Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities

[Steve Buscemi]

So this isn't mean to turn into an anti-raid troll fest or a pro-raid one for that matter.

II was just wondering, from both sides of the field, what is good etiquette for informing others you are protected or not and what should you do as a raider as "due diligence".

Raiders:
1a) Do they list some protection in their bios?
2a) Do they have a wiki page at cybernations.wikia.com?
3a) Does any protection show up when you search for their alliance name?


Small AA's: (the flip side)
1b) Do you have "protected by xxxxx" in your bios?
2b) Do you have a wiki page listing your treaties/protection?
3b) Does your protectorate have information saying it's protecting you on it's CN wiki. I understand not everyone is big enough to take the time to do a wiki, but your protectorate should be big enough to have this info listed on it's wiki.

So say you raid someone and the 1a-3a come up with no info and the raided is protected but didn't do 1b-3b. Does this raid qualify for reps?

I'm not making a might makes right argument since clearly if you want reps, you'll get paid or you get war. I'm trying to get opinions on what, if anything, is good etiquette on both sides of the issue.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Steve Buscemi

[Monster]

The wikia and nation bios are probably the best way. Wikia should be enough if it has been formally announced. A lot of small AAs don't have formal protection i.e. AA announcement, so bios are crucial in those situations.

[Sardonic]

No visible protection, no reps, unless the raiding alliance is being generous.

[Monster]

Well, you got into trouble a while back because NV had all of those protectorates that were hard to track down. iirc GOONS did have to pay for some of them.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334944105' post='2956192']
Well, you got into trouble a while back because NV had all of those protectorates that were hard to track down. iirc GOONS did have to pay for some of them.
[/quote]
Hard to track down yes, but I'm pretty sure they had enough evidence to justify reps in the majority of NV cases. I think there might have been one or more cases where we didn't pay for lack of evidence with them though.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Sardonic

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334944054' post='2956191']
No visible protection, no reps, unless the raiding alliance is being generous.
[/quote]

I'm actually going to agree on this one. If you can't take not even 5min time to update a Wiki page, put 3-5 words into your nation bio or even have an official declaration of protection on the forums then, you honestly should expect to be attacked at any moment. You also should fire your "protector" for being so horrible as to not a- tell you these things and b- not doing anything to let the protection be known

Coincidentally though, I believe that if there are say 4 people on an AA and only one of them has a 'protected by...." Notification then either back away or work to confirm the protection is valid and not expired/brought from old alliance/or false

[Hereno]

They should announce their !@#$ on the OWF. Having to check the wiki, that outdated piece of garbage, is unnecessary, and a nation bio without an OWF post prompts me to go ask the alleged protector if the protection is real or not. Everyone can save a lot of time and effort by taking a minute to announce their !@#$ here, and then search here before they raid.

[Kzoppistan]

Good questions, Mr. Buscemi. My only quip would be that it is the protectorate that is the protected (and usually smaller) alliance. A common misunderstanding, I've made it, too.

Frankly, I think anyone who is raided has the right to seek redress using what ever means necessary relative to the damage caused and leveraging what powers so available at seeing it done.

That said, I would have considerable less sympathy for an alliance who failed to make some sort of public notification of their protection, even just their bios, and none whatsoever for the protecting alliance trying to negotiate reps from the raiders, as it is their duty to make sure their protectorate has the proper notifications in place.

If there are no public notifications, while I still feel that technically they are owed reps, both the protecting alliance and its protectorate should willingly forfeit their claim to reps in recognition of their lack of diligence as a diplomatic concession in resolving the conflict in exchange for a promise by the raiding alliance to avoid raiding that AA again.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I think you are all being ridiculous. It's not the small AAs job to do your research for you. If you raid you should have to accept that there is risk involved, and that not every fact that you might need to know in order to assess that risk is necessarily available for you in one quick and easy location. The spectacle of 'tough-guy' raiders whining because their potential targets dont make it easy enough for them to avoid all risk is pretty amusing though.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334952375' post='2956223']
I think you are all being ridiculous. It's not the small AAs job to do your research for you.
[/quote]
The heck are you talking about? The entire premise of the thread was talking about how we *do* research before we raid. We have responsibilities, but so do they.

[Hydian Way]

It's common sense to ensure that your protection is somewhat ease to find. Any raid is bad for growth in that it stalls forward progress. Reps are useful and all, but the time you spend taking in 15+ million dollars is wasted aid slot time. It's slowing down Gre's tech dealing and slowing down the nation's growth, since they're rebuilding instead of building. Thus we look to ensure [url="https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=the+hive+cybernations"]a really simple check[/url] yields results. It keeps the raids gone wrong down to a minium. Less work on our diplocorps and less building is needed.

That being said, if it was announced here, we consider it protected. Wiki and bio aren't required. They're nice additional moves, but a lot of rerolls lie in their bios so that's pointless. I personally don't put a lot of stock in bios and understand why others don't. With the wiki of course anyone can mess around with it.

So due diligence is searching this location for "alliance name" and seeing what comes up (OOC: Google also works nicely). Common sense indicates the raiders should also check the wiki and other areas. What I think happens though is a lot of raiders browse war screens and see "Oh look people are hitting this AA, I'll jump in." So by the time one raid gets shut down by your diplcorps, two more have started. At that point I'd be up for charging a "Stupid Lemming Raid" surcharge to the follow on guys.

There's also the old "You can only hold sovereignty over what you can protect" argument. Our response to any form of e-lawyering about protected status can best be summed up as "Nuclear launch detected".

Edited April 20, 2012 by Hydian Way

[Kzoppistan]

And just a quick note on my previous post, that's me being as accommodating to the global standards as I can regardless of how stupid they are and generously framing those thoughts in fair legalistic style. Because, I know, and you know, all tech raiding is unjustifiable theft, and in my book, thieves get the !@#$@#$ sword. It's a good thing I don't hold any power because I'd roll any alliance stupid enough to steal from me or my members first and demand reps later.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Baron Flynt]

If I had a protectorate that got raided, I don't care what you can or cannot find - it's either reps or you're treated as a rogue.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1334954218' post='2956234']
It's a good thing I don't hold any power because I'd roll any alliance stupid enough to steal from me or my members first and demand reps later.
[/quote]
Well obviously, but you wouldn't be raided in the first place if you were in a valid alliance capable of such acts. GOONS has a policy of first response where we attack those who strike us and then proceed to diplomatic dealings with any parent organization. I can't imagine many alliances do things too tremendously differently.
[quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1334954260' post='2956235']
If I had a protectorate that got raided, I don't care what you can or cannot find - it's either reps or you're treated as a rogue.
[/quote]
This isn't a real good attitude to have. There is a reasonably vast consensus about these sorts of things, and to go against it so severely would not be a very defensible war for you, and you would be quickly overrun.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Sardonic

[Tick1]

If you want to not be raided and you do have a form of protection you should put the information in your nations bio. This is the raiders responsibility to confirm if you are a viable target or not. If the raider can't do the research they shouldn't be raiding.

That being said the responsibility falls on alliance protecting individual nations to either be on IRC to confirm or to post the information within their forum's or Wikia's. If you use your forum to display this information make sure to allow for a visible section that doesn't require people to create an account via your forums for the most effective way of displaying the nations you protect.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Tick1

[Sigrun Vapneir]

No, Sardonic, you are wrong. Your decision to raid does not impose any obligation on me to help you with that. Your desire to know whether or not a target has backup to call before you attack is understandable, but it doesnt mean they are obligated to help you figure that out.

Baron Flynt's response is, in my experience, a more accurate reflection of what 'consensus' does exist on the subject btw. You might or might not be able to intimidate him into accepting your view right now, with your alliance in a dominant position, but certainly any alliance that doesnt have such powerful backup would not.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334956784' post='2956246']
No, Sardonic, you are wrong. Your decision to raid does not impose any obligation on me to help you with that. Your desire to know whether or not I have backup to call before you attack me is understandable, but it is quite simply not my problem.

Baron Flynt's response is, in my experience, a more accurate reflection of what 'consensus' does exist on the subject btw. You might or might not be able to intimidate him into accepting your view right now, with your alliance in a dominant position, but certainly any alliance that doesnt have such powerful backup would not.
[/quote]

Then by that thought process none of the alliances on Bob should hold public treaties either.

[Kryievla]

I also check aid slots when doing research. Don't want to approve a raid on someone that's in mid tech deal with one of my allies.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334944054' post='2956191']
No visible protection, no reps, unless the raiding alliance is being generous.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334956878' post='2956250']
Then by that thought process none of the alliances on Bob should hold public treaties either.
[/quote]

No, by that thought process they have *no obligation* to hold public treaties.

And, in fact, that is exactly how it works.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334956784' post='2956246']
No, Sardonic, you are wrong. Your decision to raid does not impose any obligation on me to help you with that. Your desire to know whether or not a target has backup to call before you attack is understandable, but it doesnt mean they are obligated to help you figure that out.
[/quote]
The world is built for alliances, not individuals. If they want to exist in peace, they have to play by the rules laid forth by professional alliances. Displayed protection or they will doubtlessly be raided. If they (the unaligned or micro AA) choose to fight back with war, they will be wasting their time fighting a system they probably never comprehended in the first place.
[quote]
Baron Flynt's response is, in my experience, a more accurate reflection of what 'consensus' does exist on the subject btw. You might or might not be able to intimidate him into accepting your view right now, with your alliance in a dominant position, but certainly any alliance that doesnt have such powerful backup would not.
[/quote]
I'm not attempting to threaten or intimidate anybody, I'm merely stating how the world has worked for the past years, and how it will doubtlessly continue to work moving forward. There are few, if any, groups willing to fight a war over reps for a microalliance who did not display the proper protection. Fewer still with the ability to win that war.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334957037' post='2956252']
No, by that thought process they have *no obligation* to hold public treaties.

And, in fact, that is exactly how it works.
[/quote]

My previous statement may have been wrong, but the fact that raiders do exist means that without public information you wont prevent the nation you protect from being raided. The fact that you do protect these nation does make you obligated to display some public information to prevent people from being raided. You obligation comes from the nation you protect and not the raider.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334957357' post='2956253']
The world is built for alliances, not individuals. [/quote]

I dont think so. The world admin built is one individuals join, and as long as they abide the terms of service they can play it how they want.

Many choose to do so in large alliances - many more do not. If Admin agreed with you, the game would look very different.

[quote]If they want to exist in peace, they have to play by the rules laid forth by professional alliances. [/quote]

"Professional?" Really? There are alliances out there with full time, paid employees?

[quote]If they (the unaligned or micro AA) choose to fight back with war, they will be wasting their time fighting a system they probably never comprehended in the first place.[/quote]

I think I comprehend it about as well as you do. The 'system' is something like early common law, a loose body of tradition rather than a set code. It might well have evolved into something more by now, were there any serious desire to avoid wars, but as you know most of the noise seems to be in favour of MORE wars, not less, so nonviolent methods of avoiding battle, like a customary judicial system, have never evolved.

There have been events that serve as 'precedent' to a degree, but they can conflict and be argued endlessly. The whole subject has enough wiggle room as a result that contradictory positions may both have solid precedents. And in the end, with no custom of judicial resolution of conflict, none of it matters all that much anyhow. Large alliances tend to be 100% power politics anyway, so if it serves their interests at the moment they will argue position A, and later when that is not the case they will argue position B, which contradicts it, with no sign of shame or apparent awareness of the contradiction.

[quote]I'm not attempting to threaten or intimidate anybody, I'm merely stating how the world has worked for the past years, and how it will doubtlessly continue to work moving forward. There are few, if any, groups willing to fight a war over reps for a microalliance who did not display the proper protection. Fewer still with the ability to win that war. [/quote]

There is no admin-given definition of how one 'displays proper protection.' What exactly that means, or whether it is a meaningful requirement at all, is up to the protector and the protectorate - not the raiders.

[jerdge]

Why the heck are you all having your usual arguments? Steve asked what is good etiquette, not what is "right"/"legitimate" and/or "wrong"/"criminal"!

Good etiquette mandates that you spend a reasonable effort to avoid that others have to waste their time/get an headache, i.e. - respectively - you make a minimum of effort to allow them to know that you're protected (a notice in your nation bio is the simplest, most effective way IMHO), and you make a minimum of effort to avoid hitting protected people ([i]check[/i] the darn bio - your arm also won't break if you perform a freaking Internet search).
Good etiquette also mandates that when you realize that things went South, and especially if you had an hand in it, you play nice and you try to turn the botch in something useful: you're diplomatic and fair, waiving reparations (unless they're really consistent) and/or spontaneously offering reparations (always).

Now don't get me wrong: if you want to try trigger some conflict it's perfectly fine to be stealthy about your protection and/or to play the tough guy when you go raiding - we'll see whether you can actually get away with either - but that's not about etiquette anymore.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1334959153' post='2956263']
Why the heck are you all having your usual arguments? Steve asked what is good etiquette
[/quote]
IM BORED OK.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334959120' post='2956262']
I dont think so. The world admin built is one individuals join, and as long as they abide the terms of service they can play it how they want.

Many choose to do so in large alliances - many more do not. If Admin agreed with you, the game would look very different.
[/quote]
Admin provided the sandbox, and we shaped the sands into the political landscape you see before you. There is no denying the way things are done, the lack of any semblance of property rights to the unaligned and under-aligned. They are food for the machine with many mouths, our developed political world. They are cavemen living in the jungle, and we live in walled cities.
[quote]
"Professional?" Really? There are alliances out there with full time, paid employees?
[/quote]
Professional alliances set global policy. Many alliances which exist in the system but do not take full part in it, or refuse to adhere to the conventions set by the professional alliances, hence the distinction. The accumulated history of interactions between alliances is what has created the general consensus on many topics, including etiquette, incident resolution, CBs, and so on.
[quote]
There have been events that serve as 'precedent' to a degree, but they can conflict and be argued endlessly. The whole subject has enough wiggle room as a result that contradictory positions may both have solid precedents. And in the end, with no custom of judicial resolution of conflict, none of it matters all that much anyhow. Large alliances tend to be 100% power politics anyway, so if it serves their interests at the moment they will argue position A, and later when that is not the case they will argue position B, which contradicts it, with no sign of shame or apparent awareness of the contradiction.
[/quote]
True, but some conventions are stronger than others. The convention on protection of the unaligned and under-aligned is a pretty sound and storied one.
[quote]
There is no admin-given definition of how one 'displays proper protection.' What exactly that means, or whether it is a meaningful requirement at all, is up to the protector and the protectorate - not the raiders.
[/quote]
Admin has no bearing on this conversation. The conventions stem from the political environment which we have created, not admin.

[Prodigal Moon]

Realistically, I think it's prudent to take all the steps Steve mentioned if your goal is to avoid confusion. We know people raid anything (unaligned) that moves, so to refuse to post protection and expect not to get raided is to ignore reality. But I don't really see what protection has to do with whether reps are called for or not. Either raiding is unjust, or it's a matter of might makes right - in which case I'd think the issue of reps would be solely up to the raider's ability to tell the victim and the protector to $%&@ off.