The Refugee (Defined)

DeletedUser

Guest
(Note: I'm note sure where this goes, so here it goes):

Refugee Defined:

A refugee is defined as someone who joins/flees into another alliance for protection against an attacker and/or conquerer.

A refugee is no longer a refugee when the attacker has decided to no longer attack them. For the attacker to stop attacking, a refugee may be allowed to join an alliance only at the attackers' discretion (otherwise the attacker will just continue with their attacks).

Issues arise when the attacker does not agree with the refugees' move, thus denying the attacker the right to farm for resources or conquer them.

There are several scenarios with variations of this.

A) Usual acceptable practice for accepting refugees:
1) Attacker is in the alliance the refugee joins (if the attacker is ok with it),
2) Attacker decides it is ok for the refugee to join an(other) alliance and stops attacking them​

B) Common practices that cause issues:
1) Refugee joins an allied/PACT/NAP'd alliance to the attacker without permission/acceptance by the attacker,
2) Refugee joins an alliance that is the enemy of the attacker (this would depend on the attackers strength. Afterall, pulling support from an enemy alliance to attack an already weak refugee may be considered beneficial if they intend on conquering/removing them from the game).​



Asylum Seekers / War Victims: (-Update-)

War Victims are players who have suffered in a War (eg supported others, lost forces, etc), but have not been directly attacked by the attacker, etc.

Asylum Seekers are simply War Victims seeking an alternative alliance for asylum.


Depending on the circumstances, some Alliances/Players may also class* these players as Refugees as they would have been eventually attacked/conquer anyhow (wrongly or rightly), however they would also technically be Asylum Seekers if they seek an alternative Alliance for Asylum. These player usually appear when their alliance is loosing in a war or their alliance has lost the the war and are seeking asylum elsewhere as War Victims.



Spectators:

Players who are in an Alliance who are at War with Attacker(s)/Alliance(s), however have not directly attacked or been attacked, nor assisted their Alliance in the war efforts.

These players could be classed as freeloaders however depending on circumstances it would depend if they are even in a position to assist their Alliance or not. These types of players may also be classed* as above if they change Alliances depending on the circumstances, however they would also technically be Spectators (non-engagers/by-standers).




Targets: (-Update 2-)

A Target is simply the recipient of a player(s)/alliance(s) attacks/conquer attempts.

Targets may be classed* as Refugees if they join an alliance for protection of any kind (ie counter-attacks, support, NAP/PACT/Ally protection, resources, etc.). With most of the larger targets who change alliances while under attack, one main factor that determines if that player is a Refugee or not is the balance between the defenders ability to sustain their forces Vs the attackers/alliance ability to wear them down to eventually conquer them - since this plays a big role with larger players, it is also a subjective matter of opinion, which makes it impossible to have a blanket definition in those situations.

Targets may also be subjected to the Refugee issues as stated above (in the refugee issues list) if the attacker does not agree with the Targets' move into a NAP/PACT/Ally alliance unless pre-approved. Alliances that want to invite a Target should consider offering something to the attacker and/or their alliance if they are NAP'd/PACT'd or Allied (after all, feeding a player for an ally should be viewed by the receiving alliance as a favour if approved by the attacker) rather than having the NAP/PACT/Ally break. These are just suggestions to avoid issues between alliances, not hard-fast rules.



Internal Refugees: (Thanks to Roaring Whisper)

An Internal Refugee can be any player who leaves their alliance due to getting attacked/conquered from their own alliance members and seeks protection elsewhere.

Usually happens for the following reasons:
1) A player going inactive, gets attacked/conquered by alliance members, then returning and leaving due to objections over the attacks/conquers;
2) A player severely breaching rules or discovered as a spy;
3) A player conquering an unauthorised town from another member, then having the town forcibly taken over by their alliance;
4) Other alliance authorised reasons.​



If any of these players are attacked and conquered but do not seek protection, they are simply victims.




General Practice: (-Update 3-)

No Refugee Polices:
Most respectable^ alliances do not accept Refugee/Asylum Seekers/War Victims/Spectators/Targets/Internal Refugees from attackers who are Allied with them, unless the attacker gives permission to do so since it tends to cause wider problems between the 2 alliances (to the extent of breaking the Alliance ties - the view being what good is an alliance that ignores its Allies?). Without permission from the attacker, the act tends to be viewed as an enemy act since the attacker is ignored and goes against the wishes of the attacker.

Partial Refugee Invites:
Other alliances who do accept these types of players tend to have a grace period of no protection, usually subject to the size of the player, to minimise the risk of causing NAP/PACT/Ally breaks.

Refugee Invites:
Alliances with no regard for other alliances or the attacker tend to invite any type of player regardless if they're attacked or not.

Overall:
Each alliance manages their own invites and establishes their own processes regarding who and why invites are given to all types of players. This post is simply here to highlight:

1) The various definitions of players who join another alliance while under attack/conquer, and

2) Where/why issues can occur between NAP/PACT/Allies with these players.





* There is no right or wrong classification of a refugee under these conditions, as they are dependent on the circumstances/reasons a player joins another alliance while under attack, and are viewed on a case-by-case basis. Usually all parties concerned determine if these types of players are classed as refugees or not in addition to their technical definition, and even so it is not a matter for this post to determine.

^ These alliances tend to be respected by other alliances because they are considerate of other alliances' wishes, so they gain the respect of others outside their alliance.




Note:
Please do not post/spam this thread, if you have a vested interest to suit your own personal playing style or needs, then state it as such. This should be an objective discussion from all views based on the definition of a refugee as stated, not a flame-fest from players who are refugees (or attackers who have been wronged) to express their grievances.

Mods: Any spam/flaming, please remove the unwanted posts or lock this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Good definition.

I personally don't mind allowing a refugee to join on the condition they can hold their own against the attacks without alliance support for 3-4 days.
 

DeletedUser10081

Guest
I personally don't mind allowing a refugee to join on the condition they can hold their own against the attacks without alliance support for 3-4 days.

i wont mind either as long as it doesnt cause any more problems
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
Nice one Qlander,
I agree Refugees can bring masses of trouble on any alliance they arent worth it, ive seen so called Elites and also MRA,s take these critters in and defend their actions.
What are your thoughts on the time limit some use, we dont offer support for 14 days and if they ask for it they are kicked, i think if a player can last that long they are worth backing.
The other side of it is this, if an alliance is allied to someone and they are asked to remove a refugee they should always follow this as friendships should run deeper than any refugee.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks Tyrion :)

Mike62, well my personal view (please don't take it as gospel or my alliances' views lol) is if an alliance invites a refugee who is being attacked/conquered by their ally/NAP/PACT's then there may be diplomatic problems if they object, especially if the player is coming from an enemy alliance. It depends on the relationship between the alliances really and both would have to weight up the value of a refugee Vs running the risk of breaking alliance ties. I would tend to agree alliance ties are more valuable than 1 player, however in practice I've found this is not the case with some alliances, on both sides of the coin (is it worth inviting 1 player to break/annoy your allies? and is it worth breaking ties because your ally invited 1 player? This is where it gets complicated). If a refugee joins an enemy alliance, I see no diplomatic issues since the enemy alliance is an enemy after-all. Then the attacker would simply be contributing to the war efforts lol Its only when players under attack join an Ally/NAP/PACT/Ally alliance (regardless of the reasons) that they auto-gain protection if it doesn't break the Ally/NAP/PACT ties, so some alliances (Ally/NAP/PACT's) allow these invites but do not protect the refugee for a period of time i guess (depends on how much the attacker trusts that alliance I guess)

As for time frames, I guess thats an alliance thing, since the alliance (after than period) would be supporting them if still being attacked, and what is classed as a reasonable period of time - the bigger the player, the longer the battle I guess....

There are a lot of aspects regarding this, like the difference between a refugee (one being attacked) and an asylum seeker (one who has suffered in a war but not directly attacked).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1405

Guest
Qlander
I like the way you set up the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker, many people would still consider any player running away from a war to be a refugee even if they are not under attack.
My personal view of a refugee is someone who jumps around while being attacked trying to find an alliance willing to stoop so low as to protect them.
What are the views of others about players moving that havent been under attack but leave because their alliacne has been declared on and some players are being hit.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Qlander
What are the views of others about players moving that havent been under attack but leave because their alliacne has been declared on and some players are being hit.

That gets a bit tricky, especially if the player had disagreed with the alliance leaders about attacking another alliance, and decides to leave as the war starts.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Qlander
What are the views of others about players moving that havent been under attack but leave because their alliacne has been declared on and some players are being hit.

That gets a bit tricky, especially if the player had disagreed with the alliance leaders about attacking another alliance, and decides to leave as the war starts.

Yea very tricky - as there is no general rule. It depends on the circumstances. imo, i would tend to class players who are in an alliance engaged in an all out war, and then leave when the war turns bad are just as bad as refugees ;) I guess they can be classed as 'asylum seekers' however eventually they would have been attacked/conquered in an enemy alliance, and ultimately they leave for protection anyhow, even if not directly attacked (unless they are too far away from the war anyhow, in which case i doubt there would be any issues). If they join a friendly/nap/ally alliance to the attackers, theres usually issues. But it depends on the relationship of the the receiving alliance. If they've allowed the same to the attacker alliance, then maybe the attacker alliance would return the favor...it all depends on a lot of things....

It can get very messy, thats why most sensible players/alliances do not engage in war victim recruiting (refugees/asylum seekers), unless they want the war to turn on them....it gets even messier when several alliances are attacking the same enemy, and some of the players of that enemy join some of the alliances - especially if players have been targeting/planning/positioning in missions for weeks, and the target(s) has//have joined into another alliance mid-way through a mission (even if not directly attacked yet) and gets protected....very messy stuff.

I'm sure others have different views, but most players/alliances avoid any ally/NAP/PACT alliance issues like this by simply not inviting war victims unless they're already at war with the attacker or if its already ok'd by the attacker/alliance attacking, etc. but it all depends on those involved....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1405

Guest
I do agree it can get messy, but as long as the player hasnt been attacked and has genuine reasons to leave the old alliance they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
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.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I guess, but its not that simple sometimes....if all parties cannot agree with it, problems ensue :(
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Theres also what I like to call internal refugees. They are being attacked by their own alliance, and flee.

This is normally caused by;
-The player going inactive and being cannibalized, where they decide to come back as they are being conquered, get all mad and leave.
-The player breaching rules, or discovered as a spy.
-The player botching up claims and having the ill-gotten city taken away by force. <--- A common one

Internal Refugees are fairly common, in my experiences at least.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Ah the refugee. One of the most hated people in grepolis. I so love killing them :)

Great guide for all those noobs who don't know what it is.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Right, so, I decided I'd rewrite my post since once I looked at it I realized it dwarfed all the other posts on the page put together :) I seem to overdo detail now and then.

My question is related to whether the definition of refugee really is as simple as a player being attacked who changes alliance. I've had a case in the past week or two where a new member of my alliance was being attacked for about three weeks with numerous CS being sent from at least for top class alliances in an effort to take his main (11K) city. At 26K, the lad in question managed to beat back every single attempt until now on his own and looked like he could keep doing that for months if he wanted, presuming no unlucky break. To clarify, the #1 and #2 alliances in the world had tried, failed and left him be. I'd tried, got sniped despite a very well coordinated attempt, and figured he'd earned his right to keep his city. The #3 alliance was also trying for weeks, but to no avail.

He's since joined my alliance and the #3 alliance has accused him of being a refugee. I politely disagree with that label as he didn't join us to stop them (we have no NAP with them) and didn't join us for protection against them (the night he joined, he blocked their leader's conquer attempt like he's blocked everyone elses).

So. My question is whether someone changing alliance while simply being attacked constitutes a refugee or whether those attacks have to actually show a degree of progress (a city lost, or a CS in place and having to be uprooted) whereby the player's only chance at survival is to change alliances? I won't lie; even if the common consensus is that any attacks made on a player makes him a refugee, I'm not about to care enough to remove him and let those interested keep trying (and failing). That said, I would be lying if I made out I wasn't curious as to whether I really have poached a refugee :)

Thoughts?

Finton.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser4013

Guest
I would have to say in that instance that Alliance #3 is crying because they wasted so many resources in attempting to take that player over.

This is similar to a situation that happened to a very well known player in Beta. He fended off numerous attacks from a particular alliance while flying solo. Prior to these attacks, my alliance had asked him to join us, but then he started getting attacked by an alliance with whom we had an NAP. He chose to stay solo for the moment as he didn't want to bring us into the feud, but it took a lot of diplomatic effort to allow him in, and to end the attacks once he joined.

If a player can fend off that many attacks, there is no question of whether or not they are a refugee. A player like that is someone you want in your alliance, and more than likely Alliance #3 was trying to pressure them into joining their alliance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So. My question is whether someone changing alliance while simply being attacked constitutes a refugee or whether those attacks have to actually show a degree of progress (a city lost, or a CS in place and having to be uprooted) whereby the player's only chance at survival is to change alliances? I won't lie; even if the common consensus is that any attacks made on a player makes him a refugee, I'm not about to care enough to remove him and let those interested keep trying (and failing). That said, I would be lying if I made out I wasn't curious as to whether I really have poached a refugee :)

Thoughts?

Finton.

Target Joining an Alliance?
Simply joining an alliance does not necessarily constitute being a refugee, however it can be viewed as such because usually players join due to low resources/forces and (*note) join for protection of some kind. And to be honest, some players join an alliance for NAP reasons to stop attacks so they can recover - that is a refugee. If a player joins and is not supported by an alliance and still gets attacked, etc. then by the fact of joining and not getting support or protection of any kind, then that does not make them a refugee as such since they are not requesting assistance/support so it makes no difference in or out of an alliance....but seriously, why would a player join if not to request help/protection or restitution ? Anyhow, there are some alliances that allow players to join them while being attacked but offer no protection for a certain period of time to reduce the impact of inviting a possible refugee (the bigger the player the longer the period).

Target Stats?
Anyhow, town 'conquers' against a player, etc mean nothing (it certainly is not a way to gauge a 'refugee' or not).....bigger players will unlikely lose a town for a long time as they can keep sustained forces, etc and depending on how much they play they could last quite some time, but if their forces get diminished and are constantly attacked, they'll eventually lose a town or so, etc..there is a balance between the defenders ability to protect themselves forever Vs the attackers ability to wipe our their forces and eventually conquer...this is where you get a fine line between a defending player Vs attackers persistence - thats what this game is about afterall...that is only 1 half of a refugee definition, the other is 'seeking protection' of some kind. These players are usually already in an alliance anyhow, but if switching alliances mid-way through being attacked to a bigger alliance, well they usually do that for protection anyhow (reverse it, would they join a smaller alliance? would it make difference?).

Target Vs Refugee?
Players who get attacked and can hold their own without losing towns/forces, etc and join another alliance are usually just considered Targets not Refugees, since they don't join for any kind of protection. Alliances who accept Attackers' Targets can run into issue as well with the attacker especially if allied/NAP'd/PACT'd, even if the targets are not technically 'Refugees' (ie dont join for any form of protection, etc) unless the receiving alliance approves with the attackers keeping up the attacks/conquers, etc. to feed them BP hehe...Target Vs Refugee status I guess depends on who gives up first lol and if there is an end in sight or not to conquering their towns...success of the attacker can determine the status of a player as simply a 'Target' or a 'Refugee'.

Definition?
The definition is correct...weather or not anyone agrees with accepting refugees or not as it makes no difference to the definition since that is a matter of opinion (its not saying its 'bad' or 'good' to accept or not accept refugees since that is a matter of opinion...it does state that issues 'may' arise depending on circumstances and those involved...but not technically part of the definition of a 'Refugee').

anyhow, thats my 2cents worth :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Theres also what I like to call internal refugees. They are being attacked by their own alliance, and flee.

This is normally caused by;
-The player going inactive and being cannibalized, where they decide to come back as they are being conquered, get all mad and leave.
-The player breaching rules, or discovered as a spy.
-The player botching up claims and having the ill-gotten city taken away by force. <--- A common one

Internal Refugees are fairly common, in my experiences at least.

I like these. If in those 3 examples the player seeks shelter from the attacks in another alliance then yea internal refugees I guess, otherwise they're just victims/recalcitrants ;)
 
Top