Vanguard Edict

[uaciaut]

It is about more than raiding (it's also about the fact that Grub was called racist terms when he went to address the raid, for example). But the precedent that is being set is about raiding. If you join the fight to beat off Polar, you are supporting the ability of raiders to attack alliances freely and without intervention. Polar's intervention may be arbitrary, because no-one else had the balls to do it, and because of the dissembling of raiding alliances and their allies which has forever frustrated any sort of international system of justice, but it was in the interests of everyone who is now or may ever be disconnected from the treaty web.

I think trying to impose your own values or standards through force is immeasurably more wrong than raiding itself or p much any other IC action really. And i do support raiding, i have done it, sometimes been a !@#$% about it, most of the time making friends with the people i raided and keeping contact with them for a long time. I don't support the degree of sheer stupidity m/ is showing in this situation, but i try to accept because, well, it's what they're like.

See this is what i think i fought the last war for - not for a war without raiding, or wars, or whining, or stupidity. No, i just grew to tolerate all that !@#$ over time, if i didn't i'd prolly have exited planet bob long ago. I've also tolerated people aggressively imposing their decisions, their political movements and much more through use of effective force for a very long time - time in which most alliances were happy to give us their treaty-less friendships, man what times. I'm sorry i tolerated that !@#$ for so long back then and i personally (in b4 "bawww mk is trolling NpO") am not willing to tolerate that again.

Raiding will happen again. Somewhere in the future. You may accept it because the alliance has only 10 members (sidenote: like it makes a !@#$@#$ difference). Or because it's an ally doing it. Or because it's most of the world and the raided alliance is called GPA. But if you'll accept anyone else telling you what your standards and morals should be and impose them, well, might as well pre-emptively say anyone who does that is righteous and good and call it a day. There's always evil and it always need to be destroyed rawrrrr

Edited January 25, 2010 by uaciaut

[Bob Janova]

Your appeal to libertarianism and subjective morality would be much more convincing if we weren't talking about the most gross violations of the victims' sovereignty possible (invading their nation, destroying their infrastructure and stealing their technology).

[lebubu]

It is about more than raiding (it's also about the fact that Grub was called racist terms when he went to address the raid, for example). But the precedent that is being set is about raiding. If you join the fight to beat off Polar, you are supporting the ability of raiders to attack alliances freely and without intervention. Polar's intervention may be arbitrary, because no-one else had the balls to do it, and because of the dissembling of raiding alliances and their allies which has forever frustrated any sort of international system of justice, but it was in the interests of everyone who is now or may ever be disconnected from the treaty web.

You're advocating imposing "community standards" through force and cutting through half the planet to save the handful of alliances that will ever be disconnected from the web. Raiding has been a reality in our world for a long time, and don't think that a Polar victory will miraculously stop it. Unless you're dreaming of a new Hegemony and want to undo everything Karma ever accomplished. The only precedent being set here is that it's ok to hit connected alliances (to the attacker's allies, no less) if they don't play by your rules or follow your moral code.

Edited January 25, 2010 by lebubu

[Iosif]

Your appeal to libertarianism and subjective morality would be much more convincing if we weren't talking about the most gross violations of the victims' sovereignty possible (invading their nation, destroying their infrastructure and stealing their technology).

Your appeal to absolute moral standards would be much more convincing if you didn't surface with your preachings only when connected/big enough alliances are raided.

[Bob Janova]

The only precedent being set here is that it's ok to hit connected alliances (to the attacker's allies, no less) if they don't play by your rules or follow your moral code.

RoK were talked to before the attack. They are the only ally of Polar that was connected to \m/.

I'd rather take that precedent than 'you can hit people for no reason at all if their connections are not strong enough'. Really, that is the 'new Hegemony' position – nothing more than 'might makes right', and the attacks of a strong or well connected alliance on the weak or less well connected for no reason. Wasn't one of the arguments against the GPA war that it was 'just a big tech raid'? ... and now you want to support a world in which tech raids on alliances are not only acceptable but supported by you and your alliance?

Yes, I am advocating community standards by force, if certain disruptive elements of the community are immune to any other sort of coercion.

Edit for Iosof: Tech raiding is always wrong. However, I recognise that there is a divergence of opinion there, and coming here to complain about every raid would get nothing done. However, the community as a whole has drawn a line since the Unjust War somewhere between 5 and 20 members as being 'an alliance'. I will strongly resist any attempt to bring the world into complete anarchy whereby the only thing that matters is how strong you are or how well connected you are.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Rush Sykes]

RoK were talked to before the attack. They are the only ally of Polar that was connected to \m/.

I'd rather take that precedent than 'you can hit people for no reason at all if their connections are not strong enough'. Really, that is the 'new Hegemony' position – nothing more than 'might makes right', and the attacks of a strong or well connected alliance on the weak or less well connected for no reason. Wasn't one of the arguments against the GPA war that it was 'just a big tech raid'? ... and now you want to support a world in which tech raids on alliances are not only acceptable but supported by you and your alliance?

Yes, I am advocating community standards by force, if certain disruptive elements of the community are immune to any other sort of coercion.

Edit for Iosof: Tech raiding is always wrong. However, I recognise that there is a divergence of opinion there, and coming here to complain about every raid would get nothing done. However, the community as a whole has drawn a line since the Unjust War somewhere between 5 and 20 members as being 'an alliance'. I will strongly resist any attempt to bring the world into complete anarchy whereby the only thing that matters is how strong you are or how well connected you are.

So basically, it is politically convenient for you to accept the 5-20 number. Way to have morals!

[lebubu]

Really, that is the 'new Hegemony' position – nothing more than 'might makes right'

Yes, I am advocating community standards by force, if certain disruptive elements of the community are immune to any other sort of coercion.

Honestly, I really don't want to take things out of context, but if this isn't might makes right, I don't know what is.

... and now you want to support a world in which tech raids on alliances are not only acceptable but supported by you and your alliance?

I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behaviour are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side. Like I said, this is about more than raiding.

[Poyplemonkeys]

It is about more than raiding (it's also about the fact that Grub was called racist terms when he went to address the raid, for example). But the precedent that is being set is about raiding. If you join the fight to beat off Polar, you are supporting the ability of raiders to attack alliances freely and without intervention. Polar's intervention may be arbitrary, because no-one else had the balls to do it, and because of the dissembling of raiding alliances and their allies which has forever frustrated any sort of international system of justice, but it was in the interests of everyone who is now or may ever be disconnected from the treaty web.

Yeah, we are lucky Polaris had the balls to set this precedent about raiding. We are lucky Polaris had the balls to only declare on \m/ in order to twist the treaty web in their favour rather than stand up for their morals in every situation they applied and not just the ones they can come out on top of. Either this war is setting a precedence about raiding and Polar are cowardly/hypocritical in the way they are doing this, or it's about more than just raiding.

You tell me which one Bob...

Edit: Grammar

Edited January 25, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[bigwoody]

You know, I don't subscribe to the idea that this treaty is Vanguard picking a side (they chose long long ago I'm sure), but it sure shows where everyone else falls in here

[Dujek Onearm]

So basically, it is politically convenient for you to accept the 5-20 number. Way to have morals!

Yeah, I always found it intriguing how people based their morals on arbitrary numbers. You can raid a 9 man AA and a unaligned nation, but you can't raid a 10 man AA. The first is acceptable but the second... oh, the second is terribly wrong!!!

[Bob Janova]

Honestly, I really don't want to take things out of context, but if this isn't might makes right, I don't know what is.

It is true that there are elements of this to both sides. You cannot defeat a 'might makes right' entity without a lot of might, and enforcement by military force, because it does not understand any other method. This was amply demonstrated by the Hegemony, and in the end only might could remove it. Polaris attempted to resolve the issue diplomatically, and it succeeded with GOONS – but \m/ only responds to might.

So basically, it is politically convenient for you to accept the 5-20 number. Way to have morals!

You'd rather I tried to enforce my belief on everybody? I recognise that there is a spectrum of opinion, and that in order to achieve anything I must compromise my belief on morality. Attacking a large alliance without cause is worse than attacking a small one and we should deal with the worse problems first. That doesn't mean I don't think attacking a 10 member alliance is wrong, but no-one's fighting a war to back that up just now.

I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behaviour are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side

But that is exactly what you are doing! You are fighting (verbally at least) for a world where there is no such thing as 'acceptable behaviour' beyond what your nukes and NS can enforce in the realm in question. Where it is not wrong to attack a 30 member alliance as long as it has less NS than you do.

Let's be clear here, these standards are not decided by Polaris. Polar's standards are that tech raiding of any kind is not acceptable. These are the standards of essentially every alliance except \m/, PC, GOONS and Athens, being enforced by Polar because no-one else dared to try to bring some decency into the world. And the support that the raiders are getting shows why. Even Polaris, one of the top 3 alliances in the world, is possibly not going to prove strong enough to deal with a few much smaller, aggressive and bullying alliances, because of treaty chaining and the web which everyone purports to hate.

[Micheal Malone]

<snip>

But that is exactly what you are doing! You are fighting (verbally at least) for a world where there is no such thing as 'acceptable behaviour' beyond what your nukes and NS can enforce in the realm in question. Where it is not wrong to attack a 30 member alliance as long as it has less NS than you do.

<snip>

I'm fairly certain uaciat is fighting to play this game as he wants. Without someone dictating to him how he should play it. At least that's what I got from his post.

[o-dog]

It is not up to Polaris to determine what is and is not in the best interests of any portion of the Cyberverse.

Wasn't there some kind of big stand against some other Bloc's policies a way back? seemed OK then for people to fight for the best interests of the cyberverse.

Unless you're dreaming of a new Hegemony and want to undo everything Karma ever accomplished.

Apart from neutralizing NPO, what has Karma accomplished? Certainly not the end of mammoth reps, the use of rubbish CBs or the attempted curb-stomping of alliances for past grudges. Heck, it seems acceptable now for multiple alliances to roll a defenceless target just for the hell of it (with the by-product of gaining a little tech and land).

With regards to this treaty, I'm sure it would have happened, war or no war. Also, Alliance-Bloc and Bloc-Bloc treaties seem like a natural progression.

[Rush Sykes]

It is true that there are elements of this to both sides. You cannot defeat a 'might makes right' entity without a lot of might, and enforcement by military force, because it does not understand any other method. This was amply demonstrated by the Hegemony, and in the end only might could remove it. Polaris attempted to resolve the issue diplomatically, and it succeeded with GOONS – but \m/ only responds to might.

You'd rather I tried to enforce my belief on everybody? I recognise that there is a spectrum of opinion, and that in order to achieve anything I must compromise my belief on morality. Attacking a large alliance without cause is worse than attacking a small one and we should deal with the worse problems first. That doesn't mean I don't think attacking a 10 member alliance is wrong, but no-one's fighting a war to back that up just now.

But that is exactly what you are doing! You are fighting (verbally at least) for a world where there is no such thing as 'acceptable behaviour' beyond what your nukes and NS can enforce in the realm in question. Where it is not wrong to attack a 30 member alliance as long as it has less NS than you do.

Let's be clear here, these standards are not decided by Polaris. Polar's standards are that tech raiding of any kind is not acceptable. These are the standards of essentially every alliance except \m/, PC, GOONS and Athens, being enforced by Polar because no-one else dared to try to bring some decency into the world. And the support that the raiders are getting shows why. Even Polaris, one of the top 3 alliances in the world, is possibly not going to prove strong enough to deal with a few much smaller, aggressive and bullying alliances, because of treaty chaining and the web which everyone purports to hate.

As to the 1st section, concerning Polars successful diplomacy with Goons, and the failure with \m/... I find it curious a name is left off that list. Bob, would care to speculate why the alliance who shall remain nameless was left off the diplomacy wheel? See, I, and damn near anyone who can form a coherent thought know why there are only 2 names on the list. Lets weigh the moralistic crusade shall we? Lesson 1: "If you are our friends, you get a pass." Lesson 2: "If you are remake of a previously failed lolalliance, you get threats." Lesson 3: "If you are a well connected alliance who can fight, but you have big friends who can help you and make this difficult for us, then we find a way to arrange it that you too get punished, but your allies would have to nearly tear their own allies apart to do this." That is quite the moralistic crusade going on there. Except...

Edited January 25, 2010 by Rush Sykes

[Bob Janova]

Bob, would care to speculate why the alliance who shall remain nameless was left off the diplomacy wheel?

There's a few plausible reasons ...

i) NpO really don't care about PC one way or another

ii) NpO think that raiding a 30 man alliance is wrong and knew that PC's treaty with \m/ would bring them in, without implicating Polar's own allies

iii) NpO wished to deal with one injustice at a time, since they have limited strength, and declaring on PC would have put them into a potentially losing situation where their attempted intervention would have had the opposite effect (i.e. making the precedent that intervention would not succeed)

Personally, I think it's mostly (ii) – Polar's main beef was with \m/ (don't forget, it's not just about raiding, it's also about the treatment Grub got when he tried to discuss the issue with them, and the history if you consider new-\m/ to be related to old-\m/), and not with PC, but if PC were conveniently tied in to \m/ then they could attack \m/ and deliver punishment to PC at the same time.

You seem to expect moralists to immediately sacrifice everything to try to fix the world in one step – presumably with one eye on the resulting amoral world in which international anarchists like yourself could happily do what they liked with all the moralists having got themselves killed. A strikingly similar position to the old Hegemony 'do something about it', in fact. What has to happen in the real world is that moralists have to pick fights they can win, just like everyone else. NpO do not have infinite infrastructure or nukes, and they cannot be expected to fight off the whole world by declaring war all over the place, much as you would like to see a decent alliance destroyed so they can not stop your own alliance raids in future.

[bigwoody]

I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behaviour are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side.

Handy guide to this claim. True if and only if rewritten to: "I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behavior are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side (unless it is my side)."

Or you could say "MY Might Makes Right", and "Someone else's might doesn't make right."

Most alliances in this world simply want a position of security where they are on the side of power, and actions taken by others that threaten this will always be twisted into "wrong" somehow, and actions that support this will always find a way to be "right" in one's own mind.

Given that Bob Janova is basically railing on the course of action his own alliance is going to take, maybe he is a slight exception to this rule.

tl;dr: Stop saying this war is about stopping the idea of "Might makes right.", that's stupid and makes anyone who says it look stupid.

Edited January 25, 2010 by bigwoody

[Goldie]

I wouldn't be calling Bob a hypocrite here, seeing as his belief is pretty consistent here. Raiding in any form is wrong for an alliance to do in his eyes, but if people feel they have a need to do it then there is nothing that can be done about it. It is when you move from raiding unaligneds, to raiding alliances, that you open up Pandora's Box. At what point is an alliance too big? Is an entire bloc going to gang up and raid GPA?

Its amazing the stupidity that was on display in the actions of both original sides here in this war. After Athens and FoB had to stand down to Polar a couple of months ago after they raided KofN! because Polar threatened them and MK had to intervene to restore sanity. Note how nothing came of it in the long run, and Athens amended its raiding policy. Now \m/, PC, and GOONS do the same thing Athens and FoB did, and either thought that one of two things would happen: that Polar was bluffing against Athens and wouldn't 'do anything about it', or that they would and wanted to start it. Sheer stupidity. Polar, on the other hand, should have instead of posting big grandstanding things, just offered protection for them themselves, and then gone into the back room in good faith to negotiate, and not work to escalate the situation further through the OWF posting.

[Goldie]

Given that Bob Janova is basically railing on the course of action his own alliance is going to take, maybe he is a slight exception to this rule.

Bob doesn't speak for VE on this matter.

However, I have that ability. Official VE policy is that both sides are wrong in so many ways and dumb in so many ways, and we are all dumber having been exposed to this stupidity.

[Lord Boris]

Congrats to our orange brethren in Vanguard.

[oinkoink12]

Your appeal to libertarianism and subjective morality would be much more convincing if we weren't talking about the most gross violations of the victims' sovereignty possible (invading their nation, destroying their infrastructure and stealing their technology).

This post shows that your still a true Grämlin @ heart.

<3 Bawb

Edited January 25, 2010 by oinkoink12

[bigwoody]

Bob doesn't speak for VE on this matter.

However, I have that ability. Official VE policy is that both sides are wrong in so many ways and dumb in so many ways, and we are all dumber having been exposed to this stupidity.

Oh it's obvious Bob doesn't override your MADP treaties that have already determined your course of action, no doubt.

[lebubu]

Handy guide to this claim. True if and only if rewritten to: "I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behavior are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side (unless it is my side)."

Or you could say "MY Might Makes Right", and "Someone else's might doesn't make right."

Athens never recognized its mistake and never made amends.

Congratulations to our close allies in Vanguard!

edit: oh dear, this barely made sense

Edited January 25, 2010 by lebubu

[x Tela x]

For all the people that are claiming Polaris is infringing upon the sovereignty of \m/ with their declaration of war, what exactly do you think \m/ was doing when they declared their war on a sovereign alliance? The only difference is that \m/ called their war a tech raid.

I don't know that NpO should be playing "world police", as people like to claim, but I know one thing - A world where Polar's morality is the norm and not \m/orality, well that's quite simply a better world. Unaligned nations are one thing, but when you're talking about an organized group of 30 individual nations that have formed a cohesive alliance, that's just straight up terrorism. (Sorry, I know that's a very drastic word to use, but it's the best analogy I can think of.)

Edit: Also, lol at this treaty. I've pulled the same stunt before, so I'll just leave my comment at "lol".

Edited January 25, 2010 by x Tela x

[James I]

Congratulations to Vanguard on this treaty. I will add that I am confused as to how so many of you can paint this as opportunistic when Vanguard and SLCB were already so tightly bound, but carry on.

Official VE policy is that both sides are wrong in so many ways and dumb in so many ways, and we are all dumber having been exposed to this stupidity.

I'm in love with VE's official policy.

[JT Jag]

For all the people that are claiming Polaris is infringing upon the sovereignty of \m/ with their declaration of war, what exactly do you think \m/ was doing when they declared their war on a sovereign alliance? The only difference is that \m/ called their war a tech raid.

I don't know that NpO should be playing "world police", as people like to claim, but I know one thing - A world where Polar's morality is the norm and not \m/orality, well that's quite simply a better world. Unaligned nations are one thing, but when you're talking about an organized group of 30 individual nations that have formed a cohesive alliance, that's just straight up terrorism. (Sorry, I know that's a very drastic word to use, but it's the best analogy I can think of.)

Edit: Also, lol at this treaty. I've pulled the same stunt before, so I'll just leave my comment at "lol".

If I understand the situation correctly, \m/ isn't angry about Polaris invading, they're angry because Polaris plans on telling them how they're allowed to operate after their defeat.