A debate on accepting nations at war

[Alonois]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280068232' post='2388305']
1) so i ignored their little part and started in on my own single part. which is where yours and their argument falls apart.

2) and again, boofrigginhoo. i feel no sympathy towards ya'll whatsoever. and yes, your argument fails since you aggressively attacked an alliance without any just cause.

3) every thread a tech raid victim has ever started since ya'll reformed. check around, i am sure you gov would tell you it is true since they don't care about OWF opinion and all.
[/quote]

I am increasingly convinced you have no idea how an argument works and simply want to play the "u mad" card. You make claims and when pressed for evidence you simply say again "it exists". When explained that an argument has nothing to do with morality and is about the GOONS standard operating procedure you claim it, again, has everything to do with morality. And in general you have no sense of civility. Yes, Doc, we are the darkest of dark nightmares. We are the evil that triumphed over all other evils. We are the whispered horrors and the barely seen terror.

We are the end of the world, harbinger of doom and dread. The world is black and white and no critical thought will ever be needed from you. Satisfied?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280079827' post='2388419']
I think the short answer would be, war not really, tech raids yes.

Because of the nature of a tech raid, and the fact that the tech raider slogan is pretty much "They should have joined an alliance" People pretty much expect a quick peaceing out as soon as the target picks up a legit AA. Its also generally expected that since the tech raiders launched aggressive attacks they take responsibility for avoiding needless drama and just move on to another open target. Guy gets his peace and the raider gets his warslot open again for a new target, everybody wins.
[/quote]

I think part of the issue with that is the tech raid still predates their joining an alliance. That being said any new raids would be aggressive actions against the alliance, and I do doubt it'd be hard to convince a tech raider to peace out.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Alonois

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280081162' post='2388437']
I think part of the issue with that is the tech raid still predates their joining an alliance. That being said any new raids would be aggressive actions against the alliance, and I do doubt it'd be hard to convince a tech raider to peace out.
[/quote]

Wars get daily attacks though, so while obviously attacks from before they joined an AA can't be held against the raider, after they joined there should be a peaceing out. More attacks after they joined being unacceptable. You peace out the war so there can be no more attacks.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280072524' post='2388344']
I give up, this statement is so mind-numbingly ignorant It is clear that trying to debate with you about the actual issue is pointless. You have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you cannot see the nuance of the issue and would rather attack our good name with every passing post. At no point do we contest that we aggressively attacked an alliance (from their perspective) nor do we cry over the fact that they counterattacked. What the issue is, or was, was the question of is it proper policy to accept nations at war, and what the circumstances by which it is an acceptable practice if ever. But enough about that, you're clearly too far-gone for any logical debate, I shall stop responding to your insulting posts, and I advise my cohorts to do the same.
[/quote]

hahahaha. okay. i have given you the post where i responded to this. i have stated several times that every situation is unique and thus, each could very well require a different approach. there may be a general consensus on accepting nations at war but no universal law stating this convention must be followed. GOONS of all alliances should know that conventions do not mean a damn thing since ya'll buck the conventions of tech-raiding every chance you get.

but yes, continue to actually not debate my arguments but instead say that i am not understanding the nuance or whatever !@#$%^&* you will throw out in an attempt to deflect the argument instead of actually debate it.


[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1280072691' post='2388345']
Did he actually [i]defend[/i] his alliance-mates? It looks like he declared a war (whoo!) and then hopped AA as soon as he could.

I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it atm.

The part about CoJ writing his essay for him and him forgetting to remove the bit about how they wrote it for him is pretty funny, though. And it actually isn't a half-bad idea to get around the spirit of GOONS' terms...if...you know...he'd remembered to remove that part.[/quote]

okay, the fact that he forgot to take out how they wrote it for him is pretty funny. i had a good laugh at that. as for defending his alliance mates, declaring a war on the alliance attacking them is just that. the fact that he hopped after that is a !@#$%* move and i already said as much.



[quote]Apparently, what Sardonic wanted to know was if it was common or not for people to accept new members when those members have wars from their previous affiliations.

So far, I think all he's gotten back is some "well it depends on the situation" and a lot of "GOONS ARE EVIL RAWR".[/quote]

actually, i have stated several times that it depends on the situation. what i did not like was being told to ignore key information which changes the situation. since whether or not accepting a nation at war depends on the situation, if i change that situation the answer could very well change. this really has nothing to do with GOONS until i kept getting told to either ignore a key piece of info, or told i am stupid because i refuse to ignore said piece of info and therefore my answer does not match what Sardonic wanted to hear.


[quote]You're trying too hard.
[/quote]

actually i am not trying at all. that is truly what i hear with most of GOONS posting. You actually posted something debating me. Not telling me that i am either dumb, should ignore this or that piece of the story, or that GOONS are in fact not telling me to ignore this or that piece of the story, or other general crap like that. so after a while, it just all seems like GOONS members crying instead of trying to debate me.

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280081162' post='2388437']
I am increasingly convinced you have no idea how an argument works and simply want to play the "u mad" card. You make claims and when pressed for evidence you simply say again "it exists". When explained that an argument has nothing to do with morality and is about the GOONS standard operating procedure you claim it, again, has everything to do with morality. And in general you have no sense of civility. Yes, Doc, we are the darkest of dark nightmares. We are the evil that triumphed over all other evils. We are the whispered horrors and the barely seen terror.

We are the end of the world, harbinger of doom and dread. The world is black and white and no critical thought will ever be needed from you. Satisfied?
[/quote]

lawlz. cuz me saying that every situation is unique means it is black and white. the fact that i actually considered all the pieces of the story and found GOONS wanting, does not mean i do not know how to critically think. the fact that most of you GOONS have either ignored what i said and only targeted tiny itty bitty bits out of it, does not make a debate. The fact that ya'll have ignored me say that each situation is unique shows that you do not know how to debate and when you state something like "The world is black and white and no critical thought will ever be needed from you" shows how ridiculously foolish you are.

I know how to critically analyze a situation. this one i found GOONS in the wrong because they started the aggressive war against another alliance. as Typo said, standard conventions for tech raiding typically means a simple peace out, especially if said victim joins an AA. so since GOONS bucked that tradition i do not see what this whole thread is about since it is obvious that GOONS cares little about standard conventions unless it suits them.

as for evidence, again ask your gov. simple as that. i want evidence as to how i am not critically analyzing this situation or how i am stupid because i disagree with what GOONS wants, or how i, in fact, am the one who is not debating a thing when i have gems like your post here as the main type of "debating" being done against me and others who state that GOONS are in the wrong.

Satisfied?

[nippy]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280084427' post='2388525']
Wars get daily attacks though, so while obviously attacks from before they joined an AA can't be held against the raider, after they joined there should be a peaceing out. More attacks after they joined being unacceptable. You peace out the war so there can be no more attacks.
[/quote]

We disagree with this, simply because it can be exploited all too easily. If we felt compelled to verify membership every time someone switched AA's, it would be ridiculous.

Also, we've always been under the impression that switching AA's to avoid attacks has never been an acceptable practice, no matter what the reasons for the attacks (unless a nation is surrendering in a war and switches to a POW AA or whatnot). This is why we agree to not redeclare after the AA switch, but do not guarantee attacks will cease in the existing wars.

[Goldie]

EZI IMO is another type of war I wouldn't recognize as legitimate when choosing to accept someone.

[nippy]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1280085265' post='2388538']
EZI IMO is another type of war I wouldn't recognize as legitimate when choosing to accept someone.
[/quote]

We also don't believe in use of EZI, so we share the same opinion on that.

[Haquertal]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1280086356' post='2388557']
We also don't believe in use of EZI, so we share the same opinion on that.
[/quote]

This.

I don't recall GOONS ever having an EZI.

[SWAT128]

If I applied to GOONS, would you accept me?

[nippy]

[quote name='SWAT128' timestamp='1280090813' post='2388645']
If I applied to GOONS, would you accept me?
[/quote]

That depends on the quality of your application.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='SWAT128' timestamp='1280090813' post='2388645']
If I applied to GOONS, would you accept me?
[/quote]
Aren't you that guy rogueing on what's their face? Not until you had settled any and all conflicts with them.

[Baldr]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1280086356' post='2388557']
We also don't believe in use of EZI, so we share the same opinion on that.
[/quote]

You may not have the guts to call it that, but if someone tells you to jump in the lake instead of playing your "mercy board" games, it ends up as the same thing. They have to do what you want and beg for mercy or you continue attacking.

[SWAT128]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280091013' post='2388654']
Aren't you that guy rogueing on what's their face? Not until you had settled any and all conflicts with them.
[/quote]

Not a rouge. It's a legitimate declaration of war.

[nippy]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280091217' post='2388662']
You may not have the guts to call it that, but if someone tells you to jump in the lake instead of playing your "mercy board" games, it ends up as the same thing. They have to do what you want and beg for mercy or you continue attacking.
[/quote]

What does this post mean? You quoted me stating we don't believe in EZI, and even [i]that[/i] deserves an argument?? Is it possible for you to escape your hatred from us for at least a second so that you might be able to conduct a conversation that doesn't end up chasing its own tail?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1280084813' post='2388533']
We disagree with this, simply because it can be exploited all too easily. If we felt compelled to verify membership every time someone switched AA's, it would be ridiculous.

Also, we've always been under the impression that switching AA's to avoid attacks has never been an acceptable practice, no matter what the reasons for the attacks (unless a nation is surrendering in a war and switches to a POW AA or whatnot). This is why we agree to not redeclare after the AA switch, but do not guarantee attacks will cease in the existing wars.
[/quote]


Oh boo hoo you might actually have to work for your ill gotten gains? I feel your pain. not. Your own rules stipulate you need to make sure your target is acceptable, if the situation changes part way through the raid, you check again.

Are you guys taking a page from Gre and being deliberately obtuse? switching AA's is different from joining an alliance. One is a guy being a wise $@!, the other is somebody [i]joining an alliance[/i] which would make them ineligible to raid, under your own rules. Now granted people who join an alliance to escape a tech raid will tend to have their alliance contact your alliance to confirm membership and ask you to back off, but the fact that you think an AA change isn't worth checking out is just the kind of stupidity that attracts needless drama when you raid foolishly.

[Haquertal]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280092540' post='2388690']
One is a guy being a wise $@!, the other is somebody [i]joining an alliance[/i] which would make them ineligible to raid, under your own rules.
[/quote]

And it's our problem, why?

If the alliance accepts him like that, it's their own fault, really. But in most cases I've heard of, the alliance simply asks that we don't attack again after the current raid, which was fine by me when I was smaller.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1280084813' post='2388533']
We disagree with this, simply because it can be exploited all too easily. If we felt compelled to verify membership every time someone switched AA's, it would be ridiculous.

Also, we've always been under the impression that switching AA's to avoid attacks has never been an acceptable practice, no matter what the reasons for the attacks (unless a nation is surrendering in a war and switches to a POW AA or whatnot). This is why we agree to not redeclare after the AA switch, but do not guarantee attacks will cease in the existing wars.
[/quote]

so again GOONS states that one standard convention is okay while continuing to buck other standard conventions.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280091217' post='2388662']
You may not have the guts to call it that, but if someone tells you to jump in the lake instead of playing your "mercy board" games, it ends up as the same thing. They have to do what you want and beg for mercy or you continue attacking.
[/quote]

from my talks with GOONS, they do not practice EZI at all. they may practice ZI or occassionally PZI, but their mercy boards were pretty much set up to deal with those types of zi, not EZI since they do not practice the ZI of someone across identities.

[Alonois]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1280092540' post='2388690']
Oh boo hoo you might actually have to work for your ill gotten gains? I feel your pain. not. Your own rules stipulate you need to make sure your target is acceptable, if the situation changes part way through the raid, you check again.
[/quote]

The problem again is the raid/state of war/what ever else predates their joining of a new alliance. That comes down to what an alliance feels deserves priority, the preexisting violence or the joining of an alliance.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280095322' post='2388761']
from my talks with GOONS, they do not practice EZI at all. they may practice ZI or occassionally PZI, but their mercy boards were pretty much set up to deal with those types of zi, not EZI since they do not practice the ZI of someone across identities.
[/quote]

If the argument is "Once we tech raid you, you have to submit to our wishes or be ZI'd until your nation no longer exists" then I'm not too concerned about the e-lawyering of which version of ZI that is. It lasts as long as GOONS can make it last, so I don't really see the difference except that they call it something else.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280102716' post='2388955']
If the argument is "Once we tech raid you, you have to submit to our wishes or be ZI'd until your nation no longer exists" then I'm not too concerned about the e-lawyering of which version of ZI that is. It lasts as long as GOONS can make it last, so I don't really see the difference except that they call it something else.
[/quote]

there is a huge difference between PZI and EZI. while i get what you are saying, trying to make one definition stand for something completely different is not going to push your point at all. it just makes you sound like Gremlins trying to redefine unconditional surrender.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280103778' post='2388987']
there is a huge difference between PZI and EZI. while i get what you are saying, trying to make one definition stand for something completely different is not going to push your point at all. it just makes you sound like Gremlins trying to redefine unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

PZI is permanent, and EZI is eternal. Correct? Apparently their is a context here I'm missing. If you've got me on a ZI list that's permanent, or if you call it eternal, or if you say "We don't do that, but you have to jump through these hoops and kiss our butt to get us to stop" then it all works out the same. At least, that's how it looks to me.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Baldr

[heggo]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280104371' post='2389007']
PZI is permanent, and EZI is eternal. Correct? Apparently their is a context here I'm missing. If you've got me on a ZI list that's permanent, or if you call it eternal, or if you say "We don't do that, but you have to jump through these hoops and kiss our butt to get us to stop" then it all works out the same. At least, that's how it looks to me.
[/quote]
OOC: Perma ZI means they attack you so long as you use your current nation, Eternal ZI means they attack you even if you delete and make a new nation.

[Baldr]

Thank you Heggo.

I'm not convinced that "once we force you to delete your nation, we won't hunt down a new account to kill you again if you come back" is a great thing to brag about, but that's just me.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280112505' post='2389188']
Thank you Heggo.

I'm not convinced that "once we force you to delete your nation, we won't hunt down a new account to kill you again if you come back" is a great thing to brag about, but that's just me.
[/quote]

You are aware that most tech raiders leave when the tech goes or when the raid target no longer buys troops, yeah? In fact most leave after the end of the war, or before, for greener pastures. But that's all ancillary.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Alonois

[Baldr]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280117360' post='2389271']
You are aware that most tech raiders leave when the tech goes or when the raid target no longer buys troops, yeah? In fact most leave after the end of the war, or before, for greener pastures. But that's all ancillary.
[/quote]

That "goons mercy board" doesn't sound like GOONS does things the way "most tech raiders" do.

The normal way to tech raid is to do your ground attacks and send peace, or to put "PM for peace" in the declaration and peace out on request. GOONS obviously doesn't do it that way. They make the guy jump through hoops to get peace. So if he refuses to jump through the hoops, the war continues. At least, that's how it sounds to me.