Caustic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 All wars are tech raids, and all tech raids are wars. This will be true until the day admin makes it possible to deny any spoils taken in land attacks. Your personal "interpretations" don't change this mechanic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Caustic' timestamp='1330453596' post='2930075'] Thread summary:Shatt bawwwwwws about raidinganti raiding trolls come out of the woodwork,[/quote]More like Schatt points out the inherent hypocrisy of some tech raiding alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Caustic' timestamp='1330453596' post='2930075'] 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] If all you hear is "bawwwwing" about raiding I'm not sure you get it. I'm fine with raiding . . . just want to know if it's a "war" or not. Because if it isn't, it could follow that aiding a raid target is not aiding a nation at war. I mean, whatever. Just decide what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1330452612' post='2930066'] 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] Since when were wars won based off fairness? I'll wait. Edited February 28, 2012 by kevin32891 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1330454425' post='2930082'] Since when were wars won based off fairness? I'll wait.[/quote] Never. Since when did tech raiders become so soft? I will wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1330452612' post='2930066'] 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] You of all people should know what happens when you aid nuclear nations attacking us. [quote name='Merlinus' timestamp='1330453877' post='2930077'] 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. [/quote] Not really, he usually gives just enough truth with the right spin to tell the story he wants to people not as familiar with the situation as he and the people he lampoons are. [quote] That GOONs has such foggy ambiguity in their Constitution is, and should remain, their problem. [/quote] There is no ambiguity in the constitution. [quote] 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. [/quote] We've been at this for over two years now and we've gained more and more sovereignty with regards to raiding, I don't really see a reversal occurring. [quote] 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. [/quote] Oh why thank you, I try. [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330454150' post='2930079'] More like Schatt points out the inherent hypocrisy of some tech raiding alliances. [/quote] Okay, you're a reasonably intelligent person of the other sphere. I challenge you to pick apart my post detailing our policy and point to exactly where and how we are hypocrites. Hint: Treating aiding of raid targets like aiding of war targets isn't hypocritical, it's a dick move. Edited February 28, 2012 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330455161' post='2930089'] You of all people should know what happens when you aid nuclear nations attacking us.[/quote] Talk about change of subject, don't you have an answer for why your raiders are soft cry babies? Edited February 28, 2012 by the rebel 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 rebel' timestamp='1330455377' post='2930092'] Talk about change of subject, don't you have an answer for why your raiders are soft cry babies? [/quote] I don't need to answer it, because it's a very false statement. We don't do what we do out of cowardice, fear, or weakness. We do what we do to utilize our position to advance our interests and maximize potential gains from situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Relevance has replaced Bubblegum as Schattenmann kryptonite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330455584' post='2930095'] I don't need to answer it, because it's a very false statement. We don't do what we do out of cowardice, fear, or weakness. We do what we do to utilize our position to advance our interests and maximize potential gains from situations.[/quote] What is false about my statement? 3 GOONS jump a nation minding its own business, the nation got aided and you go demanding reps because heaven forbid if your 3 soft raiders end up getting slapped around (in a conflict they started) by one lone nation. Now if this lone nation declared war on GOONS then someone started sending aid to that nation, people would see where you're coming from, but since it didn't people see it for what it is; bailing out soft raiders from harm :'( 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='Stewie' timestamp='1330451364' post='2930056'] Would have got more than 2.5k land as well [/quote] lol probably lots more. Next time do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1330455983' post='2930097'] What is false about my statement? 3 GOONS jump a nation minding its own business, the nation got aided and you go demanding reps because heaven forbid if your 3 soft raiders end up getting slapped around (in a conflict they started) by one lone nation. Now if this lone nation declared war on GOONS then someone started sending aid to that nation, people would see where you're coming from, but since it didn't people see it for what it is; bailing out soft raiders from harm :'( [/quote] Call it whatever you want, I call it defending the interests of my alliance from organized outside interference. It's not about bailing anybody out, it's about thwarting those who would interfere with our operations, and turning those situations into profit or entertainment generators. Or in the case of mistaken high level alliance aid, diplomatic relations generators (by way of discounted reps and jovial chat). I also think you'd be hard pressed (pun intented) to find any 'soft' raiders in the alliance. Edited February 28, 2012 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Caustic' timestamp='1330454043' post='2930078'] All wars are tech raids, and all tech raids are wars. This will be true until the day admin makes it possible to deny any spoils taken in land attacks. Your personal "interpretations" don't change this mechanic. [/quote] Oh, [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109064&view=findpost&p=2923536"]I see.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I agree with the argument you made, Schatt. Raids are used as excuses for war provocation and are considered a raid or a war depending on wether it is convenient to consider them so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330454150' post='2930079'] More like Schatt points out the inherent hypocrisy of some tech raiding alliances. [/quote] Everyone is inherently hypocritical, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that normally. All of us advocate different positions based on where we fall on a given issue, and we do it every day whether we consciously realize it or not. The term is truly only an insult when it refers to flip flops on grand, overarching concepts, not interpretive definitions. I don't see the former here. Edited February 28, 2012 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefington Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 just to clarify, i wasn't mocking STA or trolling, i was inviting them - and anybody, really - to roll GOONS (and by extension, doomhouse). frankly, we like it a little rough, and you know we deserve it. i'm being totally sincere here. somebody come stick something in my aching defensive slots and slap me around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnathan buck Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='r00tn00b' timestamp='1330416541' post='2929876'] We fully support our members unless it was they who messed up, and even then, we pay rep to any target that was raided wrongly and add them to our extensive "DO NOT RAID" list. But please go on with your narrow minded thinking. [/quote] Didn't read through the rest of the thread, but I can attest to this after they raided chozo and got quite the bit of backlash from people they added the entire NAAC AA to the do not raid list. I can attest to this after talking with Sardonic and the GOONS did send aid to help chozo rebuild. I may not like the GOONS all the time but the issue at hand is with the Mongol's war. GOONS was tech raiding, which is valid by their constitution if they screw up they admit to it in private and public if needed. The way I know it is, if your tech raiding, and another person says "war aid". This can be taken as an offensive manuvear, due to the person if they are fighting back can now replenish their forces and continue to fight. On the other hand, I can see this as a repaid favour if the nation in question that sent the aid had actually gotten the same type of aid before during a war. But that is the grey area, we don't totally know. So in my opinion and I'm not trying to be a schatt, or anyone else.... My opinion is that the GOONS can justify this war, by saying the nation that was aided by a Mongol's member did damage using the funds received from the Mongol's member. I can also see how the GOONS wanted exact damages calculated in money back to said nations that were involved with the "raid", only reason I can see demanding this is due to outside aid that was sent to the person that was being raided. Pretty well if the aid hadn't have been sent we wouldn't be here now is the type of situation we are in. Now from the Mongol's side. They claimed said member was repaying a favour, I find this highly doubtable which is why I support the GOONS on this issue...which doesn't happen often. Unless proof can be provided like a screen shot or a statement from the raided nation saying "Yes he did, and on this date" Then I might be more inclined to believe them. Edited February 28, 2012 by johnathan buck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330455161' post='2930089']Okay, you're a reasonably intelligent person of the other sphere. I challenge you to pick apart my post detailing our policy and point to exactly where and how we are hypocrites. Hint: Treating aiding of raid targets like aiding of war targets isn't hypocritical, it's a dick move.[/quote]I am sure any potential disconnect between your actions and your policy is pretty minimal. But, as far as I am concerned, the hypocrisy label stands because your policy violates the principle of "If you get in over your head, then you are on your own" by drawing an overly broad exception. For instance, let's say an unaligned nation is raided by a GOON. A friend of the raided nation, who is in a small alliance and feels bad for his buddy, decides to send a single offer of three million dollars. Under the "On Your Own" principle, the GOON is on his own. Under your policy, however, the GOON is now a victim to be championed by the entirety of GOONS. That, to me, reeks of hypocrisy because the real danger is negligible. If anything, all the policy does is provide you with a ready excuse to roll the small alliance, because you dictate what is or is not acceptable reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 GOONS can't have their cake and eat it. If you are saying that raids are wars, which you are in this thread and the other one, then that's okay, but you can't jump on people pointing out that raids are wars when you or your allies do a mass raid (which is then an alliance war). As for which side the right and honour are on in this one, I need only quote Sardonic: "Treating aiding of raid targets like aiding of war targets [... is] a dick move". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Well, the motto for their entire side is "it's okay when we do it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330459992' post='2930129'] I am sure any potential disconnect between your actions and your policy is pretty minimal. But, as far as I am concerned, the hypocrisy label stands because your policy violates the principle of "If you get in over your head, then you are on your own" by drawing an overly broad exception. For instance, let's say an unaligned nation is raided by a GOON. A friend of the raided nation, who is in a small alliance and feels bad for his buddy, decides to send a single offer of three million dollars. Under the "On Your Own" principle, the GOON is on his own. Under your policy, however, the GOON is now a victim to be championed by the entirety of GOONS. That, to me, reeks of hypocrisy because the real danger is negligible. If anything, all the policy does is provide you with a ready excuse to roll the small alliance, because you dictate what is or is not acceptable reparations. [/quote] Why do you feel that raiding should be an inherently risky action? Why should alliances not seek to minimize the risk to their members in the name of increased profits? How does us eliminating the rare element of outside interference equate to us violating our principal of not giving standard (I.e., not interfered with, the 99% of raids) raids guaranteed support, on any meaningful level? [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1330460370' post='2930133'] GOONS can't have their cake and eat it. If you are saying that raids are wars, which you are in this thread and the other one, then that's okay, but you can't jump on people pointing out that raids are wars when you or your allies do a mass raid (which is then an alliance war). [/quote] I'm not going to get into it here, but there's still more than few key differences between a mass raid and an alliance war, certainly enough to warrant a different phrase and definition. VVVVVV And this, thank you Ktarthan. Edited February 28, 2012 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330459992' post='2930129'] I am sure any potential disconnect between your actions and your policy is pretty minimal. But, as far as I am concerned, the hypocrisy label stands because your policy violates the principle of "If you get in over your head, then you are on your own" by drawing an overly broad exception. For instance, let's say an unaligned nation is raided by a GOON. A friend of the raided nation, who is in a small alliance and feels bad for his buddy, decides to send a single offer of three million dollars. Under the "On Your Own" principle, the GOON is on his own. Under your policy, however, the GOON is now a victim to be championed by the entirety of GOONS. That, to me, reeks of hypocrisy because the real danger is negligible. If anything, all the policy does is provide you with a ready excuse to roll the small alliance, because you dictate what is or is not acceptable reparations. [/quote] This seems to be a difficult concept for some people. GOONS does not ask for reparations because the raiders are "in over their head." As you said, the real danger is negligible. GOONS is an alliance of principle, and the principle is that GOONS does not sit back and watch while people take actions that have the capacity to cause damage to its members. The damage is irrelevant, the danger is irrelevant, the situation is irrelevant. If you attempt to harm GOONS in any capacity, they will make you answer for it. edit: I'm not in GOONS any more, and no longer speak for them. I know their policy quite well, but if anything I say happens to contrast with what they say, I defer to Sardonic's stance. Edited February 28, 2012 by ktarthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1330429417' post='2929943'] I meant GOONs/S or whatever the resident pack of mutts are called should throw away their umbrella. Then we can see how tough they really are. [/quote] There you go with that dog fetishism again. What's up with that, man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330460591' post='2930137']Why do you feel that raiding should be an inherently risky action? Why should alliances not seek to minimize the risk to their members in the name of increased profits?[/quote]The aforementioned principle, championed by most raiders and rooted in the belief raiders implicitly accept the negative consequences of the risks they take, is not championed by GOONS? [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330460591' post='2930137']How does us eliminating the rare element of outside interference equate to us violating our principal of not giving standard (I.e., not interfered with, the 99% of raids) raids guaranteed support?[/quote]Broadly defined, and often arbitrary, distinctions between raids do not change the fact that a raid is raid and the principles which to one should apply to the other. [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1330460605' post='2930138']GOONS does not ask for reparations because the raiders are "in over their head." As you said, the real danger is negligible. GOONS is an alliance of principle, and the principle is that GOONS does not sit back and watch while people take actions that have the capacity to cause damage to its members. The damage is irrelevant, the danger is irrelevant, the situation is irrelevant. If you attempt to harm GOONS in any capacity, they will make you answer for it.[/quote]So if another unaligned nation attacked the GOON raider in my little hypothetical, then they would be attacked with the full force of GOONS, despite their lack of alliance affiliation and in spite of the principle from my previous post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1330457756' post='2930111'] Everyone is inherently hypocritical, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that normally. All of us advocate different positions based on where we fall on a given issue, and we do it every day whether we consciously realize it or not. The term is truly only an insult when it refers to flip flops on grand, overarching concepts, not interpretive definitions. I don't see the former here.[/quote] So we're going all "Obi Wan Kenobi (from a certain point of view...)" are we? Ok then, forgetting any possible hypocrisy, what about GOONS policy on the issue is good/correct/reasonable? Seriously. 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.