Announcing The Bus Doctrine

[Olliee]

If you're not in an alliance, you're not protected. You choose not to be a part of a stable community with all the pluses that come with it. If you're unaligned and not in peace mode, you're calling out to be raided; and so you should be.

Nations should look after themselves and alliances going that one step further; spheres looking after spheres? Eh, no.

[Elric]

There is a huge difference between raiding (2 ground attacks followed by peace) and flat out bullying, which involves using unnecessary force to really no reason but to exert your right over another nation. The latter is what is BS, and we will not stand for it.

I think it is honorable to strive for the protection of all Pink sphere members, aligned or unaligned. However, I regard tech raiding as an abhorent practice. It is a euphemism for war, nothing more. Raiding is bullying. What is honorable about limiting attacks to ground warfare only? A sovereign nation's soldiers die when attacked. This is OK as long as you don't destroy any infrastructure in the process? You are stealing a country's hard-earned technology, and that's OK as long as you don't destroy infrastructure? And if a nation leader responds to unprovoked aggression with all possible means available (which destroys infrastructure along with soldiers...instead of just soldiers) then they are a horrible leader for defending their people? For all of the flowery speeches about the relative unimportantance of infrastructure when it comes to war, methinks that many folks doth protest a bit too much...

Edit: for spelling.

Edited April 4, 2009 by BigKat

[Elric]

If you're not in an alliance, you're not protected. You choose not to be a part of a stable community with all the pluses that come with it. If you're unaligned and not in peace mode, you're calling out to be raided; and so you should be.

Nations should look after themselves and alliances going that one step further; spheres looking after spheres? Eh, no.

Olliee, I am not attacking you personally by quoting you, but statements such as yours make me sad. And please clarify your final statement- why cannot spheres look after themselves? It seems a natural progression from nations to alliances, which you feel is OK.

[Sebastian]

What are you, the CN Tech Raid Police? Everyone can do whatever they want to unalligned nations. The thing with Red team is that it belongs to NPO, so no one can really argue against them protecting Red team. As for this however, Pink team is not owned by anyone, so this doctrine will get all of you guys beat down.

Would you kindly direct me to the place where alliances may buy spheres?

[astronaut jones]

Would you kindly direct me to the place where alliances may buy spheres?

I've got a warchest of like, 9 million, that should be enough to buy brown and to get 250 tech. Wanna go in on that with me?

[Wad of Lint]

I know this is answering felix, but as an unaligned nation I really would prefer you just pm me for money and tech rather than attacking. That would be even more gentlemanly and civilized from my unaligned perspective.

I'm quite serious, too.

Just tell your alliance members to ask me any time and I'll send tech and money if you will promise not to attack me simply for being unaligned.

General Specific, you have made my list of awesome, but you're opening up a can of worms. DON'T PUBLICLY DECLARE THAT. You're opening yourself up for extortion.

In the rules that we decided on it states that if you hit someone and they end up beating you senseless, thats your fault for raiding. You knew what you were getting into from the start. If the target calls friends in then we will hop on the friends. And after the war is over we will most likely help out after the war is over. But we havent run into that yet and i dont think we will

Thanks Newhotty

I just thought I recalled a situation where one of Mr. Bill's raids went janky and was subsequently nuked. I could be wrong, but I thought at the time he was seeking to get the nation ZI'd. Now, this was just following my resignation from RAD, so obviously I may be misinformed.

If you're not in an alliance, you're not protected. You choose not to be a part of a stable community with all the pluses that come with it. If you're unaligned and not in peace mode, you're calling out to be raided; and so you should be.

Nations should look after themselves and alliances going that one step further; spheres looking after spheres? Eh, no.

How about this? We don't raid.

It's no less moral to kill a man just because he doesn't have a family. You still bludgeoned him with a spoon, ceiling fan, or other blunt object.

[agafaba]

So far I see 2 major arguments, and let me sum them up.

1. You tech raid like so many large nations, but because you are on CN forums we will blame you for everything

2. I dont want you taking away my ability to overkill pink tech targets. You have no right to limit my tech stealing choices.

As for #1, you have 2 choices... They keep this up and unaligned dont get destroyed in tech raids or they stop this like you seem to want them to and nobody cares if unaligned are attacked with CM, aircraft, navy, nukes and gang beat.

As for #2, seriously? You have no right to limit my raiding of your alliance members, or for NPO to limit my raiding of red. See why it just looks silly? If you really want to send CMs and aircraft so bad when you tech raid pink then make sure your alliance is ready to fight with the people who signed this. I doubt there are many alliances willing to defend the idea of going all out in tech raids as they would get worse PR over it then the tech raid show.

EDIT - for clarity

Edited April 4, 2009 by agafaba

[astronaut jones]

So far I see 2 major arguments, and let me sum them up.

1. You tech raid like so many large nations, but because you are on CN forums we will blame you for everything

2. I dont want you taking away my pink tech targets. You have no right to limit my tech stealing choices.

As for #1, you have 2 choices... They keep this up and unaligned dont get destroyed in tech raids or they stop this like you seem to want them to and nobody cares if unaligned are attacked with CM, aircraft, navy, nukes and gang beat.

As for #2, seriously? You have no right to limit my raiding of your alliance members, or for NPO to limit my raiding of red. See why it just looks silly?

except the doctrine doesn't stop people from raiding pink at all, just so long as they're not dicks about it.

[TwistedRebelDB47]

So far I see 2 major arguments, and let me sum them up.

1. You tech raid like so many large nations, but because you are on CN forums we will blame you for everything

2. I dont want you taking away my pink tech targets. You have no right to limit my tech stealing choices.

As for #1, you have 2 choices... They keep this up and unaligned dont get destroyed in tech raids or they stop this like you seem to want them to and nobody cares if unaligned are attacked with CM, aircraft, navy, nukes and gang beat.

As for #2, seriously? You have no right to limit my raiding of your alliance members, or for NPO to limit my raiding of red. See why it just looks silly?

Go re-read the topic. Always funny when someone walks into a topic with no idea what they're talking about.

I think it's foolish that you believe it's perfectly okay to forcefully steal from a nation. Any moral argument from the side of raiders simply cannot be made without being hypocritical. For once you've used force to steal from another, it matters not how much force you use, but that you used any at all.

You don't think its better to have rules in place to not use CM's and aircraft? You think there's no difference between two ground attacks and nuking a tech raid just for fun? Yes, raiding is stealing; but there's absolutely no reason to pound a nation to the point where they want to quit. For everyone who's making stealing or mugging analogies, its always going to look bad. If you can't agree that killing someone is different from roughing them up, I don't know what can convince you.

The Pink sphere is a sphere we as PWN alliances call home, and its our responsibility to make sure its taken care of to the best of our abilities.

[Olliee]

Olliee, I am not attacking you personally by quoting you, but statements such as yours make me sad. And please clarify your final statement- why cannot spheres look after themselves? It seems a natural progression from nations to alliances, which you feel is OK.

If we take this in the real world, then you -never- see continents looking after themselves, do you? Spheres are the most likely equal to continents, and they don't really care.

But on a CN level, because that is what alliances are for; you join an alliance for protection and to get involved. You become a part of a community above others. Suddenly, unaligned nations need not to fear being unaligned, because they're in a specific sphere, so they won't get attacked (which is usually a reason for joining an alliance). Not only does it undermine the point of an alliance, but it also grants immunity to particular spheres.

This is, of course, my view.

[astronaut jones]

Go re-read the topic. Always funny when someone walks into a topic with no idea what they're talking about.

You don't think its better to have rules in place to not use CM's and aircraft? You think there's no difference between two ground attacks and nuking a tech raid just for fun? Yes, raiding is stealing; but there's absolutely no reason to pound a nation to the point where they want to quit. For everyone who's making stealing or mugging analogies, its always going to look bad. If you can't agree that killing someone is different from roughing them up, I don't know what can convince you.

The Pink sphere is a sphere we as PWN alliances call home, and its our responsibility to make sure its taken care of to the best of our abilities.

If you still have the 10 commandments as part of the PC raiding rules, doesn't it say in there, I think like 3 or 4 times, that raiding is theft? I like how people keep chiming in on this topic when they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Especially the TPF folks.

Hi TPF.

[agafaba]

Go re-read the topic. Always funny when someone walks into a topic with no idea what they're talking about.

#2 was in response to people saying that you shouldnt be allowed to put any limits on tech raids, I should reword it so that it doesnt sound like I am referring to getting rid of tech raids altogether.

Also I have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading all 27 pages, although I skimmed the odd one.

[ChairmanHal]

If we take this in the real world, then you -never- see continents looking after themselves, do you? Spheres are the most likely equal to continents, and they don't really care.

But on a CN level, because that is what alliances are for; you join an alliance for protection and to get involved. You become a part of a community above others. Suddenly, unaligned nations need not to fear being unaligned, because they're in a specific sphere, so they won't get attacked (which is usually a reason for joining an alliance). Not only does it undermine the point of an alliance, but it also grants immunity to particular spheres.

This is, of course, my view.

As created by "the holy admin" Teams were supposed to be alliances. You joined a team to get the benefits of being a member, which included a significant economic bonus (+5 Happiness if you can manage it).

What soon developed however were divisions within Teams. Also, some Teams turned out not to be particularly popular and no sort of Team unified government ever developed.

If you want to see what Planet Bob would be like had it evolved as created, just take a look at Red team. While not 100% united in all respects, it comes closest.

As for raiding...

Raiding now is done for reasons other than just tech, much is now why I refer to it as 'raiding' and not 'tech raiding'. The problem with banning it is that there is simply no interalliance will to do so and enforce the ban.

Also, what makes raiding a "tech raid" and not a legitimate training exercise? Large alliances and even some medium to small ones engage to "field training exercises" where unaligned and small alliances end up being the target of ground attacks that were it not for official government sanction could easily be categorized as raiding. Are we now going to make ODN post an announcement every time a couple dozen of their people are on military maneuvers? I think not.

Talk of banning all raiding is just plain silly. Talk about raiding and what constitutes proper raiding and conduct on field training exercises however is not silly and should happen more often so we can avoid those situations that break down into extortion attempts, crippling raiding that drives people from Planet Bob, etc.

[Count Rupert]

...so we can avoid those situations that break down into extortion attempts, crippling raiding that drives people from Planet Bob, etc.

It doesn't take crippling raids to drive people from the game. I know of a number of people who left because they tired of the constant rash of so called "honorable" raids inflicted on their nations. One tech raid may not be difficult to overcome, but it's never just one. Death by one crippling wound or by a thousand cuts is just as dead.

[Newhotness]

Thanks Newhotty

I just thought I recalled a situation where one of Mr. Bill's raids went janky and was subsequently nuked. I could be wrong, but I thought at the time he was seeking to get the nation ZI'd. Now, this was just following my resignation from RAD, so obviously I may be misinformed.

Well with that, some people may have wanted him ZI'd but i said no cuz it went against the rules

I cried IRL when you left

Edited April 4, 2009 by Newhotness

[Wad of Lint]

Well with that, some people may have wanted him ZI'd but i said no cuz it went against the rules

I cried IRL when you left

Good man.

I still miss those nights we had together.

[JBone]

I have been pondering this for a bit and need some clarification on certain aspects of this Doctrine.

It's an open question to PC...and whatever the other two alliances are that came up with this.

Say someone just feels like having a war...for whatever reason, not just to loot tech or gain land.

The target they choose, or perhaps the only one available in their range happens to be on Pink.

Maybe they are bored, maybe they want to test out their boats or the effects of their new WRC or nuke performance...whatever. But it is NOT for the purpose of gaining tech...and 2 GAs just won't suffice.

Am I to understand that this would fall under the category of bullying...and therefore this nation could petition this pink court thing to help them?

Looks like most of the posts here specifically speak of tech raids, but as others have already mentioned....training/just being aggressive/battle tests...whatever, all seem to be included if I read this correctly.

The Bus Doctrine

Preamble:

In the interests of the growth and prosperity of the Pink Team, the undersigned alliances hereby enter into the protection of the Pink Team.

Article I: Pink Court and Protection Requests

Hence forth unaligned nations residing on the Pink Team shall be under the protection the signatories of this document, should they come under attack and request protection through the pink court. Specifically, once an unaligned pink nation has come under attack, they are encouraged to bring their case to the Pink Court (located at the PWN forums). They shall state their case, and should the members of PWN deem their cause worthy of protection, shall undertake diplomatic procedures and negotiations to procure peace for that nation.

Section 1- The Use of Military

Stipulation i - In particular, the signatories of PWN will be looking at instances of excessive force and extortion during tech raids against pink nations. In this situation, the signatories reserve the right to militaristic response.

Stipulation ii - Further, the signatories will also negotiate peace for nations under attack for reasons other than tech raiding, should they be deemed worthy. These negotiations shall not be backed by military action.

Article II: Protection Stipulations

Pink nations will not be given protection automatically. Only after they have requested protection and have gone through the proper procedures laid out in the Pink Court will they be granted "protected" status.

Signed,

For Poison Clan,

Chinatownbus

TwistedRebelDB47

For Republic of Allied Defenses,

Jason8

ComradeJosh

For The Centurion Brotherhood,

CzarNick

*This doctrine will be given a trial period so that we may assess its viability. Should it fail miserably, the signatories reserve the right to dissolve the Doctrine completely.*

The first part that I have bolded seems to say any pink nation that comes under attack....fairly broad brush there.

The second bolding seems to narrow that to tech raids that fit the signatories definition of excessive or that the signatories characterize as bullying.

I guess what I'm asking is if the purpose of this document meant to arbitrate weather or not all wars on pink are fair and just, or to try and make folks follow your definition of a proper tech raid on the pink sphere.

EDIT: added more bold and italics.

Edited April 4, 2009 by JBone

[Ricardo]

To the people complaining:

You may not like this doctrine, but it's here, now the question is, what are you going to do about it?

I suggest declaring on any pink nation in range and test it yourselves, that way you'll have even more reasons to complain.

[astronaut jones]

I have been pondering this for a bit and need some clarification on certain aspects of this Doctrine.

It's an open question to PC...and whatever the other two alliances are that came up with this.

Say someone just feels like having a war...for whatever reason, not just to loot tech or gain land.

The target they choose, or perhaps the only one available in their range happens to be on Pink.

Maybe they are bored, maybe they want to test out their boats or the effects of their new WRC or nuke performance...whatever. But it is NOT for the purpose of gaining tech...and 2 GAs just won't suffice.

Am I to understand that this would fall under the category of bullying...and therefore this nation could petition this pink court thing to help them?

Looks like most of the posts here specifically speak of tech raids, but as others have already mentioned....training/just being aggressive/battle tests...whatever, all seem to be included if I read this correctly.

The first part that I have bolded seems to say any pink nation that comes under attack....fairly broad brush there.

The second bolding seems to narrow that to tech raids that fit the signatories definition of excessive or that the signatories characterize as bullying.

I guess what I'm asking is if the purpose of this document meant to arbitrate weather or not all wars on pink are fair and just, or to try and make folks follow your definition of a proper tech raid on the pink sphere.

EDIT: added more bold and italics.

Is a legitimate war a tech raid?

Next time save yourself the effort of posting all of that and just answer your own question. I know you don't need someone to answer that question for you.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

To the people complaining:

You may not like this doctrine, but it's here, now the question is, what are you going to do about it?

I suggest declaring on any pink nation in range and test it yourselves, that way you'll have even more reasons to complain.

Ive tried, but everyone in range on pink is under an AA. So i assume that the governments of my alliance and the nations i raided would come to agreements outside of The Pink Bus Agreement.

/me wishes he was smaller.

[OneBallMan]

I don't know if that was supposed to be funny or not.

It was, but alas...

[Sorum]

MAIM KILL BURN!

o/ Pink

[astronaut jones]

It was, but alas...

I don't think spadina even has busses anymore.

[Caliph]

I have been pondering this for a bit and need some clarification on certain aspects of this Doctrine.

It's an open question to PC...and whatever the other two alliances are that came up with this.

Say someone just feels like having a war...for whatever reason, not just to loot tech or gain land.

The target they choose, or perhaps the only one available in their range happens to be on Pink.

Maybe they are bored, maybe they want to test out their boats or the effects of their new WRC or nuke performance...whatever. But it is NOT for the purpose of gaining tech...and 2 GAs just won't suffice.

Am I to understand that this would fall under the category of bullying...and therefore this nation could petition this pink court thing to help them?

Looks like most of the posts here specifically speak of tech raids, but as others have already mentioned....training/just being aggressive/battle tests...whatever, all seem to be included if I read this correctly.

This would indeed fall under bullying, and if the nation in question brought it up with us, we would take the necessary steps to get a peace.

I guess what I'm asking is if the purpose of this document meant to arbitrate weather or not all wars on pink are fair and just, or to try and make folks follow your definition of a proper tech raid on the pink sphere.

This is to ensure a protection of pink nations from being warred upon because they are on pink. This is to make sure that tech raids on the pink team are kept as just tech raids, and not beat downs, because we all know that for the purpose of a tech raid you do not need any more than 2 Ground Attacks. Anything more is done purely with the focus on destroying. Heck, when I tech raided over a year ago I was able to do so without even anarchying my targets, and did nothing more than 2 GA's. Most of the people peaced out.

This lets me know that there if you use more than 2 GA's in a war, that war ceases to be a tech raid, and more a war of agression on your part with the goal of destroying another nation, and not just raiding tech.

[JBone]

Is a legitimate war a tech raid?

Next time save yourself the effort of posting all of that and just answer your own question. I know you don't need someone to answer that question for you.

No, a legitimate war is not a tech raid.....but then again, that Q&A has absolutely nothing to do with my request for clarification of this doctrine.

Thanks for your input though, please feel free to return and edit your reply to include any previous identities, updated super spy guides, 11th & 12th commandments or any other drivel you have been espousing as of late......actually, don't.

Now if someone who actually had a hand in drafting this doctrine would care to answer.

Twist ? CTB?