Jump to content

Alonois

Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Revosia
  • Alliance Name
    Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism
  • Resource 1
    Uranium
  • Resource 2
    Cattle
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Vikingtopia
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    FROGOUT

Alonois's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. [quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280112505' post='2389188'] Thank you Heggo. I'm not convinced that "once we force you to delete your nation, we won't hunt down a new account to kill you again if you come back" is a great thing to brag about, but that's just me. [/quote] You are aware that most tech raiders leave when the tech goes or when the raid target no longer buys troops, yeah? In fact most leave after the end of the war, or before, for greener pastures. But that's all ancillary.
  2. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280092540' post='2388690'] Oh boo hoo you might actually have to work for your ill gotten gains? I feel your pain. not. Your own rules stipulate you need to make sure your target is acceptable, if the situation changes part way through the raid, you check again. [/quote] The problem again is the raid/state of war/what ever else predates their joining of a new alliance. That comes down to what an alliance feels deserves priority, the preexisting violence or the joining of an alliance.
  3. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280068232' post='2388305'] 1) so i ignored their little part and started in on my own single part. which is where yours and their argument falls apart. 2) and again, boofrigginhoo. i feel no sympathy towards ya'll whatsoever. and yes, your argument fails since you aggressively attacked an alliance without any just cause. 3) every thread a tech raid victim has ever started since ya'll reformed. check around, i am sure you gov would tell you it is true since they don't care about OWF opinion and all. [/quote] I am increasingly convinced you have no idea how an argument works and simply want to play the "u mad" card. You make claims and when pressed for evidence you simply say again "it exists". When explained that an argument has nothing to do with morality and is about the GOONS standard operating procedure you claim it, again, has everything to do with morality. And in general you have no sense of civility. Yes, Doc, we are the darkest of dark nightmares. We are the evil that triumphed over all other evils. We are the whispered horrors and the barely seen terror. We are the end of the world, harbinger of doom and dread. The world is black and white and no critical thought will ever be needed from you. Satisfied? [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280079827' post='2388419'] I think the short answer would be, war not really, tech raids yes. Because of the nature of a tech raid, and the fact that the tech raider slogan is pretty much "They should have joined an alliance" People pretty much expect a quick peaceing out as soon as the target picks up a legit AA. Its also generally expected that since the tech raiders launched aggressive attacks they take responsibility for avoiding needless drama and just move on to another open target. Guy gets his peace and the raider gets his warslot open again for a new target, everybody wins. [/quote] I think part of the issue with that is the tech raid still predates their joining an alliance. That being said any new raids would be aggressive actions against the alliance, and I do doubt it'd be hard to convince a tech raider to peace out.
  4. [quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280037386' post='2388123'] Hence the problem. You want the right to attack whatever nations you choose, and then you expect those nations to follow your rules. When you attack an alliance, you don't get to make the rules for that alliance. When you attacked them, that started a war. They responded as if it were a war. [/quote] I'm not saying that they didn't think it was a war. I'm not using this argument to argue we "have the right to attack whatever nation we choose". Nor did I ever explicitly or implicitly state that. I said "If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared" And that is true. This is not about right or wrong, this is about our response, why it was our response, and the fact that we have quite explicitly stated that if some one who raids get hit back and it goes poorly for them, the only help they get are from GOONS members that feel like it. This has nothing to do with "right". This has everything to do with the logic behind our response. We wouldn't have escalated our involvement if they hadn't attacked nations that hadn't tech raided them. This is not blaming them, this is literally stating the truth. We do not view it as a war if some one goes off, raids, and gets creamed in turn. We do perceive it as being at war if they hit a nation that wasn't involved in the raid so we act differently than if it was just a tech raid. I am not saying what they were doing was morally wrong. I'm saying it was a poorly thought out retaliation that a little bit of research would have dissuaded them from doing. As for the actual topic at hand, if the war predates the nation joining an alliance then the war gets priority. But that does not mean new wars get declared.
  5. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280033686' post='2388063'] 1) then why do they keep asking people to forget it started with a tech raid? 2) your argument fails. you attacked uninvolved members of their alliance first, thus involving their alliance as a whole. you cannot even attempt to state that them attacking uninvolved members of GOONS is an attack on your whole alliance, if you again, did it to them first and fail to recognize that. 3) according to GOONS standards, any thread started on the OWF by alliances or nations they tech raid is crying. thus, by those standards, this is GOONS crying. plus, this is GOONS crying since ya'll continue to make it seem as if you were victims instead of aggressors. [/quote] 1) Because that is what you do when you say "for the sake of argument". You ignore the whole and start with single parts. 2) My argument fails? No it doesn't. That is our policy. Not once has any one of us spoken on if it is moral or right. We have stated that this is our policy. If you do not attack any one not actively raiding you, we don't care what you do to the people who are raiding you. This is stated GOONS policy. 3) Exactly what proof do you have for that?
  6. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280032741' post='2388039'] but the thing is no one is stating it like that. Most are stating "forget that we raided them and look at it as they aggressively attacked GOONS." that was what Sardonic said to me. "Ignore for a moment that the cause of the war is a tech raid" see, if i ignore that the start of the war was a tech raid, then that leaves me to see the situation as an alliance attacking GOONS aggressively and not the other way around. The truth is GOONS aggressively attacked another alliance who defended themselves. As for the leader jumping ship, yeah !@#$%* move on his part but that is small beans in comparison. Had GOONS just peaced out, this whole mess would not have occurred. he switched to a "true" AA. seems GOONS thought they could still get their laughs in and when it turned out CoJ basically played a joke on GOONS, GOONS stopped laughing. again, all i can say is boofrigginhoo. [/quote] But that is how they are stating it. They have continually stated "we tech raided, they were free to fight those guys back, but when they escalated it and attacked uninvolved goon nations we escalated the war in return". If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared. It's in our constitution. You tech raid and screw up, it's on your head and anyone who helps you does so of their own free will. As for CoJ, we're not going to peace out just because he wants to run under another flag instead of follow the easy terms given to him. We won't take the war any further, but that's it. None of us were crying, though we did find CoJ attempting to do his terms for him amusing. That and the empty threats that were thrown at us alongside expectations that we'll just peace out of wars because they said so. Actually, that's a recurring issue with people trying to circumvent government and tell our members what to do. The Cult knew exactly who they were bringing into their membership and what his past was. Their flag does not grant them immunity from whom they adopt. Also, if you ask me it's a far worse thing to abandon your allies than it is to fight a war. But I value reliability and forthrightness.
  7. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280030887' post='2388004'] False. You are forcing them to participate by attacking them aggressively without any just cause. Then the only way they get peace for defending themselves against GOONS aggression is by humiliating terms because GOONS find them funny. You wonder why you get very little sympathy? You keep acting like you are the victim, when you are not. You keep acting like you are just, when you are not. I liked the idea of the mercy boards for something like actual rogues. not for an alliance GOONS techraids who defended themselves against what most see as aggression without any just cause. Like NPO did prior to Karma. A big bully who aggressively attacks defenseless alliances solely to crush them or humiliate them. Good job. inbeforeNPODIDWORSEGUYSNOTFAIRGOONSARETHEVICTIMHERE!!!!!!!! [/quote] We're the victims of what now? Last I checked the argument being made here is that "We responded in kind. A few of us raided them. They attacked everyone, so we attacked everyone." And whether or not you think the mercy board should be for "rogues only" the mercy board exists for any attempts at peace. I am curious why no one is calling out the leader for basically bailing on his allies and jumping over to CoJ. CoJ loves him so much they tried to do his homework for him.
  8. That is still a social contract, not morality. Social contracts can be built upon morality but morality itself does not dole out punishments or prizes. That morality can create society does not mean morality is society nor that it is the only means of society. The existence of order does not prove the existence of morality or even moral mores in that society. Morality is a system for identifying good and evil. Right and wrong, moral and immoral. At its core morality is usually constructive vs destructive (I can think of few who would consider theft, murder, or rape not evil in general, though they may not feel that way in certain circumstances) with various cultural attachments. But even when a society is built upon a moral code that does not transform it into that social contract nor does it mean that the presence of a social contract means the presence of an underlying moral code. A society can be built on honor, which is not inherently moral and often contains many attributes beyond morality (status, gender, etc. etc.), as well as it can be built on morality or even the idea that the strong rule.
  9. What you are describing is more a social contract than morality. Prison is part of a social contract but people would argue that prison is immoral, or at least not moral. Execution is part of the social contract of laws, but is execution moral? Socrates accepted his fate under laws, but was accepting suicide the moral option or simply the option that led to a more stable society? Morality can in fact oppose order and society. Order is not moral, it is orderly.
  10. Morality can be self interested and I never said it was. But just because you occasionally do moral actions when acting out of self interest does not make you a moral person. I have not denigrated the quality or value of morality, simply stated it does not reign and ultimately has no effect on the politics of Bob. I do not personally find it valuable since Bob is amoral. Survival is my first and foremost concern, and the concern of any who do not see themselves as martyrs. Action is required for morality to exist, not words. I'd call you out for editing, but I don't have the original page open so I'll presume I've got an early case of senility and/or dementia. My comments about hegemony and karma and so on are about your statements that they will "lose support" but the issue is that the camps exist and are rather firm. The one has never had support from the other and short of significant changes in one government or the other never will. Nothing is to be lost in terms of support. The only way to eliminate one side is to take aggressive action, but few seem to be willing to suffer a little to enact their beliefs. People are comfortable where they are.
  11. [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='22 July 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1279840057' post='2384982'] Business will continue to be lucrative....for a time. My only concern is the amount of complaints that have arisen about your raiding habits. Inevitably you will piss off the wrong group of people. [/quote] "The wrong group of people" have not and never will like the people conducting Red Raiding Safari. A veiled threat won't work because they never cared for them in the first place.
  12. Oh hey. Some one picked a random quote and ignored the rest of what I was saying, that the current existing efforts towards a "more moral world" are token efforts at best and see-through grabs at reputation at worse. Honoring a treaty is hardly a moral action. You honor a treaty because in turn it will be honored. A gun dealer isn't any more moral if he delivers weapons for money instead of just taking the money. Casus belli exist as nothing more but vague justifications. You could argue they prevent wars springing up all over the place and may have been implemented as a means to make a moral world as opposed to simply self protection, but of course I remember a recent-sh casus belli that could be summed as "they probably would have attacked us" that was supported just fine by non-"UNJUST PATH" alliances. This implies a moral reason is not necessary just a reason of some sort, meaning casus belli exist to protect those who are strong enough to be involved in them from the random wars that tear them apart. It's more akin to two giants not killing each other for no reason. Spying is akin to being attacked. Is spying immoral however? I'd say more spying falls under "dishonor" and honor is not the same as morality. Honor and morality are two different things (and I plan to write on honor at some point), but it is false to say that honor and morality are the same. As for political support, ex-Unjust Path will never have support from ex-Hegemony. It is not about morality. It never has been, it never will be. This is very clear by statements made by ex-Hegemony members in support of rogues attacking ex-Unjust Path. The kinds of people otherwise made to be villains by ex-Hegemony. Morality is nothing more than rhetoric. PS: It's Alonois. I'm not a greek pretty boy. And I was never aware I was "at the head" of some sort of movement. I have colluded with no one, these are and always have been my views. I am a very pragmatic person in regards to Bob. Morality is secondary to the interests of my alliance to me and self-interests. This is because the world is not moral, and to be moral is to weaken myself and invite destruction.
  13. What is morality is another discussion all together. This is that one cannot BE moral unless one ACTS in a moral manner and actively goes against immorality. To not act upon morality is to be amoral, whatever you define morality as. Morality and pragmatism must be united if anything is to be done to advance one's cause. I write positively only in that they would be possible steps to take to changing the current atmosphere of Bob. Not that they are steps that must be taken but that would affect positive change. Whether or not such actions themselves constitute moral, immoral, or neutral, is another debate entirely. The exact implementation of an anti-raiding policy would require its own discussion between the enforcers of it. However one must also be willing to accept a little amoral pragmatism is, in the current environment, necessary to push for morality. We must play within the rules of the world we exist and better some of what you value than none of what you value. Though I doubt anyone would suggest backing the beleaguered to be immoral. A justification for war, perhaps, but if one does not stand for their ideals then they are nothing more than fiction. And amorality is not immorality. Amorality is without morality. Immorality is actively immoral, or evil. Some one amoral can be immoral or moral as the situation suits them. This is of course presuming your moral system views self-interest as inherently neutral instead of good or evil, moral or immoral.
  14. Karma's war against the Hegemony goes far deeper than the rhetoric of morality. One could argue that morality, that a need to dispense justice in this case, had a role in the decision but a far more pressing and far more universal concern would have been the displacement of the top most power so as to free it up for a power grab. Also, from everything I've gathered (Though I lack an exact time stamp for this one Dilber's ended in September 2008), viceroys were banned before the Karma v Hegemony war. Even had they wanted a viceroy, and I'm sure they would have since a viceroy is very valuable for the winning alliance, they couldn't have instated one. They still drew up some very steep surrender terms. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63887 350,000 tech and $10,000,000,000 in reparations. That is hardly a light sentence and arguably excessive.
  15. Alonois

    On Sovereignty

    There is nothing wrong and no need for an alliance to be fully sovereign. It is probably a bad thing because of what it takes to be fully sovereign necessitates the exclusion of any real capacity to defend it. The only way to be forever absolutely sovereign would be to either be so powerful as to never be tested or to be so utterly beneath the notice of others as to never be tested. Both are unlikely situations to be in. You are right that as long as an alliance remains unbroken, either diplomatically or through sheer brutality, it retains its sovereignty. At significant cost to its capacity and, eventually, that sovereignty it was so unwilling to barter for safety. However you say "truly sovereign" and that suggests a binary definition of sovereignty. That it is either/or, either you have control or not. But in reality you can have control over many situations but not have control over some. That does not eliminate your capacity for self determination in those situations you have it, merely means you are not at the absolute end of ideal sovereignty. Also whether or not you choose to give up your sovereignty, once it is given up you do not have it until you reclaim it. To repeat the comparison I made in the entry, whether or not you choose to wear chains you still wear chains.
×
×
  • Create New...