Raiding has consequences

[Globexanter]

what is he missing Halc? A region full or your puppets? When do you plan on re-invading it? Going to wait for him to CTE or dance on his corpse?

First of all it's a nation, not a person even in the game. Secondly, it's a game. Corpses? Really? It's ridiculous to call it that. It's silly and disrespectful to the people affected by terrible events in the real world to compare the two. Let's be realistic, we're talking about a player who has quit a game.

Metaphor...

[Wordy]

what is he missing Halc? A region full or your puppets? When do you plan on re-invading it? Going to wait for him to CTE or dance on his corpse?

First of all it's a nation, not a person even in the game. Secondly, it's a game. Corpses? Really? It's ridiculous to call it that. It's silly and disrespectful to the people affected by terrible events in the real world to compare the two. Let's be realistic, we're talking about a player who has quit a game.

Well now as we cannot call Halc an idiot I am pretty sure you cannot call me silly.

Definition of CORPSE

1
archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
2
a : a dead body especially of a human being
b : the remains of something discarded or defunct <the corpses of rusting cars>

[Swift Sure]

First of all it's a nation, not a person even in the game. Secondly, it's a game. Corpses? Really? It's ridiculous to call it that. It's silly and disrespectful to the people affected by terrible events in the real world to compare the two. Let's be realistic, we're talking about a player who has quit a game.

Well now as we cannot call Halc an idiot I am pretty sure you cannot call me silly.

Definition of CORPSE

1
archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
2
a : a dead body especially of a human being
b : the remains of something discarded or defunct <the corpses of rusting cars>

Usually when people use the second definition they state it as such (the corpse of the playerless nation) as it was stated in your definition. Not only that but you also said "his corpse", since when do nations have a gender? The way you wrote it; you clearly referred to him rather than his nation. It seemed like it was done for shock value.

[Globexanter]

Well now as we cannot call Halc an idiot I am pretty sure you cannot call me silly.

Definition of CORPSE

1
archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
2
a : a dead body especially of a human being
b : the remains of something discarded or defunct <the corpses of rusting cars>

Usually when people use the second definition they state it as such (the corpse of the playerless nation) as it was stated in your definition. Not only that but you also said "his corpse", since when do nations have a gender? The way you wrote it; you clearly referred to him rather than his nation. It seemed like it was done for shock value.

Are you so blind to such a simple metaphor?

[Swift Sure]

I believe I was quite clear Globexanter. A metaphor is a comparison designed to suggest a resemblance (understanding one thing in the terms of another), and I feel that such a comparison is silly.

[Der Teutoniker]

If the raiders really cared for the game, they should reflect on their actions.

Yeah, I guess regions can have passwords... but nevermind that.

[Ad Infinitum]

Way to go, TBH, you're still idiots.

Please keep a reasonable level of civility in this debate - don't throw around insults.

Honesty is civility, in my opinion.

EDIT: I'm just playing fair.

TITO were also incompetent with The Black Hawks successfully seizing delegacy from Bad Infinitum in Samit.

[Luna Amore]

Well now as we cannot call Halc an idiot I am pretty sure you cannot call me silly.

Definition of CORPSE

1
archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
2
a : a dead body especially of a human being
b : the remains of something discarded or defunct <the corpses of rusting cars>

Usually when people use the second definition they state it as such (the corpse of the playerless nation) as it was stated in your definition. Not only that but you also said "his corpse", since when do nations have a gender? The way you wrote it; you clearly referred to him rather than his nation. It seemed like it was done for shock value.

The reader can determine which definition is appropriate through context. It doesn't always have to be spelled out. It seems like you're trying to find offense.

I've heard various nations refered to by a gender, Mother Russia and Germany being refered to as the Fatherland for example.

[Free Noldor States]

I agree! Please do not hurt TBH feelings. Big Birds do cry.

And man do they moan a lot.

Considering it was not our side who started this thread which apparently is dedicated to just complaining, I can't say that gives your argument a lot of strength.

It has always been obvious that raiders need defenders to follow them around in order to keep this game entertaining. That's basically why I've posting here. We can't force them to go after us, but after years of it being the normal procedure, we kind of "expect" them to. A few months when we started update raiding some of the same defenders who are here opened up a thread to discuss (yet again who's the one complaining ) why that brought no balance to the raider game. We have always said we do those raids more for own involvement (training, for example) that to "play" this game with them. I am somewhat surprised that now that we raid a region in the traditional way, you are also shocked and hysterical about our actions. So you guys are not preoccupied about the balance of the game then? Now you are worried about the ethical stance of the game?

No one saws us here complaining when both TITO and FRA beat us in Pacific a couple of weeks ago. We just took losing as part of the game and kept playing. We didn't start a discussing about metaphors and who called who what. Neither are we preaching around the righteousness of any actions of anyone in the game. We are just playing... a game... which by definition are supposed to be played.

[Globexanter]

I believe I was quite clear Globexanter. A metaphor is a comparison designed to suggest a resemblance (understanding one thing in the terms of another), and I feel that such a comparison is silly.

Well that is your opinion, and I have spoken of my opinion. Yet many are against yours...

[Swift Sure]

Usually when people use the second definition they state it as such (the corpse of the playerless nation) as it was stated in your definition. Not only that but you also said "his corpse", since when do nations have a gender? The way you wrote it; you clearly referred to him rather than his nation. It seemed like it was done for shock value.

The reader can determine which definition is appropriate through context. It doesn't always have to be spelled out. It seems like you're trying to find offense.

I've heard various nations refered to by a gender, Mother Russia and Germany being refered to as the Fatherland for example.

It's quite clear which definition is appropriate to me given the way it was said, the context and what has been said in the past. This is not the first time either and you may call Germany the fatherland but you don't call it his corpse. It seems like it was done for shock value and I don't feel that that's the sort of comparison or rhetoric that should be used.

As well, it's clear that even members of Wordy's own region felt the first definition was appropriate. The application of the Weberian idea that you brought up is also why it (what Wordy said) irks me. Even if Wordy didn't mean it the way I said it was; people will take it that way, even those from Wordy's side. Do they find it appropriate, do you? Is that the image what the defender/raider axis wants to portray to the world?

[Ballotonia]

A few months when we started update raiding some of the same defenders who are here opened up a thread to discuss (yet again who's the one complaining ) why that brought no balance to the raider game.

The game has always been balanced in favor of invaders. It just took invaders 8 years to figure out the ultimate 'winning' move, the one they had all along. Seems that's something noteworthy, so we did.

We have always said we do those raids more for own involvement (training, for example) that to "play" this game with them.

Then don't act surprised if no defender bothers to show up. And also don't boast that you 'defeated' defenders when none even tried to oppose you.

I am somewhat surprised that now that we raid a region in the traditional way, you are also shocked and hysterical about our actions. So you guys are not preoccupied about the balance of the game then? Now you are worried about the ethical stance of the game?

I've always been motivated by an ethical stance about invading. Nothing in that has changed. But please read the OP. It has nothing to do with the WAY the invading took place, just the consequences of the invading taking place. It quite convincingly counters an argument we've been hearing from the invader side, namely that somehow invading is done without there being victims. That somehow there is no damage being done. There's your damage done, proven right there in the OP.

Ballotonia

[Luna Amore]

See the problem with saying these raids are just to perfect timing is the way in which these raids are conducted and announced.

If it's simply timing, then you could use dummy regions. It would use a hell of a lot less puppets while still providing the same result.

Instead you're tagging actual dead/inactive regions and celebrating victory when no one stops you. Why not quietly perfect your craft, and then when you have, band together and perform a signifigant raid?

[Asclepion]

See the problem with saying these raids are just to perfect timing is the way in which these raids are conducted and announced.

If it's simply timing, then you could use dummy regions. It would use a hell of a lot less puppets while still providing the same result.

Instead you're tagging actual dead/inactive regions and celebrating victory when no one stops you. Why not quietly perfect your craft, and then when you have, band together and perform a signifigant raid?

Seconded.

[Luna Amore]

The reader can determine which definition is appropriate through context. It doesn't always have to be spelled out. It seems like you're trying to find offense.

I've heard various nations refered to by a gender, Mother Russia and Germany being refered to as the Fatherland for example.

It's quite clear which definition is appropriate to me given the way it was said, the context and what has been said in the past. This is not the first time either and you may call Germany the fatherland but you don't call it his corpse. It seems like it was done for shock value and I don't feel that that's the sort of comparison or rhetoric that should be used.

As well, it's clear that even members of Wordy's own region felt the first definition was appropriate. The application of the Weberian idea that you brought up is also why it (what Wordy said) irks me. Even if Wordy didn't mean it the way I said it was; people will take it that way, even those from Wordy's side. Do they find it appropriate, do you? Is that the image what the defender/raider axis wants to portray to the world?

If you call it fatherland, it logically follows that you'd refer to it as 'he/his'.

To be frank, someone will almost always be offended; I guess I just don't understand the motive behind going out of your way to be offended. 'Corpse' is not an inherently offensive word.

[Ad Infinitum]

No one saws us here complaining when both TITO and FRA beat us in Pacific a couple of weeks ago. We just took losing as part of the game and kept playing. We didn't start a discussing about metaphors and who called who what. Neither are we preaching around the righteousness of any actions of anyone in the game. We are just playing... a game... which by definition are supposed to be played.

We don't complain 99.9999% of the time, either. I can think of a dozen other failed liberations or defenses that we just laughed and took it as a challenge to do better the next time. However, in this case, an innocent bystander was the victim. I have no quarrels with the fight as long as only the soldiers are involved, it's when the natives have had enough that someone needs to stand up and say something. This is one of those times.

[Free Noldor States]

The game has always been balanced in favor of invaders. It just took invaders 8 years to figure out the ultimate 'winning' move, the one they had all along. Seems that's something noteworthy, so we did.

Really? It has always been balanced in our favor? Well, someone should've told me at some point during the years. Strangely enough, that has never been patent in the actual raids -at least before update raiding- with both sides taking a decent percentage of them. There is no deciding argument to prove any side has the favor over the other, and a discussion about that will never get to anything serious as we have seen before. We all play the cards we were dealt, we don't try to make sure everyone has the same ones before we start betting.

Then don't act surprised if no defender bothers to show up. And also don't boast that you 'defeated' defenders when none even tried to oppose you.

I expressed surprised about defenders' opinions about the raids I have been involved,and I never demanded them to show up. The only time I "boasted" about defeating defenders in this thread was about a raid in Iran, in which, we held a couple of tries by them to gain the region and left a few days later after no further challenge. I see no big controversy in declaring that a win.

I suppose you are talking about what other raiders have posted in this thread. But everyone of us has a different point of view, just like defenders do, so don't put words in my posts just because someone else from my side wrote them. I wrote my opinion in my last couple of posts, responding to individual statements I found here, but I won't assume to every defender on NS stand behind them.

I've always been motivated by an ethical stance about invading. Nothing in that has changed. But please read the OP. It has nothing to do with the WAY the invading took place, just the consequences of the invading taking place. It quite convincingly counters an argument we've been hearing from the invader side, namely that somehow invading is done without there being victims. That somehow there is no damage being done. There's your damage done, proven right there in the OP.

I read the OP. I have already said every player's responsibility to cope with what happens inside the game, specially if it was done inside the rules as raiding is. I expressed my disagreement with blaming raiders for this player leaving the game. There were many things he/she could've done to stop being raided and that didn't involve leaving the game. If the player decided not to follow those steps and just leave, that is its decision, not anyone's else fault.

Ethical judgements stand only for your own opinion and while you are certainly entitled to express the, don't expect the rest of the game, which may have different opinions, to change their ways just because of that. If someones does not ethically agree with something and wants it changed, do it out there in the game. I had always thought that was why TITO defended. You are in complete freedom to take an ethical stance against raiding, I never said anything to stop you.

We don't complain 99.9999% of the time, either. I can think of a dozen other failed liberations or defenses that we just laughed and took it as a challenge to do better the next time. However, in this case, an innocent bystander was the victim. I have no quarrels with the fight as long as only the soldiers are involved, it's when the natives have had enough that someone needs to stand up and say something. This is one of those times.

I know defenders don't come crying back after every single mishap that happens to them. But so far, defenders have complained far more than raiders. That is why I was surprised some defenders were claiming we are the one's complaining most the time.

I agree. I have never raided to specifically piss people off, but know I risk doing it when I raid. I already said I am sorry this guy left but that is pretty much up to him to deal with the good and bad thing that happens in a game. If natives do no want to be raided there are steps they can take to make it considerably much more difficult to us. For example, there are a couple of founderless region which through the years I have never been able to take because natives are involved in their regions, they are involved in the game and that includes keeping your region secure.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

It's quite clear which definition is appropriate to me given the way it was said, the context and what has been said in the past. This is not the first time either and you may call Germany the fatherland but you don't call it his corpse. It seems like it was done for shock value and I don't feel that that's the sort of comparison or rhetoric that should be used.

As well, it's clear that even members of Wordy's own region felt the first definition was appropriate. The application of the Weberian idea that you brought up is also why it (what Wordy said) irks me. Even if Wordy didn't mean it the way I said it was; people will take it that way, even those from Wordy's side. Do they find it appropriate, do you? Is that the image what the defender/raider axis wants to portray to the world?

If you call it fatherland, it logically follows that you'd refer to it as 'he/his'.

To be frank, someone will almost always be offended; I guess I just don't understand the motive behind going out of your way to be offended. 'Corpse' is not an inherently offensive word.

Granted, I don't know Swift's personal feelings on the matter, but I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader. That is precisely why I embraced it in an attempt to lessen the shock value of said comment. I'm also under the impression that afterwards, Wordy was called out on it by Swift; which then, Wordy tried to back out on it by stating that she was using the word corpse in another manner. The aforementioned is probably what happened, admit it.

Although, I would like to point out: I don't necessarily see an issue with the individualization of nations due to the fact that only individuals tend to control them through the game mechanisms.

[Luna Amore]

If you call it fatherland, it logically follows that you'd refer to it as 'he/his'.

To be frank, someone will almost always be offended; I guess I just don't understand the motive behind going out of your way to be offended. 'Corpse' is not an inherently offensive word.

Granted, I don't know Swift's personal feelings on the matter, but I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader. That is precisely why I embraced it in an attempt to lessen the shock value of said comment. I'm also under the impression that afterwards, Wordy was called out on it by Swift; which then, Wordy tried to back out on it by stating that she was using the word corpse in another manner. The aforementioned is probably what happened, admit it.

Although, I would like to point out: I don't necessarily see an issue with the individualization of nations due to the fact that only individuals tend to control them through the game mechanisms.

The word corpse has an automatic shock value? I think you guys need to get out more.

The sentence was "Going to wait for him to CTE or [sic] dance on his corpse?" Ceasing to exist is a game mechanic that affects nations. CTEing is effectively the death of a nation in game, all be it reversable. Judging by the context of the sentence, he was refering to the 'corpse' of the nation.

He was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole, nothing all that insulting. Insisting that it was some disrespectful insult is just plain silly.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

Granted, I don't know Swift's personal feelings on the matter, but I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader. That is precisely why I embraced it in an attempt to lessen the shock value of said comment. I'm also under the impression that afterwards, Wordy was called out on it by Swift; which then, Wordy tried to back out on it by stating that she was using the word corpse in another manner. The aforementioned is probably what happened, admit it.

Although, I would like to point out: I don't necessarily see an issue with the individualization of nations due to the fact that only individuals tend to control them through the game mechanisms.

The word corpse has an automatic shock value? I think you guys need to get out more.

The sentence was "Going to wait for him to CTE or [sic] dance on his corpse?" Ceasing to exist is a game mechanic that affects nations. CTEing is effectively the death of a nation in game, all be it reversable. Judging by the context of the sentence, he was refering to the 'corpse' of the nation.

He was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole, nothing all that insulting. Insisting that it was some disrespectful insult is just plain silly.

My favourite part about your post was when you straw manned me; by making up positions that I didn't take and then subsequently attacking said false positions. I didn't say anywhere in my post that I was insulted; nor did I say that the word corpse itself was shocking -- especially not intrinsically and/or disrespectfully shocking; although, on the latter claim I can kind of see the position. Thank you for making those parts up to only attack them -- thank you so much <3. Rather, I stated that the sentence used -- which contained the word corpse -- was rhetoric. Which is a position that even you hold by stating that they were, "exaggerating for effect." Thank you for agreeing with me on that point.

Now, I can see what you've stated could be the case; but, I find it to be implausible due to the fact that they stated that Halc' was also engaging in an act as if the nation were an individual. Simply put, I believe that Wordy is trying to cover themselves by violating a standard that they held and/or respect -- it's not that hard to admit. -_-' I don't find that to be a huge deal; rather, I find not admitting to it to be one.

[Zarvarza]

Raiding is only evil if your a socialist, like everything under control, and cant stand competition. Raiding, and defending create activity, thus is not evil. If anyone things raiding is evil then they HATE NationStates. Do you hate NationStates?

[Takaram]

Raiding is only evil if your a socialist, like everything under control, and cant stand competition. Raiding, and defending create activity, thus is not evil. If anyone things raiding is evil then they HATE NationStates. Do you hate NationStates?

Because that's not charging the issue at all.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Raiding is only evil if your a socialist, like everything under control, and cant stand competition. Raiding, and defending create activity, thus is not evil. If anyone things raiding is evil then they HATE NationStates. Do you hate NationStates?

I more or less agree with you, but you might as well have said "If you hate raiding, you hate puppies. You don't hate puppies, do you?" We can debate this issue without being snippy jerks to each other.

[Zarvarza]

Oh, and you clearly state that you have defended, which means you have also entered said 'weak' regions and imposed your will. how hypocritical.

The fact remains that NS suffered in activity after the creation of Influence because it made raiding more difficult. People left the game. Even now, NS is nothing but a empty mostly cracked easter egg shell of a game as it is because of all the advancees the 'unbias' mods have made in the game that largely are against raiding. If you hate nationstates, then please just say so, and leave, but dont get on here, pretend you care about NS, and then act like your holier than though, because you stubbed your toe a time or two defending.

[Takaram]

Oh, and you clearly state that you have defended, which means you have also entered said 'weak' regions and imposed your will. how hypocritical.

The fact remains that NS suffered in activity after the creation of Influence because it made raiding more difficult. People left the game. Even now, NS is nothing but a empty mostly cracked easter egg shell of a game as it is because of all the advancees the 'unbias' mods have made in the game that largely are against raiding. If you hate nationstates, then please just say so, and leave, but dont get on here, pretend you care about NS, and then act like your holier than though, because you stubbed your toe a time or two defending.

Funny, I've heard the same things said by defenders about the mods being biased, but it certainly wasn't bias in our favor. And like I said, way to charge the issue.