A discussion on tech raiding

[kulomascovia]

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 .

Then you're simply raiding for fun. Most raiders pick out weaker targets and attack them in hopes of achieving a quick victory.

Well, I don't really see war as unnecessary; I think that war should be used as a last resort. If you're talking about raiding, then I agree. I do see raiding as a deplorable impingement of sovereignty.

[MaGneT]

I suppose it all depends on the method of raiding.

[Guffey]

one way which avalon deals with raiding in a small manner, is what we call "piracy suppression". Any unaligned nation who is raiding is deemed a pirate. Any pirate may be attacked with an appropriate response, not a beat-down. They are messaged telling them that once they peace out with their raids, they will get peace from our nations. The victims are also messaged telling them that we are freely trying to stop the raider. If the victim would like, we will send any tech captured from the raider back to the raid victim. Once the raider ceases his attacks we cease as well and hope that the raider does not raid again. If they do, they are subject to attack.

[AngolaThree]

How many of those alliances allow their members to tech raid.

That's not really all that relevant to what I said. Protecting your realm doesn't entail being ethically consistent and ending tech raiding- it involves ending both your own tech raiding on your own color (I imagine every time you convince someone on your color to quit at least one person in your alliance loses a trade) and ending raids from everyone else on your color. Certain colors will always remain raid-heavy as they don't have much of a voice in the world, unless say there's a large bloc that decides to come together to end tech raiding (this goes from something I think is logical now to rainbow-happy-funtime territory).

[Prime minister Johns]

Personally I liked the old hegemony system for tech raiding.

You are allowed to tech raid anywhere you like except for one protected colour.

This system was as close to perfect as could be implemented on planet Bob.

Raiders could have a field day on the non-aligned of any other colour sphere except red, and the independents had a safe haven if they did not wish to be raided and had at least a minimal level of activity on the forums to find out about the protection offer.

I address raiding by randomly selecting a nation that has been raided and sending them a aid package and an instructions on how to "turtle" if they get raided again.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Ryan Greenberg]

I don't mind a nation tech raiding another nation who isn't in an alliance, but I don't think that tech raids like KoN and FoA are right. GPA too, for that matter.

[Yggdrazil]

There are tech raids that follow conventions of decorum and their are tech raids which do not.Several alliances allow tech raiding but if the nation he attacks fights back the raider is on his own,Then there are raiders who raid and if the raider fights back they bring in alliance mates.If the second method could be ended then unaligned could fight back making it unprofitable and the first method would almost disappear to.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Yggdrazil

[Godwin]

What's "right" is a completely irrelevant point, when it comes to war. Morality is subjective, and therefore nonexistant, so bringing it up as a defense against people raiding is silly and just as irrelevant.

There is also no logical reason to dislike raiding. The "victims" are either unaligned nations with no ties to anyone, or a small alliance silly enough to not have any ties to anyone. Having an opinion on whether or not people who don't matter to you should get attacked ultimately doesn't do anything for you, regardless of which side you're on in this debate.

So, to put it in simple terms: People raid. If you're in an alliance that is either large or tied to one that is large, you won't get raided. Stop caring.

There are tech raids that follow conventions of decorum and their are tech raids which do not.Several alliances allow tech raiding but if the nation he attacks fights back the raider is on his own,Then their are raiders who raid and if the raider fights back they bring in alliance mates.If the second method could be ended then unaligned could fight back making it unprofitable and the first method would almost disappear to.

What is this "decorum" you speak of? There are no rules for war, nor should there be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Godwin

[Fantastico]

What's "right" is a completely irrelevant point, when it comes to war. Morality is subjective, and therefore nonexistant, so bringing it up as a defense against people raiding is silly and just as irrelevant.

So your premise is that when two ideas are in conflict, both ideas cease to exist?

[Yggdrazil]

Continue to believe their are no rules in war,war as you will with these attitudes and a rule just might bite you.(OOC the Geneva Accords).

[Godwin]

Continue to believe their are no rules in war,war as you will with these attitudes and a rule just might bite you.(OOC the Geneva Accords).

In THIS WORLD, there are no rules in war. People have attempted to make rules, such as the "For the love of god think of the children" treaty, but that was silly and arbitrary and ended up disintegrating. Also, as far as I'm aware, most alliances who raid never signed onto that anyway.

My point being, trying to set rules for war is silly and arbitrary and doesn't work because nobody will agree to a common set of them, or just break them all the time.

So your premise is that when two ideas are in conflict, both ideas cease to exist?

No, not at all. My premise is that whether an idea is "right" or not is subjective and means nothing. It's morality that doesn't exist.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Godwin

[Fantastico]

No, not at all. My premise is that whether an idea is "right" or not is subjective and means nothing. It's morality that doesn't exist.

Okay, let's take your new premise. Your revised argument is that if I hold an opinion different yours, your opinion is now meaningless?

[Godwin]

Okay, let's take your new premise. Your revised argument is that if I hold an opinion different yours, your opinion is now meaningless?

It's the same argument, and what you're saying is completely different than what I'm saying. Opinions =/= "morals." People can say "raiding is wrong blah blah blah" (an opinion) all they want, but to someone else it might be "right." Therefore, morality is subjective. And, speaking in terms of logic, if morality is subjective it is completely meaningless.

[Fantastico]

It's the same argument, and what you're saying is completely different than what I'm saying. Opinions =/= "morals." People can say "raiding is wrong blah blah blah" (an opinion) all they want, but to someone else it might be "right." Therefore, morality is subjective. And, speaking in terms of logic, if morality is subjective it is completely meaningless.

Yes, because the consideration of subjectivity is not by definition about morality, something you continue to confuse.

And, speaking in terms of logic, if morality is subjective it is completely meaningless.

You keep arguing that if we hold two different moralities, then both hold no meaning.

Which, by your reasoning, is why I can say that if I hold an opinion different yours, your opinion is now meaningless.

[Godwin]

Yes, because the consideration of subjectivity is not by definition about morality, something you continue to confuse.

You keep arguing that if we hold two different moralities, then both hold no meaning.

Which, by your reasoning, is why I can say that if I hold an opinion different yours, your opinion is now meaningless.

You're doing that replacing morality with opinions thing again, which continues to be wrong. Morals go against logic, and therefore don't mean anything. Opinions are something else entirely. In addition to that, I haven't stated an opinion at all in any of my statements relating to this discussion, which renders your point completely moot anyways.

Also, you continuing to attempt to refute my statement with a meaningless off-topic one isn't contributing to this thread in the slightest, and is completely missing the point.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Godwin

[Fantastico]

You're doing that replacing morality with opinions thing again, which continues to be wrong. Morals go against logic, and therefore don't mean anything. Opinions are something else entirely.

Opinions are quite a part of subjectivity, but not necessarily always about morality, which is something you continue to claim. Further, it is entirely possible, and even common, for many morals to be logical.

In addition to that, I haven't stated an opinion at all in any of my statements relating to this discussion, which renders your point completely moot anyways.

I disagree. You have expressed your opinion as it relates to the OP, and quite well too.

Also, you continuing to attempt to refute my statement with a meaningless off-topic one isn't contributing to this thread in the slightest, and is completely missing the point.

Oh, I think we are quite on topic.

[Godwin]

Opinions are quite a part of subjectivity, but not necessarily always about morality, which is something you continue to claim. Further, it is entirely possible, and even common, for many morals to be logical.

I've been claiming the exact opposite, in fact. You might want to get your eyes checked, good sir. And morals, by their very nature, go against logic. They rely mainly on emotions, which are also fairly illogical themselves.

I disagree. You have expressed your opinion as it relates to the OP, and quite well too.

You seem to be mistaking my posts for opinions, when in fact they're just pointing out the obvious: Morals are irrelevant in this world, and raiding happens and will continue to happen and if you don't want it happening to you there are ways to do so.

[Prime minister Johns]

One myth about tech raiding that I would like to address is that it is war practice.

It can not rightfully be called war practice because the target is heavily outnumbered and out-gunned by their attackers and they do not have the resources of an alliance to provide aid or backup to make it a valid simulation of a possible war scenario. And the threat of dire consequences if they fight back makes the situation even more unrealistic as a practice scenario by reducing the situation to something not unlike shooting fish in a barrel by eliminating any possible resistance that an actual war target might put up.

The raider might get a very basic and casual understanding of what each of the attacks are, but they will not get to experience all the subtle nuances of battle from a raid for the reasons I have outlined above.

Tech raiding is to war as shooting paper targets at a rifle range is to an actual battle.

[Fantastico]

I've been claiming the exact opposite, in fact. You might want to get your eyes checked, good sir. And morals, by their very nature, go against logic. They rely mainly on emotions, which are also fairly illogical themselves.

You seem to be mistaking my posts for opinions, when in fact they're just pointing out the obvious: Morals are irrelevant in this world, and raiding happens and will continue to happen and if you don't want it happening to you there are ways to do so.

Eh, you are hopeless. Guess I'll have to find a new fun target.

[Earogema]

One myth about tech raiding that I would like to address is that it is war practice.

It can not rightfully be called war practice because the target is heavily outnumbered and out-gunned by their attackers and they do not have the resources of an alliance to provide aid or backup to make it a valid simulation of a possible war scenario. And the threat of dire consequences if they fight back makes the situation even more unrealistic as a practice scenario by reducing the situation to something not unlike shooting fish in a barrel by eliminating any possible resistance that an actual war target might put up.

The raider might get a very basic and casual understanding of what each of the attacks are, but they will not get to experience all the subtle nuances of battle from a raid for the reasons I have outlined above.

Tech raiding is to war as shooting paper targets at a rifle range is to an actual battle.

Eh, at lower ranges, it's really good practice, especially if it goes wrong. That's where I learned to fight when I first arrived on Bob.

However, I will concede that after around 2k infra, it's just pointless. You don't practice anything.

[Godwin]

One myth about tech raiding that I would like to address is that it is war practice.

It can not rightfully be called war practice because the target is heavily outnumbered and out-gunned by their attackers and they do not have the resources of an alliance to provide aid or backup to make it a valid simulation of a possible war scenario. And the threat of dire consequences if they fight back makes the situation even more unrealistic as a practice scenario by reducing the situation to something not unlike shooting fish in a barrel by eliminating any possible resistance that an actual war target might put up.

The raider might get a very basic and casual understanding of what each of the attacks are, but they will not get to experience all the subtle nuances of battle from a raid for the reasons I have outlined above.

Tech raiding is to war as shooting paper targets at a rifle range is to an actual battle.

This is completely correct, and why I view those who "justify" their raids (of which there is no need to do so) by saying that it gives their targets war practice with the greatest of distaste. Really, it seems to be a trend in this game where people make up crap excuses for something that doesn't even need an excuse in the first place...

[Dochartaigh]

I've been claiming the exact opposite, in fact. You might want to get your eyes checked, good sir. And morals, by their very nature, go against logic. They rely mainly on emotions, which are also fairly illogical themselves.

actually morals do not go against logic. many morals include things such as not killing someone or not burning down homes. as such those are grounded in logic as if killing people would become mainstream (i.e. not be against the law) do you really think that mankind would last long? sure it could take decades but pretty soon, killing someone because they sneezed in your direction would be normal. same with burning down homes. logically if you burn someone's home down and it is okay, well then your house could be burnt down and no one would bat an eye. soon we would all be homeless as we would all be burning someone's house down.

as for raiding, logically raiding unaligned is pretty much okay as they take the risk staying unaligned. Alliances on the other hand is where it gets gray even logically. most alliances raid alliances 10 members or below unless they have a protectorate. larger alliances even if they are not connected should honestly stay untouched due to the precedent that could very well get set (and seems to be happening right now). that precedent is that currently no alliance is safe unless they have some sort of higher level treaty.

this is a dangerous precedent as it could lead to one in which alliances are allowed to "raid" other alliances that have treaties. sure it would begin with those alliances that are on the fringe and whose alliances may be on the fringe or hold lower level treaties with other alliances. But soon, it would lead to "raiding" alliances that are well connected.

either way, you argument on morals not being based in logic is false. while some morals are not based in logic most actually are. emotions play a part only in so much as some people are more passionate about morals than others.

[Fantastico]

actually morals do not go against logic. many morals include things such as not killing someone or not burning down homes. as such those are grounded in logic as if killing people would become mainstream (i.e. not be against the law) do you really think that mankind would last long? sure it could take decades but pretty soon, killing someone because they sneezed in your direction would be normal. same with burning down homes. logically if you burn someone's home down and it is okay, well then your house could be burnt down and no one would bat an eye. soon we would all be homeless as we would all be burning someone's house down.

as for raiding, logically raiding unaligned is pretty much okay as they take the risk staying unaligned. Alliances on the other hand is where it gets gray even logically. most alliances raid alliances 10 members or below unless they have a protectorate. larger alliances even if they are not connected should honestly stay untouched due to the precedent that could very well get set (and seems to be happening right now). that precedent is that currently no alliance is safe unless they have some sort of higher level treaty.

this is a dangerous precedent as it could lead to one in which alliances are allowed to "raid" other alliances that have treaties. sure it would begin with those alliances that are on the fringe and whose alliances may be on the fringe or hold lower level treaties with other alliances. But soon, it would lead to "raiding" alliances that are well connected.

either way, you argument on morals not being based in logic is false. while some morals are not based in logic most actually are. emotions play a part only in so much as some people are more passionate about morals than others.

Bless your patience & logic.

[Guffey]

actually morals do not go against logic. many morals include things such as not killing someone or not burning down homes. as such those are grounded in logic as if killing people would become mainstream (i.e. not be against the law) do you really think that mankind would last long? sure it could take decades but pretty soon, killing someone because they sneezed in your direction would be normal. same with burning down homes. logically if you burn someone's home down and it is okay, well then your house could be burnt down and no one would bat an eye. soon we would all be homeless as we would all be burning someone's house down.

as for raiding, logically raiding unaligned is pretty much okay as they take the risk staying unaligned. Alliances on the other hand is where it gets gray even logically. most alliances raid alliances 10 members or below unless they have a protectorate. larger alliances even if they are not connected should honestly stay untouched due to the precedent that could very well get set (and seems to be happening right now). that precedent is that currently no alliance is safe unless they have some sort of higher level treaty.

this is a dangerous precedent as it could lead to one in which alliances are allowed to "raid" other alliances that have treaties. sure it would begin with those alliances that are on the fringe and whose alliances may be on the fringe or hold lower level treaties with other alliances. But soon, it would lead to "raiding" alliances that are well connected.

either way, you argument on morals not being based in logic is false. while some morals are not based in logic most actually are. emotions play a part only in so much as some people are more passionate about morals than others.

and since everyone is so scared to declare war right now because they don't know exactly where sides fall, they would not fight back to a raid.

[Godwin]

actually morals do not go against logic. many morals include things such as not killing someone or not burning down homes. as such those are grounded in logic as if killing people would become mainstream (i.e. not be against the law) do you really think that mankind would last long? sure it could take decades but pretty soon, killing someone because they sneezed in your direction would be normal. same with burning down homes. logically if you burn someone's home down and it is okay, well then your house could be burnt down and no one would bat an eye. soon we would all be homeless as we would all be burning someone's house down.

as for raiding, logically raiding unaligned is pretty much okay as they take the risk staying unaligned. Alliances on the other hand is where it gets gray even logically. most alliances raid alliances 10 members or below unless they have a protectorate. larger alliances even if they are not connected should honestly stay untouched due to the precedent that could very well get set (and seems to be happening right now). that precedent is that currently no alliance is safe unless they have some sort of higher level treaty.

this is a dangerous precedent as it could lead to one in which alliances are allowed to "raid" other alliances that have treaties. sure it would begin with those alliances that are on the fringe and whose alliances may be on the fringe or hold lower level treaties with other alliances. But soon, it would lead to "raiding" alliances that are well connected.

either way, you argument on morals not being based in logic is false. while some morals are not based in logic most actually are. emotions play a part only in so much as some people are more passionate about morals than others.

What? No. Logic has nothing to do with life or death. Morality cares whether a person dies, but logically there isn't much of a difference. Stop trying to confuse the two, because I really don't think you have any concept of what logic actually means.

You fail at logic forever.