilarious about the refugee status is the One where someone says we were lining up stacks of attacks before they joined you, im sorry this isnt proof its called griping. Im sure if the alliance that is moaning had picked up the so called refugees they would have defended all their actions.
Refugees that have been attacked should not look for help in large alliances as it brings alsorts of trouble but players who havent been attacked should be given the chance to prove themselves ingame.

Again these are my personal views not of my alliance.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alliances can do what they want, thus they gain or loose reputation from other alliances/players. I guess this game can have some form of hypocrisy, that is alliances who expect to be treated a certain way but they don't treat others the same way. But here's the thing - its a matter of interpretation. That's why its a difficult one to sort out when disputes occur and why respectable alliances don't bother with these issues at all.

In my opinion Alliances who do not have firm and balanced recruitment guidelines and invite who they like will run into more and more trouble, eventually annoying so many other alliances that they'll be dealing with more and more issues as time goes on......wondering why others are so annoyed at their alliance lol it gets messy. Not a way to build ties to others, but then I guess if some alliances want to play that way, its up to them.

 

[DeletedUser2627]

Refugees and diplomatic relations are probably the trickiest part of a war game where such relationships are essential.

I appreciate the clarified definitions of refugee, victim, camper, etc...and the difficulties in finding commonly accepted definitions that can be agreed to by alliances. Many times it seems like certain matters get defined on the fly as diplomats seek to discuss the situation as it concerns individual players when the need arises.

The matter of refugees gets very convoluted when you have three (or possibly more) alliances, all commonly allied to each other..only to have one drop the treaty and declare war on another...while the third is forced to remain somewhat neutral in order to honor the treaties.

And then to add more confusion to the mix, the 'neutral' alliance continues to work joint operations in both attacks and defenses with the other two...just not in working in favor of one over the other in their mutual offensives.

And then when the 'neutral' alliance seeks to have one of the alliances merge into it...it creates a tenuous scenario that threatens the treaty with the third alliance since they do not see valid reason for the merged members to be considered refugees....and where if attacks on such players were to continue, they would effectively constitute a declaration of war and a dissolution of the treaty with the third alliance.

Sorry if this sounds confusing....but that is exactly the situation that can often come about when pact alliances spend months working closely with each other only to have one suddenly change their mind while another seeks to retain the relationships with others, even if no longer mutually beneficial to all.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow, yep! Confusing!

And that is why most respectable alliances do not deal with invites from players who are under attack lol

 

[DeletedUser1405]

Even decent alliances take Refugees as we have found recently, i'm not going to shout off about it because we have done the same thing, we justify this with the fact that any refugee joining us will be made aware that they wont get help from the alliance for 14 days and if they last that long then they deserve to be given a chance and talks with possible attackers start in earnest.
Most people accept this as it is a relevant point that they have been given 14 days to take the player out if they can't do it in that time then sorry, the player becomes a full member and receives all the help they ask for.

 

[DeletedUser]

yep any alliance can accept refugees and not have any issues, as long as the attacker is fine with it - diplomacy and good negotiations used well, smooths over any issues. The problem comes when diplomacy and negotiation fails and the invited player remains despite the attackers objections. Good diplomacy also gains respect, since its a way to resolve any issues between all parties involved.

I would have to say if an alliance uses a time factor in an invite, then it would be difficult to gauge as a set figure. Larger players tend to last longer than smaller players....as mentioned before, if sustained conflict looks inevitable, then the player being attacked is not a refugee since they do not seek refuge/protection, however if a large player is loosing a long term battle (using VM is a classic example of this), the conflict can last several weeks, even a few months. I can name at least 2 players as such an example of this - in the end they were defeated, it just took a long time (I think 2 months or so) and both of them drained 2 alliances worth of support to do it, but in the end both were reduced to a jail cell 1-2k town and kept under lock and key until they quit or reset.

 

[DeletedUser1405]

I do understand people when they get annoyed at refugees, i feel the same way but i cant see a way round it.
Either no one deserves a second chance or there has to be a way round it.
If i came across someone who i found out started the original trouble they would not be allowed in any alliance im in.

 

[DeletedUser]

Opinions please...

Alright here is my situation, Im in a top 12 alliance but I feel they dont take on any challenges instead fighting only mras and weaker players. I dont agree with this because I prefer a challenge and leave the alliance. immediatly after another alliance who has issue with me begins to attack me, fine by me, a month of 7vs1 later Im invited into this new alliance (also top 12) who within a week or two of me joining is at war with the alliance I originally left. Dureing this time the alliance merges into another top 12 alliance to fight the number one alliance but the 7 members attacking me remain in the alliance instead of mergeing because the rest of the alliance are on the other side of the map so it becomes an alliance of 50 vs the 8 active players in my ocean. The other 7 quickly lose several cities and are invited into the attacking alliance until Im the only remaining active player. There is a few days break then all hell breaks lose in a 22 vs 1 attack on me, Ive so far survived 6 days and have yet to lose a city They seem bent on rimming me since I have yet to receive an invite... So under these cirumstances if I was to send you a mail explaining my situation and agreeing to wait 14 days before requesting assistance a. would you think of me as a refuge and b. what would your response to the mail be?

 

[DeletedUser1405]

You are obviously doing something right if you havent lost a city yet. You have been dragged into a situation through no fault of your own.
Your only error was to leave your original alliance before doing your homework and joining a stronger one.
And if these facts could be verified you would be invited and expected to stand alone for 14days before having access as a full member.
You cant be a refugee as you werent under attack when you left your original alliance.


And if this situation is a genuine one then good luck in finding a new home.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are obviously doing something right if you havent lost a city yet. You have been dragged into a situation through no fault of your own.
Your only error was to leave your original alliance before doing your homework and joining a stronger one.
And if these facts could be verified you would be invited and expected to stand alone for 14days before having access as a full member.
You cant be a refugee as you werent under attack when you left your original alliance.


And if this situation is a genuine one then good luck in finding a new home.

Good to know, the main problem now is that the original alliance now has nothing in the way of controlling the entire ocean im in... except me.

 

[DeletedUser1405]

That doesnt sound like a problem it sounds like a blessing, you can start picking off weaker members whilst looking for a new alliance.

 

[DeletedUser]

That doesnt sound like a problem it sounds like a blessing, you can start picking off weaker members whilst looking for a new alliance.

Only reason Im hanging on is because they dont coordinate, you should see the amount of casualties this war has yesterday alone they lost over 3500 light ships. I lost 2500 birems for someone with only 21 cities with an average points of 7000 thats alot. But i dont want to hijack this forum anymore than I have already, If you want to see the casualties go to the gamma ocean and look at the casualty list posted.

 

[DeletedUser]

yea this is a specific example, good that you didn't name names

Anyhow, you would be classed as a refugee if you joined an alliance for protection while under attack. Even so, if the attackers are fine with you joining then i see no issues. Like I've said before, I've been involved with a player removal that took 6+ weeks to complete (another player even longer) - end result was the player was removed, and the alliance(s) that protected him lost most of their defense forces and they themselves fell soon after.

 

[DeletedUser]

How long does it take after they give up attacking you before your declassed as a refugee ( if they dont attacke me for 1 week am I still a refugee)

 

[DeletedUser1405]

The One yhing that is normally asked for when someone is claiming refugees are in your alliance is attack reports, without valid attack reports and messages the can be no claim of a player being a refugee.
Can you just imagine a player being attacked then doesnt get bothered for about 3-4 weeks, they join an alliance and someone starts complaining. Im sorry the attacks are to far back and if the player isnt being attacked they soulcnt be given this tag.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd like to add a distinction between a diplomatic refugee and a military refugee. All your cases are detailed on Military refugees. A diplomatic refugee is someone that has caused an issue through a position of power and seeks protection after his decisions fail him. These types of refugees are often the none negotiatable ones. There is much negotiation that generally takes place over war refugees when an alliance announces defeat. At the end of the day it is the choice of the players concerned where they go to, this happens after every major war closes, and more often than not involved people recruiting that have never been involved in the initial war. This is the only scenario when a war end refugee status will become more like a diplomatic refugee status in seriousness.

and I will stop there before I start confusing everyone

 

[DeletedUser4013]

I have to agree with Kad that diplomatic refugees are more tricky to deal with. War refugees present a clear-cut problem with only two parties really involved; whereas the diplomatic refugee can involve multiple parties and hidden hostilities from other outside parties. Those types need to be treated carefully and considered in greater depth.

 

[DeletedUser2663]

I have to agree with Kad that diplomatic refugees are more tricky to deal with. War refugees present a clear-cut problem with only two parties really involved; whereas the diplomatic refugee can involve multiple parties and hidden hostilities from other outside parties. Those types need to be treated carefully and considered in greater depth.

or if your alliance is a real gutsy one it can be dealt with an iron hand :WARNING: may make you everyone elses enemy however. But is very quick and effective way to deal with typical politics

 

[DeletedUser8969]

i took in a refugee on theta once. he was being attacked by 15+ players and was slowly being worn down. his alliance bailed on him and he was by himself. i had been trying to get him to jump from his current alliance since he was plainly a good player. i lent him enough force to save him and negotiated a truce with the attacking alliance since they didn't want to go to war with us at that time. the player ended up being the second highest ranking player behind myself in the alliance and was worth the effort.

sometimes it is worth the risk if you have seen the player work and know that he can play. any player that can hold of attacks from 15+ players is worth the effort if you have the firepower to help them. i saw the attack reports as i requested them to determine where best to send the defending forces. there are refugees and there are refugees.

i learned about the attacks as he messaged me asking to conquer his cities to keep them from the suns as he and i had been talking. i talked him into letting me help him as i could tell he could from watching his stats and he was only my northeast flank in a perfectly defensible position if he had help. he ended up with about 50000 defending bp from the assaults.

to me a refugee is a mediocre player who can't defend himself even against a single attacker. not a player with 15+ players ganging up on him without any help from his alliance. a good player can never really be a refugee in my opinion as a refugee doesn't truly have anything to contribute. in this case i would say johnKNG was a warrior without a country. i should think any alliance should be willing to help such a player if it is within their power.