Lend me a Hand, Neo-Moralists

[Dochartaigh]

What the Karma war has shown me is that even tech raiders and so called "Moralist," can work together in the attempt to rid the world of one of the greatest empires that planet bob has ever seen. If you actually take a look at the alliances on the Karma side they didn't band together because they like each other, only because they dislike Hegemony. If you have a different viewpoint I'd love to hear it, because what I see post Karma is a bunch of people in a race for dominance, not cooperation. Which is why we are having these standoffs at this very moment. I fought alongside Karma to help remove Hegemony from power, not because I thought it was right, but because I disliked them.

you have to realize that many tech raiders are also "moralists". and actually i would say that many did in fact band together due to mutual respect and liking one another. this does not hold true across the board of course but i never said it did. what you fail to realize it seems is that if us "moralists" act like you state we do, we would never have joined Karma in the first place. that was the point i was getting at, not inter-alliance relations.

Where is my neutral standpoint, is a good question. Seeing as I spent time in neutral alliances I'd imagine that the time spent within them would have given me some incite on actual good people. There viewpoints are far closer to true divine morals then you claim to have obtained yourself.

if you say so. i don't believe in divine morals though so i have no idea what you are even talking about. to me morals are something that is based in logic and regardless of what you say, you can easily have logic based morals.

Do you really believe that? How out of touch with politics are you? The truth being every bloc/alliance hides their true intentions within our very planet. If you think you have the scoop on what C&G, SF & Cit, please inform me because I'd love to know.

not really. each have different sets of goals, the prevailing goal though is self-preservation and survival. this does not always come from dominance and power, it could come from ensuring that the world is not dominated by a single hegemony. each bloc is composed of allies who regardless of whether they are lulzy, srs bsns, or a mix; each have a set of inter-related goals that are similar to the allies within the bloc. if this is not true, the bloc would not survive. we have seen such blocs break apart with WUT and Q. alliances that were not compatible who only had very limited ideals or goals that were similar broke apart due to the fact that it is hard to work with alliances you do not like or rarely agree with their actions.

the scoop is not that hard to figure out. while all their goals and intentions may be hidden, the vast majority is there to be seen clean and clear.

Actually if you would have read every post I've made in this thread you'd have noticed that I did point out that raiders have pushed our morals onto the alliances we've raided. Which is why I proposed a solution to our dilemma, but I guess you missed that section.

i did not talk about your victims. i talked about us. those that are against you in this argument. ya'll basically stating we should just accept it because FoA was not treatied to anyone and ya'll have a sovereign right to do as you please.

My ignorance is showing? Once again this is an area where I don't see eye to eye with you. If you really believe raiding an unaligned nation is sin free then I most ask where you brought up this thought process. I will state my true opinion seeing as it is what I believe if you disagree with it so be it. I don't see the difference in numbers and I will fail to see this for the rest of my life, because you don't need to raid unaligned nations to continue existing, just like I don't need to raid to continue existing, but we both however are stealing from nations that can't fend for themselves or do anything to stop it.

i never stated that raiding in and of itself is ever sin free. just that there is a difference. that difference is in the numbers. raiding an unaligned is not as bad as raiding an alliance. essentially it is like saying someone who killed one person is the same as someone who mass murdered 33 people. they aren't. the single murder guy would get a different and much more severe sentence than the one who mass murdered, thus showing that the crime is more severe at higher numbers.

Which is why I'm lumping all of these alliances together. If all raiding alliance understand the value of an ally why would we go without one? If we wont raid alliances with allies then what does any raiding alliance have to fear? If every unaligned alliance is a non-raiding alliance they also have nothing to fear, but since you fail to see that I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut on the previous idea I had. Since it would have actually kept raiding larger alliances to a minimum.

that is fine by me since i believe that the minimum for raiding alliances should be zero. my personal definition of an alliance is any AA that has 2+ people on it and i personally refrained from engaging those people. at my size now given my strict regulation on raiding, i pretty much have not even bothered looking for a raid target in a month or so since it is hard to find any.

Not that I'm complaining, because I welcome a large war with open arms, but the excuses for it are really lame. If you're going to pry into the business of others because you want to, say that instead of saying "Oh but its for teh moralz!!!1"

actually, you have been complaining. you stating the excuses are "lame" is complaining. if you actually welcomed a larger war with open arms as you claim, you would not care what the reason was and would just want it to happen. the fact that you care so much about the why, shows that you really don't want a war. it seems your gov agrees as you guys are starting to hide in PM instead of being the \m/etal tough guys you claim to be.

at least ya'll's true intentions are finally showing themselves.

[Dochartaigh]

OOC: You comparison is completely different considering the fact that the military weapons we produce could in fact actually bring upon the destruction of mankind as we know it.

IC: While nations and alliance such as NpO do maintain the same instincts as Gorilla's I highly doubt they will do anything if someone deplores their views. If you'd like my actual opinion on this matter you can send me a PM as I will not post my true opinion and reasoning behind this.

ooc: not really a difference. the fact is, while we have nuclear weapons RL, we have not used them since WWII other than testing, which again is a show put on to let others know what would happen should we be invaded. (we=all nations with nuclear weapons) the intent is exactly the same. a fearsome show to discourage would be invaders from attacking. i fail to see how it is any different than a gorilla's show of force. the scale i will give you is different, but unfortunately for gorillas, humans have invented weapons of the sorts as described. tanks, guns, aircraft, naval ships and all are also shows of force. fact is, most nations would be dumb to invade the US given our carrier superiority, hence why China has built a sub that is so silent it has popped up next to a US carrier close enough to do heavy damage. the Swedes/Germans have also built a sub that destroyed the largest US carrier in a war game.

IC: i would like to see what your opinion is.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Edit: Comment removed.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Esquire]

OOC comments (tagged of course) are ok in these IC forums, but in moderation. They shouldn't be comprising a majority of your posts/arguments. So, please either keep OOC comments to a minimum or avoid them altogether. Thanks.

[White Chocolate]

Vilien my only question too you is where would you stand had this been an alliance that allows tech raiding themselves? I've come to a conclusion on this matter they may help settle future disagreements.

It's immoral to raid an alliance that does not raid in their time of weakness, such as this current situation.

It should how ever not be considered immoral to raid an alliance that does endulge in raiding during that alliances time of weakness.

Would any moralist be willing to accept this statement?

Consider this the position of United under Scorn, a non-raiding alliance.

1. It is immoral to "raid" anyone. There is no reason for it when tech trading is an option. The only moral/ethical way to "war game" is for all parties to agree. Raiding ignores the sovereignty of the victim nation, and the right of their people to live peacefully within their boundaries. We specifically recruit other nations into US that are looking to live in peace. You may find it strange but that doesn't make it any less valid.

2. We're willing to compromise and say that if an alliance who declares war on other alliances to steal tech decides to do so against another alliance who allows the same, you will not hear any complaints from US. We're NOT saying it's ethical, but admittedly, far better than bothering everyone. If you can get all raiding alliances to agree that "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword" - more power to you. Mistakes of fact regarding who is and is not a "raiding alliance" is the burden of the one doing the raiding. Do better research!

3. Treat all alliances you decide to declare war on by the same standards in terms of war declarations. Even though we do not believe that "to take your tech" is a valid CB, if you think it is, so be it. However then declare your war like you would any other war. All raids we treat as wars--as all wars of resources are full wars.

4. We did NOT work our butts off to have US meet the "common practice" definition of an alliance just to have that bar raised even further. At the VERY least, respect that fact and make a formal declaration if you (meaning anyone out there) decide to declare war on US for any reason.

White Chocolate and Necroseer,

Co-leaders, United under Scorn

[Tick1]

i did not talk about your victims. i talked about us. those that are against you in this argument. ya'll basically stating we should just accept it because FoA was not treatied to anyone and ya'll have a sovereign right to do as you please.

I'll debate this topic further when I'm actually at a computer, but the ordeal that I've been making about moralist enforce their will upon bob can be made with both views. You believe it is immoral to raid, I however believe it's immoral for you to impose your belief upon myself. Although if our alliance raids an alliance that doesn't believe in raiding we will be imposing our views on them. However if we raid an alliance that does allow raiding they'll understand our reasoning unlike yourself a nation that does not raid.

Edit: This reply was to Hizzy not to you, but I feel it'd be better if you read all of my arguments that lead up to you jumping in.

That is the statement I was referring to please let me know if you missed that one. I criticized our own actions seeing as I do feel imposing our raids on alliances that don't allow raiding to be immoral since this would be imposing my beliefs on them. Yes, this is a change of heart in how I see raiding, but I don't agree that raiding an alliance that allows raiding to be immoral. Although you'll continue to argue the point that you believe their is some sort of scale that outweighs alliance raids with individual raids which I believe is completely false. Seeing as killing one person should be considered just as immoral as killing thirty people. This is an example please don't be offended by it, but your thinking of lesser evils. Instead if you compare raids to murders maybe you'll see the actions in a different viewpoint, maybe not.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tick1

[White Chocolate]

Vilien my only question too you is where would you stand had this been an alliance that allows tech raiding themselves? I've come to a conclusion on this matter they may help settle future disagreements.

It's immoral to raid an alliance that does not raid in their time of weakness, such as this current situation.

It should how ever not be considered immoral to raid an alliance that does endulge in raiding during that alliances time of weakness.

Would any moralist be willing to accept this statement?

Consider this the position of United under Scorn, a non-raiding "moralist" alliance.

1. It is immoral to "raid" anyone. There is no reason for it when tech trading is an option. The only moral/ethical way to "war game" is for all parties to agree. Raiding ignores the sovereignty of the victim nation, and the right of their people to live peacefully within their boundaries. We specifically recruit other nations into US that are looking to live in peace. You may find it strange but that doesn't make it any less valid.

2. We're willing to compromise and say that if an alliance who declares war on other alliances to steal tech decides to do so against another alliance who allows the same, you will not hear any complaints from US. We're NOT saying it's ethical, but admittedly, far better than bothering everyone. If you can get all raiding alliances to agree that "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword" - more power to you. Mistakes of fact regarding who is and is not a "raiding alliance" is the burden of the one doing the raiding. Do better research!

3. Treat all alliances you decide to declare war on by the same standards in terms of war declarations. Even though we do not believe that "to take your tech" is a valid CB, if you think it is, so be it. However then declare your war like you would any other war. All raids we treat as wars--as all wars of resources are full wars.

4. We did NOT work our butts off to have US meet the "common practice" definition of an alliance just to have that bar raised even further. At the VERY least, respect that fact and make a formal declaration if you (meaning anyone out there) decide to declare war on US for any reason.

White Chocolate and Necroseer,

Co-leaders, United under Scorn

[Prime minister Johns]

I can see an attempt by the raiding alliances to make yet another shift in what is considered to be acceptable tactics for raiding and what constitutes a valid target.

This is not the first time that this is happened, in the beginning raiding was only accepted on nations that were inactive and on the verge of auto-deletion, but they complained and whined that there were not enough targets that met this requirement and they slowly pushed the threshold of how inactive a nation had to be further and further back until now if you announce that you are not in an alliance (an act of suicidal arch-stupidity) you can almost bet that by the end of the day you will have three raiders twice your size making off with your tech and land.

You see they work by salami tactics, they get one thin slice of consession at a time and keep doing that until they get the whole sausage in a manner of speaking.

I for one do not want to see where it will end up if alliance scale tech raids are permitted as the latest consession.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Tick1]

I can see an attempt by the raiding alliances to make yet another shift in what is considered to be acceptable tactics for raiding and what constitutes a valid target.

This is not the first time that this is happened, in the beginning raiding was only accepted on nations that were inactive and on the verge of auto-deletion, but they complained and whined that there were not enough targets that met this requirement and they slowly pushed the threshold of how inactive a nation had to be further and further back until now if you announce that you are not in an alliance (an act of suicidal arch-stupidity) you can almost bet that by the end of the day you will have three raiders twice your size making off with your tech and land.

You see they work by salami tactics, they get one thin slice of consession at a time and keep doing that until they get the whole sausage in a manner of speaking.

I for one do not want to see where it will end up if alliance scale tech raids are permitted as the latest consession.

Although you can agree that if this was a planet wide experiment, we'd see less alliances that allow tech-raiding would you not? This would also put alliances that don't allow tech raiding in a safe zone. For those that do allow tech raiding will most likely only be attacked if they have no treaties which would be quite odd considering the value people place in their treaties when they allow such acts. Therefor doing this would remove more tech raiding than it would allow, but then again a lot of people don't see the bigger picture.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tick1

[Bob Janova]

Although you can agree that if this was a planet wide experiment, we'd see less alliances that allow tech-raiding would you not?

No. We'd see more raiding. Almost all raiding now is on unaligned nations or 'non-alliances' (less than 5 members seems to be where most of the population draws the line). Your 'compromise' (which is nothing of the sort, it is just a thinner 'slice' than the one which the raiders are seeking in this incident) would result in raids on unaligned nations, 'non-alliances' and alliances where the raiders could find evidence of the alliance 'allowing' raiding.

I welcome a large war with open arms

At least you haven't run to peace mode like most of your alliance yet.

[Godwin]

actually, you have been complaining. you stating the excuses are "lame" is complaining. if you actually welcomed a larger war with open arms as you claim, you would not care what the reason was and would just want it to happen. the fact that you care so much about the why, shows that you really don't want a war. it seems your gov agrees as you guys are starting to hide in PM instead of being the \m/etal tough guys you claim to be.

at least ya'll's true intentions are finally showing themselves.

I DO welcome war with open arms, and as you can see I am not nor will I be in peace mode. Would YOU like to do something about it?

As to "complaining", you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't care if I get attacked, far from it, but I'd rather the people attacking me just be up-front and honest about the fact that they don't like us rather then trying to get themselves to look better to the public by hiding behind a lame excuse. Is that really too much to ask?

Apparently so, judging by some of the scum that populate this world.

At least you haven't run to peace mode like most of your alliance yet.

At least my alliance knows how to properly wage a long-term war, which is apparently not the case for most of those who seek to destroy us.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Godwin

[Godwin]

EDIT: Oops, double post, thought I had edited my previous one.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Godwin

[King Srqt]

Many of us have tried to live out our days in peace, even leave the game, however, on this day we shall know neither. We have watched as the Tyrannical, and criminal organizations have slaughtered the game to carve out a new world through force, and elimination. We shall no longer stand by and watch. It is a time to fight, so that all may know freedom. Even if our goal is not accomplished, we shall know that we did not sit by and watch as evil rises once again, we shall know that we gave our last breath to defend it.

Just sayin

[Arcades057]

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

It's not what was done, it's who did it.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

It's not what was done, it's who did it.

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

It's not what was done, it's who did it.

Redundancy ftw. It's unfortunate, but I think you guys took so much heat because you are \m/ and GOONS. Sure, Athens took some heat for raiding Knights of Ni but I don't remember that particular discussion being so large or vocal.

[Valtamdraugr]

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

Aside from forcing an agenda...little. If the parties are in agreement before weapons are drawn...less.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

Same as above.

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

I do not.

A more interesting question might be, "What would happen if the profitability of this type of war vanished overnite?"

[Dochartaigh]

Edit: This reply was to Hizzy not to you, but I feel it'd be better if you read all of my arguments that lead up to you jumping in.

That is the statement I was referring to please let me know if you missed that one. I criticized our own actions seeing as I do feel imposing our raids on alliances that don't allow raiding to be immoral since this would be imposing my beliefs on them. Yes, this is a change of heart in how I see raiding, but I don't agree that raiding an alliance that allows raiding to be immoral. Although you'll continue to argue the point that you believe their is some sort of scale that outweighs alliance raids with individual raids which I believe is completely false. Seeing as killing one person should be considered just as immoral as killing thirty people. This is an example please don't be offended by it, but your thinking of lesser evils. Instead if you compare raids to murders maybe you'll see the actions in a different viewpoint, maybe not.

i have already compared raiding to murders. i do believe we will just have to agree to disagree. while raiding alliances that raid is certainly better than raiding alliances that do not raid, you are also using lesser evils to justify it. if you honestly think that numbers mean nothing, then whether or not they raid should be just as inconsequential and thus just as immoral.

i am unsure how you can weight your argument about raiding a raider alliance versus a non-raider alliance and not see how it is hypocritical to your stance that an individual nation holds the same weight as an alliance does?

I DO welcome war with open arms, and as you can see I am not nor will I be in peace mode. Would YOU like to do something about it?

As to "complaining", you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't care if I get attacked, far from it, but I'd rather the people attacking me just be up-front and honest about the fact that they don't like us rather then trying to get themselves to look better to the public by hiding behind a lame excuse. Is that really too much to ask?

Apparently so, judging by some of the scum that populate this world.

you the one that welcomes war, why don't you attack me? unless of course you don't welcome war and are just all talk and no walk?

i don't like you but that has nothing to do with my argument. i was allied to Athens and i argued against what they did to KoN. so for me, it has nothing to do with who you are, it is what you did that i find unacceptable. i found it unacceptable for an ally to do it and will find it unacceptable for you to do it, and admin forbid if IAA even suggested such an action in a serious manner.

and tis funny that a \m/ember is calling someone else scum given that ya'll seem to embrace WS attitudes and a general thug and bully manners.

[Bob Janova]

Sure, Athens took some heat for raiding Knights of Ni but I don't remember that particular discussion being so large or vocal.

You have a poor memory. The equivalent thread to Alterego's in this incident was 70 pages long.

At least my alliance knows how to properly wage a long-term war, which is apparently not the case for most of those who seek to destroy us.

Considering the history of the first incarnation of your alliance, and that of the alliance which is being most belligerent against you today (Polar), this comment is quite amusing.

[WarriorConcept]

This is clearly a new raiding tactic, raid alliance, talk smack, hide in peace mode. Not sure that is a good way to get tech. That has to be why, else they would just be running away from getting tech raided themselves and that would just be pathetic.

Do you know any kind of war tactics?

[AlmightyGrub]

Do you know any kind of war tactics?

Maybe he doesn't ( I know he does) but I certainly do. I just find it amusing that there is no war, apparently just chest thumping from a blowhard who is bluffing like always. Hardly seems to be a reason to run to PM. Maybe it is a new tactic to go with all the other pioneering moves they have made in recent times?

[WarriorConcept]

Maybe he doesn't ( I know he does) but I certainly do. I just find it amusing that there is no war, apparently just chest thumping from a blowhard who is bluffing like always. Hardly seems to be a reason to run to PM. Maybe it is a new tactic to go with all the other pioneering moves they have made in recent times?

From what I understand of how this situation is going to develop and end up, the strategy of everyone going to PM as early as possible is the best one considering the difference in numbers.

[kevin32891]

As most people should. But for some reason people ARE caring, those moralist ****s, and that's why there's an issue. People meddling in other people's war.

I thought this was tech raid?

As to "complaining", you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't care if I get attacked, far from it, but I'd rather the people attacking me just be up-front and honest about the fact that they don't like us rather then trying to get themselves to look better to the public by hiding behind a lame excuse. Is that really too much to ask?

Just to make it clear, I'm not hiding behind an excuse to not like your alliance.

I don't like you Godwin or your alliance, especially Starfox.

[Godwin]

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

Aside from forcing an agenda...little. If the parties are in agreement before weapons are drawn...less.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

Same as above.

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

I do not.

A more interesting question might be, "What would happen if the profitability of this type of war vanished overnite?"

Most of if not all of \m/ would still do it, because it's fun. (OOC: And it's basically the point of the game, war.) I also assume that many of our allies' nations would, though I being relatively new in \m/ do not know them as well as I would like.

I thought this was tech raid?

All wars are, in essence, "tech raids". Some of them just have other reasons as well.

Just to make it clear, I'm not hiding behind an excuse to not like your alliance.

I don't like you Godwin or your alliance, especially Starfox.

Well then there's no issue there, though I never had one with you. Mostly the people claiming offense to us solely on the justification of "morality".

Considering the history of the first incarnation of your alliance, and that of the alliance which is being most belligerent against you today (Polar), this comment is quite amusing.

I am not familiar with the old \m/, other than I trounced a few of them in UJW, nor am I at all familiar with NpO. So, sorry, but your humor is lost on me. I do, however, know quite a bit of war tactics, what we may or may not be doing will ultimately end in a better outcome for us regardless of the cheap shots people like you make at us over it.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Godwin

[hizzy]

As to "complaining", you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't care if I get attacked, far from it, but I'd rather the people attacking me just be up-front and honest about the fact that they don't like us rather then trying to get themselves to look better to the public by hiding behind a lame excuse. Is that really too much to ask?

Would it be too much to ask for you to tie the 2 together? It is well within the realm of possibility that the reason people don't like you and want to attack you is because you all act like idiots. If you tried taking some responsibility for your actions, you'd realize that people arn't objecting to these tech raids because they don't like you... they don't like you because of the these tech raids.

[zzzptm]

Would it be too much to ask for you to tie the 2 together? It is well within the realm of possibility that the reason people don't like you and want to attack you is because you all act like idiots. If you tried taking some responsibility for your actions, you'd realize that people arn't objecting to these tech raids because they don't like you... they don't like you because of the these tech raids.

Hizzy speaks well. Heed his words, for they are wise.

[WarriorConcept]

Hizzy speaks well. Heed his words, for they are wise.

Pope Hizzy?