Alonois

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In its most basic form morality is a measurement of how much an action propagates a better society. Morality is an entirely social construct that exists for the betterment of all members of society. Were society not to exist morality would be entirely valueless as there would be nothing to make better. At the same time morality is one path to creating a society. Such a situation is interesting but unimportant as it ultimately does not exist. We exist within a society. Should morality and moral codes affect decisions? The honest answer is that is up to you. If you feel morality is important enough to base a decision off of then morality is important to you and should affect your decisions. If you are amoral then the morality of your decisions does not matter one way or the other. Is it wrong to be self interested? That depends to what extent you define the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. That also depends on whether or not you define inactivity in regards to morality as inherently immoral. So what is the role of morality today? Minimal. It can affect the decisions of some alliances but ultimately has no power on the global level. If we presume tech raids immoral the presence of morality has not ended tech raids. If we presume reparations immoral the presence of morality has not ended those. Morality has not stopped wars and has not brought cohesion to the many spheres. This is because the current form of morality is a theoretical construct not followed. Morality has no power beyond debate, and even in debate lacks strength. The 'morality' of the great alliances is utterly meaningless because it changes nothing. Morality exists as a feel good notion but morality necessitates action. People TALK of morality. They do not ACT upon it. They wear the cloak of morality without themselves being moral people. The current state of affairs is an inherently amoral one. Morality may rule propaganda and rhetoric but it so rarely rules action. Do you believe tech raiding immoral? Fine. What have you done to end tech raiding? Not tech raided? Wonderful but what have you done to END tech raiding? It is not enough to abstain from immorality one must actively negate or remove it to be moral. Can the world become moral? Yes. Through the application of policies built to actively encourage a moral stance in the world. Either via positive reinforcement, giving aid to nations acting morally or under assault from immoral nations, or via negative reinforcements, sanctioning immoral nations or actively combating them. There are doctrines that proclaim to do such yet are not actively enforced. The only recent example I can personally think of is the response to Gramlins. They were seen as immoral and have been actively denied technology. Not enough has really been done, but some has been done and it makes for a good start. Better than nice words and good feelings. However even if you are actively moral you must consider the necessities of pragmatism. It is not enough to create a doctrine of morality, it must be tenable and it must be enforceable. Four nations decide they will defend other nations against tech raiders? Feels nice but it is meaningless. Unless they draw in support from much more powerful entities it is an empty statement and on par with being inactive. The creation of a moral society necessitates greater cohesion. So what's the point? Stop pretending to be moral nations and moral alliances if the extent of your morality is in your rhetoric. Do not beat your chest when your alliance claims superior morality. Without actions it is but smoke and mirrors. As long as your morality is inactive or unenforceable it is effectively nonexistent.

If you can not defend your sovereignty then it ceases to exist. An unaligned nation is the epitome of sovereignty so long as they remained unchallenged. Consider the state of many indigenous people in any continent. They are sovereign so long as there were not colonists. But once they were toppled they ceased to be sovereign. If you are capable of making decrees but not acting upon them, are you still capable of self determination? No. If you can only think of the choice but not make it you are not sovereign in that regard. When people speak of sovereignty they also tend to speak of the connection between self determination and the defense of it. Nor is sovereignty an either/or state. It is not have or have not. The alliance with a viceroy is not entirely sovereign but, depending on the viceroy, is still capable of making decisions of their own. Even if you were to remove the defensive aspect of sovereignty, if you were to define it entirely as the capacity to set yourself on a course regardless if you can follow through (And this would imply every single citizen is sovereign), it does not change the focus of this essay is the fact that sovereignty is not an inherent portion of being a nation. Many nations have little. Weak nations can have a lot. Sovereignty is a gradient and it is not a required aspect of any nation to continue to exist.

At its core sovereignty is both a state and the measurement of a nation's capacity to make decisions for itself. Sovereignty is a measure of the defensive value of power; power being the capacity to affect change for your benefit. A single nation is by the virtue of its weakness not sovereign. In the face of even a two or three man microalliance the lone nation is almost always incapable of properly defending itself against such an assault. If you were to pile on more then the lone nation will find itself crushed. It can not protect its interests and it can not enforce its desires. It is only sovereign for as long as it remains unchallenged militarily and diplomatically, but it is unlikely to remain unchallenged. Does that mean the microalliance in that example is sovereign? To some extent yes. They are better capable of defending themselves against attack. However a three man band might be able to stand up to four, five, even six nations, but nine nations? Unlikely. Twenty? Improbable. A hundred? Impossible. A microalliance is sovereign for as long as it can defend itself but when faced with a stronger foe it ceases to be sovereign. Its sovereignty exists for as long as it is unchallenged by superior force. But it is still more often sovereign than a single nation. However the individual nations of this microalliance are not sovereign. Unless a nation holds dictatorial control over an alliance of any kind, or is a member of their government capable of affecting change, a nation is no longer sovereign the moment it joins an alliance. For as long as it is part of the alliance it is not sovereign unless it can affect change on the scale of that alliance. This is the nature of the bargain between a single nation and an alliance. A nation gives up its capability for self determination for protection, to pool its power with other nations. Any self determination that does exist is crippled at best. The nation may be able to choose its trade circles or who it trades technology with but if the alliance were to make a demand it would have to follow or be ejected. If the alliance says no nuclear weaponry, there will be no more nukes. If the alliances says go to war with some one, they will get their guns and go to war. Until the member leaves the alliance its only measure of sovereignty, its only power to protect its interests, is the capacity to leave and to throw its lot in with an alliance of like minded individuals. The larger the alliance the more this rings true. A three man microalliance is likely a loose coalition of like minded individuals with few, if any, decrees or doctrines. A three hundred man dictatorial alliance is one wherein the individual nation is of little consequence. It has many decrees, many doctrines, much oversight, and is involved in many treaties that dictate the nature of wars. If the nation were to find itself in an alliance opposed to its own ideology then it only has three options. To leave, to give up its right to choose for membership, or to strive to become a government member and alter the policies in place. And if the nation agrees with the actions of the alliance? Is it sovereign then? No. It did not choose the actions of the alliance. Its only choice was to join an alliance with a like minded government. Obviously this does not hold entirely true for an alliance whom requires nothing of its members. But an alliance with no policies, with no decrees, and no oversight is nothing more than a shared flag. It is not an alliance capable of enforcing its interests as it has no shared interests. It effectively does not exist as an alliance, merely as a fondness between nations. However such 'alliances' are not the alliances with power and are of no concern. Does this mean an alliance is entirely a sovereign entity based on its size, and that the biggest alliance is the one that will always remain sovereign? No. There is a level of organization above the alliance, that of treaties. Akin to a member nation giving up control for the sake of pooling power, an alliance that signs a treaty such as a protectorate or an MDoAP gives up a measure of its own control to ensure the regularity of what control it has. This is not to the same extent that a member nation gives up control. In the case of a protectorate or an MDoAP the alliance gives up its right to remain neutral in certain conflicts for the guarantee that the other party will either join a fight or remain friendly. However this estimated loss ultimately provides greater sovereignty to the participants of the treaty. The power of these treaties creates a combined force that can protect the interests of all parties by sheer intimidation or manpower. Most of the time. This does not work so well against a similarly sized alliance with a similar number of allies. In such an event that those two entities would go to war it then the victory remains sovereign while the defeated loses their sovereignty. Even in a white peace this is true. The defeated entity has failed to defend its interests, it has lost soldiers, infrastructure, and technology. It has lost power and it has lost standing. All members of the defeated entity have lost sovereignty and all members of the victorious entity have retained sovereignty. What if an alliance would want to follow its treaty in the first place? Then it is more of a formality but it still restricts their capacity to act on their own whims. A willingly worn chain is still a chain. So then is the path to being sovereign making the biggest treaty bloc this side of the Hegemony? No. An entity must also consider diplomatic and societal pressures. If an entity buckles to outside pressure then it is in that regard not sovereign. An alliance that sacrifices a policy to appease outsiders is not completely sovereign. So what does all this mean? Sovereignty is a measure of the capacity to defend oneself and interests. It is not an entirely binary state but a gradient. Nor is it a stable thing. Sovereignty comes and goes. One day you are top dog calling all the shots, next you and your entire alliance are paying reparations for the damage you caused. An ideal sovereign entity controls all of its choices and can always defend those choices at all points in time and an ideal non-sovereign entity controls absolutely none of its actions and can not defend itself. More often than not an entity exists somewhere between these two extremes.

[quote name='hizzy' date='20 July 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1279688365' post='2382093'] now had to abandon his crew [/quote] You really have no idea what you're talking about. And raiding does improve members of any alliance. It teaches them the basics of war and provides them technology and land. I don't think anyone on any side of the tech raid debate has claimed that tech raiding is not beneficial to the person doing the raiding. It's the degree to which it is "moral" or "immoral" or if morality applies at all to the situation.

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1279687764' post='2382084'] This isn't what you charter/constitution says. About the second part, my bad, I thought that USSR attacked just the raiding nation. [/quote] The constitution very specifically states that if THAT MEMBER bites off more than s/he can chew then they should have no expectation of rescue, although rescue might come. It does not prevent fellow members from getting involved just says they aren't obligated to help. This, however, was the alliance involving uninvolved GOONS members. And this has been stated multiple times and very clearly.

[quote name='hizzy' date='20 July 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1279687351' post='2382074'] As if GOONS wouldn't have accepted him at the drop of a hat. Shut up already. [/quote] We have a fair number of denied applicants. In fact there are very few times we've inducted members from alliances we've raided. I can only think of two instances as of right now, and one of them was from the confederates and I don't know if he's with us any more. However neither of those people simply abandoned their alliance.

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1279687054' post='2382066'] So if an GOONS members attack an nation flying USSR AA(an non recognized alliance as you said) and as your charter say "[i]bite off more than he can chew and get beaten up while attacking[/i]" why you guys are supporting this member? You guys shouldn't follow your own charter? [/quote] Except USSR attacked nations not involved in the raids. Even, however, were it not no expectation does not mean we never will. It just means it's up to the decision of that member.

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1279686005' post='2382040'] Or mock them and ask them to post humiliating things in your forums to achieve peace? [/quote] What's humiliating about enjoying an amusement park that may or may not be under water?

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='20 July 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1279684779' post='2381995'] Of course they responded by attacking everyone they could, Had it been either of of us when we first joined the game we probably would've done the same thing. That's the problem with raiding young alliances. Most of them don't know what to do or how to respond and when they try, they are beaten down. They people ask you "why?" and you say "because the fought back" Also Sounds pretty much like you blamed them to me. [/quote] We learn through trial and error. They attacked everyone they could, so we responded in kind. It's as simple as that. Whether or not they took the time to research their situation and actually figure out what the best option for them was is not our concern. Our concern, and the concern of any alliance, is first and foremost itself and its interests. The incapability of their ex-leader to actually research anything is pretty heavily indicated by the fact that when he went to the mercy board to barter for peace he didn't even pay attention to the thread that literally says "READ ME". But no one is blaming them. What they did was a poor decision for them tactically. But it was not "morally wrong". An amoral statement is one devoid of morality be it good or evil. It is not the same as an immoral statement.

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='20 July 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1279684125' post='2381977'] Yes, If you raid a young alliance that doesn't know the general standards that we go by in these type of situations, Can you really blame them for retaliating? [/quote] No one "blamed them" for retaliating or said it was wrong. In fact wuss said "which is fine." They then took it to uninvolved goons, thus involving them and the rest of the alliance in the fight. They responded by attacking everyone they could in the alliance, we responded in kind. We also gave them a way to stop the fight. The person who was negotiating jumped ship to the Cult.