ktarthan Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Vilien' date='23 June 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1277327748' post='2348034'] If a tree falls in a forest and alerts a raiding nation to the existence of a microalliance, does he say please before he destroys that alliance needlessly? [/quote] No. He also burns the tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Sardonic' date='23 June 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1277326036' post='2348000'] We recognize the Revenge Doctrine by peacing out with nations that they come to us about. However, we have not banned the sphere from raiding, and from my understanding, nor have our allies. [/quote] I'm pretty sure the Revenge Doctrine died because of Karma's surrender terms. How do you recognize something that is dead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='23 June 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1277327836' post='2348039'] I'll answer yours if you answer mine. [/quote] When a nation being raided joins an alliance that alliance will politely ask the nations raiding it to stop. The protection that any contract offers, whether it be in a treaty or in a contractually bound group of nations, does not cease to have validity because the initial actions of an aggressor occurred one minute before the agreement was publicly announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' date='23 June 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1277328029' post='2348043'] I'm pretty sure the Revenge Doctrine died because of Karma's surrender terms. How do you recognize something that is dead? [/quote] From what I understand it was the Moldavi Doctrine that was terminated while NPO still maintains and uses the Revenge Doctrine to provide protection for Unaligned Red Nations. Edited June 23, 2010 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Vilien' date='23 June 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1277328067' post='2348045'] When a nation being raided joins an alliance that alliance will politely ask the nations raiding it to stop. The protection that any contract offers, whether it be in a treaty or in a contractually bound group of nations, does not cease to have validity because the initial actions of an aggressor occurred one minute before the agreement was publicly announced. [/quote] You haven't actually answered my question. Nice job though. Does the protection cease to have validity if the aggressions occur two minutes before the agreement? How about three, or four, or five, or so on? Where do you draw this arbitrary line? To show I'm a man of my word though, I will answer your question; No, probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1277327625' post='2348028'] All others are simply unaware, and will post without worry. [/quote] Correct, in that they will post without worry. Ignorance is NOT bliss. However, although no worry prior to posting - they may have numerous issues afterword, as evidenced in this case. [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1277327625' post='2348028'] The only groups that would feel that they risk being raided by GOONS (or any number of other raiding alliances) for posting on these forums are ones who already know the risks of being a small alliance without protection, and have made a conscious decision to take those risks. [/quote] Correct. In the same way that many alliances made the "conscious decision" (because they had no choice if they didn't want to risk attack from NPO) of not being on red team prior to Karma or adding a clause in their constitution saying that red team was off limits for raids. It's not about "choice" - it's about strategic necessity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Emperor Marx' date='23 June 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1277328206' post='2348047'] From what I understand it was the Moldavi Doctrine that was terminated while NPO still maintains and uses the Revenge Doctrine to provide protection for Unaligned Red Nations. [/quote] [quote]IV. The New Pacific Order hereby commits to never reinstating the Moldavi Doctrine [b]or the original version of the Revenge Doctrine in any form.[/b] Henceforth, the Red Sphere is a free Sphere, with no restrictions on the Senate or alliance inhabitance.[/quote] I guess they get away by the original version remark. But: Original Version in any form? how does that make sense. Karma needs better writers Back on topic NNK is despicable and evil for nuking a small defenseless writers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='23 June 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1277328401' post='2348051'] You haven't actually answered my question. Nice job though. Does the protection cease to have validity if the aggressions occur two minutes before the agreement? How about three, or four, or five, or so on? Where do you draw this arbitrary line? [/quote] I drew my arbitrary line at one minute. Would you care to share with us where you'd like to draw yours? It should be abundantly obvious to you why my request was entirely reasonable, if you have any trouble comprehending why I consider a protectorate announced [i]one minute[/i] after a raid to have an effect on that raid you may consider consulting any of your friends in possession of a brain. Applying a shoddy deconstructivist argument, especially in such a steadfast manner, does absolutely nothing to dissuade me or any reasonable, rational bystanders that politely asking that a raid be stopped falls within my rights as a protector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Vilien' date='23 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1277328808' post='2348060'] I drew my arbitrary line at one minute. Would you care to share with us where you'd like to draw yours? [/quote] I'd draw it at zero minutes. If its not announced, how could raiders know one exists? [quote] It should be abundantly obvious to you why my request was entirely reasonable, if you have any trouble comprehending why I consider a protectorate announced [i]one minute[/i] after a raid to have an effect on that raid you may consider consulting any of your friends in possession of a brain. Applying a shoddy deconstructivist argument, especially in such a steadfast manner, does absolutely nothing to dissuade me or any reasonable, rational bystanders that politely asking that a raid be stopped falls within my rights as a protector. [/quote] I have no trouble comprehending why you are doing it. If the attacks happen while the alliance is under your protection, sure knock yourself out getting reps. However if the attacks happen before the protectorate is announced but the war is still on-going, you could ask for the war to stop and be within your rights but I don't think reps would be obtainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Sardonic' date='24 June 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1277321780' post='2347912'] You better believe it, if we started recognizing one way protectorates, what's to stop one alliance from unilaterally declaring every last microalliance protected by them? [/quote] The fact no alliance would be able to enforce that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='23 June 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1277329266' post='2348071'] I'd draw it at zero minutes. If its not announced, how could raiders know one exists? I have no trouble comprehending why you are doing it. If the attacks happen while the alliance is under your protection, sure knock yourself out getting reps. However if the attacks happen before the protectorate is announced but the war is still on-going, you could ask for the war to stop and be within your rights but I don't think reps would be obtainable. [/quote] If you are powerful enough reps are always obtainable. Have you learned nothing as the new Hegemon of CN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='White Chocolate' date='23 June 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1277328449' post='2348053'] Correct, in that they will post without worry. Ignorance is NOT bliss. However, although no worry prior to posting - they may have numerous issues afterword, as evidenced in this case. [/quote] Sure, but your original argument was that we are restricting who posts on the OWF. (Also I don't think you're going to convince me that "being raided by GOONS" is an issue that I should be concerned about.) [quote name='White Chocolate' date='23 June 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1277328449' post='2348053'] Correct. In the same way that many alliances made the "conscious decision" (because they had no choice if they didn't want to risk attack from NPO) of not being on red team prior to Karma or adding a clause in their constitution saying that red team was off limits for raids. It's not about "choice" - it's about strategic necessity. [/quote] Again, see my point above. You're not proving your point - you're just turning this into a very vanilla argument against tech raiding. (Also, see my sig ) The only thing we could even remotely be accused of discouraging is nations posting things that obviously mark them as being in a small unprotected alliance. But by that very same line of thought I can also argue that GOONS encourages small alliances to seek out protectorates, thus promoting friendship and enriching the politics of Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' date='23 June 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1277329373' post='2348074'] If you are powerful enough reps are always obtainable. Have you learned nothing as the new Hegemon of CN? [/quote] Well, let me put it this way. If I were in the position I described, I would in fact try to get reps for the alliance I was protecting. I doubt that they would be able to be secured though. If I got the reasoning "Well, there was no protectorate announced." I would go for reps as a sign of good will. Of course when it comes to Vilien and GOONS, I'm sure there is not a lot of good will to spare. Edit: [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1277329728' post='2348080'] But by that very same line of thought I can also argue that GOONS encourages small alliances to seek out protectorates, thus promoting friendship and enriching the politics of Bob. [/quote] GOONS, the muggers with the purest intentions. Edited June 23, 2010 by Felix von Agnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='23 June 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1277329800' post='2348085'] GOONS, the muggers with the purest intentions. [/quote] Flattery will get you somewhere, you naughty little manx, you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1277329728' post='2348080'] The only thing we could even remotely be accused of discouraging is nations posting things that obviously mark them as being in a small unprotected alliance. But by that very same line of thought I can also argue that GOONS encourages small alliances to seek out protectorates, thus promoting friendship and enriching the politics of Bob. [/quote] The last sentence is an interesting spin. However, as far as the main point of the above post is concerned - yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireblade Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 NNK is evil and mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachujc Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='Fireblade' date='23 June 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1277337487' post='2348216'] NNK is evil and mean [/quote] You don't have to [i]say[/i] it. I dunno about the others, but I'm requesting peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LokiLockpicker Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1277329728' post='2348080'] Sure, but your original argument was that we are restricting who posts on the OWF. (Also I don't think you're going to convince me that "being raided by GOONS" is an issue that I should be concerned about.) Again, see my point above. You're not proving your point - you're just turning this into a very vanilla argument against tech raiding. (Also, see my sig ) The only thing we could even remotely be accused of discouraging is nations posting things that obviously mark them as being in a small unprotected alliance. But by that very same line of thought I can also argue that GOONS encourages small alliances to seek out protectorates, thus promoting friendship and enriching the politics of Bob. [/quote] I'm starting to like certain GOONS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='23 June 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1277327513' post='2348025'] If they are the first ones on, is it really a bandwagon? [/quote] The word you're missing, Felix, is among. And yeah, it completely would be in that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='23 June 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1277329728' post='2348080'] GOONS encourages small alliances to seek out protectorates [/quote] This argument is not entirely compatible with your desire to claim that Vilien doesn't have the right to sign a protectorate with the alliance that is the subject of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='Sardonic' date='23 June 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1277321608' post='2347907'] A one way protectorate isn't terribly valid Vilien. [/quote] It's as valid as one you charge for actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmcfalcon12 Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='Emperor Marx' date='23 June 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1277325470' post='2347990'] Or "Methrage" right? [/quote] Sure. We'll go with that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' date='23 June 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1277340129' post='2348243'] This argument is not entirely compatible with your desire to claim that Vilien doesn't have the right to sign a protectorate with the alliance that is the subject of this thread. [/quote] Just because they encourage small alliances to sign protectorates doesn't mean they want them to. It's called cognitive dissonance. Plus, they encourage them by tech raiding them. Negative reinforcement at its finest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drugnut Posted June 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yep, this worked out well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scipio Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Drugnut' date='23 June 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1277353045' post='2348445'] Yep, this worked out well. [/quote] Well to be fair you did achieve a protectorate with TMF. Though I'm not sure how much protecting they've done so far, I guess maybe you'd be able to answer that question better. edti: I'm assuming you were being sarcastic. This may not be the case. Edited June 24, 2010 by General Scipio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.