Alonois

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='20 July 2010 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1279682475' post='2381902'] In other words, sovereignty equals might makes right. That's how what your saying sounds to me anyway. [/quote] Good job paying attention. I'm saying might makes reality. Reality and morally right are two separate things. Whether or not reality should be morally just does not make reality morally just. [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='20 July 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1279683714' post='2381960'] So basically you attack a smaller alliance, they fight back, and you crush them? Real badA$$ GOONS. [/quote] They were given the means to peace. Their leader decided to abandon them.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='20 July 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1279679250' post='2381814'] * Raiders have the sovereign right to declare war without fear of their targets seeking outside protection. * Individuals and organizations have the right to seek outside protection should they be attacked. Only one of these statements can be true. If the first, raid on. I suppose we'll see what happens to neutral alliances. If the second, well then why are we all sitting around discussing this? Red Dawn can surely provide protection and the raiders can accept it. I imagine everyone is going to claim it's actually somewhere in between. Sounds like a cop-out. A convenient way to apply rules when most useful to you. I will work off this option and commend you all on the resurgence of "might makes right" diplomacy. This is the day I have been waiting for. [/quote] I have never once said people being raided can't seek outside protection. In fact I have stated that one way to ensure and defend sovereignty is through diplomacy and bringing in other alliances. Don't put words in my mouth. If Red Dawn could enforce this then good for them. But they cannot, have not shown the capacity to do so, and have not shown the interest to do so.

[quote name='Heft' date='20 July 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1279679067' post='2381805'] Okay, I'll be clearer: Either "right" is reality or there is no "right" - there is not some magical decoupling that occurs whenever it's convenient. Those supporting these actions clearly fall into the latter camp. [/quote] The phrase "might makes right" is discussing moral rights. I'm, again, not discussing right in any moral terminology. I'm discussing what actually happens and what exists. It is not "might makes right" or "might for right". Clearly this is difficult for you to wrap your head around as you seem intent on throwing me in with people who are convinced that morality is defined solely by action. I am, however, not discussing that. I am not opposed to the concept of might for right but it's an empty sentiment if there is no might to begin with. A morality debate is fine but my argument is not about ethics or morality. Do you understand now what my argument is about? [quote name='O-Dog' date='20 July 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1279679151' post='2381808'] So, whilst you have might on your side, you have your fun. When you don't, well, that's a different story, as previous incarnations of many an alliance can attest. [/quote] Which has no bearing on my argument. Even beyond the fact an argument exists beyond the actions of its creator (If a thief tells you robbing is morally wrong, is the argument wrong because the thief is a hypocrit?), I have not once complained when I was on the wrong side of the steam roller. Of course you could argue that I haven't been up against a big enough steam roller but that is nothing more than speculation.

[quote name='heggo' date='20 July 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1279678872' post='2381793'] Haha, what? Well okay, note to self. If I ever defeat you in a war, I'll be sure to offer your alliance disbandment as a kind alternative to your being bill locked. [/quote] You'd have to take that up with the gov, then. If GOONS was defeated to the point that they felt that that was the best option, I'd roll with it. It's not like it hasn't happened before and the alliance never recovered.

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1279678679' post='2381785'] No its not. Rather than defeating one nation, a viceroy controls the entire alliance [/quote] Bill locking nations eliminates them entirely. ZIing causes significant damage that takes a fair amount of time to recuperate from. Presumably these would be the goals in place of viceroys or disbanding. I should have expressed that though more completely, yes. [quote name='Heft' date='20 July 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1279678735' post='2381788'] I'm only like halfway familiar with the situation. I am familiar with all the rhetoric that you're spouting, though. It is just an inflated version of "might makes right." I'm okay with that, always have been. But I just want to be clear that the underlying rationale for all of this is the same as everything else in this -world- just out of personal vanity. None of this is surprising, especially not for GOONS (they do love their juvenile antics). The surprising part is the blatantness of CnG's endorsement of these actions. "We're going to do this because they can't stop us, and $%&@ them." [/quote] You again make the argument of "right". I'm not discussing right. I'm discussing reality.

[quote name='heggo' date='20 July 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1279678396' post='2381767'] So if you just beat an alliance in a war, would it be okay to demand their disbandment or to put in place a viceroy? [/quote] Honestly? If that is the term they are willing to agree to then I see no issue with it. If they do not then the war will continue. It's far less severe than bill locking a nation or ZIing. [quote name='O-Dog' date='20 July 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1279678492' post='2381772'] What exactly do you mean by 'sovereignty'? Do you mean it is having supreme, independent authority over a group of alliances, nations or citizens? If so, then every nation ruler is sovereign over her own citizens, but not so on the larger stage where a more powerful nation can impose its power upon them. Therefore, the only truly sovereign entity is the one whose power cannot be opposed. Which makes every alliance in the game lacking ultimate sovereignty. However, many alliances recognise the sovereignty of alliances of 10 or more members, irregardless of their ability to defend themselves. So we have a equivocal notion of sovereignty which leads to situations like the current one - When NPO exercised its sovereignty (as defined above), many people complained, arguing that NPO were 'morally' wrong. Those same people now defend the sovereignty and 'morality' of 'their' side, but fail to see, or do not care, that this makes them hypocritical. The notion that to be sovereign is the degree to which you can defend yourself and enforce YOUR decisions, held in isolation from any other governing framework, is no different to the notion that might makes right. Hence, why we see the current ruling class arguing in favour of the actions they once railed against. [/quote] An alliance recognizing the sovereignty of a ten or more man alliance is their choice, but the fact that the number exists indicates that the threshold for them is not the existence of a stated alliance but the capacity for that many nations to actually cause a problem. And the lack of existence of an ideal ultimate sovereignty does not negate the argument that sovereignty and power exist entirely in your capacity to defend and use it. The existence of an ideal ultimate sovereignty has no bearing on that argument. If others have argued that it was immoral of NPO to claim to defend people that is their decision and their argument, not mine. I in fact think the concept of the Revenge Doctrine is a good idea from a pragmatic standpoint, although its current inception is worthless.

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='20 July 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1279678189' post='2381759'] As leader of a 5-man AA faced with war with GOONS out of the blue, USSR's rep at the GOONS Mercy Board is clearly out of his league and element. He's been told to write an essay, said he started writing it, then was met with a half-dozen "how can you write it yet we didn't tell you what to write" replies while a bunch of people that he doesn't know whether they are in control or not are shouting on both sides to do this, no do this, no stop what you're doing, no keep going! I know well enough that not every GOON that posts in the thread is capable of making policy, but I also know that the largest portion of GOONS is like a flock, determining its course by throwing out all the most funny things they think of then picking the most funny and sticking with it in an whirl. [/quote] This isn't true in the slightest bit. In the stickied read me for the mercy board they are explained exactly how the process works. They are told who will be giving them terms. That Caprios decided not to read those terms or any other topic (and has subsequently abandoned his buddies) is entirely on his head and no one elses. He was not tricked, he didn't pay attention and simply expected to be granted peace.

[quote name='Heft' date='20 July 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1279677783' post='2381742'] Semantics and evasions. If you believe that moral rights exist, then they exist in every situation. I have no idea what sort of mental gymnastics you have to go through to claim otherwise. Red Dawn's ability to project power has nothing to do with whether or not attacking weaker powers without cause is a violation of their sovereignty. [/quote] Semantics nothing. I'm not debating the morality of tech raiding or defending all nations. I'm stating that this particular doctrine is nothing more than empty chest beating and that sovereignty does not exist unless you can protect it. Is a single member nation in NSO sovereign? In the grand scheme of things no. It's not. It can decide the path to its growth but ultimately it is subject to the whims of NSO's government. If NSO calls for war it must follow. Its only power is the power to leave and subject itself to the unaligned existence. The same holds true for any other nation or alliance. If they can not defend themselves or their interests then they are not sovereign. It is as simple as that. This treaty is unenforceable in its current state, not that Red Dawn has actually shown an interest in enforcing it or making it into a working concept, and does not grant sovereignty to nations or alliances that can not themselves defend it. Morality is nice and good but idealism has no real world value or application unless it is first rooted in pragmatism and actual action. Far more importantly if you, and Red Dawn, and others feel that tech raiding is immoral then enforce that view. Defend the tech raided nations and set them up so they can defend themselves further. Provide tools to make micro alliances into real alliances. But you won't, because this isn't about morality. This is about appearances and ego.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='20 July 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1279677703' post='2381738'] [color="#0000FF"]So, in other words, might makes right. Yeah, I wonder if all you fellows are aware this is what you've been saying the whole time, and interestingly enough one of the reasons you fought against the NPO in Karma. Granted, it has been a year, so I guess I shouldn't act all surprised that you're taking up some of the NPO's old mannerisms.[/color] [/quote] I'm glad to see that you still keep up with the debate, RV.

[quote name='Heft' date='20 July 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1279677162' post='2381719'] All he said was "might makes right." [/quote] I did not say might makes right. I said might makes reality. I'm not discussing moral rights and moral wrongs. They don't apply here and don't exist in this situation. It's all well and good to say some one deserves the right of self determination but if it's not enforced then it doesn't exist. This treaty is a perfect example of empty sentiments and chest thumping. If Red Dawn was serious about protecting the red sphere they'd do more than sign a pretty piece of paper saying they'll be there. They'd organize the development of the red sphere and set it up so that it can defend itself, not rely on an absent mommy or daddy.

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1279676483' post='2381701'] Oh, so you're a philosophizer now? [/quote] It's a basic observation. I just happen to enjoy the English language enough to be eloquent. A one man alliance with no treaties is not sovereign. Why? It can not defend itself or enforce its interests. A one hundred man alliance with treaties is. Why? It can defend itself, through its own nations or through others, and can enforce its interests. The degree to which you are sovereign is the degree to which you can defend yourself and enforce YOUR decisions. How does this apply to the current situation? Red Dawn claims it has the power to defend the red sphere. Everyone else is demonstrating it doesn't. No one is in the 'moral wrong', but Red Dawn is wrong in the belief that it is capable of defending the red sphere from tech raids. Or at the least has not demonstrated its capacity to do so. Yet still it claims it can and has the right to. Yet it has no more rights than it is capable of securing through the application of force.

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1279676299' post='2381697'] What is your definition of sovereignty and how is it violated? [/quote] It's pretty obviously he defines it as choice and the capacity to act upon that decision. Nothing more, nothing less. Sovereignty, power, these aren't rights but privileges. You have no more power or strength than you can defend and use. Sovereignty is not a resource but a state and an expression of the capacity to act and decide beyond the whims of external actors.

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1279676065' post='2381684'] So If I attacked MK it wouldn't be a violation of your sovereignty because its in my right to do so? [/quote] Just to step into your argument, if MK couldn't defend itself it has no sovereignty. Through treaties, through direct force, through diplomacy, if MK couldn't assure its defense then it has no power and no sovereignty.

[quote name='mrwuss' date='20 July 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1279675131' post='2381658'] The best thing about this whole mess is NPO can't enforce this magical decree and if they did it would lead to the next real war. [/quote] I don't think they have recently had any interest in enforcing it. The entire thing is a reputation game. The original "no one on red we don't like" policy was the same thing but much more blunt. It caused them problems. This allows them to try and maintain a good reputation without suffering the negatives of actually doing something to maintain it. It's hot air and nothing else. Really, the idea of growing a sphere isn't a bad one but NPO has neither the power nor the interest to take the steps necessary to actually unify and grow the red sphere. It would mean giving up some measure of power to other alliances in their sphere. It would mean actually doing something to earn a reputation as good guys. This is way easier and, for the purposes of reputation, more efficient. But it's still all empty. If they actually had the power to enforce it, and the interest, I imagine they would. As is it's an annoyingly loud chest thumping exercise.

Facepunch nerds get wedgies. This is how GOONS work. Wedgies. At least, that's my understanding of the hierarchy as it was enacted upon me.

[color="#FF00FF"]blah blah blah evil goons blah blah blah soon to be destroyed blah blah blah no one likes linux anyways[/color]

I know not anyone involved in this, but I like the cut of their collective jibe.

[quote name='The Reccesion' date='28 May 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1275076668' post='2314856'] GOONS knew exactly what to do, FP might not and plus the odds last war were heavily in your favor, now this next war, I wouldn't be so sure. [/quote] Blah blah blah we couldn't have possibly been beaten and lost even though we outnumbered the GOOOOOOONS in their engagements blah blah GOONS my e-pride! Also, I'm pretty sure that's what we're here for. To teach FP what to do. [quote name='The Reccesion' date='28 May 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1275076668' post='2314856'] FP will be hit by NSO, and they wouldn't be able to protect themselves and then some of them will get annoyed because they all don't know both sides of the game. It will happen most likely when they see their nation destroyed. But hey, anything can happen, I'm just saying that is what will happen for the most part at this rate of only tech deals.[/quote] Well, now that you've officially predicted that Facepunch is doomed, this means their success rate has shot up to 100%. At least, judging from prior "You're doomed" predictions made on this board. ps you're all destined to fail because you're not real people and you're [s]black[/s](Red? Rainbow? Pick a color!) and you're from outside and you're threatening our comfy power structure

blah blah blah [color="#000000"]y[/color][color="#A0522D"]o[/color][color="#556B2F"]u[/color][color="#006400"]r[/color] [color="#483D8B"]a[/color][color="#000080"]l[/color][color="#4B0082"]l[/color][color="#2F4F4F"]i[/color][color="#8B0000"]a[/color][color="#FF8C00"]n[/color][color="#808000"]c[/color][color="#008000"]e[/color] [color="#008080"]i[/color][color="#008080"]s[/color] [color="#0000FF"]d[/color][color="#708090"]o[/color][color="#696969"]o[/color][color="#FF0000"]m[/color][color="#F4A460"]e[/color][color="#9ACD32"]d[/color]

[quote name='Archanis' date='24 May 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1274718823' post='2310312'] ...Angola. We were using Angola. [/quote] YOU were using Angola. I was using Iran. Deal with it.

But I LIKED using Iran. It was intricate and made me feel like I was home. I [i]guess[/i] grenades are fine. Also blah blah blah whine whine whine GOONS are evil even when other alliances do things they do and we make no comment but they're GOONS and black sphere so they're not real people anyways.

[quote name='USOFAA' date='30 April 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1272669039' post='2281786'] Are you for real? Lol think about it if you are, well then its one of the stupidest things i have ever seen or heard!!!!!! Really i need no help from anyone would be more then happy to crush the whole alliance my self with money becuse they are to little for me. /A/ /C/ /D/ /E/ /F/ /G/ /H/ /I/ /J/ Do i need to go with the names they could have called them selfs. WHY would they go with that name????????? is there a point and one more time why? [/quote] It's their identity. It's their heritage. People pick names because it matters to them. /b/ matters to these people, and they've come from where the original /b/ originated, and as such it is as much their names as the last alliance. Also, you're not going to attack them. Even when they reach you you won't. You'll stick with indignation and inaction, because it's not risky and makes you feel good. Most everyone who says "You'll be dead in X" will never do it, you amongst them.

[quote name='leprecon' date='30 April 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1272635026' post='2281325'] Accusing others of being pedophiles? This is right about the time there should be a lock placed on this thread. (and in case you didn't notice, these aren't the same guys as the ones from before, and yes that matters.) [/quote] Hey now, I never said they were pedophiles, just that there's nothing "retarded" about wanting to nuke them. Pedophiles, that is. /b/ too, I suppose, but I don't really take issue with the use of nukes in general. I do seriously doubt the people that make up the new /b/ are completely composed of those that made up the old one. I imagine they're rather tired of the whole ordeal and have moved on or joined other alliances and long since given up on /b/. The low NS of the current alliance is indicative that the older members either have not joined, or were destroyed earlier and have rejoined after learning a painful lesson. (OOC: They still have Nazi Fridays, I believe.)

[quote name='rostovripper' date='30 April 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1272611949' post='2281174'] so have you always been so closed minded and !@#$@#$ retarded, or is this a recent thing? [/quote] Wait wait wait, nuking pedophiles is closed minded and retarded? I'm all for people who don't partake in the silly morality play that usually dominates these talks but that's neither a good response nor an exaggeration of the deplorability of such a thing.. Speak with a measured tone. Don't want you guys dying before you get a chance to do some serious raiding.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='30 April 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1272624527' post='2281251'] You really don't know RV do you? [/quote] Oh I do, I know him and his ilk. But it's still satisfying to call them out on their actions, or lack thereof. But I suppose one day we shall surely get ours. Eventually. At some point in time. But probably not from RV.