janax

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1328114650' post='2912582'] Exactly. Gairyuki blew this wide open last night and we're not idiots. [/quote] I would like that to be put up to a vote, not just unilaterally decided upon.

Sorry about the uneven tech. The x.57 tech was irritating me, so I had to buy enough to make it as close to even as possible

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1328073310' post='2912304'] Ahh yes, the "it's an old grudge" excuse...funny that hasn't been brought up by anyone else until now...because the timing had nothing to do with OOC events. Of course it did, and while it is true that she was served up by what was then Rok government, specifically Joe and Bob, they were caught up in on all the OOC crap just like your members. [/quote] The grudge part has been brought up multiple times since day one. Just FYI.

Kama for OMFG Chieftain 2012. Change I can believe in.

You are all terrible and should feel bad for how terrible you all are. Current, former, future Rok gov should all be ZIed and forced to join a good alliance for re-education.

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1327831282' post='2909359'] I wouldn't be surprised if these guys ended up being more trouble than they were worth, but I wish our allies luck anyway. That said, the threats coming from irrelevant non-alliances in this thread is truly amusing. [/quote] So far, the only trouble has been owing people a whole 200 tech and talking bad about them (oh noes!) and telling people to stay out of their part of the communications web (ooc: IRC). Now, I may be a dirty psuedo-moralist, but these aren't valid CBs in my opinion, especially when the tech was worked out. If people (Kaskus) decide to test the treaty, well, I guess that's their choice. If they decide to call in a bunch of secret treaties, also their choice. My suggestion would be to drop it personally.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1327818059' post='2909244'] I haven't approved any strikes on Argent so you all can just perish the thought. [/quote] I too look forward to a day where our influence is minimized. That day was yesterday. Probably today too. Most days, to be fair.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327810513' post='2909174'] What's up with you stealing my title? [/quote] I left you the avatar. Pray I do not take that as well [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif[/img]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1327809159' post='2909160'] Not really privy to GPF's history but several people have dibs on rolling Argent. We would be very frustrated if strangers invited themselves to the party. [/quote] Bring it, gravy fries. If NpO leaves anything left for our sloppy seconds that is

[quote name='chaosclanlord' timestamp='1327808728' post='2909151'] This is too true, many many people have tried to warn Argent that this would not be a wise idea and when it does hit the fan Argent will be left with two options, defend GPF and keep that friend while loosing everyone else or dropping GPF and taking the smart route. [/quote] Who are we going to lose? I'm always last to know

[Center][img]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn222/kgradert/CN/argentnukesymbol6.png[/img][IMG]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/Swat63/GPFFlag.gif[/IMG] [quote] 1. Sovereignty Argent and the Global Protection Force are sovereign alliances. Both signatories recognize such and agree not to infringe upon the other’s sovereignty. 2. Intelligence If either signatory becomes aware of information that could be of benefit to the well-being of the other signatory, they are obliged to divulge it. 3. Diplomatic Cooperation In the event of a confrontation between a signatory and a third party, the co-signatory is strongly encouraged to assist in resolving the dispute in any way possible. 4. Optional Defense If one signatory is attacked, the other signatory is encouraged, but not required, to defend them. 5. Cancellation If either party decides to cancel this treaty, the canceling signatory is required to provide 47 hours of prior notice before the treaty is considered null and void. [/quote] For GPF: Secretary General - Colonel Brick Deputy-Secretary General - Evella Vada Minister of Foreign Affairs - irule Minister of Internal Affairs - Poppa Minister of Defense - xR1 Fatal Instinct Minister of Finance - Cress For Argent: Janax - Dragon Emperor and Self-Proclaimed God-King of Umbrella Rustynail - Regent Schmegent Poobah - Minister of Inactive Foreign Affairs Diomede - Minister of Cash and Tech Otter - Water Weasel of War Trimm - At Large and In Charge Yosh - Comms Wench [/center]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1327371824' post='2905916'] the weird thing is, Ive never ever had a conversation with JA, and now he is gone. congrats to the rest... except CSM, he is horrible and stuff. Also, needs more NationRuler. [/quote] I had enough convos with him for both of us, Old Man. This is an excellent lineup, and enjoy retirement JA

Congratulations. Shame about the NpO treaty, you guys are pretty good folks.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1327326724' post='2905468'] I'm actually loving the irony in all of this. GPF gets pissy when RoK wants to set up tech deals as part of a protectorate relationship, but has no problem tech dealing with Argent when Argent's only interest in them is "protecting their investment". [/quote] "Only" is a strong term. GPF in general has been nothing like the accusations made here and elsewhere to us. They've been easy to work with, in constant communication and very friendly. While a treaty may be faster than our normal vetting process to formalize the protection of our tech, it's not the only reason by any means. It just is speeding up our normal process As to who we protect, if any of the rest of those alliances named had no protection suddenly, and we had a mass grouping of deals with them as well as friendly relations, it would be considered.

[quote name='Lord Caparo' timestamp='1327290874' post='2905204'] Dont you mean an ODgiveusallyourtechP? [/quote] Give? That would be cool too, but we are good with buying it. Anyone who doesn't protect their investments deserves to lose those investments. Bottom line, GPF has around 280 million of our money, some of that will come back to us in tech. We don't want to see that interupted at all, let alone over the current issues. We aren't here to issue threats or rattle any sabers, just to let everyone know where that stands. We will protect our money and tech, bottom line.

WTH Jack, I spent a good 4, 4 and a half minutes convincing you of the plan to roll OMFG and now I got new people to spend valuable time explaining the plan to. Congrats to the newly elected, I'll be around soon to fill you guys in. Jack and all 5 other Ninjas are the kind of allies everyone wishes they had, so I'm sure things will continue to go well.

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1327110423' post='2903975'] Sure, that would be an interesting statistic regardless of the result. [/quote] It will be impossible to calculate, due to the multiple alliances fighting. From the stats I have, Sparta took more damage than it inflicted on PF, KDF, Invicta. UE has no stats available. If you attribute ALL losses by Olympus and BAPS to Sparta it finally becomes even. WHich only leaves TIO (12 total wars), TPF (0 wars) and NPO. Considering that in a "3v1" you should be doing more damage than you take, it's still sad.

No. My forums are already black background. Close enough

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1327078260' post='2903636'] Friends over infra. Tech over friends. [/quote] T.R.E.A.M. Words to live by

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1327076506' post='2903619'] The damage to reputation is far worse than any infra-tech damage. That can all be rebuilt with time. Reputations, not so much. [/quote] Nothing is worse than tech damage [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif[/img]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327069370' post='2903555'] I'm having a hard time figuring out where GPA came from. [/quote] GPA didn't take much damage this war either was the point. Their contribution to the war was only SLIGHTLY lower than Spartas [quote] There is more than just allowing for yourself to get curbstomped that factors in one's war ability. Hell, I doubt even now MHA could send the amount of nations Sparta did to peace mode. [/quote] Curbstomp? For all this talk of Sparta getting dogpiled, let's run the numbers. PF - 100 nations KDF - 110 nations NPO - 390ish (also fighting Fark and Fan) UE - 80 at the time Invicta - 58 Olympus - 66 (were the defenders, fighting Fark as well) BAPS - 41 (defenders, fighting Fark as well) TIO - 86 (also fighting Fark, chained mainly) TPF - doesn't matter, no wars launched, chain exclusively So...we have about 340 nations worth focused exclusively on Sparta, they had 330ish nations to begin with. You include all of the people fighting multiple alliances together and you get about 2.5 to 1 advantage, assuming every war launched was against Sparta. (Pro-Tip, it wasn't even close to that) The amount of damage they inflicted was PATHETIC compared to what it should be. You think they are the only alliance to ever face those kinds of odds and actually fight? BiPolar: Argent vs RIA, Silence, CRAP, VE (last few days only for VE) 3 million NS 60 nations vs 9 million NS 360 nations (not including VE) We surrendered eventually. We also decimated the oppositions top tier and cycled in and out of PM. Not sat there to minimize damages. We basically made sure that RIA couldn't do any new warring on TOOL. Sparta didn't help Fark out. Within a cycle of all of us hitting Sparta, Olympus and Baps were free to declare anywhere they wanted, because there weren't enough non-dove nations to prevent it. [quote] I would say "in before someone says peace mode isn't a war tactic," but I fear we're too late. [/quote] Peace mode is a tactic, CYCLING in and out is more than valid, it's what any competent alliance should do. Sitting there isn't a war tactic, it's a hiding tactic. You have to be in the war at some point for it to be a war tactic. [quote] Here, I'll say it again so everyone can stomp their feet or provide an ad-hominem argument: Sparta fulfilled its obligations while damaging its opponents just as much as MHA did from what you all claim to be "completely in peace mode." They did not suffer the losses that Fark nor MHA did, but successfully defended themselves as much as possible in which their entire coalition was on the defensive from the moment it started. Other alliances in Sparta's coalition probably should have taken some notes. [/quote] Sparta did almost nothing for damage, while basically prolonging a war they were completely ineffective in. They didn't relieve any pressure on Fark. They didn't take losses because they only partially fought. The losses on the nations that did fight were at least as severe as the beatings MHA and Fark took, if not worse. They didn't defend !@#$, basically. They hid.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327017084' post='2903125'] The argument was that the Fark/NpO ODoAP was not publicized and thus Fark attacked without any treaty justification. Hitting TOP or IRON would not relieve pressure on NpO regardless as Fark would have been attacked immediately by PF and others. [/quote] We are a peaceful bloc. War is not in our nature.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327005542' post='2902993'] Compare it to MHA's losses. 120+ nations, 9 million strength and 450k Tech. Done. Shall we also compare it to Fark's losses? I get everyone around here loves to toot their own horn...but.... Who are we trying to fool saying Sparta didn't get off relatively (hell, I'd go further and say considerably,) well compared to their other allies? [/quote] MHA fought, however poorly. Fark fought, however poorly. Sparta kept between 50 and 66% of it's alliance in PM. So...yah. Therein lies the difference.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326992960' post='2902900'] If you mean Sparta, I'd consider their effort a relative victory. If you mean MHA, they could've done as Sparta, but for one reason or another didn't follow the same cue. [/quote] A victory in what way? losing more tech in 3 of their nations than some alliances lost in total? Having their monster 33K tech nation almost bill locked? Losing 30 nations? Refusing to fight and disgracing the spartan name? Hiding in PM so much that they actually didn't even really affect the alliances they fought's ability to wage war on Fark? Please, explain how it's a relative victory.

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1326904903' post='2902176'] I enjoy reading all of the arguments saying that it "deprives the average user access to politics". I'm assuming none of you making that argument have reread any treaty cancellation threads recently. I'll try to summarize how they go. Alliance A: We have cancelled our treaty with alliance B. Reasons were shared in private. Peanut Gallery: Baaaww tell us why. Don't hide the truth Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance A on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance B Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance B on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance A Peanut Gallery: Neither of your alliances are relevant so why even post? Peanut Gallery: I thought you guys disbanded? Please do. General member of Alliance B: I can't believe you cancelled on us after all we did for you! Peanut Gallery: who are you again, general member? stop posting. you're irrelevant. Peanut Gallery: I can't wait to roll both your alliances. Now what about that, exactly, is involving the "average user" in world politics? The frequent posters on the OWF treat it as a "good ol' boys club" and act like asshats to anyone who doesn't follow their party line. [/quote] Alliance A: We have signed a treaty with alliance B. Wub Wub Wub Peanut Gallery: Nice grouping Peanut Gallery: o/ A Peanut Gallery: I hope B is there for you like they weren't for C Peanut Gallery: Neither of your alliances are relevant so why even post? Peanut Gallery: I thought you guys disbanded? Please do. General member of Alliance B: This is awesome. Peanut Gallery: who are you again, general member? stop posting. you're irrelevant. Peanut Gallery: I can't wait to roll both your alliances. Hmm, looks accurate and the same.