Red Raiding Safari

[the masheen]

Well maybe if you did a little more organized raids "friendly" would turn into "friends"...maybe

[Opethian]

I don't know whether to condemn the belligerence or admire the irony. At this point anything that makes this place more lively is welcome, I just wish I were a bit more comfortable with the methodology.

[wickedj]

[quote name='The Reccesion' date='20 July 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1279608410' post='2380201']
What makes you so sure about that?

Win or lose, as long as you fight with honor s'all good.
[/quote]
Because lets face it, if this were 2007 this wouldnt be a "please stop" thread this would be a DoW

And whats the point of fighting the war if you arent out to achive your goal, i.e. stopping the raids on red or in your case rolling Athens because theyre meanies to you

[Smacky]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='19 July 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1279606583' post='2380160']
Raiding is an act of pure cowardice. Some may raid for a lark, some may raid to get some experience. But the dedicated lifestyle raider is a small, small man.
[/quote]
That's hurtful, take it back. I may be short but you don't have to mock me for it.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='the masheen' date='20 July 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1279608726' post='2380208']
Yeah, almost as laughable as claiming it's just to show that they're "The toughest kids on the block". I was simply pointing out that PC, GOONS, Umbrella, \m/, and MK are all friends and I'm sure they're having a good time raiding together. Having good times with your friends is a form of bonding.
[/quote]
It's pretty clear that the individuals involved are undertaking this "safari" to illustrate their own power to raid whomever they want. They are, indeed, showing how "tough" they are in exorcising what they call their rights.

Also, having fun and bonding over the act of stealing from and destroying helpless individuals makes the act much more reprehensible. I don't really know what you're getting at in characterizing it as such.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='19 July 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1279607266' post='2380174']
Most spheres seek to minimize raids in their back yard.
[/quote]

Few have the hubris to try and eliminate it.

[Voytek]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' date='20 July 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1279609786' post='2380233']It's pretty clear that the individuals involved are undertaking this "safari" to illustrate their own power to raid whomever they want.[/quote]

Not so much about demonstrating our own power as it is about demonstrating NPO's lack thereof. Their days of essentially claiming ownership of a colour sphere are done and dusted.

[The Reccesion]

[quote name='wickedj' date='20 July 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1279609660' post='2380229']
Because lets face it, if this were 2007 this wouldnt be a "please stop" thread this would be a DoW

And whats the point of fighting the war if you arent out to achive your goal, i.e. stopping the raids on red or in your case rolling Athens because theyre meanies to you
[/quote]
I suppose your right, but when you piss off enough people it will add up, same thing happened to NPO.

Athens? I could give two !@#$% about them tbh. I like some of them but some I don't. They can do what they want, it doesn't really effect us. Might annoy us for a while, but it will eventually stop because nobody gets anything out of it except a couple of laughs, an our side has gotten our fair share of laughs as well.

Soon they will annoy others as well. Athens might not have pissed off Red Dawn, but their buddy's have and in the end, Athens just gets tagged along for no reason.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1279609940' post='2380237']
Not so much about demonstrating our own power as it is about demonstrating NPO's lack thereof. Their days of essentially claiming ownership of a colour sphere are done and dusted.
[/quote]
When it comes to enemies, one is tantamount to the other in my opinion. But I understand what you're saying.

[Banksy]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' date='20 July 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1279609786' post='2380233']
It's pretty clear that the individuals involved are undertaking this "safari" to illustrate their own power to raid whomever they want. They are, indeed, showing how "tough" they are in exorcising what they call their rights.

Also, having fun and bonding over the act of stealing from and destroying helpless individuals makes the act much more reprehensible. I don't really know what you're getting at in characterizing it as such.
[/quote]
They're protesting against a group of alliances, saying that they can't claim ownership over an entire sphere. This Red DAWN pact cannot legitimately claim ownership of an economic sphere.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='The Reccesion' date='20 July 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1279610007' post='2380238']
I suppose your right, but when you piss off enough people it will add up, same thing happened to NPO.

Athens? I could give two !@#$% about them tbh. I like some of them but some I don't. They can do what they want, it doesn't really effect us. Might annoy us for a while, but it will eventually stop because nobody gets anything out of it except a couple of laughs, an our side has gotten our fair share of laughs as well.

Soon they will annoy others as well. Athens might not have pissed off Red Dawn, but their buddy's have and in the end, Athens just gets tagged along for no reason.
[/quote]

The first part is very true. Then the little rant about Athens just makes the rest of the post look silly. Athens is no where in the thread. There is no reason to bring them into it.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Omniscient1

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1279610057' post='2380240']
They're protesting against a group of alliances, saying that they can't claim ownership over an entire sphere. This Red DAWN pact cannot legitimately claim ownership of an economic sphere.
[/quote]
I understand their qualms with Red DAWN. I'm saying the reason they have a problem with it is that it seeks to restrict their power to raid as they please, something that they value. So, in defying Red DAWN, they are exerting that power.

Also, since when does that treaty dictate anything like property rights to the signatories? I understand the raiding protection clause may be overstepping the boundaries of an economic treaty, but saying that it implies ownership is a fair bit of hyperbole.

Edited July 20, 2010 by savethecheerleader

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Biff Webster' date='20 July 2010 - 06:14 AM' timestamp='1279602876' post='2380010']

As an entity tasked with the safeguarding of the mutual interests of Red, we of Red Dawn condemn this action; however, we are not so clumsy as the perpetrators of this crime might have hoped. You may force us to act, but you will not have your desire.

-The Alliances of Red Dawn
[/quote]
Oh my, this is absolutely hilarious. "I see what you're doing, and it goes against doctrine X.....pwease srop"

This is a joke.

[The Reccesion]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='20 July 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1279610243' post='2380244']
The first part is very true. Then the little rant about Athens just makes the rest of the post look silly. Athens is no where in the thread. There is no reason to bring them into it.
[/quote]
Did you not read the WickedJ part? I was answering that part.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1279610057' post='2380240']
They're protesting against a group of alliances, saying that they can't claim ownership over an entire sphere. This Red DAWN pact cannot legitimately claim ownership of an economic sphere.
[/quote]

I don't understand where the "ownership" comes in, Moldavi doctrine was ownership, protection from raids is not.

Personally, I have a view of "to each his own" on the issue of raiding. We aren't big fans of it in regards to its literal application, but we don't fault people for partaking in raids in a normal fashion (obviously, as many of our best allies raid). Alliances do have a right to raid I think, but if they wish to assert that right they have to recognize the converse is also true, that alliances have the right to limit what can be raided within reason. I do think offering protection to a color is within reason, however perhaps not in the blanket manner which is in question here.

Fact of the matter is we might as well call a spade a spade and say that the only reason this is going on is because NPO can't stop it. Nothing wrong with that per se if one is so inclined to agree with the sentiment, and its much better then trying to put forth questionable rationale to legitimize it, such as the whole ownership argument.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='20 July 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1279610536' post='2380253']
Fact of the matter is we might as well call a spade a spade and say that the only reason this is going on is because NPO can't stop it. Nothing wrong with that per se if one is so inclined to agree with the sentiment, and its much better then trying to put forth questionable rationale to legitimize it, such as the whole ownership argument.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I can't believe I'm saying this, but I happen to agree with you. It is true, nothing can be done about this at the moment. Although I personally will be adding this to my list of crimes perpetrated by the CnG and SF spheres since Karma, and it is my hope that eventually justice will be able to be served. But right now, that is not an option. We can only watch silently as they do what they will. But yes, you're right. If these people had any balls at all they would be calling this what it is instead of dance around the fact.[/color]

[Banksy]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' date='20 July 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1279610310' post='2380246']
Also, since when does that treaty dictate anything like property rights to the signatories? I understand the raiding protection clause may be overstepping the boundaries of an economic treaty, but saying that it implies ownership is a fair bit of hyperbole.[/quote]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='20 July 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1279610536' post='2380253']
I don't understand where the "ownership" comes in, Moldavi doctrine was ownership, protection from raids is not. [/quote]
Perhaps it's not a great word to use. It does imply some sort of land ownership (which is not my intention).

The signatories are saying that no one else may touch red nations. They are protected by the signatories. Red becomes their exclusive 'property' to exploit.

By saying 'you cannot go here, and I will prevent you from doing so' implies a watered down version of 'ownership.'

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1279611314' post='2380258']
Perhaps it's not a great word to use. It does imply some sort of land ownership (which is not my intention).

The signatories are saying that no one else may touch red nations. They are protected by the signatories. Red becomes their exclusive 'property' to exploit.

By saying 'you cannot go here, and I will prevent you from doing so' implies a watered down version of 'ownership.'
[/quote]
I can see the parallels between this sort of protection and ownership. However, I have a problem with using the words interchangeably. Saying the signatories of Red DAWN are trying to claim ownership over other red nations feels a lot like an attempt to flip the moral image of the whole situation. By trying to paint what Red DAWN is doing as wrong, as imperialistic and arrogant, some might seek to divert attention from the true offense: the destruction of innocent nations. For those of you who don't care about or don't believe in morality, this doesn't really matter. But there are powerful individuals and alliances that do care about that sort of thing, and its easy to see how someone might attempt to sway these people's opinions on the matter by using this sort of disingenuous description of what Red DAWN is doing.

Edited July 20, 2010 by savethecheerleader

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 08:35 AM' timestamp='1279611314' post='2380258']
Perhaps it's not a great word to use. It does imply some sort of land ownership (which is not my intention).

The signatories are saying that no one else may touch red nations. They are protected by the signatories. Red becomes their exclusive 'property' to exploit.

By saying 'you cannot go here, and I will prevent you from doing so' implies a watered down version of 'ownership.'
[/quote]

The right to exclude is certainly a hallmark of ownership, property and otherwise, but I don't see any of that here (once again, that would have been the Moldavi Doctrine). Here, they are saying "you cannot attack", not "you are excluded from entry to red". In a way, I would think patronage would be more of an accurate word, and I do not find patronage to be an unacceptable practice.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='20 July 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1279611900' post='2380266']Here, they are saying "you cannot attack", not "you are excluded from entry to red".[/quote]
Yes, and we're saying "you don't have the ability to make good on your word". What's your point?

[General Rex]

I want to see NPO's reaction to this if there is any. The Protection of there team, as to any alliance, is a very important thing. To the leaders of the safari, are you sure attacking all the up and rising alliances and nations a good thing? If you do that you make more people side with the NPO for protection or because they too are on the red team. This hopfully and should be interesting to watch. Might set the stage for the game to get interesting agian. If it does I don't know what side I'll be on. The NPO my old alliance or the Safari Leaders thats full of my own people, tech raiders. should be interesting, should be interesting indeed.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1279612215' post='2380270']
Yes, and we're saying "you don't have the ability to make good on your word". What's your point?
[/quote]

I believe you missed the point. My discussion with Bansky (while related) was not directly about the end result, so your response is kind of random to the context and I'm not sure how to answer you.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]I want to see NPO's reaction to this if there is any. The Protection of there team, as to any alliance, is a very important thing.[/quote]

Most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to go beyond protecting the [b]alliances[/b] on our teams. Unaligneds, as always, are on their own. That's what unaligned means.

[der_ko]

Pretty sure NPO can stop our safari at any time. They only have to swallow their misguided sense of pride.

[General Rex]

Every action has an unexpected reaction. All I'm saying.