BloodFury

[quote name='Morjon' timestamp='1358561954' post='3079368'] And what do you know Sardonic? Not much... [/quote] A hell of a lot more than you will ever know.

Needs more of this from Umbrella. [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070507035608/cybernations/images/d/d4/Blackbunchies.jpg[/img]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1358555373' post='3078979'] This time we don't have to worry about TPF wussing out when the going gets tough. [/quote] I am sure there will be someone that fails to arrive.

Ah, the Unjust War is repeating itself.

Does this mean we get Chefjoe back on our forums to continue our discussions on the merits of tea?

It is almost like history is repeating itself, just the alliances have different names this time around.

Chax, I had your back from the first moment this thing went down, and I will have your back no matter what you decide to do. I will miss you if you vanish, our love was short, but it was hard, hot, and burned bright. Don't be a stranger.

I will miss you, but I will urge you not to go. You have friends here, so $%&@ all the haters.

What the hell?

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1358203014' post='3076391'] The remote access does not make the logs 100% irrefutable. And to think it does, is silly. I could have a conversation with you on IRC about the weather, then afterwards, go to my logs folder in my client, edit the logs in notepad, save them over the existing log, then open them in my clients Log Viewer. The logs would appear to be on my client and not in a broken text form, but I will still have changed what they say. I dont know what did or did not happen, but the mere fact of a remote access does NOT make anything irrefutable. If you doubt me... shoot me a query on IRC, then give me an hour and I will show you that log, IN MY CLIENT, saying something totally different. Its not hard at all. [/quote] Cannot agree more on this situation and voice my view on it better than Rush Sykes has.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1358124362' post='3075971'] i'd consider it more like checks and balances. it's not a good system to allow one person supreme rule over the alliance without any sort of checks (see UED as a good example) but i do see where you're coming from. also there should be to remove a supreme leader like that as well imo if he/she does not have the same views of leading the alliance as the membership. (this is reminding me that i might need to finally finish some reforms for the PPO too...) [/quote] At this point they have just made themselves look terrible by backing out a deal. There is absolutely nothing they get out of this now and realistically I am sure you can agree they should just drop this entire thing and move on and forget about Barndoor.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1358109375' post='3075893'] here's the charter in relations to SG/Triums: [/quote] So what you are saying is that they can effectively break any deal that was made? Good form of government right there.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1358107597' post='3075887'] The charter on their wiki is outdated and needs to be updated tbh. Their current charter is on their forums which was ratified a few weeks back. I almost made the same mistake until I remembered it didn't look right compared to the announcement back then. Also they need to fix the current gov section on the forums from where the coup people editted it [/quote] Then would you be so kind as to copy and paste their government section of their charter?

After taking time to read your charter a bit, I have found that the promise by markfrancos that Barndoor would not face any consequences for his actions was well within his bound as Secretary General. His initial response was passed as he has supreme control on the matter. Where the membership gets to vote on the matter is not mentioned in the charter. So the fact that you are back peddling to pass punishment for something you were within your power to promise and pass is beyond me. Lets face the fact, you screwed up, just drop the entire situation at this point. You made an initial promise that you were within your rights to make as the leader as per your charter, stand by it. [quote] Section 1: Secretary-General The Secretary General is the official head of state of the Global Protection Force. The Secretary General has the credentials to both appoint and remove the Deputy Secretary General. In war time, unless delegated otherwise, the Secretary General is flag officer, and has the final say on all issues including but not limited to: surrender, disbandment, punishment, and expulsion. The Secretary General is endowed with the responsibility to set the agenda of the alliance, as well as protect these articles of creation. The Secretary General serves as the head of the Upper Chamber, and can veto any decision made by the Upper Chamber if deemed necessary. The Secretary General is a lifelong appointment. If the incumbent Secretary General becomes unable to serve or concedes the remainder of his or her appointment, the Deputy Secretary General will succeed the chain of command and be confirmed Secretary General. Should the Secretary General feel that an elected Minister is not performing to the required level, the Secretary General may remove a Minister and call an election for that position.[/quote]

[quote name='sigelopisan' timestamp='1357961167' post='3075199'] Are you REALLY sure if NEW didnt aid Kaskus and come to BFF to discuss of the possibility of defending Kaskus, will BFF ride along? Come on... please stop this e-lawyer-ing. BFF treaty is, when NEW in deep-!@#$, BFF pull out and when BFF in deep-!@#$, NEW will defend wakakakakak [/quote] Uh, you must be really dense because they have already stated, maybe not in this thread but over a few other venues that they would not have canceled on NEW, and would be standing by them had they not done what they had done. Perhaps a little investigative work into the happenings of the world would be the proper thing to do and to get the full story before going off about a situation.

[quote name='KenoCore' timestamp='1357960561' post='3075189'] then if thats how you feel dont be suprised when you attack one the other attacks you. dont be suprised a 3rd time because it just shows how dumb you are to the world around you :3. but hey lets just forget everything I heard NPO loved helping other alliances come to its sphere back in its hay day. and also if they are so butt hurt about what happened why are they throwing away the treaty as well? its still in effect for a few more days. why have they not told NEW the plan to leave after a few days of war? why have they not told NEW that they are about to get rolled? they are no better then the mistake NEW did. ill answer that for you as Sniperjoe said its on OWF they can see it. BFF could see on here that aid was being given. the !@#$%^&* works both ways. BFF should just admit they are !@#$%* allies and ill shut up. [/quote] Why should BFF give them any form of courtesy to inform them that they would only defend them for a limited engagement and not into death? NEW disrespected them and broke the terms of the treaty, the treaty was canceled, but BFF will still be honoring the military part until the expiration date has passed. It isn't their responsibility to tell them. They have no obligation to do so. [quote name='Dcrews' timestamp='1357960613' post='3075190'] Cannot build comprehensive/ related response, make underhanded joke. I expect no less. [/quote] It was more a lighthearted joke on the fact that you even went there concerning MK. How you even connected these two things is beyond me. It is either intense paranoia and hatred of MK, or just a general lack of intelligence.

[quote name='sigelopisan' timestamp='1357960245' post='3075186'] When NEW have ever not play by the rule? As I recall, only one time when they hit DF. Now you tell me, did they throw their allies under the bus? WHat did they did? They go public to tell their allies to stay out of it. [/quote] Yes, they threw their allies under the bus the exact moment they committed an act of war against NSO and her allies by aiding Kaskus. They never informed them they were going to do it, and it was a ploy to get themselves attacked. BFF would have been obligated and required to defend them regardless of what NEW told them. If they didn't they would have been berated for being cowards and not fighting and burning for their ally. If NEW respected the treaty with BFF so much, they would have informed BFF long before they did anything, then this would be an entirely different situation.

[quote name='KenoCore' timestamp='1357960147' post='3075183'] NEW was wrong for aiding ally ? an ally that in many sense is NEW. many could argue NEW and Kaskus are the same alliance you could argue they arent. I personally think were 2 alliances joined by brotherhood. something your alliance will never get to achieve because you approve of things like this. what is not arguable is that NEW and Kaskus are allies. both alliances will tell you we are allies both sides will tell you we dont need a dumb treaty that sets limitations on our friendship. you are bound to your allies in words we are bound by blood and brotherhood. face the un deniable truth shown in the GOON Kaskus war and now in this one and stop hiding behind your "oh their was no treaty" bull. [/quote] That is called a friendship, not being allied. The community has a set standard, if they chose not to follow it that is on them. Thus no treaty exists. They are both alliances that hold treaties with other alliances, so you cannot pull a FAN ploy on this. If they felt it was necessary to sign with other alliances, they could have signed with each other. You cannot scape goat and say because they are so close that they were allied when there has never been and there still is no treaty between the two.

[quote name='Dcrews' timestamp='1357959783' post='3075180'] Figures the idea came from MK, those guys are pros at screwing allies over. However, i didn't know there were so influential to you. When are you planning on joining DH, looks like you'll fit in just fine What happened to you guys, I hardly recognize you. [/quote] I see the tinfoil hats are being handed out early tonight.

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1357958654' post='3075164'] Are these external treaties really worth it, Int? I'm not even going to criticize this particular decision, but everytime you have to drop or ignore a tie when the chips are down, it reinfoces the idea that either you fa judgment is terrible or you sign treaties with no intention of ever needing to honor them. The honest thing would be to stick to c&g only. [/quote] Sorry this is going to bother me, but I have to say it. What kind of person quotes themselves in their own signature?

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357959083' post='3075172'] This about sums it up. [/quote] The tired and reused "NOU" ploy. When you lack any tact to use back at someone, you resort to it. It furthers my point that you really shouldn't even talk.

[quote name='KenoCore' timestamp='1357958967' post='3075171'] you said alot of major alliances have done that in war. thats illogical to us as thats sad and depressing. once a brother always a brother NEW stood by BFF thick and thin BFF could have warred every alliance onCN and NEW would have said when do you want us to declare on them? even without forwarning NEW. [/quote] Ahh, yes I am sure NEW is a good ally when they are playing by the rules and aren't risking the safety of all their allies. But it doesn't change the fact that they did threaten the safety of their allies without even warning them first. Which brings us back to the same point that you keep trying to avoid, NEW violated the treaty and are getting more than they deserve. You need to just open your eyes and realize this and quit trying to throw the argument into areas that aren't even relevant to the situation. No matter how hard you try to spin, NEW was in the wrong and BFF made the right choice and is getting more than any other alliance would give them in this situation. This has been repeated by myself as well as numerous others. Just walk away.

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357958214' post='3075154'] Meh I was a bit harsh, tiredness. sdkdnvlksnbakjnvrekjnvf;kljfdnI hate you [/quote] Tired or not, what you posted can only be interpreted in one way. Thus proving you are an idiot trying to back peddle.

[quote name='KenoCore' timestamp='1357957478' post='3075147'] sorry not all alliances think and run like yours but im biased because NEW is our brother. [/quote] That has no relevance to anything I said.

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357957865' post='3075150'] Glad to see TLR considers allies as fodder, or is it !@#$? [/quote] Do you even think before you post, or do you just slam the keyboard until legible words come up and post them?