Lend me a Hand, Neo-Moralists

[o-dog]

As I watch and witness the ridiculous public outcry at the event of GOONS, \m/ and PC raiding an unprotected FoA, I have to sit back and laugh at it all. The logic of these neo-moralists just blows me away. Whenever an alliance decides to do anything besides collect taxes, you are out there throwing a huge fit and calling for their destruction. Why?

Starfox hits the propoganda trail for his latest cause célèbre.

A few members of our alliance attacked another, and thus you call for over 100 people to be attacked? The war is term less. It would have consisted of at most one round of war and then FoA would have been a distant memory... What is the huge problem here?

What is distasteful is the cowardliness of it all. If you had hit an alliance that could defend themselves, then so be it, but you won't do that because it is not "prudent". I think the majority of people find bullying distasteful and preying solely upon the weak for fun and/or gain is bullying.

Now, Athens and friends, including \m/ were recently attacked by an entire (cowardly) coalition merely for honoring treaties, and for defending our alliances.

Ridiculous. If Athens, RoK & Co. had not used such a ludicrous CB, there would have been less of an outcry. Why not just be honest and admit you wanted to hit TPF, either for personal reasons or because it is part of the long game? And why complain because TPF's allies eventually offered their support? If things were the other way round, you'd want your allies to support you.

So, the problem is deeper than a mere hatred of tech raiding, it has evolved into a hatred of war altogether. Any alliance who makes an aggressive action gets lambasted in public and made to look like the evil empire of the world.

Just not true. I think most of the planet would love to see a good war. However, a multi alliance organised attack upon a defenceless target is not a good war, regardless of whether it is NPO orchestrating it for their own ends or any other alliance orchestrating it solely for the sake of a bit more tech/land.

So please, answer these questions.

1. What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?

2. What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

3. Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war?

1. None, if the sides are fairly well matched or the aggressor is the weaker.

2. None, if they're honest about it, don't resort to a lame CB in order to justify their actions and don't moan if the target's allies help them out.

3. Very few people do.

Why don't you just join the GPA, you hippies. Also, please take a shower now and then, and invest some of that hard earned warchest on a comb, a haircut, and a nice suit.

Lol. You know there's a fine line betwixt love and hate...

Edited January 19, 2010 by O-Dog

[Moridin]

Just ask Moridin how much of a moralist I was in the Vox Populi movement. I don't think there was ever any doubt that my part in the resistance was revenge because I felt wronged and was kept down. Afterall, I caused multiple founders and members to leave because I was not a moralist.

OOC: I know I double posted, I'm on mobile. Sue me.

Moralism, perhaps not, but you condemned unjust attacks made for little to no reason just like the rest of us. I can't see how supporting mass tech raids but condemning the War of the Coalition is anything less than hypocrisy of the highest order.

[Starfox101]

Moralism, perhaps not, but you condemned unjust attacks made for little to no reason just like the rest of us. I can't see how supporting mass tech raids but condemning the War of the Coalition is anything less than hypocrisy of the highest order.

There was never any intention to cripple FoA. The War of the Coalition resulted in alliances ending, harsh terms, and multiple round wars, over simple grudges. That is why the WotC is worse than a simple coordinated tech raid. There is simply no comparison.

Besides, I have taken no stance on the raid, I just think it is a little ridiculous we are facing the barrel of the gun over a simple battle, which is being used to mask old grudges.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Starfox101

[WorldConqueror]

It is quite simple to understand the psyche of a moralist. Lacking the power, the political ability or the determination to do something themselves, they loudly and as often as possible bombard everyone around them with their own moralist viewpoint, in an attempt to sway public opinion away from their adversaries. They aim to demonize the non-moralists to the point where even those that do not share their moralist views still see the non-moralists as a cancer that must be removed, as something that is ruining the environment and denying others enjoyment and opportunity. In this way it allows others to play the role of white knight, thus achieving the moralist's aims without exposing the moralist to any real danger, and costing them nothing but time. Moralism is the ideology of the weak.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Thank you, Starfox, I was actually about to post a topic with the same main point. We say life under Pacifica was so oppressive, but now, even without NPO watching over us, we have oppressed ourselves just as badly. We are now all forced, for our alliances' survival, to live beneath the iron fist of a false moral code, which robs us of our rights as sovereign alliances. And some may be right in that most moralists, when "crusading for justice," are only seeking a reason to justify their own political gains, but quite frankly I'm sick of having to wait for a "CB" to pop up before a long-awaited war can start.

[D34th]

As for the first, I'm sure Starfox doesn't care.

As for the other two: I thought people knew Starfox better than this. The dude, fights for like, probably over a year worth of his almost 4 years here. Most of it, he's on the losing side. Come on.

I know starfox and I fought and lose every single battle that I take part two(GW2, GW3, NoCB war) with the exception of the NoV war when I where in TPF, your point is?

First off, I have no problem with that. Every action has a reaction. I just hope the attacking party doesn't hide behind a false moral mask, and admits the attack is due to political opposition, and they are seizing a PR misstep to attack the offending alliance. Because that's all it is in all of these situations.

There aren't no moral mask, we don't support alliance raids no matter who do it so yeah, if an attack happens it's due to political opposition, alliance raiders against those who do not support it, how it's the same of hide behind a false moral mask?

Secondly, I have no idea what you said, but I understood the last part. A simple announcement from a common member has changed no minds, no plans. I will not suck up to dodge a war like a certain reformed alliance. Stand by your actions and man up. If we get attacked by a bigger foe so be it, just know you're getting into bed with a bulldog alliance with something to prove and we won't go quietly into the night, but down in a nuclear blaze. Besides, I was on the PZI list of the largest alliance in the game for over 2 years, do you really think you scare me? Dream on.

Lastly, I've been attacked in nearly every war I've been in, so I don't recall ever wishing that. I wish for a world where false morals weren't a mask hiding a political agenda.

You still whinning about how evil NPO was and how you are poor soul who suffered in PZI list for 2 years in 90% of your posts but you support attacks against alliances with no reason other than looking for fun, just because one is less worse doesn't mean it isn't bad too.

Edited January 19, 2010 by D34th

[Corinan]

I remember when Starfox was one of the most outspoken "moralizers" against that dastardly NPO way back when. Those were good times.

[Bob Janova]

Now, Athens and friends, including \m/ were recently attacked by an entire (cowardly) coalition merely for honoring treaties, and for defending our alliances.

You lost your credibility right there. The only people 'merely honouring treaties' there were TPF's allies for defending them. You were attacked, militarily and verbally, for starting a war over an ancient issue without attempting a diplomatic resolution.

The problem with your tech raid is exactly the same as the problem with a CB-less war: an alliance comes under attack through no fault of its own.

I just hope the attacking party doesn't hide behind a false moral mask, and admits the attack is due to political opposition, and they are seizing a PR misstep to attack the offending alliance.

Put down your victim complex and see that Athens got exactly the same reaction (actually worse) – though through your actions you certainly make moralists your political opponents.

I just think it is a little ridiculous we are facing the barrel of the gun over a simple battle, which is being used to mask old grudges

More or less ridiculous than FoA (and Ni before them) facing it over nothing at all?

[Starfox101]

You still whinning about how evil NPO was and how you are poor soul who suffered in PZI list for 2 years in 90% of your posts but you support attacks against alliances with no reason other than looking for fun, just because one is less worse doesn't mean it isn't bad too.

Those two don't correlate in the least. We are not PZI'ing anyone, it was a simple raid. It is completely less worse.

I remember when Starfox was one of the most outspoken "moralizers" against that dastardly NPO way back when. Those were good times.

Again, ask anyone in Vox. Multiple people left because I was in it for revenge rather than morals.

More or less ridiculous than FoA (and Ni before them) facing it over nothing at all?

I'm sure we wouldn't mind a one round war without consequences, with anyone. I personally would enjoy it.

[D34th]

Those two don't correlate in the least. We are not PZI'ing anyone, it was a simple raid. It is completely less worse.

Less worse but still bad.

[JWConner]

Most people here on Bob have no problems with war. It's bullying that we have an issue with, and hiding behind baseless CBs (but that's another story altogether).

You can't call it a simple raid when you target an entire alliance to attack. That's the very definition of a declaration of war. If one member of an alliance was attacked, sure, that could be seen as a raid. But when a raid is organized by a nation's alliance affiliation, then that's clearly a war. No sugar-coating, no runarounds...it's a war.

If alliances like yourselves are truly as big and bad as you want to be perceived, "raid" an alliance with allies and protection. Try to use your reasoning in that case and see how well it holds up.

edit: nations =/= alliances

Edited January 19, 2010 by JWConner

[Dochartaigh]

What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?

There is actually nothing wrong with this and it would be quite enjoyable i would imagine. though how about you guys man up and hit someone(s) that are equal in size to you for a short duel style war with no terms. Then i doubt anyone could complain as it would not be seen as a cheap shot at an alliance who just lost a protectorate and in total size was completely smaller than 3 alliances that attacked it.

if you are gonna cry because people lambast you, then you should attempt to be men first and hit targets far closer in size.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

nothing. so long as the aggressive war has a valid CB. now, if you wish to just randomly hit targets, well i would not go with random. instead see my answer to your first question.

Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war?

i do not wish for this and anyone who knows me should know otherwise. i love war but fight for valid reasons only or hit a target that has a damn good chance to defend itself. i do not take the cowards way out and organize a three-some on a rather smaller, weaker, and defenseless target as ya'll did. in my opinion, ya'll talk about how such tough guys you are, then prove it. organize a six-some (3v3) against alliances that are around the same size as ya'll and see how you fair. if you are not man enough to do that, then i suggest that you stop with these pitiable threads and wait to grow a pair.

[bigwoody]

As I watch and witness the ridiculous public outcry at the event of GOONS, \m/ and PC raiding an unprotected FoA, I have to sit back and laugh at it all. The logic of these neo-moralists just blows me away. Whenever an alliance decides to do anything besides collect taxes, you are out there throwing a huge fit and calling for their destruction. Why? A few members of our alliance attacked another, and thus you call for over 100 people to be attacked? The war is term less. It would have consisted of at most one round of war and then FoA would have been a distant memory. I can see where you could perhaps have a problem with another alliance continually stomping another alliance, sentencing their members to PZI, or attempting to force them into disbandment, but what is going on here is a short battle that is nearly harmless. What is the huge problem here?

Now, Athens and friends, including \m/ were recently attacked by an entire (cowardly) coalition merely for honoring treaties, and for defending our alliances. So, the problem is deeper than a mere hatred of tech raiding, it has evolved into a hatred of war altogether. Any alliance who makes an aggressive action gets lambasted in public and made to look like the evil empire of the world.

This is all public knowledge to anyone who's in this world, so what I am saying here is not news. It is simply my attempt at understanding the psyche of the neomoralist, and my goal of understanding what their ideal world would look like.

So please, answer these questions.

What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war?

Why don't you just join the GPA, you hippies. Also, please take a shower now and then, and invest some of that hard earned warchest on a comb, a haircut, and a nice suit.

Is this the new version of "Bring It"?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Pick someone your size or close to, someone you know will be able to defend itself on a relatively equal footing and I won't have any problem with your attacks. Right now, it's bullying and it's weak, no matter who does it. NPO or Starfox and co.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

All wars are started aggressively. The problem lies in the reason behind the assault. Not the assault in itself. You should know, many of those you call "neomoralists" threw their nations at the NPO and stayed at war for months. It's not like they're against a just war.

What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?

You're not the only bully around the block, you know. Yesterday, it was you and your merrymen. Tomorrow, it will be others who will "raid" them.

Speaking of which, you guys could at least man up and DoW them in proper form. It's a small gesture but it shows you, at least, respect them as an "alliance".

[salithus]

There was never any intention to cripple FoA. The War of the Coalition resulted in alliances ending, harsh terms, and multiple round wars, over simple grudges. That is why the WotC is worse than a simple coordinated tech raid. There is simply no comparison.

Besides, I have taken no stance on the raid, I just think it is a little ridiculous we are facing the barrel of the gun over a simple battle, which is being used to mask old grudges.

Were \m/ and PC coordinating? GOONS sure as hell wasn't, so it'd be great if people stopped saying so as though it made it true.

[Tick1]

It is quite simple to understand the psyche of a moralist. Lacking the power, the political ability or the determination to do something themselves, they loudly and as often as possible bombard everyone around them with their own moralist viewpoint, in an attempt to sway public opinion away from their adversaries. They aim to demonize the non-moralists to the point where even those that do not share their moralist views still see the non-moralists as a cancer that must be removed, as something that is ruining the environment and denying others enjoyment and opportunity. In this way it allows others to play the role of white knight, thus achieving the moralist's aims without exposing the moralist to any real danger, and costing them nothing but time. Moralism is the ideology of the weak.

Yet these non-moralist still stand today? What blasphemy! Last I checked when I set out to obliterate something, I finished them off. These moralist are a joke, they have no actual intent on doing anything. They just love to strut their muscles at the sign of anything that they can to gain a PR raise out of. If they actually believed they could rid the world of non-moralistic ways, don't you think they'd have done it by now? Please, will someone call them on their bluff.

[bzelger]

The rhetoric here is astonishingly bad. Couldn't you have at least taken the time to come up with a believable premise?

Who is condemning war? I believe you were threatened with war; that should be right in line with what you want. You're generating your opponents' argument for them and then demanding that they justify it? And you're seriously trying to condemn others for trying to score cheap PR points?

You condemn moralism in one breath, and then in the next you cite moral stances regarding PZI and disbandment that are somehow "acceptable" moral stances to take. If you believe that those things are somehow wrong then you are just as much a moralist as anyone, and trying to use the term as a pejorative makes the argument look vapid.

The objection raised in the issue at hand is not that war occurred. The objection is that the war had no basis and was grossly unfair in terms of strength. You want to bully little guys and then you whine and cry that you're being picked on when someone calls you on it.

Nations attacking other nations without provocation are rogue states. If you want a quick clean war with no terms at the end, find another alliance of like mind and have a skirmish. If you want a global war, find a reason to kick it off. If you want to gang up to push around a defenseless alliance who doesn't want any part of you, expect some resistance.

[Tick1]

The rhetoric here is astonishingly bad. Couldn't you have at least taken the time to come up with a believable premise?

Who is condemning war? I believe you were threatened with war; that should be right in line with what you want. You're generating your opponents' argument for them and then demanding that they justify it? And you're seriously trying to condemn others for trying to score cheap PR points?

You condemn moralism in one breath, and then in the next you cite moral stances regarding PZI and disbandment that are somehow "acceptable" moral stances to take. If you believe that those things are somehow wrong then you are just as much a moralist as anyone, and trying to use the term as a pejorative makes the argument look vapid.

The objection raised in the issue at hand is not that war occurred. The objection is that the war had no basis and was grossly unfair in terms of strength. You want to bully little guys and then you whine and cry that you're being picked on when someone calls you on it.

Nations attacking other nations without provocation are rogue states. If you want a quick clean war with no terms at the end, find another alliance of like mind and have a skirmish. If you want a global war, find a reason to kick it off. If you want to gang up to push around a defenseless alliance who doesn't want any part of you, expect some resistance.

FYI: Moral and immoral beliefs are on the same scale they just happen to be on oppisite ends. Such as greater and lesser are on the same scale, one can't exist without the other therefor stating that they are the same thing only from different viewpoints.

Example, Lets say you've got two million dollars and someone else has three million. He in fact has a greater amount of money, but another person has one million. You in fact have a greater amount of money than he does, but lesser than the person with three million.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Tick1

[OneBallMan]

I guess I am a Neo-Literalist, but I don't see any issue with \m/ et al raiding or warring as they see fit, but I am challenged when it appears to exceed the parameters of an alliance's governing document. I believe in your word, and agreeing to uphold that means you uphold that to the letter.

I also like war.

[Tick1]

I guess I am a Neo-Literalist, but I don't see any issue with \m/ et al raiding or warring as they see fit, but I am challenged when it appears to exceed the parameters of an alliance's governing document. I believe in your word, and agreeing to uphold that means you uphold that to the letter.

I also like war.

Well to my satisfactory I love your signature. Fits the occasion, yes?

[Yggdrazil]

Raiders always have allies but no amount of sophistry will increase that number nor mitigate a wrong.

[Godwin]

Raiders always have allies but no amount of sophistry will increase that number nor mitigate a wrong.

Except that raiding isn't, you know, wrong.

[Tick1]

Raiders always have allies but no amount of sophistry will increase that number nor mitigate a wrong.

Only by your standards is it wrong. Once again all things are good and evil. One just happens to be more or less of the two from different view points. To state someone is wrong without embracing their culture from a nutural standpoint shows your ignorance.

[Tobistus]

Just as it is in the real world. If any major nation with any sort of PR were to attack a smaller nation, it would instantly be blasphemed by the rest of the world.

However, if you attack out of retaliation or revenge, then the world will back you.

Examples:

U.S. vs Afghanistan was a positive to the worlds eye because of 9/11

U.S. vs Iraq was a negative to the world because they didn't see any immediate reasons. Even the threat of WMDs (though later disproved) didn't work to move the world.

However, I must give it to you \m/, you guys don't back down from your decision, and I commend those who have the balls to do that.

[Joe Kremlin]

Why is it being called "neo"-moralism? I think you would have had a similarly negative reaction to raiding a 30+ member alliance really at any time in CN history. Also obligatory morality is an acceptable way to play the game too so deal with it post.