Red Raiding Safari

[anenu]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='20 July 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1279669040' post='2381491']
You guys are beginning to believe your own BS. You're walking over others just the way you all accused the NPO of doing.[/quote]
The difference being that in NPO's day they would simply have declared war on the offending alliance crushed them and then demanded reps and installed a viceroy.


[quote]
The difference Damsky, these cowards will make war on nations and call it tech raids. If any large alliance were to organize a raid against them they would cry and activate treaties to no end to win. Prey on the weak is all they can do.

Hurt those that can't call for help...KARMA achieved nothing.
[/quote]

Unless nukes and CM's are being used it is in fact a raid not a war, now does this raiding spree specifically target red? Yes. Is its primary purpose to upset NPO and show them they no longer have the power to dictate who other sovereign alliances can and can't raid? Yes. Is it a war? No.


Also i don't remember anything in Karma about tech raiding.

Edited July 20, 2010 by anenu

[Beefspari]

I don't get the insinuation that the poor red nations are suffering unfairly.

You're talking to a bunch of alliances that regularly tech raid. Again, if raids weren't going on on the red nations they'd be going on on black, green, blue, purple, or pink nations. There are no "victims" than there would otherwise be.

[D34th]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 July 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1279669260' post='2381499']
OH GOD TWO GROUND BATTLES WHICH WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN THE LOSS OF TEN TECH. [b]THE HORROR![/b]
[/quote]

This is your best argument? why I'm not surprised. Link for ruin it: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=128500&Extended=1

At least 14 ground attacks in two days, plus the anarchy state.

This is like say "We will not kill you, just shot in your legs, see how we are nice people?"

[Fernando12]

[quote name='anenu' date='20 July 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1279669551' post='2381504']
Unless nukes and CM's are being used it is in fact a raid not a war, now does this raiding spree specifically target red? Yes. Is its primary purpose to upset NPO and show them they no longer have the power to dictate who other sovereign alliances can and can't raid? Yes. Is it a war? No.


Also i don't remember anything in Karma about tech raiding.
[/quote]

So we organize a raid on your alliance, don't use CMs or Nukes...you will peace out and accept "Tech Raid PM For Peace" ????

[shilo]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='21 July 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1279664462' post='2381371']
Is that flippancy I sense? because the whole Viceroy gig in the old era was nothing to be flippant about
[/quote]
No. It's sarcasm, as nothing else would fit there anymore. Trying to rationalize personal immorality by pointing out the immorality of someone else is simply stupid. The whole line of defense repeated every time acts of immorality are committed by those who opposed NPO is simply "but they did worse".
That was true, but NPO was in power for many years, and the real bad stuff did not occur at the beginning. So correctly said "we haven't been in power long enough to be as bad as them".

But even then, even if alliances aren't disbanded, just controlled by viceroys, that as was pointed out, is legal, will we still hear "but NPO did worse!"?
Nothing what NPO did excuses anyone else from upholding a moral standard. Not doing so is the sole responsibility of whoever doesn't do it, and simply reflects on a low character, may that be an individual, alliances or whole groups of alliances.

Edited July 21, 2010 by shilo

[Seerow]

[quote name='O-Dog' date='20 July 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1279669003' post='2381490']
So Red Dawn is a uniquely NPO project is it? And you decided to make your stand against it now, as opposed to when it was originally launched (without NPO signatures)? And why is striving to protect your colour sphere equal to becoming an untouchable force? Were FAN or GOLD attempting to become untouchable forces?
[/quote]

To be honest, I don't remember enough about FAN's protection of yellow to comment on it, however if I recall, that ended pretty badly for them. As to the matter at hand, until NPO joined, Red Dawn may have said they'd stop any tech raiding on the sphere, but they to my understanding never acted upon it in any reasonable way. People still raided red, just no big deal came of it. To my understanding this has been an escalation from NPO telling people to back off, and everyone else saying "no, we won't".

Telling nations outside of your alliance what they can and cannot do is a direct violation of sovereignty. Treaties can be made to say that you will defend another party, as most treaties are. This is an alliance choosing to sacrifice their own right, the right to be neutral when a war starts against an ally you'd rather not take part in, in exchange for the other alliance you treaty also giving up a part of their sovereignty (being forced to defend you in the opposite situation).

The Revenge Doctrine and the FAN equivalent also gave up sovereignty, they agreed to lend their might to attack any nation attacking an unaligned nation on their sphere. They could do this simply because there is nobody in their right minds who would challenge them, as the strongest alliance, there simply isn't any reason to challenge it rather than finding a different target.

It is important to note, in none of the similar situations, has anyone ever given up the ability to raid the protected sphere. They chose not to because it is not profitable to defy the people doing the protecting. They knew if they tried, the alliance doing the protecting had the strength to back up their claims, and destroy any alliance that thought to defy them.

Now however, NPO and the Red Dawn lack the ability to back up their claims. They want to lay claim to the sphere, to protect it. It is well within their rights to offer protection. However, they cannot expect anybody to care that they are offering protection, if they don't think it can be backed up. In this case, Red Dawn is being shown to be too weak to hold up to their promise of protection, and those they decided to protect are suffering for it. It will end up either as a lesson to the NPO that they should not make a claim they do not intend to back up, or will end with the Red Dawn following through on their word, and attacking every person tech raiding red, which would likely get ugly for Red Dawn.


As I said in my earlier post, there are better ways that they could have gone about securing peace for their sphere, going to various raiding alliances and making treaties to agree not to attack each others' spheres, which likely would have resulted in much better results, as everyone affected would have agreed to it. It's the difference between asking for a favor, and telling somebody you're taking something from them. I'm not sure why this difference is so difficult to comprehend.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='20 July 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1279639728' post='2380640']
Perhaps you're unaware of the extreme measures that GOONS puts in place to prevent raid targets from achieving peace.
Maybe go enlighten yourself: http://cngoons.com/Board/index.php?topic=4533.0
So far, this microAA victim of the safari has been asked to
-Draw a picture of a Soviet vagina
-Write a 600-word essay with two pictures
-Make the essay a pornographic fanfic of a furry Sarah and Bristol Palin yiffing
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I think I would like to bring this up again since many of the defenders of this act have so conveniently ignored this. It is no secret that I've never been a fan of GOONS 'mercy board' but quite frankly most of their terms in the past have no been so demeaning as this. They demand maybe a silly haiku or drawing, but never this kind of garbage (except in the case of Methrage). Really, terms like these exist for only one purpose, and that is to be denied. GOONS wishes to be able to pretend that they are giving nations a loop out of this, but when that loop is something like this it is clearly just for show. The truth is the Red Safari has absolutely no plans to give any of these nations peace, or at least not make it easy for them, for the simple fact that they reside on the same sphere as the NPO (an unforgivable crime). They want to be able to gloat and flex their muscles.

Remember when tech raiding used to be as simple as 'PM for peace'? The terms GOONS are demanding are things that most alliances would never except. They are simply that disgusting (for those of us who still have a sense of human decency) and demanding. I am amazed that not only does this community tolerate it, but a good portion of it also applauds it.

OOC: I wonder if you consider how players perceive our community when you do things like this. Especially the new ones needed for CN to grow. It is one thing to be raided, but it quite another when the only way to get peace is to write a story that would make members of /b/ gag. Those who decide not to quite are not weak or whiners, as you so like to call them. If that was my first impression of CN I likely would not play either, but quite frankly this is pretty low grade stuff. This is some of the worst the internet has to offer. No, not the tech raiding in itself. The terms for peace truly are disgusting, and you can say iti s good fun for all but the actuality is that you crossed a line.[/color]

[the masheen]

[quote name='anenu' date='20 July 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1279669551' post='2381504']
Unless nukes and CM's are being used it is in fact a raid not a war, now does this raiding spree specifically target red? Yes. Is its primary purpose to upset NPO and show them they no longer have the power to dictate who other sovereign alliances can and can't raid? Yes. Is it a war? No.
[/quote]

So basically you're saying you hold grudges and get just as butt hurt as the moralists you criticize? I'm all for tech raiding for the fun of it, but this MORAL stand against NPO is sickening. I never thought I'd see the day that you guys would show such morality.

[White Chocolate]

Okay, first is there any evidence that red non-aligned are being attacked more than any other team?

Assuming yes, and it's on purpose...

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1279640105' post='2380651']
This is not about us wanting to destroy nations for kicks, it's about showing the NPO that we do not recognize their renamed Revenge Doctrine (yes, the one they weren't allowed to re-enact as part of the surrender terms they signed) and that we won't allow them to dictate who we raid and who we don't. If we have to lay waste to the entire red sphere for them to get it, then so be it.
[/quote]

This argument makes no sense to me. If you want to make a point to an alliance using violence, I don't see how attacking someone not in that alliance nor allied to that alliance does so. If NPO attacked an ally, would you say "bad NPO" and go attack a neutral alliance to prove a point? Would NPO really care...well, if they are as bad as people claim, probably not at all. It would be a gift, actually. What if that alliance also happened to be red team but was not in any way involved? So they lose some possible trades - big deal.

Going after red non-aligned is essentially the same thing. The only difference is that they have little power and are thus easier to beat up without any real consequence to the groups doing it.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='20 July 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1279670142' post='2381520']
[color="#0000FF"]Blue Words[/color]
[/quote]
RV, I believe you may have missed the several posts explaining that those are [b]not[/b] the terms required of the raidee. The official terms have been since posted. They are slightly more time consuming terms in this case, simply because they are attempting to secure peace (and raid-immunity) for their entire alliance, not simply a single nation. It is, however, far less work than if all 6 nations were to ask for peace individually.

Edited July 21, 2010 by ktarthan

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='20 July 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1279670142' post='2381520']
[color="#0000FF"]I think I would like to bring this up again since many of the defenders of this act have so conveniently ignored this. It is no secret that I've never been a fan of GOONS 'mercy board' but quite frankly most of their terms in the past have no been so demeaning as this. They demand maybe a silly haiku or drawing, but never this kind of garbage (except in the case of Methrage). Really, terms like these exist for only one purpose, and that is to be denied. GOONS wishes to be able to pretend that they are giving nations a loop out of this, but when that loop is something like this it is clearly just for show. The truth is the Red Safari has absolutely no plans to give any of these nations peace, or at least not make it easy for them, for the simple fact that they reside on the same sphere as the NPO (an unforgivable crime). They want to be able to gloat and flex their muscles.

Remember when tech raiding used to be as simple as 'PM for peace'? The terms GOONS are demanding are things that most alliances would never except. They are simply that disgusting (for those of us who still have a sense of human decency) and demanding. I am amazed that not only does this community tolerate it, but a good portion of it also applauds it.

OOC: I wonder if you consider how players perceive our community when you do things like this. Especially the new ones needed for CN to grow. It is one thing to be raided, but it quite another when the only way to get peace is to write a story that would make members of /b/ gag. Those who decide not to quite are not weak or whiners, as you so like to call them. If that was my first impression of CN I likely would not play either, but quite frankly this is pretty low grade stuff. This is some of the worst the internet has to offer. No, not the tech raiding in itself. The terms for peace truly are disgusting, and you can say iti s good fun for all but the actuality is that you crossed a line.[/color]
[/quote]
If you're done being outraged by the joke terms posted by our members you can clearly see the actual terms posted on the last page of that thread.

[anenu]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='20 July 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1279669854' post='2381512']
So we organize a raid on your alliance, don't use CMs or Nukes...you will peace out and accept "Tech Raid PM For Peace" ????
[/quote]

your talking about two completely different types of scenarios. A declaration on alliance members is a declaration on an entire alliance and by extension its allies because of this while you are completely within your rights to declare on anyone you choose i am also completly within my rights to destroy your nation for attacking my alliance mate.

In this scenario however the primary reason for these raids is to gain land and other such raidable commodities, and yes this is the primary reason as most of the nations involved would be raiding anyway. Now as these nations have chosen not to have an alliance they have no protection, the mentioning of nukes and CM's is only involved because there is no reason to nuke or CM a nation when the primary reason for the raid is profit. In the event that nukes or CM's are used then the primary reason for these raids goes from collecting profit to destroying a nation because they are on the same team as NPO, which is something i will not support.

[Banksy]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='21 July 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1279670295' post='2381524']
Going after red non-aligned is essentially the same thing. The only difference is that they have little power and are thus easier to beat up without any real consequence to the groups doing it.[/quote]
Out of interest, is this an objection to this particular raid, or to raiding in general?

[o-dog]

[quote name='Seerow' date='21 July 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1279670133' post='2381518']
To my understanding this has been [b]an escalation from NPO[/b] telling people to back off, and everyone else saying "no, we won't".[/quote]

Red Dawn or NPO?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='20 July 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1279670142' post='2381520']
[color="#0000FF"]Remember when tech raiding used to be as simple as 'PM for peace'? The terms GOONS are demanding are things that most alliances would never except. They are simply that disgusting (for those of us who still have a sense of human decency) and demanding. I am amazed that not only does this community tolerate it, but a good portion of it also applauds it.[/color]
[/quote]
Most alliances wouldn't write a short story about their day at the amusement park rather than suffer through a war?

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1279670133' post='2381518']
In this case, Red Dawn is being shown to be too weak to hold up to their promise of protection, and those they decided to protect are suffering for it. It will end up either as a lesson to the NPO that they should not make a claim they do not intend to back up, or will end with the Red Dawn following through on their word, and attacking every person tech raiding red, which would likely get ugly for Red Dawn.
[/quote]

You forgot another possibility...it will end up being very bad press for the alliances that are involved in doing the raiding, and put the allies of those alliances who do not favor such moves (be it for ethical or political reasons) in a spot where they have to start making some difficult decisions.

Edited July 21, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Sardonic' date='20 July 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1279670747' post='2381531']
If you're done being outraged by the joke terms posted by our members you can clearly see the actual terms posted on the last page of that thread.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]My apologies. I did not see it as needed to visit your forum. Schatt has usually been a reliable source, so I took it at face value. Nevertheless I still find the lengths you make people go through to secure peace quite extreme.[/color]

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='20 July 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1279671368' post='2381552']
[color="#0000FF"]My apologies. I did not see it as needed to visit your forum. Schatt has usually been a reliable source, so I took it at face value. Nevertheless I still find the lengths you make people go through to secure peace quite extreme.[/color]
[/quote]
Thank you, and that is fair to say. However, we feel it is central to our community to secure such delightful essays and pictures as means of peace, and the practice has paid off dramatically.

[Tromp]

Seriously, this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

The "Revenge Doctrine" is a declaration of protection for red unaligned nations. Ever since Karma, and after NPO came out of terms, this whole doctrine of theirs was of no matter to anyone. And it shouldn't be now either, since it is unilateral.

This debate has been more about the "morality" of techraiding then anything else. It will lead to nothing, just like all previous threads about techraiding.

Should NPO, or Red Dawn for that matter, desire to come true to their word (or doctrine, whatever) then they should act instead of coming here, whining about an issue that they in fact created themselves.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Tromp' date='20 July 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1279671640' post='2381555']
Seriously, this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

The "Revenge Doctrine" is a declaration of protection for red unaligned nations. Ever since Karma, and after NPO came out of terms, this whole doctrine of theirs was of no matter to anyone. And it shouldn't be now either, since it is unilateral.

This debate has been more about the "morality" of techraiding then anything else. It will lead to nothing, just like all previous threads about techraiding.

Should NPO, or Red Dawn for that matter, desire to come true to their word (or doctrine, whatever) then they should act instead of coming here, whining about an issue that they in fact created themselves.
[/quote]
I approve of this summary of the situation.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1279671020' post='2381539']
Out of interest, is this an objection to this particular raid, or to raiding in general?
[/quote]

It's an objection to "Red Safari" (assuming it's actually happening). I'm no fan of tech raiding regardless, but raiding an individual nation because it happens to be on the same team color of a group of alliances that one has an issue with changes the motivation entirely. It's no longer a "tech raid" for resources, but a politically motivated act that has nothing to do with the individual nation being attacked.

To put it another way...what should a nation do to avoid being even more of a possible target than another non-aligned with this policy? Easy - move off red. Now it's not about tech, it's about team color.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1279669699' post='2381508']
This is your best argument? why I'm not surprised. Link for ruin it: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=128500&Extended=1

At least 14 ground attacks in two days, plus the anarchy state.

This is like say "We will not kill you, just shot in your legs, see how we are nice people?"
[/quote]

I'm supposed to feel pity for him? That nation's been around for three and a half years. If he doesn't know by now that being on none is going to get you raided then that's his own damn fault.

[D34th]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 July 2010 - 10:31 PM' timestamp='1279672251' post='2381569']
I'm supposed to feel pity for him?
[/quote]

I don't expect people like you to feel pity for someone unless this help your interests.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1279672360' post='2381574']
I don't expect people like you to feel pity for someone unless this help your interests.
[/quote]

I know, I'm clearly an evil heartless bully.

I feel pity for those who can't help themselves. I feel pity for people who are attacked and [b]can't do anything about it.[/b] If you don't want war join GPA, it's fairly easy. However, if you stay on none and have gotten recruiting messages where everyone warns you if you stick on none you'll get raided, and then you don't heed the warnings and get attacked when you grow larger, I feel no pity for you.

The solution is simple, join an alliance.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='D34th' date='20 July 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1279672360' post='2381574']
I don't expect people like you to feel pity for someone unless this help your interests.
[/quote]

Likewise.