Quinoa Rex Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 This seems to be an argument entirely based on semantics, as is most of Schatt's recent fare, and GOONS' Pilot seems to have clarified their stance on the matter. Thanks for giving the brown-nose brigade yet another forum, I suppose? (a sponge sighting?!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1330439098' post='2929990'] Yeah, there are alliances out there STA dislikes a whole lot more than GOONS. Alliances who have actually directly wronged STA. I'm sure GOONS feels the same way. There are certainly alliances who we would clamor to fight. GOONS is not one of them. [/quote] Im feeling the love Pez If thats what there charter/constitution i see no real area to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1330441962' post='2930013'] Im feeling the love Pez If thats what there charter/constitution i see no real area to argue. [/quote] Oh! For once, it's not Valhalla! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Let your hate consume you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1330442195' post='2930015'] Oh! For once, it's not Valhalla! [/quote] You said this just to break my heart didnt you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 So to clarify, being selected as a raid target by a GOON denies you the right to use the foreign aid function of the game with one exception. If you use it then those sending the aid are considered to be committing an act of war against GOONs. On the other foot, the raiding of a nation by GOONs for no reason other than might is right denies all of CN the right to conduct foreign aid deals with that nation, under threat of a GOONs DoW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='The Great One' timestamp='1330442590' post='2930019'] So to clarify, being selected as a raid target by a GOON denies you the right to use the foreign aid function of the game with one exception. If you use it then those sending the aid are considered to be committing an act of war against GOONs. On the other foot, the raiding of a nation by GOONs for no reason other than might is right denies all of CN the right to conduct foreign aid deals with that nation, under threat of a GOONs DoW. [/quote] You make the mistake of thinking the unaligned have rights, they don't. Also for most cases sending an equal amount of reps to the amount that was sent the raided is enough, unless the aid was sent with prejudice, e.g. Npl/Mongols/etc. and also not a special case (eogs e.g. Methrage). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tn00b Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='The Great One' timestamp='1330442590' post='2930019'] So to clarify, being selected as a raid target by a GOON denies you the right to use the foreign aid function of the game with one exception. If you use it then those sending the aid are considered to be committing an act of war against GOONs. On the other foot, the raiding of a nation by GOONs for no reason other than might is right denies all of CN the right to conduct foreign aid deals with that nation, under threat of a GOONs DoW. [/quote] close. missed it by thaaaat much. it has to be deliberate war aids. in this case 3m/50t/2000s from more than one person in the same alliance and this had no ill effect on the raided nation. the issue we had was with another alliance interfering with our nations war. if they had waited till the war ran its course or contacted us for letting the nation go (which would have been a simple task on the mercy board for taking income away from our members) this would not have escalated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Lets see. Nation A raids Nation B. Nation C aids Nation B (offering support) Alliance of A demands reps. Alliance of C refuses demands. Alliance A rolls Alliance C. CN common sense: Don't aid nations that are fighting other nations unless you can back it up. A while back some nations on the NAAC AA were being raided. I aided them. I knew the consequences and was prepared for them. ie; nuclear holocaust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='r00tn00b' timestamp='1330443535' post='2930024'] close. missed it by thaaaat much. it has to be deliberate war aids. in this case 3m/50t/2000s from more than one person in the same alliance and this had no ill effect on the raided nation. the issue we had was with another alliance interfering with our nations war. if they had waited till the war ran its course or contacted us for letting the nation go (which would have been a simple task on the mercy board for taking income away from our members) this would not have escalated at all. [/quote] Really, it's more just questionable aid. A tech deal is an easy excuse so we might not always handwaive it. A couple times we've questioned the authenticity of aid and just asked for equal compensation. IE, just 3m. In this case it was more since it was tech and soldiers. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL7.jpg[/img] Edited February 28, 2012 by Beefspari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1330444562' post='2930028'] Lets see. Nation A raids Nation B. Nation C aids Nation B (offering support) Alliance of A demands reps. Alliance of C refuses demands. Alliance A rolls Alliance C. CN common sense: Don't aid nations that are fighting other nations unless you can back it up. [/quote] Something I more or less stated previously in another thread. However, Schatt wins the point in the OP. Raids should be raids (with the risk assumed by the raiding nation(s)) and alliance wars should be alliance wars, and while alliances have sent in "reinforcements" in the past in defense of raiding nations in order to extricate them out of a serious gang bang, this is not one of those times. GOONS war declaration goes well beyond the scope of the parties involved in the raid or even those nations directly aiding the raid targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Jerk brigade, assemble! You know, we really should look into renaming Pandora's Box to "Jerk Brigade". J.B. is tastier than P.B., anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 We are amused by the influx of GOONies trying to be Signor tipo duro. - Alvonian Office of Foreign Affairs, GOONS division Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1330445486' post='2930032'] Something I more or less stated previously in another thread. However, Schatt wins the point in the OP. Raids should be raids (with the risk assumed by the raiding nation(s)) and alliance wars should be alliance wars, and while alliances have sent in "reinforcements" in the past in defense of raiding nations in order to extricate them out of a serious gang bang, this is not one of those times. GOONS war declaration goes well beyond the scope of the parties involved in the raid or even those nations directly aiding the raid targets. [/quote] Somewhere in your logic risk doesn't extend to aiding nations that are fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Well put together OP Schatt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 We're still arguing about the difference between an alliance war and an actual raid? I almost wish we had declared war on AGW at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1330449542' post='2930046'] We're still arguing about the difference between an alliance war and an actual raid? I almost wish we had declared war on AGW at this point. [/quote] It would have been simpler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1330448981' post='2930043'] Somewhere in your logic risk doesn't extend to aiding nations that are fighting. [/quote] Yeah, good thing "raids" and "wars" aren't the same thing. Someone could really be in trouble here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1330449966' post='2930048'] It would have been simpler. [/quote] Would have got more than 2.5k land as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1330448981' post='2930043'] Somewhere in your logic risk doesn't extend to aiding nations that are fighting.[/quote] It does in very specific terms. You prefer over generalization since it helps to support your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 yeah but you're scum and a liar and only out to screw over the authority figures and whine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Expected, oh well eventually they will bite off more than they can chew and when they do instead all calling in the whole alliance on a raid gone wrong they would call in all allies... oh wait that happened in the past Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caustic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Thread summary: Shatt bawwwwwws about raiding anti raiding trolls come out of the woodwork, many tears are shed the other 99% of CN that doesn't read the owf goes about their daily lives and couldn't care less nothing changes Keep up the good work Shatt, you're more relevant now than at any point in CN history. Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1330449542' post='2930046'] We're still arguing about the difference between an alliance war and an actual raid? I almost wish we had declared war on AGW at this point.[/quote] It's not the raiding, large scale organized raiding is another topic for another day, it's the break with traditional raiding that is the issue. Simply put, GOONS wants to make sure that there is no risk whatsoever to its raiders. Forget the moral implications, that's like putting training wheels and air bags on a mountain bike. Seriously, they need that much help? Why are they even raiding at all if they are afraid to lose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinus Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Morality dies when no one any longer values it. (Now THAT's profound, dammit!) The trouble with Schatt? He's usually, uncomfortably, correct. Good job, Schatt. That GOONs has such foggy ambiguity in their Constitution is, and should remain, their problem. To believe they rule the Planet is also a problem only for them. However, to proclaim such a nefarious reality for their members, with the expectation that other alliances will agree with, much less support it is a bit high on the arrogance chart. It is not merely a disparate policy. It is an exclusively singular policy. It is an unaccepted policy, refuted in it's entirety by most (if not all) other alliances in the cyberverse. Howling about it is not going to change the GOONs Constitution. The best, and most effective response to this policy is to insure it never infects any other alliance in the game. It will never be a majority view, or even a minority view, for that matter. It is an extremely fringe view. It is an incendiary view. That is the reason for it. Nothing more. The message does not say, as Sardonic might wish it, "[i]Stay away from our raids.[/i]" The message is "[i]We will destroy whom we wish. This means you.[/i]" Funny thing about bullies. They inevitably meet up with one moral person (or alliance) who does eventually step up, and "[i]retrain[/i]" their thinking. These other alliances also (usually) are the alliances with enough treaty support to overcome what is, in actuality, such a fringe minority. That's my observation, at least, from having played the game just a little while. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. It's a morality thing. I would also hasten to add that Sardonic's character in this game has an amazing ability to be very moral. I know this personally, because he has been so towards me, my nation, and my alliances. Give them their due. GOONs plays the bad guy game pretty well. They do it on purpose. They admit they do it because that is the way they choose to play the game. Their leadership states it. Their members reinforce and support it. That's a moral choice. I find that interesting. Knowing what the moral choice is, the alliance chooses against that choice. See my first statement. 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.