Jump to content
  • entries
    12
  • comments
    152
  • views
    8,939

Forced Disbandment Hurr Hurr Durr


New Frontier

385 views

1. If you refuse to pay reps, you aren't being "forced to disband". You're just unreasonable. There is no rule that states an alliance has to give you whatever terms you deign to accept, and if they don't then they're the New Hegemony.

2. You can't be forced to disband. If such a thing were possible there would be no FAN, there would have been no Vox coming into the Karma War. You can be put in a !@#$%* situation, and such a situation may make disbandment an attractive option, but you cannot be forced to disband.

3. Carlos Accord jokes aren't funny.

26 Comments


Recommended Comments



Nobody has ever been forced to disband. Ever.

But yet Doom House et. al. continue to tell everybody about how the evil NPO would go back to disbanding people if Doom House wasn't so kind to curbstomp them to keep them from power.

Also, Carlos Accords jokes are more then funny, they are deep, meaningful, and generally life-changing for anybody who hears them. Thats how big we are, and how important our movement is.

Link to comment

As a former member of a forcefully disbanded alliance I beg to differ on number 2. While an alliance always chooses to disband, there is a very distinct line that the attackers cross.

Link to comment

What do you do when there is a camper in a good spot with a couple of run-n-gunners as backup? Quit playing, toss your controller and move on to solitaire? Or do you figure out a way to get to that sum!@#$%*?

Link to comment

As a former member of a forcefully disbanded alliance I beg to differ on number 2. While an alliance always chooses to disband, there is a very distinct line that the attackers cross.

As the kids like to say: "QFT."

The fact that it's not possible for someone to reach through their screen and physically force others to delete/change AA's does not mean that it's impossible to compel such actions.

Look what happened in Norden Verein. After having lost much of their membership through surrenders and bill-lock and deletion, the remainder were told that not only must they disband but that they must also abandon their domain name or face the prospect of having the remaining current and former NoV members attacked in perpetuity as suspected "plotters" against TPF and their friends. (And amazingly, although the TOS says they shouldn't have, Slayer & Co. got away with this rather direct interference with someone else's enjoyment of RL property.)

Not harsh enough?

How about chasing down personal information on various players and then making/threatening to make that available to others. Is that bad enough to merit being called 'force' yet?

A lot of people in NoV left CN and never came back because of those threats. Nobody 'forced' them to, in the same way that someone being robbed at gunpoint always has the choice of saying "No" and accepting the consequences of that.

Link to comment

If they refuse to pay reps and you decide to punish them by killing the alliance thats your decision not theirs. If the reps are so high the only option is to keep fighting until destruction the reps that were set are the reason an alliance is on a path to their destruction/disbandment. If you give reps that are too high to pay and when the reps are not accepted you decide to kill the alliance, thats all you. It is an attempted forced disbandment or forced disbandment if it works and its the fault of the alliance in control of the situation.

Link to comment

While this is technically true, it is also a load of crock. An attacking alliance, if it has the weight behind it, can deny peace for as long as it wants. It can refuse to give reasonable terms (I'm not saying reps, but absurd reps which would take forever to pay, decom wonders, decom improvements, etc.), or it could refuse to give any terms at all.

Yes, the alliance could fight it out. But for how long? A month? Six months? A year? Two? Quite frankly, not everyone is FAN. While I can respect their determination, not everyone is going to want to hunker down for as long as they did. Ultimately this is a game, and people want to get out of the war eventually and do other things. That is why some alliances really are given no alternative.

Link to comment

1.) I agree. It's about as stupid as calling a single ZI sentence an eternal ZI and thus "unacceptable", just because the target chose not to willingly reach ZI. Off topic, yes, but same principal.

2.) Technically you are right, you can only be forced into bill-lock, and deletion, but you can still come back and fly the same AA.

Link to comment

While point two is technically true you can apply that to any term. You can't force anyone to pay you reps either but if the alternative to paying is worse they might do it anyway, same deal with disbandment. We could argue that nobody is ever forced by anyone to do anything which is actually a line that npo argued back in their glory days to claim that they never forced anyone to pay them anything. I don't really think it holds up though.

Link to comment

forced disbandment is possible, and does happen, but only under certain circumstances.

Not every alliance that disbands while at war was forced to disband.

A forced disbandment is one where:

1) the besieged alliance is offered no potential path to peace

or

2) The besieged alliance is offered only a path to peace that would largely cripple or fundamentally change the alliance.

An alliance that refuses a surrender term, leading to the war being continued, is not being forced to disband by any definition, unless the surrender term they refuse is impossible or near-impossible to achieve.

Claiming that an alliance is committing forced disbandment because you didn't accept a peace term that it was within your power to conform to is like saying that the library is forcing you to go to jail because you refused to pay your fines for two years and eventually they called the police.

Feel free to keep fighting if you find the offered terms unfair and you think you can negotiate better, but recognize your own part in such a choice.

Link to comment

An alliance that refuses a surrender term, leading to the war being continued, is not being forced to disband by any definition, unless the surrender term they refuse is impossible or near-impossible to achieve.

As far as I've heard that's not the case here: Xiph ultimate goal, stemming from his ulterior motives, is the disbandment of UPN.

In my eyes this is deplorable and should be made punishable by admin. Making the game impossible to play for others, forcing rerolls to ZI etc, is just the poorest of forms.

Link to comment

Claiming that an alliance is committing forced disbandment because you didn't accept a peace term that it was within your power to conform to is like saying that the library is forcing you to go to jail because you refused to pay your fines for two years and eventually they called the police.

Are you trying to compare UPN refusing peace until NpO got out to that? If so are you suggesting that backing an ally is now a disbandable offense?

Link to comment

Are you trying to compare UPN refusing peace until NpO got out to that? If so are you suggesting that backing an ally is now a disbandable offense?

here, I have a present for you:

ing9au.jpg

Next time, try to ague against what people are saying, not what the tiny elves who live in your hair think people are saying.

Link to comment

OK, I will answer both of your questions:

"Are you trying to compare UPN refusing peace until NpO got out to that?"

No.

"If so are you suggesting that backing an ally is now a disbandable offense?"

No.

I was trying to define the difference between "forced disbandment", where an alliance has no choice but to disband, and "refusing terms", where peace is on the table but refused because a term is unacceptable to them.

At no point did I mention UPN

At no point did I mention NpO

At no point did I suggest that "backing an ally" is a disbandable offense

At no point did I suggest that anything at all was or should be a disbandable offense

At no point did I say that deliberately attempting to disband an alliance was an acceptable course of action.

I'm slightly at a loss to associate your reply with my post.

Link to comment

Fair enough, misunderstanding then.

The same arguement had been brought up against us in the context of UPN vs. GOD. i.e. that GOD isn't trying to force anything because they were willing to offer us peace before NpO got out, as a way of justifying anything they do afterwards. Hence my questions.

Link to comment

God this "you can't be forced to disband" stuff is getting annoying. Some people seem to think than when you say it often enough it might be true. It might be true now but it wasn't in the era with small warchests, no MHP's, no WRC's and with declaringranges between 50-100%. Back then when you fell out of 5% range you were game over because you couldn't buy any nukes. It was quite easily to destroy an alliance without taking much damage yourselves especially when you outnumbered your foe.

If you didn't get terms the only option out was for alliances to disband or else most of the alliance would get deleted / destroyed because of the war. FAN was the exception to this, not the rule. They had a strong internal community (they played other games too) and their membership was willing to stay in peacemode and do nothing for two years in order not to disband.

And yes, both NpO and NPO disbanded several alliances and communities. The coalition who attacked Polar during War of the coalition could have disbanded Polar or kept them in warmode for a year without taking much damage. (Polar had only a dozen MHP's at the time and only 1 WRC). They chose to give them a way out at the cost of harsh reps. Enemies of NpO like the real [M] and Genmay weren't that lucky.

Nowadays the stronger alliances can't be forced to disband because of the war chests and all the MHP's they possess however it might still be possible with weaker ones like UPN.

Link to comment

The difference between being placed in a situation where continuing as an alliance is a extremely unattractive option indeed and being forced to disband is a subtle one.

This is the risk demanding crippling reps carries, an enemy may just disband after causing the most damage they can to deny their enemy the resources they were hoping for at the end of the war, and make their enemies rebuilding harder.

Link to comment

Am I the only Original 11 left that did not drink the power koolaid?

It would seem so, although if it makes you feel any better there's at least one person from the original ~20 who hasn't partaken either.

Also, I find myself agreeing completely with Lamuella's earlier points on what may validly be called a 'forced' disbandment.

For creating a situation in which I agree with Lamuella, New Frontier is getting such a frowning right now.

grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg

Link to comment

Am I the only Original 11 left that did not drink the power koolaid?

Oh yes, Gondor and I are so deeply connected to the current power structure, I have truly become the New Hegemony.

Do I think that Doomhouse/PB are stupid sometimes? Yes. That doesn't mean that other people aren't also stupid sometimes.

EDIT: And beyond that, I'm not even saying that pushing alliances towards disbandment is a morally justified standpoint, or because I identify with Doomhouse in the current conflict. I mean this more, actually, in regards to people like VE discussing their "forced disbandment" at the hands of the GGA.

But by all means, Schattenman, use completely senseless ad hominems to advance your argument.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...