Johnny Apocalypse Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) You were better underdogs. This whole "oh look we have power to do whatever we please" ting, doesn't suit you. If someone did this a year ago, there would be outrage. What's made this acceptable now? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Jus' sayin' Edited November 14, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 GPA received an apology for insulting their alliance because insulting their alliance was unnecessary.Now if you really want to sit here and try to equivocate sending messages to nations with sending soldiers to nations then continue, but it is really quite foolish. You and I both know that people don't actually read the announcements. They just assume they know what it states and run with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Seriously how the hell is it different? The crime is the same but the scale is very different. Obviously a crime committed on a larger scale requires a higher level of punishment than a crime committed on a small scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dujek Onearm Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 So for you are no difference raiding a 5/10 men alliance, a 40 men alliance or raiding GPA/TDO/WTF? Just the membership size? As for clarify my opinion about raid let me quote Bob Janova: In essence no difference at all, as I said earlier. All I see is you people stating there is a difference, but no one explains why. I really want to know where you (at general) think this difference comes from. Alliances are alliances, I don't care if they have 1, 10, 39, 98 or a billion members. They are alliances, having more or less members doesn't make an action against them more or less justifiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpcurley Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yes! Great work Athens! Keep it coming! You know who really is at fault? The Knights o Ni! How dare they be vulnerable to attack and have lots of tech. Only Athens had the grecian balls to stand up to KofN and their arrogant and immoral tech hoarding. Way to show them who's boss. In fact KofN should be thanking Athens for taking technology out of their hands. Having technology is an invitation to be attacked by much larger groups of arrogant, boorish nations totally unconcerned about the welfare of small alliances. KofN wouldn't want that to happen! Those criticizing Athens are only doing it for political gain. Come on! Athens nations knew they would have to face the consequences of attacking other nations even if it meant ending up with more tech than they had before the war. It's always been an okay practice to attack small vulnerable communities just because you can. There's nothing wrong with that. Why isn't it happening more often? Don't think of it as stealing tech think of it as exporting fun. KofN is having fun right? I'm sure they're celebrating their dropping tech supplies right now. I salute you Athens Here, Here! o/ Athens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) You were better underdogs.Jus' sayin' You were better writing humor and not trying to make points. Jus' sayin' Seriously, when has Athens been an underdog? In my time in MK we treated FoB as our equals (except they were a protectorate ) The crime is the same but the scale is very different. Obviously a crime committed on a larger scale requires a higher level of punishment than a crime committed on a small scale. Except it's not on a larger scale. It's individual nations with a common bond choosing to raid other individual nations with a different bond. Edited November 14, 2009 by Unavailable Contact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am glad to see that Unjust Path 2.0 has backed down. It is a shame to see one of the driving force behind the ideals of Karma seem to have revealed themselves to be nothing more than survival of the fittest and engaging in acts of aggression for the sake of lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 GPA received an apology for insulting their alliance because insulting their alliance was unnecessary.Now if you really want to sit here and try to equivocate sending messages to nations with sending soldiers to nations then continue, but it is really quite foolish. Personally, I'd still call that violating another alliance's sovereignty (though, admittedly, to much less of an extent), but I suppose we can agree to disagree. Also, as I said, I spoke based on what I could remember. I didn't remember the exact contents of the apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 In essence no difference at all, as I said earlier. All I see is you people stating there is a difference, but no one explains why. I really want to know where you (at general) think this difference comes from.Alliances are alliances, I don't care if they have 1, 10, 39, 98 or a billion members. They are alliances, having more or less members doesn't make an action against them more or less justifiable. So kill one person or kill 40 is the same thing? You think if a man kill a person and other 40, they deserve the same punishment because in the end are the same crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am glad to see that Unjust Path 2.0 has backed down. It is a shame to see one of the driving force behind the ideals of Karma seem to have revealed themselves to be nothing more than survival of the fittest and engaging in acts of aggression for the sake of land. So glad I could fix that for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You honestly see no difference in raiding 39 people and raiding 5? You do not need to be an expert in mathematics to understand which is the bigger crime and which warrants a bigger response. Obviously, in an ideal world we would fight all raiding and treat the small crimes in the same way as the big ones, but for now I think taking a stand at any attempt to raise the limits of acceptable raiding is a good base point to keep in place when fighting the practice. It is surprising to see someone who is supposedly against raiding in all forms criticise one of the very few standards we have as a community against raiding. Whether or not they launched 5 or 40 attacks, that doesn't matter a bit. It is the action itself this is about. Do you allow techraiding, or do you not? If you do, what does it matter if you attack your target by yourself, or with 2 partners? I don't think so. Also, since when do you speak for "the community"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Personally, I'd still call that violating another alliance's sovereignty (though, admittedly, to much less of an extent), but I suppose we can agree to disagree.Also, as I said, I spoke based on what I could remember. I didn't remember the exact contents of the apology. I don't believe insulting another alliance, which is what that apology was for, is equivalent to an imposition on sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 They didn't do either of those. How is this not a classic example of biting off more than you can chew? They made a decision without thinking it through, and now they are backing down when it turns out folks might be willing to "do something about it". Aka, they bit off more than they could chew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dujek Onearm Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 The crime is the same but the scale is very different. Obviously a crime committed on a larger scale requires a higher level of punishment than a crime committed on a small scale. But we are not talking about punishment here and that is where you are wrong. A raid against a micro alliance is accepted, the vast majority of the people posting here don't see it as crime. While a raid against an alliance bigger than X is the worst crime on the world. In that view, it is ok to raid 4 alliances with 10 members, but wrong to raid one with 40. I believe you can see what is wrong with that line of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 How is this not a classic example of biting off more than you can chew? They made a decision without thinking it through, and now they are backing down when it turns out folks might be willing to "do something about it". Aka, they bit off more than they could chew. Eh, I didn't really think of it that way. I thought of it as Londo not wanting to hear the tears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Whether or not they launched 5 or 40 attacks, that doesn't matter a bit.It is the action itself this is about. Do you allow techraiding, or do you not? If you do, what does it matter if you attack your target by yourself, or with 2 partners? I don't think so. Also, since when do you speak for "the community"? Why doesn't it matter? I am saying it does matter because obviously 40 attacks do more damage than 5. The idea that all tech raiding should be treated equally regardless of how it is conducted, what level of raiding takes place, etc. is overly simplistic and disingenuous. Edited November 14, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 But we are not talking about punishment here and that is where you are wrong. A raid against a micro alliance is accepted, the vast majority of the people posting here don't see it as crime. While a raid against an alliance bigger than X is the worst crime on the world.In that view, it is ok to raid 4 alliances with 10 members, but wrong to raid one with 40. I believe you can see what is wrong with that line of thought. I don't consider what Athens to have done to implicitly be a "crime" at all. I simply believe that they choose a poor method and characterization. If they wanted to go to war with Ni! then they should have just been bold enough to declare openly, perhaps stating something like "The Knights of Ni! have been breathing our oxygen" and rolled with it. Calling it a tech raid just seems petty. It is a wholesale declaration against an entire alliance. Surely not every single member of Ni! are realistically viable tech raiding targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) When VE was destroyed, I would have been as upset if we were 40 members back then. Member count doesn't matter. Edited November 14, 2009 by Hell Scream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Seriously how the hell is it different? If I raid you, you can fight back and do a lot of damage (it's a fair fight). But If I raid your entire alliance (which let's say is 1/5 my alliance's size) you're going to lose (not a fair fight). B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 How is this not a classic example of biting off more than you can chew? They made a decision without thinking it through, and now they are backing down when it turns out folks might be willing to "do something about it". Aka, they bit off more than they could chew. One thing I really need to learn is to never underestimate the power of opportunism in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You were better writing humor and not trying to make points.Jus' sayin' Seriously, when has Athens been an underdog? In my time in MK we treated FoB as our equals (except they were a protectorate ) I should stick to what I know I suppose. I don't like seeing alliances attacking other alliances and calling it a "tech raid" because they're too small to do anything about it. I can't imagine the Athens of a year ago even considering this sort of behaviour. I am however glad to see that this won't happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) But we are not talking about punishment here and that is where you are wrong. A raid against a micro alliance is accepted, the vast majority of the people posting here don't see it as crime. While a raid against an alliance bigger than X is the worst crime on the world.In that view, it is ok to raid 4 alliances with 10 members, but wrong to raid one with 40. I believe you can see what is wrong with that line of thought. I assume by acceptance you mean people doing nothing about it, yes? In that case I'd say that punishment (or the threat of punishment) is the issue here. People do nothing about it because five members aren't worth as much as 40 (sad, but that's life). Edited November 14, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Why doesn't it matter? I am saying it does matter because obviously 40 attacks do more damage than 5. The idea that all tech raiding should be treated equally regardless of how it is conducted, what level of raiding takes place, etc. is overly simplistic and disingenuous. Ofcourse more attacks do more damage. That wasn't what I was disputing. A mass raid is still a raid, that was the point. So, do you consider raiding bad or not? Do you accept it or not? Because that's what we have to deal with in this particular situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpcurley Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Except it's not on a larger scale. It's individual nations with a common bond choosing to raid other individual nations with a different bond. What? Do you think by redefining the situation it changes its nature? Lets apply that logic to Alliance wars in general "Its not war. It's one group of nations with a common bond choosing to fight another group of nations with a common bond' The simple fact that it was a coordinated and targeted attack on a specific group of nations makes it a larger scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Glad to see that alliance raids are still as controversial as ever, cybernations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.