Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) The issue in my mind is when people like Willirica specifically raid Red to be cool/tough/spite NPO/whatever.-Bama I'm not sure if Will raided red to "be cool/tough/spite NPO", but I believe it was a more of an abundance of targets on the Red sphere that are a lot easier to find than on other spheres. Edited May 11, 2009 by masterof9puppets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I'm not sure if Will raided red to "be cool/tough/spite NPO", but I believe it was a more of an abundance of targets on the Red sphere that are a lot easier to find than on other spheres. Him bragging about it certainly was to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I said right now. I don't consider it dishonorable because NPO claims ownership to Red, but because up until recently, nations on Red enjoyed protection like they would've if they were in an alliance. Thus, it's comparable to attacking a disbanded alliance. You do consider that dishonorable right? It might be comparable, but it's not the same. Those nations are unaligned of their own free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Him bragging about it certainly was to be. Or he was just staying that he considers the revenge doctrine defunct, and reinforcing his opinion with a link to the war -shrugs- Who knows. Everybody seemed to glide right by his apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) So you are claiming that a one man AA equals an alliance? Before I continue with this I’d like to know if this is the case, so I can comment on this post from your boy. Even with his comment. Doesn't matter his targets were approved due to the Nations having AA. The AA states you have an alliance. But as I stated earlier if you have a problem with tech raiding in general I'd advise you make your own thread. Cause this thread is about the Revenge Doctrine which the issue your bringing up doesn't fall under. Edited : spelling. Edited May 11, 2009 by Supa_Troop3r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Or he was just staying that he considers the revenge doctrine defunct, and reinforcing his opinion with a link to the war-shrugs- Who knows. Everybody seemed to glide right by his apology. Hush you, we're busy taking sides and yelling at each other and stuff. Seriously though, words are empty. Now if that apology was followed up by reps to the red nations, it would have been a honourable way to handle an apology. I would've just considered it an honest mistake from a decent fellow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Its alright, you dont need to apologize. Don't worry I won't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Even with his comment. Doesn't matter his targets were approved due to the Nations having AA. The AA states you have an alliance.But as I stated earlier if you have a problem with tech raiding in general I'd advise you make your own thread. Cause this thread is about the Revenge Doctrine which the issue your being up doesn't fall under. It's okay to raid a nation as long as they are in an alliance? This seems slightly backwards to me, which makes me think your argument is a having-cake-and-eating-it-too argument. Also, I think most of the people here didn't have a problem with the raiding necessarily, but more just the dickish way it was done, and the apparent motivations for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Even with his comment. Doesn't matter his targets were approved due to the Nations having AA. The AA states you have an alliance.But as I stated earlier if you have a problem with tech raiding in general I'd advise you make your own thread. Cause this thread is about the Revenge Doctrine which the issue your being up doesn't fall under. Interesting enough, my issue lays with these red nations being raided. As I've stated several places besides here, the most unfortunate side effect of this war is the potential lose of the only corner in all of CN where nations could be unaligned and safe with out cost. I don't care if you raid other colors, I find raiding distasteful but recognize it is a fact of life here. That being said I will do what I can for red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 It's okay to raid a nation as long as they are in an alliance? This seems slightly backwards to me, which makes me think your argument is a having-cake-and-eating-it-too argument.Also, I think most of the people here didn't have a problem with the raiding necessarily, but more just the dickish way it was done, and the apparent motivations for it. Generally, raiding is always a dickish move and done for like motivations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I said right now. I don't consider it dishonorable because NPO claims ownership to Red, but because up until recently, nations on Red enjoyed protection like they would've if they were in an alliance. Thus, it's comparable to attacking a disbanded alliance. You do consider that dishonorable right? It isn't comparable. They do not belong in an alliance and, thus do not merit the protection that comes with membership. Nor did their alliance just disband and they've been left in the proverbial dust, wondering whats next. They are not victims because they chose a path, knowing full well the consequences of being unaligned. They simply hoped that the consequences of their chosen path would be lessened by the NPO. I don't feel sympathy for the unaligned of red, because quite frankly, they made a conscious choice and bet on the protection of the NPO. When you gamble you take a risk in the hope that your bet will pay dividends, but you shouldn't be suprised if you sometimes lose and this is precisely what is happening here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 It isn't comparable. They do not belong in an alliance and, thus do not merit the protection that comes with membership. Nor did their alliance just disband and they've been left in the proverbial dust, wondering whats next. They are not victims because they chose a path, knowing full well the consequences of being unaligned. They simply hoped that the consequences of their chosen path would be lessened by the NPO. I don't feel sympathy for the unaligned of red, because quite frankly, they made a conscious choice and bet on the protection of the NPO. When you gamble you take a risk in the hope that your bet will pay dividends, but you shouldn't be suprised if you sometimes lose and this is precisely what is happening here. Well, I see your position, and I understand we're on completely different levels here, so there's not anything to be gained from arguing. Still, I disagree with you blatantly dismissing it as non-comparable. They were promised protection from tech raids, when you join an alliance you're promised the same protection. Because of recent events, they no longer get that protection, when an alliance disbands, they can no longer provide that protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Well, I see your position, and I understand we're on completely different levels here, so there's not anything to be gained from arguing. Still, I disagree with you blatantly dismissing it as non-comparable. They were promised protection from tech raids, when you join an alliance you're promised the same protection. Because of recent events, they no longer get that protection, when an alliance disbands, they can no longer provide that protection. Your nation is offered protection in an alliance and in return you offer to protect your alliance mates with your nation. The mutal reciprocity that exists in virtually every alliance, with regards to defence, does not exist here and thus your analogy doesn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Apparently I was wrong when I said I was done with this thread. One last comment, I suppose: Maybe DT's golden boy should raid this guy, and we can watch the whole issue settle itself in astoundingly quick fashion. Edit: Added the because I was worried this might not appear as lighthearted as intended. Edited May 11, 2009 by Vhalen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 It isn't comparable. They do not belong in an alliance and, thus do not merit the protection that comes with membership. Nor did their alliance just disband and they've been left in the proverbial dust, wondering whats next. They are not victims because they chose a path, knowing full well the consequences of being unaligned. They simply hoped that the consequences of their chosen path would be lessened by the NPO. I don't feel sympathy for the unaligned of red, because quite frankly, they made a conscious choice and bet on the protection of the NPO. When you gamble you take a risk in the hope that your bet will pay dividends, but you shouldn't be suprised if you sometimes lose and this is precisely what is happening here. When you join an alliance, you take a risk. Assuming for the moment that your primary reason to join an alliance is for protection (not really my thing, but seems to be a common argument on these forums), you are gambling that the alliance will be able to protect you. Not all alliances do. Some ignore their members; others are incapable of mounting proper defenses to raids and such. Your logic appears to suggest that it's OK to raid alliance members; after all, they're taking a gamble on their protection. I really don't see how the two cases are any different; someone who joined an alliance which then disbanded took a risk in the hope that it would pay dividends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 When you join an alliance, you take a risk. Assuming for the moment that your primary reason to join an alliance is for protection (not really my thing, but seems to be a common argument on these forums), you are gambling that the alliance will be able to protect you.Not all alliances do. Some ignore their members; others are incapable of mounting proper defenses to raids and such. Your logic appears to suggest that it's OK to raid alliance members; after all, they're taking a gamble on their protection. I really don't see how the two cases are any different; someone who joined an alliance which then disbanded took a risk in the hope that it would pay dividends... It's okay to raid anyone as long as you can back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 It's okay to raid anyone as long as you can back it up. This, sadly was true in 2006 and is still true today. Mind if I ask WC, do you still raid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 This, sadly was true in 2006 and is still true today. Mind if I ask WC, do you still raid? I anticipate a lot more nations in range at the end of this war. As to whether I would raid, it'd depend on if I was willing to be on at update all the time. Really, I wouldn't care enough to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrotskysRevenge Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Revenge Doctrine is not dead; just on hold for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Red team is the sovereignty of the New Pacific Order. Raiding the Red team is to trespass on our territory. Hence, the Revenge Doctrine. However, at the moment there are larger infringements of our sovereignty that must be attended to first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Red team is the sovereignty of the New Pacific Order. Raiding the Red team is to trespass on our territory. Hence, the Revenge Doctrine. However, at the moment there are larger infringements of our sovereignty that must be attended to first. Realistically I doubt it will be only for the NPO much longer. Still it should be interesting to see how long it remains an open sphere should it become one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 while everyone was arguing earlier I don't think anyone noticed Vox Populi moved back to red. http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_dis...ce=Vox%20Populi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Join a hegemony alliance or get rolled. It's the same argument, and you of all people should know why it's wrong. I'm not a fan of the NPO, but raiding the only safe place for the unaligned is unnecessary and malicious. I never said a hegemony alliance, just an alliance period. If someone can find an alliance with members they trust and policies they agree with that have more than 30-40 members, they're probably good to go. And I don't particularly consider 30-40 members a hegemony alliance, believe it or not. It's just a place to stay and grow without getting raided. I'm not a fan of NPO either, which is why people hiding under their wing for free protection have it coming, they may as well endorse the policies. Edited May 11, 2009 by JayOvfEnnay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheThirdMark Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Red team is the sovereignty of the New Pacific Order. Raiding the Red team is to trespass on our territory. Hence, the Revenge Doctrine. However, at the moment there are larger infringements of our sovereignty that must be attended to first. Actually you made me laugh with the last line Right hand: Karma. Curbstomping you all around, making 1000 day+ nations delete themselves. Left hand: Lose dogs reaping the leftovers. Hmn, what hand to protect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johjima Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) OH HAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT ME I'M SO ORIGINAL, I'M GOING TO THREATEN TO ATTACK A TECHRAIDER WHO IS HITTING AN UNALIGNED NATION FLEEING UNDER THE WING OF NPO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'M SO AWESOME, CLEVER, AND FUNNY.=_= Really now, a nation on red was techraided. The entire alliance of NPO has been using forced disbandments, extremely unfair tech extortion, and spying in CN for so long. By staying on the red team for protection, they may as well endorse their actions. So I don't really care who tech raids who. If you don't want to be techraided, JOIN A DAMN ALLIANCE. I am basically(figuratively?) unaligned on red. I'd invite you to raid me, but it seems you are a bit weak. Grow a nation, sir. Edited May 11, 2009 by Johjima 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.