Alterego

[quote name='Huang Ti' timestamp='1280600826' post='2396166'] I'd [i]love [/i]to see Alterego in gov! This game would be so much more interesting [/quote] Vote for me and Ill have us in a war in 48 hours. Its not who you think, we could win this one

Gramlins are defeated, congrats. By defeated I mean they wanted only one thing and not only failing to get it but basically killed their alliance for nothing.

[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1280593510' post='2396035'] Question - how many of these treaties are MDP+? [/quote] Its possible some could be ODP the titles people put on treaties dont help. I have included protecorates as MDP. I have also counted treaties at both ends. Eg the MK/Polar one was counted twice once for polar and once for MK. Fark: 15 , tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (Sparta,MHA) GPA: Neutral MHA: 6, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (FARK) MK: 18, tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (Polar,ODN) NPO: 7, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (Legion) NpO: 19, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (MK) ODN: 11, tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (MK,Sparta) Sparta: 13, tied to 3 other sanctioned alliances (ODN,MHA,FARK) TDO: See GPA Legion: 6, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliance (NPO) TOP: 7, not tied to any other sanctioned alliance VE: 18, not tied to any other sanctioned alliance [b]If you remove the two neutrals the next two alliances are as follows[/b] Fark: 15, tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (Sparta,MHA) MHA: 6, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (FARK) MK: 18, tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (Polar,ODN) NPO: 7, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (Legion) NpO: 19, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (MK) ODN: 11, tied to 3 other sanctioned alliances (MK,Sparta,GATO) Sparta: 13, tied to 3 other sanctioned alliances (ODN,MHA,FARK) Legion: 6, tied to one other sanctioned alliance (NPO) TOP: 7, not tied to any other sanctioned alliance VE: 18, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (FOK) [b]FOK: 12, tied to 2 other sanctioned alliances (MK,VE) GATO: 7, tied to 1 other sanctioned alliances (ODN)[/b]

Talk is cheap. Saying that 18k infra is a reasonable trade off for your self respect. Good luck.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1280579681' post='2395917'] Perhaps someday you'll master the art of thinking and typing at the same time, but my hopes aren't high. I'll settle for thinking before you type. [/quote] Feel free to comment on my post relating to this thread if you like.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1280577934' post='2395902'] Come on guys, why hate on Sparta when there are idiots like Alterego walking round? [/quote] They can do both. For those in ODN its called multitasking. Kind of like being someones ally and at the same time stabbing them in the back and leaving them to be attacked alone. Multitasking.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280576093' post='2395897'] This could be another approach. Larger alliances stop protecting and basically aiding in the development of new alliances. Then also alliances can cancel treaties with these insignificant alliances that should disband or merge. No treaties/protection, the vultures would take care of finishing the remains that don't leave the AA. Harsh, but its doable. [/quote] Most of their treaties are with other large alliances. If you smashed the treaty web at the top the smaller alliances would suddenly be very important to large alliances. This in turn would lead to a multitude of sides and lots of excitement.

Boring is good. Exciting and small is usually dead. The bulk of the treaties in CN are signed by sanctioned & large alliances. Most large alliances have double digit treaties. Thats where the real problem is, not small alliances having 3 or 4 treaties. source wiki Fark: 17 allies GPA: Neutral MHA: 5 allies MK: 18 allies NPO: 7 allies but would have more if not isolated NpO: 22 allies ODN: 11 allies Sparta: 16 allies TDO: See GPA Legion: 7 allies, until recently had over 10. Once the switch is made more will follow TOP: 9 allies but had more when in Citadel. VE: 19 allies. This trend continues with big alliances outside the sanction zone. The 10 non nutral sanctioned alliances have 131 allies/treaties. * includes protectorates

Congrats to the winners. [img]http://cnalliance.com/public/style_emoticons/default/BAPSFlag.gif[/img]

Congrats RIA. Looks good to me

Atari Jaguar, although its more of a war cry than a motto.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1280096338' post='2388777'] Whether a state of protection existed - and was announced - prior to the raids is a non-issue considering that MA has now made it clear that the SoL AA is protected, in which case, being a protected alliance, cessation of attacks and declarations of peace would be in order. I have confidence that, despite the rabble rousing of the masses, GOONS will handle this situation amicably. [/quote] Your idea of whats amicable is interesting. [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1280097984' post='2388814'] I have, will you? As for GOONS, they're peacing out. Uncertain then what you consider the parameters of this brink to be. [/quote] Hoos comments make it clear that he would have rolled them in seconds. Luckily for GOONS MA were more considerate.

Thats just crazy. Skinny dipping after 02.30 makes no sense to me at all. King Zog drama is good drama.

[quote name='King Puffington' timestamp='1280094430' post='2388743'] Were they not correct in that no protection notice existed? [/quote] He was told moments before it did. His response was not that I can see. I would take that as being called a liar.

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1280094020' post='2388731'] Let me get this straight. Being something of a spectator here, I would appreciate if either side can clarify what I interpret as the events in this raid: [list=1][*]GOONS members find no information indicating Soldiers of Legion is a protected AA after taking reasonable steps to find such information.[*]GOONS proceeds to raid Soldiers of Legion.[*]CptGodzilla informs GOONS via IRC that Monos Archein is protecting Soldiers of Legion.[*]GOONS states they will finish the current round of raids but not re-declare.[*]CptGodzilla informs the general public via these forums that Monos Archein is protecting Soldiers of Legion.[*]GOONS offers peace.[/list] Is this correct, or am I missing something? [/quote] Missing one thing. GOONS implied he was lying [4:34:00 PM] <Beefspari[GOONS]> I'm compromising as far as making sure that your guys don't get raided in the future. I'm offering that because the raids as far as I can see are valid since no protection notice exists.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280092658' post='2388695'] Yes, let's: if Safe Haven is established, and if you [i]do[/i] raid Safe Haven while it is protected, regardless of the rules of your alliance, you will be forced to either pay full reparations or face military attack. Raid away, but your raiding will not result in any benefit for yourself. [/quote] Sometimes you just have to stick it to the man no matter what it costs. [quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1280092628' post='2388694'] That's a gross mischaracterization. The number is closer to 88, last I checked. [/quote] Sorry

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1280017757' post='2387810'] indefinitely. [/quote] That long, wow. Congrats GOONS

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280081590' post='2388448'] As for recognition of this as a real alliance: perhaps they won't. Fine. But then when they raid it and whatever (presumably large) alliances that [i]are[/i] protecting it step in, what are they going to do? Because I have a feeling telling them "we don't recognize your protection of these nations" isn't going to go over very well. If a lot of larger alliances all agree to protect it from raiding, and we've seen a lot of support from various larger alliances here, then they won't be allowing their members to raid it. That leaves them to protect it, and other, smaller alliances to test whether or not they think the protection will be enforced. Provided the will to do so is strong enough, which admittedly at this point is not known, they may be testing some very dangerous waters by raiding an alliance affiliation that's protected by numerous other alliances.[/quote] I assume they will do what they like because this is nothing to do with none and everything to do with people on a power trip. Sure it might be a success for a while and down the line people will get sick of these people dictating their decrees to other alliances. [quote]Really, though, your arguments still make no sense to me, given that alliances can and do protect nations all the time. I didn't see you [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89637]here[/url] or [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89629]here[/url] saying those alliances couldn't protect the AAs they were announcing protection over, so why are you doing it here?[/quote] I dont care. I am not here to try and change opinion because I already said that doesnt happen on these boards. I have no doubt this is already being planned and implimented by raiding alliances who suddenly care about none. I am merely pointing out I will raid these people on the fake AA. [quote]And really, it's a sad statement on your part when government members of raiding alliances like GOONS are here saying they'd support this and sign on to it, at least in a no-protecting capacity, but you're coming out and going "I'll raid who I like". [/quote] Im not a GOON. What they do is their business. Even if that is raiding anyone they like while telling peeople none 2 is off limits. Yes I will raid any nation I like as long as it doesnt break the rules of my alliance. Other alliances dont tell me who not to raid my alliance does. That same alliance you are praising for a couple of comments have about 100 active wars. So lets have a reality check.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1280077853' post='2388391'] 1. There is no difference between this and a "real" alliance. It's a group of people protected by others. That's it, that's all. As Magicninja said, [b]alliances can protect whoever they choose to[/b].[/quote] Alliances can also choose to raid who they like. There is a huge difference between a real alliance and a manufactured AA used to hide none nations. Some alliances dont recognise alliances with less than 5, 10 or more as a real alliance. These alliances have a gov a charter and members rules made by themselves. Why would people recognise this bogus manufactured alliance when it has no attributes required to be called one. If a word in the AA slot is all they need then none is already an alliance just go and protect none instead of pretending this inst none 2. [quote] 2. There are no "rules" for alliances; there's no international law besides that enforced militarily. If alliances are willing to enforce a ban on raiding on a protected alliance affiliation militarily, they can and will do so.[/quote] There was no rule for Pacifica but one of the 1st things dismantled was their limited protection of red, colour and fake AA are just semantics they are both protecting unalligned nations. They can do as they please just dont expect people to sit back and have alliances dictate which unaligned nations I can raid. My alliance makes the raiding rules I follow not GATO none 2 is still none. [quote] 3. They're not protecting "None". No where has it ever said they're protecting "None". Saying nations on the Safe Haven alliance affiliation are "None nations in hiding" is absolutely no different from claiming a member of any other alliance is a "None" nation in hiding. [b]It's an alliance affiliation, protected by other alliances. Is this so hard to comprehend?[/b] Claiming it's not a "real" alliance because it doesn't have government or leadership is the same as saying an applicant or cadet alliance isn't a "real" alliance. After all, "TPF Applicant", for example, does not have its own government or forums. It's simply a non-alliance under the protection of a larger alliance. There's no difference except the proposed size of the alliance affiliation and the proposed number of alliances protecting it.[/quote] They want to protect unaligned nations. For the love of admin read the topic title. It says protection of unaligned nations. [quote]International Convention on the protection of "unaligned" Nations[/quote] [quote]EDIT: And let's face it, most alliances that allow raiding have regulations that would prevent raiding Safe Haven just on size alone. [/quote] You are assuming real alliances will recognise a fake alliance as a genuine one

[quote name='LucasSnow' timestamp='1280032045' post='2388025'] I, personally, like this idea. It obviously needs some work still, and a lot of supporters. But personally I'm all for it, getting Sparta in on the debate now, we'll see which way they swing. If enough alliances agree they can sit down and work out the detail together. Another Idea; if enough AAs backed this, another punishment for going rogue could be Color Team Sanctions on the offending Nation. [/quote] It doesnt matter who backs this fake alliance people will not stop raiding them. You have no right to tell people they cant raid people who arent in your own alliance or a genuine protectorate alliance instead of a fake one to stop others raiding. NPO was slapped for trying to help just one colour sphere. Most of the people here were against that so called control of a sphere. They did exactly what is being proposed here but instead of signing a name them moved sphere to receive some protection from raiders. Now you are talking about sanctions and calling raiders from this sphere rogues. Alliances who view the set up of fake alliances to protect none nations from raiders should not have this group dictate what they can and cant do to none nations on a bogus AA. This is just a flexing of muscles by this group interfering with the rules of real alliances. I dont care who backs this fake AA, if its Sparta or anyone else. I will not recognise your right to protect none and I will raid this [u]fake alliance[/u] as a matter of principle. I hope to see active raiding alliances post official responses from their governments refusing to recognise this alliance as a real alliance & reaffirming their right to raid none nations if this comes into being, even those in hiding.

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1279910234' post='2386236'] After five days, it's also a 100% fool-proof way to avoid growth, unfortunately. [/quote] If they cared about growth they would join an alliance. If they didnt want to get raided they wouldnt be out of peace mode and on AA none. If these people are in peace mode did you ever consider they are happy there. They dont have to talk to anyone, do anything and they dont get raided. Some people are just happy on their own. Dont let the moral police force them into conforming.

I thought the Karma beatdown, $10,000,000,000.00 and 350,000 tech in reps covered all past actions. Now you want to pull a gRAMlins and get them to say sorry nearly a year and a half after the war or they cant get that clean slate. What a joke.

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1279920825' post='2386584'] I don't see how a nation with an AA other than none is a none nation. [/quote] If its an AA thats intentionally set up to allow none nations continue as none nations under a different word. Like a new suit on a hobo he is still a hobo. Hes just wearing a new suit. Its a one way MDP that will backfire on whoever decides to put the defense of none over the welfare of their own alliance.

Thanks for the WTF moment. Congrats o/

They would still be none nations. A sleight of hand wouldnt change that. [quote name='Baldr' date='23 July 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1279919225' post='2386543'] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/UPN"]http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/UPN[/url] All purple means "not everyone". [/quote] I was refering to ghosts. They allow people to ghost them no matter what team they are on. They also protect their ghosts.