Institutional Anarchy, GOONS and Raiding

[ColwynMyself]

Hey look! We're on that list! And we're still alive... Kinda.

I would like to point out though, that according to their policies, most of those raids they committed on us were "correct" (although, they did have far more than 18 people attack us). We had no protectorate and I believe their policy is less than 12 nations? I don't remember... Either way, I remember we had less. As much as I hate raiders, that's true.

3 or 4 of them were committed on me after we got a protectorate, which I was never given reparations or anything of the sort for. So there were 3-4 bad raids on me at least, I don't know about the rest of my alliance. But a majority of them were correct. However coordinated and war-ish they appeared... And especially since far more popped up after my post. Oh well...

[Bob Janova]

A great deal of effort seems to have gone into this analysis, and a return to fact-based posting is welcome after some fairly ungrounded purely political threads from you lately. The facts are not really in dispute (I imagine you took the data straight from the game), but there are two points that your analysis seems to have missed:

- You assume that all aggressive wars started from the GOONS AA are raids. As has been pointed out already, several of these wars are either started by ghosts or have been cleared by the alliance whose AA is being attacked. This is not an easy thing to determine objectively since you have to go and ask about every incident, most of which will have been forgotten after so long.

- You assume that the rate of bad raids is uniform, i.e. if you can show that GOONS did X bad raids in Y days, they're still having incidents at a rate of X/Y. That strikes me as lazy demagoguery because it's been fairly well publicised that GOONS had serious problems with raid targeting in the first part of the year and have made institutional changes to address that. Several GOONS have in fact admitted in this thread that they previously had problems in this area.

A breakdown by month would be interesting to see, though I suspect you won't do that because it will show what you don't want it to, namely that GOONS have greatly cleaned up their act and therefore it doesn't work as a stick to beat them with any more.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286021644' post='2472118']
A great deal of effort seems to have gone into this analysis, and a return to fact-based posting is welcome after some fairly ungrounded purely political threads from you lately. The facts are not really in dispute (I imagine you took the data straight from the game), but there are two points that your analysis seems to have missed:

- You assume that all aggressive wars started from the GOONS AA are raids. As has been pointed out already, several of these wars are either started by ghosts or have been cleared by the alliance whose AA is being attacked. This is not an easy thing to determine objectively since you have to go and ask about every incident, most of which will have been forgotten after so long.

- You assume that the rate of bad raids is uniform, i.e. if you can show that GOONS did X bad raids in Y days, they're still having incidents at a rate of X/Y. That strikes me as lazy demagoguery because it's been fairly well publicised that GOONS had serious problems with raid targeting in the first part of the year and have made institutional changes to address that. Several GOONS have in fact admitted in this thread that they previously had problems in this area.

A breakdown by month would be interesting to see, though I suspect you won't do that because it will show what you don't want it to, namely that GOONS have greatly cleaned up their act and therefore it doesn't work as a stick to beat them with any more.
[/quote]

I've never had a problem admitting a mistake and I have in fact broken the data down into month-by-month. I asked Ktarthan for a timeline of reforms to assist me in my revision (if any is warranted) but have not received anything. I've got a lot on my plate like anyone--it took 17 days from getting the data to OP, for example--so any revision won't happen overnight. But, Bob, you know very well that if I find I was woefully incorrect, I for one am man enough to say it.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1285841324' post='2469603']
I know you know what I'm actually criticising him for so I'll give you a pass on this one.
[/quote]

Presuming that comment is directed at me, I have no idea what you're actually on about. If you'd care to explain I'd be interested in knowing so I might offer a proper rebuttal. If my presumption is incorrect and you're referring to someone else, my apologies.