bzelger

Much respect, Ragnarok. Good luck.

Why are you people arguing with Voytek? Most of you should know better. Also, good luck, PC; see you out there.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1295486085' post='2584617']Somebody's gotta do it, and I'm just too damn good looking.[/quote] You seem to have gotten yourself confused with someone else.

[quote name='Cornelius' timestamp='1295468618' post='2584157'] If we had done that, then we'd be criticized for making war for war's sake.[/quote] That [i]is[/i] what you're being criticized for, although now you're also losing face for dishonesty.

Well done. I'm glad you're living up to your history of being good sports.

[quote name='Inferno' timestamp='1295459195' post='2584048'][IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e107/PabloPerotti/CN/Cry.png[/IMG][/quote] You need a comma in there to get across what I think you're shooting for. "Spank them Viridians" and "Spank them, Viridians" have very different meanings.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1295387140' post='2582046'] Except you didn't, you just hoped no-one would notice. Let's break it down: Without telling what it was [i]about[/i]? Hm, let's see. Oh dear. Facts 1, tired old ex-Hegemony nobody 0. (Not informing NPO was not a friendly action, indeed. When OV was in a power cluster that NPO was already very hostile towards that is quite understandable. If NpO received a genuine anonymous drop on, say, TOP, it would be quite rude of them not to inform TOP about it, but it wouldn't in itself be a CB. But that's [i]not[/i] all that happened here. Dajobo sent Lennox out to spy, and then he actively collaborated in being shown the screenshots, going so far as to ask for them to be reposted when he couldn't see them.) [/quote] Dajobo should not have helped troubleshoot the broken screenshots. Dajobo probably should have informed VE as soon as he got the PM. If VE wants to make a war out of that, I'm as happy as anyone to have a war. To read those logs as Dajobo coaching a spy or somehow sending Lennox to VE, however, is being willfully obtuse or maliciously disingenuous. I know it's your MO to toe what you feel is your party line regardless of what its foundation is, but even so this is a bad angle for you to take and it undermines your whole position.

Dajobo clearly stated twice that he would have nothing to do with spying. Your CB boils down to "he accepted screenshots."

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1294510610' post='2568685']As to irony and all, just a little refresher, we were messing with a 6 ghosts on a dead AA that had no protection, your free fun involved threatening a sovereign alliance with active members and treaties.[/quote]This is priceless. [quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1294511505' post='2568690'] How much do you know of Terra-Cotta beyond your relations with the NSO? [/quote]Not much! [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1294511754' post='2568695'] Does STA have any plans to change teams any time soon? [/quote]No.

MK didn't ask for aid until we started coming out of nuclear anarchy. We could not have acted on any decision prior to that anyway, and we were discussing going back in to help NSO when MK activated our treaty. The ar\m/istice was a complete surprise to me too.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1294440065' post='2567745'] I would have told the alliances involved that the idea was a game-changer to my alliance and that if it went through that it'd force us to attack them/switch sides in the war or that maybe if such talks continued that we would be forced --via treaty-- to disclose this information to our ally. I wouldn't have chose the decision to run around in the dead of night delivering my sides war plans to the other side. That's just me though. tl:dr -- I would have done more to stop the attack because I realize that such things don't screw 1 alliance. It screws a coalition of them. [/quote] I would say that this is a fair criticism. I am limited in my ability to respond because I wasn't directly involved with any of it and most of what went on in that war is still not entirely clear to me. It is my understanding, however, that we did raise objection to the plan but that our objections did not gain traction partly because we weren't really major players in the affair, and partly because we were ourselves unaware that we would be able to do anything other than complain. We didn't threaten to change sides because had the ar\m/istice not occurred we would have been unable to do anything so extreme; we were fully committed to the defense of Polaris at the time and hadn't even the slightest inkling that the landscape of the war would change the way it did.

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1294433094' post='2567611'] Since you broached it and as it is questionable as to whether or not CnG was really going to stay out, what made you decide to sell out AAs that came to Polars aid. I understand treaty obligations but considering at the time the way things were laid out you sold people out that were there to help end the conflict quickly and efficiently. [/quote] I don't agree that "sell out" is a fair characterization. Many of us were very unhappy with the switching sides thing and there was serious consideration of fighting on both sides. We didn't have the capability to do so effectively, unfortunately, and we had an invioable obligation to honor our treaty with the Mushroom Kingdom. I very much wish that our hand had not been forced and we held the position that we had initially.

Sorry to see you go, Hizzy; you're a [s]gentle[/s]man of the highest class and a wit that will be sorely missed.

Sorry to see you go Mia. Best of luck to The Dakotans.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1290101175' post='2516704'] GOONS: Scourge of the Commies since November 2010 [/quote] This fills my heart with conflict.

Good news! I found your agenda. It was between the couch coushions. [font="Courier New"] 10:00 Wake up 10:00-10:30 Scratch yourself 10:30-11:00 Litter box 11:00-noon Breakfast 12:00-12:30 Complain about chronic twinkie shortage 12:30-1:30 Lunch 1:30-2:00 Make litter box jokes 2:00-3:00 Afternoon tea 3:00-4:00 Nap 4:00-5:30 Dinner 5:30-6:00 Litter box 6:00-6:30 Brag about litter box exploits 6:30-7:30 Beating subordinates 7:30-9:00 Nap 9:00-10:00 Evening snack 10:00 Sleep[/font]

The moon is a harsh mistress. Also, I remember you. I always enjoyed your posts.

I think the root of the problem you highlight is essentially one of age. The leaders of note of the past have played their hand and are tempted by other pursuits. They just don't have that much interest in moving the world any more. The fresh faces are daunted by insurmountable difference in nation strength and mounds of history that they did not experience. It's a tough crowd to break into, and the attrition rate is accordingly much higher than the growth rate, and those who do make new nations and stick around tend to not be drivers. I confess that I do not understand your issue with what you term moralism. You object to people taking stances over what ought to be acceptable in politics, yet in the same breath complain about the lack of fire and conflict. What do you think should drive action? Random acts of violence? I don't see why you object to people applying political pressure to shape the nature of discussion the way that they would prefer. I will venture to presume from the flavor of the OP that you feel that raw self-interest in terms of increasing relative stats or political puissance should be the focus of alliance action. Ignoring the vapidity of trying to cast that as somehow intrinsically distinct from any other world view, I think your premise that divergence from this paradigm induces stagnation is unsupported and irrational. If stagnation is your only concern, why do you care if people's motivation for war is desire for the top spot versus dislike for an alliance's operating protocols? The underlying problem is not that there is no driving force, but that it is currently insufficient to cause action. I would posit that this is the result of an amalgam of things, including the ennui of leaders mentioned above, penalties for losing a war (terms, increasingly large gaps in nation strength to recover, time value), and asymmetry in the power structure. Do you really expect people to launch a war that will result in their decimation? The people who have the power to cause conflict with relative impunity are, ironically, the people most adamantly critical of "moralism."

This is surprising. I know we had our differences, but this is still sad. You've had a lot of good people in your alliance. Good luck to the membership.

No, the UPN member with 100 days' seniority whose situation was understood to be unresolved. That was acknowledging that anything involving UKOMB wasn't a good way to go.

Good luck! May your livestock always be effulgent and your crown jewels well-fed.

[quote name='Lord Roper' timestamp='1286403953' post='2477470']ass leader[/quote] That's not a very nice thing to call Tyga.

Good luck.

Our tech-raiding definition is rigorous. Whether we choose to extend diplomatic recognition to alliances is independant from that. In your example, yes, Fark would fit my criterion for a rogue body (I know the usual definition for a rogue is one acting without the sanction of a recognized government, but that's a stupid definition) but a variety of political realities (e.g., Fark having their own senatorial power, limited ability to place sanctions) preclude responding in the same fashion. As GOONS agreed to peace in the first war with yourself and had not attacked the second incarnation of KN, I am unable to support your methodology.

For the purposes of tech raiding the Siberian Tiger Alliance defines an alliance as anything other than "None" in the alliance affiliation field. For sanctions, which is what you really mean, it's a bit more subjective. To be honest I'm a little hazy on the genesis of this round of Methrage vs GOONS, other than it has induced an extraordinary number of posts not worth reading. My understanding of it is that a member of your alliance attacked GOONS randomly and you jumped on board. Unprovoked* aggression is roguery. The only difference between doing it on the large scale and the small scale is the practicality of curbing it with sanctions. *This is where the subjectivity comes in.