ktarthan

While I am waiting for the OP to respond, I guess I can discuss with other people who find this an interesting topic. One thing I think is worth discussing: I've seen the argument put forth that tech raiding drives people from the game. However, if tech raiding were to be outlawed, I would immediately stop playing the game. How can the needs of one group (those who are targets for tech raids) be put above another (those who enjoy tech raiding), when it comes down to enjoyment of the game? Also, I notice you did not mention gameplay, so you perhaps agree with the point I just made. Could you please elaborate on how it is harmful to the community?

I think he got this thread confused with the very similar one discussing how to go about the cessation of tech raiding altogether, not offering advice to new nations/alliances on their options in prevention and resolution of tech raids.

Before I continue my conversation, I would like to know whether or not you will actually accept constructive criticism and possibly revise your OP. As you indicate it is an extension to Lamualla's post, I had assumed you would consider suggestions in the same way, but thus far it seems that you'd rather respond with hilarious sarcasm. I ask this because I'm not sure whether to critique you or debate you. I will, however, respond to this immediately, because it directly references my alliance, and you completely miss the point. Your topic is about the long term cessation of tech raiding. The only thing you've added past your OP is "go get a protectorate", which is a short term solution, and has already been covered in Lamuella's guide. As for "follow the steps above", we've already made it clear that your guide does not address the concept of an alliance that desires all of the things in your guide, so this does not help. Arcades057 was trying to illustrate the fact that your guide is not effective in what it wishes to do. Edit: Grammar

As this was inspired by Lamuella's post, and was intended as an addendum to it, I would have liked to see this a little less coloured by bias. You not only present suggestions for people who wish to curb tech raiding, but you also try to convince your audience that tech raiding is bad. For those just starting the game, I think the last thing they need in an informative guide is to have politics cloud something that is intended to help them make an informed decision (especially in an OOC context). I would also like to echo the statements regarding the efficacy of these policies and the lack thereof. Public backlash and conflict are the exact things that some raiding alliances want. Some raid simply to cause strife, and these policies will only strengthen their resolve (and ranks, most likely). Edit: I don't want to turn this into a discussion on whether or not tech raiding is "bad" or "wrong". Whether it is or not, I simply wanted to state my opinion on including bias in something put forth as a "guide".

I am quite honestly flattered that you attribute the entirety of raiding in CN to GOONS, but I must admit that we do get some help here and there.

Another vote to be stickied. Very detailed, and well thought-out.

Well if I have to pick a label, I guess I'll go for selfish over opportunistic. Edit: Does it count if I'm also thinking of my Alliance's interests?

I actually said that a losing war can be fun, too, but I used double negatives so it might have been misleading. In the end, I guess it depends on how broadly you define "opportunistic". If you think that doing what you feel is in your best interest is "opportunistic", then I guess I have no argument against that. I'm not sure where you're coming from in your second paragraph though. Is this in reference to an actual event, or is that just something you felt like sharing?

Those comments were in regard to a specific subset of people. I feel he made the clear distinction that he was not simply addressing anyone who disagrees with his position, or who holds different opinions than his. Although I suppose it does depend on who you were referring to by the "We" in "We are called mindless drones", but it seemed as though you were indicating a larger group of people than he intented.

It's not that a losing battle isn't fun... it's just a poor strategic move when it can be avoided.

Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Waging effective war requires strength. Strength requires growth. If you constantly fly into wars that largely set back your growth, you will no longer be able to wage effective war. Pick your battles properly, and you'll be able to have fun for a much more extended period of time.

As a member of an alliance with similar stances, I would like to say that I support NEW's actions, and I quite enjoyed how well NEW's stance was explained by the OP. There was a lot of misinformation being shot back and forth in other threads concering the recent conflict, and this helped clarify a lot of it. Should NEW's government have quickly informed its members of the 1v1 agreement? Probably. Did they have to? Not really. Even IC, they could just be an alliance with a lazy government and itchy-trigger-finger members. They seem entirely ready to deal with the consequences of such things. To those of you who forming false conclusions from the OP, please stop. "We are going to play the way we want, please respect that" does not translate to "We expect to do whatever we want without consequence". NEW obviously realizes that people are going to respond to what they do, but that doesn't mean they're going to stop doing it.

Congrats on peace, guys. Also thanks, ZDP, for providing a stellar example of how a smaller alliance with a no-tolerance tech raiding policy should act and react.

Neckbeard and tie. Standard dress code for GOONS middle management. By the way that was probably the best impression of MGMT - Kids that I have ever heard.

Khyber I agree with you on this. While I love nothing more than exercising my jaw, I too feel that there is nothing more to be gained from continuing this discussion. All major parties involved have said what they want to say (numerous times), and it's clear that there are specifics that we are not going to come to an agreement on. All the major moves in this war have been made, and there is little doubt as to its outcome. I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for being one of the more level headed voices during this conflict, and I respect the decisions you have made throughout. edit: grammar

I'm not in charge of GOONS policy so I'll leave the first point alone. The second point, though, I feel is a little absurd. Chimp was making an analogy to try and explain our reaction to RLMMO's expressed intent to harm GOONS (and Kronos). I am positive he did not also intend for the analogy to cover our policy on tech raiding and support thereof, so if you try and rework it as an argument against said policy of course it isn't going to make any sense.

Sorry, I was referring to their initial attacks on Kronos. (5 attacks isn't exactly a blitz either, which is why I used quotes) Because RLMMO "accepted" war with both Kronos and GOONS in the same breath, for exactly the same reason, does it not make sense we would consider ourselves at the same risk of attack as Kronos? I feel the fact that RLMMO only managed to declare hostility on two GOONS nations indicates that RLMMO's attack was uncoordinated and allowed GOONS to gain the initiative. Just because only two of the attacks were declared by RLMMO does not mean that there was only two attacks planned.

And we started our "blitz" after RLMMO began theirs.

Fair enough. This whole ordeal has been spread over three rather lengthy discussions (ooc: threads), so it's understandable you haven't heard this yet: GOONS most definitely has ways for tech-raided nations to get peace. Khyber came to talk to us after the confrontation had already been escalated to an alliance-wide war, which is why he got the response he did. If peace was what RLMMO wanted, it was readily available before hand. Not saying that's what they had to do, as they have their own path, but it was definitely an option. Also, I'm not trying to rag on Khyber for any of his actions. Aside from his defense of Shayde (who I find to be unbearable), Khyber has been nothing but upstanding this whole time. Edit: grammar

Thanks for making an ungrounded statement about GOONS in your first sentence, and then using an entire paragraph to do anything but support that statement. -One GOONS nation and one Kronos nation (Plus the Kronos app ghost) tech raided an RLMMO nation. -An RLMMO representative makes a public announcement saying they "accept war" (whatever that means) with both GOONS and Kronos. -RLMMO launches 5 attacks against different Kronos nations, none of which are the nations who first participated in the tech raid (Two of these attacks were actually launched before the announcement). That is what it seems to mean for RLMMO to "accept war" with an alliance. Should we have waited until they were good and ready to attack us?

I missed the part where we were trying to justify it like that. Everybody is saying "Oh no Jack is on GOONS's PZI list!" and all we are saying is "Guys it isn't a PZI list". Whether or not you think the EoG list is justifiable is an entirely different discussion. It seems to me like people are saying things like "basically PZI" or putting "PZI list" in quotes in order to get a knee jerk reaction from those who are opposed to the notion of PZI but haven't been paying close attention to the discussion.

Aren't we just awful?

Emphasis is mine. Somehow I don't see how an order to reduce a nation to nothingness indefinitely is the same as declaring a nation to be "free game". edit: grammar

There is a vast difference between "needing" and "obtaining".