Tech raiding, Bad?

[Tick1]

Now seeing as I've been in a discussion of a solution for the past two days I see it fit to make a poll and actually gather the opinions of people throughout the planet. Although I will see more opinions of outspoken critics rather than the alliances members that don't visit our areas of discussion I'd love for you to invite them here. Seeing as I'd like to gain an incite on the view of bob as a whole rather than just one person's perspective. I'll continue discussing this topic as the polls progress.

Sincerely, Tick1

[Godwin]

Your poll is extremely biased. It isn't ever unacceptable to raid an alliance, there just may be consequences for doing so. Size doesn't really matter, because that sets a huge double standard.

How can you honestly say "YOU CANT DO THAT IT'S BAD" when someone raids a larger alliance, but for a smaller one say it's completely okay? Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Tick1]

Your poll is extremely biased. It isn't ever unacceptable to raid an alliance, there just may be consequences for doing so. Size doesn't really matter, because that sets a huge double standard.

How can you honestly say "YOU CANT DO THAT IT'S BAD" when someone raids a larger alliance, but for a smaller one say it's completely okay? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Yet, by moral standards people state that it is unacceptable to raid alliances. Whether or not their are consequences involved is another discussion. I'm looking to get the moral viewpoint of the community, not whether or not there are consequences involved with our actions.

"How can you honestly say "YOU CANT DO THAT IT'S BAD" when someone raids a larger alliance, but for a smaller one say it's completely okay? Hypocrisy at its finest."

That is the point I'm trying to make my friend.

I believe there is no difference in raiding someone or an alliance considering size shouldn't be taken into consideration when thinking of morals. Whether or not one is lesser of the two one would think a moralist would believe both are evil.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tick1

[MagicalTrevor]

It's not immoral to raid somebody that raids themselves. It's stupid. Major difference.

[Lennox]

It's immoral when you do it on the alliance wide scale. Sort of like Ni! and FOA. Its also a good way to secure your own downfall.

[Godwin]

It's not immoral to raid somebody that raids themselves. It's stupid. Major difference.

I agree. Only time will tell just how stupid.

It's immoral when you do it on the alliance wide scale. Sort of like Ni! and FOA. Its also a good way to secure your own downfall.

Okay, why? What makes that any different than doing it to individuals or smaller alliances? Just so you have a self-legitimizing way to say we're "evil"?

Edited January 20, 2010 by Godwin

[Evitressa]

It's not bad, it never will be bad. It doesn't need to be stopped. It adds something else to do in order to grow that is slightly better than buying tech or buying land and provides alternatives to larger nations.

It is never unacceptable to raid, regardless of size. Bite off what you can chew.

[Brian1]

Personally I am against tech raiding, there for my nation will never be involved in a raid on an alliance or a single unaligned player. But sadly with the option to raid a lot of players will take advantage of this.

[Tick1]

It's not bad, it never will be bad. It doesn't need to be stopped. It adds something else to do in order to grow that is slightly better than buying tech or buying land and provides alternatives to larger nations.

It is never unacceptable to raid, regardless of size. Bite off what you can chew.

We aren't going off what it ought to be. We are going on how it is. It ought to be a free for all in my opinion, but it is considered unacceptable to the community.

[CreativName]

I think there are more factors than simply size that you have to account when considering a raid, like how long they have been around. TYR has never been above 25 (we plan to stay below 30) but been around for more than a year. I wouldn't raid an alliance of even four members - if I were to raid, I'd stick to the unaligned group just to be sure.

I don't believe raiding is immoral. I neither encourage nor discourage it... it allows for valuable war practice, but it has to be kept strict. No attacking certain teams, only ground troops, post evidence etc.

Edited January 20, 2010 by CreativName

[Lord Brendan]

I don't tech raid myself and I'm against it whenever the issue is raised in CSN, but I don't really care if other people do it. It's not hard to find a protector for your tiny alliance (I would even say it's too easy); if you're too lazy to do that then don't be surprised when people show up and steal your resources. I have no pity for the incompetent or the lazy.

A fair amount of people do seem to find tech raiding immoral, so I voted yes. As for raiding a raider, that's just stupid since generally raiders are in alliances of significant size.

[f0rg0tt3n 0n3]

Ugh I feel as if this is a reoccurring argument/discussion that has been around for the whole of time that Cybernations has been around. You know what the point of it being moral/immoral doesn't matter. It is going to happen regardless and I feel that this is just yet another useless poll. Figure it out that this poll will not make a difference. Jussayin

[LoweAlpine]

I've voted 25

No

No

Answer to the first question: 25

When you raid an alliance it's considered a good training for those who never had a war before, whether on the offensive or the defensive point of view. I've voted 25 members due to the fact that an alliance structure usually consists of a leader, a Minister of Foreign Affairs, a Minister of Defense and a Minister of Internal Affairs.

In that case:

• 1. The leader makes the decisions - leads the alliance;
  2. The MoFA can talk with the offensive party about peace;
  3. The Minister of Defense coördinates attacks; and
  4. the Minister of Internal Affairs (together with the Minister of Economics) plans whether the alliance needs help in any way possible.
  

In my opinion, one member, two, five or ten members do not have the capability and size to withstand a techraid. You'll need adequate leadership and dito subleaders to gain consciousness of being in a war and know what to do.

Answer the the second question: No

As I stated before, the techraid enlightens people of how war works, excluding heavy war material such as cruise missiles and nukes, which are indeed immoral to use in a techraid. It gives the idea of defense, and that Planet Bob isn't a happy place to let your seeds sprout carelessly.

Answer to the third question: No

Sure, why not? Why not sending them to hell while they force others walk the path to it?

Edited January 20, 2010 by LoweAlpine

[D34th]

One, yes, no.

[CreativName]

Some of us seem to be confused. By "raiding themselves" tick doesn't mean ACTUALLY raiding THEMSELVES.

He means to say.. "If my target does practice raiding on others, should it be moral to raid the target?"

It's correct grammar, just awkward to use in text form.

Edited January 20, 2010 by CreativName

[Tick1]

Some of us seem to be confused. By "raiding themselves" tick doesn't mean ACTUALLY raiding THEMSELVES.

He means to say.. "If my target does practice raiding on others, should it be moral to raid the target?"

It's correct grammar, just awkward to use in text form.

Pardon my word usage, once again I tend to type as I speak.

[White Chocolate]

An alliance is two or more people. We take the term "alliance" very literal in a dictionary definition sort of way. However, since that wasn't an option, I picked the next best being 3.

US considers raiding immoral/unethical - period. War is war. However, if raiding alliances want to act unethically to each other only, as long as they leave me and my friends alone, so be it. Thus I voted "no" in the last question.

Personally (I'm not speaking for US here) the biggest beef I have with so called "tech raids" (be it against an alliance OR a non-aligned) is how many people who do it attempt to justify it as LESS than a war. I don't care if you're "gentle" or a total demon! This is a HUGE insult! If "to get your tech" is the CB you want, then it's your CB. But at least give me some basic respect owed to all leaders of nations and admit it IS a war and you started it. If, as a response, I turn around and use EVERY method possible to protect myself and friends, I'm simply doing what ANY leader of a nation is REQUIRED to do to defend the people she serves.

To all raiders I've ever had to deal with past or future: Yes, your nation is bigger than mine. Yes, your alliance is bigger than mine. Yes, in the "might makes right" world we have - you CAN treat me like dirt and force me to chose to either join (or in my case create - which is NOT something I'd advise unless one has a huge amount of time to spare to make the necessary treaties) an alliance and become a peon in Planet Bob's beloved "treaty web"... OR, in the alternative, be non-aligned and face Eternal War.

If I'm starting at all to sound like Walford - good! That's what it's like being non-aligned, it's not planned or intentional and not the fault of any one "tech raider" but I dare anyone who doubts that it's NOT essentially being subject to eternal war to be non-aligned for 3 months, fight back tooth and nail and then come back and honestly tell me I'm wrong. If you're up for a double dare, try it with the resources of a new nation who doesn't have nukes, etc. Happy being hunted, sunshine

[White Chocolate]

It's not hard to find a protector for your tiny alliance (I would even say it's too easy); if you're too lazy to do that then don't be surprised when people show up and steal your resources. I have no pity for the incompetent or the lazy.

I agree that it's relatively easy to find a "protector" - but to find a good protector is another story entirely!!! United under Scorn was offered "protection" almost weekly in the form of absorption offers. I can't recall for sure, but I think the person who suggested a formal "protectorate" did so after about a month of regular tech trades with him and members of his alliance. We got "tech raided" JUST before we were going to announce it formally. Man - was I pissed off about that raid!!! Also, the one other offer we got had so many strings attached, it might as well been absorption.

I define good protectors as ones that encourage independence and earn the loyalty of their ally as opposed to expecting it from the start. The International is an excellent example

(yes, it's a plug - but one I give freely and sincerely as it has been well earned )

[Bob]

Under 15 is not an alliance, unless they have a protectorate or are Opethian.

Its fine to raid someone if they raid, but not if they don't? Seriously? Its fine in general people need to chill.

[Dochartaigh]

my opinion, 1 person AA is not an alliance and thus can be raiding the same as unaligned nations. 2+ members make an alliance and should be off-limits.

raiding itself is not exactly immoral, though you only offered two options. it is an in-between. it is slightly wrong, but neither moral, nor immoral. this includes raiding a raider.

frankly, i have no issue with raiding a raider since in all honesty, that would be far more war practice than raiding most others.

[JT Jag]

If tech raiding is immoral, so is war in general.

Now, some of you might instinctually say "well of course war is bad". But think twice before you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.

In every sort of environment there is always conflicts for power. On Planet Bob, it really is the same thing: Every world war, every small conflict, they're all because one nation believes they can gain an upper hand by defeating another nation. The Karma War took place because Karma wanted to break the hold the Hegemony had, because Hegemony had a stranglehold on world opinion and Karma wanted that... and it's the same thing going back in history. Isn't that the entire point of trying to grow your country?

Some alliances believe that the fastest way they can improve their member nations is by taking those improvements. Why not? It's pure animal nature to exploit the weak to become stronger, and it will stay that way until all sentient life is burnt out of the universe.

[Godwin]

Under 15 is not an alliance, unless they have a protectorate or are Opethian.

Its fine to raid someone if they raid, but not if they don't? Seriously? Its fine in general people need to chill.

Thank you, I'm glad someone else gets it.

To all those who say it's bad, why? The ability to declare war on another exists for a reason, and the ability to prevent yourself from getting attacked (aka peace mode) exists, also for a reason. If you don't want to get attacked, take advantage of the latter. I don't understand how people can get all whiny and upset over this.

[Dochartaigh]

If tech raiding is immoral, so is war in general.

Now, some of you might instinctually say "well of course war is bad". But think twice before you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.

In every sort of environment there is always conflicts for power. On Planet Bob, it really is the same thing: Every world war, every small conflict, they're all because one nation believes they can gain an upper hand by defeating another nation. The Karma War took place because Karma wanted to break the hold the Hegemony had, because Hegemony had a stranglehold on world opinion and Karma wanted that... and it's the same thing going back in history. Isn't that the entire point of trying to grow your country?

Some alliances believe that the fastest way they can improve their member nations is by taking those improvements. Why not? It's pure animal nature to exploit the weak to become stronger, and it will stay that way until all sentient life is burnt out of the universe.

wait, ya'll (as in your side) needs to stay on one page. either tech raiding is war, or it is not war. cuz when ya'll talk about the FoA thing, you state it was just a "tech raid" and thus, make it sound like it was not a war. so if ya'll keep comparing tech raiding to warring, then you guys declared war on FoA, not just a "tech raid".

so i suggest, ya'll either shut up about war and keep this discussion on tech raiding, or you be honest and state you declared war on FoA instead of just conducting a tech raid. it is one or the either as you can't have both and not be a hypocrite.

[JT Jag]

wait, ya'll (as in your side) needs to stay on one page. either tech raiding is war, or it is not war. cuz when ya'll talk about the FoA thing, you state it was just a "tech raid" and thus, make it sound like it was not a war. so if ya'll keep comparing tech raiding to warring, then you guys declared war on FoA, not just a "tech raid".

so i suggest, ya'll either shut up about war and keep this discussion on tech raiding, or you be honest and state you declared war on FoA instead of just conducting a tech raid. it is one or the either as you can't have both and not be a hypocrite.

What are wars but large-scale tech raids, anyway?

At least we cop to what we do and are civil about it. We raid, you ask for peace, we generally give it to you. Everyone else tries to paint their methods for advancement as something more "noble", but in the end we're all in a big rat-race to the top.

In the end, all wars are tech raids until we have the ability to isolate what we take. And I refuse to feel "shame" for using the system that is in place.

Incidentally, GOONS does not necessarily endorse what I'm saying, I'm just a peon there and am in no way a spokesperson for the alliance. This is just my honest opinion on this matter.

[Kiss Goodbye]

I prefer strict government control over the declaration of war by nations within an alliance.

Good or evil, no opinions will change on tech raiding from discussion alone; plenty of folks will always BAAAW over these sorts of things because they have deeply set opinions, others because they don't like you and want to undermine your position.

The pixel gains from tech raiding are small compared to the PR losses inherent in presenting any angle of attack for your political opponents.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Kiss Goodbye