Pro-Piracy Act of 2009

[AgentofChaos]

You can post this if you want. I was just going on the record as being disappointed and consequently being against the policy. I'm now further going on the record that I think you have a serious attitude problem.

There is a legitimate concern here that you're helping nations steal, pillage, and borderline extort other nations that have done potentially nothing wrong. If you don't care, then fine, but don't be surprised that other people don't like your policy.

And I'm glad to know that you'll just mock people that disagree with you because their disagreement is whining. I can't see how my posts were whining at all to be honest.

Yes, salithus has quite the evil attitude. He has many anger problems frankly. Of course I have never actually spoken to him and know nothing of his character.

Oh no, not the poor unaligned being attacked by the...other unaligned. My gawd! Whatever will they do?

[TheEraser]

OOC: I roleplay this unlike I believe the majority of the players and so I do not view this as a game. I might not have been consistent in my role playing as some of my previous posts might have gone out of character without me realizing it due to sleep deprivation, but I apologize for any posts like that that were made.

IC: What are you talking about, you don't think it's immoral for nations to wage war just to steal technology and land? They end up murdering thousands of people just so they can be a bully and steal what was rightfully produced or owned by another people. My moral paradigm for opposing the policy is the sanctity of human life and opposition to war that need not be waged.

GOONs appears to think it's a good idea to support nations that unnecessarily murder people and become nothing more than a thug. I disapprove of it and am disappointed in their policy. That's all. They don't have to take my disappointment or disagreement to heart or anything, but I will post it. I mean, otherwise what's the point of public announcements like this?

your major flaw is assuming there IS a sanctity of life. if the nations that get raided were too weak or too stupid too defend themselves, then they didn't deserve their tech/land/cash anyways.

[King Boris]

This is the best announcement all week. o/ Pro Raiduli

[Jyrinx]

your major flaw is assuming there IS a sanctity of life. if the nations that get raided were too weak or too stupid too defend themselves, then they didn't deserve their tech/land/cash anyways.

Yes, my moral paradigm assumes a sanctity of life. All moral and ethical paradigms start from somewhere. And no, from my moral standpoint it is not ok to massacre a people just because they are too weak to defend themselves. Nor do I think it's justified to kill people to take their stuff just because someone wants to.

Again, it's just my view for what it's worth.

[Sequoia Throne]

Haha this is an awesome announcement. GOONS, you guys are alright.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Straylight

[AgentofChaos]

Yes, my moral paradigm assumes a sanctity of life. All moral and ethical paradigms start from somewhere. And no, from my moral standpoint it is not ok to massacre a people just because they are too weak to defend themselves. Nor do I think it's justified to kill people to take their stuff just because someone wants to.

Again, it's just my view for what it's worth.

Hey, we just kill soldiers. Any civilians that walk under our bombs are entirely at fault for their deaths. Shouldn't have been standing there.

[Haflinger]

Hey, we just kill soldiers. Any civilians that walk under our bombs are entirely at fault for their deaths. Shouldn't have been standing there.

I look forward to the description of this miraculous new ground attack that does not destroy infrastructure, and with it civilians.

[Diogenes]

If anything, thanks for proving that the morally pretentious are not a dying breed around here.

[AgentofChaos]

I look forward to the description of this miraculous new ground attack that does not destroy infrastructure, and with it civilians.

Hey like I said, it's clearly their fault. Shouldn't have stood in front of our bullets.

[Jyrinx]

If anything, thanks for proving that the morally pretentious are not a dying breed around here.

I see, so defending the murder of people for no reason is pretentiously moral now. Love your morality

OOC: Seriously, if people don't RP this game what the $%&@ is the point of playing? The game itself sucks and is horribly simplistic. It doesn't even have any good graphics. The only thing that makes this game worthwhile at all is the community, but so few people actually want to RP that this is just becoming stupid.

[AgentofChaos]

I see, so defending the murder of people for no reason is pretentiously moral now. Love your morality

OOC: Seriously, if people don't RP this game what the $%&@ is the point of playing? The game itself sucks and is horribly simplistic. It doesn't even have any good graphics. The only thing that makes this game worthwhile at all is the community, but so few people actually want to RP that this is just becoming stupid.

Learn to love the chaos brotha! Introduce a little anarchy into the world.

[Diogenes]

I see, so defending the murder of people for no reason is pretentiously moral now. Love your morality

OOC: Seriously, if people don't RP this game what the $%&@ is the point of playing? The game itself sucks and is horribly simplistic. It doesn't even have any good graphics. The only thing that makes this game worthwhile at all is the community, but so few people actually want to RP that this is just becoming stupid.

How do you justify murder?

[jgator]

I see, so defending the murder of people for no reason is pretentiously moral now. Love your morality

OOC: Seriously, if people don't RP this game what the $%&@ is the point of playing? The game itself sucks and is horribly simplistic. It doesn't even have any good graphics. The only thing that makes this game worthwhile at all is the community, but so few people actually want to RP that this is just becoming stupid.

If the people you wish to defend do not wish to defend themselves what's the point? If a nations is unwilling to fight for it's self then I see no nothing wrong with a nation wanting to grow and bring a new way of life to a land. It is the job of a ruler to make sure his people are safe, if a ruler fails to do this, then they are unfit as a ruler and should be stripped of such responsibility.

[Jyrinx]

If the people you wish to defend do not wish to defend themselves what's the point? If a nations is unwilling to fight for it's self then I see no nothing wrong with a nation wanting to grow and bring a new way of life to a land. It is the job of a ruler to make sure his people are safe, if a ruler fails to do this, then they are unfit as a ruler and should be stripped of such responsibility.

Who said anything about being unwilling to fight? Most times a nations soldiers fight bravely in their homeland's defense. It's not a matter of being unwilling to fight, it's about a nation being unable to stand up to a stronger nation. More often than not, it's also saying that a nation that isn't part of an alliance is somehow at fault, that their ruler and government somehow failed and that the nation deserves to be attacked and it's technology and land stolen. I don't understand such a justification at all.

Again, I fully understand that others disagree with me. But having a policy that basically encourages even more attacks because the raiding nation is somehow a victim is ridiculous. The raiding nation is the... aggressor. They are not the victim. With this policy and subsequent posts, GOONs is making this out to be some sort of defense of the horribly persecuted raiding nations.

[jgator]

Who said anything about being unwilling to fight? Most times a nations soldiers fight bravely in their homeland's defense. It's not a matter of being unwilling to fight, it's about a nation being unable to stand up to a stronger nation. More often than not, it's also saying that a nation that isn't part of an alliance is somehow at fault, that their ruler and government somehow failed and that the nation deserves to be attacked and it's technology and land stolen. I don't understand such a justification at all.

Again, I fully understand that others disagree with me. But having a policy that basically encourages even more attacks because the raiding nation is somehow a victim is ridiculous. The raiding nation is the... aggressor. They are not the victim. With this policy and subsequent posts, GOONs is making this out to be some sort of defense of the horribly persecuted raiding nations.

Again the job of the ruler is to make sure that the people of the nation are safe, if this means joining an alliance then so be it. Many great rulers have conquered other lands to add to the greatness of there nation. Those are the rules that made sure there people were safe and welcomed the people of the lands they conquered to share in the safety of it's lands. One could even say that these so called "raiders" are delivering people from there unsafe conditions and giving them the opportunity to live their lives in a safer place.

I understand that we may not see eye to eye on this and I do not wish to change your mind, all I'm saying is there is two sides if not more to things. If a "raider" is attacked for it's acts do the innocent people of that nation not die in these attacks? So one must think that the innocent people of the raiding nation don't matter?

[Jyrinx]

Again the job of the ruler is to make sure that the people of the nation are safe, if this means joining an alliance then so be it. Many great rulers have conquered other lands to add to the greatness of there nation. Those are the rules that made sure there people were safe and welcomed the people of the lands they conquered to share in the safety of it's lands. One could even say that these so called "raiders" are delivering people from there unsafe conditions and giving them the opportunity to live their lives in a safer place.

I understand that we may not see eye to eye on this and I do not wish to change your mind, all I'm saying is there is two sides if not more to things. If a "raider" is attacked for it's acts do the innocent people of that nation not die in these attacks? So one must think that the innocent people of the raiding nation don't matter?

I understand where you're going with this, but while I feel that a nation's people must take responsibility for a ruler's mistakes, I don't understand how it's, morally speaking, a mistake to be weaker or not ally yourselves with those stronger than you. But we shall leave it at that as I must sleep now.

Pleasure discussing this with you jgator.

[AgentofChaos]

Who said anything about being unwilling to fight? Most times a nations soldiers fight bravely in their homeland's defense. It's not a matter of being unwilling to fight, it's about a nation being unable to stand up to a stronger nation. More often than not, it's also saying that a nation that isn't part of an alliance is somehow at fault, that their ruler and government somehow failed and that the nation deserves to be attacked and it's technology and land stolen. I don't understand such a justification at all.

Again, I fully understand that others disagree with me. But having a policy that basically encourages even more attacks because the raiding nation is somehow a victim is ridiculous. The raiding nation is the... aggressor. They are not the victim. With this policy and subsequent posts, GOONs is making this out to be some sort of defense of the horribly persecuted raiding nations.

If a ruler cannot adequately defend his nation then he does not deserve to have it and any who see fit should be welcome to the spoils of their sad little nation. Frankly, if I cannot defend my people then my foes are welcome to whatever they can take.

[jgator]

I understand where you're going with this, but while I feel that a nation's people must take responsibility for a ruler's mistakes, I don't understand how it's, morally speaking, a mistake to be weaker or not ally yourselves with those stronger than you. But we shall leave it at that as I must sleep now.

Pleasure discussing this with you jgator.

I'm glad you understand where I'm going, as I understand where you are coming from.

It was a pleasure for me as well, and I look forward to more discussions in the future Jyrinx.

[hizzy]

If a ruler cannot adequately defend his nation then he does not deserve to have it and any who see fit should be welcome to the spoils of their sad little nation. Frankly, if I cannot defend my people then my foes are welcome to whatever they can take.

moot point. You're offering assistance to attackers regardless of how well the defender has repelled the attacks.

[Mussolandia]

I have always found tech-raiding to be distasteful and juvenile. The motivation behind it is comparable to that of teenage intercourse.

There is no honor or lasting satisfaction and there is little in terms of material gains from it. It is also useless as training for your nations because most times your target does not fight back.

However, I have learned it is a minor issue at best and that, if one is wise, one will overlook its unpleasant nature in order to please your allies. This is what the Orders' position towards tech-raiding has always been. It is one I hope our new Order takes.

In Sith fashion, I will ask my friend and brother Rebel Virginia not to issue threats he will not be able to follow through. And that's that.

[Balder]

Hello new GOONS. I hate you less now. Oh and you have my moral support against the holier than thou brigade organizing against you .

[Chalaskan]

Not bad. Now bring back Shark Week.

My thoughts exactly!

GOONS have always had balls, only once did they not have the backing, and left the scene due to it...

Regardless, what will you do if the unaligned runs to an applicant status? Will that be something you decide on independently, or will you revise this doctrine to include such an incident? (forgive me if I missed it at 1:30 am)

Also, I understand you are trying to shake up the cyberverse, and am kinda enjoying it. Hate those papa smurf balls if ya know what I mean.

[GearHead]

Thanks for taking a well meant and extremely generous initiative to a whole new level.

Bad show.

[nippy]

Hahaha, thanks for the comedy, Mussolandia. There surely is nothing honorable about teenage intercourse! Those that perform it should be downright ashamed of themselves, because everyone knows that the extra bits everyone is born with aren't meant to be used. It's more fun to talk, right?

That being said, please don't ask Revel Birginia to stop issuing threats. He's a swell guy, and despite my tendency to read his posts as if he's an outraged member of the Lollipop Guild, he's always welcome to yap away at us. The little kick dance he does is amazing.

[Uncle Stalin]

Cool kids tech raid whole alliances