Athens Announcement regarding Ni!

[Heft]

One thing I really need to learn is to never underestimate the power of opportunism in this world.

That's odd, you calling the protesters opportunists in this instance. You seem to have it a little backwards.

[Penkala]

The point is, as an alliance that has been attacked before by a much larger, dominant force and had your tech taken, you should be more sensative than most to the issues surrounding what you're doing. Someone should be able to join a 1 million NS alliance with a reasonable expectation that, so long as their alliance elects proper leadership and conducts itself cordially, organized conflict will not be coming to its door step. This is why so many people were against the GPA war and against this war now. Frankly, what you're doing is pretty disgusting. If I were an unaligned I would accept tech raids as a consequence of that and hence have no moral qualms against raiding nones. I do, however, draw the line in the sand when a real, established alliance is 'raided' - quadded 3 v. 1 with no reason other than greed.

[jer]

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.

I don't personally accept it but I am realistic enough to know that fighting all raiding isn't possible right now, because there are way too many people in favour of it. The 'arbitrary' numbers and community standards are a good balance for now, I think.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Don Fernando]

So your "wars of oppression" were not full military operations, with nukes, and cm's and whatnot? And after you concluded military operations, you did not demand more tech? Please, I may not fully like the level of this raid, but you can just go home now, if you're going to try and convince us all that Athens' raid was equivalent to your alliance's actions, say regarding GPA.

Raiding has always been "against the status quo," and yet alliances large and small do it every day. Nobody has ever successfully been able to "keep the screws" to any and all alliances that do it day in and day out. In the recent months, NPO has fallen, former friends of mine that had been accompany to myself & friends of mine in raids have told me, as well stated in this as well as the other Athens thread that raiding is bad, and it hurts somebody, and its not nice, nor is it going to allowed on CN.

Is this not the truth? In case most of you have missed it, this is Cyber Nations. We have all built up our nations in the manner we wanted. We chose to surround ourselves with like-minded people. Everyone goes around trying to dictate what their opinion is on how raiding should be conducted. Either that, or telling other people that they shouldn't raid. If I go back in the history to every alliance, or splinter of every alliance, raiding has been, is, and will be done till this game is over.

Bad PR...Good PR...At the end of the day, does it really matter? This will just come and go, raiders will be raiders, Athens will still be awesome, FoB won't be thrown under the bus because certain members of this world don't feel like trying to hurt them, just Athens because they have a grudge against them...which is pretty low IMO

Question is, what is okay, what is not okay, what is borderline...none of these have ever been "clearly outlined" AS FAR AS I KNOW, "Raiding" involves 2 ground attacks, followed by peace. Is that NPO's style...can't answer as I was never a member. I can answer for those parties involved, and this, by my definition, as stated, is a raid. Alliance size is disputed in EVERY alliances charter, so why do alliances that raid even speak out against in these treads. I’m not any more holy or correct then anyone else, in the sense that I raid have raided as well, but I don't contradict my own personal values.

Mark my words, this, my friends, is a sad day. Friends have spoken against friends and disputed their own personal values for a feudal attempt at some moral high standing, pats on their back, and +1's from people who don’t raid or approve of it. Just because I don't agree with certain religions, doesn't mean I can’t accept that people believe in them.

[LegendoftheSkies]

I don't believe insulting another alliance, which is what that apology was for, is equivalent to an imposition on sovereignty.

I meant the recruiting itself. But again, we certainly don't agree on that point, or else you guys wouldn't have done it.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you guys did, I'm just saying there are some inherent similarities. You challenged the sovereignty of GPA by trying to recruit their nations as though they weren't in a real alliance. Athens challenged Knights of Ni's sovereignty by engaging in individual raids on their nations on a large scale, again as if they weren't in a real alliance.

The extent to the challenge and the inherent aggression is of a much larger scale in Athens case, but I still consider both to be actions that do not treat the receiving alliance as a sovereign entity. Again just my thoughts.

But in all honesty, if you lack the means to protect your sovereignty, you really shouldn't expect people to respect it. In actuality I didn't take issue with your action so much as I did you criticizing Athens for theirs, but I suppose Heft already answered that inquery.

[Tromp]

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).

Right here you give an argument against your own Point of View.

It's the same action, yet you don't treat it equally. So I take it that you like to bully 5 nations instead of 40... Which leads me to the conclusion you are a bigger bully than these Athenians.

[Tromp]

The point is, as an alliance that has been attacked before by a much larger, dominant force and had your tech taken, you should be more sensative than most to the issues surrounding what you're doing. Someone should be able to join a 1 million NS alliance with a reasonable expectation that, so long as their alliance elects proper leadership and conducts itself cordially, organized conflict will not be coming to its door step. This is why so many people were against the GPA war and against this war now. Frankly, what you're doing is pretty disgusting. If I were an unaligned I would accept tech raids as a consequence of that and hence have no moral qualms against raiding nones. I do, however, draw the line in the sand when a real, established alliance is 'raided' - quadded 3 v. 1 with no reason other than greed.

Since when is "safety" a right?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of your post, but assuming you'll be ok when you join an alliance is really ignorant.

[jer]

Right here you give an argument against your own Point of View.

It's the same action, yet you don't treat it equally. So I take it that you like to bully 5 nations instead of 40... Which leads me to the conclusion you are a bigger bully than these Athenians.

Your first sentence is correct (and let me say that I am sad about this, but it's the way it is... as I say there are too many people in support of raiding to close it down entirely). Your second sentence however is a crazy extrapolation on what I've said, but hey, I think I could enjoy a bully image

Edited November 14, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Tromp]

I don't personally accept it but I am realistic enough to know that fighting all raiding isn't possible right now, because there are way too many people in favour of it. The 'arbitrary' numbers and community standards are a good balance for now, I think.

Alright, then lets keep it at this.

[Ivan Moldavi]

One thing I really need to learn is to never underestimate the power of opportunism in this world.

Amen to that.

[Tromp]

Your first sentence is correct (and let me say that I am sad about this, but it's the way it is... as I say there are too many people in support of raiding to close it down entirely). Your second sentence however is a crazy extrapolation on what I've said, but hey, I think I could enjoy a bully image

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit, but you have a thick skin I see.

Glad we understand each other though. B)

[kpcurley]

Right here you give an argument against your own Point of View.

It's the same action, yet you don't treat it equally. So I take it that you like to bully 5 nations instead of 40... Which leads me to the conclusion you are a bigger bully than these Athenians.

Except that there is a common consensus on planet bob that alliances under 10 are not really sovereign alliances. I don't know if I agree with that consensus, but since by Athen's own charter they agree with that consensus, they are hypocritical on this occasion and thus deserve a character hit.

[GeoLauzier]

If people in Knight of Ni! wanted protection, they should have joined an alliance that actually offer protection.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I meant the recruiting itself. But again, we certainly don't agree on that point, or else you guys wouldn't have done it.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you guys did, I'm just saying there are some inherent similarities. You challenged the sovereignty of GPA by trying to recruit their nations as though they weren't in a real alliance. Athens challenged Knights of Ni's sovereignty by engaging in individual raids on their nations on a large scale, again as if they weren't in a real alliance.

The extent to the challenge and the inherent aggression is of a much larger scale in Athens case, but I still consider both to be actions that do not treat the receiving alliance as a sovereign entity. Again just my thoughts.

But in all honesty, if you lack the means to protect your sovereignty, you really shouldn't expect people to respect it. In actuality I didn't take issue with your action so much as I did you criticizing Athens for theirs, but I suppose Heft already answered that inquery.

I have criticized their actions personally at all. I have criticized their explanation. If an alliance wishes to declare war on another alliance then it certainly has to sovereign right to do so. Just do it. Don't call it something that it clearly isn't.

[Shinpah]

Someone should be able to join a 1 million NS alliance with a reasonable expectation that, so long as their alliance elects proper leadership and conducts itself cordially, organized conflict will not be coming to its door step.

Obviously we shouldn't accept such moral absolutism

[PhysicsJunky]

One thing I really need to learn is to never underestimate the power of opportunism in this world.

Your alliance just raided a 39 man established alliance because you were bored and could get away with it and you're the one complaining about opportunism? That's almost as ballsy as complaining about moralizing over whom you could attack when your alliance just came off the front line of the biggest moralist attack in CN history concerning the "do something about it" principle. Oh wait...

I don't think you're going to be able to spin yourself as the victim here. Unless you're still trying to convince yourselves you were in the right.

[enderland]

One thing I really need to learn is to never underestimate the power of opportunism in this world.

Hm?

You mean like free land/tech/money for your alliance? I don't think you underestimated that at all

[Tromp]

Except that there is a common consensus on planet bob that alliances under 10 are not really sovereign alliances. I don't know if I agree with that consensus, but since by Athen's own charter they agree with that consensus, they are hypocritical on this occasion and thus deserve a character hit.

Orly?

Some consider 2 nations flying an AA an 'alliance', others don't unless they have a forum.

This kind of thing is completely arbitrary, and thus a pretty weak argument.

[Neo Uruk]

"Its not war. It's one group of nations with a common bond choosing to fight another group of nations with a common bond'

Huge difference. War is ordered by government, you don't have a choice to partake or not.

[Farnsworth]

An honorable response, Athens.

It's perfectly understandable to disagree with societal norms and etiquette, but often prudent to abide by them nonetheless.

There's always the option of lobbying for the alteration of current standards. This announcement effectively makes known your viewpoint and perhaps initiates a renewed debate on the subject.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Farnsworth

[LegendoftheSkies]

Someone should be able to join a 1 million NS alliance with a reasonable expectation that, so long as their alliance elects proper leadership and conducts itself cordially, organized conflict will not be coming to its door step.

I think Knights of Ni! was below 1mil NS before the start of the conflict.

[deSouza]

Good good.

Well done athens.

[Londo Mollari]

quadded 3 v. 1 with no reason other than greed.

Neither 3 v 1 nor quadded.

[Don Fernando]

I think Knights of Ni! was below 1mil NS before the start of the conflict.

I agree personally...but what are the rules and regulations that are generally accepted by the public abroad...everyone's opinion is different...

[Don Fernando]

(Penkala @ Nov 14 2009, 04:20 PM) *

quadded 3 v. 1 with no reason other than greed.

Two options here...everyone knows the outcome, just interest in seeing your opinion. When every war is started, you do an update blitz to get as much as you can as quick as you can. Isn't this true for raids as well? Or...not? Taken my option, I'd blitz my opponent to try and get an advantage, I dunno about you.