Refugee definition and conventions?

[DeletedUser14492]

Greetings good people of Theta

Just a wee thread to discuss the definition of a refugee and the conventions surrounding this unwritten code...

To start us off...

Since almost the first moment I entered Grepolis, I became aware of the idea of a "Refugee". My understanding has always been the following...

Any player who is under attack by another player and/or alliance, who joins a new alliance, can be claimed as a refugee by the attacking player/alliance.

My understanding of the conventions surrounding this status is that the new alliance that the defending player moves to, should not provide support, and shall give the attacking player/alliance a period of grace in which to complete their attacks, before they DO offer support and consider the defending player as a fully fledged part of their alliance. After this time further attacks by the player/alliance will generally be considered an act of war.

The period of grace can be anything from a few days to a couple of weeks... usually negotiated with the attacking player/alliance.

Another outlook I have come to understand some favour is, any refugee, should simply be refused entry, or kicked from the new alliance upon discovery of their status as a refugee.

I look forward to hearing everyones thoughts... discuss...

Ev

 

[DeletedUser]

Sir Felanacio :0

 

[DeletedUser14492]

Sir Felanacio :0

Can we elevate this discussion away from gutter politics, I am genuinly interested in what everyone thinks.



Ev

 

[DeletedUser]

sorry

 

[DeletedUser14492]

I was not critisising you, so no need to apologise

I am only asking everyone to try and keep the conversation above board and free of alliance politics.

Ev

 

[DeletedUser]

Refugee , , bad stuff there , always turns out bad , cose you wont want to defned them , but you wont want them to be conkered ...

same as you say basclly someone who joins an alliance for protection against Attacks ... classed as the lowest you can get .... (at least for me) .

Sir Felanacio :0

:O , a bit , I guess , but only one city of like 80 ...

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me simplify it for you Eve.

Alliances that harbor refugee's are usually targeted by every alliance within throwing distance.

Have a Great day.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was hoping I would never have to log into here! THIS is the definition of a refugee!!!


A refugee is a person who has been pushed away from his or her home and seeks refuge elsewhere. A refugee is different from an asylum seeker because a refugee brings documentation.[1] Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is more narrowly defined (in Article 1A) as a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".

1. He was not pushed away.

2. He was not protected NOR sought Protection

3. SF CAN and DID protect himself from your 1 (one) city you had in revolt!
SO EVERYONE CAN SEE...ONE CITY IN REVOLT, PROTECTED BY HIMESLF, NOT PUSHED AWAY FROM TL AND DID NOT SEEK PROTECTION...I.E. NOT A REFUGEE!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

I, for one, like the topic; And I think Mike's definition of a refugee, although more applicable to real world politics, is a fair representation of what we should expect in this game.

To be fair to TC, since everyone seems to have made this topic about me (Yay, me!) and TC; deadly piece sent me the invite prior to any attacks having been launched by NWO. It was my fault, due to RL obligations (a.k.a. work), that I was unable to accept the invite until after a single attack had already been launched. Was there an 'OP' against me? I don't know, perhaps there was. In any event the attacks ceased, thus expiring my 'refugee' status. End of story.

If I'm still considered a so-called 'refugee'... Well, then, bring it on.

 

[DeletedUser14492]

Let me simplify it for you Eve.

Alliances that harbor refugee's are usually targeted by every alliance within throwing distance.

Have a Great day.

Congratulations on managing to keep this thead above board and free from alliance politics.

lol

Ev

 

[DeletedUser]

Nice try Mike, however the word "refugee" is used in grep as a term of art, not the UN definition (seriously though, why on earth would you think the UN definition applies here?!?).

In grep it means someone that was under attack and to save their skin sought refuge in an alliance, or for that matter a safer alliance, as a means to protect themselves.

The convention is that alliances do not recruit refugees and if they accidentally do so, said refugee is to be promptly kicked. It is the player's responsibility to tell his prospective alliance if at the time she/he falls into that status.

The reasons for this setup should be fairly obvious.

Simple enough, one would have thought.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok allicient, then by your definetion he is not a refugee.

to save their skin sought refuge in an alliance, or for that matter a safer alliance, as a means to protect themselves.


1. He did not join for protection
2. He defended himself

 

[DeletedUser]

yes , un defenition ,abit on the wider scale , but sir felancio simply joined , not for protection , cose in fact He did everyxthing himself , but because he want to join an alliance !! but anyway you guys have declared war with us so whats youre problem ??

 

[DeletedUser10902]

In Kappa I was labeled a refugee once. My alliance was down to me and 3 other guys, and being attacked pretty hard. We joined a bigger alliance, and yes, it was to save our skin.

They never kicked us though. They simply didn't defend us when that ONE alliance attacked us. The four of us had to work together and hang on for a week I think. Lost two cities, but then the refugee status was lifted.

Whats my point? You don't need to kick a refugee to settle the dispute.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok allicient, then by your definetion he is not a refugee.

to save their skin sought refuge in an alliance, or for that matter a safer alliance, as a means to protect themselves.


1. He did not join for protection
2. He defended himself

1. I had assigned him as one of two targets for that week, he was geographically separated from the rest of TL, I would assume he had issues with TL and with TV disbanding he would not have gained support from them either - he was in a fairly precarious position. Burden of proof would have been on Cohort to show he wasn't a refugee, which you failed to do.

2. Whether the player attempts to defend himself or not is irrelevant; the relevant issue is whether he is using on alliance to seek sanctuary from another.


Interesting that Eventine raises this issue as a general question - which is fair enough - but you want to apply it to a specific example.

 

[DeletedUser]

In Kappa I was labeled a refugee once. My alliance was down to me and 3 other guys, and being attacked pretty hard. We joined a bigger alliance, and yes, it was to save our skin.

They never kicked us though. They simply didn't defend us when that ONE alliance attacked us. The four of us had to work together and hang on for a week I think. Lost two cities, but then the refugee status was lifted.

Whats my point? You don't need to kick a refugee to settle the dispute.

When the original LoW was disbanded (remember LoWKeY), I had not been online for about a day and came back to find myself without an alliance (I think Aug last year?).

In the mean-time, LoW's academy - TWA - had pulled in most of the old LoW members. Unfortunately, I had missed this and was being attacked by General Rorich and Admiral Noob. It wasn't that easy being accepted into TWA in that scenario, it was only due to Noreii talking in my favour and I assume things being smoothed over before I was actually invited (and yes, I did lose the city - one of only two I've lost). I suspect if there was a fuss kicked up at the time, I wouldn't have been invited.

So, having been on the other side of that situation, I know what the protocol should be and Cohort did not follow it.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. I had assigned him as one of two targets for that week, he was geographically separated from the rest of TL, I would assume he had issues with TL and with TV disbanding he would not have gained support from them either - he was in a fairly precarious position.

And under that, if he would have stayed where he was, he would risk being rimmed, or have a long fight on his hands that he could not win. If I were him, I would start negotiating for the best possible position. I'd say he chose quite well.

Burden of proof would have been on Cohort to show he wasn't a refugee, which you failed to do.

False. Burden of proof would've been on NWO to prove he was a refugee. This is an innocent until proven guilty rule, not a guilty until proven innocent rule.

2. Whether the player attempts to defend himself or not is irrelevant; the relevant issue is whether he is using on alliance to seek sanctuary from another.

Indeed. Rather hard to accuse someone of seeking sanctuary when he only suffered one unescorted transport attack.

Interesting that Eventine raises this issue as a general question - which is fair enough - but you want to apply it to a specific example.

Sorry about this Eventine, for something a little more what you wanted:

My opinion on refugees is really that it's based on the alliance that is claiming the player as a refugee. Some will settle for a few cities, others won't rest until the refugee is rimmed or ghosted. As for what is a refugee, it is my thought that it is impossible to claim someone as a refugee unless you have several successful attacks on the person, as otherwise you won't have good proof that he was seeking shelter. A refugee is, quite simply, someone who joins an alliance while under attack for help with the attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with your final statement Z. We could not have known that an op was "scheduled" and neither did SF. The attacks were defended succesfully by him alone and it is my opinion that clarifies his status.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just to clarify, it's not possible to determine whether the refugee is looking to get help from attacks unless someone admits it. So in that case, a refugee is really someone who joins a different alliance while under attack.

 

[DeletedUser]

there is 1 thing i dont understand, when Sir F joined was it already known that TC and NWO will go to war?
because if it was then TC can recruit whoever they want to get themselves stronger for the war. but even if it wasnt, i dont see how it's different from what NWO did when they recruited TV members without talking to TC about it first. im sure some TV member were attacked by TC before they joined NWO...
anyway you look at it, i dont think that TC did something wrong or at least not something wronger than NWO.
just my opinion...