DT Foreign Policy Statement

[Vesalius]

[quote name='Baldr' date='21 June 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1277165062' post='2345844']
That's funny. The raiders want to steal tech, land, money by attacking someone smaller than them, with no warning, usually with multiple nations hitting at once. But it's extortion if they aren't allowed to do it without repercussions.
[/quote]
Though I appreciate that you completely ignored my point in an effort to slander me and raiding in general, that's still quite a stretch. Anyone who push reps for a purely verbal protectorate agreement is either trying to extort people, start something, or is naive and incompetent.

[quote name='Myworld' date='21 June 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1277176444' post='2346117']
Look guys, we ask our protectorates to do exactly what you all have been repeating from the being. Make sure they have the "Protected by DT" or "Protected by The Dark Templar" in their bios, and in most of our protectorates we have an agreement typed up and viewable to everyone, but in some cases while deals are worked out and relations built a little better it's a verbal agreement between alliances, but they still put it in their bios so people do know when they pull up a nation. Same goes with our Academy members in DT Probes with putting it in their bios as well.

Now the problem is that people failed English 101 and Reading Composition and decided to raid anyways. And for those cases that is what the post is meant for.
[/quote]
In that case, it is on the raiders. Hope this cuts down on the annoyances a bit.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Vesalius' date='22 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277179840' post='2346183']
Though I appreciate that you completely ignored my point in an effort to slander me and raiding in general, that's still quite a stretch. Anyone who push reps for a purely verbal protectorate agreement is either trying to extort people, start something, or is naive and incompetent.
[/quote]
How about when there's no protectorate agreement at all?

Hint: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Popcorn_War

[Baldr]

[quote name='Vesalius' date='21 June 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1277179840' post='2346183']
Though I appreciate that you completely ignored my point in an effort to slander me and raiding in general, that's still quite a stretch. Anyone who push reps for a purely verbal protectorate agreement is either trying to extort people, start something, or is naive and incompetent.
[/quote]

I just find it funny that tech raiders attack people who have done nothing to them, purely because they find it fun and profitable, and then scream about "extortion" when asked to pay reps.

It's like a guy caught stealing screaming and crying because he's held accountable. It's almost exactly like that.

From the tech raiders point of view, your argument is that you have the right to attack and raid anyone you want, as long as you can get away with it. How can anyone, treaty ties or no, telling you "Pay them back for the damage you did" be considered extortion?

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 June 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1277181710' post='2346223']
How can anyone, treaty ties or no, telling you "Pay them back for the damage you did" be considered extortion?
[/quote]

Perhaps you aren't sure on what extortion means.

[quote]Extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power[/quote]

When an alliance swoops in and pulls out a random verbal protectorate, and then leverages a stronger political and military power to force you to pay reps, that is extortion.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Myworld' date='21 June 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1277176444' post='2346117']
Look guys, we ask our protectorates to do exactly what you all have been repeating from the being. Make sure they have the "Protected by DT" or "Protected by The Dark Templar" in their bios, and in most of our protectorates we have an agreement typed up and viewable to everyone, but in some cases while deals are worked out and relations built a little better it's a verbal agreement between alliances, but they still put it in their bios so people do know when they pull up a nation. Same goes with our Academy members in DT Probes with putting it in their bios as well.

Now the problem is that people failed English 101 and Reading Composition and decided to raid anyways. And for those cases that is what the post is meant for.
[/quote]

Alright, cool. I agree with Ves, it's on us to police ourselves at that point.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='21 June 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1277181710' post='2346223']
I just find it funny that tech raiders attack people who have done nothing to them, purely because they find it fun and profitable, and then scream about "extortion" when asked to pay reps.

It's like a guy caught stealing screaming and crying because he's held accountable. It's almost exactly like that.

From the tech raiders point of view, your argument is that you have the right to attack and raid anyone you want, as long as you can get away with it. How can anyone, treaty ties or no, telling you "Pay them back for the damage you did" be considered extortion?
[/quote]
I find it funny how you will do just about anything to paint tech raiding in a bad light, whether it be misrepresentation of arguments, using inflammatory words, or straight up lying (to be clear, this is not a reference to the post I am quoting).

There is no screaming. There is no crying. The only time we have issue with reps is in the specific case of no having previously established protectorate agreement, because at the moment [i]that is how the world works[/i]. If you wish to change the world, then so be it, but do not act as if this change has already taken place.

[Max Cristof]

Tough job. Good luck. So some of your protectorates are technically written in stone? You're just protecting them by word of mouth?

[Jakome]

[quote name='Baldr' date='21 June 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1277181710' post='2346223']
I just find it funny that tech raiders attack people who have done nothing to them, purely because they find it fun and profitable, and then scream about "extortion" when asked to pay reps.

It's like a guy caught stealing screaming and crying because he's held accountable. It's almost exactly like that.

From the tech raiders point of view, your argument is that you have the right to attack and raid anyone you want, as long as you can get away with it. How can anyone, treaty ties or no, telling you "Pay them back for the damage you did" be considered extortion?
[/quote]
Its like you've read every single argument, accepted them, then thrown it all out the window and started spewing anti-tech raiding rhetoric. No one here is saying reps shouldn't be paid on clearly stated protectorates (ie forums, wiki, even in bios). We are saying that you shouldn't go around expecting reps on tech raided nations that have no clearly defined protectorates (ie verbal agreements). Actually you shouldn't even have just verbal agreements. These do a disservice to the nations that are relying on you to protect them while they grow.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' date='22 June 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1277182792' post='2346251']
When an alliance swoops in and pulls out a random verbal protectorate, and then leverages a stronger political and military power to force you to pay reps, that is extortion.[/quote]

Of course, the only reason this comes up is because you, feeling you had more political and military power, attacked someone, destroyed some of what they owned, and took some of what they owned for yourself.

But being asked to pay for the damages you've done is extortion.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 June 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1277187184' post='2346331']
I find it funny how you will do just about anything to paint tech raiding in a bad light, whether it be misrepresentation of arguments, using inflammatory words, or straight up lying (to be clear, this is not a reference to the post I am quoting).
[/quote]

Nice response. "You are a liar. I mean, not here, not anywhere where I can point it out, but I disagree with you, so you are a liar!!!!!!"

Brilliant.

The only point where we agree is that if an alliance wants to give maximum protection to a protectorate alliance, making the protectorate public knowledge helps. It lowers the likelihood that the protectorate will be attacked. I agree there.

You guys want it announced so you can avoid getting in trouble, and you argue that if a protectorate hasn't been announced, nobody can do anything. I disagree. Your own logic is that you can attack anyone as long as you can get away with it. By that logic, any alliance who can attack you and get away with it has a right to do so, and if they use "You raided someone we didn't want you to raid" as an excuse, that's still a better excuse than you had when you raided.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 June 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1277241725' post='2346954']
Nice response. "You are a liar. I mean, not here, not anywhere where I can point it out, but I disagree with you, so you are a liar!!!!!!"

Brilliant.
[/quote]
Oh, I thought you would have remembered that time you were lying through your teeth in order to libel me and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83708&st=360&p=2253966&hl=itotallyforgot&fromsearch=1&#entry2253966]I totally called you on it[/url]. When [i]I[/i] make a statement, I am absolutely prepared to back it up.

Also yeah. That was [i]literally[/i] the only thing in my response.

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 June 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1277241725' post='2346954']
The only point where we agree is that if an alliance wants to give maximum protection to a protectorate alliance, making the protectorate public knowledge helps. It lowers the likelihood that the protectorate will be attacked. I agree there.

You guys want it announced so you can avoid getting in trouble, and you argue that if a protectorate hasn't been announced, nobody can do anything. I disagree. Your own logic is that you can attack anyone as long as you can get away with it. By that logic, any alliance who can attack you and get away with it has a right to do so, and if they use "You raided someone we didn't want you to raid" as an excuse, that's still a better excuse than you had when you raided.
[/quote]

So what you're proposing is that tech raiding be outlawed: If at any time anyone spots a tech raid, they are immediately able to intervene via whatever means they deem necessary.

Sure. When you get the majority of Bob to agree to that, give me a call.

Edited June 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[Baldr]

I wasn't lying. I reported what I saw, you denied it, and when I looked again, the wars were no longer showing.

I think I understand, now, why you like screaming "liar", though.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Baldr

[Baldr]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 June 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1277243477' post='2346972']
So what you're proposing is that tech raiding be outlawed: If at any time anyone spots a tech raid, they are immediately able to intervene via whatever means they deem necessary.
[/quote]

While that wouldn't bother me, it's not what I said.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 June 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1277246797' post='2347012']
I wasn't lying. I reported what I saw, you denied it, and when I looked again, [b]the wars were no longer showing[/b].

I think I understand, now, why you like screaming "liar", though.
[/quote]

How do you explain the fact that the war statistics log in my post proves that you could have not seen the wars you claim you did? Perhaps you were mistaken? It's easy enough to say that you made a mistake.

My original point still stands. You do not care about having reasonable discourse about this subject. You do not even care about the protection of unaligned nations, as is the true subject of this thread. All you care about is the punishment of raiders, through actions or words, justified or not.

Edit:
[quote name='Baldr' date='22 June 2010 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1277247188' post='2347016']
While that wouldn't bother me, it's not what I said.
[/quote]
Rereading your post, I see what you actually meant. However, I'll respectfully disagree that such a reason would be "better". I see them as equal. I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

Edited June 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[General Ozujsko]

I should have known better than to post this message and have to head out for a few days.

The "verbal agreements" are few and far between. Generally, they are used while the details of a protectorate are being worked out. See the Cyber Revolutionaries incident from a few weeks ago.

Like MW said, we do implement many of these suggestions already. That still seems to not stop the continued nooberty...hence, this message.

-Oz