Atanatar

When was it re signed?

I agree with Rey. I asked because I was curious about the length between cancellation of the old treaty and the signage of this new treaty and new gov.

When was the previous treaty initially canceled? I seem to have missed it.

o/ WAPA. May you enjoy the wars you're given.

An average schlep who has a distinguished career in Public Service to Fark. Give your self credit, Krack. Not your fault people came to trust you even after you laid down the mantle of leadership.

Doch, you're confusing our desire for war with our desire to tech raid. They are not the same thing. In this case we wished to tech raid. If we had wished an alliance war, we would have posted a formal declaration, posted individual surrender terms, and enforced reps. Odd. I somehow think if we had done that to even a similar sized or larger sized alliance, you would still be condemning us and calling us bullies.

It's only a no win situation if you know what our goals are. But since you seem to know exactly what our goals are, let's compare notes shall we?

Never said we did or were, now did I?

No, because some one will come around and write a long rant on how \m/ winning the game is immoral.

We aren't advocating cannabalism, we are advocating the right of alliances to state their intentions truthfully, and guide their alliance as they see fit.

Thank you Good question! I shall try to describe it via description of a theoretical situation: Alliance X has sentenced the leader of Alliance Y to EZI. Members of alliance A, B, and C view this as acceptable, where as precedent has stated that bad things have happened to alliances who practice such as a result it has fallen out of favor. Now, members of Alliance Z, understanding this precedent, come out in force to denounce this. Alliances A, B, C and X view the commentary of alliance Z illegitimate, since they do not agree with the precedent and believes it should changed for what they believe to be the better. This may not be the explanation you were expecting or even agree with, but it gives you an idea and how I use the word legitimate. First let me define the Moralism that I am attacking. Moralism is seen as the opposite viewpoint of a might makes right world, and seeks to quell opposing view points. I have no problem with alliances or people having a moral code of conduct. \m/ has such a code, albeit in unwritten form and expressed as our community, and it being radically different from most othe alliances accepted morals. As above, how ever we find Morally unconciousable to have people not of our moral viewpoint to dictate how to regulate our community. It would be similar to some one from TOP to tell STA to stop importing Twinkies, as it is morally wrong to do so. We have no problem with people objecting to us. How ever, they say turnabout is fairplay, and so we decided to hold them to our moral standards, much as they try to hold us to theirs. Our moral code calls for you to hold your tongue unless you fully intend to do something other than talk b

Shocking! That almost seems to insinuate most of these new found moralists only have a problem with tech raiding when \m/ does it! I can only imagine this is because they have missed us sorely, and wish to see more. Well my friends, I can make no promises, but I vow to do my best to bring back our lottery, and expand it to include unaligned alliances as well as unaligned nations.

Congratulations to two of my most favorite alliances!

Hm, it seems you are trying to be unbiased in your questions. If that is the case, please accept my apologies for my aggressively toned message. I shall try to answer your next question more sufficiently: The basis is context sensitive to those posters who are at the moment completely unaffiliated to either FoA, the raiding alliances, and the protector of FoA; The Corporation. I attempted to use a commonly held view of the attempted total destruction of community as an example of an act that could legitamently outrage third party observers. For "misplaced" outrage I refer to the situation on this thread, in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of third party observers has no business interfereing with, especially considering the fact that the event these third party observers are so outraged about was privately resolved to the satisfaction to all involved. Seeing as the aggrieved party, in this case FoA, is satisfied with the outcome, the third party observers have little to no logical basis to be outraged.

An example of "well-placed" outrage would be being outraged over an attempt to destroy your alliance. An example of misplace outrage is bawwing over something that was settled before you even know you had something to be outraged about. In review: well placed outrage: attempts to destroy your alliance misplaced outrage: crying and moaning over something that doesn't concern you, your allies, and possibly not even your allies allies. Would you like to try and make another point? So far it's 0 for 1.

Law enforcement implies a mutually accepted set of laws between alliances. No such thing has been agreed upon, so your point is moot.

He wished to halt other alliances from raiding, and backed it up with military force. How is that not forcing people to conform to his view point? Or are you one of those people who only believe everyones intentions are pure and benign despite when they say otherwise?

I'm so glad you've come to understand the false assumptions you made. Would you like a medal, how ever? I'm quite sure we can find some one cynical enough to craft you a "Medal of Misplaced Outrage". I'm sure it would menace with spikes of outrage.

Yes, here we are: we have our tech, our laughs, and generally better relations with our allies. What a horrid box to be trapped in. My outraged sense of morality can't stand the fact I'm not indulging it's persecution complex. I may have to serve it's two week notice.

Remember this post, Fantastico? Because I do, and nothing says hypocrisy callin upon us to save face than "diagrace" and calling for "the world to unite" against us and dictate our alliance matters. But please, don't let your own words disprove your lies and knock some damned sense into your skull.

Of course eveyone should do it. The problem and fatal flaw of your planhow ever is that you want to use our mind set to "destroy" us. When you start enforcing double standards, I.E saying what we do is immoral except when you do it against those who you arbitrarily judge to be more immoral than you. You advocate a life of hypocrisy and wanton control over how others play this game. Your morals* evidently are more important than the countless players who play this game how THEY want. Isn't it fun becomming the monster you sought to destroy? It's nothing new, don't worry. You will have the chance to see that, to learn from it, forget it, and restart the cycle of the unjust, the unjust you have become. *: Morality and Immorality is subject to change, depending on how it serves the purpose of this new, faux ~.

Oh no doubt, no doubt at all. I'm just kindly pointing out that the last time what you advocated was put into place it kicked off the current decline of our world. But seeing as you're from Zenith, you would probably welcome with open arms the chance to firmly plant your face on the protective teet of a sole global power, and partake in your regularly scheduled curbstomps. By all means, don't let history sway your self aggrandizing behaviour.

Yes, band together and stop us. Create your selves a super structure in which the only wars that CAN happen is those your create. Attack and forciably change other AA charters, remove their leaders from power, and sentence those who commited these horrible crimes to EZI. We shall stand united against the Unjust. We shall call our selves ~, and usher in a new age of never ending peace

You do not speak for FoA, as you aren't even a government member according to your own emperor, and you're the only member to date who has complained of this protectorate.

Oh I have no doubt if Kev or iClean felt us wolves were still prowling, he wouldn't abandon them. They are much too decent people for that. ~.^