Pro-Piracy Act of 2009

[salithus]

So, you're admitting to everything I have just said?

See, there you go again. Next thing you know, you'll be saying that because I don't refute every flat out insane accusation you make that I must have !@#$%*^ and murdered a girl twenty years ago. I simply pointed out that you said I must know what events will or will not happen in the future. Around these parts, we call that being "psychic". I made absolutely no comment on the complete lack of basis your assertions had.

[Gottrich Northeim]

I lold. Great message GOONS.

[Electric Mango]

This was one of the best announcements I've ever read. Any alliance that does anything for the first time deserves some recognition. A lot of alliances do not like to shake things up because they're afraid of losing what has taken so long to build and it is refreshing to see something new coming into world. I wonder what future consequences this announcement should hold.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

I asked my Magic 8 Ball that very question. It told me to "ask again later."

[kulomascovia]

Typically I would not reply to you, as we have already kicked you around the posting playground before. However, this sentence needs to be highlighted. It is time to take a serious look at the state of affairs if something like this is seen as the source of entertainment for those who frequent this world. Your statement implies, quite correctly, that without actions like this - Planet Bob would be dying of boredom. Let us face the fact that the CyberPixelFarming sphere is the most boring thing imaginable on this planet.

And aiding the destruction of smaller nations isn't going to make CN more exciting. If anything, it'll make Planet Bob even more uneventful by eliminating players that may have something to contribute.

[Owned-You]

Personally, I don't think this is a smart policy from a political stand point. As others have stated, it'll be very prone to possible discrepancies and should there be a major incident made public...Well it'll result in you all either sticking to your guns; and making various political enemies or you'll have to make backtrack...and that won't say much about your alliance either. But it's ultimately your right as a sovereign alliance to do as you please. Morally, I don't really care too much about it...I was a former raider in my early times. I didn't make any significant boosts in nation progress from it; I was Zi'd twice due too it. Thus, from an economic perspective I think it's misguided as well.

This doctrine may be your first real move putting yourself back into a real position of importance and popularity, or it will put you into a horrible position...maybe even your waterloo should a crusading alliance make something of it. Only time will tell; whatever happens should be interesting in a long-term historical context.

With that said, I applaud you for standing up for your principles thus far.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Owned-You

[ChairmanHal]

You heard it here first. RV calls me out as a psychic.

They don't do that on Planet Bob as a compliment...trust me.

[kulomascovia]

I want to repeat this again:

As some of you may have already noticed, stating that the defender can't fight back and then saying that you want smaller nations to fully experience Planet Bob is kind of contradictory.

Edited September 18, 2009 by kulomascovia

[kevin32891]

I'm just laughing cause you guys fought a great war to stop crap like this.

Just goes to show nothing really changes.

[salithus]

I want to repeat this again:

As some of you may have already noticed, stating that the defender can't fight back and then saying that you want smaller nations to fully experience CN is kind of contradictory.

You really need to learn to read. That phrase is specifically for instances when ALL of the following criteria are met:

1) Small/new nation (NationA) raids small/new nation (NationB).

2) NationA requests assistance under this policy.

3) GOONS grants NationA assistance under this policy.

4) NationA is impressed with the benefits of having an alliance to belong to.

5) NationA applies to GOONS while still engaged with NationB.

6) GOONS is impressed with NationA.

7) GOONS accepts NationA into GOONS.

Then, and only then, the call to stand down will be sent out, at which point one of two things happens:

1) NationB offers ceases attacks and offers peace. Everyone walks away, maybe a handshake and a "good game".

2) NationB does not cease attacks and does not offer peace. PewPewPewing continues, but with more GOONS involved since it is now our member at risk and we value them slightly more than the unaligned scrub that NationA started out with.

================================================================================

=======================================

It would be awesome if starting with this line ^^ everyone started actually reading before they posted. Not only is this covered in the OP but it was covered in the replies. This is also not the first instance where someone makes some sweeping claim about what GOONS is either completely contradictory of the posted policy or a complete fabrication based on rampant speculation about how "evil" GOONS is going to be.

[Geoffron X]

Oh please. Your post is in direct response to our resolution. One quick glance at the GOONS aid page shows not a single Goons nation advocating through action your proxy "piracy act." This of course means that either you suddenly sought to announce a foreign policy decision based entirely in response to ours (which makes me feel good actually) or it is a publicity stunt to try and convince others on Bob that the Goons are "mean and nasty, just like before!" It is analagous to an insecure bully who draws attention to himself by yelling loudly in a deserted schoolyard. You only option now is to get a bigger bullhorn.

Or maybe they did it for teh lulz. You know, like GOONS does. They're making fun of you for your silly resolution, and not much more.

[kulomascovia]

You really need to learn to read. That phrase is specifically for instances when ALL of the following criteria are met:

1) Small/new nation (NationA) raids small/new nation (NationB).

2) NationA requests assistance under this policy.

3) GOONS grants NationA assistance under this policy.

4) NationA is impressed with the benefits of having an alliance to belong to.

5) NationA applies to GOONS while still engaged with NationB.

6) GOONS is impressed with NationA.

7) GOONS accepts NationA into GOONS.

Then, and only then, the call to stand down will be sent out, at which point one of two things happens:

1) NationB offers ceases attacks and offers peace. Everyone walks away, maybe a handshake and a "good game".

2) NationB does not cease attacks and does not offer peace. PewPewPewing continues, but with more GOONS involved since it is now our member at risk and we value them slightly more than the unaligned scrub that NationA started out with.

================================================================================

=======================================

It would be awesome if starting with this line ^^ everyone started actually reading before they posted. Not only is this covered in the OP but it was covered in the replies. This is also not the first instance where someone makes some sweeping claim about what GOONS is either completely contradictory of the posted policy or a complete fabrication based on rampant speculation about how "evil" GOONS is going to be.

Here is what I found on the OP:

SECTION 7. WARNINGS

Upon the time of the application of the unaligned nation joining GOONS under this act; a warning message will be sent to the oppressed nation; from the Strategos; stating that they are now being attacked by a member of GOONS and are to cease all further military action against the said nation; the oppresed nation will have 24 hours from the time of message submission to cease military action.

I don't really see anything that states that you would be granting Nation B peace.

[Eamon Valda]

The attacker, though, takes the initiative towards harming the victim, establishing a small but very important difference in behavior that tends to determine most guidelines for the interaction between humans in the modern world, which is intent. The attacker is a vile, corrupted thief who would step on the throats of anyone to get a bit of excitement and the victim is a poor, innocent ruler who probably just wants to nourish his nation and will most likely be driven out of planet bob due to this "policy".

Disregarding your most zealous overgeneralisations and massive assumptions, I will be far crueler than arguing the moral correctness of this issue and put it to you in an ultimatum: will you do anything?

Yes, yes, we've all heard the 'so do something' argument. Most disdain it simply because it destroys the little side issues they like to build-up into a weak shield, crumbling when the time comes to act.

Unfortunately, I have a much simpler view of Bob politics - things that matter compared to things that do not. Words alone mean nothing without action; action is empty with direction of the mind.

It is all very nice and cute to have 'higher moral ideals'. Let's see them do something.

[Geoffron X]

I love how seriously people are taking this.

[Eamon Valda]

I love how seriously people are taking this.

Some people like being victims. Even more people like being the defenders of those supposed victims.

For everyone else, life goes on.

[Eden Taylor]

Here is what I found on the OP:

SECTION 7. WARNINGS

Upon the time of the application of the unaligned nation joining GOONS under this act; a warning message will be sent to the oppressed nation; from the Strategos; stating that they are now being attacked by a member of GOONS and are to cease all further military action against the said nation; the oppresed nation will have 24 hours from the time of message submission to cease military action.

I don't really see anything that states that you would be granting Nation B peace.

But you found something there saying that they would ZI Nation B?

[Sardonic]

I love how seriously people are taking this.

I know, right? Some people have spent more time analyzing it than we spent "writing" it.

[SiCkO]

good luck when one of your applicants attacks a alliance that can curbstomp you

should be fun to read the Demands thread of all those alliances

[Jordite]

I've seen a lot of people complaining in here that these sort of raiding policies are going to contribute to a reduction in the number of rulers on Bob. Have we considered that this sort of policy might actually help to convince younger leaders to stick around because they know they can do more here than simply collect infrastructure and provide tech to larger nations?

good luck when one of your applicants attacks a alliance that can curbstomp you

should be fun to read the Demands thread of all those alliances

Clearly GOONS has not thought of this and it will inevitably lead to their downfall. Rest peacefully GOONS, we hardly knew ye.

[nippy]

good luck when one of your applicants attacks a alliance that can curbstomp you

should be fun to read the Demands thread of all those alliances

Yes, because there's always a demands thread posted when things are handled diplomatically after such an event.

Think before speaking.

[Barron von Hammer]

Or maybe they did it for teh lulz. You know, like GOONS does. They're making fun of you for your silly resolution, and not much more.

Really? I'm stunned.

[SiCkO]

Yes, because there's always a demands thread posted when things are handled diplomatically after such an event.

Think before speaking.

perhaps you should think before you make tech raiding legal

Edited September 18, 2009 by SiCkO

[nippy]

im hoping however most will probably just move on to the DoW

Oh, are you? Your anti-GOONS stance is just so CUTE!

[SiCkO]

Oh, are you? Your anti-GOONS stance is just so CUTE!

i aim to amuse!

now on with it, what AA are you gonna attack first under the guise of tech raiding?

Edited September 18, 2009 by SiCkO

[Mandellav]

Unaligned nations oftentimes make mistakes. Those unaligned nations which choose to raid often become loyal and active alliance members. I see no problem with this policy.