Announcement from the desk of the custodial engineer third class

[Tick1]

I think you both are getting it wrong: the goal is mostly to take a stand and say enough is enough. I don't know how GOONS, specifically, operate but most tech raiding "negotiations" usually end up in a settlement, with some reps being paid to the victim, a symbolic 3m or 6m$. Not only is it less than the damage taken (by a good margin, often times), it also gets annoying when you are repeatedly raided and you're told, everytime, that you will have to take that stipend or get nothing at all.

From that point on, the only way to get your point across is to retaliate. If not, you're essentially painting a target on yourself, a big red target that says: "come take my land and my tech, we won't do anything about it".

You are not really the guys they want to influence even if I bet they will get their point across and, in the future, you will not raid them. The damage they do on your nations is much more important: it says to all raiders that they can expect the same kind of retaliation in the future.

You may say that they are taking much more damage in the process. Sure, it's a fact. But they'll also deal a good lot of damage, what ammounts to a very costly "tech raid" in the end. Few alliances are willing to risk losing a couple hundred thousands NS over a tech raid, you know.

Stop right there! You villain! Please read the whole entire thread before posting. This topic has already been discussed.

[Sardonic]

Stop right there! You villain! Please read the whole entire thread before posting. This topic has already been discussed.

OOC:

And just who made you the guardian of this thread? Of course the topic has been discussed, it's pretty much what this thread is about. We can't just all sit here talking about the weather.

(end OOC)

Besides, he's wrong. If we let them go any time soon, and they fail to get a protectorate, we'd be more than happy to war them again on principal. This war has been great for activity levels, enthusiasm is at an all time high here. What's a few dozen nukes to an energized membership? The only, and I mean only, good defense against tech raiding is to get allies.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Sardonic

[Tick1]

OOC:

And just who made you the guardian of this thread? Of course the topic has been discussed, it's pretty much what this thread is about. We can't just all sit here talking about the weather.

(end OOC)

Besides, he's wrong. If we let them go any time soon, and they fail to get a protectorate, we'd be more than happy to war them again on principal. This war has been great for activity levels, enthusiasm is at an all time high here. What's a few dozen nukes to an energized membership? The only, and I mean only, good defense against tech raiding is to get allies.

Sardonic, I'm just tired of arguing the same point. Unless they can actually bring another point of view into the topic, please don't post.

[Chigurh]

The only, and I mean only, good defense against tech raiding is to get allies.

Your right of course, but then everyone is allied with everyone else, and we all sit around getting bored for 11 months a year.

[Khyber]

The only, and I mean only, good defense against tech raiding is to get allies.

The only, and I mean only, good defense against a war is to get allies it seems too.

Hi NpO, I'm glad you made it to the party, seems only Athens is not allowed to tech raid alliances

[Sardonic]

Your right of course, but then everyone is allied with everyone else, and we all sit around getting bored for 11 months a year.

You don't have to ally everyone darn alliance, just one major one, or even a minor one. I can only imagine if we had had the gall to come back here with no protectorate we'd have been destroyed so fast your head would spin. Though admittedly that's a different case then what these guys face.

[lamuella]

actually, what we're seeing here is in a way quite interesting.

It's the first real-world test of the "no allies, just friends" micro-alliance idea.

The hypothesis being tested is this: is the willingness of an alliance to go full kamikaze against any attacker no matter how large (and how small the initial attack) enough defense to stop a micro-alliance without treaties from getting rolled?

success or failure of the idea will come not just from seeing whether RLMMO and ZDP survive, but whether their actions discourage attacks on alliances or their type in future.

[SirWilliam]

Standing up for something is better than never doing anything. I'd wish you guys luck but you're warring an ally... (Yeah, I'm kinda late here. When am I not though?)

[Biazt]

actually, what we're seeing here is in a way quite interesting.

It's the first real-world test of the "no allies, just friends" micro-alliance idea.

The hypothesis being tested is this: is the willingness of an alliance to go full kamikaze against any attacker no matter how large (and how small the initial attack) enough defense to stop a micro-alliance without treaties from getting rolled?

success or failure of the idea will come not just from seeing whether RLMMO and ZDP survive, but whether their actions discourage attacks on alliances or their type in future.

I think we both know the answer to this question.

[Khyber]

actually, what we're seeing here is in a way quite interesting.

It's the first real-world test of the "no allies, just friends" micro-alliance idea.

The hypothesis being tested is this: is the willingness of an alliance to go full kamikaze against any attacker no matter how large (and how small the initial attack) enough defense to stop a micro-alliance without treaties from getting rolled?

success or failure of the idea will come not just from seeing whether RLMMO and ZDP survive, but whether their actions discourage attacks on alliances or their type in future.

It really seems to come down on who is doing it. For example take Athens, they tech raid an alliance but sadly their only friends are in CnG and Sparta, so when NpO makes a fuss about it Athens backs down. You can bet if that alliance attacked back, and called on their friends and allies to help them, Athens would have been told to back down as well by gentlemen like the NpO.

GOONS on the other hand raid an alliance but are tied to 3 major blocs so everyone shuts up about it. NpO even joins them in defending their tech raid by attacking those they know are friends of RLMMO, even when attempts to talk peace are brought up and shut down by GOONS.

It seems to depend strictly on who you are allied to for the outside pressure to come in, and internally I think damage will be lessened by those same allies. I think my 2v1 fight with you guys would have been rough, but my damage greatly decreases when I'm facing 5v1.

[lamuella]

like I've mentioned before in this thread, there are at least 4 times in the last month where someone approached us about a tech raid and we gave peace (and on several occasions reps).

If you, or a member of RLMMO, had approached us when this first broke out and talked the matter over, there's no telling what would have happened. They didn't. You didn't come to us until they had - from our perspective - escalated a raid into a war.

By the way: "NpO even joins them in defending their tech raid by attacking those they know are friends of RLMMO" is revisionist history at its finest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RLMMO attack, ZDP declared war on GOONS. You put it in a thread title and everything.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

Your right of course, but then everyone is allied with everyone else, and we all sit around getting bored for 11 months a year.

It really seems to come down on who is doing it. For example take Athens, they tech raid an alliance but sadly their only friends are in CnG and Sparta, so when NpO makes a fuss about it Athens backs down. You can bet if that alliance attacked back, and called on their friends and allies to help them, Athens would have been told to back down as well by gentlemen like the NpO.

GOONS on the other hand raid an alliance but are tied to 3 major blocs so everyone shuts up about it. NpO even joins them in defending their tech raid by attacking those they know are friends of RLMMO, even when attempts to talk peace are brought up and shut down by GOONS.

It seems to depend strictly on who you are allied to for the outside pressure to come in, and internally I think damage will be lessened by those same allies. I think my 2v1 fight with you guys would have been rough, but my damage greatly decreases when I'm facing 5v1.

>1% of GOONS tech raided a micro alliance of 14 vs Athens' tons of dudes on a larger alliance. Not sure where I am seeing the similarities.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

By the way: "NpO even joins them in defending their tech raid by attacking those they know are friends of RLMMO" is revisionist history at its finest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RLMMO attack, ZDP declared war on GOONS. You put it in a thread title and everything.

From our point of view, this "tech raid" was a declaration of war on RLMMO. It seems to go with the whole "Declare war" maneuver or the fact that your troops actually invaded the territory of one of their nations.

At least, can we expect a DoW from NpO?

[lamuella]

From our point of view, this "tech raid" was a declaration of war on RLMMO. It seems to go with the whole "Declare war" maneuver or the fact that your troops actually invaded the territory of one of their nations.

did you just decide not to read the part you quoted that said "Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RLMMO attack"?

[Sardonic]

even when attempts to talk peace are brought up and shut down by GOONS.

Oh we're more than open to peace, just not right now.

[Khyber]

like I've mentioned before in this thread, there are at least 4 times in the last month where someone approached us about a tech raid and we gave peace (and on several occasions reps).

If you, or a member of RLMMO, had approached us when this first broke out and talked the matter over, there's no telling what would have happened. They didn't. You didn't come to us until they had - from our perspective - escalated a raid into a war.

By the way: "NpO even joins them in defending their tech raid by attacking those they know are friends of RLMMO" is revisionist history at its finest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RLMMO attack, ZDP declared war on GOONS. You put it in a thread title and everything.

They escalated the war by recognizing a state of war existed between your alliance and theirs? They hadn't even attacked you, not a single member. Their escalation was a couple of words here on the OWFs saying they will fight you tooth and nail and make this enterprise not worth it for you. It's like Athens escalated the raid to a war when they told Grub to bring it. That is when I approached you about a peace, and was told no, we like war.

I like war too, so I have no issue with that, but your escalation from a raid to a war by RLMMO seems a bit much, since the most aggressive action that had taken place to this point, besides people talking tought, was your alliances permitting an alliance member to raid another alliance.

As for your second point, they came in as optional aggression or optional defense since you entered the war first.. You started this war after all, wither they talked to you or not after doing their tough talk doesn't change the fact that you authorized your members under your charter and your goverment to attack another alliance. That is war. Wiether you declare one war or 50 wars you authorized attacks on another alliance, and that is an act of war. At least that is how I see it. I understand the NpO may see it different but that doesn't change why to me it is hardly revisionism. You athorize tech raids on 15 man alliances, Athens did against 40 man alliances, and as far as I can tell NpO is willing to defend one but completely outraged by the other, and while I'm sure they will justify it somehow in the end it simply comes down to having to support your allies. This will greatly reduce the damage you guys take and furthurmore hardly demonstrate if smaller alliances and their allies going balls out will be a test to prove anything, as I'm sure if Athens had resistance from the alliance they authorized tech raids on, I'm sure the NpO would not have backed down in their retoric against Athens.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Khyber

[ChimpMasterFlash]

From our point of view, this "tech raid" was a declaration of war on RLMMO. It seems to go with the whole "Declare war" maneuver or the fact that your troops actually invaded the territory of one of their nations.

At least, can we expect a DoW from NpO?

Seems that raiding nation should have been the victim of your wrath, but instead you chose to hit innocent nations thus negating your moral argument.

It is irresponsible to think one nation is responsible for a whole alliance. As many previous posts have stated before in this thread, your argument is seen, understood and dismissed with prejudice.

Edited December 5, 2009 by ChimpMasterFlash

[Khyber]

Seems that raiding nation should have been the victim of your wrath, but instead you chose to hit innocent nations thus negating your moral argument.

It is irresponsible to think one nation is responsible for a whole alliance. As many previous posts have stated before in this thread, your argument is seen, understood and dismissed with prejudice.

When your alliance approves the actions of it's member then the alliance is at fault, be they spying, war, or aiding a nation already at war with another nation. We asked if this was authorized or part of your charter, we got the response that yes it was, they were small and unaligned, if you had said no, ZDP would not have entered and would have told their friends in RLMMO that they entered an aggressive war with someone and we disagree with it.

If you disagree with those policies you either change them or you leave the alliance, but please don't try to remove the blame from your alliance.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Seems that nation should have been the victim of your wrath, but instead you chose to hit innocent nations thus negating your moral argument.

It is irresponsible to think one nation is responsible for a whole alliance. As many previous posts have stated before in this thread, your argument is seen, understood and dismissed.

Many other posts seem to be sympathetic to our actions.

Other than that, one nation is always responsible for the whole alliance, just like the alliance is responsible for the welfare of each of its nations. Or where do you draw that arbitrary line? Two nations? Three nations? Since it seems that your government doesn't think your alliance should be held responsible for the actions of its members, where do you draw the line?

'Cause the way I'm reading it, if one of your members decided to nuke a member of another alliance, surely you think your alliance shouldn't be held responsible? Say two or three? Or five? Wars have been started numerous times in the past for the actions of a handful of individuals, sometimes even one. Even global wars.

By the way, we're not claiming the moral high ground or anything of the sort.

N.B: If one nation isn't responsible for the alliance, why would alliances expel a member-at-fault and label him a rogue? Or why would rogues even exist?

[Penkala]

Just popped in to say this is why raiding alliances is absolutely stupid. You should be embarrassed, GOONS, when they actually 'brought it' you had to have your allies bail you out. You can't even clean up the mess from your own tech raids.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

When your alliance approves the actions of it's member then the alliance is at fault, be they spying, war, or aiding a nation already at war with another nation. We asked if this was authorized or part of your charter, we got the response that yes it was, they were small and unaligned, if you had said no, ZDP would not have entered and would have told their friends in RLMMO that they entered an aggressive war with someone and we disagree with it.

If you disagree with those policies you either change them or you leave the alliance, but please don't try to remove the blame from your alliance.

We approve tech raiding, as do many other alliances. But that nation must stand on its own if it bites off more than it can chew as a consequence. (see our charter) RLMMO used a failed political tactic which has backfired in their face. The nation being raided could have been tonked without outside interference or help from other GOONS.

I don't have to remove blame, they did it for us.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

We approve tech raiding, as do many other alliances. But that nation must stand on its own if it bites off more than it can chew as a consequence. (see our charter) RLMMO used a failed political tactic which has backfired in their face. The nation being raided could have been tonked without outside interference or help from other GOONS.

I don't have to remove blame, they did it for us.

How has it backfired in their face, exactly?

They didn't think that by retaliating they would scare you off. It would be laughable for a common alliance but you folks have been known for such raids and a rather loose set of ethics. They knew they wouldn't make you give them peace, heck they're not dumb enough not to know how to get peace when it is written "pm for peace".

We're not trying to spin away from this war. RLMMO and the ZDP entered, knowing full well what was against us. Now, GOONS are calling allies, it's fine, I suppose it is their right, even if we must remark that for micro-alliances that would barely hurt your alliance, as you claimed earlier (I am paraphrasing), it is rather humorous for you to bring a major ally (NpO) to defend you, isn't it?

We salute their entrance, though, and hope they will properly declare war on us since they have entered the fray.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

Many other posts seem to be sympathetic to our actions.

Other than that, one nation is always responsible for the whole alliance, just like the alliance is responsible for the welfare of each of its nations. Or where do you draw that arbitrary line? Two nations? Three nations? Since it seems that your government doesn't think your alliance should be held responsible for the actions of its members, where do you draw the line?

'Cause the way I'm reading it, if one of your members decided to nuke a member of another alliance, surely you think your alliance shouldn't be held responsible? Say two or three? Or five? Wars have been started numerous times in the past for the actions of a handful of individuals, sometimes even one. Even global wars.

By the way, we're not claiming the moral high ground or anything of the sort.

N.B: If one nation isn't responsible for the alliance, why would alliances expel a member-at-fault and label him a rogue? Or why would rogues even exist?

ookay lets say you method goes through.

hypothetical:

I join Sparta, I have malice intentions from the start. I get in and when I become full member I tech raid Npo, Umbrella, And TOP. Now should those alliance announce DoW on Sparta? Nah, I'm the one to get rolled not the alliance.

But you are saying this is what your logic should allow.

Tech raiding is going to go on if you like it or not. I'm certain GOONS are not the only tech raiders out there too.

Just popped in to say this is why raiding alliances is absolutely stupid. You should be embarrassed, GOONS, when they actually 'brought it' you had to have your allies bail you out. You can't even clean up the mess from your own tech raids.

[Khyber]

We approve tech raiding, as do many other alliances. But that nation must stand on its own if it bites off more than it can chew as a consequence. (see our charter) RLMMO used a failed political tactic which has backfired in their face. The nation being raided could have been tonked without outside interference or help from other GOONS.

I don't have to remove blame, they did it for us.

You can't tell your alliance mate that he has the authority to attack xyz person, then simply wash your hands of that decision to give him the right.

Our history has been pretty clear on that since you like precedent. Alliances have been attacked back because they allowed someone to spy on another alliance. Alliances have been attacked back for allowing their members attack another alliance. Alliances have been attacked back for allowing their members aid a person at war.

Your charter is so open to interpretation that your alliance leaders have to decide on a lot of things. Unaligned means alliances that are not alligned for example.

[Khyber]

hypothetical:

I join Sparta, I have malice intentions from the start. I get in and when I become full member I tech raid Npo, Umbrella, And TOP. Now should those alliance announce DoW on Sparta? Nah, I'm the one to get rolled not the alliance.

But you are saying this is what your logic should allow.

Tech raiding is going to go on if you like it or not. I'm certain GOONS are not the only tech raiders out there too.

But chimp I asked if it was acceptable by your standards. I went to your leaders, I wanted to know if nizzle had done something you disapprove off. I made it clear that my intentions to defend hinged on that, 'cause otherwise it would be an act of aggression. If Nizzle was rogueing, and RLMMO attacked GOONS for a rogue, then we would have told them that we respectfully can't back them up, not because we disapprove of wars of aggression, just we think the reasoning is a bit weak to sacrific so much for it.