Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities

[Tick1]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1335133220' post='2957344']
A single nation is not usually considered to have any sovereignty by alliances. A protected nation gains the right to reparations through the sovereignty and respect of the protector alliance. Reparation simply means to repair damage done, via giving up money or whatever else. It isn't that people deny damage is done to single unaligned, unprotected nations who are raided. It's just that nobody cares.
[/quote]

No, a protected nation does not have the rights to reparations. You guys keep creating this illusion that individuals have rights. That's a false idea that human kind gave to themselves. Be it the form of what we actually claim as rights or the form of reparations. They may receive reparations while being protected only because the larger group can cause more damage than a single nation that is not protected.

Notice I used the term damage, this can come in many forms.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Tick1

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335130531' post='2957314']
Cool you read the first sentence of my statement. Just because they can roll your protectorate doesn't mean one raid target is worth the trouble. [/quote]

It's my protector, not my protectorate. And raiding me would never be worth the trouble, so that is true but irrelevant. I could have also mentioned the many times that alliances which have protectorates get beat down in wars. If you were right, those protectorates should get raided. It's my experience they very rarely do - and when that does happen there is considerable community disapproval and reparations wind up being made.

The formality of simply having a protector, any protector, disqualifies one from being a raid target. This is a rule the raiders themselves follow. The why of it is clearly more complicated than any direct fear of the protectors military.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335135771' post='2957377']
It's my protector, not my protectorate. And raiding me would never be worth the trouble, so that is true but irrelevant. I could have also mentioned the many times that alliances which have protectorates get beat down in wars. If you were right, those protectorates should get raided. It's my experience they very rarely do - and when that does happen there is considerable community disapproval and reparations wind up being made.

The formality of simply having a protector, any protector, disqualifies one from being a raid target. This is a rule the raiders themselves follow. The why of it is clearly more complicated than any direct fear of the protectors military.
[/quote]

Yes because you couldn't possibly get hurt in other forms. I guess you don't know about the mercy boards.

Anyone and everyone will come to your rescue if it suits them politically. Any reason to tarnish your opponent is a golden opportunity.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Tick1

[Hereno]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335134432' post='2957363']
No, a protected nation does not have the rights to reparations. You guys keep creating this illusion that individuals have rights. That's a false idea that human kind gave to themselves. Be it the form of what we actually claim as rights or the form of reparations. They may receive reparations while being protected only because the larger group can cause more damage than a single nation that is not protected.

Notice I used the term damage, this can come in many forms.
[/quote]

You seem to have confused this for something other than a text-based bill simulation game.

Anyway, just because Admin Almighty hasn't coded into the rules of the game that alliances are forced to pay each other reparations for botched raids doesn't mean that the prevailing social construct that alliances and protected nations are entitled to token reparations is suddenly meaningless. Having a right to something means that you have a valid legal or moral claim/guarantee to something.

"I, as an American, have a right to free speech" means that I have a valid legal guarantee to freedom of speech according to our laws. It doesn't mean that God struck lightning down upon the whitehouse and made it impossible for someone to infringe on that freedom of speech, or take it away altogether, or anything else you're trying to imply.

Therefore, a person who has valid protection from an alliance, whether they be a member or not, does in fact have a right to a certain kind of treatment simply because the community (the alliances and nations who form it) decides that they should be that way. That doesn't mean that someone cannot ignore or refuse that right, rather, it means that they have a valid claim to a certain amount of token reparations, as per the unwritten rules and mores of the world.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1335143038' post='2957466']
You seem to have confused this for something other than a text-based bill simulation game.

Anyway, just because Admin Almighty hasn't coded into the rules of the game that alliances are forced to pay each other reparations for botched raids doesn't mean that the prevailing social construct that alliances and protected nations are entitled to token reparations is suddenly meaningless. Having a right to something means that you have a valid legal or moral claim/guarantee to something.

"I, as an American, have a right to free speech" means that I have a valid legal guarantee to freedom of speech according to our laws. It doesn't mean that God struck lightning down upon the whitehouse and made it impossible for someone to infringe on that freedom of speech, or take it away altogether, or anything else you're trying to imply.

Therefore, a person who has valid protection from an alliance, whether they be a member or not, does in fact have a right to a certain kind of treatment simply because the community (the alliances and nations who form it) decides that they should be that way. That doesn't mean that someone cannot ignore or refuse that right, rather, it means that they have a valid claim to a certain amount of token reparations, as per the unwritten rules and mores of the world.
[/quote]

Pretty sure we are arguing two different forms of rights.

Natural Rights and Legal Rights....... anywho

[Azaghul]

I always search on the wiki, these boards, and in the bios of all the nations on the AA before raiding it.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1334943807' post='2956187']
I 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".[/quote]

I don't see this as a matter of etiquette at all. It's a matter of what one wants to accomplish. As someone who has chosen to always be on the defensive side of this question (aka: we don't raid) and whose general preference is security - proper behavior is that which is most likely to result in me and my friends being secure. If that translates into a bio notice, a post on the OWF and a wiki, so be it. Nothing is required. It's all a matter of how best to accomplish ones goals

On the other hand, IF some group's purpose doesn't put their own security first but instead they have some other goal that is more important to them and a raider happens to raid that group - not my problem. Raiders beware.

Edited April 23, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Lanore]

I'm fairly certain if a GATOan wanted to raid and requested permission to do so they would have to show their intended target wasn't of a protected AA via forums, bio, and wiki.

If you are in a micro or a protectorate alliance, you should probably have "protected by x " in your bio, or a wiki page on your AA and an owf announcement. The wiki is probably the easiest way seeing as the forums can be a bit of a pain to dig through sometimes. Similarly your protectorate alliance should make sure your treaty is in their wiki. (you'd be surprised how many wiki pages aren't up to date at all. )

If you are a raider you should do your homework on who you are about to hit. Similarly you should be ready to pay the piper if you hit somebody you shouldn't have and they actually had an announcement/wiki/bio entry.

[Don Chele]

I can certainly see that a small alliance has an incentive to make their protection known, although I wouldn't frame it as an obligation to do so. Both sides of the raiding equation have a risk that they have to assess. I think it is certainly wise to both announce protection and list it in the nation bio of the individual nations, it makes good sense and reduces risk of a potential raid target. I also see that it makes good sense for raiding alliances to do everything they can to assure that their targets are unprotected and I can see how it might be frustrating when an unannounced protection agreement comes up in what looked like a safe raid.

I don't like raiding of AA's however small, but it happens and I can't dictate the policies of raiding alliances. I'm pretty sure, though, that it is a good idea for people on both sides of the raiding debate to try to educate small AAs on what the broadly accepted, or at least widely stated, conventions for who gets raided and who doesn't are. Most raiding alliances have some set of standards that they follow most of the time, and anti-raiding alliances can promote their message better by helping small AAs work within that system than by declaring that system immoral.

[Steve Buscemi]

I think I'm just trying to avoid the time consuming process that bad raids end up being. For both sides. And we all know that reps never quite get back what was lost, given the time value of money in CN.

edit: I know that begs the question, "Why raid at all then?" But that's a discussion for another time.

Thanks for all the comments guys!

Edited April 23, 2012 by Steve Buscemi

[sammykhalifa]

Why's it my responsibility to let potential muggers know that I'm packin' heat?

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1335198765' post='2957809']
I think I'm just trying to avoid the time consuming process that bad raids end up being. For both sides. And we all know that reps never quite get back what was lost, given the time value of money in CN.
[/quote]

Raiding is robbing. There's no etiquette for it, other than minimizing harm. It's an anarchic world we live in. People will look the other way, only because it's too much work speaking up against raiders. If they're too loud or too angry, you'll have a lot of time wasted on your hands. If you rob them once then leave them alone, they won't bother to chase you down.

So, it's really the raider's job to make sure the target will stay quiet. Lawyering won't get you around a counter-attack, it would just make it a little more unpleasant to hit the raider.

Most non-raiders won't ever say that raiding is justifiable, but they won't really bother if it's not messy.

[Tick1]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1335199710' post='2957812']
Why's it my responsibility to let potential muggers know that I'm packin' heat?
[/quote]

So I don't have to mug your dead corpse

[Don Chele]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1335199710' post='2957812']
Why's it my responsibility to let potential muggers know that I'm packin' heat?
[/quote]
I don't think the point is that it's your responsibility. The point is: it is probably a good idea to let them know that you are protected so that they can move on to someone who isn't. It's less hassle for you and less hassle for raiders. This topic isn't really about whether raiding is legitimate as a practice, as far as I read it anyway. It's about how to make the practice less of a hassle for both raiders and protected accidental raid targets, just assuming [i]arguendo[/i] that raiding is simply going to happen regardless of the procedures anyone follows.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335204441' post='2957850']
I don't think the point is that it's your responsibility. The point is: it is probably a good idea to let them know that you are protected so that they can move on to someone who isn't. It's less hassle for you and less hassle for raiders. This topic isn't really about whether raiding is legitimate as a practice, as far as I read it anyway. It's about how to make the practice less of a hassle for both raiders and protected accidental raid targets, just assuming [i]arguendo[/i] that raiding is simply going to happen regardless of the procedures anyone follows.
[/quote]

Oh, I'm not against raiding. But I'm also not against raiders taking a chance that their raids might come back to bite them in the ass. And if I were a potential raid target, I would have no interest in making things less of a hassle for my attacker.

If someone in a protected alliance doesn't want bothered, yeah that's fine. They should put in their bio that they're protected. But I don't see why they should be obliged to do something like that or give up their "rights" from being a protected alliance/nation.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335149763' post='2957560']Pretty sure we are arguing two different forms of rights.

Natural Rights and Legal Rights....... anywho[/quote]
I rather think that Hereno just hammered your theory in the little tiny pieces it deserved to be shattered into...

Anyway seriously, about your initial claim that it's only might makes right and military convenience: it's not. CN has its customs and unwritten rules, and going against them costs political capital which (in this case) makes it simply not worth it.

[Tick1]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1335220213' post='2957933']
I rather think that Hereno just hammered your theory in the little tiny pieces it deserved to be shattered into...

Anyway seriously, about your initial claim that it's only might makes right and military convenience: it's not. CN has its customs and unwritten rules, and going against them costs political capital which (in this case) makes it simply not worth it.
[/quote]

How is political capital not a form in which might can be considered? It is a form of power and all forms of power are forms of might.

(I'm saying this because military forms isn't the only source of power.)
Even the strongest of foes can be brought down by numbers. NPO's demise is a very good example. If you have enough pull with the political community you can sway more than enough people to agree with you. If those other people 'didn't exist, political capital wouldn't have any value at all' hence it being a source of power.

Might - The power, force, or influence held by a person or group
Correct me if I'm wrong, but influence would be the same thing as the term 'Political Capital'

Edited April 23, 2012 by Tick1

[jerdge]

OK I dared you to cross that line and you did.

Now we're on the same side of it. Welcome!

[Tick1]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1335221523' post='2957947']
OK I dared you to cross that line and you did.

Now we're on the same side of it. Welcome!
[/quote]

Cross the line? All you did was re-emphasize my point.... that might does make right. Unless I'm missing something here.

[Baltus]

Raiding is good for stimulating nations to join, though that is a dual edged sword. I think most raiders try their best to avoid hitting protectorates. If an alliance goes through the trouble of acquiring a protectorate, the least they can do is put PROTECTED BY XYZ in their nation bio. Raiders can only go so far in their research.

[bcortell]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1335198765' post='2957809']
I think I'm just trying to avoid the time consuming process that bad raids end up being. For both sides. And we all know that reps never quite get back what was lost, given the time value of money in CN.

edit: I know that begs the question, "Why raid at all then?" But that's a discussion for another time.

Thanks for all the comments guys!
[/quote]
The simple answer would be for a raiding AA to keep a master list for their members to check so they don't raid a protected AA. Almost all protected AA's have their information written in one place or another. As long as it's written somewhere (OWF, wiki, in-game) it's a valid entry to me.

Now, once someone does raid a protected AA, it changes the dynamic of the situation. Personally, I don't much care for reps, as stuff at that level is usually cheap- we can aid our guys for it. I like to see our newbies get some fighting experience, so we usually try to just treat the guy attacking our protectorate as if it were any other attack on our protectorate. So, we get a couple more guys and let that nation know he made a bad decision. Of course, not all AA's are afforded this. However, it's not the AA's responsibility that is getting hit to stop the raid (assuming they can defend their nation). No communication is required before responding by force. Is it a courtesy? Sure, but it's not a requirement in my opinion.

My 2 cents.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335225782' post='2958032']Cross the line? All you did was re-emphasize my point.... that might does make right. Unless I'm missing something here.[/quote]
Oh I wish I had the time to debate this. I haven't.


[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]syntax][/size]

Edited April 24, 2012 by jerdge

[Grendel]

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1335241086' post='2958288']
The simple answer would be for a raiding AA to keep a master list for their members to check so they don't raid a protected AA. Almost all protected AA's have their information written in one place or another. As long as it's written somewhere (OWF, wiki, in-game) it's a valid entry to me.

Now, once someone does raid a protected AA, it changes the dynamic of the situation. Personally, I don't much care for reps, as stuff at that level is usually cheap- we can aid our guys for it. I like to see our newbies get some fighting experience, so we usually try to just treat the guy attacking our protectorate as if it were any other attack on our protectorate. So, we get a couple more guys and let that nation know he made a bad decision. Of course, not all AA's are afforded this. However, it's not the AA's responsibility that is getting hit to stop the raid (assuming they can defend their nation). No communication is required before responding by force. Is it a courtesy? Sure, but it's not a requirement in my opinion.

My 2 cents.
[/quote]

I knew there is a reason why I like you guys

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1335199710' post='2957812']
Why's it my responsibility to let potential muggers know that I'm packin' heat?
[/quote]
Because that .25 Deringer you've got probably isn't enough to stop the raid once it begins, and it's not enough to get reps if you shouldn't have been raided in the first place. But on the other hand, if you're wearing it on your hip instead of under your jacket, it will stop the raid from happening to begin with.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Phineas]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335225782' post='2958032']
Cross the line? All you did was re-emphasize my point.... that might does make right. Unless I'm missing something here.
[/quote]


I think what they are saying is that while your definitions of might are proper, what you have avoided is defining anything for "right," other than it being whatever might produces. This is not a logical conclusion.

This also is why [b]how[/b] "might makes right" often is used in CN is in mostly fallacious ways: there is little or no consideration of what products result from manifestations of "might." All might makes right means in CN is might means power, which is really a tautology, which makes this a circular argument.

For reference, see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum"]Argumentum ad baculum[/url].

Edited April 26, 2012 by Phineas