Augustus Autumn

The world would just not be right without some sort of drama surrounding TGE and being vented on the OWF. Points to Heinrich for jacking Freddie's avatar, by the by. In all seriousness, good to see TGE coming up in the world.

All hail our terrible lizard overlords, especially Vice Mayor Gloin the Cruel!

Very nicely put. I doubt you'll see any avoidance of such tactics going forward since, ultimately, using analogies and then arguing over their validity is a great way to side-track any discussion into oblivion and thus avoid it all-together. Still, this post is definitely worth keeping around as a future reference point.

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1329947105' post='2925735'] What happens if [i]your member[/i] approaches a member of an alliance not on that list and agrees to a tech deal, do you still feel they have the right to renege on any agreement made? In this instance the agreement would not be unsolicited but the party in question may not have been approved by your government. [/quote] Considering your stipulation that such a tech deal would, in fact, be solicited I don't think this policy would cover such a situation.

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329926141' post='2925576'] Well, no, not really. The policy technically states that UE accepts all non-authorized foreign aid offers as donations, which is to say, if you send UE a tech deal and you're not on their white-list, their alliance policy is that they are actually encouraged to accept it and just run off with the money.[/quote] I think there's a difference between a refusal to gaurantee and encouragement to defraud. I've bolded what I think is the pertinent section below. [quote]Any member of a non-approved alliance who sends [b]unsolicited financial aid offers [/b]to member states of United Equestria, with the intent to initiate a tech deal or other financial transaction, will be considered to have made a donation to United Equestria. Each nation fitting the above description, and who makes unsolicited donations to member states of United Equestria, agrees and consents that they are making a charitable donation to said member states of United Equestria, regardless of any statements filed in the "Foreign Aid Reason" field or any preceding or subsequent unsolicited private messages, and that they neither expect nor demand any return of technology for their generous donations.[/quote] The way that I read this, if UE has not actually solicited the deal and/or the alliance sending the deal is not on their approved list, then if the deal goes south UE government refuses to validate the deal and be held responsible for it. While it's quite possible that, behind the scenes, UE gov is teling their people to proverbially chew-and-screw the buyers, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume something else is motivating this. [quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329926141' post='2925576'] This is something new for CN. Previously, alliances have refused to guarantee the payment of their sellers. This is novel in that if you send tech outside their white-list, their members are encouraged to run off with your money. It is a provocative move, although I do think there are reasons they feel they can get away with it. [/quote] I'm not going to disagree with you that this is new. I just think it's a bit of a jump to demonize UE for taking a radical stance on tech dealing without seeing the long-term effects. As I said above, if alliances don't like this policy then they shouldn't deal with UE. If they end up getting the short end of the stick from a UE tech dealer then they know to take their bussiness elsewhere. [size="1"]Insert shameless tech deal offer here[/size]

If you're so put off by an alliance's refusing to guarantee their members' tech deals, don't tech deal with the alliance. Seems simple enough to me.

Jerge, like I said to Roq, methodology aside good on your for doing what you feel is right. Personally, I couldn't agree more with your view of the state of interpersonal relations at this level of CN. The message will be ignored for the most part and the messenger will be shot, but it needed to be said.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1329783415' post='2924851'] Thanks, Gerard. [/quote] It's spelled with two "r"s. Nobody ever gets that right . [b]Edit:[/b] Well, three if you want to get technical. [b]Second Edit:[/b] You're welcome, Roq. We should chat sometime when we're both free.

I don't think the message has failed to get across, Roq. While there has not been a massive public falling out (yet) around this issue, there may very well be machinations behind the scene which you are not able to see. Not to hammer on a tired meme, but everything done around these parts is handled in the oh-so-loved private channels. Barring another Karma-like expression of outrage, the seeds that you've sown will only flower after time has passed (assuming that they flower at all). Methodology aside, good on you for doing what you felt needed to be done.

Congratulations to our Austrian allies.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1329625862' post='2923812'] If you think that wasn't intentional and something I told several people who asked me for it before, then ha. Like I said, keep goading me. It's usually a bad idea. 1337 guy knows what I have. Archon knows what I have. At the end of the day, they shouldn't play with fire. Did I not say I didn't want to have to do it? [/quote] Roq, in all honesty, this is one of those situations where your credibility with the community is now on the line. Should you produce the evidence you've hinted at, you'll be validated. If you don't, then this hate parade will continue until you're forgotten by the community at large. I'm not going to bother advocating one direction or the other, I'm just laying it out on the very slim chance that you haven't reached this conclusion yourself.

Definitely worth checking out the alliance.

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1329610942' post='2923648'] It's more like: "Remember that I used to be in the old crowd, not the multiple times I folded like a lawn chair when I caught a whiff of trouble." [/quote] I guess sometimes it's more fun to remember 2009 than to actually attempt to do something productive. Sorry to hear your time in the sun is over, Londo, but that doesn't mean the world is going to end. Bigger and better have come and gone before you.

All I'm really taking from this argument, Londo, is that things were better "back in the day" and that nobody can possibly be as cool as the old crowd. If there's a more blatant attempt at dissuading others to even bother trying, I'm not sure I've seen it.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329269707' post='2920755'] There is a clear difference between lauding a post and highlighting its strengths and whatnot, as that itself can add to the discussion. But putting words into the opposition's mouth (justified or not (I say not, but I don't care enough to argue it)) is one of the most annoying possible ways to do so. [/quote] It was less to put words into the mouth of the opposition, as it were, and more a general commentary. Were I or anyone to take the time to find them, every thread has a post which could be used to point out the community's trend of ignoring fact in favor of point-scoring and hype.