A discussion on tech raiding

[Bob Janova]

I read that and also have read other wiki articles on the topic of walford. If you can show me a link where Walford, himself, is saying that his goal is to control others actions to conform to his moral outlook I'd be interested.

The object of CNARF (and later NONE) was to prevent tech raiding – i.e. to restrict the actions of raiders to conform to his belief that raiding is wrong.

Of course the people that make that point are trying to make it as a negative; they don't seem to realise that the law enforcement in any civilised nation have as their goal 'to control others actions to conform to the society's moral outlook', and that a similar thing in international relations is not in itself a bad thing.

[Atanatar]

I read that and also have read other wiki articles on the topic of walford. If you can show me a link where Walford, himself, is saying that his goal is to control others actions to conform to his moral outlook I'd be interested.

He wished to halt other alliances from raiding, and backed it up with military force. How is that not forcing people to conform to his view point? Or are you one of those people who only believe everyones intentions are pure and benign despite when they say otherwise?

[Atanatar]

The object of CNARF (and later NONE) was to prevent tech raiding – i.e. to restrict the actions of raiders to conform to his belief that raiding is wrong.

Of course the people that make that point are trying to make it as a negative; they don't seem to realise that the law enforcement in any civilised nation have as their goal 'to control others actions to conform to the society's moral outlook', and that a similar thing in international relations is not in itself a bad thing.

Law enforcement implies a mutually accepted set of laws between alliances. No such thing has been agreed upon, so your point is moot.

[wickedj]

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

i addressed srs bsns on the first page.

[Merrie Melodies]

What gets me, and it's something I don't think many people have brought up, is how blatantly opportunistic this whole raid was. They knew they were cancelled on, they waited the 72 hours and then attacked, and they expect people to just deal with it because that's what they do?

And people, wickedj in particular, is here blaming the victim for such a blatantly opportunistic raid on a party they knew at that very second would be without protection?

It's just complete and utter !@#$%^&*. I know at one point, PC knew better than that.

If people would lock up their !@#$ there wouldn't be theft in this world.

[Byron Orpheus]

Law enforcement. As if any alliance or organization has any jurisdiction in another alliance's affairs.

[White Chocolate]

He wished to halt other alliances from raiding, and backed it up with military force. How is that not forcing people to conform to his view point?

In other words, you're saying he did what he could to take the "might makes right" world we live in and use his power to try to create the world he wanted. Well, I sure would not like that very much if I were a leader at the time and tech raided, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. If there is one theme that has been a constant on Planet Bob (both in what I've experienced but also from what I've been told by people who have far greater experience than I), it's that those who have power like to use it

Or are you one of those people who only believe everyones intentions are pure and benign despite when they say otherwise?

I'm really not sure what you are asking here.

[kulomascovia]

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=

Read this.

Walford was largely mocked for his attempts to control to actions of others in order for them to better conform to his moral outlook on Bob.

I've read both links. Walford seemed to jump to military action to prevent tech raiding. I'm advocating for a more peaceful solution. The ideas I've listed in this thread and the ones that most people here have suggested (via PM and IRC) do not require military force , at least nothing that would require an immediate and aggressive action.

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.

That is a good idea. I've had several people suggest that to me before this. Perhaps asking alliances to recruit recently raided nations might work.

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

Well, not necessarily. New nations are new. They probably don't know what the heck a recruiter is talking about until they get raided, at which point they citizens either abandon their nations or join an alliance. And again, why should the new nations be at fault? If a person gets shot while walking down the street, is it his fault for not being careful? Why can't raiders at least leave small nations alone?

Here is how my alliance deals with tech raiders:

1. If possible, throw as many members as possible into the fight to massive curbstomp the raider until the raider pleads for peace. If not enough members can attack the raider, contact your ally or protector if they can send some of their members over to the curbstomping feast.

2. If the attacked member is small, stuff the member with cash. If the attacked member is large and there are other members within the raider's range that have nukes, authorize the use of nuclear weapons against the raider.

Tech raids will continue to occur as long as new players who started their raid do not realize what is an alliance, what would happen if they attacked a 20+ middle/top heavy alliance with a defense treaty or protectorate, not knowing how protectorates work, and if there is a policy issued by an alliance that any tech raids on a certain color team would result in instant curbstomps on the raider.

Assuming that someone is in an alliance with active members, your suggestions might work. However, the raiding alliance may choose to retaliate. Also, peacing out would probably work in the favor of most nations that are raided; striking back usually incurs the wrath of the raiding alliance/nation which would lead to more destruction.

Since you didn't quote anyone, I'll assume this was geared toward the OP. Congratulations, kulomascovia - that's two!!

P.S. I want to make it clear that I sincerely do consider it a compliment when people respond to posts someone else makes by saying "walford" - especially since in every case the person getting the comment has said something I agree with in a very reasonable fashion.

I guess I should be proud.

Law enforcement. As if any alliance or organization has any jurisdiction in another alliance's affairs.

Indeed. I don't think any alliance has any business restricting the rights of another alliance be it by raiding another alliance or by telling an alliance what to do. However, should one alliance violate the rights of another alliance, it should very well expect others to do the same to it. While I don't advocate for another CNARF, I will argue for protection of unaligned nations possibly without a lot of military involvement.

[MaGneT]

I'm not grasping at anything, I'm stating that financial self interest is a driving factor behind policy. Whether that be to raid someone or to prevent others from disrupting their sphere.

Ah, I thought you meant that tech raiding was a form of asserting control similar to CNARF.

Indeed. I don't think any alliance has any business restricting the rights of another alliance be it by raiding another alliance or by telling an alliance what to do. However, should one alliance violate the rights of another alliance, it should very well expect others to do the same to it. While I don't advocate for another CNARF, I will argue for protection of unaligned nations possibly without a lot of military involvement.

No alliance has any "rights" except the opportunity to play the game of life here on Bob. Whether they play that with savvy their choice. If they get raided, odds are, they won't be destroyed by that raid, and they will take it as a lesson to find adequate methods of defense. If someone starts pummeling them to ZI, someone in the community will likely step in to broker peace, because no one will stand for absolute destruction with no cause, at least with the population of Planet Bob dwindling as it is.

[kulomascovia]

No alliance has any "rights" except the opportunity to play the game of life here on Bob. Whether they play that with savvy their choice. If they get raided, odds are, they won't be destroyed by that raid, and they will take it as a lesson to find adequate methods of defense. If someone starts pummeling them to ZI, someone in the community will likely step in to broker peace, because no one will stand for absolute destruction with no cause, at least with the population of Planet Bob dwindling as it is.

Tech raids can actually be quite disheartening and have caused many to leave the game, especially when the victim is at a small ns. Tech raids may not cause complete destruction but that is no reason to condone them. However, as I said before, this thread isn't meant to discuss the morality of tech raiding. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to send me a PM or visit #kulomascovia

[Tritonia]

NONE's formation was designed to check tech raiding's rampant success during the WUT. Several alliances had implemented raid culture that not only condoned but encouraged raiding, and any military response from the raided nation was swiftly met with filled war slots and a curb-stomp into submission. This was generally able to continue because the unaligned are- well- unaligned, and hence typically without diplomatic clout or military support. NONE's tactic was to create a military and diplomatic support group for similarly minded nations while maintaining unaligned status. This would, theoretically, create a guerrilla situation where there would be sporadic heavy resistance against raids when raiders would find themselves in a zero-sum game when met with an actual coordinated response. The idea was simply negative reinforcement on a global scale- if enough raiders lost at what is generally considered easy pickings, the activity would lose favor by reputation of being too risky.

This plan inevitably failed based on two factors. In the first place, NONE was incapable of fighting back against anyone in the WUT (who were the prominant offenders) since WUT's strength greatly outnumbered NONE. And since WUT was the head of the allegorical dragon, little impact was made by filing away at the spikes on its tail. In the second place, it was mistakenly assumed that raiders raid for profit.

[Kzoppistan]

Ah, I thought you meant that tech raiding was a form of asserting control similar to CNARF.

It is.

Whether it is the actual use of force or the threat of it to get what you want out of someone, it amounts to the same process of exercising power and the acts are separated only by degrees.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Byron Orpheus]

"I read the wiki on Walford"

Walford was a nut of the variety that no condensed article could properly convey.

[wild wild west]

It just seems to me, "if you don't like tech raiding , hit the peace mode that is always a option

[Dochartaigh]

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

in all honesty, it does not matter as if you use the whole "might makes right" mentality, then you are going to pick on someone smaller and weaker than you and bully them. something that you declare only tech raiders do.

[MaGneT]

Tech raids can actually be quite disheartening and have caused many to leave the game, especially when the victim is at a small ns. Tech raids may not cause complete destruction but that is no reason to condone them. However, as I said before, this thread isn't meant to discuss the morality of tech raiding. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to send me a PM or visit #kulomascovia

Those who do not have the heart to persevere won't make it on Bob, anyway. When I had just started out, back in January of 07, I was attacked within weeks of my nation's birth by a nation from CDS. I didn't know how to war very well, so I was getting beaten down pretty easily.

But, of course, just like any new nation, I was receiving piles of recruitment mail, and I knew that if I joined an alliance, I'd probably receive some sort of assistance. I was correct, and once I joined one, I was taught how to war and they sent me $100,000 (which was probably equivalent to something like 15m now). I fought my attacker off, and I'm still here 3 years later.

It is.

Whether it is the actual use of force or the threat of it to get what you want out of someone, it amounts to the same process of exercising power and the acts are separated only by degrees.

No. Exercising diplomatic clout to prevent free choice of action by nations or alliances is despicable.

Attacking another nation for your own entertainment or gain, while somewhat distasteful, is well within a ruler's freedom to exercise, as long as they understand that their adversary may not respond very positively.

Edited January 18, 2010 by MaGneT

[Bob Janova]

But, of course, just like any new nation, I was receiving piles of recruitment mail, and I knew that if I joined an alliance, I'd probably receive some sort of assistance

Most alliances won't accept nations at war.

[MaGneT]

Most alliances won't accept nations at war.

I'll agree, the GW2/3-era was very different from now, but there are still many small alliances who will go to bat diplomatically for a new member; especially if the war they are in is a tech raid.

[Fantastico]

"I read the wiki on Walford"

Walford was a nut of the variety that no condensed article could properly convey.

You got me curious, can you link me to or give some details to this "wiki"?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Fantastico

[Kzoppistan]

in all honesty, it does not matter as if you use the whole "might makes right" mentality, then you are going to pick on someone smaller and weaker than you and bully them. something that you declare only tech raiders do.

Might makes right is the only path humans have ever followed. Let's look at some important concepts:

Morality is a code of conduct devised by a group who feel that conduct is in their best interest for the purpose of survival and advancement. Half of the problem here is that morality has taken a stigmatized and shallow slant. And when people hear the word morality it conquers up a specific set of conduct. Your morality and my morality may be two different things in detail, but the concept of why they are in existence is the same.

Now, if a group of people decide that in order to exist together peacefully, then they will outlaw theft. The might is the power of the masses. If a person breaks the law, they will suffer the consequences imposed on them by the group. In essence, the group is more powerful than the person. Thus, might makes right.

As you can see from my example, though, it doesn't mean that just because you use power over others that it is bad. Sure, one person may be put out by having their actions of theft restricted, but if enforcing that law benefits the majority of the group, then isn't it considered a worthy endeavor?

No. Exercising diplomatic clout to prevent free choice of action by nations or alliances is despicable.

Attacking another nation for your own entertainment or gain, while somewhat distasteful, is well within a ruler's freedom to exercise, as long as they understand that their adversary may not respond very positively.

To consider imposing the wants of one over another in the first scenario despicable, but not in the other scenario is making rather arbitrary distinctions. If one ruler has the "right" to attack and take from a weaker person, then another ruler has equal "right" to deter the aggressor from doing so by threat of attack and forceful removal of their things.

[kulomascovia]

Those who do not have the heart to persevere won't make it on Bob, anyway. When I had just started out, back in January of 07, I was attacked within weeks of my nation's birth by a nation from CDS. I didn't know how to war very well, so I was getting beaten down pretty easily.

But, of course, just like any new nation, I was receiving piles of recruitment mail, and I knew that if I joined an alliance, I'd probably receive some sort of assistance. I was correct, and once I joined one, I was taught how to war and they sent me $100,000 (which was probably equivalent to something like 15m now). I fought my attacker off, and I'm still here 3 years later.

No. Exercising diplomatic clout to prevent free choice of action by nations or alliances is despicable.

Attacking another nation for your own entertainment or gain, while somewhat distasteful, is well within a ruler's freedom to exercise, as long as they understand that their adversary may not respond very positively.

If attacking another nation for entertainment or gain is within a ruler's freedom then why isn't using diplomatic means to prevent a nation from attacking another nation be well within a ruler's freedom as well? Both acts restrict the freedom of the defendant in various ways.

[MaGneT]

To consider imposing the wants of one over another in the first scenario despicable, but not in the other scenario is making rather arbitrary distinctions. If one ruler has the "right" to attack and take from a weaker person, then another ruler has equal "right" to deter the aggressor from doing so by threat of attack and forceful removal of their things.

The only persons who have the "right" to deter that aggressor are the defender and his or her allies.

If attacking another nation for entertainment or gain is within a ruler's freedom then why isn't using diplomatic means to prevent a nation from attacking another nation be well within a ruler's freedom as well? Both acts restrict the freedom of the defendant in various ways.

True, but engaging in war gives both parties an opportunity to come away victorious. In my experience, offensive tech raiding has been a costly endeavor (then again, I would deliberately find nuclear nations to raise my casualties).

I think our key difference is the fact that I see war as a normal, perhaps even necessary part of life on Bob, whereas you see at as a deplorable impingement of sovereignty.

There's really no way around that fundamental disagreement .

[Kzoppistan]

The only persons who have the "right" to deter that aggressor are the defender and his or her allies.

Rights are only what can be enforced.

*edit: Also, to point out, that if a party has a vested interest in preventing tech raiding on their sphere, then the victim of the tech raid and the protecting alliance are de facto allies.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Bob Janova]

True, but engaging in war gives both parties an opportunity to come away victorious

I'm sure you don't even begin to believe this is true of a tech raid (or most wars for that matter).

E:

The only persons who have the "right" to deter that aggressor are the defender and his or her allies

Anyone who is defending someone is a de facto ally. The idea that you need some paper in order to defend someone is one of the Cyberverse's sillier conventions.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Bob Janova

[MaGneT]

I'm sure you don't even begin to believe this is true of a tech raid (or most wars for that matter).

E:

Anyone who is defending someone is a de facto ally. The idea that you need some paper in order to defend someone is one of the Cyberverse's sillier conventions.

When I used to tech raid, I'd never bully someone out of the opportunity to fight back. I'm a bit old fashioned in the sense that I believe in the field of honor.

Also, I concur with the treaty comment.