Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities

[Tick1]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1335028349' post='2956631']
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.
[/quote]

So because you don't know how to make a wiki page you are asserting that it isn't a five minute task? Also there doesn't need to be a minimum size in the OP because we are only discussing proper documentation and not ethical standards.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335029785' post='2956638']
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.
[/quote]
Nobody can give him permission to attack another alliance's protectorates if they don't put information in their bio or any other location, how each alliance acts in response to an attack is up to them regardless of whatever those who input their opinion in this thread have to say about it. So there is no 'proper' method that will be agreed upon by all of CN, all he can hope to get out of this thread are different people's opinions on how they think alliances should do things or how they would do things. Although even if everyone in the thread said people should put in their bio who they are protected by, if someone were to raid a protectorate of TOP for example due to the nation not saying TOP is protecting them in their bio, TOP would still probably get reps for their protectorate and the raiding nation would pay them if they don't want to be treated like a rogue.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Methrage

[Tick1]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1335031306' post='2956649']
Nobody can give him permission to attack another alliance's protectorates if they don't put information in their bio or any other location, how each alliance acts in response to an attack is up to them regardless of whatever those who input their opinion in this thread have to say about it. So there is no 'proper' method that will be agreed upon by all of CN, all he hope to get out of this thread are different people's opinions on how they think alliances should do things or how they would do things. Although even if everyone in the thread said people should put in their bio who they are protected by, if someone were to raid a protectorate of TOP for example due to the nation not saying TOP is protecting them in their bio, TOP would still probably get reps for their protectorate and the raiding nation would pay them if they don't want to be treated like a rogue.
[/quote]

Keep making long posts that don't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.

[Joe Stupid]

You should just be able to raid small alliances. 99.9% of them aren't worth a !@#$ and do nothing for this game/community other than to exist.

Protectors: just eat them.

people who make 18 alliances and they all die: stop

Edited April 21, 2012 by Joe Stupid

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335030919' post='2956646']
So because you don't know how to make a wiki page you are asserting that it isn't a five minute task? Also there doesn't need to be a minimum size in the OP because we are only discussing proper documentation and not ethical standards.
[/quote]

I'm asserting that it's not a five minute task for most people, so it shouldn't be considered a very simple thing. Especially for new alliances who may not even realize that a wiki exists at all, but are aware of CN politics via the OWF.

[Tick1]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1335031723' post='2956657']
I'm asserting that it's not a five minute task for most people, so it shouldn't be considered a very simple thing. Especially for new alliances who may not even realize that a wiki exists at all, but are aware of CN politics via the OWF.
[/quote]

I think we have different opinions on who's responsibility creating the wiki falls on. In my opinion posting information regarding protection falls on the alliance that is protecting the individual and not the individual.

This means:
If Umbrella is protecting an individual nation it would be our responsibility to add this information to our wikia page and not the individuals job to create a wikia page and post this information. (If you are going to offer protections to individual nations I assume you have some competence when it comes to how to make a wikia page)

Edited April 21, 2012 by Tick1

[King Wally]

just raid nones and you wont have a problem

[MitchellBade]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334944054' post='2956191']
visible protection, no reps, because the raiding alliance is a piece of !@#$.
[/quote]

Fixed

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1335030519' post='2956644']
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.
[/quote]

I think the question is not 'how many ways *may* one advertise your protected status. It is, if I have not misunderstood quite badly, instead about what one *must* do in order for that protection to be considered valid. Giving a micro that wants to avoid being raided and build in peace more ways to advertise their protection could be helpful, yes, just as you say. But telling that micro that they must advertise it in this way, or in that way, specifically, or else they will be raided anyway and their protection declared void or invalid somehow, that's not.

The 'put it in your bio or it doesnt exist' thing is particularly inane and annoying. I have stuff to put in my bio. It's staying there just like it always has. If you cant be bothered to do a few searches and research my protection before you raid, that's your problem, not mine. Ambiguity and uncertainty are useful weapons on the defense, why should the smallest and weakest have to further disadvantage themselves by throwing it away?

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335034382' post='2956681']
I think we have different opinions on who's responsibility creating the wiki falls on. In my opinion posting information regarding protection falls on the alliance that is protecting the individual and not the individual.

This means:
If Umbrella is protecting an individual nation it would be our responsibility to add this information to our wikia page and not the individuals job to create a wikia page and post this information. (If you are going to offer protections to individual nations I assume you have some competence when it comes to how to make a wikia page)
[/quote]

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying:

If the protectee DID make a page and post the relationship, yet Umbrellas main page did not show it, would that make it invalid?
If neither of the wiki pages showed it, but it had been mentioned in an alliance announcement, would that make it invalid?
If nothing whatsoever was posted in the bio, but one of the above conditions was in effect, would that make it invalid?

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[enderland]

I remember once trying to figure out if "Stupid Newbie" was protected or not since there was no information on the wiki or anything.

I should have just raided them considering the mess and obnoxiousness of dealing with their protector.


If you want to not be raided, do two things (at least one). First, make your bio say "proteted by XXX." Maybe even link to the forum announcement in a bit.ly link or something. Second make sure your alliance/aa's wikipage is super clear.

If you do both these and get raided still then the raiding alliance is 100% at fault imo.

[D34th]

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

So people now has to inform the robbers that they have a gun? Raiders aren't nothing more than thieves, so why should anyone help thieves to make their robbery become an easier job?

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335050489' post='2956841']
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying:

If the protectee DID make a page and post the relationship, yet Umbrellas main page did not show it, would that make it invalid?
If neither of the wiki pages showed it, but it had been mentioned in an alliance announcement, would that make it invalid?
If nothing whatsoever was posted in the bio, but one of the above conditions was in effect, would that make it invalid?
[/quote]

No, I'm not arguing for if an agreement is valid. I'm merely addressing the easiest way to prevent yourself from being raided if you have a protectorate. I'm stating that if an alliance want to demand reps from in individual who is raiding their protected nations that they should post information somewhere public that can be attained via; wiki, OWF, private forums or IRC.

(Personally I don't consider treaties to be real therefor they are not valid)

[Kzoppistan]

wHAT A BUNCH OF !@#$%*ES. RAIDERS ARE WEAK IN THEHEART TO BEGINS WITH

*EDIT:!@#$@#$ PUSSIS

Edited April 22, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[jerdge]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1334971294' post='2956333']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]
Whops sorry I guess I thought we were talking of a [i]game[/i].

[i](By the way: I stopped paying attention to this thread, thus I am not anymore sure what you're all talking of... )[/i]

[Icewolf]

Why is a nation that is considered under protection entitled to reparations whilst those that are not? Reparations implies that there is a wrong done, which means an attack on a protected nation is wrong. However, if that is the case, why is any attack right?

It also doesn't seem to make sense from an economic view. If you attack a nation in a 5 man alliance, and do $3 million damage, then it is just as true that paying that 3 million in reparations is cheaper than paying for the war against that 5 man alliance.

In terms of it being a case of the person being able to force their reperation demands, there also seems to be no logic here either, as the rules applied by most alliances as I understand them would suggest that a 30 member half million NS alliance protecting a 5 nation 100 thousand NS alliance would entitle a member of that 5 nation alliance to reparations. As these policies are drawn up before Kaskus and Mongols engaged with GOONS, this would presumably be assumed that the 600 thousand could not enforce reparations.

So what is the basis for this distinction?

I'm not making a judgement call here btw. I'm just looking at it from the basis of rationality and struggling to see why some nations would get reps and others not.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1335118340' post='2957211']
Why is a nation that is considered under protection entitled to reparations whilst those that are not? Reparations implies that there is a wrong done, which means an attack on a protected nation is wrong. However, if that is the case, why is any attack right?

It also doesn't seem to make sense from an economic view. If you attack a nation in a 5 man alliance, and do $3 million damage, then it is just as true that paying that 3 million in reparations is cheaper than paying for the war against that 5 man alliance.

In terms of it being a case of the person being able to force their reperation demands, there also seems to be no logic here either, as the rules applied by most alliances as I understand them would suggest that a 30 member half million NS alliance protecting a 5 nation 100 thousand NS alliance would entitle a member of that 5 nation alliance to reparations. As these policies are drawn up before Kaskus and Mongols engaged with GOONS, this would presumably be assumed that the 600 thousand could not enforce reparations.

So what is the basis for this distinction?

I'm not making a judgement call here btw. I'm just looking at it from the basis of rationality and struggling to see why some nations would get reps and others not.
[/quote]

Reparations doesn't imply there is wrong doing, it implies someone is going to destroy you if you don't give them money back. People that pay reparations aren't claiming they are doing anything wrong they are merely just buying the better alternative.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335125376' post='2957272']
Reparations doesn't imply there is wrong doing, it implies someone is going to destroy you if you don't give them money back. People that pay reparations aren't claiming they are doing anything wrong they are merely just buying the better alternative.
[/quote]

I dont think that is true. If it were pure might makes right, then only protectorates approved by the very most powerful would have any effect. Yet in fact, in many cases at least, even the weakest protectorates are honoured. It's only when someone specifically wants to push and start something that the might of the protector matters at all.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335126221' post='2957282']
I dont think that is true. If it were pure might makes right, then only protectorates approved by the very most powerful would have any effect. Yet in fact, in many cases at least, even the weakest protectorates are honoured. It's only when someone specifically wants to push and start something that the might of the protector matters at all.
[/quote]

That's a pretty ignorant statement, it is and always will be might makes right. The only thing to bring into question is if the overall outcome is beneficial or not. Just because an alliance is small doesn't mean I'd want to waste money/infra/time on them when I could simply just pay them a small reasonable amount to resolve to conflict. If you engage yourself in long conflicts that may hinder your alliance when the next global war comes around.

[Icewolf]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335127386' post='2957285']
That's a pretty ignorant statement, it is and always will be might makes right. The only thing to bring into question is if the overall outcome is beneficial or not. Just because an alliance is small doesn't mean I'd want to waste money/infra/time on them when I could simply just pay them a small reasonable amount to resolve to conflict. If you engage yourself in long conflicts that may hinder your alliance when the next global war comes around.
[/quote]
But in almost any case the cost of war is greater than the cost of reparations. An alliance of 5 nations can cost you more than reparations in most circumstances.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1335127768' post='2957289']
But in almost any case the cost of war is greater than the cost of reparations. An alliance of 5 nations can cost you more than reparations in most circumstances.
[/quote]

Yes, your right it can cost you more in most circumstances. However the majority of smaller groups don't understand that and generally send peace when it's offered after being raided. Don't ask me why, when I floated in my transition from PC to Umbrella I responded with nukes. However they also nuked me back, so the costs go both ways for both parties........

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335127386' post='2957285']
That's a pretty ignorant statement, it is and always will be might makes right.
[/quote]

It's an ignorant statement? I dont know. I went months with my only public treaty being protected by [i]AcTi[/i]. I was on here and active and visible. None of the big raiding alliances tried me, even though any of them could have rolled AcTi. [i]I[/i] could have rolled AcTi. The only person that tried to raid me was one idiot from another micro that hadnt bothered to search the OWF.

Speaking from experience = ignorance. I'll remember that one.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1335090504' post='2957066']
wHAT A BUNCH OF !@#$%*ES. RAIDERS ARE WEAK IN THEHEART TO BEGINS WITH

*EDIT:!@#$@#$ PUSSIS
[/quote]
What, lol? Put the beer down and walk away from the computer.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335129205' post='2957301']
It's an ignorant statement? I dont know. I went months with my only public treaty being protected by [i]AcTi[/i]. I was on here and active and visible. None of the big raiding alliances tried me, even though any of them could have rolled AcTi. [i]I[/i] could have rolled AcTi. The only person that tried to raid me was one idiot from another micro that hadnt bothered to search the OWF.

Speaking from experience = ignorance. I'll remember that one.
[/quote]


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. They aren't not raiding you because it's wrong, they are not raiding you because it's more trouble than the value they'd get from raiding you.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Tick1

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1335130247' post='2957310']
What, lol? Put the beer down and walk away from the computer.
[/quote]

wow, how did I manage to even operate my computer in that state...? Damn things should have breathalyzers on them. What a funny thing to wake up to.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1335118340' post='2957211']
Why is a nation that is considered under protection entitled to reparations whilst those that are not? Reparations implies that there is a wrong done, which means an attack on a protected nation is wrong. However, if that is the case, why is any attack right? [/quote]

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.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Hereno