Ruggsymuggs Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 posting in epic thread because jgoods said not too also at whoever said " you should make a sig version of that" twords jack, whether you were joking or not your request has been met Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 What's all this about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Point me at one and certainly. I've not seen such an outrageous noCB war before. I'm sorry, I just don't see the difference between raids on nations with no friends and raids on nations with friends. In both cases one is raiding, mugging, sadistically torturing (or whatever you want to call it) another nation, and after every raid the raider has to bear the consequences. To me, it's not any more detestable to raid one unaligned nation than a dozen aligned ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Welcome to the consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Ahhhh But a brick wall doesnt say anything stupid. It is smart enough to realize it doesnt have anything intelligent to say. So in that case i think you owe all brick walls a formal appology for comparing the two. Oh my god more ad hominem attacks AVFC1 if you can't see the difference between 2 or 3 nations raiding a 5-10 men alliance(who raiders do not consider to be an alliance) and 2 Alliances raiding a 40 men alliance with an update blitz I'm losting my time with you. And if you and other really can't see the difference between 5-10 men alliances to 40 men alliances, you shouldn't see the difference between 40 men alliance and GPA, TDO, WTF. They have no treaties too, I'll be expecting you to raid them soon. Edited November 14, 2009 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Gobb: Not sure you caught my latest post. Also, attacking aligned nations is worse, because the usual argument of tech raiders ('If they didn't want to be raided, they should join an alliance') doesn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Oh my god more ad hominem attacks AVFC1 if you can't see the difference between 2 or 3 nations raiding a 5-10 men alliance(who raiders do not consider to be an alliance) and 2 Alliances raiding a 40 men alliance with an update blitz I'm losting my time with you. Yes, one has nukes and can attack us back, the other can't. I guess we are actually more moral then regular tech raiders who give their opponents zero chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 True, there is no difference in principle between attacking a small alliance and attacking a larger one. That's why our tech raiding policy is limited to unaligned nations, and why TOP don't allow raiding at all. However, there is a difference in degree. You go after a mass murderer before you go after a one time killer. You have crossed the line between 'bad' and 'an unprecedented outrage'. I really love this. You endorse tech raids on any nations wearing 'none', and the instant they have something else in place of that 'none', its suddenly a horrendous crime? They are both equal, if one is 'an unprecedented outrage' so is the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yes, one has nukes and can attack us back, the other can't. I guess we are actually more moral then regular tech raiders who give their opponents zero chance. Yeah they attack you back and you ZI the entire alliance with the excuse "We were just raiding, they nuked us first" Very honorable, kudos for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpcurley Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 What purpose would that serve?We are raiding them for profit, not attacking them for destruction. This is a mass tech raid. It would appear that some of you would find this MUCH more kosher if we faked some IRC logs stating that KofN were plotting our destruction and beating kittens, rather than just raiding and sending peace. bwa haha! Great logic! If i ever decide murder someone I will use similar logic in my defense. "Well, your honor, at least I am not Hitler, Stalin, or even Pol Pot; I hear their crimes were much worse." The point is, and I am NOT defending NPO, is that Athens is not being held to the same standard of morality here. If IRON or NPO had committed this act or raiding everyone would of been "oh mai god! how ebulll! stawp ett now!" right now Athens seems to have more support in this matter. What concerns me, is not the raiding per se, it's the blatant fakeness of the CN community, false morals. It's only wrong to commit crimes when you are not our friends. On the other hand, Athens did read the political climate right, and deserve credit for committing the perfect crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Welcome to the consequences Damn, you made me run to check to see if your words were hinting at something. There's time yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 And that's pretty much all that is to it. This is pretty awesome. Good show Athens and FoB. Any respect I had for y'all has been lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yeah they attack you back and you ZI the entire alliance with the excuse "We were just raiding, they nuked us first" Very honorable, kudos for you. Are you creating our policies now? If anyone wants to have some revenge on any tech raiding nation then those nations will duke it out until peace is given on both sides or the war expires, please stop the slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Are you creating our policies now? If anyone wants to have some revenge on any tech raiding nation then those nations will duke it out until peace is given on both sides or the war expires, please stop the slander. So can I message the KoN nuclear capable nations saying that they can nuke Athens and FoC nations without consequences because they have the right to defend themselves aginst raiders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) I really love this. You endorse tech raids on any nations wearing 'none', and the instant they have something else in place of that 'none', its suddenly a horrendous crime? They are both equal, if one is 'an unprecedented outrage' so is the other. Correct, being in an alliance means that different rules apply outside of an alliance. Â Oversimplification doesn't change that and never has. I'm sure you can remember when a certain alliance attempted to recruit from another alliance? Â Again, standards for recruiting are different for those in an alliance than those outside of. The same applies to tech raiding. Edited November 14, 2009 by Dr. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbite Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance...ights%20of%20Ni! interesting to see the number of nations in anarchy, now could someone please clarify how it's a raid and not a curb stomping? because to me this just looks like a curb stomping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Gobb: Not sure you caught my latest post. Also, attacking aligned nations is worse, because the usual argument of tech raiders ('If they didn't want to be raided, they should join an alliance') doesn't apply. What I got was you're saying they attacked an established alliance comparing it to Valhalla and GGA attacking Hyperion, I'm saying their members raided another alliance's members. As for the usual argument of tech raiders, I don't use it. It's really pointless to even start arguing about this, since our views on tech raiding seem to be different. As I said, to me raiding is immoral business no matter who you raid. Everyone can be raided and it's just a matter of common sense to decide if it's worth the risk to raid someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You guys are immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 It's like Jack didn't actually read my post, except to find some nail he could hang a shred of an argument on! Let's try again. All tech raiding (i.e. attacking nations with no CB to steal from them) is bad, attacking small alliances (those which are 'not recognised' by the international community) is much worse, attacking a larger alliance is worse still. When trying to rid the world of an abusive practice, you start from the worst excesses. As a member of a leading Karma alliance you should be familiar with this principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Nice to see that we have further proof that Athens and CnG spout morality only when it's convenient. You're so much better than that evil NPO you ganged-up on. We all know how much better it would be if you guys were #1. Oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 All tech raiding (i.e. attacking nations with no CB to steal from them) is bad, attacking small alliances (those which are 'not recognised' by the international community) is much worse, attacking a larger alliance is worse still. When trying to rid the world of an abusive practice, you start from the worst excesses.As a member of a leading Karma alliance you should be familiar with this principle. I couldn't say that in a best way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) So is Ronin just an alliance for people who love MK but hate the rest of CnG and want to distance themselves? no problem. We all make mistakes. We also hold a treat with =LOST=. And I have close ties to GR and most of us are fond of Vanguard. I am sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have an opinion. How about you stick to the argument instead of an verbal attack on the alliance. Funny thing is about your statement, I have had members of CnG alliances querying me on IRC about how they agree with my and others statements of criticism and outrage. Given that Ronin lives by the Bushido Code, we have high standards that others in the game don't have. Either way, we are all entitled to hold opinions whether you like it or not. Edited November 14, 2009 by AirMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Correct. Â Hitting 39 people is worse than hitting 10.Pretty stupid time to be pulling these antics then, isn't it? Â I'd suggest an apology and reparations to KoNi. Â It might be time to gather up the losses and turn around, but hey, what do I know? Damn you guys. You make me agree with TOP. I am certain that this is the first time I've done that in a while But, question. If I encouraged KoN nations to nuke you into oblivion. Would you be mad at me? Also, would you continue the war for more than a week? What if I sent them aid and got others to do that as well? Would that be ok? I mean, it's not a war or anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance...ights%20of%20Ni!interesting to see the number of nations in anarchy, now could someone please clarify how it's a raid and not a curb stomping? because to me this just looks like a curb stomping Athens/FoB aren't using nukes and they're offering peace after the first wave of attacks. If you'll look The Knights of Ni! aren't even ranked in the Top 7 Day Smallest Alliance gains. I would think that if they were really trying to destroy the KofN there would be much more damage done to them. Also, it doesn't take much to anarchy a nation, especially one sitting with minimum soldier requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbite Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Athens/FoB aren't using nukes and they're offering peace after the first wave of attacks. If you'll look The Knights of Ni! aren't even ranked in the Top 7 Day Smallest Alliance gains. I would think that if they were really trying to destroy the KofN there would be much more damage done to them. Also, it doesn't take much to anarchy a nation, especially one sitting with minimum soldier requirements. that is true, it does not take much to anarchy a nation sitting on minimum soldiers but then why send 3 nations against 1, as you can claim to get max return on the raid, but then why anarchy so many nations at once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts