Aiding during Wartime

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1266475805' post='2189130']
Why accept it? Why not try to change it?
[/quote]
I would apply my own personal morality as long as it would not hurt those I am involved with. If given an opportunity to change it, I would. I would not put myself and my alliance mates into a bad situation because I was trying to change the world and got burned. My alliance (+allies) > everyone else in my mind

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' date='17 February 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1266471456' post='2188981']
It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period.
-Craig
[/quote]

Absolutely, it is legitimate as a tactic. But, from a tactical perspective, is threatening individual(s) who are, providing either money or technology to an enemy, wise? The general view seems to be yes (or people just don't question it). I find the odd as I can imagine at least some situations where it could backfire.

Edited February 18, 2010 by White Chocolate

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1266476222' post='2189140']
I would apply my own personal morality as long as it would not hurt those I am involved with. If given an opportunity to change it, I would. I would not put myself and my alliance mates into a bad situation because I was trying to change the world and got burned. My alliance (+allies) > everyone else in my mind
[/quote]

Ok. If you were in a position where your alliance could be endangered due to our attempts to change world views, I would understand. What if you were in a position where you are not in any danger in challenging world views (sort of like your position in this war where you have the power the actually influence the morality of the cyberverse)?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1266476746' post='2189153']
Ok. If you were in a position where your alliance could be endangered due to our attempts to change world views, I would understand. What if you were in a position where you are not in any danger in challenging world views (sort of like your position in this war where you have the power the actually influence the morality of the cyberverse)?
[/quote]
If it fell within my own views and that of my alliance and my allies, then yes.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1266477015' post='2189159']
If it fell within my own views and that of my alliance and my allies, then yes.
[/quote]

Ok, I guess I will accept that. I will have to ask what is your own views upon what is acceptable ways to prevent someone from aiding your enemy.
Also, would you not agree that, during wartime, one should limit his/her impact upon uninvolved parties?

EDIT: I ask this again because your previous justifications have been "cyberverse morality". Now that we see that you have the power to change this morality (and no longer have to follow it), I would like to ask what your personal views upon the matter are.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1266477393' post='2189167']
Ok, I guess I will accept that. I will have to ask what is your own views upon what is acceptable ways to prevent someone from aiding your enemy.
Also, would you not agree that, during wartime, one should limit his/her impact upon uninvolved parties?[/quote]
Allow people to finish out their tech deals, but then start no further ones. Be polite, yet firm. Don't threaten force unless it becomes necessary. You don't want to draw a neutral party in unless they are overwhelmingly stubborn and keep aiding your opponents war materials. There is no reason to be impolite, but yet at the same time, they should realize that their actions have a negative impact upon you, and that you are willing to do what is necessary to stop that.

The current state of Cyberverse morality is similar yet different to that, favoring a more aggressive approach from what I can tell at least.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Baldr]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1266468277' post='2188863']
What about trading with nations at war? If someone with uranium is trading with your opponent, aren't they aiding your opponent in acquiring nuclear armaments? Should this not be considered an act of war as well, if we define an act of war as assisting your opponents in war? [/quote]

It's not unheard of for nations to be sanctioned in order to keep them from trading with enemies. It's not the norm, mostly because it isn't very effective and has unwanted side effects.

[quote]
The nation I spoke of in the OP has no idea what is going on. To him, his nation is simply going about its business when all of a sudden, it receives this message. He does not support any sides since he doesn't even know who's at war. Is he not neutral?[/quote]

He knows, now, what is going on, as they've messaged him. And if he's sending aid to one side in a war, he isn't as neutral as he would like to believe.


[quote]I'm concerned that alliances who are at war are interfering with the economic dealings of neutral nations that are not involved in the conflict.
[/quote]

They *are* involved. They are sending money, tech, or soldiers to one side, who will use that aid in their war.


[quote name='White Chocolate' date='17 February 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1266468602' post='2188877']
Nice advise in theory. However, with the treaty web - when the alliance wars are in full swing, good luck finding buyers who are NOT at war. If Planet Bob could have "little" alliance wars involving two to five alliances and keep it at that, this probably would be a non-issue.
[/quote]

Some notable alliances who are not involved in the current world war...

World Task Force
Green Protection Agency
Avalanche
The Democratic Order
United Purple Nations

There are a lot of smaller alliances, too, I'm sure. Regardless, if you want to remain neutral, don't aid anyone. If you don't mind getting involved, only do tech trades with the winning side, on the theory that the losing side is too busy to mess with you.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1266519437' post='2189980']
The current state of Cyberverse morality is similar yet different to that, favoring a more aggressive approach from what I can tell at least.
[/quote]

Agreed. An aggressive approach in this situation I think is counterproductive. It creates resentment and could possibly backfire and bring the opposing alliance to the other side completely. Which makes me question if it's actually really about getting one to stop "aiding an enemy" or simply using intimidation for some other reason. (i.e. show of power, because it's fun, to try to bait the neutral into taking a side in the war, because if "called" on the behavior by others, the excuse "it's an act of war" justifies everything). If it were truly about stopping the behavior the "common practice" would be to deal with such issues between alliance leadership.

No one in US has received such messages but our friends who are involved gave me plenty of warning regarding their war plans. Personally, if there were a mistake made and one of our members received the same messages I've heard about, I would have considered no longer being neutral.

Edited February 19, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Crimius]

as comrade craig said.
[quote]
It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period.
-Craig[/quote]
within the power of my nation [ooc]in game functions[/ooc]

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1266474169' post='2189064']
Again, why makes that morality correct? If the rest of the cyberverse suddenly thought that EZI was ok, would you be fine with it as well?
[/quote]
I would remain against it even if it meant I would get EZIed for it.

Morality is not subject to the fickle whims of the mob.

If the rest of the world were to say that EZI is OK then the rest of the world would be wrong.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Baldr' date='18 February 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1266550680' post='2191237']
He knows, now, what is going on, as they've messaged him. And if he's sending aid to one side in a war, he isn't as neutral as he would like to believe.
[/quote]

He doesn't know what is going on. As I said before, he has no idea who is fighting whom or what started the war. He has only received a message telling him that he has to sacrifice his interests for the interests of another party with whom he has no relations.

[quote]
They *are* involved. They are sending money, tech, or soldiers to one side, who will use that aid in their war.
[/quote]

Yes, but they are not involved in attempting to help an alliance win a war; they're involved in a financial transaction that is designed to help them grow. If anything, they are watching out for their own nations and not for the welfare of the nation with whom they are dealing. Thus, I don't consider them to be involved parties in the war.

[quote name='Crimius' date='19 February 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1266597510' post='2192121']
as comrade craig said.

within the power of my nation [ooc]in game functions[/ooc]
[/quote]

Of course, every action is legitimate, if you define legitimate to be any action you have the power to commit.

Edited February 21, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Crimius]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='20 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1266714783' post='2194330']
Yes, but they are not involved in attempting to help an alliance win a war; they're involved in a financial transaction that is designed to help them grow. If anything, they are watching out for their own nations and not for the welfare of the nation with whom they are dealing. Thus, I don't consider them to be involved parties in the war.
[/quote]
nations A and B are at war. He is nation C. Nation A is buying tech from nation C.

Nation C's the equivalent of an arms dealer. he doesn't know, nor does he care to know, who's fighting whom. He's just capitalizing on a demand for a product he can provide; a product that improves the fighting strength of the buyer, Nation A. his concern may very very well be to improve his nation, but Nation Bs concern is his war with Nation A. if Nation A is getting stronger from his dealings with Nation C, then regardless of whether Nation C wanted it or not, he's making an enemy of Nation B by partaking in a transaction that makes both his nation and Nation A stronger.

[Commisar Gaunt]

If you aid, you are helping the side of those who you are aiding. Be prepared to accept the consequences, as you are no longer neutral.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Crimius' date='20 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266728753' post='2194587']
nations A and B are at war. He is nation C. Nation A is buying tech from nation C.

Nation C's the equivalent of an arms dealer. he doesn't know, nor does he care to know, who's fighting whom. He's just capitalizing on a demand for a product he can provide; a product that improves the fighting strength of the buyer, Nation A. his concern may very very well be to improve his nation, but Nation Bs concern is his war with Nation A. if Nation A is getting stronger from his dealings with Nation C, then regardless of whether Nation C wanted it or not, he's making an enemy of Nation B by partaking in a transaction that makes both his nation and Nation A stronger.
[/quote]

I disagree with the analogy of an arms dealer. An arms dealer sells weapons - objects designed to destroy so the dealer fully knows that it will be used for destructive reasons. Tech, on the other hand, has many other uses aside from war. A tech dealer is not selling a weapon; he is selling things that could be used to make weapons (among many other things).

Anyway, that's besides the point. If nation B wants to compete fairly, then he can enter in tech deals, not destroy tech sellers.

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='20 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266735481' post='2194738']
If you aid, you are helping the side of those who you are aiding. Be prepared to accept the consequences, as you are no longer neutral.
[/quote]

If you tech deal, you are engaging in a mutually beneficial business transaction. Threatening a smaller nation with war for one's own need is cowardly and selfish.

Edited February 21, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='21 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1266736283' post='2194758']
I disagree with the analogy of an arms dealer. An arms dealer sells weapons - objects designed to destroy so the dealer fully knows that it will be used for destructive reasons. Tech, on the other hand, has many other uses aside from war. A tech dealer is not selling a weapon; he is selling things that could be used to make weapons (among many other things).
[/quote]

Technology's primary purpose is war. The only other uses it has are a 10% infra bills reduction and as a requirement for a few wonders.

[Baldr]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='21 February 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1266736283' post='2194758']
I disagree with the analogy of an arms dealer. An arms dealer sells weapons - objects designed to destroy so the dealer fully knows that it will be used for destructive reasons. Tech, on the other hand, has many other uses aside from war. [/quote]

Tech has other uses when you're talking about the difference in 0 tech and 100 tech.

Once you get over a few hundred tech, though, tech has very small benefits for anything except war.

You *know* why people are buying tech. You just want to pretend that it isn't true.

[Crimius]

[quote name='Baldr' date='21 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1266787823' post='2195467']
Tech has other uses when you're talking about the difference in 0 tech and 100 tech.

Once you get over a few hundred tech, though, tech has very small benefits for anything except war.

You *know* why people are buying tech. You just want to pretend that it isn't true.
[/quote]

exactly, and if the nation is buying tech from another nation, then it's a safe assumption that it's cheaper for them to buy it off of a seller nation than on their own, which means they already have a tech level well beyond what the 'other benefits' are, with the exception of some wonder requirements (maybe). if they're buying tech from another nation, it's used for either boosting NS, meeting a wonder requirement, or to improve war stats. at that level, he is an arms dealer as much as the game allows him to be, even though to him what he is selling may not be a weapon.

[Prime minister Johns]

I disagree with the arms dealer analogy, Selling tech is more like selling raw materials, these materials can be put to use to strengthen a nation's war-fighting ability or they can be used to improve happiness (even beyond TL100 with certain wonders) or to purchase top end wonders. And a tech buyer may be completely peaceful, indeed there are several GPA tech buyers who I strongly doubt would attack anyone.

Tech only becomes a weapon if the buyer wants it to be one, and it can just as easily be used for peaceful purposes if the buyer wants to use it for this.

I would say that the onus of how the tech is used rests mostly with the buyer for this reason.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='17 February 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1266456407' post='2188504']
Any sort of aid being sent in the direction of somebody at war [b][i]could[/i][/b] be considered an act of war. That's entirely up to the side they're at war with isn't it? Short of some sort of moralist campaign that makes it prohibitive to make such a decision, what constitutes and act of war and what doesn't lies with the aggrieved party.

There is at best a gray area involved with completing contracts, what about donation deals?
[/quote]

Here's what I did, since I knew at least one of us would end up in war. I talked with the other guy and we came to the conclusion it would be best to finish payment after the war.

[Godwin]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1266472273' post='2189007']
Depends on the methods used. There are correct ways to go about it, and incorrect.
[/quote]

I disagree. If you have a method of destroying your opponent's economy (OOC: Provided it is through in-game means and not breaking the terms of service, of course) then it is a completely legitimate war tactic, period. You had just better have the military strength to back it up if you piss the wrong people off, of course.

[Roadie]

[quote name='kenny the microwave' date='17 February 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1266391218' post='2187274']
Of course its an act that should and usually does result in war, any help be it money, tech or troops will aid in your targets defense/aggresion so while it may not be malicious in nature its damaging and thus looked at negativly.

whether a neutral should be attacked or forced to pay reps to the other side is probably not what alot of people would like to see, there aid is an easily traceable and bringing them to punishment can also be quite easy. As for your points about GRL, all i have to say is lol. Goodluck trying to attack everyone firing nukes, while they might be hurting everyone its just a uncontrollable or punishable part of CN that we learnt to live with.

top 5% aye, yes all low nations should endevour to attack everyone stronger then them as alliance rank shouldn't be the only goal a nation has, colour dominance, alliance dominance, nation rank dominance are all fun goals to strive for!
[/quote]

Aiding someone during war time is an act of war against their opponent. Unless it's GOD getting aid from NPO, then it's okay.

[WcaesarD]

In a few past wars, I put down deposits while fighting. That is, I sent OUT aid over the course of the war, and then when it was over, I started getting my tech. Of course I only do that with trusted sellers, and usually neutrals... but you get the point. I've banked up some credit in the past, enough where I was getting a month or two's worth of tech at wars end.

[Godwin]

[quote name='WCaesarD' date='23 February 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1266941309' post='2199073']
In a few past wars, I put down deposits while fighting. That is, I sent OUT aid over the course of the war, and then when it was over, I started getting my tech. Of course I only do that with trusted sellers, and usually neutrals... but you get the point. I've banked up some credit in the past, enough where I was getting a month or two's worth of tech at wars end.
[/quote]

That's probably the most intelligent and neutral way to deal during wartime.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='WCaesarD' date='24 February 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1266941309' post='2199073']
In a few past wars, I put down deposits while fighting. That is, I sent OUT aid over the course of the war, and then when it was over, I started getting my tech. Of course I only do that with trusted sellers, and usually neutrals... but you get the point. I've banked up some credit in the past, enough where I was getting a month or two's worth of tech at wars end.
[/quote]
Of cause if you lose the war and are placed under a restriction of not being able to receive aid for a long time then the money you sent out is lost unless the people you are dealing with have very long memories and are paragons of honesty otherwise they can just walk off with your cash and by the time you are able to chase them many months may of passed.

[Il Principe]

Aiding an nation under attack during wartime...


"Its just like parking your BMW in Harlem, New York. You just do'nt do it!"