Dontasemebro

This is as serious as we get.

Our IRC channel is #RIA.

[center][img]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/19/633494553691344096-sanity.jpg[/img] [size="5"]Congratulations! You have been selected to win a free iPod Nano! Just click [s]rickroll[/s] ahem, sorry about that. This is a Declaration of Existence of the Purposive Sanity Alliance.[/size] [left]Throughout the history of the Random Insanity alliance there has been far too much insanity. It's almost like it's randomly coming out of random parts of the alliance. It's pretty random, and the few sane people left in the alliance were starting to turn. That's when Meatkin Pie, our amazing Captain Planet, decided enough was enough. He's gathered the few remaining godless souls under one banner. That banner stands for justice, for freedom, for pie and apple juice, but not at the same time! We are those the great Meatkin Pie has chosen, and we are the Purposive Sanity Alliance! Our alliance is about seriously enjoying this game. When we were in RIA, it was mandatory to giggle every time you bought 10 infra. We were forced to buy 9.99 infra instead, because we do not giggle about such seriousness. I mean, come on, we're talking about hundreds of people instantly teleporting into our nations, and this is completely serious. If we don't take it seriously, it won't be serious, seriously. Below is our charter. We believe it represents us perfectly. [quote] [b]Article I[/b] The Purposive Sanity Alliance affirms its belief in the ideals of whatever it chooses to believe. In order to safeguard these ideals, its members, and the PSA way of life, the alliance hereby adopts the following Constitution and places its support behind the governing body outlined therein. [b] [/b] [b]Section I.[/b] The Purposive Sanity Alliance is, first and foremost, an alliance of Maroon nations. It is highly encouraged that all nations seeking haven within the alliance belong to the Maroon sphere. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Hopeful members may not be rejected solely on the basis of color. [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] Members of the alliance may not be ejected from the alliance solely on the basis of color. [b]Section 2[/b] No nation wishing to be a member of the alliance may be member of another alliance. Membership status within another alliance is grounds for immediate rejection of a membership application [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Any nation found to be seeking acceptance into the alliance with the intent of collecting intelligence for another alliance will be subject to immediate punishment as per Article V, Section 2, Sub-Section ii. [b]Section 3[/b] The alliance represents a unique community that is both higher than its existence as a group of nations and separate from whence it came. As such, measures must be in place to protect this community from death. To further this end, nothing in this Section may be amended at a future time, and this Section must be included in its entirety on any future governmental plans used by the alliance. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] The alliance may not disband for any reason without first calling a membership vote of indefinite length and receiving a vote in favor from at least eighty percent of the alliance membership. [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] The alliance may not allow itself to be assimilated into another alliance for any reason without first calling a membership vote of indefinite length and receiving a vote in favor from at least eighty percent of the alliance membership. [b]Sub-Section iii[/b] The alliance will always remain primarily an entity built from nations residing within the Maroon sphere. The Maroon majority must be maintained by any means which do not conflict with the rest of this document. [b]Article II[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] The government of the alliance is a hierarchical body made up of three bodies of service: The Triumvirate, the Cabinet, and the Secretariat. [b]Section 2[/b] The first governmental body of the alliance is the Triumvirate. Each of the three Triumvirs serves for a period of six months. The Triumvirs act to maintain alliance continuity and serve as a balancing force for the Cabinet, as well as establishing and maintaining long term projects for the benefit of the alliance. [b]Sub-section i[/b] In order to hold the office of Triumvir, a candidate must meet the following requirements. The candidate must be a member of the alliance. The nation of the candidate must be Maroon. The candidate must have been a member of the alliance for a total of at least four months, including the two consecutive months preceding the election period. A candidate may run with only one consecutive month or two total months if said candidate receives a special dispensation allowing it signed by the entirety of the Cabinet. [b]Sub-section ii[/b] One Triumvir election will be held every two months. During these periods, one seat will be up for election. The election process of a Triumvir follows the system outlined in Article II, Section 3, Sub-section iii, excluding the frequency of which the election period occurs. If, at any point, there exist fewer than three Triumvirs in office, an election will immediately be held to fill the vacant position(s). A forty-eight hour nomination period will be held after which time elections will run for another forty-eight hours. Members will be allowed to vote for as many candidates as there are open positions. [b]Sub-section iii[/b] In non-specific decisions, a Triumvir has seniority over a member of the Cabinet and has the authority to overrule any decisions made. In regard to area specific decision making, a Cabinet member has seniority over a Triumvir in decisions pertaining to the area over which the Cabinet member has authority. A single Triumvir may delay the enactment of a decision by a Cabinet member in such a case for a period of up to twenty-four hours. Two Triumvirs may overrule a Cabinet member in area specific decisions. If another Triumvir becomes available during the twenty-four hour suspension, they must immediately review the case. They may either then dismiss the Cabinet decision or end the suspension. If the Cabinet feels that the Tr Triumvirate is acting incorrectly in a decision, a unanimous Cabinet may overrule said decision [b]Section 3[/b] The main governing body of the alliance is the Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of the Heads of the Four Main Departments of the alliance: Diplomacy, Economics, Defense, and Recruitment. The term of each Cabinet member lasts one month beginning on the 1st of the month. All Cabinet members have seniority in their specified area. Only a joint decision by at least two Triumvirs can overrule a decision made by a Cabinet member in said area. An agreement by the entire Cabinet may overturn such a ruling, even when all three Triumvirs are in consensus. [b]Sub-section i[/b] In on order to run for a Cabinet position, a candidate must be a member of the alliance and have held membership status for a total of at least one month. The nation of the candidate must be Maroon. [b]Sub-section ii[/b] Cabinet elections will be held at the end of every month. A three day nomination period will take place from the 21st through the 23rd followed by three days elections from the 24th through the 26th. In the event of a tie, a follow up elections can take place on the 27th and 28th between the contested candidates. [b]Sub-section iii[/b] Cabinet members are expected, but not required, to create subordinate positions under their respective jurisdictions, in order to facilitate the completion of the tasks for which they are responsible. [b]Sub-Section iv[/b] The Head of Foreign Affairs(henceforth referred to as the HoFA) leads the diplomatic corps of the alliance. This office is entrusted with the task of maintaining a favorable relationship with as many foreign powers as possible and ensuring the continued safety of the alliance through the procurement of allies and the cessation of hostilities, both military and peaceful, with belligerent entities. The HoFA is responsible for the creation of embassies on the forum, the masking of diplomats from other alliances, and the assigning and directing diplomats to other alliances to initiate, maintain, and improve relations with them. [b]Sub-Section v[/b] The Head of Economics(henceforth referred to as the HoE) is tasked with arranging the economic affairs of the alliance through the use of aid, guides, and any other means directly related to the advancement of individual nations for the benefit of the alliance as a whole. The HoE determines the structure of the Treasury and directs members to move money and tech throughout the alliance. [b]Sub-Section vi[/b] The Head of Military Operations(henceforth referred to as the HoMO) determines and directs all military action in the alliance. All things relating to the organization of the military, research into the art of war, and passive intelligence gathering and analysis as it relates to war are directed by the HoMO. [b]Sub-Section vii[/b] The Head of Recruitment(henceforth referred to as the HoR) directs the alliance's efforts to obtain new member nations. The HoR authorizes and directs all recruitment programs as one sees fit, approves the admittance of new members, and masks them. [b]Sub-Section viii[/b] Sub-section viii The Head of Internal Affairs(henceforth referred to as the HoIA) is responsible for the maintenance and dissemination of information throughout the alliance. The HoIA maintains a list of members to facilitate sending messages, a list of the resources of all members, and rosters of members for each non-military task force in the alliance. The HoIA is responsible for checking the member list frequently for nations no longer in the alliance, nations falsely flying the PSA alliance affiliation, and nations that no longer exist. The HoIA is responsible for the demasking and/or handling of such nations. The HoIA is responsible for the maintenance of the election board, including the creation of nomination topics, election polls, and updating the public and private election results topics. Finally, the HoIA is responsible for maintaining a list of official PSA accolades earned by members, so that members do not misrepresent their honors. [b]Article III[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] For the continued protection of the alliance, the weeding out of the grossly incompetent and/or actively destructive members of government may be required outside of normal election processes. This should only be used in cases where the person's position in the government poses an immediate risk to the well-being of the alliance. [b]Section 2[/b] The Triumvir serves for the longest term. As such, it is necessary for there to exist a number of checks against abuse of power. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] A Triumvir may be removed from office by agreement of both remaining Triumvirs as well as a unanimous Cabinet. [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] A Triumvir may be removed from office by agreement of both remaining Triumvirs as well as a majority vote by the general membership lasting for a period of forty-eight hours. [b]Sub-Section iii[/b] A Triumvir may be removed from office by a majority vote of the general membership as well as votes from Cabinet members or Triumvirs each of which will be considered worth eight percent in the overall vote until the total percentage from the membership vote and government votes equals or surpasses one hundred. [b]Section 3[/b] A Cabinet member may be removed from office by a general membership vote, called by a Triumvir and lasting forty-eight hours, if said vote reaches or surpasses a total of two-thirds. [b]Article III, section 4[/b] In the event that any Cabinet positions are vacant for any reason, the Triumvirate will nominate a member to take over the position for the duration of the current term. The remaining Cabinet members will vote on accepting the member into the position, with a simple majority vote needed for it to pass. [b]Article IV[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] Treaties are the physical representations of the bonds between alliances and are essential for the continued well-being of any political entity. [b]Section 2[/b] Passive treaties refer to any treaty which does not necessitate action being taken on the part of one of the signatories. This includes any treaties of non-aggression. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Passive treaties require a majority signing of the Triumvirate. [b]Section 3[/b] Active treaties refer to any treaty requiring some form of non-military action to be taken by one or more of the signatories. This includes any treaties involving shared intelligence, aid, or senatorial votes. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Active treaties require a unanimous Triumvirate signing or a majority Cabinet signing. [b]Section 4[/b] Defensive treaties refer to any treaty in which a signatory is required to provide military assistance to the other signatory in the event a war is initiated by a third party. This includes mutual defense pacts and protectorate agreements. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Defensive treaties require six-eighths of the combined signatures of the Triumvirate and Cabinet. [b]Section 5[/b] Military treaties refer to any treaty in which military assistance must be provided in the event of a signatory becoming involved in a war. This includes all mutual aggression and defense pacts [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Military treaties require a unanimous Triumvirate signing as well as a full Cabinet majority. [b]Section 6[/b] Military blocs refer to any organizations involving three or more signatories which require military assistance and which have some established form of higher organization. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Military blocs require a unanimous Triumvirate and Cabinet signing as well as a majority vote from the general membership lasting for a period of twenty-four hours. [b]Section 7[/b] All cancellations clauses may be activated according to the same guidelines the treaty in question was signed by. [b]Article V[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] The alliance must set for a core of unbreakable rules for its continued existence. It must also have a procedure whereby it can justly enforce these laws. [b]Section 2[/b] Espionage is not to be tolerated in any form whether it be perpetrated against the alliance or by a member of the alliance against another entity. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Valid evidence of espionage is considered to be any of the following totaling at least 15 points: Recorded confession (10) Matched forum IPs (5) Revelation of screenshots (5) Relevant logs (5) [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] Should the evidence prove substantial and a verdict of guilty be returned, the Triumvirate may enact any or all of the following punishments: Removal from the alliance, authorized attacks, ZI, addition to perma-ZI list. [b]Article VI[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] No plan of government can conceive of all possible situations, nor can it hope to properly reflect all future attitudes of those it attempts to govern. As such, a provision must be in place to amend the ConstRItution to suit the present needs of the alliance. must be in place to amend the ConstRItution to suit the present needs of the alliance. [b][<a href="http://cybernations.wikia.com/index.php?title=ConstRItution_of_the_Random_Insanity_Alliance&action=edit&section=56">edit] Section 2[/b] All amendments must follow a set procedure of proposal, editing, and addition in order to maintain the integrity of this document. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] Any member who wishes to propose an amendment must first write out the proposed amendment in full before seeking the sponsorship of a Triumvir. This Triumvir will then propose it to the rest of the Triumvirate which may then edit or vote upon the amendment. [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] Once an amendment receives majority approval from the Triumvirate it passes to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet edits the amendment, it must be passed back to the Triumvirate for approval. If it passes unchanged, the amendment may then be voted upon by the general membership. [b]Sub-Section iii[/b] A proposed amendment will be given a vote lasting twenty-four hours after which it must have a majority approval. If it does not, it may be passed back to the Triumvirate for further review. If the amendment passes, it can be inserted directly into this document. [b]Sub-Section iv[/b] All proposed amendments which edit, repeal, or replace current sections of this document will be noted as such. The current sections will remain unchanged, but will have a line added referencing their invalidation and directing to the relevant addition. [b]Article VII[/b] [b]Section 1[/b] Diplomacy is and always should be the first, second, and third lines of conflict resolution between two alliances. Almost inevitably, however, there comes a time when a fourth line must be used. Once Florida has been exhausted, the fifth line of conflict resolution must be employed, for diplomacy is worth little if the will to defend oneself and one’s allies is not present. defend oneself and one’s allies is not present. [b]Section 2[/b] War is always a serious issue and should never be taken lightly. To this end, declarations of war and the process by which they come about must be strictly and thoroughly regulated. For our purposes, declarations of war shall be split into different categories. [b]Sub-Section i[/b] An independent offensive declaration of war shall be called for when the alliance feels that another entity has infringed upon it in a way which can only be resolved through application of force. Such a declaration shall require a unanimous Cabinet-Triumvirate vote as well as four fifths majority popular vote lasting for a period of forty-eight hours. [b]Sub-Section ii[/b] An optional treatied declaration of war shall be called for when an ally with whom the alliance has a non-binding military treaty requests assistance. Such a declaration shall require a unanimous Triumvirate and three fourths Cabinet vote as well as a three fourths popular vote lasting for a period of twenty-four hours. [b]Sub-Section iii[/b] A binding treatied declaration of war shall be given in the event that an ally with whom the alliance has a binding military treaty requests assistance. Such a declaration shall require a six-eighths Triumvirate-Cabinet vote as it will simply be a recognition of a state which must already exist because of the nature of the treat [b]Amendment[/b] [b]ents[/b] [b]First Amendment to the Third ConstRItution[/b] [indent][b]Preamble to Amendment:[/b] [/indent] [indent]The goal of this amendment is, first and foremost, to justify the elevation of Internal Affairs to a Cabinet position. The Internal Affairs department is one charged with many specific tasks which appear to many members as intimidating and repetitious drudgery, and as such few seek the position out. It is a very important position, vital to many aspects of PSA administration, and cannot be allowed to go unfulfilled. For the past few months, the head of the IA department has been set in the Secretariat, a level in the PSA's hierarchy of no more power than any other appointed job. Whether or not IA should be worth a Cabinet position is in debate, and it is my hope that this amendment will apply sufficient responsibility and importance to the role of Internal Affairs to make it worthy of gaining the powers bestowed upon Cabinet members. Should this amendment pass, it also has the fortunate side effect of outdating and thus removing a large part of the ConstRItution. [/indent] [indent][b]Article II[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Section 3[/b] [/indent] [indent]Sub-section iii The Head of Foreign Affairs leads the diplomatic corps of the alliance. This office is entrusted with the task of maintaining a favorable relationship with as many foreign powers as possible and ensuring the continued safety of the alliance through the procurement of allies and the cessation of hostilities, both military and peaceful, with belligerent entities. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] The Head of Foreign Affairs[b](henceforth referred to as the HoFA)[/b] leads the diplomatic corps of the alliance. This office is entrusted with the task of maintaining a favorable relationship with as many foreign powers as possible and ensuring the continued safety of the alliance through the procurement of allies and the cessation of hostilities, both military and peaceful, with belligerent entities. [b]The HoFA is responsible for the creation of embassies on the forum, the masking of diplomats from other alliances, and the assigning and directing diplomats to other alliances to initiate, maintain, and improve relations with them.[/b] [/indent] [indent]Sub-section iv The Head of Commerce is tasked with arranging the economic affairs of the alliance through the use of aid, guides, and any other means directly related to the advancement of individual nations for the benefit of the alliance as a whole. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] The Head of [b]Economics(henceforth referred to as the HoE)[/b] is tasked with arranging the economic affairs of the alliance through the use of aid, guides, and any other means directly related to the advancement of individual nations for the benefit of the alliance as a whole. [b]The HoE determines the structure of the Treasury and directs members to move money and tech throughout the alliance.[/b] [/indent] [indent]Sub-section v The Head of Military Operations leads the defensive branch of the alliance. All things relating to the organization of the military, research into the art of war, and passive intelligence gathering and analysis are directed by this office. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] The Head of Military Operations([b]henceforth referred to as the HoMO) determines and directs all military action in the alliance.[/b] All things relating to the organization of the military, research into the art of war, and passive intelligence gathering and analysis [b]as it relates to war[/b] are directed by [b]the HoMO[/b]. [/indent] [indent]Sub-section vi The Head of Recruitment is in charge of the effort to expand the sphere of influence of the alliance throughout the world by the obtaining of new individual member states. All programs involving the recruitment of new members run through the Head of Recruitment. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] The Head of Recruitment[b](henceforth referred to as the HoR) directs the alliance's efforts to obtain new member nations. The HoR authorizes and directs all recruitment programs as one sees fit, approves the admittance of new members, and masks them.[/b] [/indent] [indent]Additions to A-II.S-3: [/indent] [indent]Rename sub-sections iii, iv, v, and vi to iv, v, vi, and vii, respectively. [/indent] [indent]Sub-section iii Cabinet members are expected, but not required, to create subordinate positions under their respective jurisdictions, in order to facilitate the completion of the tasks for which they are responsible. [/indent] [indent]Sub-section viii The Head of Internal Affairs(henceforth referred to as the HoIA) is responsible for the maintenance and dissemination of information throughout the alliance. The HoIA maintains a list of members to facilitate sending messages, a list of the resources of all members, and rosters of members for each non-military task force in the alliance. The HoIA is responsible for checking the member list frequently for nations no longer in the alliance, nations falsely flying the PSA alliance affiliation, and nations that no longer exist. The HoIA is responsible for the demasking and/or handling of such nations. The HoIA is responsible for the maintenance of the election board, including the creation of nomination topics, election polls, and updating the public and private election results topics. Finally, the HoIA is responsible for maintaining a list of official PSA accolades earned by members, so that members do not misrepresent their honors. [/indent] [indent]Article II, Section 4 (as seen below) is to be completely removed from the ConstRItution. [/indent] [indent][b]Section 4[/b] [/indent] [indent]The final level of government is the Secretariat. This body is responsible for the clerical and administrative duties within the alliance. The Secretariat consists of the staff of each Department Head as well as a number of other clerical positions. [/indent] [indent][b]Sub-Section i[/b] [/indent] [indent]A Department Head may appoint for himself a staff to aid in the carrying out of his policies and plans. This staff falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the Head, who may appoint or dismiss staff members as he chooses. [/indent] [indent][b]Sub-Section ii[/b] [/indent] [indent]Non-staff positions in the Secretariat are appointed by the Triumvirate. The Cabinet may call a vote for removal of these appointees from office at any time. Removal requires a majority vote in favor from the Cabinet. [/indent] [indent][b]Sub-Section iii[/b] [/indent] [indent]The Secretary of Internal Affairs is responsible for keeping the general membership informed of the workings of the alliance and relaying the messages of the rest of the Cabinet. The Secretary of Internal Affairs may appoint one Triumvir-approved Deputy for every two hundred members of the alliance. [/indent] [indent][b]Sub-Section iv[/b] [/indent] [indent]The Secretary of Ghostbusting is responsible for maintaining a comprehensive roster of membership as well as checking the represented affiliation of each declared member to make sure that all members on the roster are correctly representing themselves and that all nations representing themselves as a member are on the roster. Similarly, the Secretary of Ghostbusting must ensure that all those with continued access to the alliance forum are members. One Triumvir-approved Deputy may be appointed for every 200 members. [/indent] [indent][b]Article III[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Section 1[/b]For the continued protection of the alliance, the weeding out of the grossly incompetent and actively destructive members of government may be required outside of normal election processes. This should only be used in cases where an immediate risk to the alliance should the person remain in office has demonstrated itself. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] For the continued protection of the alliance, the weeding out of the grossly incompetent [b]and/or[/b] actively destructive members of government may be required outside of normal election processes. This should only be used in cases where [b]the person's position in the government poses an immediate risk to the well-being of the alliance.[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Article VI[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Section 1[/b] No plan of government can conceive of all possible situations, nor can it hope to properly reflect all future attitudes of those it attempts to govern. As such, a provision must be in place to amend and successful plan of government. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b]No plan of government can conceive of all possible situations, nor can it hope to properly reflect all future attitudes of those it attempts to govern. As such, a provision must be in place to amend [b]the ConstRItution to suit the present needs of the alliance.[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Section 2[/b] [/indent] [indent][b]Sub-Section ii[/b] Once an amendment receives majority approval from both the Triumvirate it passes to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet edits the amendment, it must be passed back to the Triumvirate for approval. If it passes unchanged, the amendment may then be voted upon by the general membership. [/indent] [indent][b]Revised(changes in bold):[/b] Once an amendment receives majority approval from [b]("both" omitted)[/b] the Triumvirate it passes to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet edits the amendment, it must be passed back to the Triumvirate for approval. If it passes unchanged, the amendment may then be voted upon by the general membership. [/indent] [indent][b]Major conflict:[/b] [/indent] [indent]The addition of a fifth Cabinet member changes the total number of government positions to eight, an even number. This allows for ties in government votes, which can severely delay due process. Below is the proposed solution: [/indent] [indent]A1) Change all instances of "five-sevenths" in the ConstRItution to "six-eighths"(five-eighths is insufficient, as it unchecks the Cabinet against the Triumvirate). [/indent] [indent]A2) Change all instances of "three-fourths" in the ConstRItution to "three-fifths" or "four-fifths". [/indent] [indent]Instances of "five-sevenths": [/indent] [indent]A-IV, S-4, ss-i A-VII, S-2, ss-iii [/indent] [indent]Instances of "three-fourths": [/indent] [indent]A-VII, S-2, ss-ii[/indent] [indent]—First Amendment to the Third ConstRItution of the Purposive Sanity Alliance[/indent] [b]Second Amendment to the Third ConstRItution[/b] [indent][b]Article III, section 4[/b] In the event that any Cabinet positions are vacant for any reason, the Triumvirate will nominate a member to take over the position for the duration of the current term. The remaining Cabinet members will vote on accepting the member into the position, with a simple majority vote needed for it to pass.[/indent] [indent]—Second Amendment to the Third ConstRItution of the Purposive Sanity Alliance[/indent] [b]Third Amendment to the Third ConstRItution[/b] [indent]Article II, Section 3, Sub-section ii Cabinet elections will be held at the end of [b]each second[/b] month. A three day nomination period will take place from the 21st through the 23rd followed by three days elections from the 24th through the 26th. In the event of a tie, a follow up elections can take place on the 27th and 28th between the contested candidates. [/indent] [indent]—Third Amendment to the Third ConstRItution of the Purposive Sanity Alliance [/quote] [size="5"]FIRST GOVERNMENT OF THE PURPOSIVE SANITY ALLIANCE[/size] [i] [/i][size="4"] Triumvirate:[/size] Meatkin Pie Cactuar D: Georgia [size="4"]Cabinet:[/size] Head of Military Operations: [img]http://rialliance.net/style_emoticons/default/Flask.jpg[/img] Head of Foreign Affairs: [img]http://rialliance.net/style_emoticons/default/smileysex.gif[/img] Head of Internal Affairs: [img]http://rialliance.net/style_emoticons/default/spider.jpg[/img] Head of Recruitment: [img]http://rialliance.net/style_emoticons/default/Effort.gif[/img] Head of Economics: [img]http://rialliance.net/style_emoticons/default/Science.gif[/img] [i] [/i][/indent] Finally, the [b]RIA has been disbanded.[/b] Our new forums are [url="http://rialliance.net"]PSAlliance.net[/url] [size="5"]tl;dr THE RIA HAS BEEN DISBANDED.[/size] Seriously. The RIA, it's disbanded. The entire membership has gone crazy. We are now the Purposive Sanity Alliance. Please give us a few moments to change AAs, as we're a terribly inactive alliance. [/left] [/center]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='20 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1266724393' post='2194507'] NV and RIA know how to fight how in the heck did they get saddled with VE tagging along? Well I am sure they will at least be able to point VE in the right direction and keep them from looking to bad. VE is always ready for war, as long as the other guy is already at war and out numbered. [/quote] idk have you seen Rebel_Virginia's sig? RIA is terrible! also VE's upper tier is and that's where we need help.

Mad respect from BAPS here, coming from the other side. You have been classy ever since the UJW.

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1266652674' post='2193351'] Well you dismissed my answer to the second paragraph in your first paragraph so my hands are a little tied here :| I can only repeat that reps are not solely a means of apology for wrong doing as you put it, they are paid to the victor so peace can be achieved. As such, the winning party would have no business or reason for paying reps. Its not "hey you did this so now you're going to pay me this" its "alright, if you want to surrender you're going to do this, that, and pay me this". [/quote] lol I see where you get the contradiction from, but all I need to add is to your final sentence. It's "...going to do this, that, and pay me this BECAUSE..." The answer is, what? Because I won? I get money for winning? Pretty lame. Although it's how the world seems to work. You didn't do anything wrong, but since I won, I get money? You're going to do "this and that" because I need to keep you from re-entering the war at full capacity. But the only reason I have for getting money is that I won. Or I get it because you did something especially wrong that made it reasonable to ask for money in reparations for your wrongdoing. Your first sentence assumes something terrible IMO, and that is that the victor should ever need to be paid in order for them to accept peace. I can understand a symbolic "We surrender." wording. My point in the second paragraph is that we philosophically disagree on whether being the "victor" allows you to be vindicated from your crimes or for some reason causes you to deserve money. edit: Gonna head to sleep now, this leader of a nation in anarchy is gonna try to "git some" for this saturday night...Im sure our replies will get lost in the moosh of the spamming "o/ peace" to follow. Im glad you decided to remove your previous rather insulting statement and chose to take a very respectable path for our discussion. Since that first bump it's been fun and intellectual. ttyl

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266651331' post='2193325'] I appreciate both your going back to the post and your reasonable arguments. In regard to the last paragraph or so, SF alliances don't need to pay reparations because again, such things are paid in order for another alliance to cease attacks upon those paying them. While the winner in the conflict is generally the one that proposes the amount of reps to be payed and to whom, they are in effect something offered by the loser so that the war will end. They're in the exact same category as changing one's AA to "x alliance pow" or decommissioning troops. People just associate them as being different because they last far beyond the actual war, or so I imagine is the case. I would also reiterate that just because an alliance feels it has a legitimate reason for declaring war on another alliance, even if everyone in CN feels they have a good reason, doesn't mean they're not responsible for the attack. If an alliance makes the honorable call and comes to the defense of an ally regardless of their feelings on the war or how many people are against them, I for one approve of them, and in general the majority if not all of CN feels similarly. They're an alliance I'd want to be allied to myself. But again, this doesn't mean they don't have to face up to the attack, and if they're defeated, it doesn't mean they don't have to worry about any sort of terms imposed by the winner. They may be great guys, but they still attacked an alliance and in general, that's not something people are quick dismiss. [/quote] I would disagree with your first paragraph for the following reason: Decomms and changing AAs and peace mode restrictions are made to keep the other side from re-engaging dishonestly and against the terms of one's surrender. They are meant to discourage rogues. Nowadays, with warchests the way they are, the only decomms that really have an effect are nuclear and naval decomms. But nobody can really stop someone from going into peace mode, building up a military, and coming out. Nobody can stop a surrendered alliance from doing it collectively. The only thing is that it's looked down upon. Reps, however, are in a different category. They're an apology for a wrong-doing, and my argument was that there was no such wrong-doing. The main philosophical disagreement we have is that you determine responsibility for one's action once victory is determined. I would have you determine reps for both sides purely based on actions of both sides, and not of NS or victories or previous surrenders. That means if FoB lost, you would say that they shouldn't have gotten reps. This I cannot agree with. Victory cannot be such a pivotal point in whether an alliance deserves an apology. In the case of TOP/IRON vs C&G, the losing side will apologize simply to get out of having to lose more infrastructure. I sincerely doubt one side will honestly believe that they are wrong. So in the case of the main players in this war, victory determines the reps de facto. But when you're coming in simply to honor a treaty, optional or not, and you lose, and the other side is only getting reps because they're on the winning side, I disagree with that precedent.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266651335' post='2193326'] (Replying to this post and hoping it'll also address the response you gave to me) I don't think that in this situation the reps indicate that NATO/TFD were "bad" or "wrong" in the sense it is implied. When surrender talks came up, FoB (and GOONS) thought "You know, I'd like some recompense for the damage I have suffered". Do you think it is wrong for them to want to recoup some (very small) bit of their losses? They brought this as terms for the surrender, and after discussing it, an agreement was reached. Just because no one else in this conflict has asked for reps does not mean that anyone else is undeserving of them. I do not think that the winning side is "vindicated" from having to pay reps, but the winning side has more leverage to get what they want. Both sides would obviously love to get rebuilding money, but only one has the leverage to do so. [/quote] Absolutely agreed. Especially considering your last point. Hey, look, an AP debate went well.

[quote name='flak attack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1266650982' post='2193320'] And they invoked an oA on FoB when TOP and IRON used "we think you don't like us" as their reason to attack. [/quote] Actually, to be fair, I dont think C&G did like them, so that part of the CB was at least true Buut yeah, there's no question that TOP/IRON made a huge mistake. I take some assumption as to why NATO/TFD helped, and that they didn't necessarily support that part...but regardless of how terrible TOP/IRON are in the winning sides' eyes, I argue that honoring an optional clause is not something that means you should ever pay reps. I have a question to propose to you. if NATO was ODP'd to TOP, and your alliance declared war on TOP in defense of your ally (athens for arguments sake) and they honored the oDp, would they suddenly be in support of TOP's aggression on athens? No, they'd be defending their ally. If instead of invoking their oA, they had declared based on their MD and hit someone who was hitting them, would they really have been free of reps? No guarantees in this world. But the TOP/IRON krew determines that NATO and TFD needed to hit FoB for some reason, and that was the best way to help the TOP/IRON side at the time. (this is a decent amount of assumption) Also, everyone does realize that I agree with the reps now because NATO said "We're glad to help fix what we broke, we did a lot of damage to you"

[quote name='Xavii' date='20 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1266649872' post='2193293'] Then why sign optional treaties? I mean the optional part is there keep people from following stupid moves. If you wanna have their back regardless then you can go ahead and sign a MADP. [/quote] Oh, well, if RoK was attacking FARK, I wouldn't go in with them, just FYI. I also wouldn't go if RoK was under the impression that they needed to attack Sparta "because our beans are about to be rotten." I may have their back if they've made a mistake and acknowledge that with me, but not if they are doing something wrong and think it's right, and I'd probably support canceling the MDoAP because we clearly would be at a different level if they went to war with one of our allies for such inane reasons. Obviously, Im using extreme examples. But my bottom line here is that there are some cases I would not have RoK's back in the aggressive way. There are no cases where I would not have their back in the defensive way. Hence, MDoAP.

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1266649616' post='2193286'] 1. Reparations have no absolute rules or standards attached to them. [b]agreed, we're talking about a better karma world here[/b] In every situation they are unique. By arguing as if there are any set rules for them, you immediately start off in the wrong. [b]If I were doing that, I agree I would be in the wrong, but I am not arguing objective standards, just questioning the standards, and FoB/NATO have answered, and I have accepted their answer[/b] 2. Just because an alliance feels they have legitimate cause to attack another alliance, does not mean such an attack is forgivable or easily dismissed. By what stretch of logic do you maintain that this is so? Alright, an alliance goes in because an ally requests that they honor an oA agreement, or defensive, whatever. They have a recognizably legitimate reason for going to war, and that's pretty cool. But in what way does a good reason for going to war excuse one from the repercussions of one's actions? How are they not responsible for attacking another alliance just because they have good reason to?[b]You're absolutely right, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are free from responsibility for what they did. They absolutely are even MORE responsible for what they did because it was optional, and not a binding treaty.[/b] 3. You're right, winners decide who gets reparations and how much (pending the losing side agreeing to said terms of course). That's just how the world works. Lets not forget that aside from being a possible punitive or compensatory tool, reparations are part of an alliances surrender terms. They are acknowledging that they have lost and are paying this money for the incredibly under-appreciated move on the victor's part of not continuing to beat them into the ground. [b]I don't accept "how the world works." "The Orders run things" used to be how the world works. "The Initiative/Continuum decides which alliances are allowed to stick around" used to be how the world works. The winner "deserving" reparations is exactly what Im arguing against here. I am asking why the winning side, SuperComplaints (pretty much decided by now), is vindicated from doing 100% of the crimes that NATO and TFD have done, and no longer have to pay reps. I know that the world "works" where the winner gets to get reps and the loser gets screwed even though they didn't do anything wrong. That's how it's always been with some alliances. I'm voicing my disagreement with THAT standard. Your very first point, that there is no concrete standards for how reps work, I believe invalidate this argument. Reps can work a different way. Don't take my argument against how the world works as a sign that I don't know why or how it works.[/b] I could probably go on but I'm hoping you've a better understanding of how reparations work at this stage. [b]I too hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from, and wish to keep this discussion respectful of both sides' intelligence levels.[/b] [/quote] There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1266649520' post='2193283'] I guess it is a difference of opinion, but in the case of an optional clause into a war that you do not support, I feel that it is entirely reason enough to sit that one out. Is that not what optional clauses are for? They would not owe reps to all of C&G because they chose to inflict damage upon FoB alone, and the reps are the result of that. [/quote] Yes, it is reason enough to sit it out. But it's also completely fair and just to NOT sit it out, and very honorable to NOT sit it out. Especially when it's the losing side. Especially when the war isn't justified and most of their allies will abandon them. That's when they need your help the MOST. Not when they're fighting a winning crusade with everyone's support. If the CRIME is the SUPPORT of the war against C&G (which we agree was wrong), then all of C&G deserves reps. But I argued that honoring an oA clause is not support. Just because you have the option to leave your allies hanging to dry doesn't mean that choosing to stand by them even when they've made a mistake is a crime worthy of having to pay reparations. If the CRIME was INFRA/tech damage, we're all guilty of that, and victors should not be vindicated of crimes "just cuz we won yo." If there was no unique crime to what NATO/TFD did over what other alliances did, then it was simply due to the massive hurt they placed on FoB, and it seems both parties are okay with NATO/TFD sending money to fix what they broke. I asked why, FoB/NATO answered with "Well, lots of FoB is broken right now, and we asked help to fix it, and NATO/TFD said okay. It isn't much anyway."

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1266649616' post='2193286'] You don't understand how things work I'm afraid. This is not surprising frankly [/quote] Oh I stopped reading right at the end of that line. Do you even know me?

[quote name='janax' date='20 February 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1266649451' post='2193278'] I also saw his infra when we were done with 1 cycle...Claro is on her 3rd round [/quote] fixed, CN forums need more smug And she has a cold. I think his infra was down to like 500 after that war cycle. Nothing that could be done about it. Oyababy even got ZI'd. Doesnt matter how good ya are.

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1266649296' post='2193276'] It's great and honorable to put friends first. Honoring treaties is usually a good thing even oA ones. That doesn't remove the responsibility you have for the actions you take though. In your scenario if RoK made a unjustified attack and requested your support through the oA clause then the other side won they'd most likely ask reps from you too and in my opinion they'd be fully justified to do that since you're still responsible for supporting their attack even if honoring the treaty was the right thing to do at the time. [/quote] That's very interesting that you would find the victorious side justified for asking for reps for something that was the right thing to do.

[quote name='janax' date='20 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266648380' post='2193247'] Better than Delta? [/quote] Definitely not. You have successfuly gathered intelligence and SEEN Delta's warchest, right? Claro's down to 0 nukes and 400m, Delta and was in peacemode with his warchest in tact. fake-edit:

[quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266648363' post='2193246'] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! [/quote] I fix your logic below Nachos=good GOONS=good GOONS=nachos also nachos=peace

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266648482' post='2193251'] If they enter with a oA they're making a conscious choice to support the war on their side. Does that make them jsut as bad as TIFDTT that started the mess? No. That's why the reps you see are light. [/quote] Honestly, a very fair and well put argument, but here is why I disagree: honoring an oA does not mean you support the reason for the war. It means you support your allies and will fight with them. If Ragnarok went into a war and made a mistake and it was a stupid war, Id go yell at Hoo or whoever their emperor is at the time (lol), but I'd honor an optional aggression clause to [s]defend[/s] help them. I'd also say the war was stupid and demand that we offer white peace. I would also understand if the attacked did not accept this white peace. Id also fight by RoK's side until they got peace, and never suggest they accept peace until they were given fair terms for the crime done (e.g. no viceroys, no gov't restrictions, IA changes, etc.) So just because NATO and co. were helping their allies the best way that they felt was possible, by ganging up on the alliances they felt were weaker (no offense to the skill of FoB, it's purely a #s game), doesn't mean that they supported the war. If they did support the war, and that was the crime, then they owe reps to the entire C&G bloc, no? edited and left mistake struck through

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266648177' post='2193241'] You give too little credit to these alliances, they're hardly puppets of TOP and IRON, attacking whenever they wish. As with all alliances in CN, they make their own choices. They decided to declare wars and did some damage to the alliances they fought. [b]they won[/b]Ergo, reparations. [/quote] ADded a very necessary part of your reasoning. The only reason FoB "gets" reps in the CN world today is that their side won. Their ALLIES, not their PUPPET MASTERS, asked for ASSISTANCE, on an OPTIONAL clause. This was ACCEPTED by two alliances, and suddenly, they need to pay reps for the damage they did in honoring treaties. Dozens of alliances have gotten off without reps, but suddenly an oA clause isn't a good enough treaty to be worth honoring and make you free from having to pay reps? If the fact that FoB's side won vindicates from the SuperComplaints' crimes of honoring oA's and declaring wars and doing damage, please explain that. I had no idea that it's fair when winners are right and losers are wrong just because winners win and losers lose. Is that the karma world we want to have? Or do winners "deserve" reps because they won in your eyes? Does FoB get the reps because they were attacked? Okay, so I guess I gotta pay a lot of reps to TOOL because I attacked them. Umbrella is gonna have to pay a lot of reps to who they're fighting too. Can't say you were just honoring a treaty either. We've done the same crime NATO and TFD did, the only difference is we've won.

[quote name='popsumpot' date='20 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1266647618' post='2193214'] Why? A large number of alliances entered this war on the SuperComplaints side using optional aggression. In fact, WAPA entered the war with an optional aggression clause. [/quote] Im arguing for your side, just because Im on the supercomplaints side doesn't mean Im a mindless troll, I was being sarcastic in his response to the criminalization of NATO/TFD for honoring an oA and demanding reps for doing so.

[quote name='flak attack' date='20 February 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1266647856' post='2193225'] Could have something to do with the fact that FoB was declared on despite the fact that they had dome nothing. [/quote] So ask for reps from IRON and TOP, not the people that honored treaties to help a friend even when they made a mistake and were on the losing side of a major war.

Im having a really great time shooting at Claro. SHe's such a cutie. But I think the last 6 days of stable NS is a good sign of why we need help. The fact is your upper tier was able to slip into peace mode because you have enough so that we can't put ours in peace mode and keep a stagger, and we can't declare from anarchy. We need to have almost a 2:1 upper tier advantage in order to keep you out of peace mode once you exit it again, otherwise our nations are either fighting outnumbered or in anarchy and unable to redeclare and keep you out of peace mode. But yeah, 600 vs 67, you guys are the real spartans Also ask Claro how she's doing

[quote name='Shinpah' date='20 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1266644365' post='2193060'] Getting the !@#$ kicked out of us, I suppose [img]http://cnfob.forumotion.net/users/1111/13/78/29/smiles/575690.png[/img] [/quote] Oh...guess a lot of people need to give reps to GGA then. And TOOL. And Legion... A lot of reps. Or do you get reps because our side won?

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='20 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1266644356' post='2193059'] NATO and TFD declared on FoB using an Optional Aggression clause. [/quote] oh, honoring optional treaties bad, gotcha. My bad.

VE is terrible they took like 3 weeks to defend their treaty partners We're probably gonna make them laxative brownies at the next party.