White Chocolate

White Chocolate acts Neutral Good most of the time. However she has strong tendencies toward Chaotic Good - she just is not in a position to express those aspects of her belief system because she is an alliance leader and all the "lawful" alliances out there (i.e. any alliance that has a strong belief in the importance of treaties and "keeping them" regardless of what their ally has done) generally also insist on holding an entire alliance responsible for the acts of alliance leaders. Hate that! But I do understand why. World politics being such as they are, United under Scorn's position is Lawful Good. NPO, MK and a number of the other large alliances I view as Lawful Neutral. Based on current events, I'd describe NpO as Neutral Good and \m/ as Chaotic Neutral. In terms of the allies of US, I see The International as Lawful Good, both NEAT and SC as Chaotic Good, and BN as Neutral Good. Overall, using "alignment" is an interesting way to begin a discussion - however I also think a great deal depends on from where an individual is viewing the situation. For instance, an alliance that allows for "tech raids" may absolutely and sincerely justify it as a "chaotic good" stance because of the emphasis on freedom while at the same time, the alliance being raided views the act as "chaotic evil." Also, people and alliance leadership may act in one fashion in one case and another in the other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ha! Took the quiz as White Chocolate and called it "Your Character’s Alignment Based on your answers to the quiz, your character’s most likely alignment is Neutral Good."

Very well written overall. And yes, there is the Karma Coalition of Alliances http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma and then there is the philosophical tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma (OOC: If a group names a coalition after a philosophical tradition, it isn't exactly something that is easy to copyright. )

No, not all. Just the vast majority. In fact, from my experience as a leader of a small alliance which was raided at least weekly prior to getting a protectorate - every raiders we had but one did not so much as follow their own alliance rules. And a number of them were still downright rude regardless when we asked for reps (which we did receive in those cases). I guess they took the view that the ruder they were, the more likely we would not even ask next time. Very short sighted view. IF we allowed raiding, I'd not only train people first on HOW to do it properly from a military perspective, but also on how to treat the leader of the opposing nation (and certainly the leader of the alliance that was raided - seriously - I got treated like crap and as the leader!!!) with respect. That wouldn't make up for the bad press entirely, but at least it would mitigate the damage done. And if the raider gave either of either the other nation or the other alliance leader attitude, I'd take away all tech raiding rights and require him or her to spend a month non-aligned before earning them back. I wonder how many raiders would do it as opposed to just leaving my alliance and going elsewhere?

To everyone who has complained that people do not actually read what others write. I know how you feel. JT Jag, please put up a link to where someone said the answer is to be a pacifist at all times. I missed it and want to tell him or her how wrong that is. If that were actually a popular view, I doubt so called "tech raiding" would be controversial in the least. Lets assume, for a moment, that it's all about power. That's a fair statement for the majority of alliances I think. Alright, assuming that is true and also assuming that "tech raiding" anyone (either non-aligned or an alliance) adds so much to the power one has, how did NPO manage to rule Planet Bob so long and NOT be a tech raiding alliance? In other words, my point is that IF tech raiding adds so much to the power an alliance and thus is critical in that regard, then NPO should never have been able to reach the power level they had and maintain such a strong hold for so long. Instead it would have been an alliance that tech raided. The alliances that hold that view have leaders who know nothing about maintaining good public relations and/or it's importance. However, you are right that it's not my job to tell them otherwise. I'm not arguing against raiding for their benefit.

Interesting. It may cost you some, but consider trying it without having nukes for 17 days and see what happens. Feel free to buy a nuke back after someone attacks you but don't give any warning that you have the ability. If they don't actually look to see if you have an MP, not your problem, in my personal opinion. If nothing else, you'll get AN reaction - maybe a nice "oh, sorry." HOWEVER, I'm betting the raider will disagree regardless of alliance and you'll hear about how unfair it was that you entrapped them, etc. Might even get an entire alliance backing the raider after that! Now if the raider doesn't have nukes himself and you decide to use one - any guesses what will happen then? Poor raider, being entrapped by people who don't announce that they are not helpless. So unfair!

I agree that it's relatively easy to find a "protector" - but to find a good protector is another story entirely!!! United under Scorn was offered "protection" almost weekly in the form of absorption offers. I can't recall for sure, but I think the person who suggested a formal "protectorate" did so after about a month of regular tech trades with him and members of his alliance. We got "tech raided" JUST before we were going to announce it formally. Man - was I pissed off about that raid!!! Also, the one other offer we got had so many strings attached, it might as well been absorption. I define good protectors as ones that encourage independence and earn the loyalty of their ally as opposed to expecting it from the start. The International is an excellent example (yes, it's a plug - but one I give freely and sincerely as it has been well earned )

An alliance is two or more people. We take the term "alliance" very literal in a dictionary definition sort of way. However, since that wasn't an option, I picked the next best being 3. US considers raiding immoral/unethical - period. War is war. However, if raiding alliances want to act unethically to each other only, as long as they leave me and my friends alone, so be it. Thus I voted "no" in the last question. Personally (I'm not speaking for US here) the biggest beef I have with so called "tech raids" (be it against an alliance OR a non-aligned) is how many people who do it attempt to justify it as LESS than a war. I don't care if you're "gentle" or a total demon! This is a HUGE insult! If "to get your tech" is the CB you want, then it's your CB. But at least give me some basic respect owed to all leaders of nations and admit it IS a war and you started it. If, as a response, I turn around and use EVERY method possible to protect myself and friends, I'm simply doing what ANY leader of a nation is REQUIRED to do to defend the people she serves. To all raiders I've ever had to deal with past or future: Yes, your nation is bigger than mine. Yes, your alliance is bigger than mine. Yes, in the "might makes right" world we have - you CAN treat me like dirt and force me to chose to either join (or in my case create - which is NOT something I'd advise unless one has a huge amount of time to spare to make the necessary treaties) an alliance and become a peon in Planet Bob's beloved "treaty web"... OR, in the alternative, be non-aligned and face Eternal War. If I'm starting at all to sound like Walford - good! That's what it's like being non-aligned, it's not planned or intentional and not the fault of any one "tech raider" but I dare anyone who doubts that it's NOT essentially being subject to eternal war to be non-aligned for 3 months, fight back tooth and nail and then come back and honestly tell me I'm wrong. If you're up for a double dare, try it with the resources of a new nation who doesn't have nukes, etc. Happy being hunted, sunshine

Who or what is WUT? It can get frustrating trying to understand history when one didn't live it and more experienced national leaders use short versions of words all the time. People should not assume that when they talk about events that happened on Planet Bob two plus years ago, that all interested parties know the lingo. This isn't a criticism of you in particular at all - just an observation from someone who was not around but has an interest in order to "do something" about the issue.

Consider this the position of United under Scorn, a non-raiding "moralist" alliance. 1. It is immoral to "raid" anyone. There is no reason for it when tech trading is an option. The only moral/ethical way to "war game" is for all parties to agree. Raiding ignores the sovereignty of the victim nation, and the right of their people to live peacefully within their boundaries. We specifically recruit other nations into US that are looking to live in peace. You may find it strange but that doesn't make it any less valid. 2. We're willing to compromise and say that if an alliance who declares war on other alliances to steal tech decides to do so against another alliance who allows the same, you will not hear any complaints from US. We're NOT saying it's ethical, but admittedly, far better than bothering everyone. If you can get all raiding alliances to agree that "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword" - more power to you. Mistakes of fact regarding who is and is not a "raiding alliance" is the burden of the one doing the raiding. Do better research! 3. Treat all alliances you decide to declare war on by the same standards in terms of war declarations. Even though we do not believe that "to take your tech" is a valid CB, if you think it is, so be it. However then declare your war like you would any other war. All raids we treat as wars--as all wars of resources are full wars. 4. We did NOT work our butts off to have US meet the "common practice" definition of an alliance just to have that bar raised even further. At the VERY least, respect that fact and make a formal declaration if you (meaning anyone out there) decide to declare war on US for any reason. White Chocolate and Necroseer, Co-leaders, United under Scorn

Consider this the position of United under Scorn, a non-raiding alliance. 1. It is immoral to "raid" anyone. There is no reason for it when tech trading is an option. The only moral/ethical way to "war game" is for all parties to agree. Raiding ignores the sovereignty of the victim nation, and the right of their people to live peacefully within their boundaries. We specifically recruit other nations into US that are looking to live in peace. You may find it strange but that doesn't make it any less valid. 2. We're willing to compromise and say that if an alliance who declares war on other alliances to steal tech decides to do so against another alliance who allows the same, you will not hear any complaints from US. We're NOT saying it's ethical, but admittedly, far better than bothering everyone. If you can get all raiding alliances to agree that "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword" - more power to you. Mistakes of fact regarding who is and is not a "raiding alliance" is the burden of the one doing the raiding. Do better research! 3. Treat all alliances you decide to declare war on by the same standards in terms of war declarations. Even though we do not believe that "to take your tech" is a valid CB, if you think it is, so be it. However then declare your war like you would any other war. All raids we treat as wars--as all wars of resources are full wars. 4. We did NOT work our butts off to have US meet the "common practice" definition of an alliance just to have that bar raised even further. At the VERY least, respect that fact and make a formal declaration if you (meaning anyone out there) decide to declare war on US for any reason. White Chocolate and Necroseer, Co-leaders, United under Scorn

That's it, exactly. Happy?

Nothing. I wish more battles would end without any terms. Nothing, as long as it's a WAR and not a "tech raid" and treated as such by the alliance starting the war against the other ALLIANCE. The issue I have is when groups "tech raid" (as if it isn't a war) another alliance and don't even give them the basic respect of calling it a REAL war and the basic respect of a Declaration of War. So now, not ONLY are non-aligned NOT citizens of Planet Bob worthy of basic respect, alliances that don't have treaties are as well??? Here is a copy of a conversation I just had with one of our new people. I think it was great timing considering recent events. These are exact words. His question: why do i need to have tanks if we are neutral alliance? My answer: Because even though we are defensive only, there are lots of people out in the cyber-universe that don't care...Also, we're defensive, but we have allies and it's possible that at some point we may consider defending them if the situation should arise. So I usually tell people we're not "neutral" but just picky about what allies we have. White Chocolate As far as world peace goes, isn't that the goal that any civilized society should be striving for?

In other words, you're saying he did what he could to take the "might makes right" world we live in and use his power to try to create the world he wanted. Well, I sure would not like that very much if I were a leader at the time and tech raided, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. If there is one theme that has been a constant on Planet Bob (both in what I've experienced but also from what I've been told by people who have far greater experience than I), it's that those who have power like to use it I'm really not sure what you are asking here.

I read that and also have read other wiki articles on the topic of walford. If you can show me a link where Walford, himself, is saying that his goal is to control others actions to conform to his moral outlook I'd be interested.

From a political standpoint, I agree. This is because it keeps people listening who may otherwise shut you out entirely. However, I've been involved with the alliance I'm in from day 2 and it was a few days after gaining leadership in Lander Clan. (OOC: I was never in any other alliance) My alliance was raided constantly prior to getting a protector. There were bad raiders and there were worse raiders. From the perspective of a "victim" (although I don't like that word) of tech raids, all of them gave their alliance a bad name. The only question is how bad.

Since you didn't quote anyone, I'll assume this was geared toward the OP. Congratulations, kulomascovia - that's two!! P.S. I want to make it clear that I sincerely do consider it a compliment when people respond to posts someone else makes by saying "walford" - especially since in every case the person getting the comment has said something I agree with in a very reasonable fashion.

All of these are very good ideas. Given the choice, I'm the first to tell someone "join an alliance." However, as the person who does the vast majority of recruiting for US, I've received a number of responses from people I invite who say things like, "I'll keep you in mind but I want to look around first" or something along those lines. This is understandable as a response when one looks at it from the perspective of a new national leader. I've tried a variety of responses including "ok, tell me what you would like in an alliance and I'll give you some suggestions" which, if the person has an idea (many don't) I then give suggestions. I'd much rather have someone join some other alliance when starting out than none at all and then leave out of frustration. I think that the best solution is to essentially copy what NPO did and pick a color to protect. Either request from the various team unity blocs one to make a serious commitment (that includes all the major powers in that bloc agreeing to it) or, if no one volunteers - than have those of us who care pick one (probably the least used) and form our own protection treaty. To do this, we'd have to answer this question to the color blocs, "What's in it for me?" Right now US is a multi-team alliance. I have a great deal of influence (that happens when you're the one who does most of the recruiting in a small alliance) and although I can't promise, I will say that IF there was a team that did this successfully (in other words - more than just in words in a treaty) - I'd push very hard for US to switch. Ok, so not a huge deal for an alliance of our size. But what if all or a large number of the non-tech raiding alliances agreed? How much of a group would it take to start looking attractive to a team bloc? Throw in senate votes, etc. When I count the alliances US has treaties with who have similar views - if we all had shared the same team and voted for the same senate positions, we could certainly make enough of a difference to swing any contested election.

Correct. Plus alliance leaders also have to balance dealing with foreign affairs and dealing with domestic matters. I, for one, already spend WAY to much time dealing with foreign affairs and not enough with domestic. ("domestic matters" being real life )

You forgot sit back quietly and plot behind the scenes Seriously though, PC,\m/ and GOON members are free to let this thread drop as much as anyone else regardless on which side of the arguments they are on. If one doesn't care, one need not post. On the other hand, spending a Sunday afternoon watching the political games on OWF has its entertainment value.

Here's a wild and crazy idea. Everyone who thinks blowing each other up all the time is "fun" get together and do so. Just leave the rest of us out of it, thank you. This means no attacking other alliances and calling it a "tech raid" just because they don't have any treaties. If NOT having a treaty isn't a clear indication that a group wants to be left OUT of the treaty web, I don't know what is... If the alliance leaders you've got aren't cooperating, leave and start your own alliance. In fact, why not petition admin to create your own world where you can do that all you want? If your theory about the quiet majority really just wanting to war all the time is correct, such a place should be overflowing with membership... oh wait...

Correction - What he shouldn't do is admit that he's taking it personally, especially on OWF and especially at this time. What he should do is use the very understandable frustration as motivation to "play by the rules" until he can start making them. That seems to be the usual course of action and has worked for Karma.

It also means more people that can't be told that they are being a hypocrite when they "complain" about it. Not that I care all that much what people did in the past personally (especially if it's ancient history, i.e. that being anything that happened prior to my being "born" on Planet Bob ). It is possible, after all, for a former raider to see the error of her previous ways. What matters more is what one does now and in the future. Same goes for alliances. As for competition for raids - it is my personal opinion that any alliance under 50 (regardless of treaties) is taking far more of a risk than it's worth if it allows raids. Way too much that can go wrong - bad press being one of the least concerns. Thus, our rule is based both on ethics but also self-interests. It is possible to have both.

Is that honest praise or are you poking fun at my expense? (normally I wouldn't ask - but this is OWF and I'm not a total noob )

Ahhh, so that's it. Well, Darth Merrie Melodies, I guess in order to avoid the risk of being tempted by the power of the dark side, I'll have to work on that. Now then, how to enhance further my inner none???

My alliance does not raid - period (not if the members are following the rules, anyway - people screw up now and then...annoying). I don't care if the target is in a 700 alliance or is non-aligned. War in self-defense or defense of allies only. Point is - don't assume that everyone arguing here is being hypocritical.