A discussion on tech raiding

[der_ko]

Interesting. Are you going to answer the question or do you not know?

Would you like me to start a poll about it? I have no idea what the general sentiment regarding tech raiding is in MK. We literally never talk about it.

Edited January 17, 2010 by der_ko

[Kzoppistan]

That's one possibility. I wouldn't think that large alliances would do this without any incentive. The problem is, how do we convince them that protecting the unaligned in their sphere is a good idea?

Well, not only are there financial incentives, but consider that this gives a valid CB to protecting powers. As anyone who disrupted the sphere too much by sending raiders there would definitely be seen as a threat to the trader and tech dealers there.

[Chinatownbus]

good luck stopping tech raiding, you have very many brand new innovative ideas that nobody has ever suggested/tried before. you are a breath of fresh air in this stale arena. i am sure that with enough new topics and new discussions on tech raiding those who have been raiding for years will see the light and stop, as the previous thousands have been setting the stage for this revolutionary new thread. the world is on pins and needles waiting for the next great revolution in removing the one thing that half the people on planet bob live for.

...

Edited January 17, 2010 by Chinatownbus

[thedarklordjay]

no one on planet bob can make me stop tech raiding, AND I MEAN NO ONE!

[Kzoppistan]

Oh no doubt, no doubt at all. I'm just kindly pointing out that the last time what you advocated was put into place it kicked off the current decline of our world. But seeing as you're from Zenith, you would probably welcome with open arms the chance to firmly plant your face on the protective teet of a sole global power, and partake in your regularly scheduled curbstomps. By all means, don't let history sway your self aggrandizing behaviour.

A good use of mis-characterizing someone's alliance. And a great way to divert the conversation with a character attack.

But seriously, if your way is better, shouldn't everyone do it?

Edited January 17, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[kulomascovia]

Well, not only are there financial incentives, but consider that this gives a valid CB to protecting powers. As anyone who disrupted the sphere too much by sending raiders there would definitely be seen as a threat to the trader and tech dealers there.

I suppose, I haven't thought of it that way. However, I don't see why a CB would be necessary in all of this. We're looking to protect the unaligned not really to bring about more wars.

[Kzoppistan]

I suppose, I haven't thought of it that way. However, I don't see why a CB would be necessary in all of this. We're looking to protect the unaligned not really to bring about more wars.

That's true, but making an action a socially accepted CB is a good deterrent. It's not about making more war, it's about preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocents for the financial and honor benefit of those who protect them.

[Merrie Melodies]

That's one possibility. I wouldn't think that large alliances would do this without any incentive. The problem is, how do we convince them that protecting the unaligned in their sphere is a good idea?

Here is a quick look at a few of those you listed as potential saviors war screens.

Your search for Legion returned 54 results.

Your search for Sparta returned 82 results.

Your search for Independent Republic Of Orange Nations returned 19 results.

Your search for fark returned 37 results.

[kulomascovia]

That's true, but making an action a socially accepted CB is a good deterrent. It's not about making more war, it's about preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocents for the financial and honor benefit of those who protect them.

Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we make tech raiding a socially accepted CB.

[Dochartaigh]

Unless you have someone eith power to support you nothing will change.

I hate to say this, but what NPO has done for red protecting them from raiding is starting to be a good idea, I hope others such as Sparta who controls Black, or IRON who controls orange, even NpO who controls Blue would step up and enforce the same protection, but with a little extra stopping alliances like FoA from been attacked with out reason, in order to protect there own colours.

well i would agree but those in a position to do that are either allied to raider alliances or are raider alliances themselves. not to mention, just because they are the largest alliance on the sphere does not mean they in any way actually control the alliance. Blue sphere for example has MCXA, GDA, NADC, IAA, GR, UBD, and many other alliances. Polaris, though the largest and most powerful alliance on Blue, does not just go around and infringe on other alliance's sovereignty all willy nilly now.

What else can we do?

EDIT:

Yes, I know about the citadel trading company but that's not an AA with minimal restrictions. It's a tech farm for the Citadel and what I'm thinking of is an AA which you can literally join (if you're not attacking anyone) and get protection automatically without going on forums and going thorough the pointless bureaucracy that turns off many small nations. Basically, a shelter for the unaligned until they can find another alliance.

that is essentially any alliance. many have where you only have to apply and switch your AA to be considered a member. not all have hoops to jump through.

The only problem with tech raiding now is in the idea that there shouldn't be membership limit when it comes to raiding, so long as they have no treaty.

I started that, at the time I thought it was right, now I don't think it is. Most of the raiders now are giving it a bad name, most raiders again have no respect for the people they're raiding, or for those they have to deal with, and they seem to revel in being an !@#$%^& when it comes to the treatment of other players and those that voice their concerns about their questionable practices.

People don't have a problem with raiding, they have a problem with the attitude of raiders, and their practices of highly opportunistic raiding (FoA), and in raiding alliances that are much, much too large by common decency standards (Athens/Knights of ni! incident), and in the attitude that the raiders have when people actually say "what the $%&@ are you doing? Why are you being such an !@#$%^& here?" (Both cases.)

i really dislike an argument like this. while i agree with your first sentence, the rest is untrue. it is actually a small minority of raiders that give tech raiders a bad name. \m/, GOONS, PC, Athens, FoB that is a small portion of raiders in CN. there are raiders for dozens of other alliances. it just so happens that those 5 alliances have many who dislike them and thus, use their antics as if it can somehow be held against the majority or all of the other raiders who raid in CN.

until you actually get more alliances who raid as those 5 do, i suggest this argument of "most of raiders give raiding a bad name" ceases. it is a minority and needs to be seen as such.

Yes, band together and stop us. Create your selves a super structure in which the only wars that CAN happen is those your create. Attack and forciably change other AA charters, remove their leaders from power, and sentence those who commited these horrible crimes to EZI. We shall stand united against the Unjust. We shall call our selves ~, and usher in a new age of never ending peace

yes because ~ formed solely to because of tech-raiding...... it had nothing to do with anything else whatsoever.

[Kzoppistan]

Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we make tech raiding a socially accepted CB.

It was accepted on the Red Sphere. Just about every raiding alliance had a 'no Red' clause. Not many could rival the might of NPO but a collective effort by those that reside on a sphere could do just the same.

[Atanatar]

A good use of mis-characterizing someone's alliance. And a great way to divert the conversation with a character attack.

But seriously, if your way is better, shouldn't everyone do it?

Of course eveyone should do it. The problem and fatal flaw of your planhow ever is that you want to use our mind set to "destroy" us. When you start enforcing double standards, I.E saying what we do is immoral except when you do it against those who you arbitrarily judge to be more immoral than you. You advocate a life of hypocrisy and wanton control over how others play this game. Your morals* evidently are more important than the countless players who play this game how THEY want. Isn't it fun becomming the monster you sought to destroy? It's nothing new, don't worry. You will have the chance to see that, to learn from it, forget it, and restart the cycle of the unjust, the unjust you have become.

*: Morality and Immorality is subject to change, depending on how it serves the purpose of this new, faux ~.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Atanatar

[Lord Brendan]

It was accepted on the Red Sphere. Just about every raiding alliance had a 'no Red' clause. Not many could rival the might of NPO but a collective effort by those that reside on a sphere could do just the same.

Indeed, it could probably be done. But why bother? If unaligned nations aren't willing to put in the effort to protect themselves, why should alliance leaders make an effort to do it for them?

[Kzoppistan]

Of course eveyone should do it. The problem and fatal flaw of your planhow ever is that you want to use our mind set to "destroy" us. When you start enforcing double standards, I.E saying what we do is immoral except when you do it against those who you arbitrarily judge to be more immoral than you. You advocate a life of hypocrisy and wanton control over how others play this game. Your morals* evidently are more important than the countless players who play this game how YOU want. Isn't it fun becomming the monster you sought to destroy? It's nothing new, don't worry. You will have the chance to see that, to learn from it, forget it, and restart the cycle of the unjust, the unjust you have become.

*: Morality and Immorality is subject to change, depending on how it serves the purpose of this new, faux ~.

For some reason you keep bringing morality into this.

What is the use of power if it is not used to benefit yourself?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Dochartaigh]

For some reason you keep bring morality into this.

What is the use of power if it is not used to benefit yourself?

wait, are you suggesting that might makes right?

[Kzoppistan]

Indeed, it could probably be done. But why bother? If unaligned nations aren't willing to put in the effort to protect themselves, why should alliance leaders make an effort to do it for them?

Well, moving to a protected sphere would be protecting themselves. Might be a more appealing alternative then being forced into an alliance by the current status quo.

[Kzoppistan]

wait, are you suggesting that might makes right?

Has it ever not been that way? The question is: right for who?

[kulomascovia]

that is essentially any alliance. many have where you only have to apply and switch your AA to be considered a member. not all have hoops to jump through.

Yes but I want to make the process easier for everyone. [ooc]: This is really an ooc argument because small ns unaligned nations are most probably not interested in visiting forums and getting tied up with all the things they have to do. So the protected AA could be a safe haven for them to stay in CN until they get enough interest to actually participate in an alliance. [/ooc]

What KingGoGo from #kulomascovia suggested:

Make a color specific AA that will be protected by a bloc in that AA. Preferably a small sphere. The bloc can then engage in trades and tech deals with the nations in that AA but participation is not mandatory and members don't have to register on forums. So the sphere as a whole benefits from the creation of that AA.

Indeed, it could probably be done. But why bother? If unaligned nations aren't willing to put in the effort to protect themselves, why should alliance leaders make an effort to do it for them?

Because the unaligned nations might just be inexperienced and might provide the alliance with tech deals and more stable trades. Look at kinggogo's suggestion for more info.

EDIT: Unaligned, not new.

Edited January 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Merrie Melodies]

As a friendly gesture I would like to suggest you study this event as it regards a similar attempt to what you propose.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...c=36565&hl=

[Dochartaigh]

Yes but I want to make the process easier for everyone. [ooc]: This is really an ooc argument because small ns unaligned nations are most probably not interested in visiting forums and getting tied up with all the things they have to do. So the protected AA could be a safe haven for them to stay in CN until they get enough interest to actually participate in an alliance. [/ooc]

What KingGoGo from #kulomascovia suggested:

Make a color specific AA that will be protected by a bloc in that AA. Preferably a small sphere. The bloc can then engage in trades and tech deals with the nations in that AA but participation is not mandatory and members don't have to register on forums. So the sphere as a whole benefits from the creation of that AA.

that is the paradox though. you state that most new nations cannot be bothered to visit a forum but you think they will visit the CN forums to see which sphere is safe or even to find out what tech-raiding is. the conundrum is new nations are typically highly uninformed as to how to play CN or what everything is but most are to lazy typically to visit any forums or read pretty much anything about the game.

so unless admin basically spends more time on CN to put in definitions of what tech raiding is as well as its affect on new nations and to code in a new sphere that will hopefully not be overrun by raiding alliances (or somehow code in only certain alliances being allowed to move in).

frankly put, only the allies of the raiders like PC, GOONS, \m/, Athens, and FOB can actually accomplish anything in getting them to change their ways. so until the allies are willing to step up (as MK and CnG did with Athens/FoB) this won't go anywhere at all. no alliance is gonna listen to either enemies, people who dislike them, or just random people and change their ways. they will on the other hand listen to their allies and if they don't risk losing their treaties and asking to be treated as they (bad raiding alliances) treated others (FoA, KoN).

[kulomascovia]

that is the paradox though. you state that most new nations cannot be bothered to visit a forum but you think they will visit the CN forums to see which sphere is safe or even to find out what tech-raiding is. the conundrum is new nations are typically highly uninformed as to how to play CN or what everything is but most are to lazy typically to visit any forums or read pretty much anything about the game.

so unless admin basically spends more time on CN to put in definitions of what tech raiding is as well as its affect on new nations and to code in a new sphere that will hopefully not be overrun by raiding alliances (or somehow code in only certain alliances being allowed to move in).

Well, not necessarily new nations but nations that have been raided and/or are at a small ns. Also, they don't have to change their color; they just have to join an AA and get automatic protection. I think anyone can understand that. A formal definition of tech raiding is not necessary for someone to know the effects of being raided. Also, small ns nations probably aren't interested in visiting forums or inciting diplomatic contact with other nations but they may just need some time. At 1000 ns my nation was rather inactive, doing nothing but sitting around buying infra. So, perhaps they just need a little time, experience, and incentive (tech deals, trades) to become active. Protected AAs will be ideal for these nations.

frankly put, only the allies of the raiders like PC, GOONS, \m/, Athens, and FOB can actually accomplish anything in getting them to change their ways. so until the allies are willing to step up (as MK and CnG did with Athens/FoB) this won't go anywhere at all. no alliance is gonna listen to either enemies, people who dislike them, or just random people and change their ways. they will on the other hand listen to their allies and if they don't risk losing their treaties and asking to be treated as they (bad raiding alliances) treated others (FoA, KoN).

I am not their enemy nor do I dislike them. They can choose not to listen to me and that's fine. The bloc protection might actually work as you said since raiding alliances will most probably come into conflict with another large alliance should they raid from the AA.

Merrie Melodies, I will make sure to read your link when I get back. I have to leave now. Please continue with the suggestions. Either post them here or send them to me via PM. Thank you.

Edited January 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Voodoo Nova]

That's what he gave you. If you don't want to be raided, join an alliance. If you don't want your alliance to be raided, get some allies. If you want to help tech raid "victims", recruit them to your alliance and send them foreign aid.

Early on in my CN career, when I made my first alliance, this was the recruiting strategy I used. 90% of the member's we recruited were tech raid victims that we got peace for. Not only does it help recruiting efforts for new/smaller alliances, it also is a good way to get to know alliances.

[wickedj]

Because the unaligned nations might just be inexperienced and might provide the alliance with tech deals and more stable trades. Look at kinggogo's suggestion for more info.

EDIT: Unaligned, not new.

New nations get a dozen or so messages telling them to join an alliance to prevent being attacked. anyone whos not new and unaligned and not in peace mode deserves the whooping..they know better

as far as the FOA situation thats a case of shame on them..they had what? 3 days? to do something about it and didnt ..live and learn folks

[Kzoppistan]

New nations get a dozen or so messages telling them to join an alliance to prevent being attacked. anyone whos not new and unaligned and not in peace mode deserves the whooping..they know better

as far as the FOA situation thats a case of shame on them..they had what? 3 days? to do something about it and didnt ..live and learn folks

Some good points, but the meat of the OP topic wasn't "how to keep the status quo."

This is a discussion on how to prevent tech raiding and how to effectively assist tech raid victims.

[The Big Bad]

New nations get a dozen or so messages telling them to join an alliance to prevent being attacked. anyone whos not new and unaligned and not in peace mode deserves the whooping..they know better

as far as the FOA situation thats a case of shame on them..they had what? 3 days? to do something about it and didnt ..live and learn folks

Live and let learn indeed. I think we all know that the past has shown us what happens to alliances that raid in this way.