WarriorConcept Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I do not doubt that people enjoy ruining another nation's day. I just don't understand why they do. I believe your whole argument is in that line. Want to know why? OOC: IT'S A GAME IC: Sovereign nation's rights, etc. Their right is to be none, other's rights are to raid them. Also the none can also choose to defend himself, it's his right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shardoon Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 This thread is thick. All the cool kids are playing here. It took me about 50 minutes, but I just read this freakin' thread from beginning to end. Well worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 This thread is thick. All the cool kids are playing here. It took me about 50 minutes, but I just read this freakin' thread from beginning to end. Well worth it. >_> No it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 OOC: IT'S A GAME OOC: I understand that it's fun to play the bad guy sometimes if you have legitimate goals that oppose the prevailing guidelines of morality. I don't understand how it's fun to play a jerk and mess with people just because you can, particularly when they do nothing to deserve it. IC: Sovereign nation's rights, etc. Their right is to be none, other's rights are to raid them. Also the none can also choose to defend himself, it's his right. IC: It is a sovereign right to violate a nation's sovereign rights? I've yet to actually receive any adequate justification of this premise. Would you care to provide it for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno1138 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Who is going to stop him? Thats why it is a soverign right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 What does "sovereign" mean to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 IC: It is a sovereign right to violate a nation's sovereign rights? I've yet to actually receive any adequate justification of this premise. Would you care to provide it for me? So based on your argument, ur saying that nones should be left alone and never attacked by anyone. If you are all about fairness then you would also agree that if the nones shouldnt be attacked, neither should anyone else. in which case you are saying that the creators of CN shouldnt have put in the war aspect. "Its their sovereign right to be none and ours to attack them" has nothing to do with violating their rights. We are allowing them to be none. Now, if we were to force them into our alliance, then i could see how you would say that we are violating their rights to be none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 So based on your argument, ur saying that nones should be left alone and never attacked by anyone. If you are all about fairness then you would also agree that if the nones shouldnt be attacked, neither should anyone else. in which case you are saying that the creators of CN shouldnt have put in the war aspect."Its their sovereign right to be none and ours to attack them" has nothing to do with violating their rights. We are allowing them to be none. Now, if we were to force them into our alliance, then i could see how you would say that we are violating their rights to be none. I struck the ooc content. If you want to discuss that, post it on an OOC board. Without it Yes, morally speaking (this is what the 'should' in your statement indicates) no one should be subject to unprovoked violence. You're saying that force recruiting (using force to make a nation join an alliance) is wrong, but somehow simply randomly attacking them for no reason other than to kill their citizens and steal their money is ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I struck the ooc content. If you want to discuss that, post it on an OOC board. Without itYes, morally speaking (this is what the 'should' in your statement indicates) no one should be subject to unprovoked violence. You're saying that force recruiting (using force to make a nation join an alliance) is wrong, but somehow simply randomly attacking them for no reason other than to kill their citizens and steal their money is ok? I guess i didnt word that right.But regardless, it would be ok if you are arguing for a nations right to remain none. They are still none and no none is contesting that. THey are just being attacked. Force Recruiting would be a violation of their sovereignty because you are making them change from None and join an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 OOC: I understand that it's fun to play the bad guy sometimes if you have legitimate goals that oppose the prevailing guidelines of morality. I don't understand how it's fun to play a jerk and mess with people just because you can, particularly when they do nothing to deserve it.IC: It is a sovereign right to violate a nation's sovereign rights? I've yet to actually receive any adequate justification of this premise. Would you care to provide it for me? OOC: lol IC: Yes, and "for the lulz" Or, "for your tex" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I do not doubt that people enjoy ruining another nation's day. I just don't understand why they do. Really? Are one to two land attacks REALLY going to be so terribly disruptive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 6 attacks every day certainly would be. I defy you to run a successful nation while you're losing over 100 infra a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 6 attacks every day certainly would be. I defy you to run a successful nation while you're losing over 100 infra a day. I defy you to read the rules of this contest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 6 attacks every day certainly would be. I defy you to run a successful nation while you're losing over 100 infra a day. It would be disruptive, but that is beyond the scope of this potential policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 So based on your argument, ur saying that nones should be left alone and never attacked by anyone. If you are all about fairness then you would also agree that if the nones shouldnt be attacked, neither should anyone else. in which case you are saying that the creators of CN shouldnt have put in the war aspect. That's not my argument at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't attack nations that are unaligned, because that would be a double standard. Nations in alliances get attacked, and the unaligned should not be excluded. The current difference is that people don't attack aligned nations without some sort of reason or justification due to some grievance either with that nation specifically or with the alliance it belongs to. That's why I've been saying that if you really think I deserve to be attacked for what I'm saying here, you should do it. Likewise, if an unaligned nation does something to step on your toes, I'm not going to lecture you if you decide to hit them. I will, however, lecture you if you decided to hit an unaligned nation that has done nothing to deserve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 That's not my argument at all.I'm not saying you shouldn't attack nations that are unaligned, because that would be a double standard. Nations in alliances get attacked, and the unaligned should not be excluded. The current difference is that people don't attack aligned nations without some sort of reason or justification due to some grievance either with that nation specifically or with the alliance it belongs to. That's why I've been saying that if you really think I deserve to be attacked for what I'm saying here, you should do it. Likewise, if an unaligned nation does something to step on your toes, I'm not going to lecture you if you decide to hit them. I will, however, lecture you if you decided to hit an unaligned nation that has done nothing to deserve it. That is one of the major benefits of an alliance, protection. An alliance has the right to attack whoever it wants, just like individual nations. However, you probably won't be targeted if you're in an alliance. The basic rule of CN is that any nation can attack another, aligned nations dodge this rule and if some nations choose to not joiin an alliance they will face the consequences. This is a very basic argument, should be easy to pick up on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 This is a very basic argument, should be easy to pick up on. You say that alliances provide protection, but your argument does not address why a nation should need protecting if they do nothing to warrant being harmed; you simply assume the premise that they will be harmed as a "consequence" of remaining unaligned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You say that alliances provide protection, but your argument does not address why a nation should need protecting if they do nothing to warrant being harmed; you simply assume the premise that they will be harmed as a "consequence" of remaining unaligned. The thing is nations don't need to do anything to get attacked. People see them, and decide to attack for a multitude of reasons. Through war you can meet people, have a fun time, raid them, make fun of them, act like a dick ...the possibilities are endless, however that does not mean you cannot show your opponent some respect. Sometimes people war to have fun, other times people war to directly benefit their nation (sometimes 1 and 2 are the same) and other times wars are for different reasons. The thing is most people will do whatever they want unless there is a sufficient enough deterrant. For some, their own morals may prohibit them from performing an action. For others, they have been in a similar situation and wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Some people a threat is all that is needed. Yet others need a show of force to prevent them from doing an action to certain people. If you are alone, with noone else in your AA, you look weak, and exactly how a target should look (barring nukes ). The way this works is this: If you are in an AA with lots of people in it, and with more powerful nations than the raider has, the raider won't attack you. If you have a more militarily powerful nation than the raider does, if he's smart he won't attack you. the reasons for both these decisions are because the raider would potentially take more damage than profitable. If you have noone in your AA, and you are not as militarily powerful as a raider, you may get attacked simply because you do not pose sufficient deterrant to being attacked. This is a might makes right world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 This is a might makes right world This is the essential truth, and while some of us may stand in our ivory towers in alliances and put our limited political weight against it, it will continue to be so for a long time. Tritonia, your argument is basically 'it is wrong', and you are vulnerable to the devastating counter argument ... "So what? What are you going to do about it?". The world is full of aggressive nation leaders and it is necessary to group together to avoid them, as there is no international law enforcement to protect the vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrim Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 So, is this "gameshow" continuing or have RAD bottled it? Yeah, thats it. They have bottled it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The thing is nations don't need to do anything to get attacked. And I think that's an unfortunate aspect of our current culture. People see them, and decide to attack for a multitude of reasons. Through war you can meet people, have a fun time, raid them, make fun of them, act like a dick ...the possibilities are endless, however that does not mean you cannot show your opponent some respect. How is invading another country for fun and profit an act of respect? Granted, there are things you can do during a tech raid that are less disrespectful, but I fail to see how instigating a raid can be respectful. Sometimes people war to have fun, other times people war to directly benefit their nation (sometimes 1 and 2 are the same) and other times wars are for different reasons. If there are so many nations out there that want to go to war because they find it fun, why don't they fight each other? I presume it'd be much more interesting that way, both parties would enjoy it, and it would bring the two nations closer. the reasons for both these decisions are because the raider would potentially take more damage than profitable. The "make tech raiding less profitable and people will stop" argument has already been tested. I was there. I did it. It didn't work. This is a might makes right world. It doesn't need to be. And I've yet to understand why people enjoy living in such a world. This is the essential truth, and while some of us may stand in our ivory towers in alliances and put our limited political weight against it, it will continue to be so for a long time. I don't mind if it takes a long time. Taking a long time would actually be better. Tritonia, your argument is basically 'it is wrong', and you are vulnerable to the devastating counter argument ... "So what? What are you going to do about it?". I'm going to keep up the satyagraha to the best of my abilities. The world is full of aggressive nation leaders and it is necessary to group together to avoid them, as there is no international law enforcement to protect the vulnerable. Compassion needs no law; nor could any law enforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 You say that alliances provide protection, but your argument does not address why a nation should need protecting if they do nothing to warrant being harmed; you simply assume the premise that they will be harmed as a "consequence" of remaining unaligned. I assume the every nation is liable to attack, which is a truth in Cybernations. However an aligned nation, under the protection of an alliance, averts this truth by greatly reducing his odds of being attacked. There is no reason why those who don't choose to avert this truth should expect not to follow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuterium Dawn Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Compassion needs no law; nor could any law enforce it. Compassion? This is a world where people celebrate casualties. There is no compassion on Planet Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) I assume the every nation is liable to attack, which is a truth in Cybernations. However an aligned nation, under the protection of an alliance, averts this truth by greatly reducing his odds of being attacked. I do not dispute with you the idea that every nation is liable to attack. My dispute is with the subjugation of the unaligned endorsed by alliances as either resources to be farmed or targets to be practiced on. How do you justify this? There is no reason why those who don't choose to avert this truth should expect not to follow it. I do not understand what you mean here. If I'm following correctly, "those who don't choose to avert this truth" refers to the unaligned who do not seek "protection" by being in an alliance. What part of the "truth"- that is, that every nation is liable to attack- are they "not following"? Edited February 20, 2009 by Tritonia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I do not dispute with you the idea that every nation is liable to attack. My dispute is with the subjugation of the unaligned endorsed by alliances as either resources to be farmed or targets to be practiced on. How do you justify this? A sovereign alliance has a right to do whatever it wants. If you don't want to attack unaligned nations, thats fine. However there is nothing unjust about an alliance that does attack unaligned nations no matter what the circumstances. I do not understand what you mean here. If I'm following correctly, "those who don't choose to avert this truth" refers to the unaligned who do not seek "protection" by being in an alliance. What part of the "truth"- that is, that every nation is liable to attack- are they "not following"? Unaligned nations, by not joining an alliance, are then liable to be attacked by any nation. Aligned nations are an exception from the rule, whereas unaligned nations are just playing a normal chaotic Cyber Nations. Since it's a choice not to join, it's completely fair to have attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.