[Walford]

For quite some time now, a system of nation/alliance association has been arbitrarily fabricated and imposed upon us by a minority without majority consent and I am here to tell you that you need not abide by it.

What we are supposed to do is publicly announce that we belong to a group, wear the name of it like targets on our nations and also post a list of all of our affiliated groups. The purpose of this is so aggressors can know who is safe to attack and who can be subject to collective punishment if it so amuses them.

Of course, the non-aligned are not supposed to defend themselves if attacked. If they dare to defend each other, the defenders are to be subject to perma-ZI for their outrage of not accepting their roles as Designated Victims.

So be it. As the majority, I suggest you do not conform to this. Associate as you see fit and publicize your ties [or not] as you see fit. Let aggressors find out the hard way who your friends are and how many. If they punish you and yours for this, fight back. Hard. Let them pay dearly for enforcing this aggressor-friendly alliance system that you had no voice in creating.

You are sovereign nations, but will need to fight to assert it and be willing to sacrifice to preserve it. The more of us who do this, the sooner this absurd alliance system erodes.

It is better to be smaller and preserve your integrity than participate in setting you and your allies up for aggressors' convenience.

[Lord Boris]

*Lord Boris facepalms

Walford, you just failed again.

[Ephriam Grey]

Walford, on Apr 16 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

For quite some time now, a system of nation/alliance association has been arbitrarily fabricated and imposed upon us by a minority without majority consent and I am here to tell you that you need not abide by it.

What we are supposed to do is publicly announce that we belong to a group, wear the name of it like targets on our nations and also post a list of all of our affiliated groups. The purpose of this is so aggressors can know who is safe to attack and who can be subject to collective punishment if it so amuses them.

Of course, the non-aligned are not supposed to defend themselves if attacked. If they dare to defend each other, the defenders are to be subject to perma-ZI for their outrage of not accepting their roles as Designated Victims.

So be it. As the majority, I suggest you do not conform to this. Associate as you see fit and publicize your ties [or not] as you see fit. Let aggressors find out the hard way who your friends are and how many. If they punish you and yours for this, fight back. Hard. Let them pay dearly for enforcing this aggressor-friendly alliance system that you had no voice in creating.

You are sovereign nations, but will need to fight to assert it and be willing to sacrifice to preserve it. The more of us who do this, the sooner this absurd alliance system erodes.

It is better to be smaller and preserve your integrity than participate in setting you and your allies up for aggressors' convenience.

And thus, Walford, we come across the difference in our mindsets. I do not support tech raiding, Walford, I personally think it is a silly practice.

But I do not think that you, nor anyone, has a right to shove their ideals down the throats of other sovereign alliances. And that's exactly what you've dedicated yourself to doing.

Walford, this is not how you create change in the world. You can only force your beliefs so far, and for you, that has never been very far at all. If you wish to make change in the world, you must be the change you wish to see.

I believe in leading by example. You believe that everyone should conform to your ideals because you believe they are correct.

This is why you have failed thus far in your mission.

[Ephriam Grey]

Lord Boris, on Apr 16 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

*Lord Boris facepalms

Walford, you just failed again.

*Ephriam Grey also facepalms.

Also, Walford, this really should be in academic forums.

[Benjamin Smythe]

*Benjamin Smythe facepalms.

I'd quote Father Jack, but as most of his words are defined as cursing and the Makers would not approve of such foul language. Indeed, they would smite me.

[Ogodai]

I don't think you'll find many people that agree with you, Walford. Good luck I guess.

[andyt2k]

Or people can just go to red, then they'll be protected from raids.


Ooooohhhh i see wat i did thar

[Baron Terror]

Isn't this pretty much the same thing you wrote the last 10-20 times? If it didn't work then why would it work now?

[Benjamin Smythe]

andyt2k, on Apr 16 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

Or people can just go to red, then they'll be protected from raids.


Ooooohhhh i see wat i did thar

The word "Hail" comes to mind.

o/ Andy

[Zulchep]

Ogodai, on Apr 16 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

I don't think you'll find many people that agree with you, Walford. Good luck I guess.

But that would involve being on the same team as that horrible ol' NPO! Pacifica is evil and tech-raiding is the tool of graverobbers. No one but the illustrious St. Walford can show us the way!

[Walford]

Ephriam Grey, on Apr 16 2008, 09:46 AM, said:

...I do not think that you, nor anyone, has a right to shove their ideals down the throats of other sovereign alliances. And that's exactly what you've dedicated yourself to doing.

Walford, this is not how you create change in the world. You can only force your beliefs so far, and for you, that has never been very far at all. If you wish to make change in the world, you must be the change you wish to see.

Let me get this straight. I point out that we are all operating under an alliance system that was not agreed-upon by the majority. I explain that it serves the interests of aggressors and suggest an alternative. Then I suggest that those who do not agree with this alliance system fight to resist it. This means to you that I am shoving my ideals down throats?

Ephriam Grey, on Apr 16 2008, 09:46 AM, said:

.I believe in leading by example. You believe that everyone should conform to your ideals because you believe they are correct.

Oh? I have not been doing as I suggest for well over a year now and helping many others to do the same? Why do you think my nation is so small, hm? I and others have resisted the current alliance system for some time now and have paid dearly for it.

What have you done to protect the religion of aggression except hide behind the skirts of your sponsors?

This post has been edited by Walford: 16 April 2008 - 07:45 AM

[Henry]

Just go to red...

[Walford]

Lord Boris, on Apr 16 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

*Lord Boris facepalms

Walford, you just failed again.

You have given no indication that you have even read my statement. You could basically make the same post for anything I have to say. Is that something you promise yourself to do? Please explain why this is not troll.

[bill n ted]

Was there a point you were trying to make?


OOC: I think IRON just found a candidate for 'Person who should be banned from the internet for their own good' in the IRON festival....

[Hymenbreach]

The essential problem with your argument is that you fail to see that the alliance system has evolved from the unaligned system.

Is this good? No, nor bad, it just is. If we went back to all being unaligned, then friends would collect into micro alliances out of mutual friendship or ideals and those micro alliances would collect like sand dunes into bigger alliances and bingo, back where we started.

If you want some kind of world wide 'ban' on techraiding, that would be a different thing, but unlikely to be agreed on. But maybe a discussion could be started? Or unaligned nations could go to red (or any other colour, should that decide to operate a similar scheme).

[Lord Boris]

Walford, on Apr 16 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

You have given no indication that you have even read my statement. You could basically make the same post for anything I have to say. Is that something you promise yourself to do? Please explain why this is not troll.

The alliance system is the way it is because it was generally thought to be a good idea. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't see such widespread use and support. People in CN are not the mindless sheep you seem to take them for Walford.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Walford, you just failed again.

[Benjamin Smythe]

He was trying to claim that alliances are Satanist Spawn from the Seventh Layer.

But, of course, Walford's words fall on deaf ears and the owners of the ears try to remind him of such a fact, yet he refuses to listen.

[Ephriam Grey]

Walford, on Apr 16 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

Oh? I have not been doing as I suggest for well over a year now and helping many others to do the same? Why do you think my nation is so small, hm? I and others have resisted the current alliance system for some time now and have paid dearly for it.

Exactly, Walford. Thank you for proving my point.

You fight against the system. I respect every alliance's sovereignty, and right to tech raid. This is the world we live in.

I don't try to force alliances to stop tech raiding. You do.

Walford, on Apr 16 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

What have you done to protect the religion of aggression except hide behind the skirts of your sponsors?

What have I done to protect it? Nothing, I do not believe it should be protected.

What I have done, Walford, is expressed my beliefs through the medium of my alliance and my words. No, I have not created any change, but neither have you. And perhaps one day, our policy on tech raiding will influence some other alliance.

You, however, will not.

[Arciel]

You will never be able to erode/abolish this "absurd" alliance system. Nations will band together and they will eventually act under this alliance system that you so abhor.

[Njord]

Arciel, on Apr 16 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

You will never be able to erode/abolish this "absurd" alliance system. Nations will band together and they will eventually act under this alliance system that you so abhor.

^This.
and quite frankly I see no issues with the alliance structure.

on a side note: Interesting choice of avatar Walford.