How to address raiding

[TheNakedJimbo]

I'm not a fan of tech raiding myself, although I see it as a non-issue.

It pretty much is. The number of nations who are unaligned and affected by tech raiding is an absurdly small percentage of the total nations.

Here's another way you can tell it's a non-issue. The people who oppose tech raiding, in this thread, are outnumbered by those who are pro-choice. Yet both are vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of users who have read this thread and not even cared enough to post their opinions.

It is and always has been a non-issue. I came to the thread because I like sociology and discussing concepts of morality, which as you all see, is a theme I keep coming back to. Tech raiding on the whole I could care less about except as an application of a particular system of morality (and the anti-raiding position is almost always a flawed application of a flawed philosophy, as I have demonstrated herein).

Edited December 26, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo

[Baldr]

It pretty much is. The number of nations who are unaligned and affected by tech raiding is an absurdly small percentage of the total nations.

Much of that is because nations are pretty much forced to join alliances or be destroyed by tech raiders. You essentially can't play, long term, without joining an alliance, because without an alliance, you'll always be under attack by multiple opponents, most of whom will be larger than you.

Here's another way you can tell it's a non-issue. The people who oppose tech raiding, in this thread, are outnumbered by those who are pro-choice. Yet both are vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of users who have read this thread and not even cared enough to post their opinions.

I've been reading. I'm anti-raiding. I hadn't planned to post, until you started trying to claim that anyone who didn't bother to post was pro raiding. I believe that's a flawed argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one that reads a lot of threads but who doesn't comment on all of them.

I wouldn't have a problem with raiding if raids were one on ones on similar sized nations. But normally, raiders go 3 vs 1 agaist smaller targets. The same people who claim "I should be able to attack anyone I want, for any reason, I have a *right* to attack them!" are very upset at any sign that people might actually fight against them. In this thread, one raider started calling "Nazi" for even *talking* about fighting back against raiders. Look what happened to CNARF, when people organized to fighting against raiders.

Most raiders are afraid of a fair fight. Sure, there are bound to be some exceptions to that, but as a rule, raiders gang up on someone who is in no postion to do them any major harm, and they threaten massive destruction for anyone that fights back at all.

I can understand the "war is fun" aspect of raiding. But from a profit standpoint, raiding can only make a profit if your targets don't fight back. Sure, you may gain a little tech and land and cash for some of your raids - but one nation that fights back, especially as you get larger, can do enough damage to negate that profit. If you want profit, just do tech deals.

It is and always has been a non-issue. I came to the thread because I like sociology and discussing concepts of morality, which as you all see, is a theme I keep coming back to. Tech raiding on the whole I could care less about except as an application of a particular system of morality (and the anti-raiding position is almost always a flawed application of a flawed philosophy, as I have demonstrated herein).

I don't think you've demonstrated that at all. I think you just claimed "More people read the thread without commenting, and I'm counting all of those as "pro raiding".

I also don't think that a pure head count of "pro raiding" and "anti-raiding" means a lot. Raids are still unfair to the guy that gets raided. Raids are still started by people who want to gang up on someone who can't effectively defend themselves. And raiders almost always have an alliance protecting them. No matter how many people decide "Hey, I enjoy raiding, so I'm OK with it" and how many say "Oh, I'm in an alliance so I dont' get raided", that doesn't make it fair.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Baldr

[Dochartaigh]

I think someone needs to be ready to get nuked without getting his alliance to help him ZI the raided nation if they're going to do it. I also think people who raid should do it one on one unless the other nation receives backup somehow.

been there done that. i was nuked by one of my victims and never asked for aid to rebuild let alone to hit him.

[nippy]

I've been reading. I'm anti-raiding. I hadn't planned to post, until you started trying to claim that anyone who didn't bother to post was pro raiding. I believe that's a flawed argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one that reads a lot of threads but who doesn't comment on all of them.

It is a flawed argument, one he didn't make. You obviously didn't comprehend what he was saying.

[TheNakedJimbo]

I don't think you've demonstrated that at all. I think you just claimed "More people read the thread without commenting, and I'm counting all of those as "pro raiding".

As nippy observed, I'm afraid you misunderstood. I didn't say that all the people who read without commenting are pro-raiding. I said they're too apathetic to spend five seconds typing out their opinion. The fact that so many people read without having an opinion strong enough to post demonstrates that this is not a major issue that many people feel strongly about. It has nothing to do with how many of those people approve or disapprove of raiding.

Can I take you to logical fallacy school?

The same people who claim "I should be able to attack anyone I want, for any reason, I have a *right* to attack them!" are very upset at any sign that people might actually fight against them.

Strawman + false generalization. I haven't seen anyone claim that, nor have I seen the "Nazi" comment that you posted. Based on your track record I'm inclined to wonder if you misunderstood him the same way you misunderstood me, and if his real point was something quite different.

Much of that is because nations are pretty much forced to join alliances or be destroyed by tech raiders.

Unsupported assertion. Are you really arguing that a majority, or even a substantial number, of people who are in alliances would otherwise be unaligned, but have joined an alliance not for friendship, not for economic aid, but for the one and only purpose of not being tech raided? You need to post some serious proof if you want to claim this.

I wouldn't have a problem with raiding if raids were one on ones on similar sized nations. But normally,

Unsupported assertion mark 2. "Normally"? Please prove yourself. You can't simply claim things like this as if they were facts.

Most raiders are afraid of a fair fight

Gross generalization + unsupported assertion. Is this based on a scientific study involving a representative sample of the CN public, or are you making stuff up as you go along again?

I can understand the "war is fun" aspect of raiding. But from a profit standpoint

This is not a logical fallacy as such, but you're countering an argument that no one has made. We're not talking about why people tech raid, whether it's profitable, or the ways that some people stoop to intimidation and extortion to get their way. We're talking about tech raiding as a concept and as a philosophy, and we're discussing whether there is any standard of morality to which a person can appeal short of divine mandate) to argue that tech raiding could qualify as immoral. The answer thus far in the thread has been "no."

[Golan 1st]

Rumble Rumble

The answer thus far in the thread has been "no."

No, it hasn't. At best, it has been undecided, but I believe (I bolded it so you don't ask for evidence. I have no way to prove it) that most people actually realize how wrong tech raiding is.

It is clear from this thread that some of us have not been convinced by your logically and morally distorted arguments to justify unprovoked attacks.

Add to that the cowardice of doing this in completely unbalanced conditions and the arrogance demonstrated by many of those who support tech raiding, and even you will have to understand that your own position is at least questionable.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Golan 1st

[TheNakedJimbo]

No, it hasn't. At best, it has been undecided, but I believe (I bolded it so you don't ask for evidence. I have no way to prove it) that most people actually realize how wrong tech raiding is.

That's the first system of morality I discussed, the belief that morality is societally defined. It's also a logical fallacy called "appeal to the masses." The problem with this attitude is that, the last time I played the game, tech raiding was really not frowned on. Others in the thread have observed this as well: it used to be a lot more widely accepted. So are you telling me it was moral back then but has since become immoral?

That doesn't work because most of the people in this thread who have argued against tech raiding do it on the grounds that invading another country's sovereignty is always immoral. So how could it have been moral at some previous point? If it was immoral, then "most people" were wrong once upon a time. If it is moral, then "most people" are wrong now. But either way you cannot appeal to "most people" as your standard of morality because it doesn't work that way.

Is that "logically and morally distorted" enough for you?

[Golan 1st]

That's the first system of morality I discussed, the belief that morality is societally defined. It's also a logical fallacy called "appeal to the masses." The problem with this attitude is that, the last time I played the game, tech raiding was really not frowned on. Others in the thread have observed this as well: it used to be a lot more widely accepted. So are you telling me it was moral back then but has since become immoral?

That doesn't work because most of the people in this thread who have argued against tech raiding do it on the grounds that invading another country's sovereignty is always immoral. So how could it have been moral at some previous point? If it was immoral, then "most people" were wrong once upon a time. If it is moral, then "most people" are wrong now. But either way you cannot appeal to "most people" as your standard of morality because it doesn't work that way.

Is that "logically and morally distorted" enough for you?

Actually, it is. Logically this time.

Where have I ever mentioned the support of many as a proof for morality?

My refusal to accept unprovoked attacks against innocent people (and nations, in this case) is based on an inner sense of morality, one that tells me that you need a very good reason to justify harming other people.

If anything, the agreement of many with this position is a supportive evidence, but, in principle, it does not matter. I would still believe that it's wrong even if I was alone in this.

Unlike you, I don't need all kind pseudo philosophical tricks to justify the unjustifiable.

[TheNakedJimbo]

Where have I ever mentioned the support of many as a proof for morality?

My refusal to accept unprovoked attacks against innocent people (and nations, in this case) is based on an inner sense of morality, one that tells me that you need a very good reason to justify harming other people.

Well, I disagree with your morality. It doesn't apply to me, so don't bother me with it. Your personal morality can't tell me what to do, because I have a different personal morality.

You're right; you didn't exactly use an appeal to the masses. You didn't use an appeal to anything. You said:

most people actually realize how wrong tech raiding is.

That falls under an unsupported assertion. You simply declared that tech raiding was wrong without offering any proof whatsoever, except this dubious inner morality, which is unreliable.

What if you change your mind?

I'll make a confession, because I believe in honesty, but I used to be a racist. My inner morality told me it was okay to be mean to people who weren't white. Then some things happened and my inner morality changed. That's why I say it's not reliable. That's why I say you can't impose your inner morality on any other person.

That would be the second system of morality I talked about, the idea that morality is individually defined, and it's no more workable than the appeal to the masses.

[Golan 1st]

I have never expected to convince you or anyone to stop tech raiding on moral basis.

The only way to stop you is by making the cost higher than what you are ready to pay.

[TheNakedJimbo]

I have never expected to convince you or anyone to stop tech raiding on moral basis.

You could at least try to cobble together a logical and reasonable argument that explains why your position is correct, and does not rely on an appeal to the masses, some dubious inner compass, or any of the other flawed things that the other people in this thread have leaned on. If you really are that much more correct than me, you should have no problem whatsoever destroying the flaws in my arguments and countering with your own.

My point is merely that "my inner morality" is probably the worst possible method of determining what is right. How do you know, right at this point in time, that your inner compass is actually pointing you toward what is true and right? Again, if you're really as correct as you think you are, you should have no problem answering this question and building an argument that stands up to scrutiny at least as well as the ones I have offered.

[Golan 1st]

You could at least try to cobble together a logical and reasonable argument that explains why your position is correct, and does not rely on an appeal to the masses, some dubious inner compass, or any of the other flawed things that the other people in this thread have leaned on. If you really are that much more correct than me, you should have no problem whatsoever destroying the flaws in my arguments and countering with your own.

My point is merely that "my inner morality" is probably the worst possible method of determining what is right. How do you know, right at this point in time, that your inner compass is actually pointing you toward what is true and right? Again, if you're really as correct as you think you are, you should have no problem answering this question and building an argument that stands up to scrutiny at least as well as the ones I have offered.

My inner sense of morality is convincing enough for me.

I don't need any justification for considering unprovoked attacks against innocent people wrong and I have no desire to accept your moral of might makes right, which is, no matter how much smoke you use to hide it, the underlying "moral" principle behind justifying tech raids.

Of course, I agree that my inner compass does not necessarily apply to you. This is why people who recognize tech raiding as the lowly practice it is will have to tack actual action against it to make it stop.

[Dochartaigh]

My inner sense of morality is convincing enough for me.

I don't need any justification for considering unprovoked attacks against innocent people wrong and I have no desire to accept your moral of might makes right, which is, no matter how much smoke you use to hide it, the underlying "moral" principle behind justifying tech raids.

Of course, I agree that my inner compass does not necessarily apply to you. This is why people who recognize tech raiding as the lowly practice it is will have to tack actual action against it to make it stop.

so are you gonna be amongst those who actually take action to stop raiding? or are you gonna be one of those moralists who spout off useless unsubstantiated crap and calls for action to be taken, while never doing anything other than spout off at the mouth?

though i love the fact that most anti-tech raiders don't like tech-raiding due to the whole "might makes right" mentality that goes along with it, while knowing that the only way to stop it is to use that very "might makes right" mentality.

even Golan seems to find his "might makes right" justifiable while us raiders are of course not justified having a might makes right mentality.... everything i have seen thus far has shown that the anti-raider crowd are full of a bunch of hypocrites who use double standards to justify their encroachment upon the sovereignty of raiders, their might makes right mentality in knowing that action will be the only way to stop raiding, and the lack of evidence from 90% of their arguments in regards to how raiding is actually detrimental.

[Golan 1st]

Unlike their victims, tech raiders are not innocent. It would be nice if words could convince them to stop their wrong doing, but we all know that this isn't going to happen. Bullies are not impressed by words.

Since it's beyond my power, at this point, to do anything to stop tech raiding, I must be, for now, "one of those moralists who spout off useless unsubstantiated crap and calls for action to be taken, while never doing anything other than spout off at the mouth?". I am hoping that a day will come when enough players and alliances are pissed by tech raids to take effective action against it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the actual use of force is the only way to stop tech raiders. If your alliance knew that no serious alliance would sign treaties with it because it allows tech raids, this would probably force you to reconsider your position. But I suspect that some use of force will be necessary, so the bullies get the idea.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Golan 1st

[Dochartaigh]

Unlike their victims, tech raiders are not innocent. It would be nice if words could convince them to stop their wrong doing, but we all know that this isn't going to happen. Bullies are not impressed by words.

Since it's beyond my power, at this point, to do anything to stop tech raiding, I must be, for now, "one of those moralists who spout off useless unsubstantiated crap and calls for action to be taken, while never doing anything other than spout off at the mouth?". I am hoping that a day will come when enough players and alliances are pissed by tech raids to take effective action against it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the actual use of force is the only way to stop tech raiders. If your alliance knew that no serious alliance would sign treaties with it because it allows tech raids, this would probably force you to reconsider your position. But I suspect that some use of force will be necessary, so the bullies get the idea.

and how would that make you innocent?

1) you know that you will have to use force upon raiders to get them to stop thus you become the bullies

2) you want to force your ideas upon us and force us to play the game your way

3) you think that your morality is somehow better than ours though you have no proof this is true

4) essentially you want to become us but without the negative connotations that the anti-raider crowd has put on tech raiders.

sorry but that is just the most lulzworthy thing i have ever seen.

[Golan 1st]

You obviously confuse innocence with pacifism.

1. Right. Unlike you who attack random nation who have done no wrong, I think that force will be necessary to make tech raiders stop their wrong doing.

2. Well, not really. Play the game any way you want, as long as you don't harm people who have done nothing wrong to you, and you have no issue with me.

3. I don't need to prove anything. Like I wrote above, it's based on an inner sense which does not require explanation of justification.

4. No. I have no desire to attack other people who have done nothing wrong because I find it amusing. I am ready to use force, if necessary, to stop a morally wrong practice.

[Dochartaigh]

You obviously confuse innocence with pacifism.

1. Right. Unlike you who attack random nation who have done no wrong, I think that force will be necessary to make tech raiders stop their wrong doing.

2. Well, not really. Play the game any way you want, as long as you don't harm people who have done nothing wrong to you, and you have no issue with me.

3. I don't need to prove anything. Like I wrote above, it's based on an inner sense which does not require explanation of justification.

4. No. I have no desire to attack other people who have done nothing wrong because I find it amusing. I am ready to use force, if necessary, to stop a morally wrong practice.

actually my question was in regards to you wanting to attack us and force your ideals upon us by directly and indirectly destroying the sovereignty of my nation.

1) so you become the bullies. we agree on this.

2) no. you stated specifically you want to end tech-raiding, thus you don't want me to play the way i want. thus, you cannot state i can play whatever way i want since you don't want me to tech raid. thus, you are stopping me from playin the game the way i want and forcing me to play the way you want me to play. you cannot have it both ways. if you and others end tech-raiding, it will come about through force. and in doing so, you will be forcing us to play the game your way.

3) lawlz. that is just weak. and it only further proves that you are forcing your ideals upon me.

4) see my points above.

so basically you are just stating you want to become us without becoming us.

you want to just go around attacking people based on some moral aspect you came up with (basically a flimsy excuse to steal my tech, land and destroy my infra) to aggressively attack certain nations within this game.

you want to bully us into playing the game your way or force us out of the game when we do not. awesome. you have just proven why i went from being anti-raider to tech raider. everything you base your arguments and reasoning on are lies and hypocrisy and you gentle bully have just proven it all. thank you.

[Golan 1st]

You insist on forgetting the part with the difference between you and your victims.

They have done nothing to warrant an attack. Hell, they often haven't done anything at all but buying some infra, land and tech.

You abuse and destroy other nations cowardly and make it an ideology.

Hence, your attacks are unjustifiable and, if there is no other way to make you stop raiding, it is completely justified to use force to make you stop.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Golan 1st

[avernite]

and how would that make you innocent?

1) you know that you will have to use force upon raiders to get them to stop thus you become the bullies

2) you want to force your ideas upon us and force us to play the game your way

3) you think that your morality is somehow better than ours though you have no proof this is true

4) essentially you want to become us but without the negative connotations that the anti-raider crowd has put on tech raiders.

sorry but that is just the most lulzworthy thing i have ever seen.

1) Have you ever heard the word punishment? Being attacked for attacking someone is different than just attacking someone, just as imprisoning a kidnapper is different than kidnapping.

2) and you use force to force your ideas and way of playing on people who cannot defend themselves.

3) Actually, the fact our morality doesn't infringe on anyone's sovereignty before those people infringe on others' makes it better.

4) no.

[Senekis]

You insist on forgetting the part with the difference between you and your victims.

They have done nothing to warrant an attack. Hell, they often haven't done anything at all but buying some infra, land and tech.

Exactly, they haven't done anything, they're just numbers and I'm sure a raider will give a better use to their land and tech.

You abuse and destroy other nations cowardly and make it an ideology.

What is so coward in engaging a nation of the same size as yours in a military conflic?

Hence, your attacks are unjustifiable

No, they aren't. getting land and tech at a low price is a pretty good reason to raid.

and, if there is no other way to make you stop raiding, it is completely justified to use force to make you stop.

Ok, if we're playing with that weak logic then let's put it this way: If there is no other way to make them join an alliance, get involved with the community and get interested in the game, it is completely justified to use force to make them do it.

[Dochartaigh]

You insist on forgetting the part with the difference between you and your victims.

They have done nothing to warrant an attack. Hell, they often haven't done anything at all but buying some infra, land and tech.

You abuse and destroy other nations cowardly and make it an ideology.

Hence, your attacks are unjustifiable and, if there is no other way to make you stop raiding, it is completely justified to use force to make you stop.

and you forget where i have done nothing to you. so you are not justified in attacking me whatsoever. you have no justifiable CB on me and thus, are nothing more than a raider and a thug and a bully with a different name.

@avernite:

1) what right do you have to even punish me? because your morals are different than mine? hardly. if it is because i am attacking others, then where are you defending every single alliance that gets attacked? oh that is right, nowhere. you are a hypocrite who simply wants a chance at tech-raiding others in a way that you feel is morally right. in the end- it is nothing but a tech raid as i have done nothing to you or yours.

2) actually, read what i have posted in regards to my tech-raiding style. the victim can most assuredly defend themselves and will still only face me or peace in the end. but you are stating i am wrong for forcing my ideals on someone else all the while you want to force your ideals on me by force if necessary. again hypocrite.

3) actually it does infringe upon my sovereignty. and you welcome this infringement as if you have some right to do so while stating we are wrong for doing the same. so again hypocrite.

4) yes, i have proven every way that you are a hypocrite. thus, you want to become a tech raider without the negative connotation.

so let me get this straight. ya'll want to engage in activities that are exactly like what you state tech raiders are wrong for doing and somehow think it is okay? please. you are no better than us but just want to claim some moralistic !@#$%^&*. from here on out, i am no longer calling ya'll anti-raiders but the wanna-be raiders.

[Golan 1st]

and you forget where i have done nothing to you. so you are not justified in attacking me whatsoever. you have no justifiable CB on me and thus, are nothing more than a raider and a thug and a bully with a different name.

@avernite:

1) what right do you have to even punish me? because your morals are different than mine? hardly. if it is because i am attacking others, then where are you defending every single alliance that gets attacked? oh that is right, nowhere. you are a hypocrite who simply wants a chance at tech-raiding others in a way that you feel is morally right. in the end- it is nothing but a tech raid as i have done nothing to you or yours.

2) actually, read what i have posted in regards to my tech-raiding style. the victim can most assuredly defend themselves and will still only face me or peace in the end. but you are stating i am wrong for forcing my ideals on someone else all the while you want to force your ideals on me by force if necessary. again hypocrite.

3) actually it does infringe upon my sovereignty. and you welcome this infringement as if you have some right to do so while stating we are wrong for doing the same. so again hypocrite.

4) yes, i have proven every way that you are a hypocrite. thus, you want to become a tech raider without the negative connotation.

so let me get this straight. ya'll want to engage in activities that are exactly like what you state tech raiders are wrong for doing and somehow think it is okay? please. you are no better than us but just want to claim some moralistic !@#$%^&*. from here on out, i am no longer calling ya'll anti-raiders but the wanna-be raiders.

So you actually think that you have the right to attack your victims without any CB whatsoever but attacking you when you refuse to stop that is wrong in any way?

And you call others hypocrites and say that our arguments don't meet your standards of philosophical excellence. Oh well...

If we wanted to do tech raids we could just do that. We wouldn't need excuses for that. We don't do that because we think it's wrong.

It will be great if we can convince all tech raiders to stop this by peaceful means, but as I said before, I don't expect bullies to be impressed by nice words. The inevitable conclusion is that, in order to stop tech raiding, some use of force will be necessary.

As avernite wrote, the imprisonment of a kidnapper does not make the jailer a kidnapper. Similarly, using force to stop you and your kind, won't make those who do that tech raiders. Your attempts to equate the wrong doers with those who fight to stop them fail and convince only those who are too eager to exercise their "right" to abuse and destroy others.

[Dochartaigh]

So you actually think that you have the right to attack your victims without any CB whatsoever but attacking you when you refuse to stop that is wrong in any way?

And you call others hypocrites and say that our arguments don't meet your standards of philosophical excellence. Oh well...

If we wanted to do tech raids we could just do that. We wouldn't need excuses for that. We don't do that because we think it's wrong.

It will be great if we can convince all tech raiders to stop this by peaceful means, but as I said before, I don't expect bullies to be impressed by nice words. The inevitable conclusion is that, in order to stop tech raiding, some use of force will be necessary.

As avernite wrote, the imprisonment of a kidnapper does not make the jailer a kidnapper. Similarly, using force to stop you and your kind, won't make those who do that tech raiders. Your attempts to equate the wrong doers with those who fight to stop them fail and convince only those who are too eager to exercise their "right" to abuse and destroy others.

actually i honestly don't care if you attack me. go for it. i like war and would have fun. what i am saying is that your arguments (basically all of them) are hypocritical and uses double standards to justify actions that are either exactly like what tech raiders do or equivalent to it.

so go ahead and attack me with the reason being "in defense of raid victims." hell, i will even make sure my alliance does not declare you a rogue and it can be one v one as i like to conduct my raids.

i never said it would make you tech raiders just bullies and thugs who want to force us tech raiders to play the game your way thus infringing upon our sovereignty. so it would make you like us in that you will become the bullies, the thugs, and will be infringing upon our sovereignty simply because we do not play the game your way. in essence, you will become that which you fight against. you will become the monster and the raiders will become the victim because we are being forced to play the game in a way that we do not want to.

my argument does not fail in the least. you stated it yourself. force is the only way to stop tech raiders from raiding. and with that force comes the fact that you have infringed upon our sovereignty by not allowing us to play the game as we want. and with that fact, ya'll will become the bullies and thugs because you forced your ideals upon people who believe differently.

put it this way, if Christians attack Muslims because Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the son of God but dress it up as Muslims violate women's rights, does that make Christians right when they force the Muslims to go against their religion and make Muslims state that Jesus is the son of God?

see, ya'll dress up the fact that you don't like the way we play CN by moralising it and thus allowing yourself to force your ideals on those who do not feel the same way. well guess what, you can hit me all you want, but i will still tech raid and all that will happen is ya'll will become more of a monster than me.

[Fantastico]

Speaking as someone who received no less than 20 alliance invitations within the first several hours of creating my nation, I could not help but wonder if a lot of alliances turn a blind eye to raiding since one thing raiding really does is force noobs into alliances and an alliance system they do not have the knowledge to navigate, let alone really understand.

Talk about baptism by fire!

[Prime minister Johns]

There is an obvious solution to raiding.

Make one colour sphere (not grey) a safe haven and have a major alliance protect it and then all the other colours can be open for tech raiders to raid as much as they like. And nobody will raise too much of a fuss since the raided nation can easily change colours of they wish to stay unaligned and get protection or join an alliance on the colour that they are currently on and get protected as well.

This will satisfy everyone as much as is actually possible.

The hardcore independants will change spheres to the safe haven.

The newbies will join alliances to get protected.

The protecting alliance will also get a increased population on their sphere and more opportunities for trades.

And the raiders will get to raid any unaligned nation not on the protected colour and not get so much grief from the wider public since they can argue that the raided party has two ways to get protection and they are choosing not to take them.