\m/, I just want to help

[Atanatar]

You overestimate them, MM. They cry like this to give off the impression that they are doing something about it. Everything after their intial hollow threats has been panicked posturing in an attempt to have us conform to their will and view point. Which is quite funny, considering these are the crusaders that demand respect for the existance of other alliances, and their values.

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new to most of them.

[Alterego]

Alterego, should you ever achieve your goal I am afraid you will be severely disappointed.

I dont have a goal that Im aware of, if I do its not to see \m/ get rolled.

[Merrie Melodies]

I don't see MK defending the practice of attacking people because they have no connections - you either support attacking unconnected alliances or you don't. You don't close an eye when a 10-man alliance gets raided and draw arbitrary lines between what's accepted and what isn't and vomit nonsense for 40 pages when a larger one gets hit.

As for this particular incident: PC, \m/, GOONS - I can't wrap my head around how you thought this was a splendid idea given the response to the Athens-Ni! raid. You probably don't give a !@#$, but this is more headache than it's worth.

PS: Still funny to see people trying to portray us as the bad guys, though. Especially NSO - you see them being smug about their villainy in a post, then call us power hungry monsters in the next. Make up your minds already.

That the funny thing about NSO post NF and RV, they always talk about getting up in someone else's nation but lack that actual nads to do so, I do love the Sith but these days they are about as evil as "light saber kid"

[astronaut jones]

You overestimate them, MM. They cry like this to give off the impression that they are doing something about it. Everything after their intial hollow threats has been panicked posturing in an attempt to have us conform to their will and view point. Which is quite funny, considering these are the crusaders that demand respect for the existance of other alliances, and their values.

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new to most of them.

You also demand respect for the existence of your alliance, with the sheer amount of "let us do things how we want to do things! we're different! can't you see?" posts.

Just because you demand respect, and just because you claim your way of doing things is somehow better because you're "more free" or some other !@#$%^&* you like to spew, doesn't mean you'll actually get any respect, though.

cue the "we're not looking for any respect, but we're so cool and different" responses.

[Rebel Virginia]

You overestimate them, MM. They cry like this to give off the impression that they are doing something about it. Everything after their intial hollow threats has been panicked posturing in an attempt to have us conform to their will and view point. Which is quite funny, considering these are the crusaders that demand respect for the existance of other alliances, and their values.

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new to most of them.

Oh, but I will be doing something. Just you see. I have six months to act before this CB becomes void.

[Choader]

Raiders gonna raid, haters gonna hate, Alterego keeps on crying, all is right in the world.

[African]

Jesus mon, >.>. Then strike out the word ethical.

And I know GPA has nothing to worry from you . I just want to know if you, based on whatever it is you believe (call it whatever you want, morals, logic, ethics, rules... I really don't care as my intention isn't to argue semantics or play "gotcha" if that's what you think) in how you conduct yourself, feel that it is ok (as in nothing wrong) in tech raiding them if you accept the first two premises.

So basically you want him to say, "yes we would raid GPA if we could get away with it".

GPA is much more active on the forum and in-game, have made numerous statements of neutrality and have held up to them, and are pretty decent people.

I thought the guy I was raiding was FoR or something, I still don't even know what FoA means. (Full of As Arrogance?)

Never seen them post on the forum or anything, the situations are not similar at all.

[Rebel Virginia]

When and if \m/ does get rolled we will not do the following:

1. Bawwwww

2. Disband

3. Plead

Like last time?

[Merrie Melodies]

You also demand respect for the existence of your alliance, with the sheer amount of "let us do things how we want to do things! we're different! can't you see?" posts.

Just because you demand respect, and just because you claim your way of doing things is somehow better because you're "more free" or some other !@#$%^&* you like to spew, doesn't mean you'll actually get any respect, though.

cue the "we're not looking for any respect, but we're so cool and different" responses.

Jones, your post confuses, what the hell is your point?

[Kowalski]

Oh, but I will be doing something. Just you see. I have six months to act before this CB becomes void.

Does that mean the destruction of MHA has been pushed down your list? Don't go promising those nukes to too many people, you can only buy one a day.

[Merrie Melodies]

Oh, but I will be doing something. Just you see. I have six months to act before this CB becomes void.

What are going to do old man? Gum us to death? Or maybe get your alliance to make meanie faces at us?

[Atanatar]

You also demand respect for the existence of your alliance, with the sheer amount of "let us do things how we want to do things! we're different! can't you see?" posts.

Just because you demand respect, and just because you claim your way of doing things is somehow better because you're "more free" or some other !@#$%^&* you like to spew, doesn't mean you'll actually get any respect, though.

cue the "we're not looking for any respect, but we're so cool and different" responses.

You're right, of course, we are not looking for respect, nor even trying to be cool nor different. We made our actions, they were executed flawlessly, and then when we found out Corp had been making arrangements with FoA, we settled it in private. All in all, that is all I wanted or expected in this situation.

[astronaut jones]

Jones, your post confuses, what the hell is your point?

My point is that for as much as atanatar or whatever claimed that people were posting only to demand respect for the existence of their alliance, everyone in \m/ does the same, except they try to pass off their commentary as them being "too cool for school" while pretending that they don't care who respects them.

Y'all are hypocrites.

[energizer]

So basically you want him to say, "yes we would raid GPA if we could get away with it".

GPA is much more active on the forum and in-game, have made numerous statements of neutrality and have held up to them, and are pretty decent people.

Yet somehow, that didnt stop NPO from attacking. Funny how that works isnt?

[Sandwich Controversy]

You also demand respect for the existence of your alliance, with the sheer amount of "let us do things how we want to do things! we're different! can't you see?" posts.

Just because you demand respect, and just because you claim your way of doing things is somehow better because you're "more free" or some other !@#$%^&* you like to spew, doesn't mean you'll actually get any respect, though.

cue the "we're not looking for any respect, but we're so cool and different" responses.

You know, I originally thought this post was about NSO and found myself agreeing with it.

[Jyrinx]

Actually, I'll just post what I think regardless nippy. If you don't believe what I'm saying then it just doesn't apply to you

Anyway, my objection is that if you accept these as true:

1) It is ok to tech raid AA's that do not have defense treaties with other alliances

2) Thresholds on membership numbers are invalid with respect to determining whether or not an AA can be raided or not

Then it logically follows that it is ok to raid neutral alliances, even if they are large. Not saying that any alliance will actually raid GPA (due to pragmatic concerns), but this philosophy (or paradigm, or beliefs, or whatever you want to call it) basically views it as ok to do so. But such a philosophy is explicitly a "might-makes-right" view.T here is nothing inherently wrong with that; right/wrong are quite subjective and so if you guys believe that, then ok.

But a lot of people don't. To them (and me) this is more than just a tech raid to try and gain tech/land. It and all other instances similar to this (Athens/KoN! for example) are basically tests of your philosophy, basically a test of the international community of how it responds to the philosophy being put forward. The philosophy has been condemned before on many grounds, including moral (it's tyrannical) but also practical (alliances what a more stable system, especially smaller alliances). But the point is that a lot of people view this line of thinking as a threat. Hence why there is a stronger reaction here than what you might expect.

The philosophy (of being able to do whatever you want because your opponent is too weak to do anything about it) specifically bothers me as it is reminiscent of NPO's rule pre-Karma. And while the philosophy as being tested here is simply that you may attack isolated alliances, it still boils back to the might makes right mentality. An extension of it, whether or not you specifically believe it, is that you can do whatever you want even towards alliances with defensive treaties because you can.

It's not that GOONS, \m/, and PC are a threat to the international system and global security, it's that the philosophy that you are, consciously or unconsciously, advocating is.

Of course, if you truly believe it to be right then by all means keep at it; one thing I respect is that you guys hold to your beliefs. You don't have to change because of what others think. The world should stop whining and "do something about it" if they think this is serious.

None of this is an attempt to convince you guys mind you, I'm just trying to explain why I and others don't view this solely as an internal matter or an issue of \m/, GOONS, or PC sovereignty. That's all.

Cheers.

[Merrie Melodies]

My point is that for as much as atanatar or whatever claimed that people were posting only to demand respect for the existence of their alliance, everyone in \m/ does the same, except they try to pass off their commentary as them being "too cool for school" while pretending that they don't care who respects them.

Y'all are hypocrites.

Jones, do you really think I care if you are the denzens respect me or \m/? I mean really, and no I am not "too cool for school" I just don't care for your respect.

[Kevin McDonald]

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.

[astronaut jones]

Jones, do you really think I care if you are the denzens respect me or \m/? I mean really, and no I am not "too cool for school" I just don't care for your respect.

uh huh, if you say so, porky.

[African]

Yet somehow, that didnt stop NPO from attacking. Funny how that works isnt?

The world needs a boogieman, otherwise it's boring as hell because of all the people whining and complaining about tech raiding, wars without reasons, or whatever.

It's funny because everyone sided with the NPO against the Unjust Path, yet once the Unjust Path was gone, look what they do.

GOONS: the boogieman in your closet

[Merrie Melodies]

Actually, I'll just post what I think regardless nippy. If you don't believe what I'm saying then it just doesn't apply to you

Anyway, my objection is that if you accept these as true:

1) It is ok to tech raid AA's that do not have defense treaties with other alliances

2) Thresholds on membership numbers are invalid with respect to determining whether or not an AA can be raided or not

Then it logically follows that it is ok to raid neutral alliances, even if they are large. Not saying that any alliance will actually raid GPA (due to pragmatic concerns), but this philosophy (or paradigm, or beliefs, or whatever you want to call it) basically views it as ok to do so. But such a philosophy is explicitly a "might-makes-right" view.T here is nothing inherently wrong with that; right/wrong are quite subjective and so if you guys believe that, then ok.

But a lot of people don't. To them (and me) this is more than just a tech raid to try and gain tech/land. It and all other instances similar to this (Athens/KoN! for example) are basically tests of your philosophy, basically a test of the international community of how it responds to the philosophy being put forward. The philosophy has been condemned before on many grounds, including moral (it's tyrannical) but also practical (alliances what a more stable system, especially smaller alliances). But the point is that a lot of people view this line of thinking as a threat. Hence why there is a stronger reaction here than what you might expect.

The philosophy (of being able to do whatever you want because your opponent is too weak to do anything about it) specifically bothers me as it is reminiscent of NPO's rule pre-Karma. And while the philosophy as being tested here is simply that you may attack isolated alliances, it still boils back to the might makes right mentality. An extension of it, whether or not you specifically believe it, is that you can do whatever you want even towards alliances with defensive treaties because you can.

It's not that GOONS, \m/, and PC are a threat to the international system and global security, it's that the philosophy that you are, consciously or unconsciously, advocating is.

Of course, if you truly believe it to be right then by all means keep at it; one thing I respect is that you guys hold to your beliefs. You don't have to change because of what others think. The world should stop whining and "do something about it" if they think this is serious.

None of this is an attempt to convince you guys mind you, I'm just trying to explain why I and others don't view this solely as an internal matter or an issue of \m/, GOONS, or PC sovereignty. That's all.

Cheers.

Well written post, I believe you are spot on. To answer your question, I believe and promote that its not only our right, but more so our duty to feed off the week.

[Rebel Virginia]

What are going to do old man? Gum us to death? Or maybe get your alliance to make meanie faces at us?

Well done. It seems you got my entire strategy figured out. Give yourself a pat on the back!

[Alterego]

Well written post, I believe you are spot on. To answer your question, I believe and promote that its not only our right, but more so our duty to feed off the week.

If they were weak you would raid alone. By that logic you could get 20 alliances together and raid MK & TOP because they would be "weak" by comparison.

[astronaut jones]

The world needs a boogieman, otherwise it's boring as hell because of all the people whining and complaining about tech raiding, wars without reasons, or whatever.

It's funny because everyone sided with the NPO against the Unjust Path, yet once the Unjust Path was gone, look what they do.

GOONS: the boogieman in your closet

I do believe you're giving your alliance FAR more credit than it rightly deserves.

And you're confusing the NPO with the NpO, as it was the NpO that lead the charge, and NPO was largely on the sidelines for that war.

[Charles the Great]

just to clarify from my earlier posts ......... I could care less about goons and pc's involvments in this ....... I just wanted an explanation about m disregarding the quoted section of their charter.

marxie(and the rest of m) made it clear their charter is just useless propoganda and they do whatever they want when they want regardless of what any paper says..........this has been noted and filed for future reference and anyone with any dealings with them be it an ally or an opponent should keep this in mind.

thank you,

CtG