grahamkeatley

Nah, something else, I think. TPF is not included at all. GK

I have mentioned alliances and people in jest and off-hand regarding issues that have been resolved years ago without trying to score points. Some times giving context to a delayed reaction is all important. I just don't understand why people have reacted almost defensively at the mere mention of an alliance? What dirt was spilled, no fingers were points, we were glad to have it resolved. And 4 days after it was resolved, we did not want it to occur again with AE growing in members so it was requested we post the protectorate up. GOONS had a direct impact on why it was posted "late" for good or bad, and that was all that was being mentioned - RR had requested it to be posted. Roadie thought it didn't need a new thread. Someone was raided. It got resolved. AE requested again and Roadie posted. I don't understand the sensitivity to the reaction that somehow points were trying to be scored? And why prostrate issue with it, if you are then going to proceed to do the exact same thing only regarding an issue that was resolved even longer than 4 days previous? GK

We all openly admit that the issue is resolved, but does not negate the reason why this thread is sadly needed. This is being posted as a direct response to the issue even arising in the first place. It is being posted as a clear display so that the issue isn't repeated. This was requested, and I don't think any points were trying to be scored by stating the reason why this is being posted up late and in it's own thread after being mentioned in another thread. o/ AE - look forward to smooth (from now on) sailing. GK

Nice to see the DoE and delighted to see all the well wishes and hails going your way. Have really enjoyed our chats, been absent from helping protectorates for a while now and I have missed it. Look forward to many many more chats in the guise of counsel. I am just trying desperately to relive my youth. Remember these days as a young Alliance. TOOL had it's time, and I am certainly not disappointed or do I hold any regrets. Things happen as they should happen - and with it I have had the chance to come into contact with AE and look forward to the next few months especially with your guys! Best regards, GK

Have really enjoyed this thread. The to and fro is brilliant, very interesting. Only suggestion I would have, and I realise you have commented on the arbitrary nature of the tiers, but I have always believed the tiers should be based on NS declaration ranges. Just pick a bottom end; Pick at what level you want you to cover say 75k, the ranges would then be; 75k+ 100k+ 133k+ It would then show clear declaration levels. Alternatively, work downwards 140k+, 105k+, 80k+. Either way setting the categories in a particular declaration range might show a more relevant categorisation. GK

Welcome back FEAR! The way it should of been. GK

[quote name='queenhailee' timestamp='1346379899' post='3026803'] Nice to see this finished up. Glad to partner up with you folks. GK, look what you've done. You allied qh [/quote] I can die happy now. The combination of your long standing teasing, coupled with the avoidance of my past advances has led to a very frustrating few years. My work here is done. =D GK

Not sure why I thought this was going to be a SoA themed alliance from the title. Best of luck! GK

This is actually really sad news. Only heard about it in passing today and had to go scrambling for the announcement. I do want to echo some of WB's thoughts. The split of TOOL, and mostly the period before, that meant nearly a dozen brothers/friends went separate ways - was and still is one of the things I wish could of happened differently in my time in CN. You guys were an absolute joy to work with, for and towards. I will continue to apologise wherever I can for ever taking that for granted, and wish you all the best in your collective futures. GK

[quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1342638341' post='3011712'] Oh noes, I am allied to QH, there is something wrong with this picture. Oh wait, everything in the world is finally right.[/quote] I need to get in on this action. Congrats guys! Love this treaty enough to come out of slumber. GK

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1341492021' post='3003892'] I think it's a side-effect of the statistics download... and the July 3rd stats were taken from the early morning of July 4th, since I forgot to collect them the night before. (It's also probably why they had such a huge loss the night before, because it covered a day and a half). [/quote] Ah - that makes sense. Is there no way to auto-mate the download? Perhaps admin would be kind enough to offer it in a repository? GK

Not sure if there might be another issue with stat collection, but not sure how VE did not move score over 17 hours. GK

Daks, Dodo, Mia... If you are out there. See you on the other side. o/ TPF GK

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1330101388' post='2927540'] One of the worst pieces of e-lawyering I've read in a very long time. Of course if you have experienced people dropping $3 mill on you out of the clear blue sky so you can buy yourself 50 tech to keep, I stand corrected. On the other hand most people who have no clue why someone sent them $3 mill would probably send a message back asking what this is about, particularly new nations for whom $3 mill is the equivalent of someone handing you a briefcase of cash in the street. But hey, most of us are curious like that.[/quote] It was a response to someone trying to make a point about contracts... How else are you to respond, except for in a 'lawyer'-esque manner? Or should we all discuss contracts in clown suits? You are wrong. Most people who have no clue and get sent a shiny offer with 7 digits when they have been living off 4 figures for the last 2 days will accept without question. Then they will tend to send a message asking what tech is, let alone ask for what the offer was for. Most people are curious, but primarily most people in a play scenario tend to accept first and question later. That is their own fault, I have no sympathy. But it is understanding how the majority of inexperienced people work that has resulted in this policy, so I think it is pertinent. And again I ask, why would people want to Tech Deal with those types anyway? Why has dust been kicked up around a policy designed to encourage people away from having issues with inexperienced nations? GK

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1330038180' post='2927038'] Just look at the actual language. It is pretty clear that it is an [b]offer[/b] and that it is clearly marked as to its purpose. The nation has full freedom in accepting it (agreeing to do the deal) or denying it (not agreeing to do the deal). There's no way around the very clear language. If I use my presidential credit card to order some digital music from my nation's Itoons store, the owner of Itoons, Orange, can't take my money [b]AND[/b] not give me what I bought. [/quote] I disagree with this almost completely. We are dealing with new, inexperienced nations here. "3m for 100tech" is not clear at all at first glance that this is a contract that they will be attacked for. If anything that little blurb could be read a multiple ways, one of them being "Here is 3 million dollars for the purchase 100 tech", even in that it does not immediately indicate a sending of the 100 tech, merely what the 3m was for. Now I am not playing dumb, but we must take into account the knowledge of the recipient of an offer when trying to assess whether a shrink wrapped contract is legit. Does a "?" mark at the end of the blurb make it different, if the blurb doesnt specify a time frame... So it is not clear at all what an offer means. From the blurb they aren't stating it is a deal. Your example is also hugely different... The contract was NOT in you giving your credit card. The contract was initiated by Orange by advertising a product. You then sent an offer for that product (Accepting the contract) and then they would send you the product. If anything your example shows just how backwards and wrong unsolicited offers are. GK

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330005322' post='2926583'] Having a tech deal go awry due to individual incompetence is totally different than gov-sanctioned permission to just take money and not pay it back. UE knows (or at least I hope they know) that nobody is going to take them up on a "refund" because it's a huge waste of slots. It's a pretty effective policy though I have to admit; if UE wanted to make people hate them and hand out a CB for anyone that really wants it, this is a great execution. [/quote] Are you purposefully not trying to think about the issue? What if that Nation used the "refund" to start the process of the Buyer buying tech off someone else. In that way only 1 cycle of slot was lost, that way you can accept the refund in the manner it is being offered? UE are NOT trying to trick people into losing money. And I find it absurd that you think it as such. GK

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330001989' post='2926540'] If it was as rare as you say they could just handle it on a case-by-case basis in private. By making this a big deal and announcing it publicly they take out the "off-chance" factor and give all their members a free pass to keep as much money as they feel like. Their alliance will now be aware of the policy that it's okay to just accept tech deals and not pay them.[/quote] Let me just rephrase what you said; Their alliance will now be aware of the policy that it's okay to refund their mistake of accepting a tech deal. I dont think any implication or attempt in this is to still money from people sending out of the blue tech deals. It is merely bringing to public knowledge that in the case of unsolicited tech deal offers, any that are accepted by mistake will be refunded. I dont see why you wish to see it as a free pass situation when it is clearly not its intention. And in my opinion any individual or group wishing to press this issue are doing so with the knowledge of the policy. They are doing so with the knowledge that they are trying to instigate and force another individual into a tech deal, by making an issue of not accepting refund. And then they complain about wasting slots, when it would be their knowledgeable choice? You can argue it both ways - by making a big announcement - yes they inform their own alliance of the policy, but they also inform everyone else of it as well. More of friendly, dont waste slots; avoid UE. GK

FAN just joined the 50 club as well. GK

Happy Hunting, Argent. Give them one for me, Janax. GK

It is surely great to see Olympus' continued success! To many more! You will always have my best. GK

?[quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1322339099' post='2852806'] It's a never ending circle and no justification will come of it unless it fits your "point" I was there also and don't remember seeing you in the planning chans. but it was a while ago. Who were you arguing it with about it being the wrong move ? [/quote] Well, I am sorry. I am not trying to get across a "point". I have nothing against TOP or IRON. In fact I am quite fond of a lot of IRON. But this attack for a pretty petty reason has me disappointed. I was asked why, I explained why. I do not have to convince you or anyone, or prove something to express myself - I only need to give my reasons when those are requested of me. For 3 days straight I argued with anyone that would listen. But most memorably, expressing my thoughts to Crymson? And MCRABT? I think. They would not be swayed from thinking hitting CnG was the best strategy to undertake. And they deemed their word golden because they had placed themselves in Military command. 3-5 people placed in charge of operation for a coalition that had a large number wishing to discuss the tactics being proposed. It has been a long time, and forgive me for being unable to name the people on the forum threads and in evening rants and ravings. But myself and Dodoei (specifically) were quite active in those planning rooms. And clearly felt along with others that honouring treaties was the proper way to do things. Firstly, because it was actually going to relieve some pressure from NpO et al. Secondly because it would keep fence-sitters and non-chainers out. And thirdly, because it was clearly not an action to help NpO. As it stood NpO and STA were very much not a major part of planning. We needed to properly enter before they cut and run. The coalition took too long to actually come in and help for fear that MK and CnG would come over the top. They !@#$ themselves and decided it was best to strike first. Delayed for a number of days and !@#$ fell out as it did. I realise this has all been pan handled around over the last two years, and I do not wish to drag through the mud again. But their actions were selfish - and it meant they were deliberately dealing a blow to enemies for no reason and deliberately not aiding an ally who was at war and whom promises had been made to aid. Added to it being said in the coalition that it was not the only and arguably not the best strategy to deploy. TOP led the coalition decisions, and made a bad decision. And then NpO gave them a reason for it not to be their fault. They took it and then made friends with those they had wronged in that decision. It stinks. And NOW, they attack NpO for their bad decision. GK

[quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1322337273' post='2852780'] "TOP's actions to hit pre-emptively against CnG in my opinion was a selfish action, which put your own desires ahead of the coalition as a whole." Personal opinion which you have a right to.= Inarguable The rest of your statement has been rehashed over and over again in this and other threads, and is becoming rather boring. Try something new already sheesh [/quote] So because something has been brought up many times before, makes it invalid for justification for my point? If anything surely it having been rehashed over and over again makes it more relevant to backing up a point? To be honest, I couldnt give a rat's ass what or whom has discussed things elsewhere. I was asked to give examples and point towards the actions I have experienced and seen that would justify my position of being disappointed. I did this. And they are valid - personal opinion or not. I was there, I and many others argued within the coalition not to approach it this way. Even without NpO's actions it was felt like a bad move. Acting within a coalition without a majority approval, and then saying it was in the greatest interest for the coalition is ballsy. Not improper because I guess they had majority in the individuals who mattered - but selfish to act for your own purposes against the wishes of others. GK

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322336549' post='2852773'] A selfish action? We attacked an entire bloc and didn't peace out until all of the coalition had secured peace. As we pointed out, if we had wanted to act on a simple personal grievance, we would have attacked MK as they were the ones provoking us at every opportunity. C&G was a strategic target. [/quote] At the time, maybe you believed this. But the strategy was disputed by many at the time. And TOP acted with close to autonomy in the coalition to push forward the strategy. That with the NpO action killed whatever coalition momentum/morale that was there. GK

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322335769' post='2852762'] Except we didn't act out of disloyalty and selfishness. We'll take the arrogance part, though. We were arrogant and still are to some extent, although we have been working on that. [/quote] TOP's actions to hit pre-emptively against CnG in my opinion was a selfish action, which put your own desires ahead of the coalition as a whole. How alliances, friends of old, treated NPO as well in Karma and after is what I refer to with regards to disloyalty - and not necessarily aimed at TOP. As I am trying to lump the declarations of both TOP and IRON into my disappointment. GK

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322335143' post='2852741'] The strategic decision ended up being the wrong one. However, in those cases, hindsight is always 20/20 and the information people relied on, on our side, was in some cases either tainted by bias or simply different. However, there is no doubt in our minds that, with treaty chains, C&G would have ended up on the other side of our coalition AND that Polaris betrayed us. I was merely addressing those two points as they were put into doubt by STA's fine leader, Tygaland. [/quote] I think had TOP/IRON had listened to the majority of advice that was bouncing around the coalition at the time of deploying the strategy that you ended up deciding upon. Then perhaps a different decision would of been made. But I think with the understanding that NpO was going to hold up and take a beating on one side, it gave an opening to slap the other enemy around a little. I do think TOP made the wrong push for a strategy. And said so many times at the time, but TOP didnt want to hear it at the time. GK