TheNakedJimbo

Hint: go back to the OP and read the poem at the end. Specifically read the first letter of every line, top to bottom. It forces me to shell out 100 million dongs to buy a wonder in order to get nukes, whereas nations in the top 5% don't have to pay. It's size elitism I tell you! I think the point has been made though. The thread wasn't quite as funny as I thought it would be.

It pretty much is. The number of nations who are unaligned and affected by tech raiding is an absurdly small percentage of the total nations. Here's another way you can tell it's a non-issue. The people who oppose tech raiding, in this thread, are outnumbered by those who are pro-choice. Yet both are vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of users who have read this thread and not even cared enough to post their opinions. It is and always has been a non-issue. I came to the thread because I like sociology and discussing concepts of morality, which as you all see, is a theme I keep coming back to. Tech raiding on the whole I could care less about except as an application of a particular system of morality (and the anti-raiding position is almost always a flawed application of a flawed philosophy, as I have demonstrated herein).

Dear Vlad, I'm afraid you are committing a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. There is a third option you are not aware of. You can buy a ton of nukes, sell all your tech and infra to get as low as you can go, and then nuke lowbies all you want to. I would recommend, though, using those nukes on other high-infra nations instead, to create infrastructure parity across the board and level the artificially-tilted playing field.

In on the ground floor of an epic thread. Did I say epic? I meant that in two days no one will care.

You are glad that other people suffer because it is convenient for you - just as I thought! I think this thread has served to illuminate how many people really do have that opinion, and are merely too blind or too cowardly to admit it in public. There are a few who have been quite brazen about it, such as Vladimir a few posts back. While I think it is silly to brag about one's backward self-centeredness and wanton disregard for fellow man, I have to say that at least those people are farther along the path to healing, because they are the ones willing to admit that they experience the attitude I have been talking about.

Keep up the good work brah. I perceive that you're very close to enlightenment. I think we should all ask ourselves, "What would Socrates do in this situation?" Socrates is a good figure to appeal to because he does not have the heavily weighted emotional connotations of a religious leader, but he is still widely respected. And it was Socrates who said, "In the pursuit of personal property, we must be first mindful of the public good. If ever a person elevates his own interest above that of the polis, his attitude puts him at odds with everything the polis stands for." So basically what I'm saying is think of me and send me some cash once my aid slots empty out Edit: I did that wrong. What I meant to say was, think of the masses, you greedy slob, and be generous with your cash so that I don't have to compare you to Ebenezer Scrooge and send ghosts to haunt your bedroom! (I realize such a thing could be construed as OOC retribution for IC acts, but quite frankly if that's what it takes then that's what it takes.)

Has he really not consented to be a part of it? Knowing that the (very simple) solution is to join an alliance, and having dozens or hundreds of alliances mass-mail him the moment he creates his nation, he can hardly claim that he is ignorant of what goes on. By choosing to remain unaligned, and being completely aware of the consequences, how can you argue that he does not consent to the consequences of his actions? If he desired different consequences, wouldn't he take the very simple step which could prevent him from ever being tech-raided at all? I don't want to fight a bogus war over a questionable casus belli, but I am in GOONS, so I know this will probably happen eventually. If I really didn't want to fight that war, I would join a different alliance. By staying where I am, I am consenting to the consequences of my choice. Every choice has consequences. The consequences of remaining unaligned include tech raiding. How can you argue that the victim is not in control of his own destiny here? You and the others are terrible. "Oh, you can't say that everyone has to join an alliance; you can't make them play the game a certain way!" "Oh, you can't tell us to play in peace mode, that's no fun!" "Oh, you can't ban people from tech raiding; you can't make them play a certain way!" Wait, that last sentence is what you would say if you had an ounce of integrity or logical consistency. Since you don't, you leave it out and make me say it instead.

What we should learn from this quote is that I cannot do math. In fact I have no clue at all what I was thinking when I came up with that 2.5 million number, but I do remember it making some sense at the time. As I'm ranked 17000 or so, that makes the reparations roughly six thousand dollars per nation. But if you're going to send aid, I could do with more anyway This is typical growth-elitist attitude, but at least you are honest enough to admit that you are thinking it, unlike the others who parade around this thread in denial!

Sorry, but you really didn't fix anything. All you really did was render a moral judgment that tech raiding is an insufficient casus belli. And again I ask, to what standard of morality do you appeal to suggest that your opinion is the only right one, or even more correct than the opposite view? If you oppose war purely for profit, do you support tech raiding which is done as war practice, since in that case it is not purely for profit? And how exactly did you come up with the silly and arbitrary idea that war for profit is less acceptable than war as a method of bullying another alliance, "casus belli" or no? You just introduced this idea that war for profit is always wrong while other kinds of war may not be, with no logical or moral explanation whatsoever, just asserted them as if they were facts. Explain yourself.

Speaking of whooshes that indicate a person missing the point, you may want to re-read the post I was responding to. My post was a response to the idea that someone who liked tech raiding should do it on TE. My point was that it doesn't pay to raid on TE because everything goes away. There is, in practical terms, no risk and no reward. Raiding in the regular game, on the other hand, involves some risk and also a much higher possibility of reward. If you oppose tech raiding, then you had better oppose all war, and had better be in an alliance that does not believe in war. If you make war on another nation, you're a total hypocrite. Why? Tech raiding is selfish: you want what someone else has. Alliance wars are selfish: you go to war to achieve a desired end, like beating up another alliance, proving a point, etcetera. It's stupid and asinine to argue that one kind of selfish war is completely fine while another kind is completely wrong. Either you believe in leaving nations alone to grow in their own sovereignty, or you don't. If you say, "I believe in letting them grow unless they anger my alliance / give us a casus belli," then I could just as easily say "I believe in letting them grow as long as they're in an alliance / are not inactive." Hypocrisy is rampant in the abolitionist ranks here. I would call on anyone who claims to truly be a pacifist to actually go into peace mode. If you believe peace is so much better than war, put your money where your mouth is and take away even the possibility of war from your nation. But you won't, you hypocrites, because you like the advantages that war mode gives you. How can I have a constructive debate with someone so guilty of doublethink?

The poem should demonstrate how serious I am. I'm merely arguing that age and growth elitism are responsible for the fact that I have to spend $100 mil on a wonder in the first place. That's 100 mil that I can't spend on other things, but have to funnel into an MP because other nations above me won't stop growing and let me into the top 5%. It's thoroughly ridiculous that I can never overcome their age handicap. The only justice would come if they stopped buying infra and started taking responsibility for their actions, sending aid to the other countries like me which have been squished under their jackboots of selfishness. 20 days may not be that big a deal but it is still a deal, and it's still a travesty and an injustice that other nations will not moderate their infra buying in order to usher in a more egalitarian age.

While these are salient points, I still object to the fact that someone else - me personally or my alliance - must pay the price for other nations' selfish growth and infra purchases. Why should we foot the bill because other nations, in their shameless self-interest seeking, keep us down and choose to remain ignorant of that fact? If this deal is still on the table in a couple weeks when I finally have an aid slot open, I'll be all for it. See, this is the kind of win/win solution I'm talking about. I get money which benefits me and helps offset the effects of your selfish growth, and you get tech which benefits you. It doesn't have to be either/or; you don't have to profit at my expense when we could easily profit together.

Why choose one when you can have both? You think it's better to raid in TE because the frequent resets mean that the raiding doesn't hurt the raidee as much. You think it's better to raid there than in "real" CN. But the problem is, that's exactly why it doesn't pay to raid in TE. You don't gain anything permanent or substantial. It only pays to raid in the regular game where you can keep the fruits of your labor forever.

<Citation needed>

That's a function of nation strength, not nation rank. Sounds to me like you're one of the shirkers who won't be sending me my $2.5 mil!

Dearest friends, the travesty of infrastructure buying has gone on long enough. We all know this already but none of us has the fortitude to make it stop. I might be a young and idealistic nation but I think that we can all band together and put a stop to this worldwide plague of infra buying one step at a time. Part the First: Overview of the Problem 1. The central crux of this problem is that every nation in CN is given a "nation ranking," comparing itself to other nations. This creates an atmosphere of competition. Growing yourself comes at the direct expense of other nations' ranks. The system is set up in a way that, just by minding your own business, you're keeping other people down, mashing their face in your rumpus so to speak, preventing them from ever climbing in the rankings. Every time you buy infra, you're keeping other people from going up in the rankings. 2. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are rewards - actual, honest to Johnny rewards! - for having a nation in the top 5% of all nations. Specifically I am speaking of the ability to buy nuclear weapons. Nations who are not in the top 5% are penalized for their rank - in other words, they suffer because you have bought infra. I'm not just speaking to the top 5% here. I'm speaking to everyone who is a higher rank than I am, the ones who are between me and my top-5% goal. I have to shell out for a $100 million wonder because you're all so selfish that you won't stop buying infra. How can you live with yourselves at night? Part the Second: A Framework for Solution 1. I posit that nations should adopt a posture of responsibility for their own actions and growth choices. I want to see nations being held accountable for the fact that their decision to buy infra costs me something. Some nations are okay with this blatant selfishness, but I don't think that blind self-interest is a paradigm that we in CN should be encouraging. Your actions do have ramifications. They are going to cost me $100 million for a wonder. It starts by admitting that the problem is you. You have bought infra. You have created this state of affairs. But you can help fix it. 2. I have concluded that nominal financial aid, in the term of $2.5 million from every nation larger than me, would enable me to purchase this wonder without incurring any debt of my own. That is to say, the selfish growth choices of other nations will not cost me anything. This is a world of real accountability, real financial responsibility. This is a CN world that I want to be a part of. Will you take the bold step of helping erase the footprint of your injustice? 3. I will take my own advice and admit that I am part of the problem as well. I am willing to aid $2.5 million to each nation smaller than me to offset the footprint of my own infra purchasing choices. I do not have the money for this until the larger nations begin aiding me - you can see again the consequences of their growth elitism in action - but I agree in principle to this course of action once the funds are made available to me by my oppressors. 4. I realize that it will take somewhere on the order of a year and a half for all this aid I have proposed to go through. It will not be easy or simple, but I don't think we can allow this to dissuade us. We cannot continue to revel in blind selfishness and inaction while this injustice takes place! Truly, I tell you, that the time has arrived to Hoist off the chains and shackles of the great Injustice that has gripped all of CN up to now. Stand up, and demand to be heard by all! Please, do not dismiss what I am saying with Out considering the full ramifications. Can you Say that the world would not be a better world Tomorrow if we all took this advice? I think all nations should appoint a diplomat of Some kind in order to address this issue. Anybody with me? Quote this if you're down! January is the start of a new year, and if Only it could be the beginning of the end of Kings and peasants dining at the same table, Eating without the ever going hungry! Let's do this, people! We can do it, but Only if we all band together! Won't you Let me hear all your voices! We're! Here! All! Together!

I don't understand this answer. Earlier you were patting yourself on the back for your work with the UJW, "some of my best work," because through force you were able to impose your view of morality on the world. Yet you believe that might does not make right when it comes to the tech raider; that is, you disagree with the idea that if he can get away with it, he should be able to get away with it. You seem to have hypocritical opinions regarding your own use of force compared with tech raiders' use of force. Both of you would argue that you're doing it for an acceptable end and that use of force is moral. You are even worse than the tech raiders because you bragged about the people that you helped into a state of EZI, PERMANENTLY ruining the game for them, while the tech raider merely sets an unaligned nation back a couple of days worth of growth. So does might make right, or doesn't it? I personally wouldn't. Does the fact that I wouldn't mean that it's immoral for anybody to? Can I use my personal preference as carte blanche to legislate my morality onto other people? If it is immoral, there must be a clear system of morality to which I can appeal to argue that certain things are always right and certain things are always wrong. That's why I outlined four systems earlier (page four) and we spent a lengthy amount of time discussing one of them. Vilien posted a question: "Do you attack a nation that is unprovoked? No." And I asked him: to what system of morality do you appeal in order to come up with the idea that "no" is the only legitimate right answer, or even a more legitimate answer at all than "yes"? If morality is socially or individually defined, then you cannot appeal to any standard higher than my own personal morality or the opinion of the community.

Oh, so you're not appealing to non-harm at all, but rather to the second system of morality that I described, that morality is individually determined. In that case I declare tech raiding to be moral for me. And we're at an impasse again. edit: or to the fourth system, that morality is dictated by a higher power, in which case you have just claimed to be God, rendering you absurd and your claims about morality unreliable.

To what standard of morality can you appeal to demonstrate that "no" is the only valid answer, or even a more valid answer than "yes" at all? edit: leaving for a party at the moment, responses will be delayed for about eight hours.

This is a good observation, but I don't think it's totally accurate. The $100mil that I plan on spending on a Manhattan Project is going to cost me an awful lot in economic growth. That's several hundred or thousand infra, several thousand or tens-of-thousands of people that I pass up in order to make up for the negative consequences of other people growing their nations. The cost to the tech raidee is maybe a few days, maybe a few weeks, of recovery time. Possibly even less if the raidee is a member of a small alliance and can get rebuilding aid. The presence of larger nations growing faster than me is still an invasion of my sovereignty, albeit an indirect one, whereas war is a direct one. I'm still being forced into a particular economic policy decision - buying a Manhattan Project - because other nations have pursued their own self-interest at my expense. I consider this harm but I do not fault them for it because I think that pursuing their own self-interest is their own prerogative. There seems to be a general agreement that a nation's self-interest will sometimes harm other people. Tech raiders would agree, and this belief forms the whole basis for tech raiding.

The first half of your quote is patently untrue. If you're in the top 5%, or even closer to it than me, that means you can have nukes and I can't unless I shell out fat wads of cash. Your position comes at the expense of me. I suffer because you are higher up the chain than me. That is called harm. You insist that it's not, even though it really is, because it can't be or else your philosophy falls apart. You're saying what you have to in order to remain consistent to yourself but the fact of the situation is that I suffer because you grow your nation. Now, both of us would agree that it is reasonable of you to pursue your self-interest, by which I mean nation growth, even if it comes at my expense. I have no problem with this, and you have (somehow) worked it into your definition of non-harm. What I'm telling you is, the tech raider sees things the exact same way. He pursues his self-interest, which is to say nation growth, at someone else's expense. In his case it's a little more visible whereas in your case it's indirect. But you'd have to be a fool to say it doesn't happen, and you're not a fool; you're an intelligent person and a good debater. And like I said earlier, I'm not justifying tech raiding on this basis. I'm not saying anyone can do whatever they want. I have not tech-raided since rerolling my nation, and I don't think I did back in 2006-7 during my last stint in the game. I'm saying, you pursue your self-interest (growth), at other people's expense if necessary, so it is hypocritical of you to tell tech raiders they cannot do the same thing.

...and therefore acceptable? You still keep trying to explain why it's okay for you to be selfish and not for tech raiders to do the same. But you're a hypocrite because you're appealing to a philosophy of non-harm to others in order to justify your selfish pursuit of self-interest. The two are not compatible. If you're really arguing for non-harm then you have to be aware of the ways your pursuit of self-interest (by which I mean nation growth, but there are other examples) harms other people. You have admitted on the previous page that your growth does harm me, but you have decided that the consequences are acceptable to you. The amount of harm you inflict is acceptable to you in light of your legitimate claims to self-interest. The tech raider would say the exact same thing.

You --> Grow your nation --> Negative consequences for me --> Moral because pursuit of your self-interest is considered moral by you. Tech raider --> Tech raids --> Negative consequences for some poor slob --> Moral because pursuit of self-interest is considered moral by tech raider. Now here is the relevant paragraph again: You've already demonstrated that you're willing to inflict some amount of harm on me in the pursuit of your nation. (Just a reminder that you admitted to this on the previous page, but dismissed the quantity and quality as "minuscule.") Again let me stress that I do not fault you for this because I believe that it is the nature of the game. The only question is: how much harm is it moral to inflict on other nations? Your answer seems to be "the amount that I inflict but no more." That would be the same as the tech raider's response to the same question. Therefore we can see that a philosophy of non-harm is useless in resolving the tech raiding problem, which was my point in my original post.

...and therefore acceptable? The harm done by nabbing a bit of tech from someone inactive is also almost immeasurable to the vast majority of players. If he doesn't whine in the OWF, there's a really good chance that no one at all will know that it happened. It sets the tech raider back a couple of days and may teach him one of the fundamental truths of humanity, which is that we function better in community and relationship with each other. There is still very little real harm done to him, not that can be measured or quantified, and certainly nowhere near the $100,000,000 that it's going to cost me to buy a Manhattan Project because the selfish people above me won't slow down and let me catch up. People like you enjoy putting up the front that they care about other people. "Non-harm" is a nice belief system because it creates the illusion that you care about other people. But really, as you've been arguing all along, you care about yourself and your self-interest, even when I can attach a concrete amount to how much your self-interest is going to cost me. You think that anything is moral as long as you're minding your own business, which demonstrates that you're not interested in other people at all, but only in what you can get away with. If you can talk yourself into believing it doesn't harm anyone else, even if it does, then you can rest easy at night. Again, I don't fault you at all for pursuing your self-interest, because I understand that your pursuit of self automatically negates your concern for me. It is only a problem for you in your own mind because you must either explain why you're not harming me, or else justify the harm you're doing me. You've already admitted that you do harm me, but dismissed it as a "minuscule" quantity, so you've opted for the path of justification. That is okay with me. I'm merely pointing out that you're not really pursuing non-harm at all; you're pursuing self-interest, and if it hurts me, then you'll explain things away and ignore me. That's not non-harm; it's realpolitik at its best. You've already demonstrated that you're willing to inflict some amount of harm on me in the pursuit of your nation. Again let me stress that I do not fault you for this because I believe that it is the nature of the game. The only question is: how much harm is it moral to inflict? Your answer seems to be "the amount that I inflict but no more." That would be the same as the tech raider's response to the same question. Therefore we can see that a philosophy of non-harm is useless in resolving the tech raiding problem, which was my point in my original post.

Almost but not quite. I'm not saying you can do anything because it's impossible to refrain from harm. On the contrary, I personally believe I should strive for morality in everything I do. I'm just saying that it's hypocritical of you to do whatever you want to do, justify it on the grounds of non-harm even when it is pointed out to you in real dollars how much it is costing me, and still use non-harm as a bludgeon for trying to influence other nations' foreign policy. I'm not saying that anyone can do anything they want. I'm saying that, since you commit harm on a daily basis, you don't have the right to tell other people they can't. You're seeking to justify the behaviors you commit while drawing the line there and condemning anyone who goes further.