An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Kindom of Goon]

Veiled threats will get you places.

What? Athens tried to take advantage of that fact and the reaction we've seen over the last few days is how it backfired on them.

How on earth is that a threat in any way, shape or form? You guys need to stop being so bloody defensive. I liked most C&G alliances before all this happened and that probably would have still been the case if you had not spent the entire time blaming everyone else for this mess.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[Vilien]

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

The community never has much of a problem with double standards.

[Azaghul]

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

Maybe I'm just a state whore, but my goal in every war is to give more than I take.

What tech raid targets really ought to do, if they have nukes and want to defend themselves, is to declare war on vulnerable nations of the alliances raiding them (high infra with no SDIs, would be forced to collect in nuclear anarchy, etc.) and then demand reps or they nuke those vulnerable nations. I know that's what I would do. It's also what MK did in the noCB war.

[janax]

Maybe I'm just a state whore, but my goal in every war is to give more than I take.

What tech raid targets really ought to do, if they have nukes and want to defend themselves, is to declare war on vulnerable nations of the alliances raiding them (high infra with no SDIs, would be forced to collect in nuclear anarchy, etc.) and then demand reps or they nuke those vulnerable nations. I know that's what I would do. It's also what MK did in the noCB war.

That poor poor infra

You can't hug your infra with nuclear arms :|

[twodivine]

I'm not going to get into a big drawn out debate on the subject of raiding. But the actions of "raiding" a 40 nation alliance is overboard it wasn't acceptable when others in Planet Bob tried it and it turned into a bad PR issue for those involved which wasn't that long ago.

I'll list some reasons pro and con to raiding and each has their value points.

Pros:

1. Gives noobs war experience

2. People gain land, tech, and cash

3. People gain casualties which if they have enough as a nation it turns into an economic plus for them later. How is it a Plus? For the simple reason for purchasing a wonder later on. * National War Memorial - $27,000,000 - The war memorial allows your citizens to remember its fallen soldiers. This improvement is only available to nations that have lost over 50,000 soldiers during war throughout the life of your nation. Increases population happiness +4.

Cons:

1. For some people they see raiding as steeling.

2. Do it to much and you appear to be a warmonger.

3. Addiction can be come greed and can lead too not following standard protocols to preforming the action.

But does any of those reason justify people doing it? Probably not, but the fact remains that actions are built within the game for them to take place. It's up to alliances and leaders of those alliances to properly regulate their procedures of their membership. Let it be no raiding or raiding within a set of guidelines. Should their be a Planet wide set of standards we all follow? On this subject no cause everyone would cry foul on their sovereignty. Is there a solution that will work for all? No, cause we all see the actions differently. The only thing any of us can do is when an alliance or alliances screw up is to insure that if they are our allies they do the right thing of making it right. If they fail, on that then alliances need to rethink their ties.

The only thing left to say is those that committed the action to do the right thing and make the proper restitution on the situation and make it a learning lesson to not to do again.

For us allies on both side of things no matter what we do or don't support in peoples actions we make treaties to people we trust to make the right judgments and we hope to stand by our ties for the right reasons for every situation that comes across our way. Though we all know that isn't the case. Not every situation is going to be for the right reasons, and as allies we still have to make that stand to hour our commitments to the treaties we all sign with our allies for the good or the bad. How far a situation goes is up to those that start it, and the allies of those on both sides.

Now people just need to find the end to this.

[Earogema]

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

Uh, I don't think you remember the GOONS pro piracy thread.

\m/ died a long time ago. With it, pretty much did the standard of automatically acceptable tech raiding.

[White Chocolate]

Maybe I'm just a state whore, but my goal in every war is to give more than I take.

What tech raid targets really ought to do, if they have nukes and want to defend themselves, is to declare war on vulnerable nations of the alliances raiding them (high infra with no SDIs, would be forced to collect in nuclear anarchy, etc.) and then demand reps or they nuke those vulnerable nations. I know that's what I would do. It's also what MK did in the noCB war.

I can certainly see that being something nations who are declared on by another for tech would WANT to do. I sure would have liked to do so with some aggressors during the early days of US. However, every single one of my mentors said that all it would do is bring the attacking nation's alliance down on me and (being that I'm a leader of an alliance) most likely the alliance as a whole. These are people who have much more experience than I.

Of course, this was prior to the Karma War. Things may be different now (although I'm skeptical, but open to the possibility.) Feel free to test the theory yourself as a non-aligned or even a member of a much smaller alliance if you wish.

[tamerlane]

Some people liek chocolate, some like vanilla. When it comes to raiding, there is always justification for those who have no problem with it and there is always anger amongst those who malign it. This thread is, while being taken quite off topic, just going to be a giant circle that goes nowhere. What can be learned is how to raid appropriately so as not to offend those who don't like raiding but are realistic enough to not go after alliances for raiding.

I mean we could just skip all this babble and get straight to the guts of the issue. We need The Scholar to write a thesis about what constitutes an alliance! That is, there needs to be a separate thread to debate the merits of raiding. This thread is about the obligations of one ally to another.

Edited November 16, 2009 by tamerlane

[Aloop]

I mean we could just skip all this babble and get straight to the guts of the issue. We need The Scholar to write a thesis about what constitutes an alliance!

An alliance is an organization with the ability to enforce its sovereignty.

I'm sorry that it isn't longer, but this is the simplest and most accurate definition.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Aloop

[WarriorConcept]

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

If that's how this Planet was supposed to be, I think Admin would've structured it that way.

Just cause is a subjective to everyone.

[tamerlane]

An alliance is an organization with the ability to enforce its sovereignty.

I'm sorry that it isn't longer, but this is the simplest and most accurate definition.

Again, for a different thread but thank you for your ignorance.

:edited:

Edited November 16, 2009 by tamerlane

[Vilien]

If that's how this Planet was supposed to be, I think Admin would've structured it that way.

Just cause is a subjective to everyone.

Admin gives you the ability to do anything you'd like, really. You can EZI entire alliances if you've got the political power to do so. That doesn't mean that we're supposed to live in constant fear of having our nations destroyed on the whim of some tyrant. It seems like it should be simple enough to understand that you shouldn't destroy someone else's nation for the same lack of a reason.

[Bob Janova]

I guess this is verging on off topic but there are some points I want to address.

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.

That's all very pleasant sounding, but the KoN nations were triple teamed and anarchied. Seven days of 1v3 fighting against stronger nations from anarchy is about as bad as it gets.

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.

Well this is what I meant about allowing raids on alliances putting the target in an impossible position. Prosecute the war, and you lose a crippling portion of your strength; don't, and you will continue to be raided. That's why the community in general needs to scare the raiders off.

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.

I think most unconnected micro-alliances are in the latter category, those who have IRC will typically be small groups of active players with a history in CN politics, and will therefore tie themselves in to avoid this kind of raid.

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

You don't want to be thought of as elite? I thought Nemesis styled itself that way. Active, knowledgable, politically tied in, whatever.

Knights of Ni! were fully capable of ensuring the raid wasn't profitable for Athens before the whole treaty mess even happened.

Yeah, they were, but only at the cost of most of their own strength, and if they'd defended themselves with nukes, precedent says that things would have ended badly for them. Some individuals or alliances are happy to go down fighting to prove a point. For individuals, we call them 'martyrs' ... and not everyone is prepared to do that. (After all, if they were, there'd be no raiding at all.)

Indeed, there is a question mark over exactly where the line between 'acceptable to raid' and 'too large to raid' are, just as there is for how large 'excessive' reps are, or how long is 'too long' to hold a rogue at ZI. For me, 'too large to raid' is one nation; raiding is nothing but theft and always bad. For others it is 2, 5, 10, 20, or even indefinite. But I hope we can all agree that $1m is not excessive reps for a war, and $100bn would be. Similarly, in this case, almost everyone agreed that 40 members was large enough to be an established alliance.

From my memory of past arguments, 25 is thought to be too high, as \m/ and PC both attracted significant political criticism for raid limits that high. 10 is not, as plenty of alliances maintain that without much complaint.

[Heracles the Great]

This announcement seems qutie familiar to the one Grub posted back when NSO tried to recruit nations form other alliances. Atleast this one condemns the actions of the friend, atleast - I guess that's a positive.

[tamerlane]

I've got a great idea, lets get back on the topic of MK saying it will defend its ally and break free of this ridiculous debate over the merits of raiding that belongs in a thread of its own....

I bet no one will listen

[wickedj]

This announcement seems qutie familiar to the one Grub posted back when NSO tried to recruit nations form other alliances. Atleast this one condemns the actions of the friend, atleast - I guess that's a positive.

therein lies Grub's hypocrisy of all of this. when NSO was at the peak of their asshattery Grub said they arent doing anything wrong and all that crap. Archon admits Londo screwed the pooch on this one and is, i would assume, helping Londo right the ship

[ddog241]

therein lies Grub's hypocrisy of all of this. when NSO was at the peak of their asshattery Grub said they arent doing anything wrong and all that crap. Archon admits Londo screwed the pooch on this one and is, i would assume, helping Londo right the ship

again sending a message to a nation and raiding a nation is 2 different things.

the message can be just deleted.

the guy who falls under the raid ends up with a loss on infra/land/tech which costs money to rebuild. and if your a larger nation that cost can get quite high.

[Tom Litler]

Has anyone else noticed how TheNeverender's tone has changed into a rather over-confident and authoritative one ever since the Karma war? I have to say that I miss the powers that once suppressed such groups as Athens and MK.

That Athens, an alliance that freely attacks and intimidates those who are weaker, is being protected with a vicious "don't series-of-asterisks with us" proves that "Karma" is much much worse than whatever the "Hegemony" once was.

And does anyone else notice the growing trend of them (the formerly so-called "Karma" coalition) now justifying their hypocrisies with the fact that they "didn't repeatedly do this" and should therefore not be held accountable for their criminal actions?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[guus87]

I've got a great idea, lets get back on the topic of MK saying it will defend its ally and break free of this ridiculous debate over the merits of raiding that belongs in a thread of its own....

I bet no one will listen

I do.

Let's move on about the techraiding thing.

I do it and I don't care who doesn't

so, about Athens and Mushroom Kingdom

[Thorgrum]

Has anyone else noticed how TheNeverender's tone has changed into a rather over-confident and authoritative one ever since the Karma war?

As a devouted member of the peanut gallery, why yes I have.

That Athens, an alliance that freely attacks and intimidates those who are weaker, is being protected with a vicious "don't series-of-asterisks with us" proves that "Karma" is much much worse than whatever the "Hegemony" once was.

No, to far there Mr Litler by no means are they worse, it hasnt been a shinning moment for Athens and some of thier asterisks producing friends but lets not go over board.

And does anyone else notice the growing trend of them (the formerly so-called "Karma" coalition) now justifying their hypocrisies with the fact that they "didn't repeatedly do this" and should therefore not be held accountable for their criminal actions?

Technically its true, they havent repeatedly done this as far as accountability thats subjective.

[Archon]

Has anyone else noticed how TheNeverender's tone has changed into a rather over-confident and authoritative one ever since the Karma war? I have to say that I miss the powers that once suppressed such groups as Athens and MK.

As a devouted member of the peanut gallery, why yes I have.

You've piqued my curiosity. Can you provide sources for this observation (both prior to the Karma War and after it)? Really, I'm genuinely curious.

[tamerlane]

You've piqued my curiosity. Can you provide sources for this observation (both prior to the Karma War and after it)? Really, I'm genuinely curious.

Your obsessiveness over sticking up for your allies and working to solve problems is absolutely atrocious. To the gallows with you, sir!

I hate MK.

Edited November 17, 2009 by tamerlane

[Wu Tang Clan]

I've got a great idea, lets get back on the topic of MK saying it will defend its ally and break free of this ridiculous debate over the merits of raiding that belongs in a thread of its own....

I bet no one will listen

I listened. I for one support our fine allies at MK, and tand by them 100%.

o/ MK

o/ CnG

[Azaghul]

Tom Litler complaining about Archon having an authoritarian tone is pretty funny given his ideological leanings.

[SirWilliam]

Has anyone else noticed how TheNeverender's tone has changed into a rather over-confident and authoritative one ever since the Karma war? I have to say that I miss the powers that once suppressed such groups as Athens and MK.

Yes, judging by an entire post Archon's tone has changed monumentally. We thought you'd never notice!

/me facepalms.

That Athens, an alliance that freely attacks and intimidates those who are weaker, is being protected with a vicious "don't series-of-asterisks with us" proves that "Karma" is much much worse than whatever the "Hegemony" once was.

Athens made a single blunder. Forget that it's an obnoxious stretch, they freely attack and intimidate the weak. And we're all so much worse than the Hegemony. Exaggerations are just so fun!

/me facepalms.

And does anyone else notice the growing trend of them (the formerly so-called "Karma" coalition) now justifying their hypocrisies with the fact that they "didn't repeatedly do this" and should therefore not be held accountable for their criminal actions?

Certainly there were no consequences. Surely the only possible consequence is a canceled treaty or war!

/me facepalms.

Edited November 17, 2009 by SirWilliam