The Freedom of The Seas

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='LJ Scott' date='07 April 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1270644492' post='2251564']
Can you remember creating a nation? You're bombarded within your first day with invites to a whole host of alliances, detailing what they offer etc. If you're too ignorant to heed the advice you get when you start up, then when you get ganked by tech raiders you really have no one to blame but yourself.
[/quote]

Of course, it is the victim's fault for being raided correct? I think this argument is rather silly. Not every nation holds the same values and opinions as everyone. No one should have to force anyone else to conform to a certain specific standards. It's not the victims fault that cowardly and opportunistic thieves infest the surface of this planet.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Baldr' date='07 April 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1270672129' post='2252011']
You have no right to raid without consequences.
[/quote]
Cute.

The consequences of raiding have always existed. If you raid, be prepared to fight a 7 day (or more) war against the person you targeted for raiding.
Some raidee's understand this and respond with 7 days of war, others decide to give up their tech without a fight.

Your viewpoint, however, is that you have the right to search the war screens and attack certain raiders for raiding. You are saying "you can't attack people whenever you want, so I'll attack you to prove people can't attack each other without consequences". Do you see how that argument is circular, and is essentially the same mentality people use to raid in the first place?

I'm all for a program to help the new members of our community. I just see this as having the capacity for another ill fated moral crusade against raiding alliances.

[quote name='Gracy O Malley' date='07 April 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1270632970' post='2251488']
Oh snap! You got it!

No one has the right to steal..
I guess you got the meaning of it all?

Guess there are consequences especially where there are wrong doings.
[/quote]
So to get across the message that nobody can steal, you will find people who steal and then steal their stuff?
Are you then going to give the tech you take to their victims they stole it from in the first place? Or will you just take the land and tech and profit from your stolen tech and land, just like the raiders do that you despise?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Caliph

[Ashen]

As some one who has lost trade partners because raiders have chased them from Bob, I fully support this.

WTG people!

[Not Henry Rollins]

[quote name='Caliph' date='07 April 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1270627513' post='2251453']
You will not infringe on nations "right" to raid without consequences.
[/quote]







Really?

[i]You will not infringe on a nation's right to[/i] raid without consequences.

[i]You will not infringe on a nation's right to[/i] exist without being raided.

This is the real cycle; what is a right and how can my people get some?

There are no rights, only that which you can defend and that which can never be defeated.

Defeat your enemy, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of their woman.. yadda yadda yadda.

[Guffey]

[quote name='Caliph' date='07 April 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1270696736' post='2252639']
Cute.

The consequences of raiding have always existed. If you raid, be prepared to fight a 7 day (or more) war against the person you targeted for raiding.
Some raidee's understand this and respond with 7 days of war, others decide to give up their tech without a fight.

Your viewpoint, however, is that you have the right to search the war screens and attack certain raiders for raiding. You are saying "you can't attack people whenever you want, so I'll attack you to prove people can't attack each other without consequences". Do you see how that argument is circular, and is essentially the same mentality people use to raid in the first place?

I'm all for a program to help the new members of our community. I just see this as having the capacity for another ill fated moral crusade against raiding alliances.


So to get across the message that nobody can steal, you will find people who steal and then steal their stuff?
Are you then going to give the tech you take to their victims they stole it from in the first place? Or will you just take the land and tech and profit from your stolen tech and land, just like the raiders do that you despise?
[/quote]


The option is open for the person that wishes to attack every raider they see, though it is not encouraged. The objective is not to fight the raiders, it is to inform the raid victims of what they can do, and how to best fight if need be. You have the right to raid, and this is not trying to change your desires to do so. But the raid victim has the right to support as well, whether it be information, rebuilding aid, and in certain circumstances military support if need be. The reason the third article is optional, is because signatory alliances have different views on different courses of action. For instance, here at Avalon, the only people we will try and militarily stop raiding is unaligned raiders within range of our smaller nations. Larger nations being raided should well and know the what may happen if they are unaligned, but the small new guys may not. Another signatory alliance, will not partake in any military action whatsoever, but will help financially, and informationally. That is why there is no compulsory way to handle each raider, and why it is at the discretion of each alliance to implement that article how they so choose. I can tell you right now, that if a signatory takes aggressive (meaning they start it) action against a raiding alliance, Avalon will not support that aggression.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 06:59 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]

Yeah, and we totally just tricked NPO and especially TOP into attacking us, just to make it look like we were the defenders. WE WERE CLEARLY ASKING FOR IT, RIGHT? And I suppose you'd rather see one of those that we've defeated leading the world? Would it gladden your heart more to see perpetual activity-building curbstomps from the NPO or perhaps vicious, calculated, pre-emptive assaults from TOP than a few stray raids from Athens that the "victims" are over by the next update?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Guffey' date='07 April 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1270703588' post='2252785']
For instance, here at Avalon, the only people we will try and militarily stop raiding is unaligned raiders within range of our smaller nations.
[/quote]

So you'd rather have the raider driven from the game, as opposed to the target?

[Gracy O Malley]

[quote name='Caliph' date='07 April 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1270696736' post='2252639']
So to get across the message that nobody can steal, you will find people who steal and then steal their stuff?
Are you then going to give the tech you take to their victims they stole it from in the first place? Or will you just take the land and tech and profit from your stolen tech and land, just like the raiders do that you despise?
[/quote]

To be honest, I went back 8 pages and can't find the post you quoted or whom it was from.

All I'm saying is, you raid me, I will strike back and take what was mine to begin with.
If I should make out with more than I had to begin with, ya... I'll be happy..
and I hope the raider suffers from his/her despicable acts

[Baldr]

[quote name='Caliph' date='07 April 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1270696736' post='2252639']
Your viewpoint, however, is that you have the right to search the war screens and attack certain raiders for raiding. You are saying "you can't attack people whenever you want, so I'll attack you to prove people can't attack each other without consequences". Do you see how that argument is circular, and is essentially the same mentality people use to raid in the first place?[/quote]

I am not a peace lover who thinks nobody should ever declare war. I enjoy war just as much as the next guy. I simply want a legitimate reason for the war. Your reason is "I'm bigger than him, I can steal his tech, he can't stop me, and I can hide behind my alliance". Your reason has nothing to do with the guy you are raiding - he didn't do anything to you, he simply exists and you see him as a target.

By the rules the tech raiders have given us, any nation can attack any nation, no reason is needed. But by your own rules, that means that I also have the option of attacking whoever I want. And my my own feelings, attacking someone because in order to teach them a lesson about raiding gives me a reason.

Note that I don't actually do that. I believe it's fine and fair, and that raiders shouldn't complain when your own argument is "You don't need a reason to declare war". However, I've never attacked a tech raider. I've fought back when I was attacked. I've never been in an alliance which would have allowed me to attack tech raiders, either, and my current alliance isn't a part of the FOS pact. I'm just speaking my mind. It's all hypothetical to me, because unlike you, I'm not out declaring war on everyone I find who appears weaker than me.

The difference between raiding in order to make a profit, like tech raiders do, and attacking in order to bloody them, like I argue is acceptable, is that if I attack you for raiding, it's a direct result of your actions. You choose to go to war, else you wouldn't have caught my attention, wouldn't have attracted my ire. The people you attack are being attacked not for something they did, but for simply existing.

The other difference is the end result that we wish for. You wish for a quick profitable raid. I wish not to make a profit, but to do as much damage as I can so it will kill the profit you would have made from a lot of raids. If the profit goes away, most (not all) of the tech raids will go away. I'm certainly not expecting to make a profit if I attack, because I don't expect to do a couple of ground attacks, then get peace with no repercussions. Unlike you, when I press the big red "Go To War" button, I expect to go to war.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='08 April 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1270763098' post='2253407']
So you'd rather have the raider driven from the game, as opposed to the target?
[/quote]

If I was forced to choose between driving one guy away, or leaving him alone so he can drive a lot of nations away, yes. Luckily, there is another option. He can play without attacking random people, and the whole problem ends. The people he's attacking don't have that option. They didn't declare war on him - he's the one picking on them.

If you don't act like a bully, you won't have to worry about getting treated as one.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' date='04 April 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1270357397' post='2247267']
Defending small nations from unaligned raiders may actually be a pretty good service to the community. A lot of new players may quit if the first thing that happens to them is if they get raided by some newbie unaligned while they are small.

I'm considerably less enthused about the practice of refusing to engage in financial aid transactions with any raider, but that, too, is your choice as sovereign alliances.

As long as this anti-raiding activity is restricted to very small nations who are unaligned, I think this may actually have a good effect on the community. Good on you guys for trying something new. Do it right, and be smart about it.
[/quote]
....I don't presume to know what type of character you are but considering past events I find that suprising coming from you Londo.

Times are changing

Edited April 8, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' date='08 April 2010 - 08:29 AM' timestamp='1270711779' post='2252901']
Yeah, and we totally just tricked NPO and especially TOP into attacking us, just to make it look like we were the defenders. WE WERE CLEARLY ASKING FOR IT, RIGHT? And I suppose you'd rather see one of those that we've defeated leading the world? Would it gladden your heart more to see perpetual activity-building curbstomps from the NPO or perhaps vicious, calculated, pre-emptive assaults from TOP than a few stray raids from Athens that the "victims" are over by the next update?
[/quote]
Interesting that you chose not to address any of the points I made, but instead chose to attempt to deflect it with hyperbole.

I'd much rather TOP were leading the world, yes. Pre-emptive attacks during a war are much better than attacking an alliance to steal their tech (and besides, unlike you and raiding alliances, TOP have acknowledged that pre-emptive strikes are a bad idea). The war's over, you can stop pretending you wouldn't have been fighting them now.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1270767141' post='2253481']
I am not a peace lover who thinks nobody should ever declare war. I enjoy war just as much as the next guy. I simply want a legitimate reason for the war. Your reason is "[u]I'm bigger than him[/u], I can steal his tech, [u]he can't stop me, and I can hide behind my alliance[/u]". Your reason has nothing to do with the guy you are raiding - he didn't do anything to you, he simply exists and you see him as a target.

[u]By the rules the tech raiders have given us, any nation can attack any nation, no reason is needed[/u]. But by your own rules, that means that I also have the option of attacking whoever I want. And my my own feelings, attacking someone because in order to teach them a lesson about raiding gives me a reason.

Note that I don't actually do that. I believe it's fine and fair, and that raiders shouldn't complain when your own argument is "You don't need a reason to declare war". However, I've never attacked a tech raider. I've fought back when I was attacked. I've never been in an alliance which would have allowed me to attack tech raiders, either, and my current alliance isn't a part of the FOS pact. I'm just speaking my mind. It's all hypothetical to me, because unlike you, I'm not out [u]declaring war on everyone I find who appears weaker than me[/u].

The difference between raiding in order to make a profit, like tech raiders do, and attacking in order to bloody them, like I argue is acceptable, is that if I attack you for raiding, it's a direct result of your actions. You choose to go to war, else you wouldn't have caught my attention, wouldn't have attracted my ire. [u]The people you attack are being attacked not for something they did, but for simply existing[/u].

The other difference is the end result that we wish for. You wish for a quick profitable raid. I wish not to make a profit, but to do as much damage as I can so it will kill the profit you would have made from a lot of raids. If the profit goes away, most (not all) of the tech raids will go away. I'm certainly not expecting to make a profit if I attack, because I don't [u]expect to do a couple of ground attacks, then get peace with no repercussions. Unlike you, when I press the big red "Go To War" button, I expect to go to war[/u].
[/quote]
You would sounds so much more sincere if nearly every single post you made did not contain the sort of inflamatory rubbish I have underlined. I have made several attempts to try and correct some of these malformed opinions, but it seems that you've got too much agenda stuck in your ears to hear me.

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1270767141' post='2253481']
If I was forced to choose between driving one guy away, or leaving him alone so he can drive a lot of nations away, yes. Luckily, there is another option. He can play without attacking random people, and the whole problem ends. The people he's attacking don't have that option. They didn't declare war on him - he's the one picking on them.

If you don't act like a bully, you won't have to worry about getting treated as one.
[/quote]

There are some nations leaders who would not wish to lead if they could not exercise their ability to tech raid. For them there is no option - either tech raid, or exit the world's stage. I am one of those leaders. Can you objectively explain how my worth on planet Bob is any less than that of the nations that I have raided?


To add something closer to the topic of this thread, I would like to say that I support the [i]spirit[/i] of this treaty as explained by Guffey, even though as I have expressed, the wording doesn't entirely rub me the right way.
I support it because it is easy to avoid being tech raided, but not many small nations will immediately know of all of their options. I am always in support of providing useful information to those who need it, and I would never fault a nation for failing to be a raid target by leading intelligently.

edit: clarity

Edited April 9, 2010 by ktarthan

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' date='07 April 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1270686057' post='2252337']
The despicable nations of NEW violated my national sovereignty by raiding tech and land during the last war. I feel that they should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

And don't even get me started on the horrible transgressions committed by TOP as they raided tech and land from C&G.
[/quote]
Ummm, I could swear that was called a war.

Also I recall Athens raiding an entire alliance so it looks like you got what you deserved,

[Vilien]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='08 April 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1270771240' post='2253561']
There are some nations leaders who would not wish to lead if they could not exercise their ability to tech raid. For them there is no option - either tech raid, or exit the world's stage. I am one of those leaders. Can you objectively explain how my worth on planet Bob is any less than that of the nations that I have raided?
[/quote]
Your experience here is pretty shallow if you exist solely for the purpose of raiding.

[Baldr]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='08 April 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1270771240' post='2253561']
There are some nations leaders who would not wish to lead if they could not exercise their ability to tech raid. For them there is no option - either tech raid, or exit the world's stage. I am one of those leaders. Can you objectively explain how my worth on planet Bob is any less than that of the nations that I have raided?
[/quote]

No, I don't think I can explain to a child who believes that he should be able to do anything he wants why he's a scumbag. I've tried, and you're still arguing that you should be able to attack anyone you want, for no reason, and that nobody should help them.

If all you want is war, why not attack someone who can actually fight back? Why pick on people much smaller than you?

I can already see it. You're going to claim that you don't do that. So lets look.

You : 3,911.67 infra, 514.37 tech, 17,311 NS.

Your opponents showing on your war screen.

#1 : 3,280 infra, 378 tech
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=7381

#2 : 2,482 infra, 133 tech
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=211868

#3 : 1,838 infra, 158 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=160841

#4 : 2,000 infra, 0 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=259630

#5 : 240 infra, 0 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=253695

Not only are you picking people who are a lot smaller than you, you always have a partner.

The problem is, you are a bully. You like mugging little old ladies, and you cry if someone tries to stop you. You don't have the courage to fight a fair fight. You want a friend to help you, your alliance to back you up in case of retaliation, an opponent who is smaller than you, and the ability to hit the target just before update, no warning, and again right after the update. That way, he's already in anarchy before he even knows he's at war.

You should try raiding me. I'm in your range. But you won't, because I'm not an easy target who will just roll over.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='08 April 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1270771240' post='2253561']
You would sounds so much more sincere if nearly every single post you made did not contain the sort of inflamatory rubbish I have underlined. I have made several attempts to try and correct some of these malformed opinions, but it seems that you've got too much agenda stuck in your ears to hear me.
[/quote]

I find it interesting that you label the underlined comments as inflammatory rubbish, but did nothing to address their factual accuracy. As near as I can see he did not speak anything that was not accurate.


[quote]
There are some nations leaders who would not wish to lead if they could not exercise their ability to tech raid. For them there is no option - either tech raid, or exit the world's stage. I am one of those leaders. Can you objectively explain how my worth on planet Bob is any less than that of the nations that I have raided?
[/quote]

Apply your own position the same way from the other perspective, Why are these people you are victimizing worth less than you, why should they suffer to meet your wants?

A mans rights extend only so far as they do not infringe anothers. Your right to swing your fist where you please ends at the other mans nose.

I recognize that it is an imperfect world, so the strong will prey on the weak regardless of morality, but please, don't act like the raider is the wronged party every time someone suggests that its a bad thing.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Vilien' date='08 April 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1270772627' post='2253602']
Your experience here is pretty shallow if you exist solely for the purpose of raiding.
[/quote]
Sir, that is not what I said.

---

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1270773080' post='2253611']
No, I don't think I can explain to a child who believes that he should be able to do anything he wants why he's a scumbag. I've tried, and you're still arguing that you should be able to attack anyone you want, for no reason, and that nobody should help them.
[/quote]
Sorry, that's not what I asked. But I'll respond to your incorrect statement anyways:
-I cannot attack anyone I want, I am bound by the charter of my alliance which dictates valid raid targets.
-I have a reason: I wish to accumulate tech.
-Anyone can help them if they'd like, but depending on their form of help I will react in a certain manner.

[quote]
If all you want is war, why not attack someone who can actually fight back? Why pick on people much smaller than you?
[/quote]
I'll be honest, I want tech. A fight is secondary. When weighing my options I'm not going to raid a target that will assure a net loss. Why would I? I may be a scumbag, but I'm not a stupid scumbag.

[quote]
I can already see it. You're going to claim that you don't do that. So lets look.

You : 3,911.67 infra, 514.37 tech, 17,311 NS.

Your opponents showing on your war screen.

#1 : 3,280 infra, 378 tech
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=7381

#2 : 2,482 infra, 133 tech
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=211868

#3 : 1,838 infra, 158 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=160841

#4 : 2,000 infra, 0 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=259630

#5 : 240 infra, 0 tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=253695

Not only are you picking people who are a lot smaller than you, you always have a partner.

The problem is, you are a bully. You like mugging little old ladies, and you cry if someone tries to stop you. You don't have the courage to fight a fair fight. You want a friend to help you, your alliance to back you up in case of retaliation, an opponent who is smaller than you, and the ability to hit the target just before update, no warning, and again right after the update. That way, he's already in anarchy before he even knows he's at war.
[/quote]
I already said that I'm not going to deny attacking smaller targets (Although I might debate the qualifier "a lot" smaller), but I will still point out the parts where you're exaggerating or lying:

#1: No partner, attacked 2 hours before update
#2: No partner, attacked 23 minutes after update
#3: Attacked 5 hours before update, "partners" joined of their own volition
#4: No partner, attacked 8 hours before update
#5: Attacked 11 hours before update

These raids date back to 2/23, when I was at about 1.5k infra. The stats you have quoted have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "fairness" of those raids when they happened.

No-one has ever tried to stop me from raiding - other than the targets themselves. In that case, I gave them a fight. There was no crying on my part.

I have never once asked for assistance in any raid whatsoever, and as you can see, I don't raid at update. I even send my troops in cautious attacks which have a lower chance of sending the target into anarchy.

[quote]
You should try raiding me. I'm in your range. But you won't, because I'm not an easy target who will just roll over.
[/quote]
You're not in my range.

I am sorry but it is painfully obvious that you have nothing of worth to debate. All you do is throw around the same emotionally charged phrases over and over, and resort to insults when someone tries to discuss. You use a single raider archetype to argue against all raiders, even when it clearly does not apply. I am entirely willing to have an intelligent conversation on the pros and cons of tech raiding, but you have not shown a single sign that I will find one with you.

---

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 April 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1270774561' post='2253634']
I find it interesting that you label the underlined comments as inflammatory rubbish, but did nothing to address their factual accuracy. As near as I can see he did not speak anything that was not accurate.
[/quote]
I did not want to qualify his derogatory stereotyping with a more thought out response, but as you can see I have since changed my mind.

[quote]
Apply your own position the same way from the other perspective, Why are these people you are victimizing worth less than you, why should they suffer to meet your wants?

A mans rights extend only so far as they do not infringe anothers. Your right to swing your fist where you please ends at the other mans nose.

I recognize that it is an imperfect world, so the strong will prey on the weak regardless of morality, but please, don't act like the raider is the wronged party every time someone suggests that its a bad thing.
[/quote]
I do not feel any leader is worth more or less than another - all are equal in my eyes.

It is my belief that a leader's freedoms extend as far as he is willing to bear the consequences. I would not begrudge a raider were I in the shoes of a raid target. I also do not begrudge targets that fight back or get assistance. But their freedom to do so carries with it whatever consequences are a result.

I never feel that a raider is a wronged party - but that all that wish to take actions against raiders must, as I just said, bear the consequences of their actions.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='08 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1270781280' post='2253815']
It is my belief that a leader's freedoms extend as far as he is willing to bear the consequences. I would not begrudge a raider were I in the shoes of a raid target. I also do not begrudge targets that fight back or get assistance. But their freedom to do so carries with it whatever consequences are a result.
[/quote]

I agree, my issue is that far too often the raider is not willing to bear any consequences, when a raid goes bad most run back to their alliance for backup. These people I have no respect for, and they are invariably the loudest braggarts as well. A raider who takes his lumps when it goes bad I can respect for he at least takes the risk, but so often so many who attempt to excuse their actions by claiming risks really take none at all.

Edited April 9, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Baldr]

lol.

He had the guy he's been attacking with delete the old war history so that it looks like he attacked on his own.

I'm not surprised - he's a tech raider and a coward, so I didn't expect him to be honest.

[Sephiroth]

Since I was a two man alliance when I declared and my alliance mate has since left me, making me just one person until I get another member you could help me if you wanted. I don't think the attacks Gremlins have done on me can count as tech raiding though.

[Not Henry Rollins]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 April 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1270774561' post='2253634']
A mans rights extend only so far as they do not infringe anothers.
[/quote]

A man's rights extend only so far as he can defend them.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1270783631' post='2253875']
lol.

He had the guy he's been attacking with delete the old war history so that it looks like he attacked on his own.

I'm not surprised - he's a tech raider and a coward, so I didn't expect him to be honest.
[/quote]

Way to go, accusing someone of something that's completely unverifiable, so that it's your word agains--

Wait a sec.

Lets do an experiment. Anyone is welcome to try!

-Download the war statistics file here: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_downloads.asp - It's currently accurate up to April 8, 5:25 (Not sure if it's AM or PM, either way it's before your post)
-Load into your spreadsheet program of choice.
-Sort by: Declaring Alliance, Receiving Nation.
-Look for my name under Declaring Ruler.

I'm sure you can take it from there.

(PS: In case the file gets updated before you can check it, here's a copy I've hosted myself: http://itotallyforgot.com/CyberNations_SE_War_Stats_48201052500.zip )

[King Srqt]

Yay boring and predictable responses. Planet Bob you never fail to disappoint.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Henry Rollins' date='09 April 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1270787106' post='2253962']
A man's rights extend only so far as he can defend them.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well then, I suppose if you're mugged you have no right to that property, or safety even. You did fail to defend your rights, no? Well, of course that's all nice an fine, but I prefer living in a civilized society.[/color]

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='09 April 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1270821693' post='2254259']
[color="#0000FF"]Well then, I suppose if you're mugged you have no right to that property, or safety even. You did fail to defend your rights, no? Well, of course that's all nice an fine, but I prefer living in a civilized society.[/color]
[/quote]
I don't believe that any being has a definite set of rights - other than those that can be defended and/or enforced. In a civilized society there are incentive systems in place to deter muggings, as well as deal with muggings that do happen. If a person sees the incentives involved and still wishes to take another's property, why should he not?

I do not believe in dictating to others what actions they are and are not allowed to do.

I do believe in telling others "If you do X then Y will happen" and letting them make the choice for themselves.