SleepiB

fahlenfor, it doesn't have any impact on treaties at all. If they attack someone with an MDP using this doctrine, they can expect to get attacked. If they attack someone they have a treaty with, they can still expect the rest of their treaty partners to drop them. This doctrine changes absolutely nothing with respect to treaties. It's a thinly veiled threat against no one in particular, which isn't even credible until they act on it. Unless NSO just posted this for attention, it would probably have been better to just attach it to their first DoW that uses it.

NPO will probably pass WTF before drop line passes us, think that will satisfy it?.

No, because we were already in the race. We'd get removed from the race if the drop line passed us, and added back again when we were over the add line.

I wouldn't mind seeing "I hate you" called a valid CB.

By acting on the doctrine, if you have the power to, and if nobody has the power and will to stop you. This doctrine doesn't affect anyone till NSO uses it, at which point the "other side" as you put it, is free to lodge their complaint with force. This can certainly happen, as acting on this doctrine might activate MDPs that would otherwise lie dormant because of chaining. That is the underlying principle, any MDP between two parties imposes clear and significant restrictions on the rest of planet bob(namely that the rest of planet bob isn't allowed to attack X). It's up to the signatories to impose each other's protected status on the rest of planet bob.

That may be true, I just don't see this doctrine being significant to people that have other treaties. There are risks and obligations that come with a protectorate other than just PR. If they want to protect people from tech raiders, but not from people with a "valid" CB this is a workable option.

I understand the idea of leaving your options open, but only people without any other treaties would go to them and ask them for help. I don't think this changes anything significant. At best it cuts down on extorting micro alliances for tech, and it's still outclassed by any treaty. Perhaps they want to protect CG or someone, but don't want the PR or obligations that come with signing an actual treaty.

A few questions: So there is only one hotspot on mars, and the efficiency is 50% at 6650 miles over the surface(the exact opposite side of the planet), 75% at 3325 miles, and 100% at 0 miles? and 1080 miles 50%, 540 miles 75% for the moon? Is the influence of the hotspot much more localized, like anything more than 50 miles away is 50%? Is the distance measured as something other than a great circle, like a straight line or loxodrome(straight line on mercator map) for example?

[ooc]AFAIK you can't demand any privileges on user-hosted forums, this includes any masks admin or no. You can however demand that the viceroy be kept informed of everything CN-related, and word the terms such that a see-all or whatever mask is the easiest way to fulfill that term.

I'd have rerolled for better resources any time before I started buying wonders (coal/fur).

it's efficiency that matters, is the number in (paren) greater than 60% your working citizens?

It's not just IE, I'm having what I presume to be the same problem in firefox 3.0.11 on MacOS, and I don't think it's the phishing filter, the browser gets stuck loading the page at "Read pagead2.googlesyndication.com" edit: Also it is intermittent.

Affluent Pop/Fine Jewelery/Steel/Construction. Query me in #tso on coldfront, PM me on forum, or PM in game here: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=189979 Blue sphere. Resolved.

I use a mix of Dictatorship, Capitalist, Democracy, and Communism, depending on what i need at the moment. Edit: Also nuke anarchy, on occasion. No religion, my people imagined and liked what they saw.

I recall political parties being outlawed by part of the charter before I left MCXA, I don't remember if or when it was amended.

This is very true, to get an awesome protector you'll have to demonstrate a lot of activity and familiarity with CN politics, the best way to start is to hang out in a few alliance channels on IRC, and ask questions, or to give up on founding a new alliance until you've had a few months experience in government of an already established alliance.

I would think one can violate his or her ideals by spying, correct?

Yes. Context, Gatherum. We originally intended to serve out our terms while training people to take over our responsibilities, but were asked to leave quickly instead.

I'm sorry, but we left back in Feburary, there was no telling if the next war for MCXA would be in March or September. We left before the GGA thing and subsequent treaty cancellations, which was the first reliable indicator of any significant momentum. Hell, if anything we were moving into a less "safe" situation by leaving MCXA.

The drama and power disputes stemming from a very small group of people(2 to 5) may well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The chronic inactivity, apathy, and willful ignorance of the GA instilled by long standing lax entrance requirements (a problem this war created an opportunity to ameliorate), was what pushed our will to be expressed in the formation of a new alliance instead of the expulsion of a few power hungry drama queens with ulterior motives. Of those who remained at MCXA when TSO formed, I can count on three fingers those who were active, competent, and cared about the alliance more than their ulterior motives; these are the people I feel bad about leaving behind. Our loyalty is to each other, not to any ideal, not to the flag we fly, nor the AA we use as an avatar. This was always true, long before there was a thought of forming a new alliance, it was the basis of our culture. (OT) One more thing I want to clear up: There was no indication of war when we left MCXA, we did not leave MCXA to save our infra. In fact we offered to continue defending MCXA without attaching strings, an offer which was declined.

True, just ask Lychnid XD.

At the drop of a hat, after how many weeks?

When your voice is not heard, it is time to speak with actions. Setting an example may or may not be as much help to Echelon as continuing negotiations, but even if not, we only have so much patience.

Good luck, Nod.

If you'd look closer, you might notice that ALL the non-Invicta targets, plus about half the Invicta targets TSO engaged are nuclear armed, and that we also engaged more WRC nations than your alliance has WRCs. Surely we must be on a simple tech raid, ignoring the strong nations that can cause our allies harm.