Col John S Mosby

I'm with Bordiga on this. Some communist regimes have been expansionist and externally aggressive, but not all. What is being discussed in this thread is aggression for sport and to force others to join, become vassals or leave the game. There is no ideology at all behind this; it is nothing but the sort of cynical nihilism that is peculiar to adolescent males.

Thousands of nations have opted to leave the game altogether rather than continue to exist beholden to another group that has used violence to attempt to bend them to its will.There are many of us who would go down fighting to make sure there is no profit in looting and tyranny.

We currently have 3/4 of nations that existed since the Third Great War and our numbers on Planet Bob has remained flat ever since -- just because of that mentality. We have got to stop eating our own. Just because we are bored or we don't like the way others play the game does not mean they should be hounded off the planet. Some of us remember how much easier it was to get and keep trades before and don't welcome it being made even worse. If you're bored, attack an alliance the same size or larger than yours. That will not be so threatening to the rest of us. It would show some courage as well. I don't see the sport in attacking non-aligned and smaller groups. In the long-run, it hurts us all.

So you want to drive more nations from the game forever for sport and to alleviate boredom. Splendid.

I see GATO as more than a single alliance, but as a symbol of democracy and thus its health as an indication of the viability of democracy itself. As NPO campaigned to destroy [or at least neutralize] GATO, their leadership repeatedly said that a government legitimated by a popular mandate was inherently weak and corrupt. Beyond that, in the aftermath of the First Great War, NPO was resolved to make it so it should never have to have its power and its methods restricted [e.g. collective punishment] ever again. So the Second and Third Great Wars were essentially instigated to eradicate democracy and establish a tyrannical minority's domination of the entire planet by force. That having been accomplished, might-makes-right replaced discourse and tyrannical rule replaced democracy. It has been thus ever since and the population has remained flat ever since. When we see GATO flourish again, so shall we see freedom and peace live once again. Until then, darkness shall continue to smother us all.

Except your history and current behavior. Let us once again review the threatening message: You have given your characterization of that incident, so I shall offer mine: A member of a larger group was enjoying beating and robbing an independent nation with the explicit threat that if the victim dared to fight back his nation would be destroyed. He was annoyed that a member of a smaller group had the audacity to remind him that even indies have the right to defend themselves, asking that the violence be stopped. There was not even an implied threat in her message. So he attacked the nation sending the message, feeling quite safe in doing so because the message sender belonged to a smaller group. Reviewing that thread that Morath posted, what actually happened is that Mommyann was away from her nation while all of this was going on. There was a tentative agreement between FOK and a third party that Mommyann should eat the loss with no reparations or apologies even though FOK conceded that the aggressor was in the wrong. As the ruler of a sovereign nation, Mommyann decided that this was unacceptable hit the aggressor back. She was then gang-attacked by FOK and her allies in Dirty Dozen came to her defense. FOK then demanded that Dirty Dozen pay reparations, apologize and decommission all but a minimum of military assets. Dirty Dozen chose to disband instead. There was more complications to this, such as a sacrificial lamb being offered and another chosen instead, but the bottom line in that incident and in the current one is that might-makes-right with respect to the relative size of the groups involved is the operative principle here and nothing else. And I'm not singling out FOK for criticism here. Most if not all alliances that encourage its members to loot from indies and smaller groups would behave similarly under such circumstances. These so-called tech-raiding alliances may claim that if one of theirs tech-raids, the aggressor is "on his own," but in practice it is quite different. There is typically a loop-hole in which the aggressor's allies have the "option" to assist him if the victim proves to be too difficult or is fighting back in ways that the aggressor's alliance does not approve of. There is an incentive to make an example of those who dare to fight back. And of course, if the victim belongs to a smaller group and gets assistance in resisting aggression, the entire group will typically be designated for complete and utter destruction if they don't surrender. Meanwhile the rest of us lose our trading partners and potential tech-sellers. Tech-raiding isn't the problem. Protecting it is and looting from the weak is enshrined here at the expense of everyone else.

FOK's policies when it comes to how others respond to being beaten and robbed by one of theirs apparently depends upon the relative size of the groups involved. I seriously doubt that the likes of FOK would not gang-attack a nation that decided to 'tech-raid' one of theirs if the aggressor belonged to a smaller group. We have seen that if one of theirs is the aggressor and the victim belongs to a smaller group, FOK expects the victim's allies to obey FOK's rules rather than their own. If you see your friend being beaten up by a bully, you might not be inclined to knock on his mommy's door and ask what should be done. You and your buds might decide to kick his arse on the spot. Some of us don't give a hoot about relative size and will respond according to our own principles regardless. Some of us are willing to fight to absolute destruction rather than surrender our sovereignty to an aggressor simply because the other group is larger. The Phalanx' policy if one of ours attacks someone without authorization is to withdraw all protection from the aggressor until the war he started expires. Simple, clean and no drama.

Doubtful. One reason we don't invite tech-raiders to join us is because they are the first to fold in a real fight. I have seen it, even when the aggressor's group was larger. The grunts don't always have the belly for bleeding for no good reason. What I am reading between the lines here is that there will always be wimps who hide behind alliances while they beat and rob people who are seen as vulnerable. They expect to do so without consequences and will hound those from the game who spoil this. Is encouraging the indies and small alliances to fight back 'dictating what everyone else can do'? I say that those who would use force to keep it so some can steal from others without risk and run those who would dare to fight back out of the game are the ones who are trying to control how others play the game. This little skirmish is but a symptom of a pathogen that has infected the Planet for a couple of years now: might-makes-right. It was not always so and it need not continue.

As said before, we have strict rules on techraids, we try to keep stuff fair when it comes to techraiding. A close reading of the thread linked above shows otherwise. And yet, your alliance has done this very thing, destroying a small alliance that was at the time 5% of your size merely because the victim chose to defend herself rather than accept peace w/o reparations or even an apology. When she was gang-attacked for striking back, her allies came to defend her and the result was that the alliance was wiped out rather than submitting to an aggressor. Indeed I did read that, which completely ignored the ample evidence to the contrary that had already been posted in the same thread. This is just one example of the distortion that took place that justified the devastating results: And here is what was actually said: So much for 'ignorant' and 'threatening' messages that made it necessary to attack a nation bearing an alliance affiliation of a couple dozen nations that was consequently marked for submission or destruction. This is now and was then about might-makes-right. Evidence doesn't matter; only who has the most weapons and who is most ruthless about using them. Just as it was then, you are facing a smaller group and thus expect to be given deference based upon your size, not because of any moral superiority or 'legal' justification. There are other choices besides those. When faced by aggressors who expect to get their way by force, fight them until you have nothing left and then fight some more. One of our members has me sigged saying this in our forums to someone being tech-raided by an aggressor figuring that our smallness in numbers meant easy: He expects to grow at your expense and is upset that you are foiling his looting expectation. Fight like a berzerker. Spit your blood in his face, then start spitting teeth. Imagine if every intended victim had this policy.

Well, maybe attacking someone who did nothing to you is not considered "legal" by the victim nor his friends, hm? Does it continue to be fun if the victim fights back and his allies defend him from this unprovoked attack? How much does the size of the group being attacked weigh in how your alliance responds? ORLY? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=13721

Actually, having non-aligned under constant attack is not how it always has been. There are still a few here who were non-aligned for the first year and saw very little action until might-makes-right was institutionalized into our collective culture by force by a minority. Mythology notwithstanding, the CNARF [with 250 nations from over a dozen alliances] was going along fine until rivalry made it politically expedient to marginalize those who created it. And who is preaching about how evil looting from those who did nothing to you is? My case is practical, not moral. It is not in our interest to have our trading partners hounded from the game by losers who fold in battle when they find themselves in a real fight. Let some protect their non-aligned trading partners while others do nothing as theirs continue to be driven off and see who is more successful.

I'm not even talking about the interests of the non-aligned on a certain color team. I'm talking about the alliances on that color team protecting their trading partners. If Planet Bob lies in a state of nature, let us see which color team is more successful; those that protect their own or those that eat their own. Why should some be allowed to drive away those who don't want to play the same way they do? Don't they have rights also? Why should anyone have to choose between peace and sovereignty? Why should we stand idly by and watch our non-aligned trading partners be picked off, then having to pause our growth programs while we scramble to replace lost trades? What I am proposing is that the alliances serve as knights of their color teams and the non-aligned would be the civilians who produce needed resources. They would be offered protection, which would be denied them if it is found that they are under attack because they started the fight. Simple. That's called "escalation" and typically results in the destruction of the raided nation. Non-aligned are not allowed to defend themselves. Any who dare to are hounded from the game for doing so. That is especially true if non-aligned friends help each other when being attacked. Given that wimps who hide behind alliances dictate by force how others will play the game, there needs to be countervailing force. It is in our interest to encourage the independent-minded to remain on Planet Bob rather than sitting there doing nothing as our trading partners are driven off. They wouldn't be off-limits, it would simply be stealing from and driving off trading partners would no longer be without risk. I think it would add an interesting dimension to the game. Imagine if all of the alliances on one of the larger color spheres agreed to collaborate in protecting each other and their non-aligned and made an open declaration of this fact. Then let's see if those on the other color spheres would be willing to risk bleeding heavily to protect the 'right' to loot without consequence. Perhaps instead they might decide that it's easier to rob unprotected color spheres, which in turn would make for an interesting competition as to which policy is in the best long-term interests of the alliances involved. As I had said earlier, likely the color teams were created to foster a vested interest within the color teams. That dimension of the game should be explored.

Just prior to the Third Great War, there were 11,000 indies. There were large non-aligned nations that had been in existence for a year or so and saw little if any action. There were also about 10,000 more nations on Planet Bob then and once the number plummeted, it never recovered. Many new nations have been created since then, but the amount of nations remains flat. Only admin knows, but likely there is a lot more turnover now than since before might-makes-right dominated our culture. I don't know if it's so much about making rules. Those who steal from the weak simply because they can bring negative consequences to us all. The raiders should suffer some consequences also. Or, there should be color spheres that are declared off-limits by a consortium of alliances that wish to protect their trading partners and encourage others to go there as well. And yes, part of this will necessarily be that all alliances on that color sphere will have to swear off tech raiding for this to have credibility. Let the tech-raiding alliances eat their own and see how well the do in comparison.

It is also fodder for people quitting the game, which is why the number of non-aligned is less than half of what it was 2 years ago. The might-makes-right culture that has dominated ever since that time has kept the total number of nations flat also, IMO. Those who had been around since before that time can tell us all whether it was easier to get and keep trades then compared to now.

There is a significant difference between what I propose and a singular hegemon claiming a color sphere [no non-NPO Senators, no non-NPO alliances on Red] as a minority by threat of force. We should consider why the color teams were created in the first place and explore that aspect. We on the same color team are dependent upon each other and should look out for each other because it is in our interest to do so. Whether it is in our interests for independent players of all colors to be continually pruned back as many quit in disgust rather than surrender their sovereignty is a related matter. I don't think that it is realistic or desirable to eliminate tech-raiding, but it would serve us well to consider if it should be curbed in some way by making it more risky. It is completely unrestricted now and we all suffer for it. That is a simple fact.