Reparations in Raid

[Sephiroth]

Whatever right to reps you have comes from your ability to extract them, so it depends who you're dealing with and how much force you have behind you. From an inter-alliance perspective I don't think launching attacks would remove the alliances ability to get reps for the one initially attacked, although it does weaken their negotiating position sometimes. If they don't have backup a raider might also be more willing to give reps if they start getting attacked back and didn't expect it, so it depends on the situation whether you'll still manage to get reps if you attack back.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Methrage

[Prime minister Johns]

If alliances have the right to ask for reps after they are attacked by another alliance,
Then nations have the right to ask for reps after they are attacked by another nation.

The principle is the same, the only difference is scale.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Urmom]

The person being raided could expect reps for the initial attack, but anything after the first day of retaliation wouldn't have to be paid back.

So if a raider destroys 40 infra the first day, the person being raided is entitled to that value in reps. If he fights back, then he shouldn't receive reps worth more than 40 infra.

[Kataklizm the Great]

Raiding is theft. Raiding countries should be incarcerated. (Like stripped of trades maybe). Wait, summary execution would be a better deterrent.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Vilien' date='27 February 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1267321661' post='2207249']
So what you're saying is that you don't approve of reparations for any action?
[/quote]

He's saying he can't justify his opinion so he's just going to make something up.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='27 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1267318250' post='2207191']
If you steal my wallet and I punch you in the face, you don't get to keep my wallet.
[/quote]
Best answer here, short, simple, to the point.

[Urmom]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='27 February 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1267329124' post='2207428']
Best answer here, short, simple, to the point.
[/quote]
Pretty much what I said. Except that if the robber and you continue to fight since you won't let him go, the robber shouldn't have to pay for your medical bills after that since you allowed it to escalate.

[BlkAK47_002]

But there wouldn't have been a conflict in the first place if the raiding nation hadn't attacked. If the victim nation is unaligned however than the whole " You keep whatever you can hold on to" is valid

I'm aligned, If a nation attacked me I would unleash hell on him, CM, Nukes, Aircraft, spies, navy, ground war, the whole nine yards. If you are the victim of an attack it;s in your best intrests to respond with overwhelming force to the point where he says " wow this was not a good idea!!"If the raiders alliance has a problem with it you can say " Your member nation was the aggressor, he attacked and got what he deserved. Now he has to pay for damages"

Other alliance: Well not really because your nation fought back,

Your alliance: well fighting back doesn't bring back my stolen money or wrecked infra now does it?

Simplest way to deal with that scenario, in my opinion

Edited February 28, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[Urmom]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='27 February 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1267330111' post='2207452']
But there wouldn't have been a conflict in the first place if the raiding nation hadn't attacked. If the victim nation is unaligned however than the whole " You keep whatever you can hold on to" is valid

I'm aligned, If a nation attacked me I would unleash hell on him, CM, Nukes, Aircraft, spies, navy, ground war, the whole nine yards. If you are the victim of an attack it;s in your best intrests to respond with overwhelming force to the point where he says " wow this was not a good idea!!"If the raiders alliance has a problem with it you can say " Your member nation was the aggressor, he attacked and got what he deserved. Now he has to pay for damages"

Other alliance: Well not really because your nation fought back,

Your alliance: well fighting back doesn't bring back my stolen money or wrecked infra now does it?

Simplest way to deal with that scenario, in my opinion
[/quote]
I'm saying that if you choose not to accept the peace offer and attack, the raider shouldn't have to pay back additional damage caused by responding to your attacks.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Urmom(U)

[Augustus Autumn]

The idea that there are rights in the 'verse is a joke.

[Prime minister Johns]

Someone who has been raided can make it more cost effective to pay them off rather than face a full war cycle against the launching everything they have including nukes.

In this context it would make good economic sense to pay for the damage caused and apologize. Because the damage caused by an all out nuclear war would undo many weeks of raiding and collecting in a few days.

The only real defense against a raider is to be able to inflict enough damage to make the potential cost of the war greatly exceed any benefit they might gain. And hopefully this will encourage the raider to look elsewhere when looking for targets.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Jack Diorno]

That is a silly question, there are no rights in CN.
If you get raided you don't have the [i]right[/i] to receive reparations for the attack in any case. Someone larger then the raider or the raiders alliance can threaten the raider to hand over some reps, but you never had the [i]right[/i] to them.

[Bob Janova]

There's no international law, so you don't have any right to not have your stuff stolen (unfortunately ...). But logically, no. You can see that alliances demand reparations for being attacked even if they fight back, and there's no reason why the same logic doesn't apply on smaller wars.

[Charles the Great]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='28 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1267327361' post='2207403']
He's saying he can't justify his opinion so he's just going to make something up.
[/quote]
you sir made me spit milk out of my nose..................

[Rocky Horror]

Property is theft, the People of an alliance are taking what is owed them by non-AA hoarders so as to redistribute it among their brothers. The None menace have no right to their tech.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1267372761' post='2208348']
Property is theft, the People of an alliance are taking what is owed them by non-AA hoarders so as to redistribute it among their brothers. The None menace have no right to their tech.
[/quote]

Tech wars are not kept to non-aligned. I've never been non-aligned (OOC: on Planet Bob) yet in my past I've been declared war on and had nations in US declared war on as well. We always got reps (without fighting back) because 99% of the time, raider wasn't following his own alliance rules.

For those who care, yes - we have treaties

Edited February 28, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Newhotness]

the way i see it is, if youre tech raided you ask for reps to make the raider pay for what theyve done. (in most cases you wont get it but hey, its worth a try). If you decide to get back at them, by attacking and killing off infra and stealing back tech, you are "making them pay for what theyve done". so its one or the other, you shouldnt be able to have it both ways. And any raider you try to get reps from after attacking them will laugh in your face. Some, myself included, will probably attack again for tryna get money out of them after you just hit them

[Chief Savage Man]

If the raider is doing the tech raid right, there is no right to reparations anyway. I don't get the question.

[Schattenmann]

In academic terms, no, it should not. In practice, yes, it usually will. Remember, when dealing with a raider or his raider-friendly alliance, you're going to be talking to at least one idiot, and the guy is just not going to understand that if you punch someone in the nose for no reason, and they punch you back, you're still not even.

[ty345]

If you're a raided nation, nuke his $@! back for 7 days, then PM him saying "was it worth it?" Works every time...

[anenu]

are you talking about giving reps to those that got hit in a legitimate raid such as being on none or in a fake AA or reps to a real alliance that got "raided"?


If you mean a legitimate raid then reps aren't given anyway so that question is moot, although in my opinion you should fight back if your being raided.

If you mean a raid on an real alliance then you should give reps to them no matter if they fought back or not because you just started an aggressive war for no reason.

[Windsor]

The "rights" you have depend on your ability to force your opponent(s) to submission. If you are a rogue, for example, and you find yourself being raided by an alliance, then you are at the mercy of the attacker(s).

Unless, for example, you were on red about a year ago. Then there was another option on the table for you.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Windsor

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='anenu' date='01 March 2010 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1267393420' post='2208831']
are you talking about giving reps to those that got hit in a legitimate raid such as being on none or in a fake AA or reps to a real alliance that got "raided"?


If you mean a legitimate raid then reps aren't given anyway so that question is moot, although in my opinion you should fight back if your being raided.

If you mean a raid on an real alliance then you should give reps to them no matter if they fought back or not because you just started an aggressive war for no reason.
[/quote]
I agree
The only reason tech raids are profitable is because people do not fight back.
If everyone fought back then the raiders would be worse off every time they tried a raid and the practice would soon stop.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='28 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1267384052' post='2208623']
Tech wars are not kept to non-aligned. I've never been non-aligned (OOC: on Planet Bob) yet in my past I've been declared war on and had nations in US declared war on as well. We always got reps (without fighting back) because 99% of the time, raider wasn't following his own alliance rules.

For those who care, yes - we have treaties
[/quote]Then you are working for the common good, no matter how few of you there are. My theory applies only to none menace.

[Ashoka the Great]

There is no 'right' to reparations. However, in cases where a tech raid has gone wrong -- say, when a raider attacks someone who belongs to an alliance -- the damages are more punitive than anything else, and often have little to do with damage sustained. (And more to do with delivering the message of "Don't do that again, dummy" to the raider who screwed up. Often it's the raider's alliance that will propose said terms, in order to avoid embarrassment for a raid gone wrong.)