Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities

[Omniscient1]

I like what Greenacres or whatever his name was over at PC came up with.

I have enjoyed Sardonic's "me and my friends set global standards and you have to follow!" argument with everyone else though. You're almost as good as TOLWYN.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Omniscient1

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334966312' post='2956301']
I have enjoyed Sardonic's "me and my friends set global standards and you have to follow!" argument with everyone else though. You're almost as good as TOLWYN.
[/quote]
Not just me and my friends Omni dear, DR, TOP & PF, XX, even your precious SF. All have shaped the legal fabric of the world. They're not my rules, for that matter. You'd be a fool to claim that there's not a generally accepted set of standards for many occurrences in the game.

And unless by "everyone else" you mean Sigrun, and unless by "rules you have to follow" you mean "generally accepted principals of conflict resolution and diplomatic standards", you're way off base. Perhaps you should try reading the thread? It's actually pretty interesting, if you think about it.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sardonic

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334967157' post='2956307']
Not just me and my friends Omni dear, DR, TOP & PF, XX, even your precious SF. All have shaped the legal fabric of the world. They're not my rules, for that matter. You'd be a fool to claim that there's not a generally accepted set of standards for many occurrences in the game.

And unless by "everyone else" you mean Sigrun, and unless by "rules you have to follow" you mean "generally accepted principals of conflict resolution and diplomatic standards", you're way off base. Perhaps you should try reading the thread? It's actually pretty interesting, if you think about it.
[/quote]

SF is now my precious? [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TFRDZ5G6ydE/TVSKhn7_KHI/AAAAAAAAB0s/WywPH7W4SXs/s320/gollum_and_ring.jpg[/img]

Overall if you raid a protected alliance and they want to fight you over it they can and will. If they have big friends then you'll back down too. There is no "set standards", because they change. There was once a thing called CNARF, and then that was brought down by groups who didn't like their policies. There was once a ban on raiding red nations, which was a "set standard" but that was changed too.

I can make up a lot of bull crap rules on raiding, but it's not "set standards". These things bend and change all the time though depending on what purpose they serve.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334967834' post='2956310']
Overall if you raid a protected alliance and they want to fight you over it they can and will. If they have big friends then you'll back down too.
[/quote]
Only if one or more parties wish to fight will a fight erupt. You're forgetting about a whole class of events which are solved not by power struggles but by by tradition and convention between alliances who do not desire conflict with each other. There are many such occurrences on a daily basis even. It is the events which are influenced by actors wishing the event to evolve into a potential war that are the exception.
[quote]
There is no "set standards", because they change.
[/quote]
There are no hard and fast standards, yes, but there are still standards. The degree to which alliances deviate from the standards is obviously variable, but I contend there are many obvious and clear standards across the game that serve as the core from which most alliances resolve incidents. One of the more obvious standards comes into play when a member of an alliance strikes another without permission. The standard here is clear, that member is to be cut loose and destroyed by the attacked party, or he is to cease attacks and his alliance pays reps for his damages. The standards in tech raiding are doing the required due diligence for the raiders, and proper displaying of protection for the potentially raided. Once again, to claim that there are no standards is foolish. Just because certain alliances push standards in certain situations because of power struggles, does not mean that these standards do not exist, and are not held by the majority of alliances, whether they realize it or not.
[quote]
There was once a thing called CNARF, and then that was brought down by groups who didn't like their policies.

There was once a ban on raiding red nations, which was a "set standard" but that was changed too.
[/quote]
Did I ever say that all standards are static? They aren't, hardly any standard is completely static, barring perhaps dealing with rogues.
[quote]
I can make up a lot of bull crap rules on raiding, but it's not "set standards". These things bend and change all the time though depending on what purpose they serve.
[/quote]
Certain details change for certain alliances in power, obviously, and certain standards are bent for political ends but by and large there still exists a wide array of generally-held standards. Perhaps if you had done any significant amount of routine conflict resolution at your post in GATO you'd have noticed it. It's blisteringly obvious what the standards are after gaining significant experience with conflict resolution.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sardonic

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334968681' post='2956320']
Perhaps if you had done any significant amount of routine conflict resolution at your post in GATO you'd have noticed it. It's blisteringly obvious what the standards are after gaining significant experience with conflict resolution.
[/quote]

This is absolutely hilarious. The only thing I was known for at GATO was conflict resolution. I literally done it to the point of fault.

Overall, my only point is you can't say "standard is you have to do this", because history has proven over and over that you can just do whatever the hell you want to if you have power. There aren't some CN foreign affairs guidelines.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334969112' post='2956323']
There aren't some CN foreign affairs guidelines.
[/quote]
Yes there are, and they come into play quite often between alliances with no animosity between them, or alliances of the same sphere. But suit yourself.

[Sephiroth]

If you raid somebody, then you shouldn't expect your attack on the nation to cut off any aid incoming to that nation and that nobody will assist them in anyway. Which seems to be how GOONS view how raiding should be.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334952623' post='2956224']
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.
[/quote]
Not all raiding alliances do things like GOONS do, you guys take it to an extreme which few alliances do. Gremlins and other alliances in the past have allowed raiding at the raiders own risk, but you guys seem to think there should be no risk and you guys should get reps if somebody sends any aid to a nation under attack from you guys for raiding reasons. This has never been common practice in CN and something you guys are trying to enforce upon everyone else, but others don't need to accept it. Mongols are raiders as well and didn't accept your way of doing things, other raiders and non-raiders also don't accept your way as the right way.

[Monster]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1334965456' post='2956294']
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.
[/quote]

It's a matter of might makes right with the additional issue of PR/community support. Take Athens-KoFN, for instance or NEO vs Sultans of Swing. Some raiding is considered acceptable and raiding as an either/or issue has not been up for debate for a long time(5-6 years).

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1334969348' post='2956327']
If you raid somebody, then you shouldn't expect your attack on the nation to cut off any aid incoming to that nation and that nobody will assist them in anyway. Which seems to be how GOONS view how raiding should be.


Not all raiding alliances do things like GOONS do, you guys take it to an extreme which few alliances do. Gremlins and other alliances in the past have allowed raiding at the raiders own risk, but you guys seem to think there should be no risk and you guys should get reps if somebody sends any aid to a nation under attack from you guys for raiding reasons. This has never been common practice in CN and something you guys are trying to enforce upon everyone else, but others don't need to accept it. Mongols are raiders as well and didn't accept your way of doing things, other raiders and non-raiders also don't accept your way as the right way.
[/quote]
Like I said, the details are different from alliance to alliance or sphere to sphere. Conceptually though, there is a lot of agreement.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334970742' post='2956330']
Like I said, the details are different from alliance to alliance or sphere to sphere. Conceptually though, there is a lot of agreement.
[/quote]
There is also a lot of disagreement on the issue, raiders think they derive their rights from their targets being defenseless. If you're not sure if the nation you're going to raid has allies or will receive aid, it creates more risk for the raider. Many believe there should be risk for the raider, rather than just free loot with no risk attached. Even among raiders many find it boring if there is no risk.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1334959153' post='2956263']
Good etiquette [/quote]

I am sorry that one honestly made me laugh so hard I had to walk away and come back later.

Good etiquette and raiding? What a strange combination. Hrmm, I am going to invade your country, kill your citizens, and steal money for no particular reason other than "I think I can get away with it" - but there is etiquette involved here somehow. How would that work? Do you say "pardon me" afterwards?

Oh no, wait, I see. It's not the raider who is supposed to practice etiquette. It's the defender. He's supposed to be really super nice and be sure and post something about his protection, if he happens to have that, just so the raider can go about the raid business with no risk? And also of course to be sure not to effectively resist and cut into the raiders profit margins. That would be rude!

This unaligned or 'under aligned' nation who, we have seen it asserted many times, is obviously ruled by an ignorant savage who doesnt understand the global 'system' at all (otherwise it would be sheltering safely in a mega-blob, right?) is the one that has an obligation to show proper courtesy, even though he doesnt understand it.

Still having a hard time taking that one seriously.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334960690' post='2956268']
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]

So, let me see if I got this right. There are plenty of alliances, but only a few are 'professional' and they are the only ones who matter in terms of community consensus. And conveniently those also happen to be the ones that agree with you at the moment. Right?

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334967834' post='2956310']
Overall if you raid a protected alliance and they want to fight you over it they can and will. If they have big friends then you'll back down too. [/quote]

Exactly. And I have seen it happen. "Oh wah wah wah you didnt have anything in your bio I dont want to pay" may work when you are someone that can call in two major blocs to clean up your messes, but then again what doesnt 'work' to some degree then? It's a matter of power pure and simple, and invoking custom and tradition to explain it seems more fluff and distraction than serious analysis.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334971294' post='2956333']
So, let me see if I got this right. There are plenty of alliances, but only a few are 'professional' and they are the only ones who matter in terms of community consensus. And conveniently those also happen to be the ones that agree with you at the moment. Right?
[/quote]
Like I said, there are many cross sphere understandings, like with rogue resolution. This isn't about me or my sphere.
[quote]
Exactly. And I have seen it happen. "Oh wah wah wah you didnt have anything in your bio I dont want to pay" may work when you are someone that can call in two major blocs to clean up your messes, but then again what doesnt 'work' to some degree then? It's a matter of power pure and simple, and invoking custom and tradition to explain it seems more fluff and distraction than serious analysis.
[/quote]
Except when it's not and the two parties are on relatively equal grounds. The world isn't so lopsided as you seem to think. And again, the situations that arise between those in the same sphere or on good terms are generally resolved according to the standards.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334970716' post='2956329']
It's a matter of might makes right with the additional issue of PR/community support. Take Athens-KoFN, for instance or NEO vs Sultans of Swing. Some raiding is considered acceptable and raiding as an either/or issue has not been up for debate for a long time(5-6 years).
[/quote]
True, and after I added my $.02 I realized that I was still speaking more to the moral/ethical/RL legal aspect of whether the example raid "qualifies" for reps, rather than typical CN practices. In my experience, without some kind of NO TRESPASSING sign posted somewhere, raiding is so expected and commonplace that you're not going to get far arguing that the raiders goofed.


Whether "protection" has any bearing on the legitimacy of the raid is another question I suppose. If I were in charge of a raiding group we would be attacking and/or extorting to the fullest extent that we could back it up, not setting arbitrary guidelines of who is legit or not.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334971984' post='2956335']
Like I said, there are many cross sphere understandings, like with rogue resolution. This isn't about me or my sphere.[/quote]

There are definitely some basic understandings, some larger frameworks - just not the level of specifics was my point. Having a notice in a nation bio for instance. Yes, a lot of people do that. No, I dont believe there is any legitimate 'consensus' that it's somehow required or excuses the raid or vitiates the expectation of reps, however.

I seem to recall at least a couple of times when a protectorate was not announced until after the raid - and made to stick. I honestly cant remember the names but I might try to dredge one up. Certainly secret MDPs have been used, and I don't see any significant moralist opposition to e.g. FAN as a result.

So it seems to me the genuine community consensus is at a bit of a broader level. The basic foundation is the postulate that you dont attack other nations without being in a legitimite war. I wasnt around but I imagine the very first corollary was probably the one about unaligned nations not really counting. Even that is still contentious to this day, however. Yes, there is certainly a broad community consensus that permits raiding in some form. When you get to the specifics, though, there is a broad range of understandings by raiders, and a significant faction that has never recognised raiding as legitimate too of course. We could argue just where precisely the middle of the spectrum is but I think everyone knows that Goons sits on one side of it, not in the middle.

What I think you tend to do here (and I cant blame you for it really) is trying to portray your own specific policies as being "the community norm" when in fact you represent one of the most extreme factions, living on one side of the norm, on the bleeding edge of it really, and doing your best to push it further and further in your direction.

[quote]Except when it's not and the two parties are on relatively equal grounds. The world isn't so lopsided as you seem to think. And again, the situations that arise between those in the same sphere or on good terms are generally resolved according to the standards.[/quote]

Well it's a particular point that caught my eye because I went through just that scenario at one point. My experience conformed perfectly to what I said above.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334969281' post='2956325']
Yes there are, and they come into play quite often between alliances with no animosity between them, or alliances of the same sphere. But suit yourself.
[/quote]

Are you talking about common courtesy?

[Freddy]

I agree with SV on the etiquette of the target. If you attack someone and they surprise you, tough !@#$. If the target wants to deter attacks, then they'd be wise to plaster their protection everywhere. But, if you step in !@#$ on my lawn don't blame me.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334973381' post='2956343']
There are definitely some basic understandings, some larger frameworks - just not the level of specifics was my point. Having a notice in a nation bio for instance. Yes, a lot of people do that. No, I dont believe there is any legitimate 'consensus' that it's somehow required or excuses the raid or vitiates the expectation of reps, however.
[/quote]
Well then you're blind, because bio protectorates are a standard practice for tech sellers and other entites alliances want to protect who don't have wiki pages, full alliance status, etc.
[quote]
I seem to recall at least a couple of times when a protectorate was not announced until after the raid - and made to stick. I honestly cant remember the names but I might try to dredge one up. Certainly secret MDPs have been used, and I don't see any significant moralist opposition to e.g. FAN as a result.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying by "made to stick" but I can't imagine anyone paying reps for an unannounced, unevidenced protectorate, unless they were trying to improve diplomatic relations with the protector. Also what does FAN and their ridiculous treaty system have to do with anything? Yes, they are an exception to the norm, but the norm still exists. The whole treaty network for that matter is based on diplomatic standards,generally agreed upon terms like NAP, MDoAP, MADP, etc.
[quote]
So it seems to me the genuine community consensus is at a bit of a broader level. The basic foundation is the postulate that you dont attack other nations without being in a legitimite war. I wasnt around but I imagine the very first corollary was probably the one about unaligned nations not really counting. Even that is still contentious to this day, however. Yes, there is certainly a broad community consensus that permits raiding in some form. When you get to the specifics, though, there is a broad range of understandings by raiders, and a significant faction that has never recognised raiding as legitimate too of course. We could argue just where precisely the middle of the spectrum is but I think everyone knows that Goons sits on one side of it, not in the middle.
[/quote]
By failing to prevent us from raiding, they tacitly accept the world we raiders have created and legitimize the action.
[quote]
What I think you tend to do here (and I cant blame you for it really) is trying to portray your own specific policies as being "the community norm" when in fact you represent one of the most extreme factions, living on one side of the norm, on the bleeding edge of it really, and doing your best to push it further and further in your direction.
[/quote]
Oh no, I have no qualms about admitting where GOONS stands. We don't push our boundaries for no reason, but we do certainly have a history of going above and beyond in defense of our member's activities.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334973800' post='2956345']
Are you talking about common courtesy?
[/quote]
No, courtesy isn't always involved. A lack of hate and urge to roll somebody does not imply the presence of courtesy.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Kryievla' timestamp='1334956916' post='2956251']
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.



Agreed.
[/quote]
Ahh, I like this check as well. Thanks.

[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 really isn't productive to the discussion. This is the might makes right argument, which is a reality, but not what I'm getting at.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1334988713' post='2956478']
This really isn't productive to the discussion. This is the might makes right argument, which is a reality, but not what I'm getting at.
[/quote]

It is THE reality, but the real question is what is that might used for. Regardless, you asked what etiquette should be used by protectorates and raiders, and he answered half that question with "None. Don't raid my nations. Ever." Pretty succinctly put, imo.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334979490' post='2956378']
Well then you're blind, because bio protectorates are a standard practice for tech sellers and other entites alliances want to protect who don't have wiki pages, full alliance status, etc.[/quote]

I wonder why you say I am blind when you arent actually contradicting me. I said it's one way that the status is announced. Obviously there are others. My point was that, much as it might make things easier for raiders were it otherwise, there is no genuine consensus that any one particular method is required.

[quote]I'm not sure what you're saying by "made to stick" but I can't imagine anyone paying reps for an unannounced, unevidenced protectorate, unless they were trying to improve diplomatic relations with the protector. Also what does FAN and their ridiculous treaty system have to do with anything? Yes, they are an exception to the norm, but the norm still exists. The whole treaty network for that matter is based on diplomatic standards,generally agreed upon terms like NAP, MDoAP, MADP, etc.[/quote]

The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that FAN's practice (and it is not theirs alone, they just make the easiest example) is actually outside the bounds of the community standards. Quite the contrary, the stark lack of outrage over that seems a strong indication that community standards are indeed loose enough to encompass it.

[quote]By failing to prevent us from raiding, they tacitly accept the world we raiders have created and legitimize the action.[/quote]

I do not agree at all.

First off the world creates the raiders, not the other way around. Those who raid will naturally resist efforts to prohibit it. Non-raiding alliances can consider it illegitimate without having a strong enough interest in the affair to waste strength trying to eradicate it. The unaligned themselves nearly by definition lack the ability to concentrate sustained strength in an effective way. These facts would appear to dictate that raiding in some form will always exist here.

Personally, I wouldnt event try to eliminate it if I thought I could, which I dont. I would, if I could, put rules on it quite a bit more restrictive than you would favour, but I wouldnt even try to eliminate it. That doesnt mean I think it's legitimate in any IC sense though.

[Baron Flynt]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1334988713' post='2956478']
Ahh, I like this check as well. Thanks.


This really isn't productive to the discussion. This is the might makes right argument, which is a reality, but not what I'm getting at.
[/quote]

No, tech raiding is the [b]embodiment [/b]of the might makes right argument. My statement was one of defense. I answered half of your question - I can't answer the other half because I don't tech raid.

[MrMuz]

Agree that it's the raider's responsibility to make sure they're not raiding someone protected. Wiki is a very poor source for this kind of thing, you'd have to do a comprehensive search on the OWF to find most protectorates, as there's a lot of dead alliances with still active ODPs/protectorates.

So, on the small AA side, you'd have to at least add the OWF on this, otherwise expect demand for reps.

Wiki is not a 5 minute thing. Might take me a week to figure it out because I don't even know where to start making a page (i'm sure there's a template somewhere but it'd be a while before even bothering to look for it).

A little interesting that there's no mention of minimum alliance size in the OP. Don't really care about it, though.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1334988713' post='2956478']
This really isn't productive to the discussion. This is the might makes right argument, which is a reality, but not what I'm getting at.
[/quote]
The might makes right argument is the whole basis for why people get away with any raiding, so I don't see how the same doesn't apply to the response. If an alliance gets attacked both them and their allies are entitled to seek war or reps in response to the attacks regardless of what they put in their bio, the only thing limiting them in doing so is their willingness to go to war and ability to extract the reps.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1335028677' post='2956634']
The might makes right argument is the whole basis for why people get away with any raiding, so I don't see how the same doesn't apply to the response. If an alliance gets attacked both them and their allies are entitled to seek war or reps in response to the attacks regardless of what they put in their bio, the only thing limiting them in doing so is their willingness to go to war and ability to extract the reps.
[/quote]

Further display of your stupid posts. He is only concerned with the proper method of documenting that an individual or group is protected by a larger party when a treaty between the two is not involved. He is not concerned with moral principles or discussing ethical actions.

[Aurion]

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?

All of the above.


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.

2b and 3b are generally more reliable than 1b, but again all of the above would be nice.

And for those complaining, it's hardly just "making raiders lives easier". I think getting raided would make the lives of the hypothetical small alliances that might get mistakenly attacked for not putting notices of protection up anywhere a little more difficult than they'd like, too.