Quick Announcement

[keeology]

[quote name='KingCyan' timestamp='1350598217' post='3042664']
This thread has too many pages
[/quote]

say what? 20 pages of DN and GOONs measuring dicks. i still agree PPO has the biggest in this thread

[mattski133]

[quote name='DoorNail' timestamp='1350592429' post='3042627']
you attacked us, there are no terms..once I defended, we were even and it could've been stopped at anytime before it came to blows by that dipstick you call a leader.
[/quote]

this is what i was talking about with the whole, "don't talk so much" thing.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1350592505' post='3042629']
I have no qualms about anyone getting drunk, I do enough of that myself.
[/quote]

i dont see how anyone can approach this sober.

[quote name='DoorNail' timestamp='1350594459' post='3042645']
I'm not a rogue by anyones standards but yours genius, I still got almost 9K tech, if I get out of bill lock, we'll see who can last.
[/quote]

unless you have 30 crazy indonesians waiting in the wings, you're delusional.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Nintenderek' timestamp='1350445305' post='3042051']
No, you aren't. It's up to an alliance to define if they are an alliance or not. All you are doing is violating their sovereignty by defining it for them.
[/quote]

This is the oldest anti-raiding argument in the history of CN. It has never worked. it is never going to work, but it is always cute to watch the moral minority pretend like they are eroding ground against the immoral raiders every day. Yet, in 6 years, nothing had changed.

[Tiberius]

@ DoorNail: Theres no need to continue arguing. You already have people fighting your battle for you. Its not helping your situation here. I do sympathise with your situation, but silence is the best bet for you now. GOONs wont lose any PR from this anyway.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Nintenderek' timestamp='1350445702' post='3042056']
Except they aren't unaligned by their standards.
[/quote]

So GOONS has to live by THEIR standards, but cannot define the standards for themselves. Is not that the opposite of sovereignty? This is not a complex situation. By and large, nearly every alliance that raids, sets the bar at 10 nations. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. This is not something new. If you have less than 10 members, and you have not sough out protection.... TOUGH LUCK FOR YOU. Its not going away in CN. Its not going to change. Even if our "side" gets toppled... the raiding rules will NOT change. The same tired arguments have persisted for 6 years now, and yet here we still are with 10 nations being the almost universal standard.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1350493323' post='3042179']
This logic does not seem to coincide with history. We have been without treaties for years now and we have lots of "stuff". The only time any stuff has been taken from us is when we offered it up on a silver platter which my Nephew Brehon will I'm sure substantiate. Take our "stuff"....please!
[/quote]

Drop below 10 members, and get back to me. I believe in observing our rules.

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350599062' post='3042671']
So GOONS has to live by THEIR standards, but cannot define the standards for themselves. Is not that the opposite of sovereignty? This is not a complex situation. By and large, nearly every alliance that raids, sets the bar at 10 nations. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. This is not something new. If you have less than 10 members, and you have not sough out protection.... TOUGH LUCK FOR YOU. Its not going away in CN. Its not going to change. Even if our "side" gets toppled... the raiding rules will NOT change. The same tired arguments have persisted for 6 years now, and yet here we still are with 10 nations being the almost universal standard.
[/quote]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

GOONS can define whatever standards they want provided that said standards do not affect the rights to exist of someone else.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1350599479' post='3042674']
"
GOONS can define whatever standards they want provided that said standards do not affect the rights to exist of someone else.
[/quote]

Ironic coming from a man who so loudly defended NpO's war on \m/.

So by D34th standards we know :

1) Offering to show someone a pic of their genitalia in a public IRC channel is a solid reason to start a global war with billions of casualties(the largest of which was NpO's reputation).
2) Raiding a nation in a consistent manner with your own alliances raiding rules is immoral and should be stamped out.

No really, you make perfect sense.

[mattski133]

nvm. no point in continuing this.

Edited October 18, 2012 by mattski133

[DoorNail]

[quote name='Cress' timestamp='1350598968' post='3042670']
@ DoorNail: Theres no need to continue arguing. You already have people fighting your battle for you. Its not helping your situation here. I do sympathise with your situation, but silence is the best bet for you now. GOONs wont lose any PR from this anyway.
[/quote]

If they didn't try to twist the facts like they've done from the start, there would be less posts? GOONS loves the attention anyway, doubt you find many that don't like to be noticed out here and you've got to have some good PR to lose some

@ Rush Sykes... nobody is saying we didn't qualify to be raided, it's what came after, the defense of TSL, the sanctions for defending ect ect.

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350599781' post='3042675']
Ironic coming from a man who so loudly defended NpO's war on \m/.

So by D34th standards we know :

1) Offering to show someone a pic of their genitalia in a public IRC channel is a solid reason to start a global war with billions of casualties(the largest of which was NpO's reputation).
2) Raiding a nation in a consistent manner with your own alliances raiding rules is immoral and should be stamped out.

No really, you make perfect sense.
[/quote]

Nice to see your best counter point to my argument is a war that happened +2 years ago and that has as mainly reason the fact NpO was trying to defend the right of alliances to exist without having their existence threatened by \m/, alliance who where incapable of follow their own charter.

Just because an alliance set some stupid rules doesn't mean they're fair and should be accepted for the whole world mainly when said rule affect the right to exist of others who aren't under the jurisdiction of said alliance. I know I make perfect sense only taking a look at your answer who instead of address my argument, avoid it to make the discussion to be about another subject.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='DoorNail' timestamp='1350600647' post='3042683']
If they didn't try to twist the facts like they've done from the start, there would be less posts? GOONS loves the attention anyway, doubt you find many that don't like to be noticed out here and you've got to have some good PR to lose some

@ Rush Sykes... nobody is saying we didn't qualify to be raided, it's what came after, the defense of TSL, the sanctions for defending ect ect.
[/quote]

What came after was, instead of you just going to your friends in PPO and getting a protectorate, and calling it a day (which seems like it would have been ridiculously easy to do)... You chose to hit a nation that was not raiding you, while you were not being raided yourself. I know you view this as defending your alliance, but if you are going to lead an alliance, you cannot be ignorant of the standards as they exist on Planet Bob, then express shock and horror over those standards when the smack you in the face. If the raids went on for weeks, and you still didnt secure that protection in that time, then I submit to you that you are incapable of leading an alliance. Sorry, its just the reality of it.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1350600930' post='3042684']
Nice to see your best counter point to my argument is a war that happened +2 years ago and that has as mainly reason the fact NpO was trying to defend the right of alliances to exist without having their existence threatened by \m/, alliance who where incapable of follow their own charter.

Just because an alliance set some stupid rules doesn't mean they're fair and should be accepted for the whole world mainly when said rule affect the right to exist of others who aren't under the jurisdiction of said alliance. I know I make perfect sense only taking a look at your answer who instead of address my argument, avoid it to make the discussion to be about another subject.
[/quote]

The comparison of what happened 2 years ago is relevant because you have shouted time and again, to anyone who would listen, that you are consistent, and you have never changed. Your alliance leadership insisted to ANYONE who would listen... ANYONE.... that you were not going to war with \m/ over raiding. You cannot have it both ways. Either you meant what you said, and are consistent, or you are just looking to renew the same tired talking points against raiders that have existed for 6 years.

It is time for you to move on and accept that raiding is ALWAYS going to happen.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[BloodFury]

Why are any of you even trying to bother arguing with these people? It's obviously not going anywhere.

[DoorNail]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350601067' post='3042685']
What came after was, instead of you just going to your friends in PPO and getting a protectorate, and calling it a day (which seems like it would have been ridiculously easy to do)... You chose to hit a nation that was not raiding you, while you were not being raided yourself. I know you view this as defending your alliance, but if you are going to lead an alliance, you cannot be ignorant of the standards as they exist on Planet Bob, then express shock and horror over those standards when the smack you in the face. If the raids went on for weeks, and you still didnt secure that protection in that time, then I submit to you that you are incapable of leading an alliance. Sorry, its just the reality of it.
[/quote]

The problem with your argument is that GOONS would've been dictating our treaties for us, since we didn't have a protector and were thinking of going without treaties and as far as hitting a nation that didn't raid, their leader probably shouldn't have intentionally ignored PM's that he knew were from an active 100K NS nation, in the same alliance they were stomping with multiple raids.

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350601181' post='3042686']
The comparison of what happened 2 years ago is relevant because you have shouted time and again, to anyone who would listen, that you are consistent, and you have never changed. Your alliance leadership insisted to ANYONE who would listen... ANYONE.... that you were not going to war with \m/ over raiding. You cannot have it both ways. Either you meant what you said, and are consistent, or you are just looking to renew the same tired talking points against raiders that have existed for 6 years.

It is time for you to move on and accept that raiding is ALWAYS going to happen.
[/quote]

I accepted long ago that raid will always going to happen, I'm even member of an alliance who allow raids, but there are raids and raids. My alliance allows raid only under strictly conditions:


[quote]
RULES

[b]1. STA member nations may not attack aligned* nations or nations on the white team whether the nation is aligned* or not.[/b]

2. STA member nations may not tech raid an unaligned nation that is in an offensive war with an aligned nation; or an unaligned nation that is under attack by aligned nations with a reason for war** suggesting the aligned nations are engaging the unaligned nation in response to a rogue attack on their alliance. This is considered war slot filling on rogue nations and prevents an alliance defending its members from rogue attacks.

3. STA members who fail to follow Rule 2 above will be expected to peace out their war with the unaligned nation if possible. If that is not possible they will be required to fight at full strength for the duration of the war, and may be expected to pay reasonable reparations to the aggrieved alliance if a stagger has been ruined. This is in addition to any standard penalties for breaking tech raiding rules.

[b]4. When you declare war in a tech raid you are responsible for the consequences. Tech raiding is done at your own risk.[/b]

[b]5. If, as a result of initiating a tech raid, your nation is attacked by allies of your victim or your victim overpowers you, you must seek peace with your victim and his allies if you so desire.[/b]

[b]6. The STA will not go to war to bail you out of a tech raid that has gone bad.[/b]

7. The STA will not aid you to recover from a tech raid gone bad. Individual member nations may aid you but will not do so until peace has been declared.

[b]8. The STA will not intimidate or threaten the victim of the tech raid to force them to pay reparations to the STA member nation that initiated the tech raid that went bad.[/b]

9. The STA will not force the STA member to pay reparations to a nation that was unaligned* at the time the tech raid was initiated.

10. The STA will force the STA member that initiated a tech raid against a white team nation or an aligned* nation on any team to declare peace and pay reparations for damages caused to the victim.

11. Refusal to declare peace and/or pay reparations pertaining to Rule 10 above will result in the STA member being expelled.

12. If your tech raid target wishes to join an alliance then the STA nation will grant the nation peace to allow them to join their chosen alliance.

13. STA nations that repeatedly attack aligned* nations or members of the white team without authorisation will be expelled from the alliance.

14. No STA nation is authorised to use nuclear weapons without permission from the Supreme Chancellor at any time, including during a tech raid.

[b]15. No STA nation is permitted to extort money, troops or technology from a Tech Raid target as a requirement for obtaining peace.[/b]

* an aligned nation is a nation with something other than "None" in the Alliance Affiliation field of their nation's page on Cybernations.

** Reasons for war that pertain to an alliance defending a member from a rogue attack could be, but are not limited to, "stagger," "rogue," "alliance war," "defense of x". If in doubt please ask a member of the Consilium Tigris for clarification before raiding.
[/quote]

I highlighted the main parts, as you can see there are a huge difference between a normal raid and what GOONS do, that I'll never accept.

[KenMorningstar]

So if you have a raid, then someone who was not being raided attacks another of your nations who was not raiding and said it was defense, you would just let it happen? I highly doubt it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Tir Nan Og

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='DoorNail' timestamp='1350601930' post='3042693']
The problem with your argument is that GOONS would've been dictating our treaties for us, since we didn't have a protector and were thinking of going without treaties and as far as hitting a nation that didn't raid, their leader probably shouldn't have intentionally ignored PM's that he knew were from an active 100K NS nation, in the same alliance they were stomping with multiple raids.
[/quote]
You are wrong, and short-sighted. It is an absolute 100% incontrovertible fact, that had it not been GOONS, it would have been someone else. You cannot sit there and be ignorant of what CN has always been. AAs with no protection and less than 10 members are raid fodder. Always have been, always will be. Nothing you or anyone else says or does, is going to change that. If it is your intent to lead an alliance in this game, then it is your responsibility to ensure the safety of your members. At the very minimum that means taking 5 minutes to get a protector. You failed to do so. I truly could care less if your in game PMs were ignored. No meaningful negotiations are going to be handled by in-game PMs. They are too unreliable. Most people dont even log in daily. Like it or not.. the community has set these standards from trial and error. You can either be ignorant of them, and run into problems like this, or you can understand them, and head them off. The choice was yours. You made the wrong one.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350599062' post='3042671']


So GOONS has to live by THEIR standards, but cannot define the standards for themselves. Is not that the opposite of sovereignty? This is not a complex situation. By and large, nearly every alliance that raids, sets the bar at 10 nations. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. This is not something new. If you have less than 10 members, and you have not sough out protection.... TOUGH LUCK FOR YOU. Its not going away in CN. Its not going to change. Even if our "side" gets toppled... the raiding rules will NOT change. The same tired arguments have persisted for 6 years now, and yet here we still are with 10 nations being the almost universal standard.
[/quote]
Raiding has and will always be and your right the number of members need to be recognized has historically been 10, what is different is that it has also been that when a raid fights back your on your own from an alliance perspective rather than bring the force of the alliance and allies down on the raid victims

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1350603164' post='3042701']
Raiding has and will always be and your right the number of members need to be recognized has historically been 10, what is different is that it has also been that when a raid fights back your on your own from an alliance perspective rather than bring the force of the alliance and allies down on the raid victims
[/quote]

In the case of DoorNail, he was never raided, hence your statement folds in on itself. Further, DoorNails target did not raid anyone from DoorNails alliance. In DoorNail's individual case, he made his choice. He made a poor choice, indicative of a poor leader. Its not as though gaining a protectorate is a difficult thing to do. Had GOONS raided DoorNail, I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment, but they did not.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350603408' post='3042703']
In the case of DoorNail, he was never raided, hence your statement folds in on itself. Further, DoorNails target did not raid anyone from DoorNails alliance. In DoorNail's individual case, he made his choice. He made a poor choice, indicative of a poor leader. Its not as though gaining a protectorate is a difficult thing to do. Had GOONS raided DoorNail, I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment, but they did not.
[/quote]
Well as a former advocate of raiding I can and do see your point but at the same time, while the masses do not recognize this micro as an allaince they do and at Doornails size he couldn't come to the direct defense of his mates so he struck out at a member of the enemy allaince that was in his range. I can and do see both sides in the Doornail specific situation but I do speak out agressively against a policy like GOONS that punish raids that fight back in general.

[Schattenmann]

Here we go, the Rush Sykes and his World Famous Magic Shifting Goalposts Show

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350601067' post='3042685']
What came after was, instead of you just going to your friends in PPO and getting a protectorate, and calling it a day (which seems like it would have been ridiculously easy to do)... You chose to hit a nation that was not raiding you, while you were not being raided yourself. I know you view this as defending your alliance, but if you are going to lead an alliance, you cannot be ignorant of the standards as they exist on Planet Bob, then express shock and horror over those standards when the smack you in the face. If the raids went on for weeks, and you still didnt secure that protection in that time, then I submit to you that you are incapable of leading an alliance. Sorry, its just the reality of it.
[/quote]
You should have contacted GOONS!!!!!

DoorNails: I contacted Sardonic on several occasions.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1350602340' post='3042698']
You are wrong, and short-sighted. It is an absolute 100% incontrovertible fact, that had it not been GOONS, it would have been someone else. You cannot sit there and be ignorant of what CN has always been. AAs with no protection and less than 10 members are raid fodder. Always have been, always will be. Nothing you or anyone else says or does, is going to change that. If it is your intent to lead an alliance in this game, then it is your responsibility to ensure the safety of your members. At the very minimum that means taking 5 minutes to get a protector. You failed to do so. I truly could care less if your in game PMs were ignored. No meaningful negotiations are going to be handled by in-game PMs. They are too unreliable. Most people dont even log in daily. Like it or not.. the community has set these standards from trial and error. You can either be ignorant of them, and run into problems like this, or you can understand them, and head them off. The choice was yours. You made the wrong one.
[/quote]
. . . Well then you shouldn't exist and you should have contacted GOONS [i]differently[/i]!


What about "hey, you're raiding my alliance, cut it out" requires in-depth IRC conversations? This situation is a result of GOONS refusal to speak to DoorNail based on their autofellatory "policy" of not negotiating with raid targets since they're not "people" to begin with. It wouldn't have mattered if DoorNail got on IRC or called Sardonic on the telephone, since we all know that Sardonic wouldn't have been doing any actual negotiating or resolving to begin with.
Sardonic knew exactly what would happen when a 100k NS nation got in touch with him and asked him to stop raiding his alliance, refused, and continued attacks.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Schattenmann

[King Wally]

As with Merrie I was a former advocate of raiding as well and still am today to some degree but I still feel there is a right and a wrong way to go about it. Punishing and Extorting cash from micro alliances that fight back is just plain wrong. You poke the bear you deal with the fight that comes and you man up and accept the damage you created, you dont go to the courts with your legal team demanding compensation for the results of your own edgy actions.

[mattski133]

so have we all agreed that we abide by different charters and can go home now?

[Nintenderek]

[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1350602240' post='3042696']
So if you have a raid, then someone who was not being raided attacks another of your nations who was not raiding and said it was defense, you would just let it happen? I highly doubt it.
[/quote]


Finally. The first logical thing someone from your alliance has posted. And you are correct, I wouldn't just let it go. However, I certainly wouldn't add them to a PZI list over it. I'd try my best to negotiate peace and I probably wouldn't demand reps. I would then send my own money and/or tech (that I just won through raiding) to the member of my alliance as compensation.