How to address raiding

[Bob Janova]

Well good, because it is detrimental to the community.

Then we perhaps have something to address. The gameplay at the low end should be adjusted so getting raided isn't so devastating – right now you can lose everything you painstakingly built up in a week, which is very disheartening in any game. So perhaps wars should be shorter for low NS nations, or your first 200 infrastructure much harder to destroy. The 'Welcome to CN' message should direct people more forcefully to these boards and to a guide on CN which explains the community nature and the importance of alliances – alliance politics really is the game, the one that Admin has coded is not really that good and would get boring fast.

You will always get people who get their jollies in games like this by attacking the weak, and attempting to police any sort of griefing rule is impossible. So if it is currently a detriment to keeping players, we need to (i) make being raided less unfun, and (ii) point new players more strongly at the community and ways that they can not get raided.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

So long as there is one jerk left in CN raiding will continue.

Being a jerk is not a prerequisite for raiding. There are plenty of jerks that do not raid and plenty of fine classy chaps that raid.

Yes, Pirates can be classy too

Edited December 23, 2009 by ChimpMasterFlash

[Kailey Cost]

The 'Welcome to CN' message should direct people more forcefully to these boards and to a guide on CN which explains the community nature and the importance of alliances – alliance politics really is the game, the one that Admin has coded is not really that good and would get boring fast.

If you actually take the time to read the message you get from admin upon creation of your nation, it's very helpful.

[Mergerberger II]

i have seen the argument of "it is detrimental to the game/community" thrown around a lot since "raiding drives people away" but i have not seen much in the way of proof of this. i would say it is more likely boredom that drives the vast majority away while raiding makes up an insignificant portion. This game is pretty boring if you just come on every few days to click some buttons, which the vast majority of unaligned under 10k NS i suspect do. you can only take so much of that before you are bored and quit.

I do not see why it is okay for someone who is in a large alliance to attack someone without an alliance out of the blue for no reason other than he's looking for a fight or he wants tech. It is simply not right to go out and look for people who decided to go it alone, who decided to build themselves without an alliance, and plan wars against them. People at your NS, 60k. People at that NS that have been unaligned for so long, they have built their nations without much help from others. I have advantages. I can go to Polaris and trade for tech easily, and I can sit and wait for my collection to build up an enormous warchest, all whilst under the protection of my alliance, not needing to worry about raids, while that person out there unaligned is always worried about raids, always dealing with them, always fighting, and doesn't have the same opportunities, the unaligned cannot go and find tech, he cannot wait without fear for his money to build up, instead he must deal with war. And that gives the aligned an advantage, a distinct advantage.

Even if you expect, even if you desire retaliation, it is wrong. If your target goes balls-out on you, shoots everything he has, and that's what you wanted, it's still wrong. And why is it wrong? Because we've made it wrong. What is different about attacking an unaligned nation and attacking a nation in an alliance? Allies. If every nation was in an alliance, then things would be different. I may not raid you because IAA would be on me like ugly on an ape, and you may not raid me because Polaris would be on you the same way, and people fear the consequences of their actions. Might makes right in this world, and if you are in an alliance, you have the might, and thus, to many, you are right.

The question of nuclear retaliation has been brought up. Somehow, using a nuclear weapon is different from conventional warfare. It isn't. This is not the real world; a nuclear weapon is simply a tool of warfare, and a way to try and win a war. Why is it different? Why is a nuclear weapon different from 10 bombing raids? It is not. It simply does a lot of damage in one hit, that's all. It is not immoral, it is not a different story. If you want someone to fight you to the death, sure as hell they'd use nukes. If I were unaligned and someone raided me, let the nukes fly on the coward! Death by fire, steel is not enough. Nuclear fire is the only way these tech raiders learn.

But oh well, the only way that we may see the end of tech raiding is when all the tech raiders have died off.

[Derwood1]

But oh well, the only way that we may see the end of tech raiding is when all the tech raiders have died off.

....and we might as well kill all fun; that will help the activity levels

Edited December 23, 2009 by Derwood1

[ktarthan]

I do not see why it is okay for someone who is in a large alliance to attack someone without an alliance out of the blue for no reason other than he's looking for a fight or he wants tech. It is simply not right to go out and look for people who decided to go it alone, who decided to build themselves without an alliance, and plan wars against them.

Firstly, is it unheard of for an unaligned to tech raid another unaligned? I'm sure it is the minority, but thinking about these things help us avoid making broad generalizations like "tech raiding is always bad". I know you did not specifically say that, but that is the vein of this thread.

Second, this is a game. There is a war mechanic in this game. There is also a clear way to opt out of this war mechanic. No one is forced to participate in war.

[Dochartaigh]

I do not see why it is okay for someone who is in a large alliance to attack someone without an alliance out of the blue for no reason other than he's looking for a fight or he wants tech. It is simply not right to go out and look for people who decided to go it alone, who decided to build themselves without an alliance, and plan wars against them. People at your NS, 60k. People at that NS that have been unaligned for so long, they have built their nations without much help from others. I have advantages. I can go to Polaris and trade for tech easily, and I can sit and wait for my collection to build up an enormous warchest, all whilst under the protection of my alliance, not needing to worry about raids, while that person out there unaligned is always worried about raids, always dealing with them, always fighting, and doesn't have the same opportunities, the unaligned cannot go and find tech, he cannot wait without fear for his money to build up, instead he must deal with war. And that gives the aligned an advantage, a distinct advantage.

Even if you expect, even if you desire retaliation, it is wrong. If your target goes balls-out on you, shoots everything he has, and that's what you wanted, it's still wrong. And why is it wrong? Because we've made it wrong. What is different about attacking an unaligned nation and attacking a nation in an alliance? Allies. If every nation was in an alliance, then things would be different. I may not raid you because IAA would be on me like ugly on an ape, and you may not raid me because Polaris would be on you the same way, and people fear the consequences of their actions. Might makes right in this world, and if you are in an alliance, you have the might, and thus, to many, you are right.

The question of nuclear retaliation has been brought up. Somehow, using a nuclear weapon is different from conventional warfare. It isn't. This is not the real world; a nuclear weapon is simply a tool of warfare, and a way to try and win a war. Why is it different? Why is a nuclear weapon different from 10 bombing raids? It is not. It simply does a lot of damage in one hit, that's all. It is not immoral, it is not a different story. If you want someone to fight you to the death, sure as hell they'd use nukes. If I were unaligned and someone raided me, let the nukes fly on the coward! Death by fire, steel is not enough. Nuclear fire is the only way these tech raiders learn.

But oh well, the only way that we may see the end of tech raiding is when all the tech raiders have died off.

lawlz. i was a Polar once and i was also anti-raider while there. frankly, any nation at my size that is unaligned most likely was not unaligned their entire time. most are either bored of being in an alliance and strike it out for themselves knowing the risk, or are going rogue. some are just looking for a new alliance and were to dumb to ask to hold onto the AA until a new alliance is found. (every time i switched AAs, i never went none)

as for nukes, no i do not see nukes as being different. to me they are the same as CMs and aircraft attacks. if i get nuked i don't mind. also, i do love how you are calling me a coward without knowing anything about me other than i raid occassionally. frankly, i raid anyone and yes i expect retaliation. if they don't and just peace out, then kewl. if they retaliate, then that is kewl as well. but to call me a coward because i use a function built into this game is ridiculous at best and just plain retarded at its worst.

if i was a coward, i would have a much larger nation. i was in Polaris during the GPW and the SPW and fought hard for them. so you should know who i am before you attempt to call me a coward. it is quite clear you have no clue whatsoever.

[Golan 1st]

Dochartaigh and others who think in a similar way, I believe that you too agree that attacking innocent people is wrong. How is this being a game makes it morally acceptable?

An aligned nation attacking unaligned nation is unbalanced war, even if the aligned nation does not call for its allies support. It's unbalanced because nobody will dare to attack the aligned side while attacks of a third party on the unaligned nation are very common. It's unbalanced because the unaligned side cannot get the aid the aligned nation can get for the war and recovery. It's unbalanced because the very situation is intimidating to the unaligned nation.

It is widely agreed that attacking well established alliances is not acceptable in ordinary circumstances. How can you morally justify that when it's done to unaligned or small alliances? How does being defenceless make them legitimate target? I have already heard of several incidents where tech raiders actually demanded reparations from their victims who dared to defend themselves.

You say that you like fighting? Fine. Find others who like it too and fight them. Why abuse people who just want to build their own nations and have no interest in alliance politics?

The claims that you are a coward are a result of you picking easy targets. If it was really about you and your alliance loving wars so much, you would find an alliance that matches your own alliance's strength and fight them. But you don't that. You limit yourself to conflicts where you can easily set the timing, the rules and the results cannot be catastrophic to you, only to them, if they choose to defend what is rightfully theirs.

In the early days of CN, tech raiding was something honourable alliances just didn't do. The cyberverse has change a lot since then and it's obvious that it's impossible to stop it in the foreseeable future. But I would expect those alliances who have a moral position against tech raiding to consider it when making friends and signing treaties. Maybe, when alliances know that they may lose diplomatically from tech raiding, it will be an incentive to stop this lowly form of robbery.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Golan 1st

[Dochartaigh]

Dochartaigh and others who think in a similar way, I believe that you too agree that attacking innocent people is wrong. How is this being a game makes it morally acceptable?

because RL and a game are exactly the same thing? i take it you do not play war games or shooter games ever? you rallied against GTA because you could run over people or shoot them or rob them and what not?

to compare an action taken in the game as beating up a flesh and blood person is just the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard. i play this game to have fun and get away from RL, not to think that "zomg, this is RL i must act like i would RL because it is RL!!!!11!!!!" sorry, but no. this is a game thus, while RL analogies are fun and all, sometimes they are quite ridiculous.

no, i would not rob or beat some random person in RL but then again, in RL, there are consequences that affect my real life as well as others in my life. this game, no such consequences. even if there were, why would it? zomg, i lose some 1s and 0s from a game. i go cry myself to sleep every night with that worry. i truly do....

An aligned nation attacking unaligned nation is unbalanced war, even if the aligned nation does not call for its allies support. It's unbalanced because nobody will dare to attack the aligned side while attacks of a third party on the unaligned nation are very common. It's unbalanced because the unaligned side cannot get the aid the aligned nation can get for the war and recovery. It's unbalanced because the very situation is intimidating to the unaligned nation.

actually, i have never received aid for a raid period. in fact, i send out more aid than i receive (in fact, in IAA i have not received aid at all except in the form of tech deals). hell, in most of the wars i have been in, i received very little aid but basically rebuilt myself. so you should kinda know who you are addressing before you attempt to use such arguments on me.

It is widely agreed that attacking well established alliances is not acceptable in ordinary circumstances. How can you morally justify that when it's done to unaligned or small alliances? How does being defenceless make them legitimate target? I have already heard of several incidents where tech raiders actually demanded reparations from their victims who dared to defend themselves.

actually, i don't attack an AA that has 2+ members. i also do not ask for reps from victims who defend themselves. in fact, if they fight well, i attempt to recruit them.

You say that you like fighting? Fine. Find others who like it too and fight them. Why abuse people who just want to build their own nations and have no interest in alliance politics?

The claims that you are a coward are a result of you picking easy targets. If it was really about you and your alliance loving wars so much, you would find an alliance that matches your own alliance's strength and fight them. But you don't that. You limit yourself to conflicts where you can easily set the timing, the rules and the results cannot be catastrophic to you, only to them, if they choose to defend what is rightfully theirs.

for one, look at my NS before you attempt to say i choose easy targets..... and this is about me, not IAA. also, you know how hard it is to organize such a match up with so many alliances more than willing to start a big war due to lack of drama? frankly, what does my alliance have to do with anything? when i raid, i am on my own. if the nation wants to retaliate they can. also, you have not read a thing i posted obviously since i have stated that i have been nuked by one of my victims before and you know what i did- i tried to recruit him into IAA. unfortunately he was already leaving the game and had fun going out with a bang. (just to note, he was leaving the game prior to me raiding him before you attempt to state i drove him out of the game...)

In the early days of CN, tech raiding was something honourable alliances just didn't do. The cyberverse has change a lot since then and it's obvious that it's impossible to stop it in the foreseeable future. But I would expect those alliances who have a moral position against tech raiding to consider it when making friends and signing treaties. Maybe, when alliances know that they may lose diplomatically from tech raiding, it will be an incentive to stop this lowly form of robbery.

what? tech raiding has been around for a long time. honorable alliances have and still do tech raid. you are obviously only remembering GOONS and what not when you think of tech raiding alliances from back in the day. there were far more than that. heck i am fairly certain IRON is a raider alliance since they began (could be wrong though, just pretty sure i heard that somewhere).

[Doitzel]

Sorry, based on your reply I wasn't sure if you were in agreement or not with Näktergal's post.

The portion that you quoted (which I assume is what you are referring to, not the whole post) does not actually say anything about tech raiding harming the community. The first two pararaphs talk about gameplay so they are irrelevant, and the third talks about issues that are definitely not specific to the pro-raiding side.

Unaligned nations being griefed by tech raiders absolutely has broader implications for the community. I was unaligned for several months before I became involved in game politics (I was not tech-raided once, by the way, because that was a no-no in my day); an unknowable number of such dormant prospective additions to our dwindling community have been driven off in their earliest stages in this game by stuck-up veteran players bombing the crap out of their nations and handing down strict terms that probably make no sense to such casual players. Game losing people = bad!

because RL and a game are exactly the same thing? i take it you do not play war games or shooter games ever? you rallied against GTA because you could run over people or shoot them or rob them and what not?

to compare an action taken in the game as beating up a flesh and blood person is just the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard

Almost as ridiculous as comparing CN to GTA, even!

Guess what, genius? The people you run over in that game aren't real players that invest long-term to build up their characters. Your comparison of CN to shooters is just asinine. More apt would be a WoW analogy with a level 60 player running around one-shot player-killing a bunch of level 5s on a PvP server then saying, "you have the option to not level your character, then I wouldn't have a reason to steal all your stuff!" (For the holistically-impaired, that's a snipe at the bogus argument that people can avoid being tech-raided with peace mode.)

[Dochartaigh]

Almost as ridiculous as comparing CN to GTA, even!

Guess what, genius? The people you run over in that game aren't real players that invest long-term to build up their characters. Your comparison of CN to shooters is just asinine. More apt would be a WoW analogy with a level 60 player running around one-shot player-killing a bunch of level 5s on a PvP server then saying, "you have the option to not level your character, then I wouldn't have a reason to steal all your stuff!" (For the holistically-impaired, that's a snipe at the bogus argument that people can avoid being tech-raided with peace mode.)

not that ridiculous given the typical comparison of tech raiding=mugging/beating some guy up.

you also do realize that most tech raiders are under 20k NS (possibly lower) and that at my range it is quite hard not to find targets that are on an AA of 2 or more? honestly, i don't even tech raid that much since it is quite hard to find a target that fits my parameters. as for the community, please address my post on that.

frankly, if ya'll anti-raiders wanna get rid of raiding, i would start with those alliances whom allow their members to demand reps or triple-team victims or attack alliances. otherwise, it won't change. this is not one of those topics where the people of CN will change their views based on words alone. this is an issue where only might can actually change anything.

i would bet that TJO is allied to alliances that allow raiding. unless of course TJO has no treaties. so if you truly wanna make an impact, Doitzel, drop all treaties with those alliances who raid until they cease allowing raids by their members, and only ally alliances who do not allow raids.

[Doitzel]

No, words will always retain their power.

[Prime minister Johns]

There was a solution that worked for quite a long time.

Have a major sanctioned alliance protect the unaligned on their home colour sphere in exchange for trades and perhaps senate votes.

The NPO carried this out for over a year I believe and the standard response during that time when a person came onto the forums complaining about tech raiders was to suggest that they moved to the red sphere and get the NPO to protect them.

Why can't one (or more) of the major alliances do the same and emulate this successful idea that worked in the past?

Edited December 23, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Awesome additions, Sigrun Vapneir and Bordiga. While I have certainly fought in a few wars (and my casualty count is pretty decent) I am not expert in technical aspects of fighting. So your contributions are much appreciated. Especially from Bordiga, as I haven't been unaligned while out of peace mode since before June of 06. I don't know if we even had tanks yet at that point.

Bordiga certainly deserves the praise.

I have been "unaligned" (I held an AA on my own, rather than 'none', but one is as good as the other to tech raiders) several times, the last time only a few months ago, and I did keep a low profile on this board while doing that.

While in the end my nation was never actually attacked, it was noticed, tracked, and targeted in a very short time. Tech raiders at my NS, in this era, seem to be rather cautious though, instead of jumping to attack they scouted me fairly carefully. Perhaps changing my bio several times a day made them hesitate. Perhaps the full stock of soldiers and tanks at defcon 1 was more important. Perhaps the casualty count had something to do with it too, even though I think it's a bit wimpy (and must point out in my own defense that the first 250k were achieved without nukes and at much lower NS, where long bloody wars yield only a handful of casualties.)

I know there was another factor, I will just say THANK YOU, you know who you are.

At any rate, they hesitated and I moved along, so nothing happened in the end. But the threat was very real and imminent, and quite annoying.

But the last time I was actually "raided" would have been in 2007.

Before joining my first "recognised" alliance my nation was under constant attack, both from aligned and unaligned extortionists. I was determined from day one to make sure that come hell or high water and whatever the cost, anyone that attacked my nation would bleed more than they gained. I was very annoyed and DID almost give up the game and move on at that point. But not without blowing up some enemy infra first. While I was only beginning to really grasp the war system properly, my attackers werent exactly geniuses either and I did quite well - I actually turned a profit on several wars myself, even though in every case I was the defender and the other nation chose the fight. Unfortunately I found there were just too many - it seemed that every time I beat an attacker down enough to sit down and seriously harvest tech from it a fresh attacker would appear and demand all my resources on a new front. The one thing that I did NOT experience, that seems to happen today, was an aligned attacker calling in his whole alliance on me, perhaps I just got lucky or perhaps it was the era, but even though several attackers flew major alliance colours I was never hit with a sanction or a coördinate blitz or threatened with an EZI or anything like that.

I joined an alliance not with the intention of stopping the attacks but only of finding some backup to even the odds because I was sick of newer, bigger attackers appearing just when I had a handle on the earlier ones.

Of course when I did that, the constant flow of attacks on my nation ceased, but I barely noticed, the larger alliance means more help but more targets bit kicked in, so even though my own nation wasnt under attack *someone* else in my alliance and ns range was always being attacked so I just got real active in my legion.

However that, also, didnt last long, and I went back unaligned for a short period of time. I decided on a new alliance, and applied. A few hours later when my application was processed, I already had a raider on me, and the alliance wouldnt admit me until the wars were over!

Attacker came from a micro-alliance, 14 members IIRC. I scanned them all, identified the 'leader' and talked to him. Got no satisfaction at all, the same type of rhetoric I read here all the time from pro-raiding folks in fact, advising me to roll over for the attacker or even pay "reps" to get peace.

So I declared on the two other members of that AA in range to me, blew my warchest on hardware, and threatened to lay waste to all three of them. The leader character changed his tune real quick. Even promised reps to get me to peace out. They never paid - a couple days later when I went looking for them the leader was gone. Found the new leader, had a bit of back and forth as he tried to deny first knowledge and second responsibility for the whole episode. Then suddenly the AA didnt even exist anymore. So I never got the reps. But I certainly counted it as a victory. And with empty war slots my application was approved.

lawlz. i was a Polar once and i was also anti-raider while there. frankly, any nation at my size that is unaligned most likely was not unaligned their entire time. most are either bored of being in an alliance and strike it out for themselves knowing the risk, or are going rogue. some are just looking for a new alliance and were to dumb to ask to hold onto the AA until a new alliance is found. (every time i switched AAs, i never went none)

Hai Doc. My nation isnt below your range. I was solo fairly recently. Yes, I knew the risk, so what? Every day that I walk to work I know the risk of getting mugged on the way, you gonna tell me that means it's ok to mug me? It never seemed right to me to even think about joining one alliance while wearing the tag of another - and more than not being right I guess, it is impossible for me. As long as I am wearing an AA I am thinking of that AA first, before my own nations interest. In order to choose a new AA, I need time to think without that effect - time to reorient my thoughts and reëvaluate, well, everything, from the solo position. If it is different for you, ok, but that's no reason to attack me.

no, i would not rob or beat some random person in RL but then again, in RL, there are consequences that affect my real life as well as others in my life. this game, no such consequences.

So if you knew you could do it with no consequences, you would beat and rob some random person IRL? That is what it sounds like you are saying.

Anyhow, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, and I believe you are sincere. I also agree with Random that PB would be a better place if there were more consequences for random violence, however. Eliminate it entirely? Nah, impossible. It really would take removing the declare war button, essentially, and that cure is worse than the disease. But given the way you say that you carry out raids, how can you disagree with us encouraging resistance? You say you accept the risk and take the lumps if the defender hits you back without going to your alliance etc. - yet you seem to be defending those that do exactly what you say you do not do in the same breath!

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Learz]

There was a solution that worked for quite a long time.

Have a major sanctioned alliance protect the unaligned on their home colour sphere in exchange for trades and perhaps senate votes.

The NPO carried this out for over a year I believe and the standard response during that time when a person came onto the forums complaining about tech raiders was to suggest that they moved to the red sphere and get the NPO to protect them.

Why can't one (or more) of the major alliances do the same and emulate this successful idea that worked in the past?

Because Karma doesn't seem to like it:

IV. The New Pacific Order hereby commits to never reinstating the Moldavi Doctrine or the original version of the Revenge Doctrine in any form. Henceforth, the Red Sphere is a free Sphere, with no restrictions on the Senate or alliance inhabitance.

Now, if the world was so anti-tech raider, why include a clause like that?

[TheNakedJimbo]

So if you knew you could do it with no consequences, you would beat and rob some random person IRL? That is what it sounds like you are saying.

This is getting pretty heavy into metaphysics and the nature of morality. I have an answer to your question but it will take me a minute to get there. You seem to take it for granted that it would be wrong to beat someone up, but that is not necessarily the case depending on your view of morality.

Morality can only come from one of four places.

1. It is socially defined. Society (or the majority) determines what is right and what is not. This is a flawed premise because society changes its mind. For example, slavery was widely accepted for thousands of years - was it moral all that time and only became immoral once society on the whole turned against it? Under this premise, whether it's wrong to beat up a passerby would depend on what society thought of it. In game terms, this would be the "culture of acceptance" that resulted in tech raiding being more popular and more widely accepted - therefore, more moral - two years ago when I last played this game.

2. It is individually determined - what's right for you may not be right for me. This is also a flawed premise because your morality and my morality may contradict. I may believe that it is not only permissible, but actually beneficial, to beat up strangers and take their money. I"m encouraging survival of the fittest. In game terms, this would mean that nobody would have any right to criticize tech raiders at all, because they're simply being moral according to their own belief system.

3. It is based on "non-harm" to others. This is probably the most common source of individual morality in the world today - I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Most anti-tech raiders would probably want this to be the standard as well. The problem is that "non-harm" is virtually impossible. Every time you drive your car you're polluting the air that the other six billion of us have to breathe. Even in game terms, every person that joins your alliance deprives another alliance of a member. Even by growing your nation, you're keeping me out of the top 5% and making me have to buy a very expensive wonder if I want nuclear weapons; I consider that harmful to me. What about the times your alliance uses its size and political clout to get its way; is that not harming someone else? This is only a feasible system of morality if you're very selective (read: ignorant) with what you consider "harm," and if you're very willing to make excuses why the things that are beneficial for you are not actually harmful to other people. This generally boils down to a system of self-interest seeking, with the label "morality" attached to it so the person can feel better about themselves. You can see that virtually everything you do will harm someone in some way; should you stop doing anything?

4. Morality is dictated by a higher power. So far the issue we encounter with regard to the issue of tech raiding is that none of the previous three systems of morality can really render a verdict on it. There is simply no Absolute Truth Of Raiding to which we can appeal for a final verdict on whether the thing is actually good or actually bad. The only way to do so - keep in mind I am still speaking in game terms - would be if there was a higher power which existed, could be known by the players, and was in the habit of sharing his moral and ethical truth with players. In other words, unless Planet Bob had a God, or unless Kevin assumed that role for himself, we can have no definitive verdict on whether tech raiding is moral or immoral.

So, now I may answer your original question. In real life, would I push someone over and take his money? No, because my system of morality

(number four in case you're curious) says that such a thing is always and unconditionally wrong. Your question assumed that same response, but what if you encountered someone who did not believe that it was always and unconditionally wrong - to what could you appeal in order to convince him of your opinion? In game terms, you can see that it's quite impossible to define whether tech raiding is even moral or not. The people who speak against it seem to take for granted that it is immoral, but what is their proof or their basis? Which of these four systems of morality do they actually hold, that enables them to universally declare what is moral for everyone else?

[Vilien]

3. It is based on "non-harm" to others. This is probably the most common source of individual morality in the world today - I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Most anti-tech raiders would probably want this to be the standard as well. The problem is that "non-harm" is virtually impossible. Every time you drive your car you're polluting the air that the other six billion of us have to breathe. Even in game terms, every person that joins your alliance deprives another alliance of a member. Even by growing your nation, you're keeping me out of the top 5% and making me have to buy a very expensive wonder if I want nuclear weapons; I consider that harmful to me. What about the times your alliance uses its size and political clout to get its way; is that not harming someone else? This is only a feasible system of morality if you're very selective (read: ignorant) with what you consider "harm," and if you're very willing to make excuses why the things that are beneficial for you are not actually harmful to other people. This generally boils down to a system of self-interest seeking, with the label "morality" attached to it so the person can feel better about themselves. You can see that virtually everything you do will harm someone in some way; should you stop doing anything?

I think I'll just go for the most flawed of all of your assumptions.

There's a clear difference between performing an action with neutral effect to other persons (i.e. purchasing infrastructure) and actively destroying someone's nation. That's what raiding is. It's the unnecessary and unprovoked assault of an unaligned nation. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to change that raiding is clearly detrimental to those it effects while the actions you outlined have almost no impact on other nations.

[TheNakedJimbo]

I think I'll just go for the most flawed of all of your assumptions.

There's a clear difference between performing an action with neutral effect to other persons (i.e. purchasing infrastructure) and actively destroying someone's nation. That's what raiding is. It's the unnecessary and unprovoked assault of an unaligned nation.

There's no difference at all. One is actively harmful to me and the other is passively harmful, but both keep me from getting what I want. The chicken-processing plant upriver from me is just minding its own business, but that doesn't stop the smell from wafting down and making me gag in the morning. The fact that they didn't mean it to be harmful doesn't mean that it's not harmful.

It sounds like what you're saying is that a great many things that you do are indeed harmful, but that you should be judged on your motivations rather than on the consequences of your actions, while reserving the right to universally criticize a certain action that you happen to not like.

[Vilien]

There's no difference at all. One is actively harmful to me and the other is passively harmful, but both keep me from getting what I want. The chicken-processing plant upriver from me is just minding its own business, but that doesn't stop the smell from wafting down and making me gag in the morning. The fact that they didn't mean it to be harmful doesn't mean that it's not harmful.

It sounds like what you're saying is that a great many things that you do are indeed harmful, but that you should be judged on your motivations rather than on the consequences of your actions, while reserving the right to universally criticize a certain action that you happen to not like.

How is purchasing infrastructure passively harmful to anyone? You're confusing (knowingly) commensalism with actual damage to an unaffected party. If we're going for irrelevant OOC metaphors, getting a job and earning a salary cannot possibly considered to be in the same realm as punching someone in the face and taking their wallet.

[TheNakedJimbo]

getting a job and earning a salary cannot possibly considered to be in the same realm as punching someone in the face and taking their wallet.

Not really, but shouldn't I feel just a little bit bad for the person who didn't get my job, who now has additional money problems and stress in his life because I took the job he could have had? I didn't mean to do any of those things to him, but they happened to him, and whether I meant it or not my actions did harm him.

Or what about the fact that simply by being hooked up to the power grid right now, I'm relying on power that was likely generated by coal? I don't mean to pollute the environment, and I don't even know for sure where my power is actually coming from, but there's a pretty good chance I'm making the planet worse as we speak. Again, I don't mean to, and I don't think it's unreasonable of me to want the heat on when it's frigid outside, but that doesn't change the fact that my actions do have consequences for other people.

What I'm really trying to get at is that, simply by living, we cause harm to other people in an innumerable variety of ways. Theologians call this the "social dimension of sin." You can only claim non-harm if you're incredibly selective (blindly so) about the consequences your actions have with regard to other people; or if you think that you shouldn't be penalized for seeking your own self-interest, but only for actively harming someone else's (which it sounds like you're saying).

Edited December 23, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo

[Vilien]

What I'm really trying to get at is that, simply by living, we cause harm to other people in an innumerable variety of ways. Theologians call this the "social dimension of sin." You can only claim non-harm if you're incredibly selective (blindly so) about the consequences your actions have with regard to other people; or if you think that you shouldn't be penalized for seeking your own self-interest, but only for actively harming someone else's (which it sounds like you're saying).

I understand the real life "parallels", but they really have nothing to do with a simplistic browser game.

There is no oversimplification involved in differentiating between the active destruction of another nation and simply building one's own nation. The "harm" caused by the latter is trivial at the very worst, and non-existent in the practical sense. Justifying actions taken with the deliberate intention of harming others by saying that all actions harm someone in one way or another is oversimplification, and I'm pretty sure that you understand the difference between the two perfectly.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

Vilien I see where you are coming from but you fail to realize that an action to gain benefit while conversely being negative to another player none other than the process of nature. This game is not set up for perfect harmony nor a realization in Utopian politics.

[TheNakedJimbo]

The "harm" caused by the latter is trivial at the very worst, and non-existent in the practical sense. Justifying actions taken with the deliberate intention of harming others by saying that all actions harm someone in one way or another is oversimplification, and I'm pretty sure that you understand the difference between the two perfectly.

If I admitted that then I wouldn't be able to have this debate

And it's not really oversimplification to observe that you're being inconsistent. You're really drawing an arbitrary line between intentional harm and unintentional harm incurred in the pursuit of your own self-interest. Now, you could modify the philosophy a little bit to say that "as far as I know I am not intentionally causing harm to others." But this takes for granted that the pursuit of your own self-interest is always moral as long as your own personal intention (known to no one except you) is not to cause harm to others.

I heard a few days ago that, if everyone on earth lived the way the United States does, it would take the resources of six earths to provide for that standard of living. You (and anyone with a brain) would probably say that the moral thing to do is for Americans to dial back on our consumption of things. We are, without being aware of it and certainly without meaning it, causing very real harm to the environment, and to the standard of living in the third world, with our consumption of energy. Are you saying that we are perfectly moral to do so since we don't mean to harm them? That my standard of living, propelled by pure selfishness but not by malice, is still moral? All I want is a comfortable life the way I've always known it; I don't intend to harm anyone, but I am. Yet I'm morally in the clear because at least I don't mean to?

This is why I say you're being inconsistent. If harm is done then harm is done, and whether it was intentional or a byproduct does not matter very much. The fact of the matter is that someone gets behind because you get ahead. You can seek to justify this by appealing to your motivations - and I personally, in real life, agree that motivations should count when judging consequences. But harm to someone is still harm to someone, whether it was caused by malice or merely by selfishness. You either have to accept this or selectively redefine non-harm - in such a way that makes "ignorance of the consequences of your actions" into acceptable justification for harming someone.

Edited December 23, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo

[Vilien]

Vilien I see where you are coming from but you fail to realize that an action to gain benefit while conversely being negative to another player none other than the process of nature. This game is not set up for perfect harmony nor a realization in Utopian politics.

The process of nature is all fine and good for animals bereft of the ability to use reason as a check of self-interest. I'm not asking for perfect harmony. I'd like people to stop driving new players, or for that matter, any players who choose not to join an alliance of certain size, from the game. It's not that difficult. Exercise some self-control.

This is why I say you're being inconsistent. If harm is done then harm is done, and whether it was intentional or a byproduct does not matter very much. The fact of the matter is that someone gets behind because you get ahead. You can seek to justify this by appealing to your motivations - and I personally, in real life, agree that motivations should count when judging consequences. But harm to someone is still harm to someone, whether it was caused by malice or merely by selfishness. You either have to accept this or selectively redefine non-harm - in such a way that makes "ignorance of the consequences of your actions" into acceptable justification for harming someone.

I called OOC metaphors irrelevant for a reason. Building one's own nation does absolutely nothing to harm someone else, whereas destroying their infrastructure and technology is clearly damaging.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Vilien

[TheNakedJimbo]

I called OOC metaphors irrelevant for a reason. Building one's own nation does absolutely nothing to harm someone else, whereas destroying their infrastructure and technology is clearly damaging.

As I mentioned earlier, it keeps me (and thousands of other nations) from getting into the top 5% of nations, barring me from getting nuclear weapons unless I buy a Manhattan Project. The real cost to me of your selfishness is the $100,000,000 that it costs to buy the wonder. So don't tell me that your pursuit of your self-interest is innocent and costs me nothing. There's a dollar amount right there.

Of course, I don't fault you for this, because I take it for granted that your pursuit of self-interest is going to harm me. Non-harm is impossible. But if you're going to argue that you don't harm me at all, then you're just plain wrong and there's the number to prove it.