StarGateWars Forums

ex·tort
To wrongfully take something of value from another by the threat of force or other coercive measure.

So lots of talk about extortion in various threads, past and present. So I figured the community could talk about it together and perhaps even share their views, opinions and even examples.

guilty conscience?

Forgotten serenity is my definition.

But seriously tho, anyone who either 1.

Demand's for reperations/tributes to be made well in excess of costs sustained or the opponents ability to pay without jepordising their account.

or 2.

Threaten to mass / destroy someone unless they get X resources off of them.

or 3.

Asking for rates on goods way over market rates, I,e that guy who wanted me to give him 25 tril naq for a USS, that sir is extortion aswell.

12.

"What is your definition of extortion"?

Having to give guards your PX money to avoid placement.

Most common definition in my opinion, is when person A, in "dominating" position, asks person B to give him/her money, infos or anything with worthness, in exchange of not revealing what person B hides to justice or anyone else/anything that makes person B hide it from them, or in exchange of person A not doing "bad" things to person B (mafia). The extortionner is in position to dictate the rules.
To sum it up: "Give me this, and I won't do that, if you don't give this, I'll do that"

This is a verry clear answer:

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from another person

In my eyes this also applies ingame.. HOWEVER, if for example an alliance demands repairs because you attacked one of their members while your alliance and the victims alliance have a NAP, it is not extorting... it even seems normal to me.

Having a dictionary day, are we Paul?


Biohazard said it right, imo. Well said, mate.

Yes, that was more simple than mine.

Ok Paul I will humor you because I appreciate you on a higher level than most.

The word extortion as defined above may not be appropriate for many of the circumstances and avenues of repayment or reparations or restorations in game. I dare say that some new vocabulary may be needed sooo lets define these with a little more clarity for the sake of the game.

some circumstances that may need definition

1, Player A makes a naq hit on player B , player A wants naq back and repairs.


2, Player A makes a naq hit on Player B who is in a war in a war with 0 def. Player A wants his/her naq back.


3, Player A makes a number of naq hits on alliance of player B , player's B ask for naq and repairs.

I could go on but think you get the point.There are any number of situations that arise where a player could ask for what was taken to be returned. These situations may or may not be defined as extortion.


I think the problems arise when threats follow or hostile actions are included with request for repayment

For example:
Player A makes a naq hit on player B, Player B asks for naq back or will mass player A if not repayed.

Now because there are no set guidelines for acceptable amounts of repayment and players are free to demand what ever amount they choose some may go to the extreme and ask for unreasonable amounts.

Player A a 5 mil army , makes a naq hit on Player B a 125 mill army , Player B demands an amount unreasonable and possibly unattainable for player A lets say 1 mill uu or 1 trill, Causing undue hardship for player A. In turn Player A refuses or simply can not attain these funds and is threatened by player B who can undoubtedly destroy player A.


OR lets take into account a recent situation.

Player A , makes a couple of naq hits on player B. Player A refuses to repay player B because player B had an insufficient def to protect funds from Player A , Player B and associates mass player A and associates of player A , who are much smaller than player B. Player B then demands repairs and return for the funds used to mass player A and associates. Players A suffer undue hardship in an attempt to pay what is asked as players B are more powerful and are threatening to continue hostilities.



Extortion is only one word and has been used to define many situations in game. I agree that this one word may not be appropriate for all situations and look forward to clarification on these issues.


My personal opinion is when player A asks for funds that are unrealistic and causes undue hardship for player B followed by and including threats and or preemptive hostilities on player B. That is extortion.

My definition applies then, because as I said, the one in dominating position dictates the rules and forces the other to pay him/her otherwise actions will be taken against bullied player.

But...outside of that one, we can come around another thing.
It has been issued alot of times:

Situation 1
Alliance A declares war on Alliance B. After fightings done, Alliance A happens to win. They ask repair funds from defeated ones.

Situation 2
Alliance C declares war on Alliance D. After fightings done, Alliance D happens to win. They ask repair funds from defeated ones.

It APPEARS to be the same. But if you take into consideration on first part the ones who did strike, win. On second one, the targets won.
Sure, we can talk of why war was declared etc...but let's think about it...which one is fair, which one isn't?

I would say, without considering specific parameters that happen to change the analysis of the two above situations, that situation 1 is wrong. Situation 2 is right.

By that I mean, acceptable or not.

its a war game and the whole point is to attack each other
if everyone threatens everyone esle with massing if they get hit for a few bill naq then what will the point of the game be??

how much i dislike it, its part of the game.

Bigger people have always been extorting the little people, its natural selection.

the part that worries me and would really take the fun out of this game is a situation like alliance A says alliance B has to repay them for damages or they will ''sit'' on their account. this is aparently acceptable stratagy but what if the player isnt aware of a war and takes no ''knowing'' part in it and also has no way of repaying the damanded amount. yes they make a few hits but its only for farming not battle. they are labeled as vultures. when a smaller player see's a lot of naq sitting out of course they will make a run at it. extortion has too many variables to truly define in a war game because there are so many opinions when the war is over to really see what would be a fair surrender. personally i wouldnt pay simply because they won, its war, if i attack a well defended army i suffer damages also with no recourse to get my damages back. why pay double? just my opinion but war itself is a form of extortion simply by its own definition.

phantom1967b wrote:the part that worries me and would really take the fun out of this game is a situation like alliance A says alliance B has to repay them for damages or they will ''sit'' on their account. this is aparently acceptable stratagy but what if the player isnt aware of a war and takes no ''knowing'' part in it and also has no way of repaying the damanded amount. yes they make a few hits but its only for farming not battle. they are labeled as vultures. when a smaller player see's a lot of naq sitting out of course they will make a run at it. extortion has too many variables to truly define in a war game because there are so many opinions when the war is over to really see what would be a fair surrender. personally i wouldnt pay simply because they won, its war, if i attack a well defended army i suffer damages also with no recourse to get my damages back. why pay double? just my opinion but war itself is a form of extortion simply by its own definition.

I agree, if alliance A declares war on alliance B, then wins against B, and says enemy has to pay back damages...wth?
It's alliance A's fault if they lost stuff by waring, not alliance B's!!
This isn't in effect if alliance B pushed constantly alliance A to have them declaring war. And then alliance A: the provoked ones (even if they declared war, before war-actions made them be inaccurate to be representing first mentionned exemple's alliance A) winning the war and asking compensations from alliance B. Then, it would be ok.

The main criticisms of war reparations have historically been:

* that they are punitive measures against the populace of the losing side only, rather than against the belligerent side, which may be the side that justly ought to make amends.
* that in very many instances, the defeated populace's government waged war, and the people themselves had little or no role in deciding to wage war, and therefore war reparations are imposed on innocent people.
* that after years of war, the populace of the losing side is likely already impoverished, and the imposition of war reparations therefore may drive the people into deeper poverty, both fueling long-term resentment of the victor and making the actual payments unlikely.

John Maynard Keynes claimed that overall influence on the world economy would have been disastrous.

Some critics hold that war reparations were an indirect, but major, cause of World War II. After the end of World War I, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles imposed heavy war reparations upon Germany. Some claim these reparations payments exacerbated German economic problems, and the resulting hyperinflation ruined the chances of the Weimar Republic with the public and allowed the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. Others point to the fact that post-World War II reparations were calculated on the basis of the damages caused by Germans during World War I. After the Franco-Prussian War, the amount of reparations amount was set at a fixed value. Moreover, the post-World War I amount was subject to frequent recalculations, which encouraged Germany to obstruct payments. Eventually, all payments were cancelled after Hitler rose to power.

The experience of the post-World War I reparations led to the post-World War II solution, where winning powers were supposed to take reparations in machines and movable goods from the defeated nations, as opposed to money.