James Saams

[quote name='Titus Pullo' date='08 March 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1268086217' post='2218354'] Let's examine the two points you made. You did, indeed, prove that the Emissary represents Valhalla, just as is outlined with [b]maintaining a diplomatic stance[/b]. The real question, therefore, is: What is "Valhalla"? According to the same charter, "Valhalla" is the embodiment of the Regent. Therefore, the Emissary represents the Regent in foreign affairs, and nothing else. On your second point, again you need to read your charter better. The Regent is "responsible for all facets of the alliance, including..., international politics, ..." Treaties fall under the purview of international politics and are therefore the sole responsibility of the Regent, or Vice Regent as per the Charter. I understand that you wish to see your alliance as perfect in every way and dismiss the flaws pointed out by me as being simply the opinion of a misinformed idiot. However, I could not think of a more childish way to excuse yourself from seeing the truth and carrying on a true debate than your last sentence. As such, I assume that you will read this post but not reply. That is fine with me as long as you go take a long hard look at your charter and figure out what it really means. I assure you that the results of this research will surprise you. The Regent of Valhalla is to be regarded as the omnipotent sovereign, don't let the false promise of democracy fool you. P.S. Using quotes to emphasize a word, such as "any", is pathetic and improper. [/quote] Nowhere in our beloved charter does it say that Valhalla is the "embodiment of the Regent." You also seem to have ignored the entire part pertaining to representation. As you stated above, the Emissary represents the Regent. If you re-read the definitions I so kindly gave to you, you might find that the fact that he represents the regent shows that he does in fact have the power to make decisions as the voice of the regent. Now on to your second point. As you clearly quoted, the responsibilities of the regent include international politics. However, nowhere in our charter does it state that he is solely responsible for them. In fact it states something completely to the contrary: [quote]The Einherjar, along with the Regent shall be the voice of the alliance and shall make all executive decisions, while adhering to the ideals of Valhalla.[/quote] This sentence of Valhalla's charter clearly states that the Einherjar and the Regent share the power to make all executive decisions. I do not believe Valhalla to be perfect, nor does any member of Valhalla. If Valhalla were perfect, why would we have an amendment section in our charter? A perfect alliance would not need one, leading me to the only logical conclusion, being that we in fact, do not believe we are perfect. Moving on to my last line, I fail to see how politely leaving is childish. I simply did not wish to get involved in a completely off-topic debate. However, after reading your post I feel it is necessary to continue this conversation. Now we get to the part where you state that the Regent of Valhalla is an "omnipotent sovereign." The only evidence I need to conclude that your statement is completely and utterly false is the existence of the Norn, and the removal of NoWedge from the position of Regent. Were the Regent an "omnipotent sovereign," that could not have happened. Finally, in response to your attempt at insult, my usage of quotes is anything but improper, and I fail to see how it is pathetic.

[quote]B. Emissary: The Emissary shall be the head [b]ambassador[/b] of Valhalla. The Emissary is responsible for creating diplomatic ties with foreign alliances, maintaining a diplomatic stance, and keeping suspected foreign threats under observation.[/quote] Let us begin with the definition of ambassador. [quote]am·bas·sa·dor –noun 1. a diplomatic official of the highest rank, sent by one sovereign or state to another as its resident representative. 2. a diplomatic official of the highest rank sent by a government to represent it on a temporary mission, as for negotiating a treaty. 3. an authorized messenger or representative[/quote]. Now that we've achieved a basic understanding of what an ambassador does, lets examine this a bit further. This definition states that an ambassador is a representative, but what is a representative you ask? [quote] rep·re·sent·a·tive –noun 1. a person or thing that represents another or others. [/quote] Well obviously a representative represents us, but we still don't know what this action of "representing" is. [quote]rep·re·sent –verb 4. to speak and act for by delegated authority: to represent one's government in a foreign country. 5. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government[/quote] Now I believe that we have established that our emissary acts as the voice of Valhalla, thus giving him the power to make decisions on behalf of Valhalla, meaning that he does in fact have the power to handle a rogue case. But let's not forget definition number two of ambassador. This states he has the power to negotiate a treaty, no? Alas, we don't know what a treaty is, so here we go again. [quote]trea·ty –noun 1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. 2. the formal document embodying such an international agreement. 3. any agreement or compact. [/quote] Now obviously since our dear emissary has the power to negotiate treaties, as we established in the definition of "ambassador", we can assume through these definitions of "treaty" that he can create any formal agreement or compact. May I repeat "any" agreement or compact? This no doubt gives him the power to come to a cessation of hostilities agreement with the rogue that was attacking our alliance. I would also like to point out to Titus Pullo that by no means is his grammar perfect. I have examined a few of your posts and have discovered many grammatical errors, so before insulting the competence of Valhalla and it's members, please study your own in great detail. The jokes directed at Bob Sanders because of a quote nearing two years old is quite low, and does nothing other than show your complete lack of creativity. The others who are still using the age old "Failhalla" line have displayed the same lack of creativity and complete and utter idiocy. I would tell you to think before you speak, but judging by the lack of creativity in your previous posts, I doubt it would make much of a difference. Despite my own differences with SkyGreenChick, I wish her luck in her new position, and hope that those issues I had with her will not become an problem during her time leading TOP. With that, I will take my leave from this thread.

Nice o/ Cerberus o/ Valhalla

Gibsonator decided to go for a different circle, [s]so now we need coal and wine.[/s] Found and replaced him. Since voting in elections locks in your team color for a few days, me and Jason R can't switch to purple yet. We can cancel and resend once we can though.

Complete Just got a message from the last person. Switch to purple and send offers on the [b]25th[/b]. Me and Juleandor both are notifying our current trade partners to give them a bit of time to figure it out.

Awesome. Getting close to finishing

Bump :\

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1266709279' post='2194239'] You're criticizing people for acting like your MADP partner. Do you not sense a certain... something... word that begins with h and ends with y ... [/quote] Hilarity perhaps? I for one, find this whole war quite full of it.

bumped :/

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1266647287' post='2193193'] The people you declared in defense of had declared war on a uninvolved party in a conflict by claiming they would eventually enter on the wrong side. That's as far as you get from being treaty bound. I feel like I kinda ruined the joke by explaining it. Oh well. Tough crowd [/quote] Ah, time to use small words. We have a treaty with IRON. Got it? Okay. This treaty says we defend them. Got that part too? Okay lets move on. FAN attacked them with no treaty to any of the CnG alliances. Got this down? Cool, now for the next part. Since there were no treaties chaining FAN to CnG, our nice little treaty says we defend IRON. Get it? Or is all of this too confusing for a simple minded fellow such as yourself?

Pigs - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=204212"]James Saams[/url] Gold - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=204212"]James Saams[/url] Coal - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=384395"]Cerebral Wolf[/url] Wine - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=384395"]Cerebral Wolf[/url] Furs - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=363866"]Jason R[/url] Wheat - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=363866"]Jason R[/url] Uranium - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=197161"]Juleandor[/url] Cattle - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=197161"]Juleandor[/url] Sugar - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=361982"]Glaze Fierein[/url] Silver - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=361982"]Glaze Fierein[/url] Gems - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=295207"]Leonel Badano[/url] Fish - [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=295207"]Leonel Badano[/url] Max pop trade set, with nuke juice included. [size="5"][b][color="#9932CC"]This will be on purple sphere[/color][/b][/size] due to Juleandor being required to stay on purple (and the fact that 3 of us are on purple team alliances).

[quote name='Newhotness' date='17 February 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1266453207' post='2188381'] oh, i didnt know NPO was fighting this war [/quote] Nobody ever said they were.

[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844'] Anyway, this is all moot, because it's very unlikely that individuals of such high fighting quality as the members of BAPS will surrender to you. [/quote] Don't forget us

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1266283388' post='2183830'] Oooh, lovely. Now I don't have to worry about offering surrender terms to him. [/quote] Nope, all you have to worry about is accepting them

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='15 February 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1266281981' post='2183785'] I am hoping your brethren choose not to surrender, for the tech I am seizing from them will go a long way towards the education of our citizens. [/quote] You might need to attack someone with a substantially larger amount of tech than those two if you want your nation to become educated my dear fellow I am glad you are worthy enough to take on our least active member and a ghost. Though if you ever find your gonads, my nation has a slot open to give you a lesson on seizing tech

[quote name='Noob Cake' date='01 February 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1265085171' post='2152131'] I don't know how Valhalla leadership decided on FAN; There is a whole host of AA who declared war on IRON. See [url="http://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?key=tpa3XaSQJlipckC9N3fJL2Q&type=view&gid=1&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=Independent%20Republic%20of%20Orange%20Nations%20(IRON)&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250"]Here[/url] [/quote] I just want to fight whoever gives me the most casualties, and from what I've heard about FAN, they should do just fine. o7 FAN, I'll see you on the battlefield o/ IRON o/ Valhalla o/ CASUALTIES

I like this mans style.

DUN DUN DUN THE ROFLCOPTOR DROPPED A LOLBOMB. I find this quite amusing and all, but I've had enough laughs for the night. Thank you for the entertainment, and I hope to see your declaration on me in the near future

But see, during wartime this is not an act of terrorism, but an act of war. Is Hiroshima considered a terrorist attack? Not by most. <--( Analogy to TPF's attempt to destroy someone[DURING WAR]) Does the United States declare war on North Korea for building nuclear weapons that are meant to be used? No. <--(analogy to someone[athens] declaring on someone for thinking about doing something) So why on planet Bob, should Athens declare war on someone, for an act of war that occurred in a previous war? I would think that the initial act of war would have been sorted out by the perpetrators loss of the original conflict.

Did they actually infiltrate athens though? No. Being a protectorate =/= OMG SPAIS.

If you read the OP you would have noticed that it was called off He never said it was called off by TPF. Perhaps, my kind sir, a reading tutor might be of assistance?

Using your analogy, they planned to break in. Again, not the same as breaking in. Planning to do something is not a crime. Neither is walking up to said house but not breaking in. Your logic my dear sir, is flawed.

Next time you should declare against the people who actually did something to you Planning =/= doing

mop. o/ Kronos o/ Valhalla