Megamind

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327963768' post='2910916'] I was referencing the multiple AA's that MK and its "members," ghosted in this most recent war in addition to this most interesting and latest discrepancy between MK's rules of sovereignty and, well, the rest of the entire game aside from a special few. [/quote] Temporarily joining an ally during war is hardly a new concept and it is hardly something MK invented. We had the thing with Fark and NEW a while ago and more recently there were a lot of people temporarily joining both sides in the Legion-NSO conflict. Hell if you want historical precedence then I recall a number of people leaving to join NAAC during GW2 when it became clear that Legion wasn't going to enter, hell I almost did it myself... [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327963815' post='2910919'] I do indeed. [/quote] Well then, as long as everything you've said is correct, it would appear that you are the rightful leader of RoK

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327963417' post='2910908'] It will sure make for interesting conversation in the future, as MK's view of AA's in general is kind of off compared to the rest of the world. Ghosting its allies, making new AA's so that it can fight undeclared wars. Good for future reference for sure, though. Not sure if that means it's the generally accepted rule of law and what happened would probably not be tolerated by most alliances, including your own. [/quote] What are you talking about? Undeclared wars? MK was given the go ahead to attack by the legitimate RoK government, that is hardly fighting an undeclared war... [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327963458' post='2910909'] I was there, I know what time it was. [/quote] Good point. Then there is only the question as to whether Bob had already made Joe leader when Joe made you leader. If he hadn't then Joe couldn't have made you leader, but I assume you have logs that prove that as well?

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327963167' post='2910903'] here you go [img]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu185/Omniscientone/roklogs.jpg[/img] [/quote] Those logs doesn't have a time-stamp so there is no way for us to know when that conversation happened!

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327962554' post='2910895'] I think this implies that the rest of the planet follows your laws of sovereignty. [/quote] Considering that we live on MK controlled Bob, I would say it is fair to assume that what Ardus says is the generally accepted precedence EDIT: Damn you cookavich

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327961627' post='2910883'] I was the Clear Authority for a long time. Just because there was a post later in time confirming that I was the Clear Authority, does not mean I haven't been the Clear Authority for a much longer time. Would you dare say Umbrella was fake before their DoE three months later? It would just be incorrect. [/quote] Those two situations are in no way comparable. The evidence for Umbrella's existence was right there on the alliance page. The evidence for your leadership prior to Joe's post doesn't exist and if it does you have yet to show it. Now if you are indeed in possession of a time machine, which all the signs seems to indicate that you are, then it would be reasonable to assume that you used it to travel back in time and order the banishment of Bob and Joe from the RoK forums. However if you continue to claim that you aren't in possession of a time machine then I must insist that you provide evidence to support your claim prior to Joe's post.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327961188' post='2910874'] You are no the authority on Ragnarok. You don't know what he said and when he said. I AM the authority on Ragnarok. If you are supporting the slurpees than you can go brain freeze yourself, thanks. [/quote] But you yourself have been quoting the post he made in this forum as proof of your rightful leadership of RoK. Why would you do that if he had given you leadership of the alliance at a previous point in time? Again I feel I must ask, do you have a time machine?!

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327960874' post='2910869'] Me I am the authority of Ragnarok. Joe Stupid said so. [/quote] But he said that after he was banned from the forums. Did you travel back in time?

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1327959834' post='2910856'] it was apparently decided BEFORE the forums went down, when Bob and Joe tried to justify and explain their actions to the RoK membership on their forums. You'd know that if you had actually taken the time to read all posts from all parties. [/quote] Decided by who and with what authority?

[quote name='Da DreadLord' timestamp='1327959549' post='2910848'] The moment they started the OOC bs, they violated their own charter, thus making all other charter references void afaik. Apologies for bringing logic to this topic though.. [/quote] Don't worry, that isn't logic. While the charter might forbid certain actions it does not say what is to happen to an individual in violation of it. Whether or not they violated it is a matter of how you interpret the events. In this case it appears certain individuals took upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner, jobs which ironically enough would fall upon the RoK emperor if you go by the RoK charter (or at least the judge and jury part). Even if Bob and Joe violated the charter, that does not mean others can just decide to ignore it. No matter how much certain people like to argue it, two wrongs does not make a right

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1327956608' post='2910799'] you clearly havent met me, go ahead and try to see how small of a speed bump I can be. As for everything else, I love how people kep harping at the small little details even though everything was pretty much explained here and even with e-lawyering and everything. Point is, you cant have an "emperor" that is flying a different AA, that is disliked by the membership and that was banned from the alliance by the membership as a whole. [/quote] But you can apparently remove the rightful leader of an alliance if you happen to be an admin of the alliance's forum... Also you (as in the larger you, not you personally) keep saying that it was the memberships' decision. When exactly did the membership have time to discuss and make that decision? This whole thing really began when the RoK forum was taken down and when it was put back up Bob and Joe were banned...

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1327954550' post='2910777'] The point simply is that Bob or Joe will never be welcomed in Ragnarok. So yeah, all this discussion is rather silly. [/quote] Another point simply is that under [i]your own[/i] charter, you can't do that...

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327953273' post='2910764'] Oh don't be stupid, Megamind. Your alternative is that Rok just go without a government. [/quote] Joe Stupid, Bob's regent, still resides on the RoK AA (yes I am aware that he left it briefly but he is there now), so it isn't such a stretch to assume that Bob would have named him Emperor when he left. If that is the case then Joe Stupid is the legitimate leader of RoK. Note that I'm not arguing that it makes sense that an emperor can rule without the support of the people, but that is what the RoK charter says. Hell if you go by the charter then, if Bob didn't appoint a replacement upon leaving the alliance, he is still the leader of it. Not saying it makes sense, simply pointing out that the RoK charter is a botched job and, since the charter is the foundation of the alliance, so is RoK.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327949479' post='2910724'] If I get locked out of CoJ's forum tomorrow, I can do two things: I can assert my authority, or I can walk into the sunset. If I assert my authority, maybe I win, maybe I lose; if I walk into the sunset, I have abdicated. Bob walked into the sunset. [/quote] Even if that is the case, the RoK charter clearly states that 'If the Emperor leaves office. He or she must select a replacement.' As such, unless Bob appointed Adel empress, her claim to the title is illegal.

[quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1327919424' post='2910510'] If possible, would please explain how it is possible, for Bobby Joe to actually rule RoK if the membership doesn't support them or doesn't follow their orders? Would Bobby Joe, after cancelling all of their other treaties, have come to NATO, NSO or NoR and gone, "Our members don't listen to us, we need you to attack them so that they'll do as we say." Apparently, though, they would have gone to MK and TOP. So, sorry that you guys lost out on being RoK's nannies - you still have Bobby Joe to babysit, though. Seriously, though - and Mega, baby, I still love you, but seriously. RoK's charter doesn't forbid coups. Most charters do have a clause in there about treason or punitive action for violating charter or what have you. RoK's charter, however, is ridiculously short; it just has four rules...one of which they violated by allowing, if not encouraging, others to do. It has no guidance on what should be done in the situation of ANY charter violations...but obviously something is done, or else why even have the rules in the charter in the first place? Their charter is lacking in words to give freedom to the membership (and honestly, the government) to do whatever they please. And at the end of the day, if the RoK membership doesn't agree with it, they'll leave the AA or start attacking each other. Soooooo...I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, except to say that the RoK charter says bum all about anything, which I suspect the alliance already knows. [/quote] As has been pointed out above, the charter does say something it says [quote]In Order of Command Emperor (Lifetime) Regent (Lifetime)[/quote] Now as far as I know, the word lifetime doesn't mean 'until the admin on our forum decides to ban him'. I could be wrong though. Is the charter flawed, terrible and stupid? Sure. Would I be in an alliance with such a terrible charter? No !@#$@#$ way. But that doesn't change the fact that the charter is the foundation that the alliance is based upon and to blatantly ignore it, as has obviously been done here, isn't a good way to build the community's confidence in the alliance. Also it appears to me, as a casual observer, that the decision to remove Bob and Joe was made by a few people, that just happened to include the owner of the forum, and not by the membership. If the removal was done with the backing of the majority of the membership, then why would there be a need to ban Bob and Joe from the RoK forums? If this was truly about what the majority of the membership wanted and not just a few coupers taking control, why was Bob and Joe not allowed to make their case to the membership?

If possible, would you please explain how it is possible, under the RoK charter, for you to remove Bob and Joe?

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1327818059' post='2909244'] I haven't approved any strikes on Argent so you all can just perish the thought. [/quote] Please papa Ardus, can we please please please please please roll Argent?

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1327016964' post='2903122'] I'm a few pages behind now, but 'log dumping' is low class not because IRC logs have some magic quality that makes it so, but because posting any information that the other party had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential is a low class move. That's one reason why alliance members feel so betrayed when someone leaks things from their forums. [/quote] Usually I would agree, but in this case I'd argue that tf905 lost any claim to confidentiality when he threatened to log dump himself. You could say that Brehon just preempted him

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1326384771' post='2898107'] Sssh, that's the next war Caparo PF VS PB VS DR VS MJ VS CNG VS SF VS XX Battle Royale [/quote] The war of all against all?

And could you possibly make a version without the peaced out alliances?

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1324761262' post='2885799'] Congrats to the newly elected. Especially Megamind, great diplomat. [/quote] I disagree, Megamind is a terrible diplomat and overall pretty much a jackass

Go ponies go! [img]http://iambrony.jsmart.web.id/gif/files/ada7e712b49e52cd5e8e336f6d5bb7da.gif[/img]

I don't know if it's because it's the middle of the night, but for some reason I find Hyperonic's posts (and the responses to them) incredibly funny. [size="1"]For the record, I'm reading them under the assumption that he's playing with all of you, which makes it a lot more fun than if he's just an idiot...[/size]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1323461401' post='2871109'] It shouldn't be about "per nation", it should be about "as relative to total pre-war score". Not sure if that affects it at all. [/quote] Why? An alliance with more nations has more war slots and should therefore be expected to take more damage than an alliance with fewer nations.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1323472794' post='2871304'] Probably the ability to $%&@ your alliance up. Their own strength formula, I'd say. [/quote] Looking at the score for MHA and Sparta, I'd say that their formula was pretty flawed

[quote name='acrux' timestamp='1323322109' post='2868513'] It's time... [img]http://www.isymbol.net/umb/newfriend.png[/img] stay tuned. [/quote] OMG OMG OMG! It's Raman Mew-Mew!