Organizations, Persian mercenaries and the United States
TheJuliusCaesar
The president of the United States, Israel Stevens, published an article a while back, sparking an international debate about the purported theft and about, well, the statuses of organizations themselves in the modern eRepublik. The backlash has already led to a revolution in the US. This article aims to clarify a few ambiguities about organizations in general and the particular matter in question. As organizations are perhaps a rather unknown aspect of the game for the majority of the players, it might be good to start with revising their origins, mechanics and purpose to understand what has unfolded.
I myself decided to write about the subject as I feel it is in the end beneficial for both counterparts to find mutual agreement and common course for the future. Finland wishes no ill to either nation, which both are friends of ours.
Organizations were introduced in V1, second phase of eRepublik after the beta testing ended in October 2008. Each citizen could create as many organizations as he wanted and their function was to work as a management tool for companies, as an additional storage and as a way to buy goods from abroad. It should be noted that the contemporary eRepublik in general looked and behaved substantially differently than the modern game.
Nay, luckily it’s not that complex
Later, when the game administration decided that only national organizations would be preserved, a handful of private organizations were ‘handed over’ to the state - in order to prevent them from dissolution. A large proportion of the owners of these ‘private organizations’ have later left the game, rendering their assets inactive and often re-nationalized by the government. But these are not of prime concern here, as you’re soon to find out. Of course, from that day on the vast majority of organizations have been owned by the government. As mentioned, only a few are private. This all leads to the fact that in principle (and, well, in practice) the current country president (or dictator) is the owner of each organization of that nation - in the eyes of game mechanics. Many countries have, though, respected the private nature of certain organizations to date.
The current role of organizations has significantly been diminished since the days of V1, nowadays their primary use is to speculate in monetary market as they do not have the daily limit of 10g as citizens have. Ofttimes they are also used to store funds by the governments - as the Country Treasury is rather inflexible when it comes to urgent expenses.
Now, as has been stated in the comment section of the aforementioned article, the Iranian military unit Black Academi obtained their organization - which was at the time under possession of Rogue Squadron - from a citizen with Iranian ties. As it happens, the organization gifted to Black Academi by Brave Fighter was in fact a national organization given to Rogue Squadron by the United States’ government for their use. That does not imply that the unit, least its contemporary (now permanently banned) commander(?) may gift the organization to a third party as it or he wishes. Should Rogue Squadron no longer use the organization, it by default should be returned to the hands of the government where it originated from. The Iranian military unit in question - Black Academi - should probably know that there are no organizations under ownership of military units - save for the few elite MU’s who have received one from competitions. Granted, albeit the US government waited a week for contact by Iranians after changing the credentials of the organization, it would have been a sound move to drop a message about it in addition of it. Doesn’t change or affect the ownership of the organization, though. One analogy I read about the matter went somewhat along the lines of ‘play with the matches, you get burned’. Oh the endless wisdom of Pulp Fiction.
The funds in the organization, then, are a matter to discuss too. The argument presented by the Americans has been that whereas the organization was rightfully theirs and whereas Black Academi was aware of the status of the organization they had obtained, therefore it should not come as a surprise that the funds on a illegitimately obtained organization might be taken by the rightful owner. In short, the argument contends that the events are on a par with a person A somehow getting an access into a bank account of person B, depositing funds there, then being upset when the original owner, person B, gets his bank account back and withdraws the funds person A deposited there.
Muh dollarz
However, at least in certain nations (e.g. Finland) there exists a legal principle called Condictio indebiti: should the situation unfold as described above, person A would be qualified for the returning of his funds as the person B has not done anything to earn the funds and person A has not intended to give them.. Gifts are of a different matter and done in purpose by the gifter. I don’t know if a similar legal principle exists in the US.
As the organization was indeed property of the American president, at least some sort of rent and compensation would be in order, though the three million currency taken are greatly exceeding the number those would amount.
In short, according to one perspective there was nothing wrong in taking the millions residing in their own organization. That, however, seems to be contradicting with the perspectives of another group of players. While in strict eRepublik sense nothing was done wrong as the organizations belong to the president, it indeed could be contended that the three millions were taken illegitimately. Welcome to the world of interpretations.
Now that the Iranian Black Academi has burned its fingers, perhaps it would be reasonable to hand them back the money (minus rent and compensation). Or well, would have been. The hot-headed revolution cost a substantial amount of cash for the US. That will be affecting the American willingness to return anything, believe me. Nevertheless, I believe that Black Academi has learned their lesson about the wise and not so wise ways of obtaining an organization. The global backlash against the United States was rather outsized and somewhat misinformed, though - worldwide opinion seemed not to be aware of the nature and status of the organization in question. One counterpart obtained an organization with ambiguous legitimacy, while the others took funds residing in there with ambiguous justification. Pots and kettles.
In the end, my friends feed is often filled with citizens complaining about lack of meaningful battles and about general boredom. Isn’t this what you wanted? Are you not entertained?
Yours truly,
Caesar
Comments
Pole
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/219/420/ENTERTAINED4.jpg
Totally agree
Would be a question for some to think about why do they steal it now. It's quite likely that gov has known of that money for a long. Then, why stealing it now?
As far as I have followed and what is public, I can't figure any reason why should they have waited, should they have known about the funds earlier than the one week prior which they waited. Thanks for the comment!
Great article.
Happy to have this newspapers listed as media partner 🙂
Oh, I thought it was a one-time feature. Glad you liked it, thanks!
v 23
Excellent and well thought out article.
In regards to your implication of Condictio indebiti, I read, "The action is extant in civil (Roman) or hybrid law regimes, e.g. Norway, South Africa and Scotland." Now, I'm not any sort of lawyer or legal scholar, but I know that the United States (as a former British colony), takes heavily from English Common law and relies very much on the idea of precedent. Take that as you will, I suppose.
Thank you for the kind words, it is feedback like this which keeps me writing.
And yes, judicial culture indeed varies from country to country, thanks for the input on that. The idea was to present the "other" perspective, as to why Americans contend like they do, but my contribution as a foreigner is, of course, limited. Thanks again for the comment!
Actually conditio indebiti is not fit to this case. It would require some sort of active payment, which this case doesn't have.
There is a concept of "unjust enrichment", which would be more suitable for this.
Great reading. 😉
v
Conclusion, easter show.
🙂
Ignore above, good article!
thanks for the article. I don't have complete and exact info about obtaining the org by BA, so I won't talk too much about that.
but just consider that the mentioned org didn't (and won't) play any role in US governing system. for 2 years no CP of USA have thought about checking orgs list and wasn't aware of having such a property! (it's not weird since orgs aren't that much useful nowadays) and I bet no one will login into that org until next 2 years 😛 so, morally, this is a bit far from the story of pot and kettle you know...
what are you trying to say.... you felt safe putting the money there cause no one bothered you for two years? It's exactly the pot calling the kettle black.... wait, no it's not, its the pot calling the shiny white bone china black....
are we living in the jungle?! for several months we were allied countries dude 😃
Wait, BA held the organization for two years? I might have understood wrong, too. But if so, that seriously raises the sum of rent and compensation that was in order to pay. On the other hand, it indeed tells something about the organization protocols in America that you were able to have it for two years.
Thanks for your comment and input regardless.
well I don't know how long this org has been controlled by BA. I say the last time an American president sent a ticket about US orgs was 2 years ago, based on US CP article. although BA is founded a year ago
Ah yes. But indeed that doesn't change the org ownership, never mind if they haven't used it in a while.
Nice to have a civil conversation about the issue, thanks.
My family owns a apartment in Spain, currently we rent it when we are not there but before I inherited it, my parents had not used it for several years. If someone would have moved into the apartment during those years they would still not have the right to the apartment, just because my parents didn't use it doesn't mean it's not theirs anymore.
Again, before I am called retard and other insults by BA/Iranians, I have had enough of that since I said US did nothing wrong in terms of ingame mechanics, I do think BA should be given back parts of the money. I voiced the opinion which is shared by Julius that the most simple solution would have been to discuss a rental fee and a compensation and both sides would likely have been satisfied. But now political figures with nothing to lose (as in they didn't lose any money and thus would gain nothing if the situation were solved peacefully) on both sides have turned the situation into something entirely different.
Lets see how this turns out.
when you found a bag that have a 3m$ money in your father apartnent in spain it is not your father money you must ask a person who live in it
it is your bag ????
you can get your apartment but when you get bag it called STOOLEN
and it is crime and have a punish ment if you do not retern money
many things are not wrong based on ingame mechanics my friend. temsisi tried to MTO sweden in summer (or fall) and BA helped sweden to survive. although temsisi hadn't done anything illegal. you get what I mean? something are legal but morally wrong...
Totally see the point from both of you, I do agree it's morally wrong and as I said earlier, when it happen to Sweden a few months ago we decided to pay the MU back, minus the fee they owed us. However, what I am arguing against is that it was some sort of "crime" and that the fault lies solely on Israel and the US.
Hey arash, if they were renting you'd be right, but if they were squatters, the laws are different in every country... In many you'd be able to keep that money
It it foolish to believe that you can own anything in this shitty game, everything belongs to Plato at the end of the day. All you can keep is your dignity by not being one of Plato's yes men.
Pls bring the old Jussi back ;_; You've gone on with the same CD for too long now.
I'm still the same guy, I just have a different agenda now. 😛
Jussi, milloin muutat suomeen takas.
Yolo
I like your article, I have even translated it to russian - http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-1344-2589388/1/20
Oh sweet, thank you!
En lukenu
lukematta paskaa
Great article Julius, I share your opinion.
You talk a lot of shit and yet you say so little. I cannot wait the day of reckoning.
Could you, perhaps, elaborate a bit, my friend?
He just called you Martti Ahtisaari.
A good article. o/
Jooh eli en jaksa lukea. Missä tiivistelmä Julle!???