Citadel DOE

[Lehran]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324344677' post='2882242']
What is the point of a minister or even staff in an alliance?

edited
[/quote]

The point of staff in an alliance is to represent everyone's beliefs and provide a balance of power within leadership. Is RE ruled by one person alone?

[ADude]

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1324348325' post='2882282']
The point of staff in an alliance is to represent everyone's beliefs and provide a balance of power within leadership. Is RE ruled by one person alone?
[/quote]

Yes, The Emperor.

RE [b][u]is[/u][/b] a dictatorship

Edited December 20, 2011 by ADude

[Lehran]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324351216' post='2882307']
Yes, The Emperor.

RE [b][u]is[/u][/b] a dictatorship
[/quote]

Lol. Are members threatened with expulsion when their opinions differ from the Emperor? Is resigning an unfair position unacceptable?

[Mikeyrox]

I'd say the point of an officer and role of a ruler varies based on the type of alliance.

In democratic alliances, you are right. Rulers should have to follow the opinions of their members, and officers should have the power to force ideas through when a majority of them agree with it, even if a ruler doesn't, or if its what the general membership wants.

In non-democratic alliances, like (I assume) Kongs, or the Roman Empire, the role of the officer is to help the ruler govern, and offer suggestions. I agree that it is good for rulers to consider advice from their gov, but the last say in these types of alliances rests with the ruler. In RE, as ADude mentioned, the Emperor has the final say. The higher gov can make suggestions, disagree, and complain about things that we dont like, and generally emperors have been responsive to the voices of their gov and their members, but at the end of the day, the emperor has the final word, and can act unilaterally.

Personally I would suggest you try and find a democratically oriented alliance, or some sort of ologarchic alliance, where it isn't a democracy but the main ruler cant unilaterally overrule his gov. Judging from your posts that seems to be more what you are expecting, but it is important to remember that we all want different things out of our alliances, and some of us are content with benevolent dictatorships


Edit: Just saw the reply above.

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1324351786' post='2882313']
Lol. Are members threatened with expulsion when their opinions differ from the Emperor? Is resigning an unfair position unacceptable?
[/quote]

No, they aren't threatened with expulsion if they have differing views, however we make it clear that they have to comply with the emperors orders. If they dont like, say, our WC requirements, or they dont want to go to war with an alliance the emperor declares war on, that is their prerogative and they can say so, however they are still expected to comply. If they still refuse, they are booted, yes.


And regarding your issue with him kicking a member who didn't follow the guides. I dont know much about the exact situation, but I know that in RE as well, if you build really horribly, and you refuse to follow the advice we give you, you will be booted from the Empire. We, and Kong I bet as well, have nothing against noobs who are new to TE and dont play well - but we do play well, and we expect them to follow our advice and learn if they are apart of the alliance. I can see why Kong would kick a bad nation who was refusing to follow guides.


I have too much free time

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mikeyrox

[ADude]

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1324352683' post='2882325']

[/quote]

What he said..

[Lehran]

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1324352683' post='2882325']
I'd say the point of an officer and role of a ruler varies based on the type of alliance.

In democratic alliances, you are right. Rulers should have to follow the opinions of their members, and officers should have the power to force ideas through when a majority of them agree with it, even if a ruler doesn't, or if its what the general membership wants.

In non-democratic alliances, like (I assume) Kongs, or the Roman Empire, the role of the officer is to help the ruler govern, and offer suggestions. I agree that it is good for rulers to consider advice from their gov, but the last say in these types of alliances rests with the ruler. In RE, as ADude mentioned, the Emperor has the final say. The higher gov can make suggestions, disagree, and complain about things that we dont like, and generally emperors have been responsive to the voices of their gov and their members, but at the end of the day, the emperor has the final word, and can act unilaterally.

Personally I would suggest you try and find a democratically oriented alliance, or some sort of ologarchic alliance, where it isn't a democracy but the main ruler cant unilaterally overrule his gov. Judging from your posts that seems to be more what you are expecting, but it is important to remember that we all want different things out of our alliances, and some of us are content with benevolent dictatorships


Edit: Just saw the reply above.



No, they aren't threatened with expulsion if they have differing views, however we make it clear that they have to comply with the emperors orders. If they dont like, say, our WC requirements, or they dont want to go to war with an alliance the emperor declares war on, that is their prerogative and they can say so, however they are still expected to comply. If they still refuse, they are booted, yes.


And regarding your issue with him kicking a member who didn't follow the guides. I dont know much about the exact situation, but I know that in RE as well, if you build really horribly, and you refuse to follow the advice we give you, you will be booted from the Empire. We, and Kong I bet as well, have nothing against noobs who are new to TE and dont play well - but we do play well, and we expect them to follow our advice and learn if they are apart of the alliance. I can see why Kong would kick a bad nation who was refusing to follow guides.


I have too much free time
[/quote]

Kong's alliance is a dictatorship, but he doesn't view it as such. He calls it a "community" where he has all the power to govern. When he first offered me the position of Officer, the things that he made clear to me did not match up with my real experience in his alliance. I don't think it is fair when an Officer can be threatened with expulsion when he offers "too many" opinions that aren't exactly the same as kong's. I have lead my own alliance(s) before, and I never ran it like a dictatorship. I personally feel that it is much better in everyone's interest to have the views of the populace represented and not just the iron will of one person. That goes for reality as well.

Regarding James Aquinas - he did not "refuse" to follow guides as far as I know, he just didn't follow them since he was new and probably didn't know they existed. Kong just said that he might as well leave.

I have nothing against RE whatsoever, and if you acknowledge yourself as a dictatorship, then so be it. I find fault with kong’s Citadel because he gives the appearance of a friendly, community-based alliance but he enforces personal rules such as how I “must” do my duties a certain way and that I can’t do anything my way whatsoever. Additionally, again, any dissenting opinion from kong’s opinions only generates negative feedback and a “please shut up” kind of response whereas in other alliances ruled by one person, that one person was still reasonable and willing to accept suggestions. That is why I found Citadel different from other alliances.

[Thomasj_tx]

It sounds like your parting ways was the best outcome for both of you.

[Lehran]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324398783' post='2882585']
It sounds like your parting ways was the best outcome for both of you.
[/quote]

Yes it was. However, I just don't understand why I was booted only AFTER I resigned as an officer.

[paul711]

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1324399005' post='2882588']
Yes it was. However, I just don't understand why I was booted only AFTER I resigned as an officer.
[/quote]
Because you dared to stand up to the evil Kong.

Death to tyrants and emperors

Edited December 20, 2011 by paul711

[Serkr]

This was never about the way Kong runs Citadel, Neo. You were simply selfish. You were named as the heir and were an officer. You were exempt from the "one raid only" policy, but saw fit to use up all your war slots (thereby neutralising your ability to defend the alliance) and declared on another aa of your own accord. These aren't the actions of a member that has the alliance's best interests at heart, all you did was for you and you alone. We were just a means to an end so you could get to the top spot, why else would you donate your nation all the way up there?

If you disagree with the way Kong is running things, fine, that's your opinion. But don't pretend this is some sort of crusade against tyranny, you want the top spot and couldn't give a steaming sh*t what happens to the aa that has you.

EDIT: Just fyi, on IRC somebody suggested booting someone else out of the aa cos they weren't making any growth or following guides. Kong was the first person to say it would be better to give them a chance. I can only say from my own experience, but Kong has always seemed reasonable to me. Perhaps raiding an 18-member aa and using up your slots was not the way to have your opinions heard, Neo.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Serkr

[Lehran]

[quote name='Serkr' timestamp='1324400915' post='2882610']
This was never about the way Kong runs Citadel, Neo. You were simply selfish. You were named as the heir and were an officer. You were exempt from the "one raid only" policy, but saw fit to use up all your war slots (thereby neutralising your ability to defend the alliance) and declared on another aa of your own accord. These aren't the actions of a member that has the alliance's best interests at heart, all you did was for you and you alone. We were just a means to an end so you could get to the top spot, why else would you donate your nation all the way up there?

If you disagree with the way Kong is running things, fine, that's your opinion. But don't pretend this is some sort of crusade against tyranny, you want the top spot and couldn't give a steaming sh*t what happens to the aa that has you.

EDIT: Just fyi, on IRC somebody suggested booting someone else out of the aa cos they weren't making any growth or following guides. Kong was the first person to say it would be better to give them a chance. I can only say from my own experience, but Kong has always seemed reasonable to me. Perhaps raiding an 18-member aa and using up your slots was not the way to have your opinions heard, Neo.
[/quote]

I never seek the flag. Are you going to pick on me because I can build? In any case, I think this will be proven soon.

Kong purposefully kept me as an officer and not deputy because he didn't want me to have any power. As far as the raiding is concerned, 3-4 people complained about the rule and that's why it was changed. By the way, when I raided DF I only had that one raid.

If you really think all I care about is the flag, think again. Why would I resign from Citadel, which isn't going to war anytime soon, and join Warriors, which is an alliance dedicated to war? Because I know Clash is a better leader and more reasonable friend. I assure you, and others can back me up, that the flag has never been my goal.

Concernng James Aquinas, that post by kong was in officer forums so you don't have the full story. If he would kindly SS the post, he said he didn't care if James left while I posted that he should be given a chance. Get your facts straight before making an accusation, please.

Edited December 20, 2011 by NeoGandalf

[Serkr]

My comment wasn't about James.

Actions speak louder than words. You raided nations not on the 'none' aa more than once (and not just single-man alliances) and used up all your war slots at one point. That shows a complete lack of commitment to defending the alliance. You donated to get to the top. I think that speaks for itself.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Serkr

[Confusion]

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1324406401' post='2882661']
I never seek the flag. Are you going to pick on me because [b]I can build[/b]? In any case, I think this will be proven soon.



[/quote]

Stopped here, and I laughed. And then, while I was replying, I laughed again.


Just remember, she's just not that into you & when she's this hot, you only get one shot. Furthermore, nice AA choice (serious)... if you're really interested in democratic govs, helping newbs etc... then you'll enjoy it there- and yes, Clash knows what he's doing, just ask for his advice on building. It's unfortunate Clash wants to fight Duckroll because we love each other

So yeah... maybe after the NAP- We both just got out of wars, so yeah- Anyways, off topic... Enjoy christmas/new years.

[Confusion]

Also, yes- everybody hates kong.

Lastly, paul: Stop describing our relationship

[Lehran]

[quote name='Serkr' timestamp='1324409315' post='2882695']
My comment wasn't about James.

Actions speak louder than words. You raided nations not on the 'none' aa more than once (and not just single-man alliances) and used up all your war slots at one point. That shows a complete lack of commitment to defending the alliance. You donated to get to the top. I think that speaks for itself.
[/quote]

Lol, so just because I donated, I want the flag? There are plenty of people who donate, and anyways I bought the donation in SE, which isn't hard to do.

In what situation was it necessary to defend the alliance? I don't recall us getting attacked at any point. And just because kong doesn't like raiding doesn't mean others can't do it... It's a personal choice, and I take the risk upon myself. Also, I had only one raid when he complained about it.

Confusion, we've already had private discussions and there's no need for you to bring this here. You aren't involved in this argument.

Edited December 20, 2011 by NeoGandalf

[paul711]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324411913' ]

Lastly, paul: Stop describing our relationship
[/quote]
No idea what you are on about here but ok

[Clash]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324411841' post='2882721']It's unfortunate Clash wants to fight Duckroll because we love each other [/quote]
I totally skipped this part the first time because I was drooling on your avatar.

[kongland]

The main issue here is not about my methods, but about why you've been sacked.
The point here is you were sacked because you were lying and not fulfilling your own promises to follow the rules.
OK, where to begin..
In the end of the last round Rocketship was raided by a nuclear-capable rogue.
I've contacted a few of our top members, including Lehran, about countering him. Lehran joned us in the last two weeks.
Lehran responded, that he is still in anarchy and won't be able to attack.
I was the only one who managed to attack him before and after update. TheBadWolfGR joined me a few minutes later and roger a hours later.
When there were only 2 of us countering and one slot was still available, I've had a look at Lehran's nation and saw that he attacked 3 weak nations - he was raiding instead of helping Rocketship.
That was the first warning sign for me, but I wasn't sure. Yet. I always give people a chance.
Next - if you look at our application form, you can see, that each applicant is promising to follow our rules. The promise was broken.
I was flexible and changed rules for you. Still, you've broken everything you could by raiding 18 members alliances and a bit smaller before that ( 9 members) like a lunatic.
In my last pm I gave you the last chance, but you've resigned from the gov. with "do it yourself" smirk. I've been doing it all the time before you came, btw - and your performance was less than satisfactory. From content of your response I relaized, that you'd stay the same selfish rotten member you are.
I see Paul is your soul-mate - the same lying and creepy creature.
You are both a liability both to your AAs and TE in general.
PAul, you are no gentleman. I've approached you recently with an agreement to leave each other alone and go our won ways. You response was: ok, grudges require too much enerfy. What did you do? Put all your crap around me.

Oh yes - if I'm so bad, why don't you celebrate instead of whining, Lehran? You don't like the alliance i've created? Create own.
Now, get off my lawn, both of you....

Edited December 21, 2011 by kongland

[Thomasj_tx]

To be honest, I have never watched a Soap Opera, but this one is actually entertaining. I'm on the edge of my seat.

[kongland]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324433366' post='2882953']
To be honest, I have never watched a Soap Opera, but this one is actually entertaining. I'm on the edge of my seat.
[/quote]
Yes, me too, Thomas. If this Leahran...decided to mess up with me OWF, I'll go all the way for many rounds. Not just verbally

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324433366' post='2882953']
To be honest, I have never watched a Soap Opera, but this one is actually entertaining. I'm on the edge of my seat.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.nationofblue.com/content/attachments/8101d1316262478-move-along.jpg[/img]

[Lehran]

As for last round, I was in nuke anarchy due to PS, and by the day I got out you three were already all hitting Stoopid Ace, so what was I to do, take the fourth slot? Please.

Concerning this round: it was never stated to me the size of the alliance that could be raided, and I only followed the example of a LoSS member (a white team alliance which is friendly to you). Your rules are not flexible. As you said, you kicked me for resigning as Officer (and not before that). That shows just how much you expect from people while giving nothing in return. You didn't consult the other officers, or asked members about what they ever thought. All you wanted was for me to use your forums and not google docs or ingame or whatever the case may be. And you were very rude at that: "just do it please or you're out, it's not a request". Those are your words.

And you probably shouldn't make sweeping generalizations. I have never talked with Paul before, but he seems to share the same opinion of you. And you are the first person I've met that has demanded so much (remember, I just came back to TE) and allowed so little. I'm not saying anything bad about Citadel as an alliance, but about your policies regarding members who don't agree with you. Like you said, our opinions aren't always the same. The solution? Kick me from your alliance.

As for the assertion that I do this because I'm a selfish flag runner... Well, that has never been and never will be true. I do not seek the flag.

Edited December 21, 2011 by NeoGandalf

[Lehran]

I have proposed to kong that any more grievances between us be taken privately, since he has gone to personal insults, describing paul711 and me as "lying, selfish, creepy creatures" despite the fact that he does not know either of us in real life. We have our own world of existences and families outside of the game. I'd appreciate if verbal insults are kept within the boundaries of the game, and not personal. I don't want to fight a verbal war with you, so let's make it private from now on.

[kongland]

I never said you were flagrunning. However, you keep bringing in your lies or at least bending the truth.
I'd recommend you complain to Clash from now on - he is your boss now. He is much more patient than I am - with people like yourself.

[Thomasj_tx]

Please don't tell me that the Soap Opera is going to be cancelled!