Red Raiding Safari

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Iosif' date='21 July 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1279703502' post='2382314']
This is honestly pretty ridiculous. I mean, when alliances raid a lot, it usually also means someone's going to $%&@ at some point. It's obvious from your comment that you haven't been a government member of a raiding alliance, because that really happens all the time and then usually the diplomatic squad comes and saves the day. As a sidenote, the most notorious raider alliances tend to act very smoothly and efficiently if something goes wrong. They seriously have top-notch diplomats you're not going to have troubles with if you're being reasonable at all, believe me.

Anyways, most raider alliance charters don't consider small alliances (<10) to be actually alliances, but they still are pretty strict about not raiding protectorates. It doesn't mean mistakes don't happen, because we're all !@#$@#$ human beings. Especially one man AAs are often totally disregarded as alliances at all, because pretty much every single one man AA is a disbanded alliance or a non-alliance. California seemed to be an exception, and I'm pretty sure your gov will or has already contacted MK government and this is not going to be a problem. Find out what's going on before you open your mouth, or you'll going to look like a retard. Like just now.
[/quote]


Forgive me for looking like a retard.

I just get suspicious about 3 1000+ day old 100K NS nations making mistakes like this. Especially considering California is somewhat well known due to the long and heated thread from when they were raided during Karma by PC. And the fact that if you google California cybernations protectorate "The treaties of the Phoenix Federation" is the second result.

This whole red safari is clearly designed to stick it to NPO and bait them. Then suddenly 3 extremely veteran players also raid the protectorate of NPO's MADP partner...

Maybe it is all just a coincidence and those 3 didn't check why a near 100k NS nation with 18000 infra had been on an AA for 929 days and hadn't been raided to dust long since. I know that checking for protectorates is usually the first thing novice raiders are taught to do, but these 1000+ day old nations may not have remembered that.

In my defense, after being on the bad side of the curb stomp 3 times in 6 months or so from your side of the web, you get a little paranoid.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1279699143' post='2382277']
If the nations being hit were on any other colour there wouldn't even be the smallest noise raised; apart from the redness of those nations these raids are no different in scale or ferocity than what goes on every single day.
[/quote]
Oh I understand that this is pretty standard raiding stuff. I'm saying it's a pickle for the people who have declared protection of the unaligned on the red team. I always thought it was kinda funny that the NPO was still going to try the old red protection court even though they don't have near the same amount of pull as they used to. Those raiding the red team have pretty much told the NPO and co. to step up or step off in that regard. Quite the pickle for them indeed.

Maybe it's just a wake up call for certain alliances/people to realize where exactly they stand and how far their power really goes.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1279703046' post='2382303']
I don't see what's stopping you, but even with that self-imposed limitation you could have taken it to your own government and let them speak to us. Much better solution than getting all excited at the thought of being able to ~get one in~ on us and rushing off to this thread.
[/quote]

MK has always been advocate of transparency and being supporting of brining issues out to public in the past.

Edited July 21, 2010 by shahenshah

[Confusion]

Well, what can I say. I myself am not a fan of organized tech raids, as such I hope you guys get everything sorted.

Good Luck!

Confusion.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Vol Navy' date='21 July 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1279705441' post='2382337']
Forgive me for looking like a retard.

I just get suspicious about 3 1000+ day old 100K NS nations making mistakes like this. Especially considering California is somewhat well known due to the long and heated thread from when they were raided during Karma by PC. And the fact that if you google California cybernations protectorate "The treaties of the Phoenix Federation" is the second result.

This whole red safari is clearly designed to stick it to NPO and bait them. Then suddenly 3 extremely veteran players also raid the protectorate of NPO's MADP partner...

Maybe it is all just a coincidence and those 3 didn't check why a near 100k NS nation with 18000 infra had been on an AA for 929 days and hadn't been raided to dust long since. I know that checking for protectorates is usually the first thing novice raiders are taught to do, but these 1000+ day old nations may not have remembered that.

In my defense, after being on the bad side of the curb stomp 3 times in 6 months or so from your side of the web, you get a little paranoid.
[/quote]
It's probably just another a plot by MK to set up IRON.

[lebubu]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='21 July 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1279708337' post='2382360']
MK has always been advocate of transparency and being supporting of brining issues out to public in the past.
[/quote]

Transparency is fine, but this smells like an attempt to spin a genuine mistake into looking like a malicious act. That being said, if the protectorate is indeed still active, I urge TPF gov to get into contact with us on our forums or IRC so we can resolve this.

Edited July 21, 2010 by lebubu

[Voytek]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' date='21 July 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1279708093' post='2382358']
Oh I understand that this is pretty standard raiding stuff. I'm saying it's a pickle for the people who have declared protection of the unaligned on the red team. I always thought it was kinda funny that the NPO was still going to try the old red protection court even though they don't have near the same amount of pull as they used to. Those raiding the red team have pretty much told the NPO and co. to step up or step off in that regard. Quite the pickle for them indeed.[/quote]
Oh OK, I see what you're saying now. Whoops.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='21 July 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1279708337' post='2382360']
MK has always been advocate of transparency and being supporting of brining issues out to public in the past.
[/quote]
Not unreservedly so. Minor issues like the one Vol Navy brought up are only usually deserving of a mention on the OWF if private diplomacy has already been attempted (and failed). Taking an incident which is only superficially related to a topic already under discussion, coming directly to the OWF and attempting to sell the lot as some kind of huge conspiracy is stupid no matter who's doing it.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Voytek

[Bob Janova]

Those reps at 100k+ are going to be pretty tasty. (Edit: 18000 infra, 3 attackers doing a quad = 12 GAs, around 10k tech for each attacker = 60 infra per GA, that's 720 infra lost, comes to a little over $300m.)

There's a couple of bad arguments from the last 10 pages I want to address.

[i]"This is just normal tech raiding, it happens all the time"[/i] – No, no it isn't. It's been explicitly admitted by several people in this thread that the purpose is to score political points against the NPO. Tech raiding as a normal occurence is bad enough (it's institutionalised theft) but this is worse, you're using these nations as pawns in your political game because you don't dare actually do anything to NPO.

[i]"'Might makes right' means literally changing the moral right"[/i] – Um no. That phrase perfectly fits the arguments around page 30, it means that with enough might you can override what people say is 'right'. Your semantic games would equally apply to the Initiative/Continuum era NPO, when lots of you were quite happy to (correctly) apply 'might makes right' to them. You are making [i]exactly[/i] the same arguments about sovereignty and being able to defend your rights or they don't exist that the Initiative (and particularly the Unjust) were making back then. Don't be surprised if you get compared to them when you're doing the same thing (as I mentioned before this particular exercise is right out of the GGA playbook).

Edited July 21, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Voytek]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 July 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1279715295' post='2382428'][i]"This is just normal tech raiding, it happens all the time"[/i] – No, no it isn't. It's been explicitly admitted by several people in this thread that the purpose is to score political points against the NPO.[/quote]

Irrelevant. Those nations would have been raided with or without NPO's presence on the sphere.

[James IV]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='21 July 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1279696786' post='2382254']
[color="#0000FF"]I thought he was in MK actually. I must be thinking of a different James. Nevertheless, what I say remains true.[/color]
[/quote]

There is a "James I" that is MK. My comment earlier is that I think this a dumb move by MK when GOONS and \m/ could have done this on their own. I don't like tech raiding either so you could probably guess what I think about this. You are right on this one though. As much as I don't care for NPO, this is just people waving around their e-peens.

[OOC] I like the ODN's pip the best right now, but might change back to the Polar one. Sorry if it confused you. [/OOC]

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1279715516' post='2382430']
Irrelevant. Those nations would have been raided with or without NPO's presence on the sphere.
[/quote]

How does that even relate to what Bob said? It's not about the damage, it's about the intentions behind it.

[Voytek]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='21 July 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1279717513' post='2382455']
How does that even relate to what Bob said? It's not about the damage, it's about the intentions behind it.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was hoping that the objections to this were actually about the people being raided rather than faux moral outrage about "intentions". The nations being raided are being used as political pawns every bit as much by you as they are by us.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Voytek

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1279696482' post='2382247']
I simply think that making a huge deal out of calling it the [i]Revenge Doctrine[/i] wasn't a coincidence.
[/quote]
It was named after Trotsky's Revenge, who first introduced the original version.

[quote name='Vol Navy' date='21 July 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1279701586' post='2382285']
It would appear that MK has decided to take their safari to another color, black, and raid our protectorate California.
[/quote]
Oh dear god not this again.

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=83621&Extended=1

[Eric Cantona]

How about you stick the topic before I stick you one?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Vol Navy' date='21 July 2010 - 05:44 AM' timestamp='1279705441' post='2382337']
Forgive me for looking like a retard.

I just get suspicious about 3 1000+ day old 100K NS nations making mistakes like this. Especially considering California is somewhat well known due to the long and heated thread from when they were raided during Karma by PC. And the fact that if you google California cybernations protectorate "The treaties of the Phoenix Federation" is the second result.

This whole red safari is clearly designed to stick it to NPO and bait them. Then suddenly 3 extremely veteran players also raid the protectorate of NPO's MADP partner...

Maybe it is all just a coincidence and those 3 didn't check why a near 100k NS nation with 18000 infra had been on an AA for 929 days and hadn't been raided to dust long since. I know that checking for protectorates is usually the first thing novice raiders are taught to do, but these 1000+ day old nations may not have remembered that.

In my defense, after being on the bad side of the curb stomp 3 times in 6 months or so from your side of the web, you get a little paranoid.
[/quote]
Get your !@#$@#$ protectorate with them posted somewhere. It's not on the wiki, it's not in the guy's bio that he is protected and it's not even on their forum.

Sorry, just saw the mod warning.

Edited July 21, 2010 by flak attack

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1279717886' post='2382461']
Sorry, I was hoping that the objections to this were actually about the people being raided rather than faux moral outrage about "intentions". The nations being raided are being used as political pawns every bit as much by you as they are by us.
[/quote]

Hahaha right, you really dont get that some people do seriously have morals?

You didnt complain about their support when you were under the jackboot of Pacifica. Times change, dont they? MK doesnt need no stinking morals anymore.

[Voytek]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='21 July 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1279720548' post='2382492']Hahaha right, you really dont get that some people do seriously have morals?[/quote]

The fact that you literally said that it's not about the damage (which is basically the only thing the people actually being raided care about) says otherwise.

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1279720743' post='2382495']
The fact that you literally said that it's not about the damage (which is basically the only thing the people actually being raided care about) says otherwise.
[/quote]

Sorry, but... what?

Do you mean it indicates that no one has any morals? You gotta explain that one.

[Voytek]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='22 July 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1279720886' post='2382497']Do you mean it indicates that no one has any morals? You gotta explain that one.[/quote]
It doesn't indicate that [i]no one[/i] has any morals - obviously there are people who do in a community this large. My point is that the people who profess to be moralist but are really only in it for the political points far outnumber those that actually do care about the nations being beaten up. You fall squarely into the former category.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='lebubu' date='21 July 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1279712425' post='2382397']
Transparency is fine, but this smells like an attempt to spin a genuine mistake into looking like a malicious act. That being said, if the protectorate is indeed still active, I urge TPF gov to get into contact with us on our forums or IRC so we can resolve this.
[/quote]

I don't mean to nitpick, but when you have already demonstrated that you are willing to use raids to thumb your nose at political opponents, then it is perfectly natural to assume that a pair of elite members raiding a known protectorate of a substantially weakened political opponent is also politically motivated.

Edited July 21, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1279721256' post='2382501']
It doesn't indicate that [i]no one[/i] has any morals - obviously there are people who do in a community this large. My point is that the people who profess to be moralist but are really only in it for the political points far outnumber those that actually do care about the nations being beaten up. You fall squarely into the former category.
[/quote]

If i started a moral outrage about every raid in the world i wouldnt get to do anything else. Doesnt mean i dont think it's wrong.

And doesnt mean your actual intentions were just raiding, because obviously they arent. You wanted to take a stab at NPO while not actually attacking them... to avoid the blatant immorality of beating down on NPO directly, but make them look bad by either not following on their word to protect red nations or getting beaten down again in what you want to instigate as an offensive war on their part.

But hey, no one is buying your crap and everyone can see past this pathetic attempt to get at NPO once again.

You guys are playing with faux morals, not the people who call you out.

[Voytek]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='22 July 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1279721909' post='2382516']If i started a moral outrage about every raid in the world i wouldnt get to do anything else. Doesnt mean i dont think it's wrong.[/quote]
So essentially you pick and choose the raids to get noisily angry about according to which ones are the most politically beneficial to you to place pressure on.

[quote name='HellAngel' date='22 July 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1279721909' post='2382516']And doesnt mean your actual intentions were just raiding, because obviously they arent. You wanted to take a stab at NPO while not actually attacking them... to avoid the blatant immorality of beating down on NPO directly, but make them look bad by either not following on their word to protect red nations or getting beaten down again in what you want to instigate as an offensive war on their part.

But hey, no one is buying your crap and everyone can see past this pathetic attempt to get at NPO once again.

You guys are playing with faux morals, not the people who call you out.
[/quote]
When did I say our intentions were not partly to show NPO that they couldn't infringe on our sovereignty? I've explicitly said as much multiple times throughout this thread. What I don't understand is why that makes the raids so much worse than if NPO didn't enter into the equation at all. It makes no physical difference to the people being raided.

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Voytek' date='21 July 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1279722259' post='2382522']
So essentially you pick and choose the raids to get noisily angry about according to which ones are the most politically beneficial to you to place pressure on.
[/quote]

I only bark at the most dishonourable injustices these times. A week ago i was hardly even active. You have yet to prove how this is politically beneficial to me. I always did it and will always do that, no matter how the political landscape looks like. I dont really know how long you have been around, but i already called people out back in GW3. So no, i dont really do this for any political gain. It's just me. You can believe that or not, i do not care. I even bet some of my alliance mates would rather have me shut up.

[quote]
When did I say our intentions were not partly to show NPO that they couldn't infringe on our sovereignty? I've explicitly said as much multiple times throughout this thread. What I don't understand is why that makes the raids so much worse than if NPO didn't enter into the equation at all. It makes no physical difference to the people being raided.
[/quote]

You're using the same methods the NPO/GGA/Initiative crew used when they were in power and MK as an alliance was partly at the receiving end of such moves. People thought the experience made you better than that. Apparently it didnt. I know you like to joke about being the new Hegemony in order to weaken the argument itself, but i really do not see how you guys are any better. Same !@#$ all over again.

Edited July 21, 2010 by HellAngel

[ConeBone69]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='21 July 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1279722779' post='2382528']
I know you like to joke about being the new Hegemony in order to weaken the argument itself, but i really do not see how you guys are any better. Same !@#$ all over again.
[/quote]
Just like everyone else who has made this worthless claim, we would like to know what your evidence is. Because if all you have is "You're big raiding meanies!", your argument is ignorant at best.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='21 July 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1279688471' post='2382095']
Yes, it does feel that way, doesn't it. However, things seem to be getting played up more than they should. If the involved parties move on to raiding/attacking larger alliances though, ill start to be worried. This is just tech raiding as usual; only concentrated on a single color
[/quote]


I think that the reason why it's being played up a bit, is because it's a little bit more than just a raid. Raids are traditionally isolated occurrences. You might, every now and then, have an entire alliance go on a raid. But this - this has extreme coordination between multiple alliances. It has a common target. It has a purpose beyond gathering tech - the purpose being, to demonstrate that politics is a power-based affair.

And so, with coordination and a mission statement, it begins to look less like a [i]raid[/i], and more like an [i]attack[/i].