\m/, I just want to help

[Syrik]

[23:09] <Anonymous> my god I am reading the \m/ thread Grub is so !@#$@#$ full of himself even more the you Syrik

Good.. good... you have done well, my apprentice. Now Lord Grub, go and bring peace to the Empire.

[ChairmanHal]

As for the beer for Smacks, I am not sure if one would be enough.

Did I mention it will be served in a yard glass?

[George the Great]

I should hope we don't have to, but I think the people counting on us backing down might be counting the wrong chickens. What I see in private channels makes me laugh.

The only alliance that is counting on you to do or not do anything is NpO itself, that I'm aware of, at least.

I'm curious as to why NpO is so interested in this matter myself. As a sovereign alliance, you have the inherent ability to do anything that you please, much like \m/, GOONS and PC share the same ability. It seems, though, that you have a problem that they exercised their ability to do what they want and you are now exercising your own ability to do as you please; exercising your own sovereignty to condemn the sovereignty of others. If FoA had requested your aid, it would be a slightly different story, but it's rather clear that they have not. Your stance on this issue is hypocritical at best. You might be consistent in voicing the same opinion now that you had during the Athenian affair, but that opinion itself is seemingly inconsistent. As a sovereign, though, you have the ability to be hypocritical if you so please, so I'm in no way trying to imply that you can't be, simply that you are.

The most important thing that I believe should be taken away from this entire affair is that doing what one pleases tends to open one's self to consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad and sometimes both. I'd like to add that I don't particularly agree with tech-raiding myself, and have never partaken in it. I am also of the opinion that the raid on FoA was unwarranted and idiotic, much like the raid on Ni! was back when I was fairly inactive.

[hizzy]

The only alliance that is counting on you to do or not do anything is NpO itself, that I'm aware of, at least.

I'm curious as to why NpO is so interested in this matter myself. As a sovereign alliance, you have the inherent ability to do anything that you please, much like \m/, GOONS and PC share the same ability. It seems, though, that you have a problem that they exercised their ability to do what they want and you are now exercising your own ability to do as you please; exercising your own sovereignty to condemn the sovereignty of others. If FoA had requested your aid, it would be a slightly different story, but it's rather clear that they have not. Your stance on this issue is hypocritical at best. You might be consistent in voicing the same opinion now that you had during the Athenian affair, but that opinion itself is seemingly inconsistent. As a sovereign, though, you have the ability to be hypocritical if you so please, so I'm in no way trying to imply that you can't be, simply that you are.

The most important thing that I believe should be taken away from this entire affair is that doing what one pleases tends to open one's self to consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad and sometimes both. I'd like to add that I don't particularly agree with tech-raiding myself, and have never partaken in it. I am also of the opinion that the raid on FoA was unwarranted and idiotic, much like the raid on Ni! was back when I was fairly inactive.

I don't think Grub has once said that \m/ does not have the sovereign right to attack a helpless alliance. From what I saw, his main point was that if you (not you specifically) choose to act like a jackass, there will come a time when someone is going punch you in the throat. Do you have the right to act like a jackass? Sure. But every action, good or bad, has a consequence... and to flirt through life thinking otherwise is naive.

To call someone hypocritical for denouncing someone else's actions on the basis that they are sovereign actions is a far stretch. Again, just because you have the sovereign right to declare war at every whim.... hell, just because you have the right, the capability, and the firepower to do so... does not make it the right thing to do. Granted, you can argue about the morality of attacking a helpless alliance till you're blue in the face, but that's something else.

[Penkala]

From the guy who did one of these threads for Athens...thats pretty rich

What does that have to do with absolutely anything I said? I said that attacking small alliances when you know someone's going to consider attacking you for it, and putting your allies in the line of fire, is pretty stupid.

[Syrik]

What does that have to do with absolutely anything I said? I said that attacking small alliances when you know someone's going to consider attacking you for it, and putting your allies in the line of fire, is pretty stupid.

"Right", "Wrong", "Smart", "Stupid"

These are all words based on points of view. If the ultimate goal benefits from attacking small alliances, then it would be "smart" to do so.

[George the Great]

I don't think Grub has once said that \m/ does not have the sovereign right to attack a helpless alliance. From what I saw, his main point was that if you (not you specifically) choose to act like a jackass, there will come a time when someone is going punch you in the throat. Do you have the right to act like a jackass? Sure. But every action, good or bad, has a consequence... and to flirt through life thinking otherwise is naive.

To call someone hypocritical for denouncing someone else's actions on the basis that they are sovereign actions is a far stretch. Again, just because you have the sovereign right to declare war at every whim.... hell, just because you have the right, the capability, and the firepower to do so... does not make it the right thing to do. Granted, you can argue about the morality of attacking a helpless alliance till you're blue in the face, but that's something else.

As to your first paragraph, that's basically what I said. I reiterated it in the third paragraph. As to the second one, I don't think it's a stretch. You can denounce people's actions all you want. It's when you threaten with force and possibly act on the threat of force when it becomes hypocritical. They did what they wanted, and now he's using his ability to do what he wants by "punishing" them for doing the same thing, and in roughly the same way. That is using sovereignty to attack sovereignty. If FoA requested aid, then it wouldn't necessarily be doing what he wanted, it would be doing what FoA asked of him. A treaty with FoA would have been the most convincing, though. The case, however, is that FoA has not requested aid, but has actually made it seem as though it's settled for them. All that aside, Grub can still do what he wants, including being hypocritical. Aside from that, I agree with what you said.

[Chalaskan]

"Right", "Wrong", "Smart", "Stupid"

These are all words based on points of view. If the ultimate goal benefits from attacking small alliances, then it would be "smart" to do so.

Unless that endangers your alliance more then the gain that is possible.

EDIT:

It is beneficial to steal a ham if you are hungry. In certain countries that would cause you to lose a limb. Doesn't mean because you can it is smart to do so.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Chalaskan

[Rampage3]

Again, just because you have the sovereign right to declare war at every whim.... hell, just because you have the right, the capability, and the firepower to do so... does not make it the right thing to do.

This statement has many applications in this situation, including the current attempt to pretend that a situation that is over is not exactly that. At some point the fact that the "victims" here are satisfied should be enough, at least one would imagine that would be the case.

[Tick1]

I'm so deplored that people have failed to understand nature in it's natural state. You fail to understand our need for destruction and treachery, the moralist imagine that they are better than tech raiders because when they attack someone it's for justice. Your scapegoat is completely unreliable on the terms that your wars have not been justified and are a mockery of anything noteworthy. Your cause for pointing out these wars is that you yourself only wish to declare war on someone, which is why this waste of a propaganda method has been used. If your so bored Alterego please declare war on someone and avoid this public badgering.

You claim you seek justice inside this public display.

You claim you seek a solution to this raid.

Your scapegoat (Justice) is deplored for the fact that you hold no true moral values.

[Kzoppistan]

As to your first paragraph, that's basically what I said. I reiterated it in the third paragraph. As to the second one, I don't think it's a stretch. You can denounce people's actions all you want. It's when you threaten with force and possibly act on the threat of force when it becomes hypocritical. They did what they wanted, and now he's using his ability to do what he wants by "punishing" them for doing the same thing, and in roughly the same way. That is using sovereignty to attack sovereignty. If FoA requested aid, then it wouldn't necessarily be doing what he wanted, it would be doing what FoA asked of him. A treaty with FoA would have been the most convincing, though. The case, however, is that FoA has not requested aid, but has actually made it seem as though it's settled for them. All that aside, Grub can still do what he wants, including being hypocritical. Aside from that, I agree with what you said.

How is that? It's actually the complete opposite of hypocritical. If alliances feel they have the obligation to stick their noses into another alliance by tech raiding them, doesn't that then open them up to having their alliance being placed under that same act?

To say: "I want your tech" is to open one to the just as valid saying as "I think you're a &#33;@#&#036;% bag and I'm going to stomp you."

If one is going to live by the sword, they can die by the sword.

Or perhaps the threat of force may convince some to reconsider the merit behind universal values?

[Penkala]

"Right", "Wrong", "Smart", "Stupid"

These are all words based on points of view. If the ultimate goal benefits from attacking small alliances, then it would be "smart" to do so.

Putting your allies in the line of fire, potentially losing hundreds of thousands of tech and infra, to gain a couple thousand tech is stupid. To say otherwise would be... absurd.

[Tick1]

Putting your allies in the line of fire, potentially losing hundreds of thousands of tech and infra, to gain a couple thousand tech is stupid. To say otherwise would be... absurd.

So your saying that the people who are looking to defend FoA aren't ignorant in potentially losing the same amount of tech and infra? To say otherwise would be quite absurd.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Tick1

[WarriorConcept]

I have to applaud AlmightyGrub's firm stance in his own beliefs throughout this whole affair. However I do wonder about what the arbitrary number in his head is regarding the size of an alliance being raided. As I understand it some other of NpO's allies also allow raiding of alliances but they just never end up on the OWF.

[Smacky]

I'm so deplored that people have failed to understand nature in it's natural state. You fail to understand our need for destruction and treachery, the moralist imagine that they are better than tech raiders because when they attack someone it's for justice. Your scapegoat is completely unreliable on the terms that your wars have not been justified and are a mockery of anything noteworthy. Your cause for pointing out these wars is that you yourself only wish to declare war on someone, which is why this waste of a propaganda method has been used. If your so bored Alterego please declare war on someone and avoid this public badgering.

You claim you seek justice inside this public display.

You claim you seek a solution to this raid.

Your scapegoat (Justice) is deplored for the fact that you hold no true moral values.

Hi Tick1.

Reason has been outlawed and replaced by hypocrisy. It's okay, I missed the memo too.

[Tick1]

Hi Tick1.

Reason has been outlawed and replaced by hypocrisy. It's okay, I missed the memo too.

I'm just amazed at the amount of people who believe they are standing up for justice. Justice is such a misused term for these propaganda methods. They completely over use the fact that it's the moralistic way. In terms they are arguing the debate of Evil and Omnipotence, but they hardly have a grasp on the concept. Using something as a scapegoat in terms of being socially better doesn't make you better than any raider what so ever. It just allows you to reconcile and believe that your reasoning is better than the other persons.

[George the Great]

How is that? It's actually the complete opposite of hypocritical. If alliances feel they have the obligation to stick their noses into another alliance by tech raiding them, doesn't that then open them up to having their alliance being placed under that same act?

I never said that \m/, GOONS and PC weren't guilty of the same hypocrisy themselves. Nor did I say that NpO couldn't act the way that they were, they obviously can. Complete opposite of hypocritical is not, though. Hypocrisy is inconsistency, and both parties here are acting inconsistently (one of them is proudly acting consistently inconsistent). Butting your nose into someone else's business does open one's self to consequences, I all ready said that it does, but those consequences can be hypocritical. Just because one action is "bad" does not mean that any action that opposes it is "good". My main point is that both parties are doing the same thing.

To say: "I want your tech" is to open one to the just as valid saying as "I think you're a &#33;@#&#036;% bag and I'm going to stomp you."

If one is going to live by the sword, they can die by the sword.

Or perhaps the threat of force may convince some to reconsider the merit behind universal values?

And FoA had every right to say that to them, they also had the right to ask for help. Guess what, they didn't. Saying "I want your tech" only opens yourself to getting stomped by whoever "your" is and the people that have either all ready vowed to protect the people the tech is being stolen from, or by those who defend them upon request. NpO is neither of those, therefore they're coming in of their own accord using their own sovereignty to arbitrarily pop in out of nowhere.

As far as your last point goes, I don't think the threat of force is necessary, especially as the first and only method attempted. NpO could have spoken to \m/ and PC's allies prior to threatening to see if we could talk to them about it, but threatening them with force is just about doing the same thing. Actually attacking them would be the same. Who's to say that people all ready weren't going to speak to PC and \m/?

Also, I never implied anyone's actions were good or bad, just inconsistent (hypocritical) as inconsistency is objective, more or less.

[Kzoppistan]

Saying "I want your tech" only opens yourself to getting stomped by whoever "your" is and the people that have either all ready vowed to protect the people the tech is being stolen from, or by those who defend them upon request.

Who says? Who's writing those "laws"? If having the power to force others to do your bidding is somehow an obligation to do so, then what's wrong with NpO or any other alliance doing the same?

NpO frames it as an act of justice, and rightfully so, as preventing unwarranted violence against the innocent certainly seems more just compared to stealing from the innocent.

[Tick1]

Who says? Who's writing those "laws"? If having the power to force others to do your bidding is somehow an obligation to do so, then what's wrong with NpO or any other alliance doing the same?

NpO frames it as an act of justice, and rightfully so, as preventing unwarranted violence against the innocent certainly seems more just compared to stealing from the innocent.

What one person frames as an act of justice is ignorant without embracing the culture of other alliances. NpO believes that they have the right to warrant their on beliefs upon the world as if they where the maker themselves. Once again you argue the discussion of evils and fail to grasp how this plays out. If the world was to live in harmony then why do I have an option to declare on other nations?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Tick1

[George the Great]

Who says? Who's writing those "laws"? If having the power to force others to do your bidding is somehow an obligation to do so, then what's wrong with NpO or any other alliance doing the same?

NpO frames it as an act of justice, and rightfully so, as preventing unwarranted violence against the innocent certainly seems more just compared to stealing from the innocent.

You can put hypocrisy in a frame of justice if you want. The frame can be all nice and pretty and say justice in really big letters, but the picture is still going to say hypocrisy. No one is writing these laws, it's simply logic. When you say I'm going to take YOUR tech, then that enables the YOUR. Everyone else can do what they want and join in, too, but they were never included in that YOUR, they're merely choosing to include themselves ex post facto. If you were to say I'm going to take EVERYONE's tech, then that would enable everyone. You can ignore that all you wish, I don't really care, I just wanted to point that out.

[Kzoppistan]

What one person frames as an act of justice is ignorant without embracing the culture of other alliances. NpO believes that they have the right to warrant their on beliefs upon the world as if they where the maker themselves. Once again you argue the discussion of evils and fail to grasp how this plays out. If the world was to live in harmony then why do I have an option to declare on the nations within this world?

I do not believe in evil.

I believe in power.

If one person says: I wish to take from the masses to benefit myself.

And another person says: I wish to prevent those that take from the masses to benefit themselves, thus benefiting the many at the expense of a few.

Who is right?

The one who has the ability to enforce their aims.

[cookavich]

You can put hypocrisy in a frame of justice if you want. The frame can be all nice and pretty and say justice in really big letters, but the picture is still going to say hypocrisy. No one is writing these laws, it's simply logic. When you say I'm going to take YOUR tech, then that enables the YOUR. Everyone else can do what they want and join in, too, but they were never included in that YOUR, they're merely choosing to include themselves ex post facto. If you were to say I'm going to take EVERYONE's tech, then that would enable everyone. You can ignore that all you wish, I don't really care, I just wanted to point that out.

It's a good thing we're not being hypocritical, then! So, justice it is.

[Tick1]

I do not believe in evil.

I believe in power.

If one person says: I wish to take from the masses to benefit myself.

And another person says: I wish to prevent those that take from the masses to benefit themselves, thus benefiting the many at the expense of a few.

Who is right?

The one who has the ability to enforce their aims.

You in terms label evil with power. You believe that raiders take from people to benefit themselves. Well my friend this is human nature at it's finest you just fail to realize or accept how human truly act. Maybe if you guys would allow for something exciting less raiding would be taking place, but then again how would that be any fun if you couldn't enforce what actually takes place? You are immoral in my eyes by enforcing your beliefs upon others.

Evil and Good are the same thing. They just happen to be on the oppisite side of the scale.

[Kzoppistan]

You can put hypocrisy in a frame of justice if you want. The frame can be all nice and pretty and say justice in really big letters, but the picture is still going to say hypocrisy. No one is writing these laws, it's simply logic. When you say I'm going to take YOUR tech, then that enables the YOUR. Everyone else can do what they want and join in, too, but they were never included in that YOUR, they're merely choosing to include themselves ex post facto. If you were to say I'm going to take EVERYONE's tech, then that would enable everyone. You can ignore that all you wish, I don't really care, I just wanted to point that out.

If a person considers the act of taking from others who perpetrated no crime a crime itself and moves to enforce their morality, there is nothing hypocritical about that. Their external aims are consistent with their internal aims.

Is it enforcing one's view over another's? Yes. But considering that tech raiders already subscribe to that maxim, they really have nothing to complain about.

[Earogema]

It's called sovereignty, you might have heard of it sometime?

Wait, so you're protecting sovereignty by attacking (verbally of course ) for another alliance?

I mean, I knew Polar would be up in arms over this, and rightly so, but really, that's not a good reason. Unless you're trying to be ironic.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Earogema