Red Raiding Safari

[flak attack]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1279670133' post='2381518']
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.
[/quote]
Yes. YN#5 was part of the CB used against FAN.

[caligula]

I really don't see the issue here. Unless Red Dawn is claiming all of Red and their unaligned nations as their own then there should be no justification for this announcement. There is no international treaty that protects nations of a particular team in action at the moment and I'm actually more disappointed with the bait that many of the "raiding," alliances just took from Schatt and his attempt to polarize camps on raiding.

I would argue that extending protection to an unaligned nation, effectively branding them as owned by another entity without their consent is more of an infringement "morally," than an actual raid upon them.

But well done everyone. This thread at least delivered for a while.

[mrwuss]

[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]



Remember when no one cared what you thought, did, or wanted to do?

That is right now.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

It's hilarious to read all the moralistic posturing in this thread about how evil tech-raiding is coming from members of alliances who engage in tech-raiding.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='20 July 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1279665429' post='2381385']
This has to be the most retarded question I've read in this thread. It's commonly accepted that a protectorate is a treaty between two alliances. A haphazard attempt to keep everybody from raiding the unaligned without their consent on any color is infringement.
[/quote]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1279670133' post='2381518']
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). [/quote]

What about an alliance without treaties?

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='D34th' date='21 July 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1279669188' post='2381498']
I'd say that isn't NPO who is playing "King of the Hill" game.

I almost can imagine he dialogue:

NPO: Can you please not raid the unaligned red nations?
Raiders: No, because we do what we want and you can do nothing about it! If you want that so much make me stop!
[/quote]

You obviously missed the point. NPO didn't go to a raiding alliance and ask that, they decided, along with the other (relatively insignificant) Red Dawn members, that they would declare that you can't raid red nations. So, to fix your wording:

NPO + Red Dawn: You can not raid the Red Sphere.
Raiders: Actually, I do believe we can. Now stop telling us what we are and are not allowed to do. Thanks.

[o-dog]

[quote name='mrwuss' date='21 July 2010 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1279674559' post='2381632']
Remember when no one cared what you thought, did, or wanted to do?

That is right now.
[/quote]

[ooc] Are you a re-roll, or are your 54 days of existence all you have to offer? [/ooc]

Edited July 21, 2010 by O-Dog

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='20 July 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1279675000' post='2381655']
You obviously missed the point. NPO didn't go to a raiding alliance and ask that, they decided, along with the other (relatively insignificant) Red Dawn members, that they would declare that you can't raid red nations. So, to fix your wording:

NPO + Red Dawn: You can not raid the Red Sphere.
Raiders: Actually, I do believe we can. Now stop telling us what we are and are not allowed to do. Thanks.
[/quote]


Then comes the posturing, whining and the end on the discussion.

The best thing about this whole mess is NPO can't enforce this magical decree and if they did it would lead to the next real war.

Edited July 21, 2010 by mrwuss

[Tromp]

[quote name='mrwuss' date='21 July 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1279675131' post='2381658']
Then comes the posturing, whining and the end on the discussion.

[b]The best thing about this whole mess[/b] is NPO can't enforce this magical decree and if they did it would lead to the next real war.
[/quote]
No, I think the best part is that they created this mess themselves.

It's really a matter of "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

[President Obama]

[quote name='Tromp' date='21 July 2010 - 01:20 AM' 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 can't believe I'm agreeing with Tromp on something, but I agree with this post.

[Tromp]

[quote name='President Obama' date='21 July 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1279675331' post='2381667']
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Tromp on something, but I agree with this post.
[/quote]
Why is it wrong to agree with me on something?

[Alonois]

[quote name='mrwuss' date='20 July 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1279675131' post='2381658']
The best thing about this whole mess is NPO can't enforce this magical decree and if they did it would lead to the next real war.
[/quote]

I don't think they have recently had any interest in enforcing it. The entire thing is a reputation game. The original "no one on red we don't like" policy was the same thing but much more blunt. It caused them problems. This allows them to try and maintain a good reputation without suffering the negatives of actually doing something to maintain it. It's hot air and nothing else.

Really, the idea of growing a sphere isn't a bad one but NPO has neither the power nor the interest to take the steps necessary to actually unify and grow the red sphere. It would mean giving up some measure of power to other alliances in their sphere. It would mean actually doing something to earn a reputation as good guys. This is way easier and, for the purposes of reputation, more efficient.

But it's still all empty. If they actually had the power to enforce it, and the interest, I imagine they would. As is it's an annoyingly loud chest thumping exercise.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Alonois

[Seerow]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='20 July 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1279674959' post='2381652']
What about an alliance without treaties?
[/quote]

An alliance without treaties has obviously by the logic I presented chosen to keep their full sovereignty, exchanging the safety of having a net of treaties forcing people to back you up in exchange for the freedom of not having any chance of being dragged into a war in which you do not want any part in. An alliance without treaties is free to do whatever they please. Other alliances are similarly free to do what they like in response to any actions the non-aligned-alliance takes.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1279675455' post='2381670']
An alliance without treaties has obviously by the logic I presented chosen to keep their full sovereignty, exchanging the safety of having a net of treaties forcing people to back you up in exchange for the freedom of not having any chance of being dragged into a war in which you do not want any part in. An alliance without treaties is free to do whatever they please. Other alliances are similarly free to do what they like in response to any actions the non-aligned-alliance takes.
[/quote]

And by your logic defending such individuals would be a violation of the sovereignty of someone wishing to attack them?

[Seerow]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='20 July 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1279675719' post='2381675']
And by your logic defending such individuals would be a violation of the sovereignty of someone wishing to attack them?
[/quote]


Why would it be? An alliance has the right to do whatever they please, unless they have a treaty that specifically says they will not do something. Unless the alliance defending the non-aligned alliance had a treaty saying they would not attack the alliance attacking the non-aligned alliance, there is no problem.



In this situation, Red Dawn is within its rights to defend the red sphere. However, everyone else is within their rights to attack anyone on the red sphere, because they never made any treaty or statement saying they wouldn't. It is now on Red Dawn to follow through on what they said they would do, or admit that they made a claim bigger than they could handle.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Seerow

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1279675933' post='2381679']
Why would it be? An alliance has the right to do whatever they please, unless they have a treaty that specifically says they will not do something.
[/quote]

So how is the wish to defend these nations a violation of your sovereignty?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1279675933' post='2381679']
Why would it be? An alliance has the right to do whatever they please, unless they have a treaty that specifically says they will not do something.
[/quote]

So If I attacked MK it wouldn't be a violation of your sovereignty because its in my right to do so?

Edited July 21, 2010 by Lennox

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='21 July 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1279676055' post='2381683']
So how is the wish to defend these nations a violation of your sovereignty?
[/quote]

They declared that you can not raid them. Notice the difference between that and saying that you will defend them.

[Seerow]

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1279676065' post='2381684']
So If I attacked MK it wouldn't be a violation of your sovereignty because its in my right to do so?
[/quote]

Correct. As far as I know, NSO has no treaties saying they will not attack MK.

However, MK would be within its rights to destroy the NSO for such an overt act of agression. The trick here is figuring out the line between what you are allowed to do, and what you can actually do and get away with.


[quote]So how is the wish to defend these nations a violation of your sovereignty?
[/quote]

Like Ryuzaki said, they claimed that nobody can raid them. In doing that they are attempting to limit the sovereignty of others. If they choose to actually follow up on their word and attack those raiding they are within their rights. They are also subject to the consequences of launching an aggressive attack over the pixels of a few unaligned nations.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Seerow

[Alonois]

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1279676065' post='2381684']
So If I attacked MK it wouldn't be a violation of your sovereignty because its in my right to do so?
[/quote]

Just to step into your argument, if MK couldn't defend itself it has no sovereignty. Through treaties, through direct force, through diplomacy, if MK couldn't assure its defense then it has no power and no sovereignty.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='20 July 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1279676164' post='2381689']
They declared that you can not raid them. Notice the difference between that and saying that you will defend them.
[/quote]

So if an individual put "Do not raid me" in their nation bio, would that be a declaration?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Seerow' date='20 July 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1279676171' post='2381690']
Correct. As far as I know, NSO has no treaties saying they will not attack MK.

However, MK would be within its rights to destroy the NSO for such an overt act of agression. The trick here is figuring out the line between what you are allowed to do, and what you can actually do and get away with.
[/quote]

What is your definition of sovereignty and how is it violated?

[Seerow]

[quote name='Alonois' date='20 July 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1279676266' post='2381695']
Just to step into your argument, if MK couldn't defend itself it has no sovereignty. Through treaties, through direct force, through diplomacy, if MK couldn't assure its defense then it has no power and no sovereignty.
[/quote]

Here's somebody who gets it.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Lennox' date='20 July 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1279676299' post='2381697']
What is your definition of sovereignty and how is it violated?
[/quote]

It's pretty obviously he defines it as choice and the capacity to act upon that decision. Nothing more, nothing less. Sovereignty, power, these aren't rights but privileges. You have no more power or strength than you can defend and use. Sovereignty is not a resource but a state and an expression of the capacity to act and decide beyond the whims of external actors.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Alonois' date='20 July 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1279676420' post='2381700']
It's pretty obviously he defines it as choice and the capacity to act upon that decision. Nothing more, nothing less. Sovereignty, power, these aren't rights but privileges. You have no more power or strength than you can defend and use. Sovereignty is not a resource but a state and an expression of the capacity to act and decide beyond the whims of external actors.
[/quote]

Oh, so you're a philosophizer now?