An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Kindom of Goon]

I do find it funny that there are people here who allow their alliance to raid other alliances of a certain size !@#$%*ing about Athens. Or at the very least members who supported doing so, or even did so, in the past.

That's a bit like saying anyone who has ever stolen a pen from the office has no right to have a go at armed bank robbers.

[Lord Brendan]

That's a bit like saying anyone who has ever stolen a pen from the office has no right to have a go at armed bank robbers.

I don't see how tech raiding can be compared to stealing a pen.

It's more like beating up three people and taking their money versus beating up 30 people and taking their money. It's the same thing just on a larger scale.

[Denial]

That's a bit like saying anyone who has ever stolen a pen from the office has no right to have a go at armed bank robbers.

That's a piss-poor analogy. There's quite a gap between theft of an office pen and the theft of money from a bank, whereas the difference between raiding an alliance of ten members and raiding an alliance of forty members is negligible. In the latter instance, each act is equally deplorable; innocent nations are still attacked, technology is still stolen, economic development is greatly set back, and the victims are just as frustrated.

[Kindom of Goon]

That's a piss-poor analogy. There's quite a gap between theft of an office pen and the theft of money from a bank, whereas the difference between raiding an alliance of ten members and raiding an alliance of forty members is negligible. In the latter instance, each act is equally deplorable; innocent nations are still attacked, technology is still stolen, economic development is greatly set back, and the victims are just as frustrated.

If you allowed raiding a 10 man alliance without any/many restrictions then I agree, but Stumpy wasn't that specific was he?

For example one of my former alliance allowed raiding on 5 man alliances, but you could only do so alone (so no tripple or double teaming), you'd have the deal with the consequences on your own (so if alliance wanted to beat the crap out of him or demand reps they could without military intervention on our part), no gov members were allowed to participate, and several other restrictions that I forget. Eventually I wanted it banned outright but for a long time I supported that policy, I don't think that means I'm an arse for thinking Athens have been naughty.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[Denial]

If you allowed raiding a 10 man alliance without any/many restrictions then I agree, but Stumpy wasn't that specific was he?

For example one of my former alliance allowed raiding on 5 man alliances, but you could only do so alone (so no tripple or double teaming), you'd have the deal with the consequences on your own (so if alliance wanted to beat the crap out of him or demand reps they could without military intervention on our part), no gov members were allowed to participate, and several other restrictions that I forget. Eventually I wanted it banned outright but for a long time I supported that policy, I don't think that means I'm an arse for thinking Athens have been naughty.

I do agree with you that Athens have made mistakes. In attacking Knights of Ni, Athens showed poor judgement and derogated their standing in the eyes of many. The selection of ten members in my previous post was entirely arbitrary. It could have been any number, and was only selected to assist in making a point; no matter the number behind an alliance affiliation, attacking an aligned nation is inherently wrong. When I quoted Stumpy, I specifically excluded his reference to those that have supported technology raiding in the past, as I do believe people have the capacity to recognise the errors in their ways. You are a clear example of that, switching from supporting a technology raiding policy, albeit a comparatively tame one, to the outright prohibition of raiding. So, no, I do not think you are hypocritical for maintaining your view of Athens' recent behaviour. My opinion would be different, however, if you still advocated the five-member raiding policy you mentioned.

[Kindom of Goon]

Fair enough. Agree with most of that but still disagree with some of it, not worth arguing over though.

[Poyplemonkeys]

If you allowed raiding a 10 man alliance without any/many restrictions then I agree, but Stumpy wasn't that specific was he?

For example one of my former alliance allowed raiding on 5 man alliances, but you could only do so alone (so no tripple or double teaming), you'd have the deal with the consequences on your own (so if alliance wanted to beat the crap out of him or demand reps they could without military intervention on our part), no gov members were allowed to participate, and several other restrictions that I forget. Eventually I wanted it banned outright but for a long time I supported that policy, I don't think that means I'm an arse for thinking Athens have been naughty.

I still maintain that is the most retarded raiding policy I've ever encountered on the Cyberverse. Government members not being allowed to raid as if that made their condoning of general members raiding any better. Crazy inconsistencies.

[Bob Janova]

the difference between raiding an alliance of ten members and raiding an alliance of forty members is negligible

No it isn't. The second is four times as bad simply on numerical terms.

In principle your point is sound: all raiding of alliances is bad. But not equally bad – the larger the alliance, the more established its community and the more it has an expectation of being safe unless it does something silly. So raiding a 40 member alliance is worse than raiding four 10 member ones, and that itself is worse than raiding 40 unaligned nations (who you can reasonably tell 'if you don't want to be raided, join an alliance').

Too many people support and defend the raiding of 10 nation alliances to eliminate it. Certainly, if I were elected the supreme ruler of the world, I would outlaw that too, but there are many well connected raiding alliances that would back up such a stance with great force. (Remember CNARF or NONE? That's where you end up trying to combat all raiding by force.) So we must start by laying down a line that says 'This is beyond the pale', where almost all the world acknowledges it is wrong. A political line had been laid down back in the days of \m/ at around 20 members, and now a threat of force line has been laid down in the new free world where alliances can't act with impunity.

Goon may have been using hyperbole but his point is a good one. Stealing £20 from the shop till is bad, obviously. But you go after the bank robber first. Just because both are theft doesn't mean that one is as bad as the other.

[Mixoux]

The problem is that the issue of raiding isn't universally abhorred in this game. If a 40 member alliance raid is 4 times as bad as a 10 member, then by that logic, the 10 member raid is 10 times as bad as raiding a single nation; except not all alliances share the same policy that 'raiding is immoral and should not be practiced'. That's when the alliance sovereignty line is thrown about, outside parties become enraged, and nothing ever seems to get resolved because that raiding alliance has already lost respect in said party's eyes for the foreseeable future.

[Kindom of Goon]

I still maintain that is the most retarded raiding policy I've ever encountered on the Cyberverse. Government members not being allowed to raid as if that made their condoning of general members raiding any better. Crazy inconsistencies.

I'm well aware of how you and a few others felt about that policy

[Bob Janova]

The 'alliance sovereignty line' makes no sense when what you're being 'sovereign' about is a clear violation of your target alliance's sovereignty. Claiming that raiding an alliance is your sovereign right is like saying punching a small child in the street is your personal right – completely ignoring his personal right to safety. That's why raiding is generally restricted to unaligned, or those under an AA which is 'not recognised as an alliance', because in that situation the defender doesn't have alliance sovereignty.

[Poyplemonkeys]

No it isn't. The second is four times as bad simply on numerical terms.

That's simply not how things work. Stealing £100 comes with the same penalties as stealing £25 in the vast majority of cases.

In principle your point is sound: all raiding of alliances is bad. But not equally bad – the larger the alliance, the more established its community and the more it has an expectation of being safe unless it does something silly. So raiding a 40 member alliance is worse than raiding four 10 member ones, and that itself is worse than raiding 40 unaligned nations (who you can reasonably tell 'if you don't want to be raided, join an alliance').

That's a false assumption Bob. I've been in a larger alliance than I am now by about 10 times the amount but it didn't have half of the community of the alliance I'm in. You certainly can't just use a number as definitive proof of the level of community they hold.

Too many people support and defend the raiding of 10 nation alliances to eliminate it. Certainly, if I were elected the supreme ruler of the world, I would outlaw that too, but there are many well connected raiding alliances that would back up such a stance with great force. (Remember CNARF or NONE? That's where you end up trying to combat all raiding by force.) So we must start by laying down a line that says 'This is beyond the pale', where almost all the world acknowledges it is wrong. A political line had been laid down back in the days of \m/ at around 20 members, and now a threat of force line has been laid down in the new free world where alliances can't act with impunity.

Sure raiding is 'wrong' as in it's not entirely moral. Why is raiding an alliance of 40 member worse than raiding an alliance of 10 members? If a community is damaged beyond repair from the standard tech raiding procedures of 2 ground attacks and then peace, which every indication shows that Athens followed this, how much value can be put in that community in the first place?

Lastly the best people draw a line are the people who get raided. No, every nation that gets raided and doesn't fight back deserves all they get in my opinion, which is why I'll never feel guilty about any raid I've ever done. Every nation has the capability to ensure that the raid isn't profitable for the raider, so look to those nations first before you look at foreign alliances and drawing 'political lines' for the limits.

Edit:

I'm well aware of how you and a few others felt about that policy

Edited November 16, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys

[Bob Janova]

Lastly the best people draw a line are the people who get raided. No, every nation that gets raided and doesn't fight back deserves all they get in my opinion, which is why I'll never feel guilty about any raid I've ever done. Every nation has the capability to ensure that the raid isn't profitable for the raider, so look to those nations first before you look at foreign alliances and drawing 'political lines' for the limits.

No they aren't. A nation that gets raided and tries to 'draw a line' gets rolled by most raiding alliances. Sure, you can go down in a blaze of nuclear fire, and I would do so, but it isn't in the interests of the raided nation to do that, just as it's not in the interests of someone who's being mugged to try to fight the attacker with a knife.

The best people to draw a line about theft aren't the people being robbed, but the police. The best people to draw a line about raiding aren't the nations and alliances being stolen from, but the international community.

You certainly can't just use a number as definitive proof of the level of community they hold.

Definitive proof? No, indeed. Some small 'elite' alliances have a stronger community than their membership number. But it is definitely correlated and in the case of unconnected micro-alliances it will be truer than most.

If a community is damaged beyond repair from the standard tech raiding procedures of 2 ground attacks and then peace, which every indication shows that Athens followed this, how much value can be put in that community in the first place?

If an alliance shows that it cannot defend its members, it loses its primary purpose; if it does defend them, it ends up destroyed. (By the way, it was mentioned in the initial thread that quads were done, and many nations were anarchied. Even '2 ground attacks' does a lot of damage, maybe several millions' worth.) If KoN can be raided once, why not every day by a different alliance?

If I raid your nation, it doesn't do much damage, but your alliance will attack me in order to prevent the precedent that it is okay to steal from you. The same applies on an alliance scale, and an alliance which cannot defend its members will be damaged beyond repair by raiders very quickly.

[Diogenes]

Goon may have been using hyperbole but his point is a good one. Stealing £20 from the shop till is bad, obviously. But you go after the bank robber first. Just because both are theft doesn't mean that one is as bad as the other.

There are two problems with this analogy: the first being that the person stealing £20 from the shop till is being completely ignored in this circumstance, and the second being that the amount of money being stolen from the bank is entirely variable. If, for example, an individual stole £15 from the bank and another individual stole £20 from the shop till, would it not be completely ineffective to prioritize the apprehension of the former? There is no set point at which raiding an alliance becomes intolerable, or at least not one that is agreed upon. If you perceive raiding as something negative, then yes, raiding a larger alliance is worse than raiding a smaller one in terms of pure numbers, and merits a faster response in turn. But that response should be universal, addressing the raiding of smaller alliances as well as the raiding of larger ones -- otherwise it is addressing nothing more than one arbitrary statistic (member count) of an alliance.

[Bob Janova]

I'm just going to quote my own post from two posts ago:

Too many people support and defend the raiding of 10 nation alliances to eliminate it. Certainly, if I were elected the supreme ruler of the world, I would outlaw that too, but there are many well connected raiding alliances that would back up such a stance with great force. (Remember CNARF or NONE? That's where you end up trying to combat all raiding by force.) So we must start by laying down a line that says 'This is beyond the pale', where almost all the world acknowledges it is wrong. A political line had been laid down back in the days of \m/ at around 20 members, and now a threat of force line has been laid down in the new free world where alliances can't act with impunity.

I've always been an advocate of reducing the 'acceptable raid size' down as far as is practical, and my own alliance has it set at 1, because yes, it's bad to raid a smaller alliance as well. Unless you want me to drive straight into a wall of C&G, Frostbite, SF and Citadel tanks, I'm not sure what more you expect me to do about the many alliances which raid 5 man alliances.

[Diogenes]

Understandably you don't want to fight the numerous alliances which allow for small alliances to be raided. However, this means that your response is provoked by the number of nations in TKoN and not the fact that they were raided. If you won't take action when an alliance of five members is being raided, at what point will you take action? At what point is raiding an alliance no longer acceptable?

[Azaghul]

I'm gonna agree with Bob Janova here.

Tech raiding as an institution isn't really defensible from a moral perspective. That's not to say that I don't do it, I acknowledge my own moral "failing" there, I do it because it's the only good way to get land, is a decent way to gain some tech and casualties, and it provides some excitement. I'm minimalistic about it, and most of the time if I didn't raid someone others would anyway. There's too many people who tolerate and allow raiding of the unaligned unconnected micro-alliances for it to be ended.

That being said, just because the line by definition has to be arbitrary doesn't mean that one shouldn't exist. We do the same with other issues as well. At what point do peace terms or reparations become unreasonable? How long should wars be prosecuted until peace is offered? How bad does an alliance have to provoke someone before the alliance that is provoked is justified in attacking them? These all involve degrees and arbitrary limits, but that doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't have standards on these questions.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Azaghul

[Diogenes]

I'm not arguing about the morality of raiding, though. I'm saying that we, as a community, lack specific guidelines concerning who or what can be raided and can't be too terribly upset when one takes advantage of that fact.

[Poyplemonkeys]

No they aren't. A nation that gets raided and tries to 'draw a line' gets rolled by most raiding alliances. Sure, you can go down in a blaze of nuclear fire, and I would do so, but it isn't in the interests of the raided nation to do that, just as it's not in the interests of someone who's being mugged to try to fight the attacker with a knife.

The best people to draw a line about theft aren't the people being robbed, but the police. The best people to draw a line about raiding aren't the nations and alliances being stolen from, but the international community.

Actually I think the prevalent raiding policy in the Cyberverse these days is that if the target fights back, or other issues arise then you are alone in the raid. It is an action undertaken by yourself, not the alliance and Athens stated themselves that if the nations fought back they wouldn't be calling in allies, or even other nations. It is absolutely in the interests of the raided nation to send out the message that raiding them won't turn over a profit. It immediately puts off the vast majority of raiders.

Definitive proof? No, indeed. Some small 'elite' alliances have a stronger community than their membership number. But it is definitely correlated and in the case of unconnected micro-alliances it will be truer than most.

I don't see the correlation being strong to be honest. In fact I think you'd find the vast majority of small alliances have a tighter knit community than 40 people sharing an AA who haven't got an IRC channel and haven't spoken to their only ally in 18 months. Either way a community should survive a tech raid, even a mass tech raid. Communities have been forced to live through far worse on this planet, and it's really a testament to how weak your community is if it falls apart because of a bunch of ground attacks and a couple of anarchies.

Thanks for the 'elite' by the way when responding to my reference to my alliance. Classy.

If an alliance shows that it cannot defend its members, it loses its primary purpose; if it does defend them, it ends up destroyed. (By the way, it was mentioned in the initial thread that quads were done, and many nations were anarchied. Even '2 ground attacks' does a lot of damage, maybe several millions' worth.) If KoN can be raided once, why not every day by a different alliance?

If I raid your nation, it doesn't do much damage, but your alliance will attack me in order to prevent the precedent that it is okay to steal from you. The same applies on an alliance scale, and an alliance which cannot defend its members will be damaged beyond repair by raiders very quickly.

An alliance that refuses to defend it's members. Let's get that straight right away. Any alliance has the capability to defend it's members to at least some extent. Knights of Ni! were fully capable of ensuring the raid wasn't profitable for Athens before the whole treaty mess even happened. An alliance that doesn't have the fortitude to stand up for it's members when a situation arises deserves everything that might fall upon it. Like I said earlier, knowing that you're going to end up eating a bunch of nukes, or at least being hit by everything else in the alliance's arsenal would put off the majority of raiders, especially in the higher ranges, where profit can be wiped out far quicker.

[Kindom of Goon]

I'm not arguing about the morality of raiding, though. I'm saying that we, as a community, lack specific guidelines concerning who or what can be raided and can't be too terribly upset when one takes advantage of that fact.

One also cannot be too terribly upset that when trying to take advantage of that fact it backfires on them.

[Diogenes]

One also cannot be too terribly upset that when trying to take advantage of that fact it backfires on them.

Veiled threats will get you places.

[Vilien]

I'm not arguing about the morality of raiding, though. I'm saying that we, as a community, lack specific guidelines concerning who or what can be raided and can't be too terribly upset when one takes advantage of that fact.

The specific guideline should be pretty easy: Don't attack other nations without just cause. Ever.

[Azaghul]

An alliance that refuses to defend it's members. Let's get that straight right away. Any alliance has the capability to defend it's members to at least some extent. Knights of Ni! were fully capable of ensuring the raid wasn't profitable for Athens before the whole treaty mess even happened. An alliance that doesn't have the fortitude to stand up for it's members when a situation arises deserves everything that might fall upon it. Like I said earlier, knowing that you're going to end up eating a bunch of nukes, or at least being hit by everything else in the alliance's arsenal would put off the majority of raiders, especially in the higher ranges, where profit can be wiped out far quicker.

The problem is that the raided alliance has more to lose than the raiding alliance. The Knights of Ni! could fight back, but they would lose more than they destroyed. In the process of proving that raiding them isn't profitable, they'd get crushed.

One raid may not cause disbandment, but the pattern I've seen among unprotected micro-alliances and the unaligned is that as soon as one raid ends, another raider rushes to fill the war slot. Raid targets only usually end up escaping the constant barrage of raiders by going into peace mode, joining an alliance (that isn't a micro-alliance), or getting a protector.

[Poyplemonkeys]

The problem is that the raided alliance has more to lose than the raiding alliance. The Knights of Ni! could fight back, but they would lose more than they destroyed. In the process of proving that raiding them isn't profitable, they'd get crushed.

One raid may not cause disbandment, but the pattern I've seen among unprotected micro-alliances and the unaligned is that as soon as one raid ends, another raider rushes to fill the war slot. Raid targets only usually end up escaping the constant barrage of raiders by going into peace mode, joining an alliance (that isn't a micro-alliance), or getting a protector.

Maybe I'm alone in being satisfied if they lose more than they gain, regardless of what it costs me

[Diogenes]

The specific guideline should be pretty easy: Don't attack other nations without just cause. Ever.

And yet the community hardly responds to other raids with such vitriol.