Pro-Piracy Act of 2009

[Sardonic]

You are a despicable breed. You lack honor, and encourage greed.

Perfect, I was wondering how long we'd go before we'd get something as memorable as "broke the contract of peace in men's hearts" or "ascend via the unjust path". It rhymes too. Thank you.

As to the rest, I wasn't there for the negotiations of this event but I can imagine given your attitude your MOFA probably wasn't a walk in the park either. We don't typically put people on the EoG list for fighting back, we were going to put him on the list specifically because he cm'd our member (who was doing a standard raid) and then had the audacity to declare peace afterward. This is rude, don't you agree? Moreover I don't even see anyone ever added to the list fitting his description so it's a moot point to begin with.

But nevermind all that, the event is past, whatever unaligned nation you let in to your group was never on the EoG list to begin with. We have no problem with it. Your rhetoric however leaves a lot to be desired. Pubbie words do not impress me. Especially not overblown rhetoric such as yours.

EDIT:

Alright having gone back and consulted the logs involved the message we gave was clear: come back tomorrow. I'll grant you salithus was less than accommodating but it was a clear and concise term. We were not prepared to talk at that point because of the mixed messages we had been getting from you, and felt that you weren't being fully truthful in negotiations.

Also it's typically bad form to conduct diplomacy in our public channel.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Sardonic

[Haflinger]

We don't typically put people on the EoG list for fighting back, we were going to put him on the list specifically because he cm'd our member (who was doing a standard raid) and then had the audacity to declare peace afterward.

In what world is firing a CM not fighting back?

[Sardonic]

In what world is firing a CM not fighting back?

You're missing the point, he fired off a salvo of CMs after our member had submitted a peace offer.

[Haflinger]

You're missing the point, he fired off a salvo of CMs after our member had submitted a peace offer.

No, you're missing the point. Your member attacked him unprovoked; he fought back by firing CMs.

Or are CMs now considered excessive force? Wow, I can hear the infra-hugging over here.

[Sardonic]

No, you're missing the point. Your member attacked him unprovoked; he fought back by firing CMs.

Or are CMs now considered excessive force? Wow, I can hear the infra-hugging over here.

In what universe do you live where it is considered decorum to fire CMs at somebody who has made a peace offer as requested by people negotiating on behalf of the attacked nation? And of course our member attacked him "unprovoked" he was an unaligned, a fit raid target. Had he just done the honorable thing and accepted the peace offer we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Sardonic

[lamuella]

No, you're missing the point. Your member attacked him unprovoked; he fought back by firing CMs.

you missed out several links in the chain there. It wasn't attack -> CMs. It was attack -> peace offer -> CMs. Firing cruise missiles when peace has been offered is a fairly clear indication that you don't want it.

[Haflinger]

you missed out several links in the chain there. It wasn't attack -> CMs. It was attack -> peace offer -> CMs. Firing cruise missiles when peace has been offered is a fairly clear indication that you don't want it.

Apparently he offered it back.

Thus it was attack -> peace offer -> CM -> peace offer.

You both attacked right before sending peace. I see symmetry.

[lamuella]

Apparently he offered it back.

Thus it was attack -> peace offer -> CM -> peace offer.

You both attacked right before sending peace. I see symmetry.

not really, especially not when what was happening was part of an ongoing peace negotiation.

If someone is being raided, I would expect their primary concern to be to get out of the raid. This nation was offered a way out and refused it. The fact that after refusing the way out in order to take a free shot, then tried begging off again is neither here nor there.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Lamuella

[lamuella]

something that I may have missed in the last few pages of this thread, and I'm thus unsure of:

ModusOperandi, are you speaking for yourself as a nation leader or as a representative of your alliance in this thread?

Edited September 20, 2009 by Lamuella

[SleepiB]

If someone raided me(even if I was unaligned), that nation, and any other that joined in on its side would eat nukes till they agreed to replace any tech they looted/destroyed.

Everyone has the authority to demand reparations for an unprovoked attack, that authority is backed by the credibility and scope of your threat.

Even without an alliance or nukes, a small but prepared nation can make it unprofitable to continue the war. What matters is whether the raider is nearsighted enough to continue a war when covering the damage you caused in aid would be cheaper, and if the attacked nation knows how to play his hand right.

[Bordiga]

This is despicable. Encouraging the murder of nations and their populations who chose not to align themselves to an alliance is surely one of the lowest pieces of alliance "policy" I've ever witnessed. I look forward to the downfall of the latest incarnation of GOONS.

[Doitzel]

you missed out several links in the chain there. It wasn't attack -> CMs. It was attack -> peace offer -> CMs. Firing cruise missiles when peace has been offered is a fairly clear indication that you don't want it.

Oh that's equitable. You attack him without cause and are immediately entitled to peace without paying any retribution. He has to accept these terms or he's acting aggressively and must suffer the consequences.

Might makes right still, eh?

[The Mongol-Swedes]

My sig says it all. The old power mongers that were sacrificed on the altar of Pacifica emerge to continue the ways of old.

[hizzy]

GOONS: Uniting Planet Bob since 2007

Edited September 20, 2009 by hizzy

[Bob Janova]

Might makes right still, eh?

It seems GOONS are still stuck in the old world, indeed. The difference is that today GOONS don't actually have that much might; I doubt Polaris (who have always been anti-raiding) would march in to defend them if they got themselves into trouble this way.

Re 'ascending via the unjust path' – I thought you guys weren't the old GOONS? Why would you want to be associated with that kind of sentiment?

Re accepting nations being raided: I don't like raiding at all, but a typical raid is 'PM for peace', so there should be no issue with peacing out a raid with a nation that asks for it immediately, whether they are being accepted into another alliance or not. Are you saying that GOONS attacks nations unprovoked and will not release them from war unless they lie down and give you their stuff for 7 days?

Re ZI-listing people for firing CMs back: lolwut. This is one PR disaster after another for you. That even eclipses \m/ for most flagrant bullying in tech raids.

[Deadshot]

GOONS will be GOONS just as NSO will be NSO and so on and so forth for every alliance out there. FOr over a year now, the world has complained about the lack of conflict, about not being able to truly act as a sovereign alliance for fear of the firing squad coming for you, and for general boredom during the peak of Pax Continuum. All that is gone now. This back and forth over this policy will not accomplish anything, it isn't as if GOONS are going to change the policy because of the outcry. And they shouldn't. It brings something new to the table, excitement, treachery, whatever you want to call it.

Speaking on my own behalf, I personally don't agree with the Pro-Piracy Act of 2009. Nevertheless I applaud GOONS in having the balls to run their alliance the way they want to run it and enacting a piece of legislation they like regardless of what others may think. WHether you agree with the law or not, that should be commended. Too many walk the line enacting the same policies, afraid to speak up and do what they want for fear fo retribution. I highly doubt GOONS thought everyone would love this OP and I also believe that threats of destruction for it aren't making them shake in their boots.

Anyway, none of this may make any sense, I just woke up so I apologize for the rambling nature. Suffice to say that while I don't agree with the OP, I respect their sovereignty and applaud them for the big brass ones they have. Good job GOONS.

[lamuella]

Oh that's equitable. You attack him without cause and are immediately entitled to peace without paying any retribution.

I don't think I ever said that.

What I said was that if someone has people negotiating for peace and then they reject a peace offer with an act of aggression they cannot reasonably expect that peace offer to still stand.

[hizzy]

ModusOperandi, are you speaking for yourself as a nation leader or as a representative of your alliance in this thread?

Does it matter? Does his opinion carry more or less weight depending on the position? Or are you trying to puff your chest out?

Edited September 20, 2009 by hizzy

[Nizzle]

Uproar over tech raiding? For real?

[nippy]

Does it matter? Does his opinion carry more or less weight depending on the position? Or are you trying to puff your chest out?

His opinion carries no weight with us, nor does yours.

[Sardonic]

Oh that's equitable. You attack him without cause and are immediately entitled to peace without paying any retribution. He has to accept these terms or he's acting aggressively and must suffer the consequences.

Might makes right still, eh?

This is not complicated,so repeat slowly after me:

He. Attacked. During. Negotiations. With an Outstanding. Peace. Offer.

Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?

[Timtacious]

You shouldn't expect everyone who you attack to just roll over and accept having their stuff taken. At least some will have balls enough to attack back.

You attacked him with 2 attacks, he attacked with (2?) CM's, you should both go on your way. Instead of adding him to your ZI list. Seriously?

[Doitzel]

This is not complicated,so repeat slowly after me:

He. Attacked. During. Negotiations. With an Outstanding. Peace. Offer.

Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?

You. Attacked. Him. Without. Reason.

I probably would've attacked you, too, since peace negotiations with people who don't need any cause but whimsy are an exercise in futility. Kind of like arguing the ethics of tech-raiding with a band of thickheaded goons who can't get their feet to touch ground, come to think of it.

[WorldConqueror]

Have fun GOONS

[salithus]

It seems GOONS are still stuck in the old world, indeed. The difference is that today GOONS don't actually have that much might; I doubt Polaris (who have always been anti-raiding) would march in to defend them if they got themselves into trouble this way.

Polaris are our longest and most upstanding allies (sorry Umbrella and MK - I can't really call you upstanding ). I am quite positive they would inform us of any concern they have as an alliance well before you would, but I am also sure they appreciate you attempting to speak for them.

Re 'ascending via the unjust path' – I thought you guys weren't the old GOONS? Why would you want to be associated with that kind of sentiment?

We are associated with it whether we like it or not. The only time I used it was to point out how similar GLoF's bullying of unaligneds is to the issues people raised about old GOONS. What exactly was the point you were trying to make?

Re accepting nations being raided: I don't like raiding at all, but a typical raid is 'PM for peace', so there should be no issue with peacing out a raid with a nation that asks for it immediately, whether they are being accepted into another alliance or not. Are you saying that GOONS attacks nations unprovoked and will not release them from war unless they lie down and give you their stuff for 7 days?

Typically, but in not all cases. Especially not cases where other alliances are PMing GOONS nations and issuing orders or when peace offers are sent and then further attacks made by the unaligned nation. Regardless of when peace is sent out, it is an act of war to accept a nation into your alliance when they are engaged in a war with another alliance, period. Discretion at when to offer peace is always left to the alliance, unless you are going to start telling the alliances of Planet Bob how to start running their shops.

Re ZI-listing people for firing CMs back: lolwut. This is one PR disaster after another for you. That even eclipses \m/ for most flagrant bullying in tech raids.

No one in this thread has done that, but I appreciate the sentiment. When you want to discuss what actually happened, you're welcome to, but we know how much trouble you have sticking to the issue and not concocting imaginary situations.

You. Attacked. Him. Without. Reason.

I probably would've attacked you, too, since peace negotiations with people who don't need any cause but whimsy are an exercise in futility. Kind of like arguing the ethics of tech-raiding with a band of thickheaded goons who can't get their feet to touch ground, come to think of it.

You're welcome to, but any asshattery of firing on GOONS soil under the guise of flying the flag of peace will land you on our EoG list. That is not a threat, since I am sure you'd take the title of Enemy of GOONS as a badge of honor, but the truth of that situation is the same.

Edited September 20, 2009 by salithus