Reparations in Raid

[Trout]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='05 March 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1267824358' post='2215146']
TECH RAIDERS ARE COWARDS
[/quote]
This man speaks the truth.

[Sephiroth]

A tech raider has just as much of a right to raid an unaligned nation expecting no reps if they resist as an alliance would to declare on an alliance expecting no reps if they fight back. Depends on which side has the force behind it and if other parties get involved who want peace as well as and have the ability to extract reps.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Methrage

[armageddon23]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='27 February 2010 - 07:45 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]

I couldn't have said it better. If I were attacked or tech raided, then I want what's mine AND payment for putting up with the war

[Cobalt]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='02 March 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267572364' post='2211872']
I'm glad you don't apply such things to small alliances. However, why are non-aligned a "menace" worthy of constant tech wars as far as you are concerned?
[/quote]

Its a figure of speech. Much like "Neutral Menace"

Also, on planet bob (ooc: and in the real world) people pretty much do what they can get away with. In the case of raiding none, there is no higher power which will intervene (unless CNARF makes an epic comeback...), so those who chose to do so are free to raid none at their leisure. In the case of raiding small alliances without a larger protecting alliance, its pretty much the same thing.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='27 February 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1267320680' post='2207234']
[color="#0000FF"]I am pretty sure that if a nation is raided and fights back, it will be more likely that they will be the ones to pay reparations unless they enjoy being a war forever.[/color]
[/quote]

pretty much this since most raiders are !@#$%*^ that can't fight one v one. most likely the nation who fights back will be hit by 2 other nations allied to the original raider (unless already being hit by 2 other raiders), then forced to pay reps or face zi or some other bs crap.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1268269281' post='2221553']
pretty much this since most raiders are !@#$%*^ that can't fight one v one. most likely the nation who fights back will be hit by 2 other nations allied to the original raider (unless already being hit by 2 other raiders), then forced to pay reps or face zi or some other bs crap.
[/quote]
I might be wrong on a global level but I believe that practice of ZIing a raid target that fights back has fallen out of favor.

[Evitressa]

I agree with most of the raiders.

If I attack you and steal your !@#$, what goes through your mind to make you think that I will now give it back? I don't care whether you put up a fight or not, I'm keeping it regardless. There is no 'right to reparations'. Period.

[D34th]

That's easy, no.

[Prime minister Johns]

The ability to cause additional damage is the bargaining chip I would use.

Lets say I am a mid sized to large sized unaligned nation that is being raided by three nations from the same alliance. and the raid has currently had only 6 GAs done against me so far with no counter attack by myself.

First I would contact the leader of that alliance in private and provide him with a list of battle reports and politely ask for reps equal to the replacement cost of the damage caused. I would also carefully and politely explain that the cost of the reps I am asking for would be less than the cost of rebuilding after I drop my full load of nukes and leave it up to them to decide how I am going to get my satisfaction for being attacked.

Cash or damage are just as acceptable to me and with nukes I can cause more damage than I take so damage is satisfactory but I would much rather have cash which would be less costly for them and allow me to rebuild.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='12 March 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1268364308' post='2222856']
The ability to cause additional damage is the bargaining chip I would use.

Lets say I am a mid sized to large sized unaligned nation that is being raided by three nations from the same alliance. and the raid has currently had only 6 GAs done against me so far with no counter attack by myself.

First I would contact the leader of that alliance in private and provide him with a list of battle reports and politely ask for reps equal to the replacement cost of the damage caused. I would also carefully and politely explain that the cost of the reps I am asking for would be less than the cost of rebuilding after I drop my full load of nukes and leave it up to them to decide how I am going to get my satisfaction for being attacked.

Cash or damage are just as acceptable to me and with nukes I can cause more damage than I take so damage is satisfactory but I would much rather have cash which would be less costly for them and allow me to rebuild.
[/quote]
In \m/ the raider is on his own, if you came to gov as a unaligned seeking reps we would send you to the nation/s raiding you regardless of your nukes.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='03 March 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1267600178' post='2212417']
Somehow I don't think you understand the mindset of a raider.
[/quote]
I think he sums up the typical raider well enough. I've yet to run into one who regularly attacks upward against multiple targets.

[quote name='Newhotness' date='03 March 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1267666326' post='2213163']
thats only some raiders. and then there are those who would like to be in an all out alliance war but arent in one so instead they raid, and if the raided nation fights back then hell yeah, its like christmas morning. They get that all out war they wanted, even if its on a smaller scale
[/quote]
Why would they care all that much if the raided nation fought back? They typically only choose those at the low end of their attack range, who are therefore at a significant disadvantage. They probably also had 3v1 odds in the first place, and can reasonably expect no retaliation from as-yet-uninvolved third parties. So yeah, it's not really like war at all, is it?

(Edited for clarity.)

Edited March 12, 2010 by Vhalen

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='12 March 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1268368399' post='2222963']
In \m/ the raider is on his own, if you came to gov as a unaligned seeking reps we would send you to the nation/s raiding you regardless of your nukes.
[/quote]
Then it would be his call.
Pay a moderate amount of cash for reps, or spend a large amount of cash rebuilding.

And if he gets beaten up would \m/ come to his aid?

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='12 March 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1268358590' post='2222746']
I might be wrong on a global level but I believe that practice of ZIing a raid target that fights back has fallen out of favor.
[/quote]
The target will get ZIed if then raiders think they can get away with it without people noticing.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='03 March 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1267600397' post='2212420']
Indefinitely, I don't mind people who fight back, in fact I've made more than a few friends with people who fight back. Do you believe you have to belong to an alliance and wait for all the pomp and circumstance to roll along before you can enjoy war? If they are none and large enough for the average raider to attack they have a pretty good idea about what they are doing, don't you think?
[/quote]

Individual nations can declar wars on others for more than one reason. A "raider" who wants a fight is indeed a challenge.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='10 March 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1268267959' post='2221503']
Its a figure of speech. Much like "Neutral Menace"
[/quote]

Only if people keep using it.

[Olaf Styke]

I am absolutely shocked by the number of people who voted 'yes'.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='13 March 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1268453529' post='2224002']
I am absolutely shocked by the number of people who voted 'yes'.
[/quote]
I would tend to put more weight on the number of people leaving comments instead.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Crimius]

if somebody tried raiding me, I would check to see if they violated their alliance's charter, first and foremost. since there is truly no international law, it means we must defer to the individual alliance laws for guidance. depending on if he had violated his or not, I would ask reps or strike back with a full force attack, as well as spy ops and a naval assault, then offer peace. I am in agreeance that there is not "right to reps", with the exception that if the raider is in violation of his/her alliances charter. If I were unaligned, I wouldn't dream of getting reps and would proceed straight to retaliation and contact the higher ups in their alliance about their actions and ask that they let me have some fun with the raider and not to interfere for the duration of the war cycle.

the question of reps lies on the rules of the alliances in question, and alliances must be plural here.

Edit: to actually answer the question, if you caused more damage fighting back than you were dealt, then yes.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Crimius

[Mustakrakish II]

Well, I guess in the so called "moral" way of tech raiding you offer up reps right in the war declaration, and a simple day of fighting won't do too much damage...hopefully. I voted no, but I guess it all depends on who has taken how much damage.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Crimius' date='17 March 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1268834447' post='2228218']
I would check to see if they violated their alliance's charter, first and foremost. since there is truly no international law, it means we must defer to the individual alliance laws for guidance.
[/quote]

This is the way you get reps in a tech war. I've dealt with...oh, I lost count - anyway, many many people who either raided US or our own members (who are NOT following our rules - we don't allow tech wars on anyone) and 99.9% do NOT follow their own alliance rules.

It is amusing after sending a message to a non-aligned when one of our new members (usually new anyway) does an illegal raid that says something to the effect of "sorry about our naughty member, we don't allow 'tech raids' so he'll be sending you reps shortly" and watching what happens:

"What??! Um...Thanks... "

And, yes - we've had people join our alliance because of it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Gn0xious Jr]

I would say that every nation has a right to request for reps regardless of the nature of the conflict... whether or not they actually get paid is another question.

[Guffey]

[quote name='Balder' date='03 March 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1267644626' post='2212864']
If I steal your wallet and you punch me in the face, not only am I going to punch you in the face, kick you in the nuts, and otherwise harm you until you're a bloody mess on the floor but I'm still taking your wallet. Oh, and I'm also taking your girlfriend, your jewelry and your keys.
[/quote]

Then i'd get a gun shoot you in the back, take my wallet, girlfriend, jewelry, and my keys back.

If i get tech raided, first response would be attack back. Then ask for reps for their initial attack. If they refuse, I go to their alliance, if they refuse, i nuked the raider until they agree.

[zzzptm]

If you're unaligned, you won't get reps, anyway, so fight back and enjoy the fireworks.

If you're in an alliance, get three attackers to blast apart your raider and have a senator sanction him. That's more fun than getting reps. The typical raid target can get more in aid than in reps, usually.

I've dealt with rogues that just wanted to blast me apart. They won't pay no reps when they're done wrecking, not nohow. Therefore, it's best to enjoy the carnage and get some casualties while you're at it.

[Lezrahi]

Voted no, but I do believe that it is possible that the notion of reparations can be negated if the defending nation is offered peace by the offender, and then rejects it in favor of war.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Lezrahi

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Lezrahi' date='27 March 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1269666072' post='2238100']
Voted no, but I do believe that it is possible that the notion of reparations can be negated if the defending nation is offered peace by the offender, and then rejects it in favor of war.
[/quote]
If I walked up to you and punched you in the face while you were minding your own business then offered to shake hands and call an end to the fight you would accept my offer?

No?

Well a tech raid is perceived as the same thing by many people, it's an unprovoked attack to them, nothing more, nothing less. And they react accordingly.