Tech Raiding Poll

[Duncan King]

Never done it, never will do it. Raiding alliances is even worse, IMO, because it disrespects the hard work that people put into their alliances.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1281102396' post='2402671']
Looting a nation and killing its inhabitants in the process is monstrous and completely at odds with the standards of civilized conduct of our realm.
[/quote]
That doesn't logically make sense, if the "standards of civilized conduct" do not permit tech raiding, why is it an accepted (or at least tolerated) practice by the majority of the community?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Sardonic

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1281103782' post='2402684']
Even if the alliance doesn't do anything officially, all too often you see communication on the alliance's forums to the effect of, "hey man, I'm raiding this sweet target, but he's putting up a fight, come help me out!" followed by a link to said nation. Alliance government says/does nothing to discourage the communication, or even delete the messages. You see similar on IRC.

I'd like to say I was never guilty of that, and I don't recall posting those kind of messages, but I did respond to more than a few. I was even known to come sailing in on a target that was already getting hit by members of other alliances to help soften things up and would then grab some tech after the original raiders had an opportunity to snag some for themselves.

[/quote]

You know, Hal, there are alliances where such would earn the dog-piling nations disciplinary action with repeat offenders getting the boot.

[Buds The Man]

As long as people adhere to the rules of tech raiding im ok with. Im far from a noob anymore and if someone at my NS goes None they should know better. Val has a strict practice requiring permission to raid so that cuts back on any OOPS moments. Hit it and quit it, never been a fan of week long raids, if the raided wishes peace they have but to accept it as it will be offered at the conclusion of the GAs. (Only GAs should be used when raiding otherwise it is imo a war not a raid). If an AA retaliates on the raider only, then that is the raiders resposibility not his or hers alliances.

Never been a big fan of raiding AAs over 5 people if they are just comming together give them a chance to build like the rest of us. Noob raiding is stupid as it will drive people from the game and they have little to give. Give them a chance to build and understand the mechanics then you can raid them for some profit

Edited August 6, 2010 by Buds The Man

[Edifice]

I don't even understand why tech raiding is fun in the first place... who wants to spend the time finding targets and clicking buttons? I guess it might make you feel cool for a while, but I'd expect that to get old pretty quick.

[pd73bassman]

I have personally never had a problem with tech raiding, if you want to do it then do it. As for raiding alliances well I think someone already said if they have no treaties then that is their fault and they are fair game.

[Horatio Longworth]

I blame techraiding in part for the decreasing population of planet Bob. When I first founded my nation, I was inexperienced and naive. I started a micro-alliance that lost most of it's members to tech raiding. There are some new people that are being obliterated just for being new. Think of how many contributors to planet Bob are lost when they get dismayed from a techraid upon their nation.

It is most definitely objectionable.

*whoops, caught myself

Edited August 6, 2010 by Horatio Longworth

[palaceofhate]

Tech raid every day.

[ktarthan]

I voted no for both options, but standards of the day require we must put [i]some[/i] limits on our recreational activities.

[Bob Janova]

Good luck getting a serious answer from a forum poll, heh. But to me, all raiding is aggressive warfare with no CB, so I voted yes to both parts. Having said that, raiding alliances is worse than raiding unaligned nations, because once you start doing that there isn't an easy out for nations to avoid being raided.

[Shakira]

Two times no. I would have quit the game a long time ago if tech raiding wasn't allowed.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281119508' post='2402890']
Good luck getting a serious answer from a forum poll, heh. But to me, all raiding is aggressive warfare with no CB, so I voted yes to both parts. Having said that, raiding alliances is worse than raiding unaligned nations, because once you start doing that there isn't an easy out for nations to avoid being raided.
[/quote]

I agree with all this, except the part of there being no easy out. Nations can fairly easily join a major alliance, but I find it abhorrent that doing so (or finding a large enough protector) has become necessary to avoid someone attacking you for a tiny profit.

Personally, I've resigned myself to the fact that raiding isn't ever going to disappear entirely, but I find it nothing short of hilarious that the same alliances who in the past complained to no end about the CB (or lack thereof) in the War of the Coalition have no qualms attacking entire alliances just because the membership of the alliance falls below an arbitrary boundary set up by these raiders [i]so that they can raid entire alliances[/i].

Edited August 6, 2010 by Moridin

[Ertyy]

Tech raiding is a public service. Voted no.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1281102396' post='2402671']
Looting a nation and killing its inhabitants in the process is monstrous and completely at odds with the standards of civilized conduct of our realm.
[i]
OOC: Unless you actually RP a pack of murderous thieves, tech raiding is way too OOC. If people could keep their IC personas straight I think nearly all alliances would be strongly opposed to it. Except maybe PC, GOONS, and \m/, but not even MK.[/i]
[/quote]

Your entire argument relies on the fact that there is something morally objectionable about killing people.

[M6 Redneck]

Didn't Einstien stuggle with the unified theory of everything because little things behaved differently from big things?

Well I doubt that would have vexed him here. Afterall big alliances sanction great reps, little nations tech raid.

Same rules apply.

\M/6

[Moridin]

[quote name='M6 Redneck' timestamp='1281120669' post='2402909']
Didn't Einstien stuggle with the unified theory of everything because little things behaved differently from big things?

Well I doubt that would have vexed him here. Afterall big alliances sanction great reps, little nations tech raid.

Same rules apply.

\M/6
[/quote]

That's the worst analogy I've ever heard. Tech raiding bears absolutely no similarity to quantum physics.

[eejack]

Voted yes to both as we lose too many players to constant tech raiding.

[M6 Redneck]

Quantum Physics...?

I was talking about Monroe.

This opens up a whole other avenue to jusify tech raiding.

M6

[wickedj]

Where is the "who cares" option? seriously, get over it people are going to raid they have since 2006 and will till the lights go out in Texas

[quote name='EEjack' timestamp='1281121109' post='2402916']
Voted yes to both as we lose too many players to constant tech raiding.
[/quote]
This gets said an awful lot, can you prove it? like bring forth some numbers that say 100 people got raided and 76 of them quit?

Edited August 6, 2010 by wickedj

[M6 Redneck]

Hell yeah.

I have evidential proof that of 100 nations raided 76 quit.

No great loss.

\M/6

[Mirreille]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1281122200' post='2402939']
This gets said an awful lot, can you prove it? like bring forth some numbers that say 100 people got raided and 76 of them quit?
[/quote]

You're asking people to somehow prove a negative. If they quit, how are we supposed to know why they quit?? CN has no exit polls.

I know one person, who I got to join the game, but could never get them to join an alliance. Stayed a whole year as a 1 nation AA(I did get her to do that much to hide from raiders). Once she hit a certain size though, the raiders found her, and it was constant attacks. CONSTANT. Eventually she did give up in frustration, though I doubt many people ever took the same path she did. I do wish I could have gotten her to join an AA though.

The only evidence people can provide would be anecdotal at best and thus pretty much worthless.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1281105521' post='2402700']
That doesn't logically make sense, if the "standards of civilized conduct" do not permit tech raiding, why is it an accepted (or at least tolerated) practice by the majority of the community?[/quote]
Well, like I said, people don't seem to appreciate the full gravity of their actions in this case. There's also a combination of several factors that I can think of that explains the apparent inconsistency:

It's one of the few sources of real profit in this world, thus creating a motive to create justifications and rationalizations.

Independent nations ("unaligneds") have been dehumanized by historically powerful alliances.

There isn't much practical incentive for others to intervene - only the most marginalized and powerless of Planet Bob's citizens fall victim to this offense, by its very nature.

All of this is perpetuated by the fact that alliances in all different political spheres tech raid - many of whom are otherwise quite honorable. Thus, when making friends it's inevitable that an alliance will form good relations with another alliance that at the very least tolerates raiding among its members. Once this occurs, it's very difficult to take too severe a stand against the practice.

Maybe it would have made more sense if I said that raiding conflicts with "[b]most other[/b] standards of civilized conduct." We tend to expect that alliances not attack others without good cause (CB), and not extort tech from vanquished opponents who have acted only in defense. Yet on this matter, many seem to apply a wholly different and arbitrary sense of standards. I've yet to hear a coherent argument to reconcile these standards, even after 50+ pages of Red Safari nonsense.

[Quote=Ryuzaki]Your entire argument relies on the fact that there is something morally objectionable about killing people.[/quote]
Well, it relies on the idea that most alliances find something morally objectionable about killing people in other contexts, yes. Would you say that MK's official stance on killing people is one of complete amorality, in all contexts?

[Rebounder]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281119508' post='2402890']
Good luck getting a serious answer from a forum poll, heh. But to me, all raiding is aggressive warfare with no CB, so I voted yes to both parts. Having said that, raiding alliances is worse than raiding unaligned nations, because once you start doing that there isn't an easy out for nations to avoid being raided.
[/quote]

So, in your opinion, "I want your tech and land" is not a valid CB? What separates a valid war from an invalid ar? Personally, I never saw the need for "valid war." In the long run, whether or not you object to something morally doesn't much matter when you have zero infrastructure.

[Edifice]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1281125999' post='2403016']
So, in your opinion, "I want your tech and land" is not a valid CB? What separates a valid war from an invalid ar? Personally, I never saw the need for "valid war." In the long run, whether or not you object to something morally doesn't much matter when you have zero infrastructure.
[/quote]

I agree, might makes right in this world.

[Tautology]

The poll's weakness is that it's fundamentally "morality v. immorality". The moralists (e.g. Bob Janova) claim raiding is "wrong" at some level while the immoralists (such as M6 Redneck) reject the idea that a generalized form of raiding morality exists. This provides a great stage (in the theatrical sense) for crusaders but not much else.

Next time, please include an amoral option in the poll so it's easier for people who don't see raiding as either intrinsically "good" or "bad" to choose. The actors will still be able to claim the moral high (or low) ground but they'll have to work harder at justifying their opinions. Or not!

"Objectionable" is a very weak word for a meaningful poll, if such a thing exists.