Vilien Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 If a alliance had a CB for attacking a unaligned would they be able to submit it to the alliance in charge so they could review it and see if this sovereign alliance was allowed to attack without reprecautions?Any alliance that would announce global rules of the world would at least be a aspiring world police in my eyes and yes saying 'nobody can attack unaligned on sphere x' is a global rule. The second part of your post show where our opinions differ. You belive that the natural state of digiterra is peace. That the ones that attacks are the ones breaking these ground rules. I don't belive that's true. From the start we were all unaligned. If the natural state on digiterra was peace we would have stayed unaligned. The natural state of digiterra is war though. So nations made agreements to protect eachother and formed alliances. Alliances agreed to protect eachother by signing treaties. You talk about unaligneds as weaker ones being picked on but they're in the same position we were in when we arrived on digiterra. If they don't want to be part of a group that protects eachother that's fine but they do not have any admin given right to peace. This only make sense if you see the natural state of digiterra as war. You don't but that doesn't matter since I'm not planning to tell you that you're not allowed to think the way you want. I don't see why anyone should have the right to make rules stating that my beliefs are wrong and yours are right or the other way around for that matter. I'm pretty sure what you described in the first section is exactly how you deal with rogues. I'm not going to mince words about the "natural state of digiterra". Stealing is wrong, tech raiding is stealing, and I will do what I can to protect others from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 I'm not going to mince words about the "natural state of digiterra". Stealing is wrong, tech raiding is stealing, and I will do what I can to protect others from it. Tech raiding is stealing in your opinion, it is not an undisputed fact. Why is stealing wrong? Just dont say its immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Tech raiding is stealing in your opinion, it is not an undisputed fact. Why is stealing wrong? Just dont say its immoral. You know we're in a sorry state when you have to explain why stealing is wrong. Stealing, in Cybernations, is taking from someone for no other reason that your greed. It is a fundamental violation of the liberty of another human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Anway, I'm not a fan of tech raiding but I have little sympathy for the unalligned. If you don't want to be apart of an organisation in favour of freedom thats fine, but you can't then turn around and moan about not getting the benifits of being in an alliance. There are other benefits to being in an alliance besides protection. And besides, you're not talking about the benefits of being in an alliance. You're talking about the benefits of being in a large, well-connected alliance with enough allies to scare tech raiders away. Many alliances get raided. Because I belive it's a alliances sovereign right to attack anyone for any reason they want. If the attack is unjust people will stand up to them. Yes, and I think tech raiding is by definition unjust, thus I applaud doctrines such as the Revenge Doctrine which seek to prevent it. That's called standing up to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) I'm not going to mince words about the "natural state of digiterra". Stealing is wrong, tech raiding is stealing, and I will do what I can to protect others from it. Tech raiding could also be seen as a fair battle betwen two nations if it's performed that way. What you're saying is "what I belive is right so I will force that on others". Saying you're right doesn't make you right though. I don't want another judge and executioner on digiterra when we're finally is getting rid of the old one. If a alliance attacked any of umbrellas allies for tech raiding I would see that as a unjustified attack and I wouldn't have a second thought about comming to their aid. edit: Haflinger, I already answered that when villen said the same thing, read my other posts in this thread. Edited May 5, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) You know we're in a sorry state when you have to explain why stealing is wrong. Stealing, in Cybernations, is taking from someone for no other reason that your greed. It is a fundamental violation of the liberty of another human being. Its only stealing in your opinion. I look forward to seeing your plan in action. edit: Stealing is not wrong. Edited May 5, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 From the start we were all unaligned. If the natural state on digiterra was peace we would have stayed unaligned. The natural state of digiterra is war though. So nations made agreements to protect eachother and formed alliances. Wait, the only reason you're in an alliance is protection? I'm in my alliance for the community, and most of the people I know are in their alliances for the same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Tech raiding could also be seen as a fair battle betwen two nations if it's performed that way. What you're saying is "what I belive is right so I will force that on others". Saying you're right doesn't make you right though. I don't want another judge and executioner on digiterra when we're finally is getting rid of the old one.If a alliance attacked any of umbrellas allies for tech raiding I would see that as a unjustified attack and I wouldn't have a second thought about comming to their aid. The "you're forcing me to do things" card is very reminiscent of GOONS before Great War II. Your liberty to attack others without justification does not exist. It is not aggression to come to the aid of someone who has been attacked without just cause, and it is my prerogative to defend them from your greed. That said, I believe the only reason you are arguing against this is because you associate it with Pacifica. Protecting the unaligned from tech raiding is not creating another hegemony. Its only stealing in your opinion. I look forward to seeing your plan in action. I'm sorry, what is tech raiding then? A frank discussion? Edited May 5, 2009 by Vilien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'm sorry, what is tech raiding then? A frank discussion? Its just a phrase when one nation attacks another. There could be any one of a number of reasons, with tech being worth so little days it hasnt really been about tech for a long time. I think its casualty accumulation and both sides gain from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Its just a phrase when one nation attacks another. There could be any one of a number of reasons, with tech being worth so little days it hasnt really been about tech for a long time. I think its casualty accumulation and both sides gain from it. Give me an example where the victims of a raid gain anything. Frankly, this is getting pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Haflinger, I take back what I said. Don't bother reading my posts. You're obviously just going to pick out tiny pieces of them without even trying to understand them. The "you're forcing me to do things" card is very reminiscent of GOONS before Great War II. Your liberty to attack others without justification does not exist. It is not aggression to come to the aid of someone who has been attacked without just cause, and it is my prerogative to defend them from your greed. See here is exactly where our views split. You're saying that I don't have the right to attack without justification. I say that nobody has the right to protection without giving something back. I'm protected by my alliance because I will protect them. If I left my alliance I wouldn't expect them or anyone to protect me if I was attacked. That said, I believe the only reason you are arguing against this is because you associate it with Pacifica. Protecting the unaligned from tech raiding is not creating another hegemony. No the reason I'm arguing against you is that I'm a ideologist. I belive in true freedom. True freedom is a double edged sword but I still belive that true freedom is the only way we can have a stable digiterra. Stability through change. A power making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra no matter how well meaning they are is a step in the wrong direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Give me an example where the victims of a raid gain anything.Frankly, this is getting pathetic. They gain casualties, you cant buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 No the reason I'm arguing against you is that I'm an idealist. I believe in true freedom. True freedom is a double edged sword but I still believe that true freedom is the only way we can have a stable digiterra. Stability through change. A power making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra no matter how well meaning they are is a step in the wrong direction. If you're completely against definitions of right and wrong, why do you continue to insist that it's wrong to declare a color sphere off limits to raiding? What does "true freedom" even mean? I've never heard a justification of why it's somehow within your rights to attack someone else for whatever reason. Do you not understand how completely contrary to the concept of liberty that statement is? They gain casualties, you cant buy them. It's not about the tech or money, it's about the casualties. Really, raiders are helping unaligneds out by letting them get their casualty numbers up! You are sounding more ridiculous by the post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 It's not about the tech or money, it's about the casualties. Really, raiders are helping unaligneds out by letting them get their casualty numbers up! You are sounding more ridiculous by the post. Its true, ask anyone. Your plan is to protect the liberty of some by denying the liberty of others because you think you are morally justified in telling the world what to do. You dont have the military might, political power moral standing or organisational skills to pull it off. It will probably be the death of your alliance, good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Some people actually care about casualty statistics. I'm sure no unaligned getting raided will be happy about swapping tech, land and infra for casualties though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) If you're completely against definitions of right and wrong, why do you continue to insist that it's wrong to declare a color sphere off limits to raiding? What does "true freedom" even mean? I've never heard a justification of why it's somehow within your rights to attack someone else for whatever reason. Do you not understand how completely contrary to the concept of liberty that statement is? I'm against one power making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra. I'm arguing against you because I think that you're wrong. I don't think my word should be universal law either but I will still fight for what I belive in. It is fully within anyones right to attack anyone for whatever reason they choose. The general consensus of digiterra will decide what is a just and unjust cause of war. All the nations together decide this without making any written rules everyone together decide what is acceptable to do and what's not. If people look down on techraiding alliances that do it will be looked down upon and will eventually get what's comming to them. That's them getting punished by a working system. As opposed to a world where we have written laws enforced by whatever power is strongest at the moment and they do the punishment. That isn't anything close to freedom to me. Its true, ask anyone. Your plan is to protect the liberty of some by denying the liberty of others because you think you are morally justified in telling the world what to do. You dont have the military might, political power moral standing or organisational skills to pull it off. It will probably be the death of your alliance, good luck. To be fair we're being pretty hypothetical here. I don't think villen expect Avalanche to go in and save unaligneds from a much stronger alliance. Edited May 5, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 They can join the Citadel Trading Company or The Realm of the Rose. Well, yes....that. Or an alliance. Or they could suck it up and understand that they will always be the target of raiders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Un4Gvn1 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yet you're in an alliance that actively encourages tech raiding, or at least it used to.Anway, I'm not a fan of tech raiding but I have little sympathy for the unalligned. If you don't want to be apart of an organisation in favour of freedom thats fine, but you can't then turn around and moan about not getting the benifits of being in an alliance. I see your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'm against one power making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra. I'm arguing against you because I think that you're wrong. I don't think my word should be universal law either but I will still fight for what I belive in.It is fully within anyones right to attack anyone for whatever reason they choose. The general consensus of digiterra will decide what is a just and unjust cause of war. All the nations together decide this without making any written rules everyone together decide what is acceptable to do and what's not. If people look down on techraiding alliances that do it will be looked down upon and will eventually get what's comming to them. That's them getting punished by a working system. As opposed to a world where we have written laws enforced by whatever power is strongest at the moment and they do the punishment. That isn't anything close to freedom to me. Your system is the same as mine. You count on the moral outrage of the community to cause action, while mine simply preempts the anger with a proactive declaration. One safe place for unaligned nations to reside is no crime against the community. And it is not your right to attack whoever you choose without consequence. That is simply not true. Those who attempted such transgressions are now receiving their punishment. Its true, ask anyone. Your plan is to protect the liberty of some by denying the liberty of others because you think you are morally justified in telling the world what to do. You don't have the military might, political power moral standing or organisational skills to pull it off. It will probably be the death of your alliance, good luck. Then I shall consider it a worthy task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col John S Mosby Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 The non-aligned are not complaining about being continually attacked merely for being independent. Many of them just quit and who loses because of that? The rest of us suffer for their departure, because it is that much harder to get and keep trades as well as potential tech sellers. There are some here who remember that during first year or so on Planet Bob, independent nations were not attacked nearly so often as they have been ever since around the Second or Third Great Wars of 2007. For whatever reason, open season has been declared on the non-aligned and the entire planet's population has remained stagnant ever since. I'm not calling for the return of good old days that are long dead. I am saying that it is in the interests of the alliances on each color team to do a better job of encouraging their independent trading partners and potential tech sellers to stay rather than be driven off. There should be more collaboration amongst the alliances on each color team because we need each other and we need our non-aligned neighbors. I daresay that might have been a reason the color teams were created in the first place; to create mutual interest among nations. We should make the most of it, rather than wringing our hands as once again a trading partner disappears and we have to put our nations into suspended animation while we try to replace him. Consider looking at the non-aligned on your color as resources. Why should you stand by and watch robbers attack those who can bring you so much economic benefit? If people who want to be independent would quit out of disgust from being attacked every month rather than join your alliance, "good riddance," you say? That's just plain stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Your system is the same as mine. You count on the moral outrage of the community to cause action, while mine simply preempts the anger with a proactive declaration. One safe place for unaligned nations to reside is no crime against the community. And it is not your right to attack whoever you choose without consequence. That is simply not true. Those who attempted such transgressions are now receiving their punishment. What I meant by anyone have the right to attack anyone is that it's the foundation. There are no written rules how to behave to eachother on digiterra. We as a community decide it together by what we accept and we don't accept. I still think a alliance making written rules about how other alliances should act is wrong but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us will have much say in how this turns out anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 No the reason I'm arguing against you is that I'm a ideologist. I belive in true freedom. True freedom is a double edged sword but I still belive that true freedom is the only way we can have a stable digiterra. Stability through change. A power making rules for what's right and wrong on digiterra no matter how well meaning they are is a step in the wrong direction. Well, there's your problem(s). You currently have the ability to impose on other nations ability to grow peacefully. Is that any more or less just than someone imposing on your ability to impose on unaligned nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Well, there's your problem(s). You currently have the ability to impose on other nations ability to grow peacefully. Is that any more or less just than someone imposing on your ability to impose on unaligned nations? What's just is decided by the community at large and should not be decided by a single bloc, alliance or person. That is the freedom I belive in. If the general consensus is that techraiding is a crime that should be punished by death then it will be, if we're in a free world where people are free to act on what they themselves belive is right opposed to a world where a greater power tells them what is right and wrong. edited for clarity Edited May 5, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Spades Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 There are 2 options. Align with an alliance and be protected or you are on your own and have no protection. Pretty much. I thought the entire point of flying the "NONE" AA was that you were going on your own; which includes the protection of other alliances. Just because the NPO had a doctrine they can no longer support doesn't mean that the rest of CN should revolve around it when the dust settles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kung Fu Geeks Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Heres the thing. There are no laws on bob. anybody can do anything they wish. What there is is consequences. How is an unaligned nation going to enforce consequences drastic enough to deter threat? Is an alliance going to risk the consequences to itself to protect an unaligned nation that does little for it? Without both a law against raiding and somebody strong enough to enforce it, there WILL be raiding, no matter what you wish. 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.