So, uh, Athens...

[Jack Diorno]

Looks like not everybody got the memo to call it a tech raid

This would be even funnier if thedarklordjay was known publicly, I knew that kid was trouble.

[Pocho]

The intent of the actions of Athens and FoB is what should be the core of the debate. The intent was as simple as to have an economical gain for their respective alliances. There's nothing really more to it. If you want to get into the semantics of it, then that's a whole different debate. Is it a war? yes it is, check the war screen. Is it a tech raid? yes it is. Now, where it gets tricky is where we decide to consider this an action of individuals or of an alliance. Athens and the Federation of Buccaneers are not attacking the Knights of Ni!, rather individuals are attacking individuals. Here is where the lack of a DoW comes into place. You can't deny that war is happening, but an alliance war between two or more distinct alliances is not. Right now the difference between the two is indiscernible, but how much they are unlike will be demonstrated in the coming days.

Attack and peace immediately after is not a very intelligent alliance war strategy nor is it common or the norm. Extorting tech and demanding reps after being the aggressor isn't a very common tech raid strategy. Establishing a viceroyship isn't one either. Demanding an alliance the majority of it's tech reserve is also not part of a tech raid. Only giving peace after crippling reparations have been asked for, is yet again, not a trait of traditional tech raids.

If you do not see the difference between the two and still critize Athens and the federation of Buccaneers for their lck of a declaration of war, please stop and rethink you're life. Now, if you've ever part taken, have been a member of or allied to an alliance that allowed tech raiding, please stop with the moral crusading, you have no ground to stand on.

And if I may add to hold Athens to the standards of early 06 is absurd. The game has evolved so much since then and the politics of such naturally have done so too. In January of 06 there was no tech raiding, to state that a nation had to join an alliance to avoid it is ridiculous.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Pocho

[wickedj]

I wonder what would happen if someone aided the Knights of Ni?

omg ur like aiding them and stuff

Funny, i dont see your name anywhere in there

[kriekfreak]

I wonder what would happen if someone aided the Knights of Ni?

This will end well.

[Cyphon88]

I wonder what would happen if someone aided the Knights of Ni?

Hmmm 6 mil thus far to two 20k NS nations. This is one element of the MD coming in then. I guess I shall see on Monday when I next get access. Bon Voyage Knights of Ni.

[HisK Owns You]

That's good to know. If that's how you feel, I'm glad you left.

I'm also glad he left.

AirMe

[Neo Uruk]

I wonder what would happen if someone aided the Knights of Ni?

This will end magnificently with no consequences at all.

[Heft]

Athens and the Federation of Buccaneers are not attacking the Knights of Ni!, rather individuals are attacking individuals. Here is where the lack of a DoW comes into place. You can't deny that war is happening, but an alliance war between two or more distinct alliances is not. Right now the difference between the two is indiscernible, but how much they are unlike will be demonstrated in the coming days.

That is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Congratulations.

[D34th]

The intent of the actions of Athens and FoB is what should be the core of the debate. The intent was as simple as to have an economical gain for their respective alliances. There's nothing really more to it. If you want to get into the semantics of it, then that's a whole different debate. Is it a war? yes it is, check the war screen. Is it a tech raid? yes it is. Now, where it gets tricky is where we decide to consider this an action of individuals or of an alliance. Athens and the Federation of Buccaneers are not attacking the Knights of Ni!, rather individuals are attacking individuals.

I stopped to read here.

If this are just individuals why this guy had orders to attack?

Please come back later with a better excuse.

Edited November 14, 2009 by D34th

[Heft]

This will end magnificently with no consequences at all.

I would assume not. It's not like I'm funding a war against Athens, just supporting another individual in a limited engagement against a third individual.

[Neo Uruk]

That is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Congratulations.

Made sense to me. I don't see how you can't get it. Members of alliances are raiding cleared targets. A war is demanded of members.

I would assume not. It's not like I'm funding a war against Athens, just supporting another individual in a limited engagement against a third individual.

NSO: Pushing the limit since formation.

I'm going to be happy to see how this one turns out either way.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Unavailable Contact

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Attack and peace immediately after is not a very intelligent alliance war strategy nor is it common or the norm. Extorting tech and demanding reps after being the aggressor isn't a very common tech raid strategy. Establishing a viceroyship isn't one either. Demanding an alliance the majority of it's tech reserve is also not part of a tech raid. Only giving peace after crippling reparations have been asked for, is yet again, not a trait of traditional tech raids.

Don't focus on the traditional - like you said, things change. Maybe the NPO invented a new kind of tech raiding and tested it out on Athens.

[Heft]

Made sense to me. I don't see how you can't get it. Members of alliances are raiding cleared targets. A war is demanded of members.

Oh, yes, I totally understand now. Silly me. It's only an alliance war if it's declared as an alliance war. Since they very clearly said it's just a series of individual tech raids then Athens isn't involved in any way and we can treat them all essentially as unaligned.

[Pocho]

EDIT: damn my slow internet

Edited November 14, 2009 by Pocho

[Petrovich4]

The intent of the actions of Athens and FoB is what should be the core of the debate. The intent was as simple as to have an economical gain for their respective alliances. There's nothing really more to it. If you want to get into the semantics of it, then that's a whole different debate. Is it a war? yes it is, check the war screen. Is it a tech raid? yes it is. Now, where it gets tricky is where we decide to consider this an action of individuals or of an alliance. Athens and the Federation of Buccaneers are not attacking the Knights of Ni!, rather individuals are attacking individuals. Here is where the lack of a DoW comes into place. You can't deny that war is happening, but an alliance war between two or more distinct alliances is not. Right now the difference between the two is indiscernible, but how much they are unlike will be demonstrated in the coming days.

Attack and peace immediately after is not a very intelligent alliance war strategy nor is it common or the norm. Extorting tech and demanding reps after being the aggressor isn't a very common tech raid strategy. Establishing a viceroyship isn't one either. Demanding an alliance the majority of it's tech reserve is also not part of a tech raid. Only giving peace after crippling reparations have been asked for, is yet again, not a trait of traditional tech raids.

If you do not see the difference between the two and still critize Athens and the federation of Buccaneers for their lck of a declaration of war, please stop and rethink you're life. Now, if you've ever part taken, have been a member of or allied to an alliance that allowed tech raiding, please stop with the moral crusading, you have no ground to stand on.

And if I may add to hold Athens to the standards of early 06 is absurd. The game has evolved so much since then and the politics of such naturally have done so too. In January of 06 there was no tech raiding, to state that a nation had to join an alliance to avoid it is ridiculous.

OMG ur not drunk!!!!

100+ nukes being launched at them if Knights of Ni! think this is an alliance war is not an economic gain. Bad move, horrible coordination and not an all out assault will make me laugh if KNi! decide to go all out.

I would.

Unfortunately for C&G (and all its signatories) this will reflect badly on you whether you agree with others' perspectives or not. Time will tell with this case and u potentially feeding a negative image for the future.

[Heft]

edit: or not?

Edited November 14, 2009 by Heft

[camerontech]

So...Let me get this straight, because after 22 pages I'm not sure if I still understand this.

If I dislike an alliance, instead of going through all the trouble of getting (or making up) a CB, I can just raid them, do some quick damage and get out, then maybe repeat every few days. And if anyone makes a fuss about it I can just say it's a tech raid, deal with it you hypocrite.

Half of Bob will defend me, the other half will just argue over NPO stuff. Great!

[Neo Uruk]

Oh, yes, I totally understand now. Silly me. It's only an alliance war if it's declared as an alliance war. Since they very clearly said it's just a series of individual tech raids then Athens isn't involved in any way and we can treat them all essentially as unaligned.

No, alliance wars don't have to be declared. For it to be an alliance war, members have to be ordered to attack. Since members are given an option and the goal is profit, this is a raid.

[Sulmar]

Ask Octaviuus about it yourself, he's in #fob most evenings. What I will tell you is that I personally mentioned to him when I saw him last that there was a raid available if he wanted, then he declared shortly after. There was no "order", we don't make people raid if they don't want to. In fact we have several buccaneers who find raiding "immoral". Lulz.

Why Octavious phrased his declaration that way, I couldn't tell you.

Be that as it may, I still don't see how this is classed as a tech raid. You can throw around things like "only doing ground attacks", but you still coordinated a blitz on the KoNi. To me, once you start coordinating things alliance-wide, it becomes an alliance war.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Sulmar

[Rebel Virginia]

Athens and the Federation of Buccaneers are not attacking the Knights of Ni!, rather individuals are attacking individuals.

This is an organized tech raid. To claim otherwise is simply nonsense.

[Heft]

No, alliance wars don't have to be declared. For it to be an alliance war, members have to be ordered to attack. Since members are given an option and the goal is profit, this is a raid.

An interesting viewpoint. In either case, we are agreed that this particular circumstance is clearly not an alliance war and thus does not involve alliances but individual nations. Good.

[TrotskysRevenge]

You posted without . I'm speechless.

Oops. Thanks for pointing it out....must be the exhaustion that comes with new twins. It's fixed now.

And Pocho, I never held anyone to the standards of January 2006; reading comprehension FTW . I was simply stating that I did not know when it became acceptable to tech raid members of alliances period, or when it became dependent on how strong said alliance is or how its allies are.

[snoman]

There is an inherent flaw in introducing morals into this argument when it is more or less an issue of classification. Whether you like it or not, the debate is about how we define a tech raid. If it were about what sovereignty implies, then we could and should be discussing whether or not Athens and FoB have the right to attack an isolated alliance (irrespective of alliance members). However, because the issue at hand is entirely about how we classify this conduct, we should not at all be concerned with the political ramifications (at least in this thread). Rather, it should be the focus of debate to determine the legality of coordinated raiding.

As many of you know (possibly even firsthand), raiding is a risky affair, particularly when your nation is in the higher nation strength ranges. You run the risk of someone calling for backup, nuking, or even hanging around for a wasteful seven days of no peace. The rewards however, are obvious. Tech is the most valuable, and land has it's purposes as well. In essence, the key to raiding is to maximize your gains and make the most efficient use of your slots/time.

Therefore, efficient raiding tactics will yield the most return. For example, sending peace immediately after doing your raid makes it possible for the raider to maybe free up that slot the same day. It also makes sense to stick to ground attacks only, because destroying your target to any extent greater than necessary will also limit the possible return for the raid. As many of you know, raiders will often use cautious attacks to avoid high casualty counts that threaten to put a target in anarchy, or limit tech return.

The point I'm getting to here is that if Athens and FoB stick to ground attacks (assuming there is no retaliation from KoNi), it is an entirely legal tech raid, regardless of how many are involved. That said, you can also see that many of the aggressor nations are doubling or tripling up on raids. It's risky, but it shows to demonstrate that there isn't some kind of reckless curb-stomping going on here. At the time of posting there are 55 wars for some 39 members. Compared to full alliance warfare, that is nearly negligible. Does it suck for KoNi? Yes, of course it does. The obvious response is, "why in the world did you form an alliance with no ability to protect itself from this sort of thing?". I'm not blaming the victim. This can happen to ANY non-treatied alliance. And it's legal too.

On the point of the Athens charter. It is not their responsibility to tell you that their charter has changed. Do not presume to be in control of their internal affairs, or their rights to change that charter.

Finally, on the sentiments of "global morality". Who is "everyone"? When I see people say that things are 'generally' not done the way demonstrated by the alliances in mention, it forces me to ask myself, "who is in charge of that supposed morality"? The fact of the matter is, you have no avatar to speak for this supposed global mentality. In fact, does this event not set a separate precedent to challenge said morality? Because the event we are speaking of is in fact a tech raid, it is one hundred percent legal. At this point, you are arguing semantics and history. But at the end of the thread, who are you trying to speak for outside of your alliance? Why should individual alliances submit to what you think is right just because of your standing in Bob?

Realistically, there is a fundamental difference between what is considered a broken social more, and an outright taboo. The real question that needs to be answered by those decrying the actions of FoB and Athens, is what kind of sanctions will you impose? Will you even bother?

If you have no intention of doing something about it, you are merely fighting for the sake of fighting, and have no place in this thread.

tl;dr

Because the wars are tech raids by terms of combat, and because the charters of both alliances allow it, the raids are legal.

Moral bawwing doesn't accomplish anything unless you're willing to do something about it.

[AlmightyGrub]

So...Let me get this straight, because after 22 pages I'm not sure if I still understand this.

If I dislike an alliance, instead of going through all the trouble of getting (or making up) a CB, I can just raid them, do some quick damage and get out, then maybe repeat every few days. And if anyone makes a fuss about it I can just say it's a tech raid, deal with it you hypocrite.

Half of Bob will defend me, the other half will just argue over NPO stuff. Great!

It is awesome. I have been doing it wrong. I have posted a few smaller ''alliances'' on our board offering our members the opportunity to take their tech from them without consequence. I expect participation to run into about 400 nations, good times ahead. There will be no co-ordination, we will just OMFGZ RAID PM 4 PIECES and all will be good.

I have chosen three alliances completely at random and I expect them to accept it is our will that their tech belongs to us. I do not care if said alliances have allies, because after all it is just a raid and apparently said allies of these said alliances have all said so right here.

The fact that we may well not tech raid in the traditional way may well sit badly with some of you, but never the less it is our apparent right to raid and so forth, call it a raid and so forth and escape any kind of oversight by the wider community.

[Neo Uruk]

tl;dr

Because the wars are tech raids by terms of combat, and because the charters of both alliances allow it, the raids are legal.

Moral bawwing doesn't accomplish anything unless you're willing to do something about it.

I !@#$@#$ love you.

I have chosen three alliances completely at random and I expect them to accept it is our will that their tech belongs to us. I do not care if said alliances have allies, because after all it is just a raid and apparently said allies of these said alliances have all said so right here.

I don't think anybody's said that KoN's allies (if they have any) can't defend them.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Unavailable Contact