Krunk the Great Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Perhaps the answer is simply to obvious for you to grasp- as a message will be sent to the possible buyer that any tech raiding by them will invalidate the deal, the violation of the contract is on the part of the buyer- presuming Celestial Being is selling and not buying. Hopefully Celestial Being will maintain a blacklist of such nations so similar situations do not arise again. Talk about difficult concepts, but then again, I suppose we are dealing with tech raiders. The OP clearly states that it will not allow *its members* to buy or sell tech from tech raiders (This would be buying from tech raiders, as there is almost NO targets at the buying range). This means that doing so will result in violation of the charter, which would result in expulsion from an alliance worth its socks. Even if that is not the intent, they will have to eventually do this -- as they will invariably recruit some idiot noobs who never read the rules and expect their ignorance to be a shield against consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 The OP clearly states that it will not allow *its members* to buy or sell tech from tech raiders (This would be buying from tech raiders, as there is almost NO targets at the buying range).This means that doing so will result in violation of the charter, which would result in expulsion from an alliance worth its socks. Even if that is not the intent, they will have to eventually do this -- as they will invariably recruit some idiot noobs who never read the rules and expect their ignorance to be a shield against consequences. If someone is raiding they wont tech deal with them. simple as that. When they start a deal, they will say, if you raid during this deal, i will not send the tech,(or you must give me the 3 million back if i bought it from you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Debater Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I really like this actually. Its a good policy to have and its good to see you standing up for your beliefs. I look forward to the next instalation of this policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) But yet, if one pays for tech and then tech raids, payment should no longer be expected? It seems like you didn't think this out that well WC. No. That's exactly what my intention was. Edit: What guffey said in response to the other dude Double edit: Updating charter to reflect the clarification. Edited January 22, 2010 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) so by denying tech raiders "cleanly procured" tech you are inherently giving them incentive to tech raid MORE, you realize this right? In fact, you should be pursuing the opposite policy - encourage tech dealing with raiders, at discounted prices, so that they feel less inclined to raid for their tech. I just don't think you've thought through the outcomes this sort of policy will have on the "raiding community". Edited January 22, 2010 by Chinatownbus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 so by denying tech raiders "cleanly procured" tech you are inherently giving them incentive to tech raid MORE, you realize this right?In fact, you should be pursuing the opposite policy - encourage tech dealing with raiders, at discounted prices, so that they feel less inclined to raid for their tech. I just don't think you've thought through the outcomes this sort of policy will have on the "raiding community". No. You may believe what you want as you're entitled to it, but we'll follow the policy we believe is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) No. You may believe what you want as you're entitled to it, but we'll follow the policy we believe is best. I never said that you should change your policy, just explaining what you are actually doing here. People take the path of least resistance. By closing off one avenue of tech procurement, you simply force them in another direction. Say for example, I were to commit a crime in real life. As punishment, I am unable to get a job because of my criminal record. I still have to get money somehow so that I can survive. What is left? More crime. But I guess I won't convince you. Edited January 22, 2010 by Chinatownbus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I never said that you should change your policy, just explaining what you are actually doing here. People take the path of least resistance. By closing off one avenue of tech procurement, you simply force them in another direction. You disagree with that so, meh. The only people who buy tech are bigger nations. If they raid they will be doing it at the same time as buying it in any case, so it doesn't make a difference as they'd raid regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) The only people who buy tech are bigger nations. If they raid they will be doing it at the same time as buying it in any case, so it doesn't make a difference as they'd raid regardless. so essentially your policy admittedly accomplishes nothing other than limit the amount of tech buyers your alliance can sell to. Edited January 22, 2010 by Chinatownbus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 With that being said I'd like to announce our first Meister, kulomascoviaSigned, WarriorConcept, Veda of Celestial Being </div> Congrats, Minister kulomascovia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 so essentially your policy admittedly accomplishes nothing other than limit the amount of tech buyers your alliance can sell to. Wasn't that obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Wasn't that obvious? just pointing out that he's hurting his own alliance more than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 so essentially your policy admittedly accomplishes nothing other than limit the amount of tech buyers your alliance can sell to. Are you dense? We'll not be funding raiders with tech or with money as far as we can help it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) I never said that you should change your policy, just explaining what you are actually doing here. People take the path of least resistance. By closing off one avenue of tech procurement, you simply force them in another direction. Say for example, I were to commit a crime in real life. As punishment, I am unable to get a job because of my criminal record. I still have to get money somehow so that I can survive. What is left? More crime. But I guess I won't convince you. That may have worked for large nations that actually have difficulty acquiring tech from tech deals and raid exclusively for tech. Most raiding is done at low NS levels. Most of these nations don't make enough money to buy tech. Also, at smaller ns, very little tech is gained as a result of raiding, which implies that most small raiders raid for fun or other reasons. Our policy would prevent raiders from getting enough money to conduct their raids. so essentially your policy admittedly accomplishes nothing other than limit the amount of tech buyers your alliance can sell to. No. It not only clarifies our stand against tech raiding but also prevents raiders from using our money to conduct their raids. Congrats, Minister kulomascovia Meister Kulomascovia. just pointing out that he's hurting his own alliance more than anyone else. I'm pretty sure we won't have trouble finding large nations that don't tech arid. Edited January 22, 2010 by kulomascovia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch33kY Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I will be checking with the GPA to see if you have violated the copyright of their charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I will be checking with the GPA to see if you have violated the copyright of their charter. Let me know how that turns out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 so by denying tech raiders "cleanly procured" tech you are inherently giving them incentive to tech raid MORE, you realize this right? This would only be true if it applied in perpetuity (i.e. if you had ever raided, you can't buy from CB). WC has stated in the thread that they are going to be using war screens, so a raider can 'come clean' and start buying tech at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Meister Kulomascovia. Sigh. You just have to be different. Should have known to look closer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.