Jump to content

snoman

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About snoman

  • Birthday 09/11/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • MSN
    snoman99991@hotmail.com
  • AIM
    Isolated Ice 09

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Intrawebs, Philosophy, Wiminz, Video Games, Politics, Football, Wrestling, Making Pizza, and all sorts of stuff I can't think of.
  • Location
    Detroit, Michigan
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    snomania
  • Alliance Name
    Mushroom Kingdom
  • Resource 1
    Gold
  • Resource 2
    Oil

snoman's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Happy to help. Your calculators have saved me a lot of time in the past. It's not much, but it's at least another dent out of hosting fees. Edit: Er... I think I forgot to send information with mine. Nation name: snomania, site name: snoman99991
  2. lol naw, im tooo old for school :P

  3. lol.. i think they like girls where im at too...

    and im from Michigan too.. where abouts in detriot are you?

  4. Edit: Jgoods45 beat me to it. And with that I think I'm outta here. Peace everyone.
  5. @Petrovich4 I see then. Given that, then you are entirely right in regards to that leadership. I'm sure though that you'd agree that the KoNi are of somewhat unimportant background, though there's always the possibility that there's someone hiding out there we don't know about. That said, my suspicions as such would be erased by the lack of participation from that side of the conflict in this thread. Certainly someone has signed on and asked what the hell is going on. But hey, that's small alliances for ya. Have a pleasant evening/morning.
  6. @Jyrinx I see now. At that, you have a very fair point. Probably not agreed upon by many large alliances who would benefit from raiding, but certainly worthy of argument. As a point of clarity, I mentioned rebuilding merely as a signal of how severe combat is. Obviously it has no bearing on the legitimacy of tech raiding. Thank you for your opinions. Edit: Some small sentence structure changes.
  7. Again, an error in classification. If this were an actual war, you would have justification in that statement. Until it is a full alliance war, endorsed and declared by either side, then there are no obligations anywhere in the bloc to defend or take aggression. Metaphorical? Look, I can love any alliance around, and even have a MADP with them, but that does not mean I necessarily have to support their tech raiding. That would be, how should I say it, a violation of their sovereignty? Now I'm coming at you as a non-gov member, so don't take what I'm saying as the final word for my alliance (that could/would be disastrous), but I think it's safe to say that no bloc member wants another bloc member stepping on their toes in regards to normal tech raiding. That'd be silly. Maybe there'd be contention if the tech raid target was of some political significance, but clearly this is not the case. Edit: The member alliances were not necessarily made aware of this raid. In fact, wouldn't you have expected more participation in this thread from MK'ers and other bloc-mates?
  8. So that we are agreeing upon terms of debate, I submit this definition for extortion, as found on Princeton's online dictionary. extort - obtain through intimidation The implication is that no actual fighting needs to be done to extort. Extorting IS stealing, but not all stealing is extortion. I classify tech raid as stealing but not extortion. And according to the charters of said alliances, that kind of stealing is endorsed. It's worth noting that the practice is so common that a large majority of alliances endorse some kind of tech raiding, barring those who wish to remain decidedly neutral.
  9. @GammaHive A tech trade to Lost has no bearing upon a war fought by Athens or FoB, particularly when the whole bloc is not involved. What in the world are you trying to say? You lost me at, "I classify bloc and alliance ties improperly". While I see where you're coming from in the first paragraph, the difference between then and now is that MK did in fact negotiate those terms. We had actual diplomatic surrendering. Was it fair? A different discussion to be honest. Does it equivocate the two? No, we understand both are not fair events, but I wouldn't compare them. That's hardly fair to KoNi seeing as it's a rather large example to live up to. You are right though, to mention that it might not be exclusive two ground attacks. However as I'm sure you know, quad attacking when no peace is accepted (but no retaliation either) is standard raiding. Not everyone would do it, but it is still an acceptable precedent in the vast majority of charters (including the parties mentioned). That said, I don't believe that is the subject of the debate. The "might makes right" discussion is for another thread, but I wouldn't mind digressing about my own opinion in that matter. I would be personally upset if this were treated like an actual war. If every member available from both alliances tripled each defending nation and used full weaponry (likely short of nukes of course), then yes of course it's worthy of scorn. At that point, there's a tremendous amount of damage being done, and likely no ability to defend. A simple tech raid is a pain in the $@!, but is over in a day and rebuilding doesn't have to be a long process. A full war is nothing like that. Personally (and independent of my logic in other posts and in the above paragraphs), I think this should be a lesson in political strategy for all small alliances. Never tough it out on your own if you don't have the sacs to beat off a tech raid. I find that I agree with you more than I disagree.
  10. While you have reason to call into question the image of both FoB and Athens in their conduct (though I imagine that belongs in another thread), the first point fails to define their collective actions because it is by definition extortion. No tech raid is extortion because a tech raid is an actual raid. You wouldn't call it a tech raid if war were declared, no battles were fought, and the tech was aided. Not only is that hypothetical ridiculous, but it misses the mark completely.
  11. There is an inherent flaw in introducing morals into this argument when it is more or less an issue of classification. Whether you like it or not, the debate is about how we define a tech raid. If it were about what sovereignty implies, then we could and should be discussing whether or not Athens and FoB have the right to attack an isolated alliance (irrespective of alliance members). However, because the issue at hand is entirely about how we classify this conduct, we should not at all be concerned with the political ramifications (at least in this thread). Rather, it should be the focus of debate to determine the legality of coordinated raiding. As many of you know (possibly even firsthand), raiding is a risky affair, particularly when your nation is in the higher nation strength ranges. You run the risk of someone calling for backup, nuking, or even hanging around for a wasteful seven days of no peace. The rewards however, are obvious. Tech is the most valuable, and land has it's purposes as well. In essence, the key to raiding is to maximize your gains and make the most efficient use of your slots/time. Therefore, efficient raiding tactics will yield the most return. For example, sending peace immediately after doing your raid makes it possible for the raider to maybe free up that slot the same day. It also makes sense to stick to ground attacks only, because destroying your target to any extent greater than necessary will also limit the possible return for the raid. As many of you know, raiders will often use cautious attacks to avoid high casualty counts that threaten to put a target in anarchy, or limit tech return. The point I'm getting to here is that if Athens and FoB stick to ground attacks (assuming there is no retaliation from KoNi), it is an entirely legal tech raid, regardless of how many are involved. That said, you can also see that many of the aggressor nations are doubling or tripling up on raids. It's risky, but it shows to demonstrate that there isn't some kind of reckless curb-stomping going on here. At the time of posting there are 55 wars for some 39 members. Compared to full alliance warfare, that is nearly negligible. Does it suck for KoNi? Yes, of course it does. The obvious response is, "why in the world did you form an alliance with no ability to protect itself from this sort of thing?". I'm not blaming the victim. This can happen to ANY non-treatied alliance. And it's legal too. On the point of the Athens charter. It is not their responsibility to tell you that their charter has changed. Do not presume to be in control of their internal affairs, or their rights to change that charter. Finally, on the sentiments of "global morality". Who is "everyone"? When I see people say that things are 'generally' not done the way demonstrated by the alliances in mention, it forces me to ask myself, "who is in charge of that supposed morality"? The fact of the matter is, you have no avatar to speak for this supposed global mentality. In fact, does this event not set a separate precedent to challenge said morality? Because the event we are speaking of is in fact a tech raid, it is one hundred percent legal. At this point, you are arguing semantics and history. But at the end of the thread, who are you trying to speak for outside of your alliance? Why should individual alliances submit to what you think is right just because of your standing in Bob? Realistically, there is a fundamental difference between what is considered a broken social more, and an outright taboo. The real question that needs to be answered by those decrying the actions of FoB and Athens, is what kind of sanctions will you impose? Will you even bother? If you have no intention of doing something about it, you are merely fighting for the sake of fighting, and have no place in this thread. tl;dr Because the wars are tech raids by terms of combat, and because the charters of both alliances allow it, the raids are legal. Moral bawwing doesn't accomplish anything unless you're willing to do something about it.
  12. Peace mode may be a viable tactic, but hiding out beyond the five days necessary to shake nuke anarchy off of you is keeping TPF in a war they shouldn't have to fight. Keep in mind you have an ally or two who will actually uphold their treaty with honor (would you believe that?). I have nothing but respect for TPF for having the sacks to stay as long as they have. I've personally seen six opponents lose half their NS fighting me alone (with help from friends of course), and that says something.
  13. Hey there. Sorry for the lateness. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't really check my comment section.

    Anyway, bros uploaded something awhile ago because my music is completely disorganized, unfortunately:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UOH8S2WV

    Enjoy!

  14. I see you baby...

    Browsing my profile...

    Browsing my profile...

    Browsing my profile.

×
×
  • Create New...