How to address raiding

[Vilien]

Too late, I declared myself high adjudicator of high arbiters last thursday, and I overrule your decision. It's totally okay to attack people without provocation now.

I don't think you understand how this works.

[ktarthan]

I don't think you understand how this works.

I was trying to point out that you were being kind of silly. But I'll reform my response in the form of an actual question:

What gives you the authority to give yourself authority over everyone in moral decisions?

[Vilien]

I was trying to point out that you were being kind of silly. But I'll reform my response in the form of an actual question:

What gives you the authority to give yourself authority over everyone in moral decisions?

See: above.

[ktarthan]

See: above.

See: below

Open World RP

The hub of happenings in the alliance-driven political scene of the Cyber Nations World. Remember that all posts here are Out of Character.

[Vilien]

See: below

You assume I'm any less smug and self-important OOC.

[nippy]

You assume I'm any less smug and self-important OOC.

Haha....ah, Vilien. You're a bright shining diamond. Never stop sparkling.

[ktarthan]

You assume I'm any less smug and self-important OOC.

Then I'll wait for someone else to debate with. Once it gets to the "It's this way because I say so" argument, it's no fun.

If you'll excuse me I have some muggings to attend to.

[Bob Janova]

Tech raiding is immoral ... as part of the game politics. Here, if it's damaging to the game, we should be talking about game design decisions to make it less damaging or harder to do.

[Locke]

Because Karma doesn't seem to like it:

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

They cancelled it because it held part of the Moldavi Doctrine in it. I assume a rewritten version without such clauses assuming the red sphere as owned by NPO to be just fine.

[Dochartaigh]

No, I asserted that I have the right to be the arbiter of morality for everyone. So tech raiding is still immoral.

i find that a direct imposition on the sovereignty of my nation much as all those who argue that tech raiders impose upon the sovereignty of other nations, those who want to essentially ban tech-raiding are just as immoral as they wish to impose upon the sovereignty of those who tech raid.

see, i can throw around sovereignty, imposition, and immorality as well.

thus, you are immoral simply for stating you have the right to make any sort of decision for me and thus, you cannot possibly be the arbiter of morality as you are immoral.

[Näktergal]

They cancelled it because it held part of the Moldavi Doctrine in it. I assume a rewritten version without such clauses assuming the red sphere as owned by NPO to be just fine.

I know I always said the Revenge Doctrine was one of the best policies the NPO ever had, globally speaking. A place where players could realistically exist in small cliquish alliances of real life friends or even go it alone without fear of being annihilated by more hardcore raiding alliances, and without having to hide in Peace Mode and suffer crippling limits to growth, goes a long way towards allowing more casual players a bit of freedom and security.

I absolutely consider that the only real tragedy of the Karma War - the utter destruction of that safe haven for players who don't feel like dealing with the usual forum-based BS. It was inevitable, though, since the Revenge Doctrine was intimately tied to the Moldavi Doctrine, which was a tool of control that helped the NPO maintain dominance.

I suspect that, if the NPO tried to reestablish a similar protectorate over the entire sphere, most people would condemn it out of hand as an attempt to restore the Moldavi Doctrine and criticize it as an attack on the sovereignty of other alliances, there'd be a lot of chest-thumping and threats, and in the end, the NPO would have to back down on it. The Revenge Doctrine worked because of how powerful the NPO was at the time - the same policy without the power to enforce it (and with powerful interests opposed to it) is basically just Yellow No. 5.

I'm half-surprised that no other alliance (or bloc) has considered staking out a color and making it a similar refuge, though... considering how it could boost the number of nations in the color and thus improve availability of trades in general. I think it would be interesting if TOP/IRON/ODN pushed for an Orange Preserve (pun intended), or if the NpO could pull together some support to declare Blue a sanctuary for individualist nations.

Aqua and Green are other spheres I could think of as candidates for such a thing, but Aqua's a bit too fractious to really set it up, and Green would probably only work if the GPA was willing to be a bit more militant and devote themselves to offering their protection to Green nations outside of their AA. And I'm sure some of the other colors could pull it off with a bit of desire and organization.

[Penkala]

How can you support this when an alliance you're extremely influential in not only allows their allies to tech raid, but backs them up when they bite off more than they can chew? It seems like Polar has been one of the largest enablers of tech raiding in the past month.

Not an accusation or anything, just wondering about how you justify being in Polar while you advise others to not join alliances that support tech raiding.

[Dochartaigh]

How can you support this when an alliance you're extremely influential in not only allows their allies to tech raid, but backs them up when they bite off more than they can chew? It seems like Polar has been one of the largest enablers of tech raiding in the past month.

Not an accusation or anything, just wondering about how you justify being in Polar while you advise others to not join alliances that support tech raiding.

Polaris as a whole as pretty much always been anti-raider though Polaris does allow for the sovereignty of their allies to raid or not. as far as backing up allies who bit off more than they could chew- could you give an example of that?

[RandomInterrupt]

I really don't spend enough time here to keep up with everything. So I'll make a few general responses. Sorry if I missed something.

In regards to Doch: He spent a long time in Polar, which is a very anti-tech raiding institution in general. So I will say that he is no stranger to the arguments against it. While I obviously disagree with all tech raiding, if every tech raider operated like Doch I wouldn't be nearly as outspoken about it. I wish he, and everyone else, would stop. But the more bullying raiders are who I can not stand. The ones who punish those who fight back. The ones who are unwilling to risk the consequences of a "bad raid" are the ones who disgust me.

To the GOONS: Clearly this topic started after the GOONS latest tech raiding. However I acknowledge that they are hardly the largest or only tech raiders. I do believe they are of the bullying variety and asking their victims to come and beg for peace is awful. If the GOONS were to stop raiding, then it would be a good start, but there would be a lot more work to do.

In regards to the NPO/RPC: It is my belief that the Revenge Doctrine was canceled for two reasons. 1. It was a policy that the NPO maintained on the authority of their immense power and domination of the red team. Removing the signs of their power reduces their prestige and effectively knocks them back a bit. And 2. A large amount of Karma are/were tech raiders. Simply put, by removing the ban on raiding red, they opened up new raiding markets.

I think most people can accept that I haven't been a big supporter of the NPO for a few years now, but even I liked their protection of red. I viewed it as payback for their age-old stranglehold on the color sphere.

To those who have complained that the collected advise here doesn't work: It does work. It has before and it will again. It may not be the best or the only advice, but it is still valid. I think a lot of people have ignored this line: "If tech raiding is a cause you feel strongly about opposing, the best option is to work your way into a leadership position in your alliance. Once you have influence you can spend such influence to change events within the game. Influence is the currency with which wars are purchased. Enough influence and enough power and you too can enjoy Might Makes Right." Follow that and anything is possible, especially when you have a clear agenda.

How can you support this when an alliance you're extremely influential in not only allows their allies to tech raid, but backs them up when they bite off more than they can chew? It seems like Polar has been one of the largest enablers of tech raiding in the past month.

Not an accusation or anything, just wondering about how you justify being in Polar while you advise others to not join alliances that support tech raiding.

This is a garbage argument. I had a hand in leading Polar for years and in my time there I did my part to make it harder for tech raiding to spread. I still consider my work in the UJW to be some of my finest. Several outspoken tech raiding alliances are no more because of it. However I am very much retired. This week I have spent more time on CN than I have in months. If my leadership wants to make decisions that somehow support tech raiding, I will speak out against said decisions. I will use my position as an advisor and member of Polaris to encourage harming tech raiding at all times. However at the end of the day I have as much decision making power as a new recruit.

It is true that all members vote simply by their membership, but I am still quite happy with Polar's stance here. They don't tech raid, they don't advise it. Yet they do not tell their allies what they can and can't do, which is a thing I respect. I would rather Polar have a couple allies that raid than to tell their allies what they are allowed to do. I was allied to the NPO for long enough not to wish that on anyone else. It is true that I recommend that anyone who wishes to take a stand against tech raiding only join alliances that do not allow it. Yes that includes our allies. No I don't care if that makes them upset. The day Polar allowed tech raiding would be my last day, but that is not something I am real worried about. We've gotten along for 3 and a half years without raiding, and I think we'll be fine without it in the future.

[Volatile]

I disagree with the OP. Techraiding (including looking for a fight) is part of the game.

Doesn't make sence to me, the game as it is now is as static as it can get.

Why take away a part that at least holds a small piece of action.

Also, is techrading really a problem in general or specific for the unaligned nations with more then, lets say, 2000 infra ?

[RandomInterrupt]

I disagree with the OP. Techraiding (including looking for a fight) is part of the game.

Doesn't make sence to me, the game as it is now is as static as it can get.

Why take away a part that at least holds a small piece of action.

Also, is techrading really a problem in general or specific for the unaligned nations with more then, lets say, 2000 infra ?

The OP does not dispute that tech raiding is a part of the game. The OP believes that is it a part of the game that it detrimental to the community. Doitzel/Elyat has addressed the point quite well.

[Dochartaigh]

I really don't spend enough time here to keep up with everything. So I'll make a few general responses. Sorry if I missed something.

In regards to Doch: He spent a long time in Polar, which is a very anti-tech raiding institution in general. So I will say that he is no stranger to the arguments against it. While I obviously disagree with all tech raiding, if every tech raider operated like Doch I wouldn't be nearly as outspoken about it. I wish he, and everyone else, would stop. But the more bullying raiders are who I can not stand. The ones who punish those who fight back. The ones who are unwilling to risk the consequences of a "bad raid" are the ones who disgust me.

To the GOONS: Clearly this topic started after the GOONS latest tech raiding. However I acknowledge that they are hardly the largest or only tech raiders. I do believe they are of the bullying variety and asking their victims to come and beg for peace is awful. If the GOONS were to stop raiding, then it would be a good start, but there would be a lot more work to do.

In regards to the NPO/RPC: It is my belief that the Revenge Doctrine was canceled for two reasons. 1. It was a policy that the NPO maintained on the authority of their immense power and domination of the red team. Removing the signs of their power reduces their prestige and effectively knocks them back a bit. And 2. A large amount of Karma are/were tech raiders. Simply put, by removing the ban on raiding red, they opened up new raiding markets.

I think most people can accept that I haven't been a big supporter of the NPO for a few years now, but even I liked their protection of red. I viewed it as payback for their age-old stranglehold on the color sphere.

To those who have complained that the collected advise here doesn't work: It does work. It has before and it will again. It may not be the best or the only advice, but it is still valid. I think a lot of people have ignored this line: "If tech raiding is a cause you feel strongly about opposing, the best option is to work your way into a leadership position in your alliance. Once you have influence you can spend such influence to change events within the game. Influence is the currency with which wars are purchased. Enough influence and enough power and you too can enjoy Might Makes Right." Follow that and anything is possible, especially when you have a clear agenda.

This is a garbage argument. I had a hand in leading Polar for years and in my time there I did my part to make it harder for tech raiding to spread. I still consider my work in the UJW to be some of my finest. Several outspoken tech raiding alliances are no more because of it. However I am very much retired. This week I have spent more time on CN than I have in months. If my leadership wants to make decisions that somehow support tech raiding, I will speak out against said decisions. I will use my position as an advisor and member of Polaris to encourage harming tech raiding at all times. However at the end of the day I have as much decision making power as a new recruit.

It is true that all members vote simply by their membership, but I am still quite happy with Polar's stance here. They don't tech raid, they don't advise it. Yet they do not tell their allies what they can and can't do, which is a thing I respect. I would rather Polar have a couple allies that raid than to tell their allies what they are allowed to do. I was allied to the NPO for long enough not to wish that on anyone else. It is true that I recommend that anyone who wishes to take a stand against tech raiding only join alliances that do not allow it. Yes that includes our allies. No I don't care if that makes them upset. The day Polar allowed tech raiding would be my last day, but that is not something I am real worried about. We've gotten along for 3 and a half years without raiding, and I think we'll be fine without it in the future.

shoot, i honestly hope Polaris never allows tech-raiding and sticks to the principals that have supported it through the years.

as for my style of tech-raiding, i will say that it is heavily influenced from the time i spent in Polaris. since i spent 2+ years in Polaris i will say out of any alliance i have been in Polaris has affected me the most.

[ktarthan]

To the GOONS: Clearly this topic started after the GOONS latest tech raiding. However I acknowledge that they are hardly the largest or only tech raiders. I do believe they are of the bullying variety and asking their victims to come and beg for peace is awful. If the GOONS were to stop raiding, then it would be a good start, but there would be a lot more work to do.

From a lot of the objections to raiding that I have heard here, GOONS seems to actually be relatively civil when it comes to how we treat our raided, and our policies are fairly progressive. I think we get a bad rap because we not only allow tech raiding, we pretty well endorse it, and we make no bones about aggressively defending our principles. Our charter states that we will not aid raiders that bite off more than they can chew. We also don't have an official size limit to the alliances our nations are "permitted" to raid, so long as they don't have significant political ties. This reflects GOONS's love of war in general, and shows that we are not just "cowards" that limit ourselves to curbstomping the little guy. And our "Mercy board"? That allows lone nations to come and make their case when they have no political clout to get themselves out of a tough spot. If any raided nations gain a protectorate (or have one we were unaware of), our government is always willing to talk about the situation.

To those who have complained that the collected advise here doesn't work: It does work. It has before and it will again. It may not be the best or the only advice, but it is still valid. I think a lot of people have ignored this line: "If tech raiding is a cause you feel strongly about opposing, the best option is to work your way into a leadership position in your alliance. Once you have influence you can spend such influence to change events within the game. Influence is the currency with which wars are purchased. Enough influence and enough power and you too can enjoy Might Makes Right." Follow that and anything is possible, especially when you have a clear agenda.

Alright, I'll say that of the three points you made, your first one does have the most merit. If there is zero tolerance for tech raiding in the game, and nations that tech raid are essentially put into EZI, then yes tech raiding will be pretty much non-existant. I would like to ask, though: How do you justify putting the enjoyment of those who do not tech raid above those who do? You are advocating forcefully preventing players from performing something that the game itself fully well allows.

[ktarthan]

The OP does not dispute that tech raiding is a part of the game. The OP believes that is it a part of the game that it detrimental to the community. Doitzel/Elyat has addressed the point quite well.

Actually I don't think Elyat has addressed the point sufficiently. They have yet to respond to my most recent comments on the subject.

Perhaps you would like to participate on that end of the discussion? I'd like to hear your thoughts on how tech raiding is detrimental to the community.

[Volatile]

I have read the posts, all of them, but still fail to see why techraiding / going-for-a-fight is such

a bad thing that it scares new players away.

If anything, it drives them into an alliance. In fact, thats the main part of the general recruitment message from any alliance.

"we will protect you" (meaning: the CN world is a bad place to be in if not protected).

Once in a alliance they (new players) have to follow 'rules', do not attack <insert treaties etc etc>.

The only more or less safe way to practise/perform attacks is on...unaligned players.

If alliances would NOT protect nations below xxxx infra you would probably get a more

levelled playing field in which everybody has more action and fun.

[RandomInterrupt]

How do you justify putting the enjoyment of those who do not tech raid above those who do? You are advocating forcefully preventing players from performing something that the game itself fully well allows.

Might Makes Right

Actually I don't think Elyat has addressed the point sufficiently. They have yet to respond to my most recent comments on the subject.

Perhaps you would like to participate on that end of the discussion? I'd like to hear your thoughts on how tech raiding is detrimental to the community.

In short, I agree with Doitzel and Näktergal. Attacking unaligned nations when they have no idea why is not receptive to increasing new players. If there is one thing this game needs, it is new blood. As to how many people are driven away after being the recipient of tech raiding, we don't know. But the fact is some will naturally be driven away.

[Mergerberger II]

I have read the posts, all of them, but still fail to see why techraiding / going-for-a-fight is such

a bad thing that it scares new players away.

If anything, it drives them into an alliance. In fact, thats the main part of the general recruitment message from any alliance.

"we will protect you" (meaning: the CN world is a bad place to be in if not protected).

Once in a alliance they (new players) have to follow 'rules', do not attack <insert treaties etc etc>.

The only more or less safe way to practise/perform attacks is on...unaligned players.

If alliances would NOT protect nations below xxxx infra you would probably get a more

levelled playing field in which everybody has more action and fun.

I do not think that it drives them into an alliance. This game is simply not that fun that if you're raided as a new player that you want to go and join an alliance to keep your precious 200 infra. Frankly if I had been raided as a small nation, I would almost certainly not have been here today, making my point, because I really just didn't care that much. Now the only reason I stay is for the community, for Polaris, and to debate things like this with other folks. Tech raiding simply does not drive people to join an alliance any more than it drives them out of the game. It influences them, and they have two options, they can either get more involved or get less involved in a game that clearly does not welcome them, and so most of them get less involved; they leave.

As for your last point, I have no idea what that means.

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

I do not see why being moral and righteous is a bad thing. So killing people is more fun than debating, that is true in most places. Does it matter? No. If something is right, then it should be enforced, no matter how fun or boring it is. If it is right, do it. Backing out of treaties is fun too, not dying is fun, but I'm still not going to do those things.

No one is forced to participate in war.

Except for those people you're raiding.

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....

And so we come back to my first post, that the consequences are what makes people reconsider their actions, and that might makes right. I suppose people are inherently evil...

[ktarthan]

Might Makes Right

So your only justification is one of the very things that you accuse tech raiders of being guilty of? Or maybe you just weren't answering my question.

In short, I agree with Doitzel and Näktergal. Attacking unaligned nations when they have no idea why is not receptive to increasing new players. If there is one thing this game needs, it is new blood. As to how many people are driven away after being the recipient of tech raiding, we don't know. But the fact is some will naturally be driven away.

It could also be said that outlawing tech raiding is not receptive to increasing new players, as I know that as much as I can see myself enjoying the political aspect of the game, I wouldn't stick around if I couldn't raid.

Except for those people you're raiding.

Despite how absolutely terrible of an option some people seem to consider it, Peace Mode exists for a reason.

And so we come back to my first post, that the consequences are what makes people reconsider their actions, and that might makes right. I suppose people are inherently evil...

People are not inherently evil, they are incentive driven. It just so happens that self indulgence (or preservation) is, for most people, a fairly constant positive incentive. It is easy to view, in our society, this selfishness as being "evil" when applied in certain directions.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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.

That is clearly a yes. The rest is sophistry intended to give cover for that answer, nothing more. And yes, you do so know what I mean.

I'd have a lot more respect for you if you would just answer honestly. Like this guy:

Absolutely! Well, okay I have to qualify that a bit. Only if there were no negative consequences. If there were no consequences whatsoever, including positive, then I wouldn't be able to gain any money from robbing a dude, which is the whole point. With no negative consequences, give me a good reason I shouldn't.

I certainly dont approve of your attitude, but in comparison to a lot of other posters I have to give you props for honesty.

lawlz. wow. just wow. i also stated that RL muggings and beatings are nowhere near the same as tech raiding. i made a comment about the consequences part in response to someone stating that there should be consequences for alliances that raid.

You can state that all you want Doc, but they are precisely analogous and you are obviously smart enough to know that. What's more, this post is so rambling, disconnected, disjointed, and filled with "lawlz" - it really isnt like you. I've been reading your posts for a long time, you are intelligent, well spoken... this post is not. It appears we have hit a nerve.

either man up and do something about it, or sit back and do nothing but whine and !@#$%*.

And this is just sad man. Really sad. You pull out the 'do something about it' rhetoric on someone you know eschews initiatory violence, that is a truly pathetic bit of empty posturing.

The words would be far more appropriate coming from me to you. Buy some infra and jump if you find my words so objectionable, eh? You're the one who claims to be a "courageous raider", not I.

There is a moral imperative to avoid partaking in unjust attacks, to avoid supporting or enabling them. There is NOT a moral imperative to endanger yourself and those who rely on you by becoming involved unnecessarily in other peoples wars, however, and in fact for most of us there is a moral imperative against it, for the simple reason that it would endanger those who rely on us for their defense. If someone offers support and advice to populations most vulnerable to mugging do you then call them hypocritical for declining to don a mask and cape and go hunting muggers after hours?

Tech raiding is immoral ... as part of the game politics. Here, if it's damaging to the game, we should be talking about game design decisions to make it less damaging or harder to do.

Bob, you are on the right track as usual, and I wish more people would pay attention to you in this thread. That said I dont entirely agree - game design decisions are not the only appropriate topic of discussion here at all. I see nothing inappropriate in discussing broader issues of how we play and how we act IC, in an OOC context. Much of the thread would fit an IC forum, but that doesnt mean it can *only* be discussed IC.

Despite how absolutely terrible of an option some people seem to consider it, Peace Mode exists for a reason.

Yes, it exists to allow one to reload and regain the ability to target when facing ridiculous numbers of opponents. Is that what you meant?

Edited December 24, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[TheNakedJimbo]

Might Makes Right

I don't understand this answer. Earlier you were patting yourself on the back for your work with the UJW, "some of my best work," because through force you were able to impose your view of morality on the world. Yet you believe that might does not make right when it comes to the tech raider; that is, you disagree with the idea that if he can get away with it, he should be able to get away with it.

You seem to have hypocritical opinions regarding your own use of force compared with tech raiders' use of force. Both of you would argue that you're doing it for an acceptable end and that use of force is moral. You are even worse than the tech raiders because you bragged about the people that you helped into a state of EZI, PERMANENTLY ruining the game for them, while the tech raider merely sets an unaligned nation back a couple of days worth of growth.

So does might make right, or doesn't it?

That is clearly a yes. The rest is sophistry intended to give cover for that answer, nothing more. And yes, you do so know what I mean.

I personally wouldn't. Does the fact that I wouldn't mean that it's immoral for anybody to? Can I use my personal preference as carte blanche to legislate my morality onto other people? If it is immoral, there must be a clear system of morality to which I can appeal to argue that certain things are always right and certain things are always wrong. That's why I outlined four systems earlier (page four) and we spent a lengthy amount of time discussing one of them.

Vilien posted a question: "Do you attack a nation that is unprovoked? No." And I asked him: to what system of morality do you appeal in order to come up with the idea that "no" is the only legitimate right answer, or even a more legitimate answer at all than "yes"? If morality is socially or individually defined, then you cannot appeal to any standard higher than my own personal morality or the opinion of the community.

Edited December 24, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo