Treatise on Tech Raiding

[Einer]

I see this as a question of pride and honor. There is no pride to be had or honor to be gained in attacking somebody who has a lower-strength nation, especially when you're attacking as a group and hiding behind the implicit threat that any reprisals will be met with overwhelming force. I don't respect it, I don't respect the players who do it, and I make it a point to target those players in our alliance wars.

Back when I was the de facto leader of a small alliance, we had a simple motto: "We raid up." I only wish more people would do so. Being in a top-three alliance should draw a target on your back, not leave you free to act like a bully with no consequences.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Roi Loup' timestamp='1288975040' post='2502985']
idc if im raided just as long as im not nuked for defending myself like what just happened recently.. it forces me to reroll since i cant even fight a proper war anymore
[/quote]

Mmmm, I use to talk myself out of being nuked when raided. If someone attacked who had a nuke, and threatened to use it(which always happened, actually, after I responded to the attack) I'd reply something to the effect of "You'd waste a nuke on me? How thoughtful." Worked every time, which it should. Nukes should be for the purpose of alliance wars (yeah, pointed that out too). Of course, that's when I was NONE. Might be different in a small alliance.

Later, I got smarter and started buying a nuke or two myself if at all possible. Only time I was ever raided after that I got a nice message saying "oh, sorry, didn't see the nuke." Of course I also got a message that someone tried to spy away the nuke so the truth was that he didn't see my silo Guess the dude didn't know that people get messages to that affect.

[Lochiel]

[quote name='Oryx30' timestamp='1288990606' post='2503123']
We not saying dont have wars (its the T/E after all) but having an alliance 50 plus continually raiding an alliance of 5 until depletion kinda defeats the purpose of the game [/quote]
[indent]Please explain "the purpose of the game" ??


[/indent][quote name='Einer' timestamp='1288994551' post='2503171']
Back when I was the de facto leader of a small alliance, we had a simple motto: "We raid up." [/quote]

[indent]I'm guessing that Alliance doesn't exist any more


[/indent][hr]
If new players with NEW Nations feel they are getting bullied - they can .....
[list=1][*]Have a cry here - as many of you do [*]Buy 5 GC's & 2 per day CM's - make the attacker remember them [*]Join/Create a larger Alliance [*]Team up with another Nation who is being "bullied" by the same guy/gal - that works great sometimes [/list]

Tbh, there are many many ways to learn (evolve) in this game as a newbie .....
[indent]

..... the guys who are raiding you are being up-front
..... irritating, when you've planned your next infra jump or wonder - but they are being honest in their fighting [list][list][*](kinda the purpose of the game Oryx)!! ??[/list][/list]..... the guys who aren't raiding, are not even fighting (flag chasers) - they are the ones I'd criticise !!
[/indent]
Like teh Llama - I have often praised and/or given advice to raid targets who have fought back ......

..... that is always well intentioned
..... sometimes well received
..... Definitely the basis of great friendships when followed thru'


[indent][list][*]My initial relationship with TPF was as a 'Raidee' (is that a word ? ) of Burning Glory[list][*]We ended up the best of friends despite me battling 2 other TPF members too.[*]BG plays the game like teh Llama - plays to win (battles not flags) - but respects others too.[/list][*]The respect is Very Important[list][*]If you get raided (we ALL have) then peace out OR fight back[*]- NEVER get angry ([i][b]never fight angry[/b][/i]) - Learn from your experiences - Make friends, you'll learn lots[/list][*]TPF, IMHO, was the Best Ever Alliance with the best quality players .....[list][*]Learn their ways by joining, for a round or two, TPC, Warriors, OLC, WAPA or RD[*]I've fought with and learned from them all - OP seem to have a good alliance too - maybees next round [/list][/list][/indent][b]
Does Anyone remember the Smellycats Alliance ? - great friends were made there too


[/b]

Edited November 6, 2010 by Lochiel

[lazaraus45]

As a leader the rules i generally enforce are not to raid an AA bigger than our own, anythign else is fair game, a war over a tech raid is as good as any other kind, better perhaps, because that's a perfectly legitimate reason for war,

i have no issue with people raiding in groups, coordination is the biggest advanatage to any fighters, raids give good practice.

I don't however condone making a point bandwaggoning other peoples raids, if you solely target those who have already been beat down then you deserve a nuke,

As for defedning failed raids, that in my opinion is when it becomes bullying, if you raid at your own risk then the defending nation has a chance to at the very least make the raider regret it, when you have friends jumping in to help, they don't stand any chance.

Personally i have a bigger issue with the practice of making sure a new alliances first war is a defensive one as tends to happen

Edited November 6, 2010 by lazaraus45

[Oryx30]

@Lochiel: I meant TE is a bit different from CN in that it is tournament styled and a lot of players use it to gain military experience, something that doesnt come along often in CN. But how can that be gained if you get used as a drive-thru?

I think its nice that you are willing to share experience in-game when your raidee fights back, but not all raiders are like you, some run and hide behind their large alliance when their raidee fights back and it seems some large AA's knowingly defends failed raids.

Did points 2 & 4 on your list (and that was fun lol), as for joining a larger alliance, why? To hide behind a large AA name?

[HDSupreme]

[size="4"]First, i want to congratulate all and each one of the individual Nations, and Alliances involved in the recently finished war on TPC, responding to the need of halting the "traditional" custom of sanctioning abusive raiding...! : The Conservative Underground, Regime 6, Mother and Daughter Cake Store, and my own Alliance The Cult of Skaro,amongst other brave people... We made CN : TE history on this 14th Tournament!

Second,Of course, i wouldn't be posting this without the wise and timely turnaround of TPC's King Cobra, James XVIII,who's commendable trend of thoughts had us here marveling at how things and people can suddenly change hearts and minds for the better...

Third,This is part of a PM a received, less than 48 hours after the War was started...:

[/size]
[b]To:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001293"]HDSupreme[/url] [b] From:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000720"]Marcab[/url] [b] Date:[/b] 11/5/2010 12:37:09 AM

[b]Subject: [/b]Victory!!!


[b]Message: [/b] TPC has asked for terms:

The real leader of TPC, King James, contacted me about 30 minutes before update to try and work out a peace agreement between all parties.

The terms are: that all attacks will cease 1 hour after update. In return, TPC will end it's practice of sanctioning raiders, and will work to discourage the practice in its alliance.

I feel these are reasonable terms and a great victory for the anti-TPC pact. Together, we stood up to the now 3rd most powerful alliance in TE.


[size="4"]And fourth, for what KJ-XVIII[/size]'s [size="4"]treatise seems to be communicating, his PM to Ruler Marcab, as surprising as joyfully received by all, is going to be an honorable REALITY... which,having his Ruler name on it, is something we expect to see at work as soon as possible!

Thanks again to all the participants for their bravery,gallantry on the face of certain destruction, and total disdain to the expectancy of extermination and failure... TOGETHER WE STAND, AT PEACE AND AT WAR!!!

Yours,HDSupreme,CoS (The Cult of Skaro Alliance) [/size]

[Jesusfreak]

dude make your own thread

Back on-topic...

Edited November 10, 2010 by Jesusfreak

[Einer]

[quote name='HDSupreme' timestamp='1289370461' post='2509095']

[b]To:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001293"]HDSupreme[/url] [b] From:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000720"]Marcab[/url] [b] Date:[/b] 11/5/2010 12:37:09 AM

[b]Subject: [/b]Victory!!!
[/quote]

Really?

[img]http://oi54.tinypic.com/ne6zqc.jpg[/img]



I'm sympathetic to your cause and all, but really. Some things just ain't smart...

Edited November 10, 2010 by Einer

[lazaraus45]

since you're so against backing up raids gone wrong, would you care to do something about this:

http://tournament.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=catharsis&anyallexact=exact

[StevieG]

Catharsis have 14 nations. Thats kind of on the higher end of tech raiding. DR allows for 10 or less, and we do go 2 or 3 on 1, but usually those guys will raid full slots, so will be like 3 on 3, with the advantage definitely to the raiders. This is for a few reasons. Co ordination is practised, and the likelyhood of the raidee peacing out is high. Maybe they will send a few CMs, but they will peace out if they value their nation.

My best advice for raidees is to send 2 CMs and a peace offer if you get raided. If the raider has any brains, they will peace out and not re visit that particular nation again. If they just want a war then they might escalate it, but that should be handled by AA leadership. Competent AA leadership should not turn a raid into a beat down. However, if the raidee refuses to peace out at all, and continues to be a thorn in the side of a larger AA then I dont see anything wrong with individually destroying these nations. If, as a raidee, you want to make your point as to not get raided again, then make your point short and quick, there is no point destroying your nation trying to make a point to a larger AA, unless that provides you with a source of fun of course .

Also, I would suggest AAs of 10 or less should look for protection from a friendly larger AA. Some AAs wont give protection, others will. Bear in mind that the competent AAs who will give protection will not put up with BS from a smaller AA either. So if you really want protection, dont go spoil your good faith with your protector by starting up all kinds of trouble for them.

[Roi Loup]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289422160' post='2509592']
Catharsis have 14 nations. Thats kind of on the higher end of tech raiding. DR allows for 10 or less, and we do go 2 or 3 on 1, but usually those guys will raid full slots, so will be like 3 on 3, with the advantage definitely to the raiders. This is for a few reasons. Co ordination is practised, and the likelyhood of the raidee peacing out is high. Maybe they will send a few CMs, but they will peace out if they value their nation.

My best advice for raidees is to send 2 CMs and a peace offer if you get raided. If the raider has any brains, they will peace out and not re visit that particular nation again. If they just want a war then they might escalate it, but that should be handled by AA leadership. Competent AA leadership should not turn a raid into a beat down. However, if the raidee refuses to peace out at all, and continues to be a thorn in the side of a larger AA then I dont see anything wrong with individually destroying these nations. If, as a raidee, you want to make your point as to not get raided again, then make your point short and quick, there is no point destroying your nation trying to make a point to a larger AA, unless that provides you with a source of fun of course .

Also, I would suggest AAs of 10 or less should look for protection from a friendly larger AA. Some AAs wont give protection, others will. Bear in mind that the competent AAs who will give protection will not put up with BS from a smaller AA either. So if you really want protection, dont go spoil your good faith with your protector by starting up all kinds of trouble for them.
[/quote]

i dont mind rerolling after a war tbh. raid me and ill fight back. idc if i get killed its all just for fun.

[HDSupreme]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1289373446' post='2509143']
Really?





I'm sympathetic to your cause and all, but really. Some things just ain't smart...
[/quote]



[size="4"]Thank you Ruler Einer, for your sympathy. Coming from you,a notable member of TPC, is without a doubt, a compliment.

Victories,are not made equal... it comes in more than one "shape". This one has been "shaped" by the recognition of KJ XVIII and his leadership that this war where we gave our all and ended it on our feet, was a dangerously inconvenient one at the time, and that the reason of it, the unchecked abusive tech raiding, has been gotten totally out of hands,even from his own powerful TPC...

PS: The "carving" into The Skaro NS, Ruler Einer, is what it took us, to awaken your leadership on this issue... A war scar... and proud to have it...

[/size]

[Vukland]

[quote name='Son of Taeper' timestamp='1288986044' post='2503093']
I had said I won't post on owf again but a nice idea that TPC have laid out on more than one occasion and seems to work well with most of us.
The original poster (I would have written OP but did not want to cause confusion) made some very valid points to my mind.
Without pointing fingers, it would be nice to see tech raids against vulnerable nations kept as 1 on 1 rather than 2 on 1.
[/quote]

As look at Catharsis's war screen I have to say what the $%&@ does TPC know about jack !@#$ they are a bunch of bullies picking on an alliance 1/18 of there size!

Edit: And yes TPC I said it was a "no no" to attack Cat! Cause it is as you see we don't give a flying $%&@ those nation that attack us will be countered every time!!!!

Edited November 12, 2010 by Vukland

[King James XVIII]

[quote name='Vukland' timestamp='1289579311' post='2511191']
As look at Catharsis's war screen I have to say what the $%&@ does TPC know about jack !@#$ they are a bunch of bullies picking on an alliance 1/18 of there size!

Edit: And yes TPC I said it was a "no no" to attack Cat! Cause it is as you see we don't give a flying $%&@ those nation that attack us will be countered every time!!!!
[/quote]


Yeah I see the screens.

Bram raided and followed all our rules
Cumicumi hit the same guy nearly a 1/2 hour later (that is not allowed--piggybacking on a raid is wrong)
Steel city hits cumicumi (which is perfectly legit)

[i]It should have stopped there but it didn't[/i]

Gurita hits steel city (which should not have happened) and the original nation that was raided (which [u]definitely[/u] should not have happened)
Steel city hits Bram (which is also legit because he was the original raider)

Then [u]four[/u] of your next [u]six[/u] wars are against members that had [i]nothing[/i] to do with the original raid.

Look, our rules are there and we expect everyone to know them. When people break the rules they are (and will) be handled as things like this cause unnecessary wars and PR/Diplomatic nightmares.

[b]Let there be no mistake however[/b], although I am personally opposed to tech raiding and the "natural" bullying that large alliances impose on smaller ones, when anyone, engages in a gross act of aggression against our members, we will spare no expense to make them pay.

There is simply no excuse to bring in people not involved in the conflict, on either side.


Other than that, I wrote this topic to express my personal feelings on raiding and create a respectful discourse on the subject. Thanks to everyone for keeping it that way.

[StevieG]

But why should Catharsis have to play by your rules? Just because you think they shouldnt attack nations that are not involved doesnt mean they dont think differently. They may be wanting to send a signal, and whilst they will rightly be crushed for creating an AA war out of this, you will likely not bother them next round. Maybe TPC will look more closely at their war screens in the coming rounds because of this mess?

Anyways, I recommend resetting the amount of nations an AA must have for it not to be a legal raid. An AA of 14 members can be a credible and potentially powerful factor.

[Kharon the Ferryman]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289601355' post='2511397']
But why should Catharsis have to play by your rules? Just because you think they shouldnt attack nations that are not involved doesnt mean they dont think differently. They may be wanting to send a signal, and whilst they will rightly be crushed for creating an AA war out of this, you will likely not bother them next round. Maybe TPC will look more closely at their war screens in the coming rounds because of this mess?
[/quote]

!THIS!

...pretty much sums up the entire conflict which brought up this subject. The fact that you're big doesn't necessarily make everyone play by your rules.


As an extra comment on the "related nations" idea - members of the Cult of Skaro had agreed to make an all out attack before the round started. Targets were picked few days before the attack.
This was never about who was actively raiding who. This was about alliance politics and the wish to be seen. TPC's members had tradically slowed our growth and lowered our will to play in several previous rounds and this could not continue.
The fact that TPC had some active conflicts with several other small alliances and our decision to team up with the small ones came by coincidence.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Kharon the Ferryman

[Einer]

I think Skaro and Catharsis both hurt their cause by widening the conflict, though. If you had only hit known raiders (and lord knows there isn't a shortage of them), I think a lot of people would have sat on the sidelines and . However, hitting TPC nations indiscriminately made it into an issue for the entire alliance.

[White Chocolate]

*Sylvia Midnight tries to wake herself up*

I still assume I must be dreaming, but okay...I'll play along for the fun of it.

If people stopped raiding, I'd be totally cool with that. However, if one wants to be a part of the big boy's club later, exactly because it's profitable, one needs to do it. That's why I've done it, and the vast majority of people give me cheap tech and then take peace. Thank you very much.

To stop the raids - stop the profit. This means:

fight, fight, fight - as a team and against the original person/people raiding. Small alliances can gang up on one raider just as much as multiple raiders can gang up on a one person being raided. In particular early in the round, when most people raid, there isn't much distance between large alliance members and small alliance members. Everyone is in range of each other.

Get a name for yourself...put out a sign "no profit here" and then follow through as much as possible. Once someone's raided in your group - have 3 people doing a quad on him/her over update and then stick with it. The alliance sends more people, do the same (or make deals with other small alliances and bring in friends.) Get nukes/HNMS yourself. I've done it as NONE. If I can do it in that situation, anyone can. Get planes (at least level 2)

The secret to TE is not necessarily size. It's activity. If you and a couple of friends are all active you can really ruin the entire round of a raider or two, maybe even a much larger alliance - reroll and if you get raided again, do it again. It takes a couple times to get it through people's heads, maybe even a couple rounds - but you'll be put on the alliances "do not raid...this group is insane" list sooner than later.

Don't forget about diplomacy either. You can be tough and respectful at the same time. In fact, I've met many of my closest TE friends from being on the "wrong" end of a raid. Burning Glory (TPF at the time), Richard/The Flying Kiwis, # of the old-timers at RE, Clash of The Warriors (TPF at the time). Plus, from what I'm told, Pork Shrimp met LW of MHA via similar situations. Pork Shrimp was under 10 nations at the time and didn't have a protector. Everyone starts somewhere.

As much as people complain about attacking down, they respect a small group who can fight well under overwhelming odds. Be that group.

Oh, and if a "tech raid" gone "bad" (which means good, from the perspective of the small guy)turns into a war, so be it. People...we're declaring alliance wars all the time for reasons like "X alliance stole all our beer and we want it back!" Now, I don't have a problem with that at all, but IF that can be done than tech raid wars can be done as well.

If you're in a situation on TE where you can't be active all that often, join a large alliance. Large alliances are for people who need a handicap.

[Vukland]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1289611466' post='2511505']
I think Skaro and Catharsis both hurt their cause by widening the conflict, though. If you had only hit known raiders (and lord knows there isn't a shortage of them), I think a lot of people would have sat on the sidelines and . However, hitting TPC nations indiscriminately made it into an issue for the entire alliance.
[/quote]
If you look at the Catharsis war you can follow the chain of events leading to where we are now. Cumicumi and Bramste hit Loony Bun I anarchy Cumicumi he goes and cries to his friend Gurita hits me and Loony Bun.... I was defending my AA. Gurita escalated this. And then all bets are off! We wanted it to be an Alliance wide issue for you snakes. Cause in a small AA like Catharsis hitting one of ours is an alliance wide issue.

[Ron Paul]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1289611466' post='2511505']
I think Skaro and Catharsis both hurt their cause by widening the conflict, though. If you had only hit known raiders (and lord knows there isn't a shortage of them), I think a lot of people would have sat on the sidelines and . However, hitting TPC nations indiscriminately made it into an issue for the entire alliance.
[/quote]

[b]LOL[/b] Indiscriminately hitting Catharsis is okay but wrong for us to "indiscriminately" retaliate. Your "logic" is good for a chuckle. We've been laughing at tpc's attempt to claim the moral high ground here. That's beside the point as we rarely engage in these forums. The following is the message.

Here's how [i]we[/i] roll. An attack one of us is a declaration of war on our alliance. We will make sure there is no profit to be made even if it means our annihilation, and we'll still have fun. Our camaraderie won't be broken.

[Einer]

Heh. I didn't really mean for "cause" to imply the moral argument, so much as staying out of ZI and dealing damage to you enemies. I tend to be a practical guy when it comes to that sort of thing.

The way I see it, as long as you're defending your alliance from tech raiders (even ours), then go forth with my blessings. I suspect a lot of other people agree, and so you probably could have made a real fight out of it by isolating the war to be your alliance versus our raiders (who probably don't number more than ~10-15 total, and are easy to pick out of the global war listings). Once you pick a few random targets out of our alliance for retaliation...well. That's just going to bring down widespread retaliation (as for Skaro), and really, who does that serve? Nobody.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1289640464' post='2511751']
Heh. I didn't really mean for "cause" to imply the moral argument, so much as staying out of ZI and dealing damage to you enemies. I tend to be a practical guy when it comes to that sort of thing.

The way I see it, as long as you're defending your alliance from tech raiders (even ours), then go forth with my blessings. I suspect a lot of other people agree, and so you probably could have made a real fight out of it by isolating the war to be your alliance versus our raiders (who probably don't number more than ~10-15 total, and are easy to pick out of the global war listings). Once you pick a few random targets out of our alliance for retaliation...well. That's just going to bring down widespread retaliation (as for Skaro), and really, who does that serve? Nobody.
[/quote]

Make peace, put them on your "do not raid" list, move on, that's how the situation should end. If they want to keep on fighting, then give them their fun and once everyone has had enough - put them on your "do not raid" list at that time.

Don't bother telling other alliances how to be "practical" - more often than not they just find it annoying. I would.

[quote name='Ron Paul' timestamp='1289638859' post='2511747']
Here's how [i]we[/i] roll. An attack one of us is a declaration of war on our alliance. We will make sure there is no profit to be made even if it means our annihilation, and we'll still have fun. Our camaraderie won't be broken.
[/quote]

:salute:

[quote name='Vukland' timestamp='1289623944' post='2511658']
We wanted it to be an Alliance wide issue for you snakes. Cause in a small AA like Catharsis hitting one of ours is an alliance wide issue.
[/quote]

Having a member attacked regardless of the reason is always an alliance wide issue. I get your point, just saying you shouldn't feel as if you need to justify it as a small AA.

Generally, if a group is willing to fight against overwhelming odds in defense of the group, even beyond what's "practical" and even if that means attacking a member (if it were a ghost, that's arguably another issue) of the other alliance who is not attacking - so be it. In alliance wars, it's common to attack members of the alliance not already involved. War is war.

Having said that, IF the smaller alliance decides to attack people not involved in the larger - you have to be ready for the war to go alliance wide. In the case that people are talking about here - doesn't look like the smaller alliance cares.

Edited November 13, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Roi Loup]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289601355' post='2511397']
But why should Catharsis have to play by your rules? Just because you think they shouldnt attack nations that are not involved doesnt mean they dont think differently. They may be wanting to send a signal, and whilst they will rightly be crushed for creating an AA war out of this, you will likely not bother them next round. Maybe TPC will look more closely at their war screens in the coming rounds because of this mess?

Anyways, I recommend resetting the amount of nations an AA must have for it not to be a legal raid. An AA of 14 members can be a credible and potentially powerful factor.
[/quote]

if they didnt attack why should they be punished? its like condemning a witness of a murder to death just for seeing it..

[HDSupreme]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1289640464' post='2511751']
Heh. I didn't really mean for "cause" to imply the moral argument, so much as staying out of ZI and dealing damage to you enemies. I tend to be a practical guy when it comes to that sort of thing.

The way I see it, as long as you're defending your alliance from tech raiders (even ours), then go forth with my blessings. I suspect a lot of other people agree, and so you probably could have made a real fight out of it by isolating the war to be your alliance versus our raiders (who probably don't number more than ~10-15 total, and are easy to pick out of the global war listings). Once you pick a few random targets out of our alliance for retaliation...well. That's just going to bring down widespread retaliation (as for Skaro), and really, who does that serve? Nobody.
[/quote]

Good.

So, What the formulas or rules will be follow on Techs raiding from now on, Gentlemen...? [size="4"]I[/size]t [size="4"]IS time to point them out,people ...[/size]

[King James XVIII]

[quote name='HDSupreme' timestamp='1289798484' post='2513383']
Good.

So, What the formulas or rules will be follow on Techs raiding from now on, Gentlemen...? [size="4"]I[/size]t [size="4"]IS time to point them out,people ...[/size]
[/quote]


I can't speak for other alliances but my emphasis (in this my first round leading) has and will continue to be raiding "respectfully". Meaning...

1) No piggybacking on raids. When others jump in a hour, a day or right after the original raid is peaced out it ain't right.
2) Surgical strikes. On the rare occasion when I am going in for tech, I do my best to limit their damage (although that is not always possible) by cautious attacks and then giving the opportunity for peace immediately afterward.
3) Assumed risk. For hits on small alliance members, understand that you enter conflict at your own risk. Obviously, the governments of alliances go for diplomacy if things start to escalate but there can't be any hiding behind the flag of a large alliance by members. Small alliances can (and [b]have[/b] to) hold people that tread on them accountable.
4) Try to teach (if you can). For newer members that are raided of course. Encouragement to continue on is what kept me playing when I woke up day 2 to find my nation in anarchy.

Some of these things have already been emphasized and I just hope to build on them. Regardless of escalations and heated opinions (such as what happened with Skaro and Catharsis) I genuinely believe that because everyone has a stake in the game its important to look at both sides of a conflict and understand where the other side is coming from. It makes the game better. That does not mean you have to agree or back down, as everyone has their own sovereignty (Catharsis choosing to hit TPC members that were not raiding and TPC's choice to fight it out for a bit as an example).

A complete change in tech raid culture is not going to happen overnight for any alliance, but, with doing the above four things (the only practical things I can think of right now) I think we can take a step in the right direction.