Mark Reynolds

Guys, please stop parodying the religious faiths of millions of people when you contribute to ingame areas of these forums. If your alliance fels that it is appropriate to go to war with another alliance, please issue a DoW announcement that explains why you feel that fighting them is the appropriate thing for you to do under the circuimstances. Announcements and forum posts that parody a major world religion are not doing any good for anybody in this game.

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1332219293' post='2940548'] I have no problem with you doing what you want I just don't get it. CN is widely regarded as a sucky nation simulator. The best part of the game is the politics and the politics derived from conflict on Bob and you refuse to participate in anything other then pay and collect from my point of view. Honestly this is the first post I can remember from a GC member. In the spirit of good sportsmanship though...Happy Birthday! edit: You guys need to stop synchronizing your bill paying/tax collecting, it is bogging down the servers!! [/quote] I understand that you have a different approach to this game, and I'm relaxed about that as long as you don't start attacking our nations. I personally find the warfare system to be somewhat rudimentary and counter-intuitive, and I don't get much enjoyment out of that side of the game. It is understandable that this is the first time you have seen a GC member post on the OWF. In view of how partisan most OWF threads are, there is little desire among neutral alliances to take part in the debate. After all, there isn't much point in publically declaring your neutrality in a debate or war that has absolutely nothing to do with you when both sides already assume that you aren't going to get involved.

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1332216925' post='2940530'] LMAO, I clicked the first 10 nations and Brycheiniog has the most casualties with 851,784. His nation is 6 years old mine is 1 and I have nearly that many casualties just to point out one example. I honestly don't get what neutrals are doing on Bob. Continue on paying and collecting GC. So Enderland try again [/quote] I have never fought in an inter-alliance war (unless one counts TE), and I have never tech raided anyone. Would you mind telling me where my nation picked up those casualties if we aren't having to deal with nuclear rogues? Did a New Year's sale get out of hand perhaps? I might add that I have never understood the fashion for boasting about how many casualties one's nation has picked up. Would I be regarded as a military expert if I marched a few thousand soldiers off a cliff out of sheer stupidity? As I have said, we play the way we want to play and we do no harm to anybody. You need to accept that there are people out there who do not think of this game as a war simulation and even (shock, horror) prefer to use diplomacy to resolve a crisis. If you love war that much, go a few rounds in tournament edition.

I would like to thank all the people who have congratulated us on reaching this milestone. As for the individuals who have taken the opportunity for sneering at the Grey Council for allegedly not contributing to Digiterra, I have the following to say: I could defend our position by talking about the rogues we have fought, the ideas that we have pioneered, or the alliance level wars in which one party tried to exploit our reputation for neutrality to get at their rivals. But that wouldn't be enough for you. You would look to find fault because that's what you always do. We live by our own rules and we have never caused any harm, so you have no excuse for your behaviour. Why do you think that we are in some way obliged to provide entertainment for the jaundiced OWF regulars? Nation numbers have seen a long term decline. Meanwhile the OWF has become so vindictive and poisonous that it is no longer possible even for the Grey Council to make a harmless birthday announcement without getting trolled. The people who would troll a birthday announcement made by an alliance that has never transgressed against them really need to think about what contribution THEY are making and why they think such behaviour is laudable.

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1332188871' post='2940309'] Congratulations Always wondered, was your name inspired by Babylon5 or do you not even know what I am talking about? [/quote] Our founders loved that whole "we stand between the candle and the star" speech in Babylon 5.

[center][IMG]http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z170/Accounting_Troll/GCflag.png[/IMG][/center] Today represents the sixth anniversary of the Grey Council posting its declaration of existence, which can still be read at [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=1833"]http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=1833[/url]

Congratulations on reaching this milestone. I look forward to reading your 2m NS announcement.

[center][IMG]http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z170/Accounting_Troll/GCflag.png[/IMG][/center] Today marks the fifth anniversary of the formation of the Grey Council. Anyone wishing to learn more about us can do so by visiting our forums at [URL=http://s10.invisionfree.com/Grey_Council/]http://s10.invisionfree.com/Grey_Council/[/URL] or our IRC channel at #gc on irc.coldfront.net.

Our terms are pretty simple to understand: we don't want your lot raiding us in future. Ever since the start of this war, we have made it clear to you guys that we would peace out the moment that your government agrees to this simple measure. I might add that despite the damage your allliance has inflicted upon us, you have managed almost no growth in the time since we launched our intial counter attack that saw the four GC members who were not in anarchy launch an attack that anarchied five of your guys. And that is despite our being horribly outnumbered, outgunned in terms of nukes and you having a net membership gain from 18 to 21 members in the course of this war. We have earned the right to be negotiated with on a basis of equality. Your behaviour in diplomatic negotiations has been so bizarre that we simply do not understand what your 'terms' for ending this war actually are. Neither do we understand what authority you hold in your alliance. You made a redundant declaration of war on behalf of your entire alliance and you continue to claim to only hold a de facto authority over a small group of TF members, so why do you make group decisions involving the other TF members? One of your members has even publically stated that you have been ghosting them for several rounds. I might add that two of your other members have offered individual surrenders and your emperor continues to share my desire for a swift resolution to this needless war. [quote]@Sulucia, it's not my fault... This round, I'm just trying to prevent LAST round's debacle. [/quote] And your plan to prevent this from happening is to create a [i]different[/i] debacle for your alliance to endure?

[quote name='augustus334' timestamp='1300389322' post='2667991'] Grey Council: March 8- 25,329 NS, they declare war on The Fellowship, March 17- 5,922 The Fellowship: March 8- 99,786 NS, [b]we are declared war on by Grey Council because someone who isn't even in our alliance and has been ghosting for the last several rounds attacked them,[/b] March 17- 101,678 It's nothing personal guppy, it just seems that you always get us into something. Best of luck to all [/quote] I just want to be clear about the bit that I have bolded: are you saying that Guppy has been ghosting your alliance for the last few rounds even though he is declaring war and negotiating peace on behalf of you guys? I am not trying to have a go at either you personally or your alliance. We have made multiple attempts to negotiate peace and we haven't gotten anywhere because of the seemingly confused state of your alliance, so I would appreciate it if you could help to clarify your internal structure.

[quote name='KOwens06' timestamp='1299988912' post='2662290'] GC give them hell. If this continues I will join your ranks to make Guppy eat his words. o/ GC [/quote] Thank you for your kind words of support. I always found you to be a classy person when we worked together in the same alliance a few rounds back. [quote name='Guppy Fish' timestamp='1299989319' post='2662317'] Master Ninja and Dolphin have argued over this no raid list with me, and the disorganization is THIS SITUATION: -The Fellowship is not under my control. However, Smalls07, Dulceice, htmlmaster, and Cinerex come on IRC a lot, and usually do what I tell them to in the game world. -Only Dulceice is registered on the forums. Additionally, since I have no actual power over the WHOLE alliance, the no raid list cannot be established. -The "actual war guys" are actually ones who fit that description! Namely, dulceice and htmlmaster. So, I'll go with neither. -I have actually repeatedly successfully explained the situation. Stop spewing your rubbish and deal with it. Stating your point over and over again makes it no more correct. KOwens06: sure, but it seems you didn't appreciate LE's nukes, says the bio... [/quote] If you have no power over your alliance, you have no power to issue a formal (and unnecessary) DoW, assume responsibility for peace negotiations or to assume responsibility for setting military strategy, each of which you have done. Competant alliances have their government take charge of this sort of strategic decisions as opposed to letting a rank and file member dictate policy. I might add that I have spoken to a chap called Lord of Darkness, whose ingame nation bio describes himeself as your Emperor, and he told me that he shared my desire for a swift peace and he also told me that he PMed you with instructions to peace out. Was your emperor telling lies which would logically gain him nothing or are you deliberatly disobeying orders? If you are disobeying orders, you and your supporters are a rogue group who deserve to be expelled from your alliance. When I authorised retaliatory strikes against all members of your alliance, we had four members who were not in anarchy. Within a few hours, each person had declared war against three of your members. The other guy launched three wars as soon as he got out of anarchy. You had already used airstrikes and CM attacks along with issuing threats of nuclear attacks before we began our counterattack, threats that you went ahead with even though we had no nuclear capable nations. You have claimed in this thread that this was some sort of border skirmish and you are only now recognising a state of total war. We maxed out our offensive war slots and you didn't take the hint? Or are you trying to come up with a facesaving excuse for the fact that despite having no nukes (unlike your alliance) and being outnumbered by four to one, we are hurting your alliance? I've seen a lot of small alliance get raided by a big alliance and start an OWF thread complaining about the percieved injustice they have suffered and asking for the international community to right the wrong they feel they have suffered. This is the first time I have ever seen the initial raiders being the ones who supply all the whining. We've gone to a heck of a lot of effort to give you a chance to end a war that is rapidly turning your alliance into a laughing stock. Your IRC threats of continuing this war for the rest of the round don't frighten us because we have faced a similar scenario once before against worse odds, and we ended up winning that war. It is up to you to decide whether you have the maturity to accept your raid went wrong or whether you continue to dismantle the public image of your alliance rather than accept the fact that tech raiding carries risks. Your choice. Choose wisely.

[quote name='Guppy Fish' timestamp='1299985280' post='2662213'] Mark Reynolds: In peace talks, Master_Ninja obstinately refused to recognize the insults and threats in your PM. Karolina: It used to be more of a raid retaliation and etc. stuff. Now I'm calling in the actual war guys... for real war... [/quote] I believe that Master Ninja and Dolphin made our position quite clear multiple times during the lengthy IRC conversations; we don't want you to raid us again. Neither of them were able to deduce what it was that you wanted because you were unable to make a coherent and logical argument. I can post the IRC logs if you really want to embarass yourself even more. The "actual war guys"? Do you mean you have actually got members who are both organised and actually know that if you are going to buy 1k infra, a wonder and a bunch of improvements it might be an idea to invest in one or two soldiers? If you have some "actual war guys" (whatever that means; why bother playing TE if you aren't a war guy?) then either your alliance is not disorganised as you repeatedly claimed, or you went cap in hand to another alliance because you need bailing out in a war against a five member alliance with no nukes, which you personally chose to start. Are you a liar or merely inept? You have conspicuoulsy failed to explain why it is that you claim to have no power in your alliance, and yet you have issued a (redundant) DoW and in sending these fabled "actual war guys", now claim to be in charge of your military strategy.

He saw and replied to the public statement I issued acknowledging a state of war, and he had taken the war nuclear before I made that announcement, so it would hardly seem necessary for TF to subsequently issue a DoW.

Guppy Fish, it might surprise you to learn this but tournament edition has resets every two months. That means when a five member alliance gets raided by a member of a considerably larger alliance, the small alliance does not have anything to lose by retaliating. In other words, there are risks to raiding. And there are very big risks to raiding an alliance that had just retaliated against a raider. If your alliance is as disorganised as you have repeatedly told us, perhaps you should have avoided raiding other alliances until you had sorted out your internal problems. I would be most interested if you could show me where we have conducted a smear campaign against your alliance. I know that you keep denying that you are in any kind of position of authority and you want me to retract that statement. However, you have rather weakened your case by publically announcing a decleration of war against us, as these sort of things are traditionally issued by or on behalf of the government of an alliance. You may only be a de facto official picking up the slack because you perceive your leadership to be inactive, but you are still a leader. Even if I had any reason to want to make your alliance look foolish in the eyes of the world, I doubt I would be able to compete with the job you've done over the last few days.

Three days ago we were dealing with a raid from a member of a major alliance. By our standard raider policy, several our our nations built up their troops and retaliated against the aggressor. Having inflicted enough damage to make our point, we entered into diplomatic discussions with the raider and one of his leaders. During this time, Guppy Fish of The Fellowship decided to raid our alliance. Negotiations with the original raider and his leadership proved mutually satisfactory to both sides and that conflict was peaced out. We were in discussions about how to deal with Guppy Fish (who was out of range of most of our AA), but were fully intending to deal with him as a standard raider. Guppy, perhaps seeing that we hit raiders back and wishing to protect himself, expanded his attacks to include air strikes, CM attacks and threats to go nuclear, which he has since done even though none of us were nuclear capable. He then brought in another member of his alliance to attack two other members of the Grey Council. All this was before we had committed any act of retaliation against either Guppy Fish or his alliance. Although Guppy Fish is not the supreme leader of The Fellowship, he does have admin access on their forums and therefore holds a position of high authority within his alliance. His seniority in The Fellowship made this coordinated attack a severe threat to our soverignity, and we responded accordingly. We made multiple attempts to resolve the conflict diplomatically after our initial counter attack. While the emperor of The Fellowship, Lord of Darkness, has demonstrated a willingness to find a peaceful solution, Guppy Fish has rejected all our negotiation attempts and has got more TF members to join the assault. In his eyes, an alliance that has the temerity to fight back when it is subject to unprovoked attack deserves to be punished. We find it strange to see that a TF forum admin is not even close to being on the same page as their emperor. It pains us to have to inflict harm upon nations who did not want to fight with us, but given the size difference between The Fellowship and the Grey Council, we cannot afford to allow them to define the terms of the war. The Grey Council remains open to reasonable negotiations with The Fellowship whenever they realise that it is not in their interests to continue expending their resources over a tech raid gone wrong.