The Big Bad Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1310553187' post='2755412'] I don't agree that raiding is anything like bullying but I want to discuss another thesis of yours which is (correct me if I'm wrong) that raiding an AA constitutes bullying and raiding None does not. Why would the one be bullying but the other not when it's actually the same. And what about 1 person AA's? I think you will then fall back to what constitutes an alliance which is a discussion I don't want to open up now. I think there are two ways to look at raiding. Being inherently bad, or it being a good thing. I can understand why people think it's a bad practice and I understand why people think it's a good practice. However I don't think there is any grey area in raiding itself. [/quote] Oh its all bullying its just that with NONE the chance for push back is almost none. Raiding is good for the raiders and bad for the those getting raided. In the end it is still just the strong picking on the weak. I have nothing against raiding and at no time in TPF did I ever try to curtail it beyond being more careful with AAs. However, we always enjoyed the role of being the bad guys, something CN really could use today. If I ran an alliance today it would be a raiding alliance and I would be happy to share with OWF our enjoyment of robbing and crushing the weak. Of course I am the The Big Bad, I have a rep to live up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310604121' post='2755729'] More like, "raiders gonna raid, tell you to do something about it, and then when you do something about it, they'll go and whine about it for days and brand you an 'ebil moralist'". That is literally what happened in this situation, in case you haven't been paying attention. Don't get me wrong, I personally love raiding, but the buckets full of raider tears on the OWF when someone decides to 'do something about it' are infinitely more satisfying than pounding an inactive noob's nation to dust. The "do something about it" argument works both ways. But we all saw what happened to the last alliance who raided regardless of protection, so you tell me. [/quote] yeah i kinda skipped pages 3 onwards, it was the same argument it seemed, people who whine about someone hitting back aren't raiders they are wimps and such i wont even dignify them with a comment. If you cant stand the heat stay in GPA, in this particular case is see both sides at fault, [s]NG for not being more diplomatic about this and NAAC for not knowing their place, you can ask for reps but if you dont it in a stand off-ish manner dont be surprised if they laugh in your face and throw CM's at your nation. [/s]Actually on closer inspection NG was more then polite about all of this then they needed to be they offered an out for NAAC but instead all they got were threats and bad manners Edited July 14, 2011 by Systemfailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3filed Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Can we stop this meaningless discussion and instead just agree that I'm enjoying the free tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='d3filed' timestamp='1310608845' post='2755777'] Can we stop this meaningless discussion and instead just agree that I'm enjoying the free tech? [/quote] was there ever any doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3filed Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1310609000' post='2755779'] was there ever any doubt? [/quote] Well, the moment i thought *cough* Lordchozo ($1m warchest) *cough* Was going to retaliate and destroy me. Edited July 14, 2011 by d3filed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='d3filed' timestamp='1310609144' post='2755783'] Well, the moment i thought *cough* Lordchozo ($1m warchest) *cough* Was going to retaliate and destroy me. [/quote] Redacted. Edited July 14, 2011 by Hereno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1310596744' post='2755668'] I thought "I'm protected" was the point which common convention dictated that a raid stopped. The raider should have asked who Chozo claimed protected him and then cleared the matter with them, to determine if the protection was valid. For that matter, GOONS' own no-raid list, as I pointed out, dictates that you not raid him, so why did you? I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of your own systems, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from those words it seems pretty clear. Not that I really care one way or another, mind you, that's for your own government to worry about whether you were or weren't allowed to do so, but I am curious as to your answer. [/quote] Raid targets do not get to dictate who protects them after the fact. If there is nothing in their bio, nothing on the wiki, nothing on the forums...they don't get to demand reps and say "hey dumbass, everyone knows I'm protected". As for our raid rules, they don't apply to magical scenarios where protection is merely assumed. If Chozo doesn't want to repeatedly get his ass kicked, he should do something about it. He has a bio just like the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310604121' post='2755729'] More like, "raiders gonna raid, tell you to do something about it, and then when you do something about it, they'll go and whine about it for days and brand you an 'ebil moralist'". That is literally what happened in this situation, in case you haven't been paying attention. Don't get me wrong, I personally love raiding, but the buckets full of raider tears on the OWF when someone decides to 'do something about it' are infinitely more satisfying than pounding an inactive noob's nation to dust. The "do something about it" argument works both ways. But we all saw what happened to the last alliance who raided regardless of protection, so you tell me. [/quote] Not sure what you have been smoking kiddo but I suggest you stop it before it damages your braincells even further. What literally happened in this situation is that two of my members raided Chozo, send a peace offer thereafter and that was it. The whining came from Chozo who believed he was entitled to reps. Then some other alliances including your own trying to whiteknight Chozo to show the OWF how brave you are, which lead to the peace offer that was already been proposed being accepted w/o the reps he requested. If we wanted we could have pinned our foot down and there would be nothing your alliance could have done. And that's not me saying 'doing something about it', it's a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1310628050' post='2755973'] Not sure what you have been smoking kiddo but I suggest you stop it before it damages your braincells even further. What literally happened in this situation is that two of my members raided Chozo, send a peace offer thereafter and that was it. The whining came from Chozo who believed he was entitled to reps. Then some other alliances including your own trying to whiteknight Chozo to show the OWF how brave you are, which lead to the peace offer that was already been proposed being accepted w/o the reps he requested. If we wanted we could have pinned our foot down and there would be nothing your alliance could have done. And that's not me saying 'doing something about it', it's a fact. [/quote] Well I mean, you could always tell your guys to start raiding again and prove how much we can't do about it... 'kiddo'. Edited July 14, 2011 by Hereno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310649915' post='2756063'] Well I mean, you could always tell your guys to start raiding again and prove how much we can't do about it... 'kiddo'. [/quote] We never stopped raiding. But if you mean start raiding Chozo again then I'd have to disappoint you. We don't raid nations / AA's that are protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1310441598' post='2754680'] Searching for "NAAC protected" and "NAAC protector" found me a relevant post in about 5 seconds. Internet is pretty hard. [/quote] Put. It. In. Your. Bio. We are not doing a dozen keyword searches on the forums because you're too lazy to type "Protected by XXX" in your bio or wiki. Yes, if there's a recent announcement (or even not-so-recent announcement) we may remember it. But if we don't that's too bad. You can't expect every raider to have read all of the thousands of threads posted here. You're saying that every new nation, before being allowed to tech raid, to go through the entire backlog of threads and make notes on what alliances are protected? Just so that someone can avoid having to put three words in their nation bio? Go away... If you don't make it clear you're protected, we're probably going to raid you. If you don't like that fact, do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fant0m Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310649915' post='2756063'] Well I mean, you could always tell your guys to start raiding again and prove how much we can't do about it... 'kiddo'. [/quote] Look you've had your moment as the glorious knight riding in on a white horse to save an alliance that doesn't even exist anymore so you can zip your trousers back up. The only real damage NG would incur if we raided NAAC again would be to our PR because we'd be breaking our own rules and acting like total dicks in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Oh how i love this thread, its making me want to agree with GOONS though, carry on hating on raiders..we'll carry on with our land and tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1310653315' post='2756077'] Put. It. In. Your. Bio. We are not doing a dozen keyword searches on the forums because you're too lazy to type "Protected by XXX" in your bio or wiki. Yes, if there's a recent announcement (or even not-so-recent announcement) we may remember it. But if we don't that's too bad. You can't expect every raider to have read all of the thousands of threads posted here. You're saying that every new nation, before being allowed to tech raid, to go through the entire backlog of threads and make notes on what alliances are protected? Just so that someone can avoid having to put three words in their nation bio? Go away... If you don't make it clear you're protected, we're probably going to raid you. If you don't like that fact, do something about it. [/quote] Or what he could be saying, is just a simple 2 word search on these forums could have helped instead of everything you're saying. But you know, just my interpretation of his 5 second effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote]You can't expect every raider to have read all of the thousands of threads posted here[/quote] Maybe not, but I certainly [i]can[/i] expect every raiding alliance to have read the treaty threads, and raiders to check with their alliance before attacking. NG were lucky this time in that the raiding was 'unofficial' and they could brush it off, but raiding a protected AA results in reps, and ignorance is not an excuse. If you attack an alliance because you didn't read their treaty list, that's your fault, not theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310649915' post='2756063'] Well I mean, you could always tell your guys to start raiding again and prove how much we can't do about it... 'kiddo'. [/quote] Before you continue trying to look big, you are only able to protect this loser because I (and NG) allowed it. Had we not offered peace (entirely within my power!), I would be raiding NAAC right now and you couldn't do a thing about it. Even now I really doubt you'd protect him if it came down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1310649915' post='2756063'] Well I mean, you could always tell your guys to start raiding again and prove how much we can't do about it... 'kiddo'. [/quote] That is the dumbest thing you could have said. You know better than this, Hereno. I know you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 I have been in this game for almost 2000 days. I fought against NAAC and with NAAC. The historical AA is valid in my view point because even in their short(ish) time of existence they accomplished a heck of a lot more than most of our alliances EVER will. In my eyes only a very select few alliances from the old days do I hold with as much respect. Now you can either tell me to go shoot myself or you can praise me, but my views will not change. I absolutely hate all of these alliances that come in and think they rule the world. It's basically like a 16 year old kid picking on a 5 year old. I also hate how this game has changed so much from 4-5 years ago. I have seen nearly every alliance in existence begin, some of which I like and some of which I do not. However the game as a whole has gotten much worse. There is little to no respect between alliances and even sometimes between people in the same alliance. That is just appalling to me. It really is sad to see an alliance such as NAAC get raided by some alliance who just think they can run over all these small alliances and get away with it. It makes me laugh to see NG raid these people and then all the henchmen come in and post the same crap for 14 pages. We heard you guys the first time. I have never ever been a fan of raiding and I view those that do it as immoral and cheap. Buy your own tech and stop raiding people that have worked hard and spent cash to build up. My opinion will never change and I will personally NEVER raid someone else. If you have a problem with this post, we can have a polite and respectful debate. However I will not be feeding the trolls. Respectfully, Midas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1310674302' post='2756214'] Or what he could be saying, is just a simple 2 word search on these forums could have helped instead of everything you're saying. But you know, just my interpretation of his 5 second effort. [/quote] Do your simple 2 word search and tell me who was officially protecting the AA. I can tell you the answer without doing the search. It is nobody. There were some unofficial claims, there were some individuals in the past that have stood up and protected NAAC but until now there was no official protection. If there had been we would have heard from them, if there had been LordChozo would have said I am protected by XYZ instead of saying "Your mistake is in assuming I am unprotected". NAAC is a part of my history and I remember the history with great fondness but IMO there are some people that have been letting LordChozo tarnish that memory for 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1310618118' post='2755899'] Raid targets do not get to dictate who protects them after the fact. If there is nothing in their bio, nothing on the wiki, nothing on the forums...they don't get to demand reps and say "hey dumbass, everyone knows I'm protected". As for our raid rules, they don't apply to magical scenarios where protection is merely assumed. If Chozo doesn't want to repeatedly get his ass kicked, he should do something about it. He has a bio just like the rest of us. [/quote] So you're telling me that when your no-raid list says you can't raid the NAAC AA, regardless of protection status, and your rules as quoted say you cannot attack people on that list, you can...attack people on that list? Please help me understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1310678598' post='2756244'] Before you continue trying to look big, you are only able to protect this loser because I (and NG) allowed it. Had we not offered peace (entirely within my power!), I would be raiding NAAC right now and you couldn't do a thing about it. Even now I really doubt you'd protect him if it came down to it. [/quote] Why don't you raid NAAC and find out? Even now I really doubt you'd back up your opinion with action if it came down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1310692300' post='2756354'] Why don't you raid NAAC and find out? Even now I really doubt you'd back up your opinion with action if it came down to it. [/quote] I bet you thought this post was clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1310692452' post='2756358'] I bet you thought this post was clever. [/quote] No, I thought it was appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1310678598' post='2756244'] Before you continue trying to look big, you are only able to protect this loser because I (and NG) allowed it. Had we not offered peace (entirely within my power!), I would be raiding NAAC right now and you couldn't do a thing about it. Even now I really doubt you'd protect him if it came down to it. [/quote] Hey now Monsignor Jesus, let's not get carried away with the angry talk since that's obviously not true at all. While I'm sure Tetris wouldn't have tried to impose protection retroactively, you're original war would have expired and their protection would be both valid and in full effect. Also, this thread is pretty funny, all things considered. Edited July 15, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1310693045' post='2756365'] Hey now Monsignor Jesus, let's not get carried away with the angry talk since that's obviously not true at all. While I'm sure Tetris wouldn't have tried to impose protection retroactively, you're original war would have expired and their protection would be both valid and in full effect. Also, this thread is pretty funny, all things considered. [/quote] I think the best question is who VE would support... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.