Is Raiding Morally Wrong?

[Tautology]

Heads or Tails has always worked for me.

[PhysicsJunky]

Regardless of any moral debate I frame the issue in my head as a give and take between raiding discouraging people from ever getting a foothold in the game thus reducing the possible number of players, and raiding being the only reason why some people keep playing the game and thus having some positive effect on long term retention. I'm of the opinion that the former effect is much more severe but without any numbers it's a subjective argument based on assumptions.

After that it's just a matter of whether you prefer more of the type of people who are raiders in the game or the more gentle sort. That's not really a moral issue involving raiding itself.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='EEjack' timestamp='1284987541' post='2458873']Anything else is bullying and is done by those weaklings who are unwilling to truly test themselves in a real fight.
[/quote]

Since when is a 1v1 not a real fight?

[Shakira]

No, it's not wrong. It's fun.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285019204' post='2459213']

Bring back the NPO, that'll solve everything!
[/quote]

I'm afraid I don't really understand what this has to do with my post.

[Baltus]

CN's a game. Raiding is for the lulz. (+resources)

If you don't like it, join an alliance.

However, from the viewpoint of some alliances, raiding is taking advantage of newer users (or inactive users). I think, that if he doesn't have an alliance, and hasn't been active for 20 days, and is over a month old. Then, he's probably, alright to raid. Raiding on the active is unfair, raiding on the inactive is expected.

[Sabertooth]

"Aid Raiding" offers bigger returns than "Tech Raiding". You can loot at max $1 million per ground attack if a nation has over $9.5 million sitting in the bank.

Tech raiding just doesn't offer enough returns. It's faster and more profitable to get involved in tech deals than to tech raid.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1285025618' post='2459324']
"Aid Raiding" offers bigger returns than "Tech Raiding". You can loot at max $1 million per ground attack if a nation has over $9.5 million sitting in the bank.

Tech raiding just doesn't offer enough returns. It's faster and more profitable to get involved in tech deals than to tech raid.
[/quote]
Our smaller nations do both. They engage in tech deals and pay that tech back with raided tech, meaning all the money they get is pure profit, in addition to whatever they get from the raid. Tech raiding not being profitable depends on a number of factors. But we've been doing it for quite a while and have most of the kinks worked out. It's profitable assuming you do it right.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1285024182' post='2459295']
I'm afraid I don't really understand what this has to do with my post.
[/quote]
I'll venture to guess he meant that instead of people crying about and discussing tech raiding, Bob would be better off if it had a power that everyone wants to bring down. Perhaps, the world in a weird way misses the so called oppression it was under for so long.

Tech raiding: I used to be against it, but now I really don't care. At the present time it's not within anyone's power to bring an end to it if they wanted to. Bob has it's own morals and own definitions. We need to stop trying to apply morals of other Bobs here. Maybe in another Bob, tech raiding is bad and frowned upon and actually curbed. This Planet Bob allows for it.

[eejack]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1285023155' post='2459276']
Since when is a 1v1 not a real fight?
[/quote]

The full post you quoted from includes...
"Raiding ( tech or land ) is properly done when you have no alliance to back you up. Then you can call it raiding."

A 1v1 fight is a proper fight and I have no problem with raiding if the raider accepts the consequences of his/her actions without dragging other folks into it.

EEjack

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='EEjack' timestamp='1285027072' post='2459357']
The full post you quoted from includes...
"Raiding ( tech or land ) is properly done when you have no alliance to back you up. Then you can call it raiding."
[/quote]

I hope you know that most alliances have a raid at your own risk policy. In fact I really can't think of one that doesn't.

[quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1285025309' post='2459315'] I think, that if he doesn't have an alliance, and hasn't been active for 20 days, and is over a month old. Then, he's probably, alright to raid. Raiding on the active is unfair, raiding on the inactive is expected.
[/quote]

If I recall correctly you can only actually gain tech from the active.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1285029968' post='2459411']
I hope you know that most alliances have a raid at your own risk policy. In fact I really can't think of one that doesn't.



If I recall correctly you can only actually gain tech from the active.
[/quote]

Correct. I think after 14 days you just destroy it along with money.

[Augustus Autumn]

Anything can be moral or immoral, and you'll never get consensus, so the argument is a dud.

[ChairmanHal]

[i]OOC: The Admin of this game has changed the rules at least twice, in part, to reduce the amount of raiding that was taking place. Since I'm fairly certain that Admin would not do that simply to screw with people, take that fact for what you will.[/i]

IC: Nation rulers and their nations are free to declare war on any other nation at any time, so long as they follow the writs of the Planet Bob--regardless of the possibility of reward in terms of cash, land or tech. That said, clearly there are times when doing so is more advantageous than others.

Sidenote: If you are looking for a long winded speech from me regarding GOONS, you won't get it. They know what they are doing, they don't care about whatever long term consequences may result. So be it. Let's move on.

[Mathias]

There's nothing morally wrong with raiding, and the fact that it's become a major issue on Planet Bob is ridiculous. In the past there weren't raiding alliances and non-raiding alliances. There were nations who tech raided, and nations too lazy or inactive to tech raid. The fact that tech raiding is the issue where pseudo-moralists choose to make their stand is insane. Moralism used to be about opposing PZI, viceroys, and draconian terms. Now we fight global wars in the name of defending nations too inactive to protect themselves. It's quite ridiculous to be perfectly honest.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Mathias

[Chaoshawk]

Depends on the individual you are asking. Everyone will have a different opinion on this.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285031373' post='2459451']
[i]OOC: The Admin of this game has changed the rules at least twice, in part, to reduce the amount of raiding that was taking place. Since I'm fairly certain that Admin would not do that simply to screw with people, take that fact for what you will.[/i]

IC: That said, clearly there are times when doing so is more advantageous than others.
[/quote]

OOC: Admin isn't exempt in making mistakes

IC: Isn't that the point? Most wars are opportunistic, whether it be a raid or an alliance war.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1285014045' post='2459136']
I find it interesting that people are actually saying that raiding unaligned is "a way to force them" to do anything (what does "give back to society" really mean? there are plenty of people who join an alliance but just sit there - how is that any "better"? should they be raided also?)

I've always considered that to be part of the reason that raiding non-aligned is justified in some people's minds, however it is interesting that someone admits it.
[/quote]

They are at least inflating alliance stats.

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1285018435' post='2459194']
Shouldn't unaligned nations be able to make it in the world in their own way?
[/quote]

What's the point in existing when you're not really there? Believe me we are on the same side and I don't tech raid the unaligned. However, I can see why people would when a nation has been abandoned. I don't really consider doing nothing at all (having no way) as a way of life. If you wish to remain unaligned, but give back to the world then their is peace mode or the several un-governed AAs that will protect you.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1285031653' post='2459458']
Isn't that the point? Most wars are opportunistic, whether it be a raid or an alliance war.
[/quote]

Yes and no, actually.

Alliance wars, as a rule, take quite a bit of planning and negotiation. Those that blow up within hours/days are rare--increasingly rare actually.

Most wars though are not alliance wars. They are raids, rogue attacks, ghost hunting missions. Such wars are by their nature opportunistic.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285032652' post='2459491']
Alliance wars, as a rule, take quite a bit of planning and negotiation. Those that blow up within hours/days are rare--increasingly rare actually.
[/quote]

So you deny that alliances have ever entered into a war for opportunistic reasons? I mean really what do you call TOP's DoW?

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1285031420' post='2459454']
There's nothing morally wrong with raiding, and the fact that it's become a major issue on Planet Bob is ridiculous. In the past there weren't raiding alliances and non-raiding alliances. There were nations who tech raided, and nations too lazy or inactive to tech raid. The fact that tech raiding is the issue where pseudo-moralists choose to make their stand is insane. Moralism used to be about opposing PZI, viceroys, and draconian terms. Now we fight global wars in the name of defending nations too inactive to protect themselves. It's quite ridiculous to be perfectly honest.
[/quote]

It's not that tech raid victims are too inactive to protect themselves, they're too weak to do so. And that's why tech raiders prey on them.

Also, I don't understand how it's ridiculous to oppose the practice of attacking nations for no apparent reason.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1285032740' post='2459493']
So you deny that alliances have ever entered into a war for opportunistic reasons? I mean really what do you call TOP's DoW?
[/quote]

Ill-advised.

But since such brevity isn't rewarded, there was a certain amount of opportunism in the assault launched during the TOP-C&G War, I would agree--but a lot of planning also. Recall too that there were incidents, specifically the TPF War, that led up to it.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Practically speaking, tech raiding doesn't yield much more than hostile feelings from those raided. It's really not necessary and is practically a measure for alliances with less disciplined and second rate members to let off steam, as they have no higher purpose and more likely to be depraved. I think eventually [i]karma[/i] will bite back at tech raiders though.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Unko Kalaikz

[bzelger]

It's not really appropriate to cast the discussion in terms of right and wrong, and the insistence in general to continue to do so means that it's always an unproductive argument of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" which is unsatisfying and leaves each side with a less than favorable opinion of the other.

In principle morality has a place; if for example you had a national religion that forbade wars of conquest and unnecessary violence and strove to minimize the deaths of your citizens, then it would make sense to discuss it in those terms. In practice we are all secular states (OOC: barring a few outliers, none of us role-play to that extent).

In spite of concerns of right and wrong not really being germane, the issue has ramifications in terms of political philosophy and general personality, and again a single position is not demonstrably "correct." Politically many nations, including my own, feel that aggression against nations against whom you have no grievance is an unsavory state of affairs. The underlying principle is that anyone who is weaker than you is a resource, and the only reason that isolated alliances are not exploited is because of the political blowback that would ensue as a result of raiding them. We have seen these boundaries tested in recent times, and if nothing else it is a matter of self-interest for nations to generate political boundaries to baseless aggression in order to prevent their own borders being overrun the moment their position becomes weak.

OOC: Is it a text-based war game with the politics incidental, or is a political simulator with a war function to drive politics? I'd much rather play the latter, and I feel that rogue nations attacking others is contrary to how I would like to see things go. I recognize that the former philosophy, or some intermediate, is prevalent and not necessarily invalid. I do find it incredibly asinine that so many respond to criticism of tech raiding with "hurr, you moralists can't tell me what to do!" Just because you can do something within the mechanics of the game does not mean that you should not expect consequences for them or that everyone should embrace them as mainstream and acceptable.

Moralism and philosophy aside, you're being jerks to people. As stated above, raiders are not wrong to hold the position they do, and people who don’t raid likewise aren’t wrong, and it would be nice if everyone could sit in their own corner and do things their own way and not interfere with the others. Unfortunately raiders by necessity enforce their political paradigm (OOC: game philosophy) on other nations regardless of how the raided nation thinks things should work. Some kid is minding his own business and you take a moment from your afternoon to rub sand in his face. Sure, in this context you can do it, and I know that certain segments of the population take great joy in the unhappiness that follows, but don't be surprised that some people find it distasteful and that people don't like you as a result. This is especially true if you make the person dance before you turn them loose.

Edited September 21, 2010 by bzelger

[Masterof9puppets]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1285036981' post='2459562']
Practically speaking, tech raiding doesn't yield much more than hostile feelings from those raided. It's really not necessary and is practically a measure for alliances with less disciplined and second rate members to let off steam, as they have no higher purpose and more likely to be depraved. I think eventually [i]karma[/i] will bite back at tech raiders though.
[/quote]

So you're basically saying that "well educated", "first rate" members do not tech raid, and that everyone that tech raids is second rate citizen on Planet Bob? Interesting view on things.