Elric Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I am withdrawing this post as it does not add anything positive to this discussion and fuels what would become a personal war between myself and another. And would seriously detract from this thread. My apologies. Edited April 8, 2009 by BigKat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So if I were to cruelly raid a pink nation you guys would attack me? :lol: I will keep that in mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So if I were to cruelly raid a pink nation you guys would attack me? :lol: I will keep that in mind... What's with all the TOP trolling in this thread the last few pages? Did you guys all have a discussion and decided this would be a good course of action because you're bored and want to antagonize people so you'd feel big and important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you think my post was trolling then take it up with the mods. And yes I am bored, but I'm not looking to feel important. I just thought this was an amusing announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm pretty certain that the poison clan raid rules say the first two sentences of your post, but replace mugging with theft. And, I'm also pretty certain, whether anyone wants to admit it or not (this isn't directed towards you in particular) but there is honour amoungst thieves and there is an unwritten code of things you just don't do while you're going around thieving.And good for you for finding humour in it, but you honestly know not of what you speak here. I don't think you grasp just what the doctrine is. There is no honor in raiding. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So if I were to cruelly raid a pink nation you guys would attack me? :lol: I will keep that in mind... WHy does everyone ask this question when you already know the answer? You wont get attacked unless it goes that far. It will be handled diplomatically first. I dont give a damn what alliance you are in. So can all the people in large alliances stop coming in here trying to flex their muscles or intimidate us by asking this question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So if I were to cruelly raid a pink nation you guys would attack me? :lol: I will keep that in mind... You asking this proves that you did not read the OP. Please re-read the OP, and try this again. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Re-read the OP, then see if you have this question again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 You keep arguing over and over again that tech raiding is immoral. This thread isn't about whether raiding is right or wrong. It's about what you do in the raid. So I assume you believe it wouldn't matter if an alliance first strike nuked every raid they got into? Again, you think that the whole scenario should be black and white. Raiding and no raiding. So if there is raiding, you don't believe there should be any limits? It doesn't matter if people abuse the practice beyond its reasonable benefits? You think we should just stand by and allow for whatever to happen just because raiding is allowed? Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we raid. Yes, you think its immoral. But wouldn't you think its worse if we used cruise missiles, aircraft and nukes? Apparently, you think that's completely the same as two ground attacks. Genius. If you want a real life example, go with assault and aggravated assault. In your quote, you are calling both the same. And no, PWN isn't going to be arguing about the morality of raiding or pretending there is some moral high ground by our Doctrine. We just know that there is no reason to use excessive force or extort our sphere, and we will not stand for it. Absolutely not. I think that hitting someone without a reason is wrong. If you kill the guy or not is a degree of wrong. Regardless from a knockout punch to a murder...they are all wrong. So someone who goes around knocking people out for fun saying if anyone murders a person he will THINK about knocking them out based on his abilities is a weak show. The facts are simply the facts. I agree that using excessive force is wrong, but I also believe tech raiding is wrong in the first place. For someone who practices it to keep member count up to sign a treaty like this is again....laughable. I doubt you will be following up with this when someone tests you, and believe me someone will. That is not a threat. as our alliance doesn't raid..just a vision. If I see a drunk guy walking down the street, I don't pity him. I simply think he made poor choices. Doesn't mean I go sucker punch him and take his money/tech. Making yourself a hypocrite does nothing to help your alliance image. I believe by signing this you have done just that. It seems like the main issue everyone has is that we are a group of raiding alliances. Someone stated that if a non raiding alliance made this doctrine then they'd be supportive of it. WTH? Either you approve of the doctrine or you don't. That's like telling me I have no right to complain about animal cruelty in a slaughter house because I eat red meat but a vegetarian can. This is ridiculous. I would accustom it more to saying I hit my wife when she's out of line in the stomach to prove a point. But if someone hits their wife to the point it puts them in the E.D. I will beat the hell outta them...after I figure out the odds of me winning that match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 This is ridiculous. I would accustom it more to saying I hit my wife when she's out of line in the stomach to prove a point. But if someone hits their wife to the point it puts them in the E.D. I will beat the hell outta them...after I figure out the odds of me winning that match. No, this analogy is ridiculous. You are comparing a raid on PB with wife beating. So far its been compared to mugging, murder, and now wife beating. The main difference is that raiding in not illegal on PB. Maybe it someday will be, but as of now it is not. The reason raiding is allowed is because it is accepted by the majority of PB and what is accepted is basically the laws we live by here. As long as it is accepted it will be practiced. However, even the most vocal supporters of raiding frown upon the excessive use of force in a raid and consider it unacceptable. Also, why is every one so concerned about someone "testing" us on this. You can tell those who really didn't read the OP. It was never stated that PWNs response would be to come out with guns blazing. Diplomacy for the win. Exactly which alliance is it that condones/recommends the use of CMs, bomb runs, or even nukes in a basic raid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 No, this analogy is ridiculous. You are comparing a raid on PB with wife beating. So far its been compared to mugging, murder, and now wife beating. The main difference is that raiding in not illegal on PB. Maybe it someday will be, but as of now it is not. The reason raiding is allowed is because it is accepted by the majority of PB and what is accepted is basically the laws we live by here. As long as it is accepted it will be practiced. However, even the most vocal supporters of raiding frown upon the excessive use of force in a raid and consider it unacceptable. Also, why is every one so concerned about someone "testing" us on this. You can tell those who really didn't read the OP. It was never stated that PWNs response would be to come out with guns blazing. Diplomacy for the win. Exactly which alliance is it that condones/recommends the use of CMs, bomb runs, or even nukes in a basic raid? Ummm... You ARE mugging and murdering. You just want to tell us that you will continue to mug and murder, but your body counts won't be as high as those left behind by some other unnamed raiders. Did you really expect people (other than me) to sing your praises for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ummm... You ARE mugging and murdering. You just want to tell us that you will continue to mug and murder, but your body counts won't be as high as those left behind by some other unnamed raiders. Did you really expect people (other than me) to sing your praises for that? You don't believe a code of honor should apply in war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 *Van Hoo III raids a pink nation and then glares menacingly at PC, RAD, and TCB. Do something about it, chumps! I now officially feel that I am a contributing factor in this thread. Congrats on the doctrine, guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 You don't believe a code of honor should apply in war? "War" implies you have a reason for attacking other than banditry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) You don't believe a code of honor should apply in war? Absolutely, which is why I applaud this opening attempt by these three alliances to be "better." My post you quoted was made to answer the post that suggested raids cannot be compared to muggings and murders. Edited April 8, 2009 by General Specific Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Absolutely not. I think that hitting someone without a reason is wrong. If you kill the guy or not is a degree of wrong. Regardless from a knockout punch to a murder...they are all wrong. So someone who goes around knocking people out for fun saying if anyone murders a person he will THINK about knocking them out based on his abilities is a weak show. The facts are simply the facts. I agree that using excessive force is wrong, but I also believe tech raiding is wrong in the first place. For someone who practices it to keep member count up to sign a treaty like this is again....laughable. I doubt you will be following up with this when someone tests you, and believe me someone will. That is not a threat. as our alliance doesn't raid..just a vision.If I see a drunk guy walking down the street, I don't pity him. I simply think he made poor choices. Doesn't mean I go sucker punch him and take his money/tech. Making yourself a hypocrite does nothing to help your alliance image. I believe by signing this you have done just that. This is ridiculous. I would accustom it more to saying I hit my wife when she's out of line in the stomach to prove a point. But if someone hits their wife to the point it puts them in the E.D. I will beat the hell outta them...after I figure out the odds of me winning that match. Its not a matter of if we think we can win or not. Its a matter of if we think the nation being raided was actually wronged, or if he is just complaining cuz he lost 20 infra. Lets count how many times i have to say this in this thread. I dont care who you are, if you are in the wrong you will be approached and dealt with accordingly. 900 man alliance or 30 man alliance. 75k NS or 1k NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 "War" implies you have a reason for attacking other than banditry. So because someone feels "war" for the sake of "war" instead of "raids" is more validated, it's ok to do whatever they want to the defender? This is just silly. Almost all the wars since I've been here have been started over trivial reasons. Almost none are "legit" in the sense that someone committed something grievous enough to actually warrant military action on an alliance scale against. It's accepted, is it not? It seems you would have me believe that in that situation, anything goes, and that a "code of ethics" or such does not apply because it is now "war" instead of "raid." When a decent reason for war actually happens here your argument will make sense. The difference between "war" and "raid" on Planet Bob comes from who makes the decision to engage enemy nations, the alliance as a whole, or individuals within it. Nothing else. If it's a scrapped up CB, an overblown problem, or some other trivial cause, it happens. Some people just prefer to say "I have no reason other than that I can attack you" and do so. Well I say to them, at least they are honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So basically you will be handling it diplomatically if the aggressor is in a large alliance or in an alliance allied to someone large. However, If they are in a small alliance with no political connections you will attack the aggressor. At least with Yellow #5 all aggressors were attacked regardless of their alliance. This just looks like a way for you guys to pick on smaller alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) So basically you will be handling it diplomatically if the aggressor is in a large alliance or in an alliance allied to someone large. However, If they are in a small alliance with no political connections you will attack the aggressor. At least with Yellow #5 all aggressors were attacked regardless of their alliance. This just looks like a way for you guys to pick on smaller alliances. Of course you completely missed the point again. It will be handled diplomatically first no mater how large. If we then have to attack we will no matter how large. Jesus! How hard is that to understand? Or are you just looking for a reason to troll now? Edited April 8, 2009 by Newhotness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Of course you completely missed the point again. It will be handled diplomatically first no mater how large. If we then have to attack we will no matter how large. Jesus! How hard is that to understand? Or are you just looking for a reason to troll now? He's in TOP. No one pays attention to TOP, so he's trying to beat his chest so people will finally give them the attention they don't deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris of Khi Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 regardless of what your opposition to this treaty is, we stand by it and will uphold it... if you wish to test it we have some glowing bombs in the cellar which we are more than happy to show off. Please be a good sport and troll elsewhere. Kthxbye! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Of course you completely missed the point again. It will be handled diplomatically first no mater how large. If we then have to attack we will no matter how large. Jesus! How hard is that to understand? Or are you just looking for a reason to troll now? So you are going to attack large alliances if they decide nuking unaligned nations is fine? Who are you to police the world and decide what's ok and what's not? Also, when someone doesn't agree with your idiotic policy it doesn't make them a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 So you are going to attack large alliances if they decide nuking unaligned nations is fine? Who are you to police the world and decide what's ok and what's not? Also, when someone doesn't agree with your idiotic policy it doesn't make them a troll. If you think nuking unaligned nations is fine, then you're a dick. If your alliance thinks unprovoked nukings on tech raids is fine, then your alliance is full of dicks. If you're saying that the policy is idiotic because you want to nuke, or that you're implying you like to nuke on tech raids unprovoked, well... If you don't agree with the policy, fine, so be it. You don't have to, nor do you have to enforce it, but if you're implying that you'd nuke on a tech raid unprovoked because you're in a large alliance, well.. see above. And, this is coming from someone who will talk out his $@! and provoke people because he likes to see the reaction, but you gotta stop it. You're not very good at what you're trying to do. It's one of those put up or shut up times. You been called out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) If you think nuking unaligned nations is fine, then you're a dick. If your alliance thinks unprovoked nukings on tech raids is fine, then your alliance is full of dicks.If you're saying that the policy is idiotic because you want to nuke, or that you're implying you like to nuke on tech raids unprovoked, well... If you don't agree with the policy, fine, so be it. You don't have to, nor do you have to enforce it, but if you're implying that you'd nuke on a tech raid unprovoked because you're in a large alliance, well.. see above. And, this is coming from someone who will talk out his $@! and provoke people because he likes to see the reaction, but you gotta stop it. You're not very good at what you're trying to do. It's one of those put up or shut up times. You been called out. I don't tech raid. If I did tech raid, I would nuke my targets if I felt like it. I wouldn't try to make myself feel good by saying my form of tech raiding is honorable. There is no type of tech raiding that can be considered honorable. Any way you look at it you are robbing some weak nation that can't fight back. I'm sure your victim is so grateful that you raided him with only ground attacks. This policy is idiotic because it attempts to say that tech raiding is ok with only ground attacks, but anything more makes it bad. Here is an idea for you guys. If you are so opposed to causing harm to the nation you are attacking, how about you STOP RAIDING THEM. If you continue to raid, nobody will take any anti-raiding policy you make seriously. Edited April 8, 2009 by Vladimir Stukov II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 regardless of what your opposition to this treaty is, we stand by it and will uphold it... if you wish to test it we have some glowing bombs in the cellar which we are more than happy to show off. Please be a good sport and troll elsewhere.Kthxbye! Seriously I bowed out of this thread a long time ago but if you want some one to test your theory please by all means go unalligned im sure some one will step up and test it for you. This chest beating of come on and try us is getting old. There are no unalligned nations in a range where nukes would be used so your threat is empty at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I don't tech raid. If I did tech raid, I would nuke my targets if I felt like it. I wouldn't try to make myself feel good by saying my form of tech raiding is honorable. There is no type of tech raiding that can be considered honorable. Any way you look at it you are robbing some weak nation that can't fight back. I'm sure your victim is so grateful that you raided him with only ground attacks. This policy is idiotic because it attempts to say that tech raiding is ok with only ground attacks, but anything more makes it bad. Here is an idea for you guys. If you are so opposed to causing harm to the nation you are attacking, how about you STOP RAIDING THEM. If you continue to raid, nobody will take any anti-raiding policy you make seriously. So basically you're not gonna do anything even though you were called out on your views? Okay there. Your credibility is now in question, so ... what's your favourite colour? 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.