Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Over $50m has been sent to nations while they were on the Ni! AA, and some more to those who have dropped AA.Edit: Revanche, you're being ridiculous. There are over 1800 wars currently active, most of which will be raids; to aid each nation that is attacked would cost over five billion dollars. Just because it is impractical to help every nation that is attacked doesn't give you carte blanche to attack any alliance you feel like. Tell me, then. What exactly makes the nations of the Knights of Ni so shiny and special? How exactly did they suffer more than a tech raided nation who is a member of a five or twelve man alliance? Surely they are worthy of financial support, also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Beck Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 forgive my ignorance and aim me in the direction of other, equally obviously established, alliances being attacked en masse under the guide of "tech raiding" and I shall make my position known there as well. http://www.cybernations.net/all_war_information.asp also as i pointed out earlier, there are at least four reasons why it was a tech raid and not war, so you should remove the "'s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 So, not only do you neglect technology raid victims because the community they participate in does not meet your lofty membership count standards, but also because of the entirely subjective judgement on how 'established' their alliance is. It looks as if receiving assistance from the Matthew PK Fund for Tech Raid Victims is about as demanding as acquiring financial support from the IMF. Worry not, I will be sure to fire off a private message requesting your support whenever I find a small alliance suffering technology raids - an almost daily occurrence - just in case you lower your pre-requisites. I don't claim to be able to effectively oppose presently established paradigms. My interest here is entirely in preventing the shift towards accepting the legitimacy of raids on larger alliances. Call it arbitrary if you want; it certainly is. But I did not create the prevailing definition of "alliance" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) http://www.cybernations.net/all_war_information.aspalso as i pointed out earlier, there are at least four reasons why it was a tech raid and not war, so you should remove the "'s Your linking me to the war declaration screen doesn't invalidate the point. I have no interest in searching for other 40-man alliances being attacked solely because they are unlikely to resist. And while perhaps that makes me lazy, it will not stop me from opposing wrongdoings which are otherwise brought to my attention. Edited November 17, 2009 by Matthew PK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I don't claim to be able to effectively oppose presently established paradigms.My interest here is entirely in preventing the shift towards accepting the legitimacy of raids on larger alliances. Call it arbitrary if you want; it certainly is. But I did not create the prevailing definition of "alliance" There is no "prevailing definition" of the term 'alliance', outside of that provided by the game; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Technology raids affect every small nation in the same manner: theft of technology, economic destruction, frustration, and lowered morale and interest in the Cyberverse. Hence, any nation that is subjected to the abhorrent consequences of technology raiding, whether they belong to a one-man alliance or a fifty-man alliance, is equally deserving of support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 There is no "prevailing definition" of the term 'alliance', outside of that provided by the game; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Technology raids affect every small nation in the same manner: theft of technology, economic destruction, frustration, and lowered morale and interest in the Cyberverse. Hence, any nation that is subjected to the abhorrent consequences of technology raiding, whether they belong to a one-man alliance or a fifty-man alliance, is equally deserving of support. I contend otherwise. Most alliances with some form of "tech-raid" guidelines have language stipulating valid targets based on alliance size. Your assertion that "definitions which persist outside of game mechanics are invalid" is laughable; shall we ignore the treaty web entirely then by the same logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 There is no "prevailing definition" of the term 'alliance', outside of that provided by the game; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Technology raids affect every small nation in the same manner: theft of technology, economic destruction, frustration, and lowered morale and interest in the Cyberverse. Hence, any nation that is subjected to the abhorrent consequences of technology raiding, whether they belong to a one-man alliance or a fifty-man alliance, is equally deserving of support. Stop complaining at people who are supporting these victims, then, and get out there and support the others! Talk about making an argument for purely political reasons ... you don't oppose tech raiding, you're trying to smudge the bounds of acceptability as far as possible for political gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I contend otherwise.Most alliances with some form of "tech-raid" guidelines have language stipulating valid targets based on alliance size. Your assertion that "definitions which persist outside of game mechanics are invalid" is laughable; shall we ignore the treaty web entirely then by the same logic? Are you being intentionally obtuse? You made mention of a "prevailing definition" of what consitutes an alliance. A prevailing definition means that there is some universally or largely agreed upon number that must be met before an alliance affiliation is recognised as a 'valid' alliance. You yourself, in the quoted post, have alluded to the fact that alliances have varying viewpoints on the value of that number. Thus, no "prevailing definition" exists, outside of that provided by the game itself; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Also, protip: When using quotations, you might want to actually quote something I said. What you did there was create a strawman, then proceed to attack said strawman with the ferocity of a GGA update blitz. The treaty web is not ignored because there is a "prevailing definition" of what constitutes a treaty, what is meant by an agreement between two parties, and the legal requirements of a signed document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Beck Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 being attacked solely because they are unlikely to resist. you missed the point now. resistance was sought after although abstinence was an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Stop complaining at people who are supporting these victims, then, and get out there and support the others! Talk about making an argument for purely political reasons ... you don't oppose tech raiding, you're trying to smudge the bounds of acceptability as far as possible for political gain. If, like those you are defending, I had already offered financial aid to the Knights of Ni, then perhaps your reply may have been a little closer to hitting the mark than a one-armed archer. I am vehemently opposed to the process of technology raiding, yet I am politically-aware enough to realise that the way to nullify and eventually eradicate the practice is not through arbitrarily selecting a handful - from many thousands - of victims to provide financial support for. Rather, diplomacy and consistent political pressure is the only way the Cyberverse will ever be rid of technology raiding. Tell me, what political gain can I obtain by declaring my opposition to all technology raiding, and arguing that it is unjust for only a very small percentage of victims to receive support, whilst others must go about recovery by themselves? Edited November 17, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'm glad that the public opinion still means something. My quite uninformed opinion on the whole Athens-Ni mess is that the "they did an honest mistake and they're just victim of the haters" line of defence can maybe work, but it will also corrupt and blind those that use it. A better idea would be to think of what actually went wrong in the minds of those that decided that an alliance-wide attack(*) on the Knights of Ni! was a good idea, and to try correct it. jerdge, providing unrequested and mocked recommendations to the stronger party, since the 2nd VietFAN. (*) I will not engage in pointless arguments over the war-raid semantics. An "alliance-wide war" is when you'd call it like that if you were among the ones being hit. Ah ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well I'll just have to be the first one to congratulate the Knights of Ni on a swift and decisive victory over Athens, I didn't think they'd surrender so easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 One isolated case does not a pattern make.http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp...yallexact=exact The results of the above link are less than inspiring. It's not the uninvolved party that should be paying, it's Athens and FoB. I could send money, but that takes up FA slots that Athens should be filling if they are truly sorry. It's not mine, or other uninvolved people that should be paying for Athens' mistake, but as they are sincerely sorry, I'm sure they will be more than willing to pay reperations for what they admit was a horrible mistake. Wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 An injustice somewhere is an injustice everywhere, making it everyone's business. And now that the arbitors of justice have given way to the incarnation of karma, I look forward to this brave new world. Brave new world is already working pretty well, despite a few bumps here and there. Perhaps you'd like to join us sometime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) I don't really care about the argument that's going on in this thread. I think the more relevant question is what Athens is going to be doing for KoN in the figures of numbers. I don't really see an apology on the OWF replenishing their numbers any time soon, and I find it hard to believe that none of their government has been on since the beginning of this thread, on the 14th. So what's going on? They lost over 150,000 NS over this, so I'd hope there's aid involved. Edited November 17, 2009 by Shurukian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) You made mention of a "prevailing definition" of what consitutes an alliance. A prevailing definition means that there is some universally or largely agreed upon number that must be met before an alliance affiliation is recognised as a 'valid' alliance. You yourself, in the quoted post, have alluded to the fact that alliances have varying viewpoints on the value of that number. Thus, no "prevailing definition" exists, outside of that provided by the game itself; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Our creator only lists groups of 20 nations minimum on the alliance list, to him they are viewed as "alliances" Edited November 17, 2009 by the rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Are you being intentionally obtuse?You made mention of a "prevailing definition" of what consitutes an alliance. A prevailing definition means that there is some universally or largely agreed upon number that must be met before an alliance affiliation is recognised as a 'valid' alliance. You yourself, in the quoted post, have alluded to the fact that alliances have varying viewpoints on the value of that number. Thus, no "prevailing definition" exists, outside of that provided by the game itself; any alliance affiliation entered into the appropriate menu. Also, protip: When using quotations, you might want to actually quote something I said. What you did there was create a strawman, then proceed to attack said strawman with the ferocity of a GGA update blitz. The treaty web is not ignored because there is a "prevailing definition" of what constitutes a treaty, what is meant by an agreement between two parties, and the legal requirements of a signed document. Are you being intentionally obtuse? There's a difference between raiding those with little to no political involvement and giving them a way out of joining an alliance and coordinating a quad-attack on a 40 man alliance because you can and throwing the whole 'you can join an alliance and avoid this' thing out the window. Don't argue this one, Revanche. You're better than this. They lost over 300,000 NS over this, so I'd hope there's aid involved. What? More like 105k... Edited November 17, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Are you being intentionally obtuse? There's a difference between raiding those with little to no political involvement and giving them a way out of joining an alliance and coordinating a quad-attack on a 40 man alliance because you can and throwing the whole 'you can join an alliance and avoid this' thing out the window. Don't argue this one, Revanche. You're better than this. Technology raiding affiliated nations, no matter the size of the alliance, is inherently wrong. Edited November 17, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Our creator only lists groups of 20 nations minimum on the alliance list, to him they are viewed as "alliances" As far as the 'Display All Alliances' menu goes, that is correct. However, any words entered into the alliance affiliation menu by a nation is automatically considered a valid alliance by other features. For example, alliance statistics, aid transactions, and so on are available for even alliances with only one member. The fact that there is a contradiction in what constitutes an alliance only emphasises my point in that there is no "prevailing definition" of what is and is not a valid alliance. Thus, as I said to Penkala, raiding affiliated nations, no matter the size of the alliance, is inherently wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilleus Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Athens did absolutely nothing wrong since the Knights of Ni supposedly had some treaty with some alliance that nobody had ever bothered to catalog or record. Good job on getting public opinion back on your side, though, Athens. I like you guys. Are you being intentionally obtuse? There's a difference between raiding those with little to no political involvement and giving them a way out of joining an alliance and coordinating a quad-attack on a 40 man alliance because you can and throwing the whole 'you can join an alliance and avoid this' thing out the window. Don't argue this one, Revanche. You're better than this. Yeah, you join an alliance to escape raids, but if your alliance already has forty members and you're too dense to get at least one protectorate alliance, you sorta have a sign on you that reads "please mop the floor with us." Simple. Edited November 17, 2009 by Achilleus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 What? More like 105k... Okay, correct. I was looking at the wrong drop. But it's kinda around 160k. That's still about 1/9th of their size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) edit: actually, not worth getting into this argument. Edited November 17, 2009 by President Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 It's not the uninvolved party that should be paying, it's Athens and FoB. I could send money, but that takes up FA slots that Athens should be filling if they are truly sorry. It's not mine, or other uninvolved people that should be paying for Athens' mistake, but as they are sincerely sorry, I'm sure they will be more than willing to pay reperations for what they admit was a horrible mistake. Wouldn't you agree? Hmm, you appear to be onto something here...(bolding mine, of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaHusker Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 It amuses me that the folks who actually got raided aren't nearly as upset as Planet Bob's sewing circle has gotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Athens did absolutely nothing wrong since the Knights of Ni supposedly had some treaty with some alliance that nobody had ever bothered to catalog or record. Good job on getting public opinion back on your side, though, Athens. I like you guys.Yeah, you join an alliance to escape raids, but if your alliance already has forty members and you're too dense to get at least one protectorate alliance, you sorta have a sign on you that reads "please mop the floor with us." Simple. No, they do not. You're assuming that tech raiding is your RIGHT and not a privilege that your alliance grants you. They have just as much a right to exist as you do, without the need to get a protectorate of any kind. You should not have to join the treaty web just so some !@#$%^& in some !@#$hole of an alliance won't declare war on you. 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.