The Freedom of The Seas

[Baldr]

[quote name='Guffey' date='05 April 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1270513169' post='2249763']
If the nation refuses to give the money back, we will go to their alliance leaders. I have also informed all of Avalon nations that they must state the fact that raiding will cause the deal to be canceled before they begin a tech deal.
[/quote]

I'd suggest that if a nation raids while involved in a tech deal, you put them on a list that anyone involved with FOS can see. Heck, make it public for anyone. The people who like raiding can use it to find sellers, your people can use it to avoid sellers who tech raid.

[quote name='Guffey']
And to clarify, this does not mean signatory alliances are not allowed to tech deal with an alliance that may raid. (they can do that if they wish) But rather individual nations based upon their war history screen.
[/quote]


Personally, I don't think you should do business with alliances that tech raid. You're helping them grow, if you do. The growth may be in infra, or just money for the war chest so they can easily raid - either way, it's working against your own cause.

It's also pretty much asking for trouble. You know some of the tech raiding alliances are going to push and see what they can get away with. If you buy tech from them, then you pretty much know they'll intentionally take your money and go out on a raid shortly after, just to see what happens. They probably aren't going to agree to send the money back (and it's a waste of aid slots even if they do). Easier to just avoid dealing with them in the first place.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Baldr

[ktarthan]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='05 April 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1270511927' post='2249742']
As you may have noticed, each alliance can implement article 3 in any way they can. What Vilien has suggested has been considered before (a public guide is available on the CB forums for everyone to view) and any of the signatories can follow it. What CB does is a bit different. We would ask the raided nation to join our applicant AA as a temporary member. Should the nation agree to do so, we shall send aid as soon as we can and ask the nation raiding to stop raiding one of our temporary members.
[/quote]
At least in the eyes of GOONS, you might run in to a few issues with this approach. I do not try to criticize your reasoning, but simply offer advice from an alliance that you could be trying to deal with in the future.
Simply having the raided nation join as a temporary member would give you no authority to speak on their behalf. If they have the intent of joining your alliance for good and you come speak to us, we may be willing to talk, although it is just as likely we will ask for the nation to talk to us themselves, or let the war ride itself out. Also, messaging the raiding nation directly will not go over well at all. If you have any diplomatic issues to discuss with GOONS at all, talk to our government.
Further, having the raided nation temporarily join your applicant AA will not change our view on aid, as I have expressed above.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Doitzel' date='05 April 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1270511788' post='2249739']
Indeed. And you will find that in this battle, history is on our side.
[/quote]

Ah, but Doitzel. You're forgetting one important thing. 'History' on Bob is about as untouched by revisionist tendencies as Twinkies are left untouched by Tyga.

[Riddick]

can someone sum this up like say in a brief sentence or two..

I got from this anyone who tech raids has to answer to doitzel lol

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Riddick' date='06 April 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1270518830' post='2249854']
can someone sum this up like say in a brief sentence or two..

I got from this anyone who tech raids has to answer to doitzel lol
[/quote]
That's the best summation I've heard so far

[Tomcat]

So this is like CNARF 2.0?

This idea is like 4 years old. It didn't work back then either.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='05 April 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1270513678' post='2249772']
At least in the eyes of GOONS, you might run in to a few issues with this approach. I do not try to criticize your reasoning, but simply offer advice from an alliance that you could be trying to deal with in the future.
Simply having the raided nation join as a temporary member would give you no authority to speak on their behalf. If they have the intent of joining your alliance for good and you come speak to us, we may be willing to talk, although it is just as likely we will ask for the nation to talk to us themselves, or let the war ride itself out. Also, messaging the raiding nation directly will not go over well at all. If you have any diplomatic issues to discuss with GOONS at all, talk to our government.
Further, having the raided nation temporarily join your applicant AA will not change our view on aid, as I have expressed above.
[/quote]

Don't misunderstand the term; just because we classify them as temporary members does not mean they are not going to join our alliance. The term temporary member is a category of sorts. Basically, any nation classified under that category receives limited benefits from us. That is the only difference between a temporary member and a full member. It does not mean that the nation has to leave our AA or that the nation is not considered to be part of our alliance. We have some temporary members that have stuck around longer than some of our regular members. They're a part of the community as much as full members.


[quote name='Tomcat' date='05 April 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1270519690' post='2249863']
So this is like CNARF 2.0?

This idea is like 4 years old. It didn't work back then either.
[/quote]


I wonder where you see the supposedly overt similarities. Perhaps you can point them out to me?

[quote name='Riddick' date='05 April 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1270518830' post='2249854']
can someone sum this up like say in a brief sentence or two..

I got from this anyone who tech raids has to answer to doitzel lol
[/quote]

You've got it wrong then. Please reread the actual pact. Sorry we didn't provide a tl;dr.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='05 April 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1270519335' post='2249858']
That's the best summation I've heard so far
[/quote]

I would appreciate it if you did not encourage others to misunderstand this pact.

Edited April 6, 2010 by kulomascovia

[xoindotnler]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='06 April 2010 - 04:08 AM' timestamp='1270519690' post='2249863']
So this is like CNARF 2.0?

This idea is like 4 years old. It didn't work back then either.
[/quote]
Maybe if you read the topic first you would have known it already, bravo sir bravo.

[Tritonia]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='05 April 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1270509158' post='2249677']
Sending aid to a raidee because they got raided is done primarily so they can build military and cause greater harm to the raider. I do not make any distinction between causing direct harm via war versus indirect harm via aid.
[/quote]
As a personal matter, I refrain from aiding nations at war because I do not support war. Any aid sent following the termination of the war is to be used for the purpose of reconstruction.

But as I said, that's my individual policy. I presume it would ruffle no feathers.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Tritonia' date='05 April 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1270531765' post='2250073']
As a personal matter, I refrain from aiding nations at war because I do not support war. Any aid sent following the termination of the war is to be used for the purpose of reconstruction.

But as I said, that's my individual policy. I presume it would ruffle no feathers.
[/quote]
I think that this is a far more constructive policy than aiding the nation during war. Firstly, you put the emphasis on rebuilding - which is what the nation probably needs most. There's no risk of the money being stolen before it can be used, and no wasted funds on warfare. Secondly, it leaves no ambiguity about the message being sent to the raiding nation/alliance. As I have said, some alliances will regard aid during a raid a hostile act.

[Baldr]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='06 April 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1270532480' post='2250097']
I think that this is a far more constructive policy than aiding the nation during war. Firstly, you put the emphasis on rebuilding - which is what the nation probably needs most. There's no risk of the money being stolen before it can be used, and no wasted funds on warfare. Secondly, it leaves no ambiguity about the message being sent to the raiding nation/alliance. As I have said, some alliances will regard aid during a raid a hostile act.
[/quote]

It's so sweet that you care so much for the nations that are getting attacked for no reason.

Or, more likely, you're just upset that those nations might be given a chance to fight back.

[Atanatar]

And yet you have no problem attacking nations who raid, nations who may very well be just as ignorant as the people they are attacking. In many, many ways you may be causing what you hope to prevent, by aiding and/or attacking low level nations who are ignorant that they are "guilty" of such a heinous crime.

[Guffey]

[quote name='Atanatar' date='06 April 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1270533286' post='2250106']
And yet you have no problem attacking nations who raid, nations who may very well be just as ignorant as the people they are attacking. In many, many ways you may be causing what you hope to prevent, by aiding and/or attacking low level nations who are ignorant that they are "guilty" of such a heinous crime.
[/quote]

hence why we will message unaligned raiding nations first in most cases, asking them to cease their raid, and if they refuse, then possibly pursing military action against them in order to get them to stop with their raids.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 April 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1270532719' post='2250099']
It's so sweet that you care so much for the nations that are getting attacked for no reason.

Or, more likely, you're just upset that those nations might be given a chance to fight back.
[/quote]
I wish no ill will towards raid targets, also 'no reason' is demonstrably false.

Second, as I have already stated, I expect that my raid targets will fight back. I really don't care. What I [i]do[/i] care about is individuals attempting to cause harm to members of my alliance and expecting no form of retaliation.

What I am saying is this: aid raid targets all you want. It is your choice to make. I am not even saying it is a bad thing to do. But I am saying that in my eyes and the eyes of GOONS, it constitutes a hostile action and those sending the aid should expect a response accordingly.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='04 April 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1270410472' post='2247753']
[quote]Session Start: Fri Feb 26 21:14:45 2010
Session Ident: Anonymous
21:14 Session Ident: Anonymous (Anonymous@coldfront.net)
21:14 •
21:14 • Query with Anonymous/Anonymous@coldfront.net opened on Friday, February 26th 2010, 21:14:45.
21:14 • Total queries: 1069/~5 per day
21:14 • Queries today: 16
21:14 • Common channels: +#RoK +#ria +#IAA %#csn +#corporation
21:14 •
21:14
21:14 Anonymous • #fos Freedom of the Seas Pact, Meeting 9pm EST on Saturday to hash out everything| Ajoin this tia || Definitie: CB, Enclave, TMF, Avalon, AoDB, TJO, SLAP || Likely: VE, NV, POT || Maybe: NpO, NADC, OH, Sparta, NEAT, SC, ZDP || Declined: GATO, TOP, Invicta, Ninjas || Updated Pact/Signatures: http://tinyurl.
21:14 Anonymous • #fos topic set by Guffey[Avalon] on Thu Feb 25 19:11:36
21:14 EmperorMarx • Yeah lol
21:14 Anonymous • it's still on his /whois
21:15 EmperorMarx • !@#$@#$ tard
21:15 EmperorMarx • people need to learn how to hide their crap
21:15 Anonymous • lol yeah
21:15 Anonymous • I like WC, but this is bound to fail[/quote]




I can only imagine why several of the names on that list didn't sign.
[/quote]

Speaking for GATO who is listed under the alliances who declined we had our experience with CNARF which is well cataloged in the annals of Bob's history (and even mentioned once or twice in this thread) and we didn't want to go down that path again because of how it turned out that time. GATO doesn't like raiding but we won't deny anyone's right to do it if that's how they roll. We're glad to do our part by outlawing tech raiding within our alliance and that's 1000+ offensive war slots that people don't need to worry about.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='04 April 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1270434255' post='2248239']
Yes, that's the whole point. That was an intervention by outside forces that put you in that position to end it and pay reps.
[/quote]

If I could go back in time, and if I was in charge, I would of paid 0 reps and would of refused to give any apology. I really don't care about unaligned nations or unprotected alliances. I don't really care for all these morals being thrown around here and there either. [ooc]This is a game and I treat it as such. [ooc]

But hey, we must take into account our CnG allies who had an obligation to defend us via our MDAP. We didn't want to see them harmed or our other allies such as Sparta, Poison Clan, IAA etc etc. We moved quickly and resolved the damn situation but at the same time, prepared for war just in case. Better safe then sorry ya know. But anyways, this is an old, dead resolved issue that no longer crosses our minds. We have more important things to worry about and don't have time to worry about raids. With that, I leave this thread and wish yall luck.

[Bob Janova]

And there you have it: Athens still supports attacking alliances for no reason, and only agreed to back down because C&G told them they didn't want to fight that war right now. That's why I do not want Supergrievances in a hegemonic position.

Hm, maybe I should go send some aid packs to raid targets.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Myworld' date='05 April 2010 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1270423825' post='2248018']
Has everyone forgotten that his is just as much a war simulator as it is a nation building game? Raiding is more of classification of a single nation war on a single nation. People go out to have fun and experience the other side of CN, blow crap up. If they profit so be it, if they don't well, then those that got attacked hopefully got the better end of the deal for coming out ahead.

Besides the fact that if we all didn't attack each other then we'd be forfeiting the ability to purchase the War Memorial wonder for having at least 50k of casualties, and then nations will be out the +4 happiness to purchase it.

I understand people want to protect people so they don't leave the game. It's an admiral concept, but what helps keep people playing as well is people not being jerks while out playing the game. If you're going out for a raid then ended it as gentlemen between the 2 nations.

Good luck to those that want to try and aid those getting raided, as well as good luck to those that want to follow the concept created in another thread for the flip side of what is posted here. Should be interesting to see how the next war is escalated off these concepts.
[/quote]

When Admin sees fit to change the text of the official graphic from "Cybernations A Nation Simulation Game" to "Cybernations A War Simulation Game" I will concede that CN is just a war simulator.
Until then I will view war as just a minor aspect of the larger business of running a nation.

Constant war is just as boring as constant peace, and it is a mystery to me why a person would want either of these boring extremes when the real excitement lies somewhere in between.

Still I think that it is a just and noble thing to want to expand the world in general by protecting beginners who might otherwise quit and I applaud this effort, and I am inspired to do something positive as well to help.

Perhaps aiding nations after they have been raided and recruiting them might be a positive thing.

[LJ Scott]

I've raided two pretty large nations this week as a result of this.

How does that make you feel?

Edited April 6, 2010 by LJ Scott

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='06 April 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1270544528' post='2250227']
If I could go back in time, and if I was in charge, I would of paid 0 reps and would of refused to give any apology. I really don't care about unaligned nations or unprotected alliances. I don't really care for all these morals being thrown around here and there either. [ooc]This is a game and I treat it as such. [ooc]

But hey, we must take into account our CnG allies who had an obligation to defend us via our MDAP. We didn't want to see them harmed or our other allies such as Sparta, Poison Clan, IAA etc etc. We moved quickly and resolved the damn situation but at the same time, prepared for war just in case. Better safe then sorry ya know. But anyways, this is an old, dead resolved issue that no longer crosses our minds. We have more important things to worry about and don't have time to worry about raids. With that, I leave this thread and wish yall luck.
[/quote]

Would I be right to guess the source of your bravery to come out of the closet exists only because you won a global war in the meanwhile?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 07:59 AM' timestamp='1270555142' post='2250275']
And there you have it: Athens still supports attacking alliances for no reason, and only agreed to back down because C&G told them they didn't want to fight that war right now. That's why I do not want Supergrievances in a hegemonic position.

Hm, maybe I should go send some aid packs to raid targets.
[/quote]

I own FAC for reasons besides simply completing my Wonders collection.

You make your comments about Athens as though you are actually surprised. Nothing that Athens has done in my memory has surprised me in the least.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='06 April 2010 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1270544528' post='2250227']
If I could go back in time, and if I was in charge, I would of paid 0 reps and would of refused to give any apology. I really don't care about unaligned nations or unprotected alliances. I don't really care for all these morals being thrown around here and there either. [ooc]This is a game and I treat it as such. [ooc]

But hey, we must take into account our CnG allies who had an obligation to defend us via our MDAP. We didn't want to see them harmed or our other allies such as Sparta, Poison Clan, IAA etc etc. We moved quickly and resolved the damn situation but at the same time, prepared for war just in case. Better safe then sorry ya know. But anyways, this is an old, dead resolved issue that no longer crosses our minds. We have more important things to worry about and don't have time to worry about raids. With that, I leave this thread and wish yall luck.
[/quote]

Hey, remember how those green colony sigs used to taken as just a joke before it became painfully (and hilariously) obvious that is was actually true?

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1270555142' post='2250275']
And there you have it: Athens still supports attacking alliances for no reason, and only agreed to back down because C&G told them they didn't want to fight that war right now. That's why I do not want Supergrievances in a hegemonic position.

Hm, maybe I should go send some aid packs to raid targets.
[/quote]
Yes, Athens should they are good allies, willing to drop an issue they strongly believed in for the sake of their allies. That makes them good people in my book.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='06 April 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1270520198' post='2249872']
Don't misunderstand the term; just because we classify them as temporary members does not mean they are not going to join our alliance. The term temporary member is a category of sorts. Basically, any nation classified under that category receives limited benefits from us. That is the only difference between a temporary member and a full member. It does not mean that the nation has to leave our AA or that the nation is not considered to be part of our alliance. We have some temporary members that have stuck around longer than some of our regular members. They're a part of the community as much as full members.





I wonder where you see the supposedly overt similarities. Perhaps you can point them out to me?



You've got it wrong then. Please reread the actual pact. Sorry we didn't provide a tl;dr.



[b]I would appreciate it if you did not encourage others to misunderstand this pact.[/b]
[/quote]
I understood what Doitzel was saying quiet clearly, there was no misunderstanding of his intent with regards to this pact.

[Vilien]

[quote name='LJ Scott' date='06 April 2010 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1270557412' post='2250290']
How does that make you feel?
[/quote]
Terrible.