64Digits Announcement

[lordliam]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289180644' post='2505530']
Hey Spin Doctor,

How will you manage to minimize damage when you put 6 guys on him instead of 3? Also, what would you do if I rogued [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]this guy?[/url] You have no one in my range so will you let me be raided by others or what?
[/quote]
By the looks of it, you're going to get hit by a bunch of inactive nukes.

[Believland]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1289180447' post='2505527']
What will you do if a member of say, GOONS, decides to raid a rogue who hits you? I mean, it's their sovereign right to do so, and if you attacked GOONS in retaliation, you'd just get rolled. In that respect it seems a fairly pointless policy.
[/quote]

Hey now, don't question a policy where they don't have the cojones nor the power to actually carry out!

[Xiphosis]

[quote]What will you do if a member of say, GOONS, decides to raid a rogue who hits you? I mean, it's their sovereign right to do so[/quote]

That's debatable, really.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1289180447' post='2505527']
What will you do if a member of say, GOONS, decides to raid a rogue who hits you? I mean, it's their sovereign right to do so, and if you attacked GOONS in retaliation, you'd just get rolled. In that respect it seems a fairly pointless policy.
[/quote]It's GOONS sovereign right to attack protected nations? This is news to me, why does GOONS have this special right that nobody else has? I mean, I guess, technically, everyone a right to attack anybody for any or no reason, but that's why we've constructed a system of morals for everyone's collective safety.

64Digits will, of course, attempt diplomacy first in all situations. We would only counter individual offending nations in the event that all diplomatic attempts fell through first. There are a multitude of options for an alliance to take in the event that one of their members raids a protected target. Among others, they can pay reps, they can order the nation to participate in full military strikes (in which case we would probably clear it and not even ask for reps), or the alliance can release their offending nation to attack. Whatever floats their boat.

This policy doesn't mean we just get up and lash out blindly without talking first. Why people assume that has to always be the case, well, it's beyond me.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1289180848' post='2505537']
That's debatable, really.
[/quote]

I agree, GOONS despite the way they are painted do have rules and I believe they do not raid annouced protected nations. It could happen by accident of course but, again I am sure they would be willing to work things out. I am not sure how often raiders hit nuke rogues outside of when its something personal like this last war but, such a policy does not seem unwise.

[Kalasin]

Oh I get it. I'm not sure this counts as a protectorate though, so raiders may just go ahead and hit them.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289180644' post='2505530']
Hey Spin Doctor,

How will you manage to minimize damage when you put 6 guys on him instead of 3? Also, what would you do if I rogued [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]this guy?[/url] You have no one in my range so will you let me be raided by others or what?
[/quote]

Any smart rogue would attack the most susceptible targets. Since we're speaking in hypotheticals, lets assume first that we have a bunch of guys, and that a nuclear rogue goes off on 3 non-nuclear nations. We'll want to get at least one nuclear nation on him, and we'll want a second on him to stagger the war slots and prevent escape to peace mode. The third slot, well, that's situational. Heck, we might even allow a raider in if he wants, if we really don't need the slot.

As for the second part, read the policy, it's all in there. Read it carefully and think really hard. If you are illiterate, I can have someone read it aloud for you. If thinking hard hurts too much, then I can't help you.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289180811' post='2505534']
Hey now, don't question a policy where they don't have the cojones nor the power to actually carry out!
[/quote]You know, they call us a lot of things, but this is the first time I've heard someone try to claim we "don't have the cojones" for something.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1289181463' post='2505552']
Oh I get it. I'm not sure this counts as a protectorate though, so raiders may just go ahead and hit them.
[/quote]It's not up to raiders what 64Digits considers a protected nation, what "counts as a protectorate."

[Believland]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289181615' post='2505556']
Any smart rogue would attack the most susceptible targets. Since we're speaking in hypotheticals, lets assume first that we have a bunch of guys, and that a nuclear rogue goes off on 3 non-nuclear nations. We'll want to get at least one nuclear nation on him, and we'll want a second on him to stagger the war slots and prevent escape to peace mode. The third slot, well, that's situational. Heck, we might even allow a raider in if he wants, if we really don't need the slot.

As for the second part, read the policy, it's all in there. Read it carefully and think really hard. If you are illiterate, I can have someone read it aloud for you. If thinking hard hurts too much, then I can't help you.
[/quote]

You mean like the nation I just gave to you? Who has half of my tech? No, I know you probably don't get what I'm saying to you so, I'll dumb it down a bit.

IIII ATTACK [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]THIS NATION (CLICK IT)[/url] WHAT WOULD YOU DO. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO ATTACK ME. WHAT YOU DO!?


I hope you can understand that.

[Karolina]

If this is already considered a solid CB, the solidity of which has been sternly defended in the AcTi DoW thread by certain individuals, is there really a need to enshrine it?

Just saying.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289181945' post='2505563']
You mean like the nation I just gave to you? Who has half of my tech? No, I know you probably don't get what I'm saying to you so, I'll dumb it down a bit.

IIII ATTACK [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]THIS NATION (CLICK IT)[/url] WHAT WOULD YOU DO. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO ATTACK ME. WHAT YOU DO!?


I hope you can understand that.
[/quote]I understand what you are trying to say, but, clearly, you did not understand what I had to say. I'm not going to dignify your supreme ignorance and stupidity with an answer. If you can't figure it out for yourself, which seems to be the case, well, I don't really care.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289181945' post='2505563']
You mean like the nation I just gave to you? Who has half of my tech? No, I know you probably don't get what I'm saying to you so, I'll dumb it down a bit.

IIII ATTACK [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=109535"]THIS NATION (CLICK IT)[/url] WHAT WOULD YOU DO. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO ATTACK ME. WHAT YOU DO!?


I hope you can understand that.
[/quote]

That scenerio would be covered by common sense. They have allies that would handle it. That is the way it happens on a regular basis on Bob when at war or dealing with raiders and you do not have nations in range.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Karolina' timestamp='1289181947' post='2505564']
If this is already considered a solid CB, the solidity of which has been sternly defended in the AcTi DoW thread by certain individuals, is there really a need to enshrine it?

Just saying.
[/quote]Why leave it up to word of mouth? Why not engrave it on a plaque for all to see?


[quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1289182446' post='2505576']
That scenerio would be covered by common sense. They have allies that would handle it. That is the way it happens on a regular basis on Bob when at war or dealing with raiders and you do not have nations in range.
[/quote]
Awwww, why'd you have to go and spoil it?

Edited November 8, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1289179734' post='2505506']
Why not? When people tech raid rogues it's pretty annoying, because they often mess up staggers, and even if they don't there's no guarantee that they won't suddenly peace out with the rogue and let him slip into peacemode.
[/quote]
Because, as the rest of my post pointed out, taken to extremes, such as what \m/ did to the 'Grand Global Alliance' A/A following their disbandment, it can be used by tech raiding alliances to do evil. As I stated, this isn't as bad and I do see it has its positive implications here, but it's a slippery slope, and one I don't particularly approve of. That's all I was saying.

*shrugs as well*

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289180133' post='2505522']
This isn't about pretending to feel tough or ensuring that we have raid targets. This is about ensuring the protection and well being of all members of 64Digits from outside threats, which is part of my job as the leader of this alliance. It's about minimizing the damage caused by rogues. Eating up precious war slot space for a tech raid can cause millions in additional damages, and a rogue being allowed to escape to peace can easily cause billions in excess damages.
[/quote]
I've already stated that this isn't necessarily bad.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289180133' post='2505522']
AcTi was not defeated, not technically, not legally, and not theoretically. In fact, they won, because Sirius declared white peace as the public masses rejected their claims of righteousness, and declared the same thing that this policy declares, that raiding a nation that is roguing on an alliance is an offense against that alliance.
[/quote]
If you have difficulty reading statistics charts, that's your issue, not mine.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289180133' post='2505522']
64Digits will defend its interests. That is not negotiable. If you don't approve of us defending ourselves, then you have a radically different view on what is right and what is wrong.
[/quote]
Perhaps.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Michael von Prussia

[Believland]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289182351' post='2505574']
I understand what you are trying to say, but, clearly, you did not understand what I had to say. I'm not going to dignify your supreme ignorance and stupidity with an answer. If you can't figure it out for yourself, which seems to be the case, well, I don't really care.
[/quote]

No, you have no idea. You said you'd put 2 guys on me but, you don't have two guys to put on me. Do you see the dilemma?

[CRexx]

You'd think all of Bob could come together and simply agree that as a community standard active military operations trump raids. Especially when the active military operation deals with taking down a guy who is kicking out nukes and generally causing mayhem. One would argue this is a policy that benefits us all since we can all agree it would stink to have a rogue you're trying to bill lock get hit by a raider whose timing allows the rogue to escape the stagger and make it to peace mode to recover.

Of course there is also a community standard where smaller and unproven alliances who run their mouths and talk big about sovereignty and such will be mocked by the big boys. We're definitely seeing that one in action tonight.

As a side note, this policy can take you interesting places with logic. For example lets say I rogue 64Digits (purely as an example). GOONS then tech raids me. So now the result is you go to GOONS and say "Hey you're causing us to take more damage by raiding CRex. Thus because of that we're going to threaten to initiates military action against you*". I bet that series of steps end with your alliance taking more damage than if you kept your mouth shut and let the GOONS raid me.

*After all any demand for reps or the like has to be backed by force

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289182681' post='2505581']
No, you have no idea. You said you'd put 2 guys on me but, you don't have two guys to put on me. Do you see the dilemma?
[/quote]
Hey, TBB, I guess you didn't spoil it. He's still clueless.

Edited November 8, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289182681' post='2505581']
No, you have no idea. You said you'd put 2 guys on me but, you don't have two guys to put on me. Do you see the dilemma?
[/quote]

Lets take this real slow this time. Alliances sign treaties with other alliances. When they are attacked by another alliance or rogues and they do not have nations in range allies take the slots. This is not something new. I am not sure I can make it any more simple than that.

Edited November 8, 2010 by The Big Bad

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='CRex of Gulo Gulo' timestamp='1289182831' post='2505583']
You'd think all of Bob could come together and simply agree that as a community standard active military operations trump raids. Especially when the active military operation deals with taking down a guy who is kicking out nukes and generally causing mayhem. One would argue this is a policy that benefits us all since we can all agree it would stink to have a rogue you're trying to bill lock get hit by a raider whose timing allows the rogue to escape the stagger and make it to peace mode to recover.

Of course there is also a community standard where smaller and unproven alliances who run their mouths and talk big about sovereignty and such will be mocked by the big boys. We're definitely seeing that one in action tonight.

As a side note, this policy can take you interesting places with logic. For example lets say I rogue 64Digits (purely as an example). GOONS then tech raids me. So now the result is you go to GOONS and say "Hey you're causing us to take more damage by raiding CRex. Thus because of that we're going to threaten to initiates military action against you*". I bet that series of steps end with your alliance taking more damage than if you kept your mouth shut and let the GOONS raid me.

*After all any demand for reps or the like has to be backed by force
[/quote]
You make a number of assumptions that lead to a flawed conclusion. Among them, the idea that we would start 'diplomacy' by threatening military action against GOONS. I do like the introduction of GOONS to these arguments, it is a good, not to mention plausible, worst case scenario, considering current political standings. But the fact of the matter is, requests for reps, or the other resolutions, do not need to be backed by military threat. Just as implicit as that is the threat of bad PR once it hits the public boards.

That, and I also like to take a stand for my principles. The notion that we have to bend over whenever someone asks just because we might lose a hypothetical war is a notion that I fully reject.

[Prodigal Moon]

Seems reasonable. Should be interesting to see when this decision to protect that interest comes into conflict with someone's "right" to raid...possibly because they intentionally arrange the conflict.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1289183505' post='2505599']
Seems reasonable. Should be interesting to see when this decision to protect that interest comes into conflict with someone's "right" to raid...possibly because they intentionally arrange the conflict.
[/quote]If they arrange a rogue to go off on us, they have committed an act of war against us, and it would be treated as such. Incidentally, then raiding the 'rogue' would be a violation of divine law and powers greater than any of us would mystically intervene.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289176525' post='2505397']
Basically, what we are doing, is declaring, as a sovereign alliance with the sovereign right to do so, that any nation who 'goes rogue' against 64Digits is [i]under the protection of 64Digits from outside attack.[/i]
[/quote]


IF you're "protecting" a nation or group, you should not also be attacking said nation or group. "Protection" is NOT what you're talking about in this case- so why confuse matters by using the word?

I see what you're doing and have no problem with the idea that if a nation attacks a member of your alliance, the alliance has the right to defend itself without interference from raiders. Also, maybe announcing this to the world(in light of current events) isn't a bad idea.

I also realize GOONS used the word, but that's GOONS. No reason you have to copy them. Besides, when GOONS made that announcement it was in reference to a defunct alliance THEY wanted to raid, not a raider attacking someone attacking GOONS. Very different situation.

What you're talking about is a "right" - perhaps even a "doctrine." Certainly NOT "protection." (maybe if you hurry up and rewrite the announcement, you'll have a doctrine named after you That would far more cool.)

Edited November 8, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Mathias]

Hopefully this ends badly for you!

[THRILLHO]

Could a nation that is already being raided receive protection by attacking 64Digits?

Edited November 8, 2010 by THRILLHO

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1289181314' post='2505548']
I agree, GOONS despite the way they are painted do have rules and I believe they do not raid annouced protected nations. It could happen by accident of course but, again I am sure they would be willing to work things out. I am not sure how often raiders hit nuke rogues outside of when its something personal like this last war but, such a policy does not seem unwise.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]This, and the simple fact that if GOONS did hit one of these nations by mistake, I am sure they'd be willing to use everything they have, and just not a mere cruise missile a day or something. And I'm sure they'd do that and more without much of a fuss, unlike our friends the turtle guys, among other recent examples.[/color]