\m/, I just want to help

[Sigrun Vapneir]

It is the standard Tech Raider mindset, though. "As long as we gang up on someone who can't fight back, this is a great idea, we should do it! And as soon as someone fights back, we'll scream and cry about it!". It's like a mugger who starts whining when a bystander nabs him as he tries to make a getaway. "Hey, I stole her purse, not yours, you shouldn't be getting involved, mind your own business!"

+1 insightful.

So many people want to be seen as warriors, but act like common bandits. Then whine why everybody gotta be hatin yo?

[George the Great]

Of course, they closed the matter while lying on the ground, with swords on their throats, but yeah, they sure cried "Uncle".

Three alliances, all larger than them, jumped them for no reason, with no warning. They accepted the "You get nothing out of this, but we'll let you go" agreement. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that.

I find if amusing how many people here believe it's perfectly acceptable for these alliances to gang up on anyone smaller than them, but are pissed off at Grub for even *saying* that he might attack them for it.

It is the standard Tech Raider mindset, though. "As long as we gang up on someone who can't fight back, this is a great idea, we should do it! And as soon as someone fights back, we'll scream and cry about it!". It's like a mugger who starts whining when a bystander nabs him as he tries to make a getaway. "Hey, I stole her purse, not yours, you shouldn't be getting involved, mind your own business!"

I'm not a tech-raider and I've never tech-raided and I don't agree with it at all. Not everyone here is playing it both ways. I think this whole tech-raid was ridiculously stupid, but I think Grub's response is equally as stupid. Who's to say that PC and \m/'s allies wouldn't talk to them about this if Grub didn't parachute in like James Bond with his license to kill? Sure, we didn't try to drop them on the spot like NpO attempted to do with GOONS, but who's NpO to tell us how to deal with our allies, aside from threatening them on top of it? Most of the people that were chest thumping earlier in this thread, which I didn't read at all aside from the OP, were non-governmental members of the tech-raiding alliances. The people calling NpO's actions stupid aren't the same people, I believe.

+1 insightful.

So many people want to be seen as warriors, but act like common bandits. Then whine why everybody gotta be hatin yo?

+1 insightful

So many people indeed.

Edited January 19, 2010 by George the Great

[Fantastico]

Most of the people that were chest thumping earlier in this thread, which I didn't read at all aside from the OP, were non-governmental members of the tech-raiding alliances.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

The leaders of the GOONS, \m/ and PC all posted quite heavily in here, drinking our tears as they put it, I believe.

[Earogema]

Of course, they closed the matter while lying on the ground, with swords on their throats, but yeah, they sure cried "Uncle".

Three alliances, all larger than them, jumped them for no reason, with no warning. They accepted the "You get nothing out of this, but we'll let you go" agreement. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that.

I find if amusing how many people here believe it's perfectly acceptable for these alliances to gang up on anyone smaller than them, but are pissed off at Grub for even *saying* that he might attack them for it.

It is the standard Tech Raider mindset, though. "As long as we gang up on someone who can't fight back, this is a great idea, we should do it! And as soon as someone fights back, we'll scream and cry about it!". It's like a mugger who starts whining when a bystander nabs him as he tries to make a getaway. "Hey, I stole her purse, not yours, you shouldn't be getting involved, mind your own business!"

Except they did get something from it. They got a protectorate, which they lacked before. Which, is what caused this whole mess.

And the government of FOA accepted, as did their protectors, which, \m/ is allied to.

Also, I haven't tech raided anybody in over a year, and in fact, I was being ZI'ed for quite a long time. I know how force works. If we didn't attack FOA, somebody else would have. If we didn't attack en masse, it would have been nothing but a small trickle of raids, over and over again, until they finally got a protectorate. Know why? Nobody but FOA, and their new found protectors cares about FOA. FOA has become nothing but a tool of political and propagandic leverage to those who want to see our alliances get rolled.

I will not deny that FOA has between a rock and a hard place when trying to get a way out of this. However, to say that somehow now, you have some right to speak for that alliance is utter nonsense. You say you respect the sovereign right of alliances to exist and do as they will, yet you speak for them.

I personally think that FOA did the right thing. They fought until they got equatable terms- A white peace and a protectorate, which is much more valuable then the tech/infra they lost. Polar would agree, no?

One final point: That isn't the "tech raider" mindset. That's the mindset of every alliance in CN. It's okay until somebody else does it to you.

[Baldr]

I'm not a tech-raider and I've never tech-raided and I don't agree with it at all. Not everyone here is playing it both ways. I think this whole tech-raid was ridiculously stupid, but I think Grub's response is equally as stupid.

The alliances you are defending went to war.

Grub posted messages saying he didn't like it.

I see quite a bit of difference between ganging up on a small alliance, and talking.

Also, I will take your word for it that you, yourself, don't tech raid. But his same "Hey, lets tech raid an alliance" scam was one that Athens (you are in Athens, right? Yeah, I thought so) did just a few weeks ago, so I think I know which side of the isle you are on.

[AlmightyGrub]

And where do these rights come with responsibility? Responsibility is another sovereign choice that can be made, but sovereignty does not have to be responsible, if it did, then there would never be any possibility of irresponsibility. Responsibility is not an objective term either, it is subjective, much like "good" and "bad". And while you may not be going away, learning to live with you is definitely not something that I have to do. You could always attack me for not doing so and see if that fixes the problem.

Help help I am being repressed come and see the violence inherent in the system? If you are not responsible, then someone will make you responsible. I didn't create this brave new cesspool, you did, so now you get to deal with it. That's the point really, either behave with some sense of acknowledgment that other people live here too or they will remind you that they do.

I'm well aware of the meaning of hypocrisy. Maybe you should have considered its meaning a bit more prior to threatening to attack an other's sovereignty by using your own.

\m/, GOONS and PC attacked the alliance by exerting their own sovereignty in order to acquire the sovereign technology of FoA for their own, therefore NpO may attack \m/, GOONS and PC by exerting its own sovereignty to encroach upon theirs in order to punish them for their encroachment upon the sovereignty of FoA.

You're saying that \m/, GOONS and PC arbitrarily attacking the sovereign alliance FoA is wrong (Which I agree with) and then saying that you shall arbitrarily attack \m/, GOONS and PC in order for some sort of distorted justice to be realized (Which I don't agree with).

Arbitrarily attacking alliances cannot be both wrong and just at the same time, or can they? It's been awhile since I looked in a logic book.

As far as my own actions go, they actually have no bearing on this at all. Perhaps you should examine my past 12 months, if you think they're important, and tell me about them since the burden of proof is on you for that straw-man. I am glad, however, that Polaris is so proud of its consistency in its actions that it is so willing and proud to grandstand its own inconsistent standards. That leads me to wonder, though, how far back this consistency reaches. Does it go back to before the NoCB war?

A well reasoned argument that says completely nothing. Your alliance has suckled long and hard on the power base of the time, flipping and flopping as it saw fit, riding the trends, surfing the waves. You are right of course, I have no basis for my assertions, completely baseless.

Then we flip out the old NoCB war? You have to be kidding me right? It am saddened that you have to go all the way back 18 months ago to try to score even a single point. The fact that you would try indicates how little fortitude you really have. Lets be honest, you are seldom so.

The notion that sovereignty has anything to do with anything here is complete distraction. The fact that an alliance is smashed in the face and whilst still bleeding from the face is allowed back up off the ground at the ''mercy'' of the attackers does not seem like good form to me. Keep thinking that it is okay because it can not happen to you, but perhaps that little shot you tried to slip in gives me a slightly different perspective. And while we are on the subject, I am not claiming some kind of martyr's insight, Walford didn't die for my sins and I haven't been washed clean, but I have an opinion and a desire and vehicle to express it. IF you do not like it, then the option is always yours to either actually argue the point or take some action of your own.

I'm glad that matter is being resolved, however. I'd submit to your infinite wisdom, but I have a nasty cramp in my leg, and kneeling would be hard for me. I do hope that your closing expectation is realized by all, especially when "others" are involved parties.

Is reading comprehension such a difficult subject where you live? Time and time again you seem to want to attribute me with comments that simply are not there. I do not require your servitude, you are not fit to swill my piss in a bucket, but rather I think even a complete ignoramus such as yourself will comprehend by now that I will be more than happy to rant and rave and fight as I see fit if any alliance sees fit to engage in boorish tactics against the relatively weak.

You of course have the option of rejecting my arguments, but I don't think even blind freddy will endorse whatever you are trying to sell here. Sovereignty is not a shield for piss poor behaviour, nor is a simple ''oops'' a resolution. Want to test the theory, feel free.

[raasaa]

Edited*

Grub beat me to it.

Edited January 19, 2010 by raasaa

[Electron Sponge]

Want to test the theory, feel free.

Grub is that your gauntlet lying there on the ground, I think you dropped it

[Baldr]

Except they did get something from it. They got a protectorate, which they lacked before. Which, is what caused this whole mess.

The got a protectorate for a week, by someone who did a lot more to protect the raiders from paying reps than anything else.

I will not deny that FOA has between a rock and a hard place when trying to get a way out of this. However, to say that somehow now, you have some right to speak for that alliance is utter nonsense. You say you respect the sovereign right of alliances to exist and do as they will, yet you speak for them.

Who the heck said I speak for FOA? Find them and slap them around. I don't even know FOA. I speak for me, nobody else.

But I still think that rolling FOA just because "We're bigger, so we can" is wrong.

[Earogema]

Grub is that your gauntlet lying there on the ground, I think you dropped it

I was waiting for you this whole time.

I hope you roll us for old times sake.

No seriously, do something, I'm getting bored. D:

[Earogema]

The got a protectorate for a week, by someone who did a lot more to protect the raiders from paying reps than anything else.

Who the heck said I speak for FOA? Find them and slap them around. I don't even know FOA. I speak for me, nobody else.

But I still think that rolling FOA just because "We're bigger, so we can" is wrong.

You somehow implied that there wasn't a sincerity in their acceptance of peace. Which, I will grant, is the better assumption. As for protecting them, I have to ask then: Why didn't an alliance who would have forced reps protect them first? That just seems silly.

Oh and we found and slapped them around already, thus this thread

[raasaa]

You somehow implied that there wasn't a sincerity in their acceptance of peace. Which, I will grant, is the better assumption. As for protecting them, I have to ask then: Why didn't an alliance who would have forced reps protect them first? That just seems silly.

Oh and we found and slapped them around already, thus this thread

i would speculate the same.....i mean, what other options did they have ??

Fight back and get stomped by three alliances much larger than them......wiser option is to retreat today and fight another day, when they are presented with the opportune moment

[Earogema]

i would speculate the same.....i mean, what other options did they have ??

Fight back and get stomped by three alliances much larger than them......wiser option is to retreat today and fight another day, when they are presented with the opportune moment

Right, which is what I said in the next sentence. I see where he's coming from.

[AlmightyGrub]

Grub is that your gauntlet lying there on the ground, I think you dropped it

Well now, who is this sexy figure appearing out of the mists of time?

[Micheal Malone]

So what have we learned from this thread? People like to chest-beat. Grub STILL doesn't like when alliances full-scale techraid a smaller alliance, and is willing to do something about it. And all the people who are crying about lack of war & drama, turn tail at the sign of someone standing up and saying "It's brought-en, girlfriend."... So, the vast majority will sit around whining how boring the game is, and then a thread like this pops up, explodes into action, and everyone backs down....

It's sad really.

Good show Grub standing up and not being afraid to do something about it. Too bad the others didn't have the gumption to follow through.

[kriekfreak]

Grub, I hope you understand that there is only one way out of this. And that is not diplomacy.

[edit] Oh my, it's Sponge [/edit]

Edited January 19, 2010 by kriekfreak

[Lord Curzon]

Arbitrarily attacking alliances cannot be both wrong and just at the same time, or can they? It's been awhile since I looked in a logic book.

I think the first and most glaring issue I have with this statement is your choice of the word "arbitrarily". You must admit that neither the original "tech raid", nor Grub's response to the "tech raid" exist under arbitrary circumstances. \m/, GOONs, PC's original attack was arbitrary in that no concern was given to the alliance attacked on a personal level, but FOA was attacked particularly because it bore no connections to the treaty web. Grub's response was even less "arbitrary", in fact, quite the opposite given that his response was predicated upon the original "tech raid".

Since you whipped out dictionary definitions so will I:

ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trěr'ē)

adj.

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

emphasis added.

What we are arguing here breaks down to differing conceptions of the principles by which international relations on Bob can justly carried out. \m/, GOONs, PC, and you yourself are advocating a highly legalistic world in which an alliance's security is guaranteed by binding legal treaties. If a community lacks legal ties (treaties) to the outside world, no one has any legal prerogative to come to their defense, ie Grub's actions are as "arbitrary" as \m/, GOONs, PC.

The main issue I have with this logic is that it reduces treaties from expressions of friendship to binding contracts between parties. I'll use an example to better articulate this distinction: if an alliance chooses to bail on their allies during wartime, this is considered wrong not because they are cowardly, but because they are in breach of contract. Now, I doubt you would agree with this analysis, however this is the logical conclusion of stating that Grub's actions would be "arbitrary" if he interceded on FOA's behalf.

If on the other hand we invoke a principle whereby we acknowledge that there is no truly defined legal code of Bob, we must acknowledge that alliances make decisions based on a combination of factors. Honor, power, and enjoyment are all part of this decision making process, and an alliance's conception of Justice is no doubt an influence as well. I think the point Grub is making is that the block which you are part of, CnG, has elevated the importance of "Justice". Alliance actions, and CB's must hold up against a somewhat nebulous "moral code" of the international community. "Karma" implies that there is a good and a bad, and that alliances can do what they see fit to punish the "bad". This is where your second flaw comes into focus:

Responsibility is not an objective term either, it is subjective, much like "good" and "bad". And while you may not be going away, learning to live with you is definitely not something that I have to do. You could always attack me for not doing so and see if that fixes the problem.

Undoubtedly, good and bad are nebulous terms subject to individual interpretation. But what you fail to acknowledge is that these concepts of what is right and wrong are injected into everything an alliance does. When someone comes to the defense of their allies honoring a treaty, they do this not because they legally have to, but because based upon a combination of factors they believe it to be the correct decision. Responsibility, operates on this same basis, and NpO is asserting that it has the "Responsibility to Protect" a community from destruction. While they have no legal obligation, they believe they have a "moral duty" to do so.

This is the same "moral duty" every alliance chooses to invoke when it comes to the defense of a treaty ally. The only difference being that a treaty exists to pre-express mutually perceived duties. Since treaties are not laws, but pieces of paper which express notions of duty, there is no real requirement for an alliance to have a treaty to feel this sense of duty. This is why many across Bob, and many within your block in particular, were hailing the Gre's announcement last week that they would shed e-paper which expresses their responsibilities. Gre maintained that the duty did not cease simply because the paper did, which means that responsibilities do not have to be expressed by a piece of e-paper. NpO is using a similar principle vis a vis their personal sense of duty toward FOA.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[nippy]

So what have we learned from this thread? People like to chest-beat. Grub STILL doesn't like when alliances full-scale techraid a smaller alliance, and is willing to do something about it. And all the people who are crying about lack of war & drama, turn tail at the sign of someone standing up and saying "It's brought-en, girlfriend."... So, the vast majority will sit around whining how boring the game is, and then a thread like this pops up, explodes into action, and everyone backs down....

It's sad really.

Good show Grub standing up and not being afraid to do something about it. Too bad the others didn't have the gumption to follow through.

We stopped posting once the involved parties agreed that the situation was resolved. Differences of opinion between allies have been addressed in private channels, as they should be.

[AirMe]

I for one welcome our new TOP and IRON overlords.

[Bob Janova]

What is really funny is how all the chanting of "do something about it" has faded down, and instead there is a nonstop spam barrage of that tired old meme "if you do something about it you will be no better than they are!"

Indeed. Clearly the actual threat of a serious alliance 'doing something about it' is too much for some.

Also, hi Sponge.

[bigwoody]

/me sits back with the popcorn. Lets see if this gets as much attention as the Knights of Ni! one did shall we? :3

also, PC

Oh, a CB you say? So Planet Bob is going to start declaring war on alliances who tech raid now? Is that what you're saying? Don't be ridiculous. This happens so often it would make your head spin. The only difference is that the alliances who get raided are typically under 20 members and it's done by alliances whom happen to be under the radar of those holding grudges or whatever. But alas, since \m/, GOONS and PC are big names this has been brought to everyone's attention in hopes of making us feel bad for some ego-booster points. Well, you're going to have to try harder than this because so far all I've seen from you and the others is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

I love how thing have completely changed ITT since the beginning...

[SpiderJerusalem]

Private channels are melting right now.

Because our conversation is so hot, right?

I see, I'm supposed to love and revere an alliance that has twice threatened us and our allies.

Nothing will make me happier then watching Polaris burn.

u mad?

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.

Of course you won't back down. But you can always try to make your victory a diplomatic one

Help help I am being repressed come and see the violence inherent in the system?

NpO: Bloody tech raiders!

The unjust trio: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

Sovereignty is not a shield for piss poor behaviour

It is however, something that should be respected. And when FoA, a sovereign alliance, claims that everything is all right, then you may want to listen to them as well

I for one welcome our new TOP and IRON overlords.

ALL HAIL THE MASTERS!

Edited January 19, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[salithus]

I'm really interested in where that "unjust trio" line came from.

[SpiderJerusalem]

I'm really interested in where that "unjust trio" line came from.

The name or the actual line?

[bigwoody]

I'm really interested in where that "unjust trio" line came from.

Without the context, I'm going to assume it has to do with \m/ (old \n/ descendant), GOONS (old GOONS descendant), and PC (a direct TPF descendant). All of the parent alliances being original UJP members, thats likely the term origin

/Captain Obvious blasting off agaaaaaaaain!

Edited January 19, 2010 by bigwoody