Branimir Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 PS Hai Branimir, good to see you out and about. Just stretching my old bones,... Hello Merrie. Hope you are having fun. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 It's simple \m/ (and co). There are a decent amount of people who dislike techraiding but not enough to stop the practice. You take the practice to its logical conclusion and then a lot more people will be willing to start thinking about doing something about it. Why? Because the casual tech raiders who quietly allow their alliance to tech raid but maybe don't themselves would like to distinguish themselves from you. The best way to look "not as bad" as you? Help beat the living daylights out of you. Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe. But tough noogies because when you live by the sword you die by the sword - or might makes right, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Giant Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 What is the "accepted limit" on alliance size for tech raiding? Is this a age of consent like issue? Basickly ya. Anyone under a limit is "Jail Bait" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) This is quite funny so you are basically saying "Hey lil guy sit there while we take your cookies but if you fight back were gonna drop nukes on you" Yes. How ever you are incorrect in believing we only do this to small alliances or individual nations. If our decision making process had led us this far with any other alliance, we would have no problem with doing so regardless of their size. And to AJ: You are correct. This is a might makes right world with artificial sociological mores and taboos. We choose to not acknowledge the social standard, and live our lives as we please, free of the pseudo-governmental control known as public opinion. We accept that some day, some alliance or group of alliances may decide to likewise act on their beliefes and ideals, in such a case I will heartily applaud them for throwing off the first shackles of their slavery, and plant the seeds of independence, even if the first drink of those seeds is our blood. Edited January 16, 2010 by Atanatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 It's simple \m/ (and co). There are a decent amount of people who dislike techraiding but not enough to stop the practice. You take the practice to its logical conclusion and then a lot more people will be willing to start thinking about doing something about it. Why? Because the casual tech raiders who quietly allow their alliance to tech raid but maybe don't themselves would like to distinguish themselves from you. The best way to look "not as bad" as you? Help beat the living daylights out of you. Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe. But tough noogies because when you live by the sword you die by the sword - or might makes right, if you will. well then, I guess these people need to get on with the "beating the living daylights out of us" We are not going to change for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) I agree with most of what you say but many are not saying simply tech raiding is wrong, what most people are saying is that tech raiding an alliance who is over 500k and 20 members is wrong. When you think about it an alliance at that size can now be considered an alliance heck most Protectorates are upgraded at 500k. So this isnt an alliance that simply cant defend it self but an alliance who has no treaty's. An alliance with no treaties has limited options in dealing with other alliances, no? If they had treaties, they would not have gotten raided. I believe the Corporation has stepped up and offered protection, so we'll see how this plays out now. He has a leg to call metal alliance out, though, because this isn't an act of individual nation tech raiding entirely under their own accords as their alliance allow them to, because per metal alliance's charter, this tech raid is an alliance on alliance war, goverment approved with a reason for war "tech raiding." He may think this to be a lousy reason for alliance on alliance war. Or, some members of metal alliance broke their charter. This is clearly government sanctioned, therefor the section on member tech raiding in their charter doesn't quite cover this. I find this whole thread an attempt at trying to discredit \m/ and take as much cheap shots as people can. I also find much of the "outrage" against tech raiding here feigned, only brought up because it is \m/, PC, and GOONS. Its funny how when IRON and other alliances tech raid, most do not get such criticism for it. If he thinks its a "lousy reason for war", he could have spent plenty of time criticizing most of the earlier wars in Planet Bob, as most have been to acquire tech and money from the defeated. All wars are tech raids by the way this world works, you cannot send troops in to attack the enemy and have them not come out with tech. If he is involved in any wars, that is tech raiding. Not all alliances accept tech raiding, and by extrapolating that definition we can say that every alliance tech raids when in a war. Tech raiding for some alliances is clearly defined as unacceptable. Perhaps they should change their charters first? Because as I see it, \m/, PC, and GOONS are all within their charter and within their rights to raid as they see fit, provided they accept if they raid the wrong person/alliance they will face an escalation of hostilities. Edit: It's simple \m/ (and co). There are a decent amount of people who dislike techraiding but not enough to stop the practice. You take the practice to its logical conclusion and then a lot more people will be willing to start thinking about doing something about it. Why? Because the casual tech raiders who quietly allow their alliance to tech raid but maybe don't themselves would like to distinguish themselves from you. The best way to look "not as bad" as you? Help beat the living daylights out of you. Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe. But tough noogies because when you live by the sword you die by the sword - or might makes right, if you will. But heres what takes the cake: the other tech raiders, who are "decent people", the casual tech raiders, they are exactly like what \m/, GOONS, and PC are doing here. A tech raid is a tech raid is a tech raid. So how is it when a "casual tech raider" different than when \m/, PC, or GOONS tech raids? Pro tip: its not any different at all. The same thing happens, people lose their infra, tech, land, and money. How can they logically distinguish themselves if they are doing the same thing? You are right, that does make them hypocrits. If you see a differnce you are a hypocrit too. Edited January 16, 2010 by Caliph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This is clearly government sanctioned, therefor the section on member tech raiding in their charter doesn't quite cover this. Yes, I pointed to that in my previous post on the last page. If he thinks its a "lousy reason for war", he could have spent plenty of time criticizing most of the earlier wars in Planet Bob Well Bob is selective with his "moral outrages", always was. While Bob is Bob, there are though a lot of other people that think that this is too extreme, as far as I could glance from this topic. Yes, a lot of wars can be described as tech raids, but among other things. This is just a tech raid alliance war and it can not pass gently on a lot of people. Of course it can be done but it carries certain repercussions as all action do. Those involved will just have to deal with it, as that small alliance has to deal with being small and protection less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Since the other members of the moralist triumvirate have already arrived and made my position abundantly clear, I'll just point out the obvious: A number of the posters in this thread seem to be mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 What is the "accepted limit" on alliance size for tech raiding? Is this a age of consent like issue? Your charter would state that it's 10 members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Yes, I pointed to that in my previous post on the last page. Well Bob is selective with his "moral outrages", always was. While Bob is Bob, there are though a lot of other people that think that this is too extreme, as far as I could glance from this topic. Yes, a lot of wars can be described as tech raids, but among other things. This is just a tech raid alliance war and it can not pass gently on a lot of people. Of course it can be done but it carries certain repercussions as all action do. Those involved will just have to deal with it, as that small alliance has to deal with being small and protection less. IMO any major conflict that ends with the loser paying reps in the form of Tech and Money was nothing more than an alliance wide Tech Raid. Of course this will impact our FA and maybe in an extreme case get us rolled, but I have to ask Branimir, in your personal experience, are there really that many alliances worth developing relationships with? I've seen time and again alliances dropping "their friends" to avoid a beat down, I don't really feel we have lost much FA wise. (unless NPO is mad at us) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Any alliance on Bob has the responsibility to provide security to their members. This can come in the form of treaties, friendships, or just knowing how to play the (pr) game.The Corporation is a yellow alliance, committed to seeing yellow grow and prosper. When we saw our fellow team-mates being raided by three alliances with whom The Corporation is very friendly (allied to in some cases), our course of action became clear. We asked \m/, PC and GOONS if they would peace out their wars (which, this being a tech raid, they always intended to do... peace had been sent before we even asked them), and then we offered FoA a protectorate. This is the way Bob SHOULD work people. Some times you need to learn a lesson the hard way, and in the end, it works out well. \m/, PC, GOONS, Corp and FoA are all better off for the events of the last 12 hours. Please go back to the CSN-Athens thread. WickedJ is getting annoying that we are stealing his audience. Glad this was handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Your charter would state that it's 10 members. Eh, only losers follow charters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Yes. How ever you are incorrect in believing we only do this to small alliances or individual nations. If our decision making process had led us this far with any other alliance, we would have no problem with doing so regardless of their size.And to AJ: You are correct. This is a might makes right world with artificial sociological mores and taboos. We choose to not acknowledge the social standard, and live our lives as we please, free of the pseudo-governmental control known as public opinion. We accept that some day, some alliance or group of alliances may decide to likewise act on their beliefes and ideals, in such a case I will heartily applaud them for throwing off the first shackles of their slavery, and plant the seeds of independence, even if the first drink of those seeds is our blood. Yeah, but you don't have the balls to do this to a big alliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Yeah, but you don't have the balls to do this to a big alliance Why in the hell would we even try it? What the hell does balls have to do with it? PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT! No profit raiding "BIG" alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Your charter would state that it's 10 members. The charter states it is 10 members for an individual to tech raid. The Triumvirate has the euthority to mobilize the alliance as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 The charter states it is 10 members for an individual to tech raid. The Triumvirate has the euthority to mobilize the alliance as they see fit. Indeed. FoA posed a threat to the pocketbooks of our members, so the triumvirate felt it necessary to fix this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This "moral outrage" against raiding is cute. Criticizing the actions of a few over the actions of many. \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid, but so do many, many more people and alliances, so why not search teh war screens every day and criticize every alliance who participates in tech raids instead of just jumping on the bandwagon here and saying "when \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid its wrong". It's wrong when any alliance is raided – if you think I'm just jumping on the Unjust, you must not have been paying attention to the Athens-Ni incident. I have not seen other alliances raiding alliances; while I disagree with tech raiding the unaligned as well, one must pick one's battles, and there is a simple way for nations not to be raided without having to change the way they act. (I.e. join an alliance that permits raiding of unaligned nations.) There is no way for an independent alliance to avoid unjustified attack without having to change its policies if we permit acts such as this one, and that harms us all. If he thinks its a "lousy reason for war", he could have spent plenty of time criticizing most of the earlier wars in Planet Bob Are you saying I have not done this? In fact the unjust wars launched by the Hegemony were one major reason that I and others supported Karma. All wars are tech raids by the way this world works, you cannot send troops in to attack the enemy and have them not come out with tech. This is pure sophistry. A tech raid is a war with no justification or purpose other than stealing tech; most wars do not fit that mould, and most of them are deeply unprofitable for both parties – in fact, anything but the pure extortion of 'PM for peace [or get ZI'd]' of raiders is unprofitable and therefore can't reasonably be termed 'raiding'. But heres what takes the cake: the other tech raiders, who are "decent people", the casual tech raiders, they are exactly like what \m/, GOONS, and PC are doing here No. They are raiding unaligned nations, who have a simple exit without changing their policies (in most cases anyway, there are permissive alliances that hardly restrict you at all). While this is still wrong, they are not doing exactly the same thing. That's like saying that a shoplifter is the same as a bank robber. well then, I guess these people need to get on with the "beating the living daylights out of us" Learn to nation build so you're in range first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Since the other members of the moralist triumvirate have already arrived and made my position abundantly clear, I'll just point out the obvious: A number of the posters in this thread seem to be mad. * grumbles and sets up the Scale of Outrage +1 Aggression against weaker alliance for the purpose of taking their stuff. Rabble rabble rabble. ------ Frankly, I don't see a need for the expression of moral outrage in this instance. For the record, I don't agree with tech raiding, don't think very highly of those that do it, and FoA have my sympathy in their plight. However, conflict is an unavoidable experience on Bob. The facts are simple: \m/, GOONS, and, er,... is there another alliance? Anyway, these alliances are of the sort to take advantage of others that are in a weaker position than them when the profit to loss ratio is acceptable. They also have no qualms about that. So any lecturing on that will fall on deaf ears. Trying to appeal to universal values does not work if an alliance does not see the benefit in agreeing to those principles. It is clear that these alliances feel that they are better served by their current strategy. Now if someone was trying to convince other alliances of the threat to their collective security, then there might be a point behind it... In attempting to alter the behavior of a person or alliance, you have to speak the same language as they do. Anyway, that's my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Yeah, but you don't have the balls to do this to a big alliance Pardon me, but I have to go dredge up some Care from a well known bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 It's wrong when any alliance is raided – if you think I'm just jumping on the Unjust, you must not have been paying attention to the Athens-Ni incident. I have not seen other alliances raiding alliances; while I disagree with tech raiding the unaligned as well, one must pick one's battles, and there is a simple way for nations not to be raided without having to change the way they act. (I.e. join an alliance that permits raiding of unaligned nations.) There is no way for an independent alliance to avoid unjustified attack without having to change its policies if we permit acts such as this one, and that harms us all. Do you also dislike when alliances with less than 10 or 5 members are raided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Giant Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Eh, only losers follow charters. Why did you bother writing one then? If you are not going to follow it please dont write one it waists the time of many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 The charter states it is 10 members for an individual to tech raid. The Triumvirate has the euthority to mobilize the alliance as they see fit. And as I've said repeatedly, for lack of clarity, and for poor semantic argument, this still shouldn't have been done. It wasn't until later in the thread that the tri authority business was even mentioned (EM could of said it off the start) so it just seems like back peddaling (sp?) of trying to find a loop hole in their own charter. As I've said I'm pro-raiding, but I do believe in sticking to what you say, written or spoken. Just comes off as very shoddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Learn to nation build so you're in range first. Weak and impotent response as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Do you also dislike when alliances with less than 10 or 5 members are raided? I'm pretty sure he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Why did you bother writing one then? If you are not going to follow it please dont write one it waists the time of many. Well, we needed something to go in the "Charter" forum on our site, so it helps there. Also, thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to file it with the other useful hints your brethren have deemed fit to bestow upon my alliance. Edited January 16, 2010 by King Xander the Only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts