Proko
-
Posts
883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Proko
-
-
Well said.
I'd like to mention that MK leadership has been vigilant in dealing with membership trolling/flaming. I'd encourage members of other alliances, however uninformed, to please show us the same respect. Thanks.
It's noticeable. We appreciate your efforts.
I direct this question to Archon himself, as a follow-up to Fallen_Fool's third question:
In what ways do you see the LUEnited Nations and Mushroom Kingdom as similar? In what whats do you see them as different?
Again, I mean no disrespect with the comparison. But as it is a subject I think many of us this side of the Unjust Highway have considered, I'd like to hear the perspective of a man that has led both alliances.
-
you guys. Hail One Vision!
-
Thanks bro, that is quite the compliment. Albeit it's usually reserved for my female life partner after a evening of make sexy followed by a morning filled with birds chirping and crepe suzette's.
I understand why you made your post. You were feeling slighted but I can't help but think that your logic is flawed. Your measurement for loyalty seems to be longevity + prosperity. So lets break that down (because I think you have a point).
Lakefire states that he's had membership with rage-board since as far back as 1999. You claim Lakefire held membership status with IRON for 7 months. You can say that the relation between the 2 are meaningless but they aren't. Up until we decided to form Rage Company Lakefire stayed faithful to IRON. Once the idea of Rage Company was born Lakefires loyalty would shift towards us. On a side note. 7 months is a long time to stay in one alliance. I commend him.
As for him prospering from IRON's vast fortunes? I can't argue that. Please come up with a number and we'll be happy to pay that back to you. Please remit any funds Lakefire has given back to you via the mentor program he founded there.
You are ignoring the context in which Rage Company was founded. I believe Bill N Ted understands that Lakefire had greater loyalties to Rage than to IRON. What you did not acknowledge was the circumstances under which he left IRON. IRON has led a relatively peaceful existence, and it was only until very recently that their sovereignty was legitimately threatened by another power (the Unjust Path). The people of IRON, government and members alike, although confident of victory, could not shake the prospect of defeat.
Lakefire left his comrades to fight without him . Sure, Rage was forming. That's really awesome and I'm glad you guys are getting along. But he left members of IRON, people that had aided him and nurtured his nation, in their darkest moment. I don't BnT is objecting to his reasons, so much as he is objecting to his timing, and the burden he placed on others.
-
Here are the facts:
5) IRON began to get into more and more wars, and at the time Bill n Ted would insist on putting everyone to ZI without any open ears to working out a deal.
To show Bill n Ted's true personality, here is a post he made on the IRC channel after I left. Obviously he is still bitter.
Very objective of you
-
My guess would be no because the NpO would no longer be able to consider it a "victory" and they couldn't stand the paranoia of having a powerful alliance such as the NAAC still lurking around with the ability to inflict a considerable amount of damage upon them.
Any nation bearing the Alliance Affiliation "NAAC" or "National Alliance of Arctic Countries" is a valid target for the military of the New Polar Order.
This has nothing to do with either the size of the alliance, or the term used to describe the conclusion of the hostilities (i.e. "Victory"). The National Alliance of Arctic Countries was repeatedly given surrender terms and, to avoid these, they disbanded. They will not be allowed to reform without adhering to the terms of surrender as presented last April, unless otherwise stated from Polar Imperial Command.
-
Will NAAC reincarnate? like VE did?
No.
-
Oh shut up Great Crybaby.
Hey, there's a difference between being obstinate whining and unambiguous flaming. Are you trying to get banned?
-
I always enjoy reading Mpol. He's one of the better strategists in the game.
And writers, for that matter.
-
And did you even read our response?
The member was found guilty, and kicked.
Surely there is a rogue member once in a while?
I hope you don't have one, for since you expect that an alliance can have total control over the membership, to the extent of having no rogue members.
I hate to see people canceling your treaties because a member of yours went rogue.
It is understood that alliances will have rogue members. But the inept manner it was dealt with has caused many alliances to think differently of the GPA. As I said on the first page, I believe it is the collective opinion of the alliances that have recently removed their signature that the GPA is not as neutral as their Declaration of Neutrality declares them to be, and because of that, we feel uncomfortable signing something that affirms they are "neutral."
With the exception of IRON, we are perfectly willing to pursue friendly relations with the GPA. We are skeptical of their neutrality, however.
-
That's an incomplete sentence.
Oh yeah, and it's not like I've been trolling you, and I apologize if I offended you. If you were another person I would ask for some common courtesy, but I don't think I'll be seeing that.
Dude, you were trolling TAB. Dilber don't much like them trolls.
-
Why do I see that people will probably completely ignore my last post?
Because people understand that, even if they eventually rectified their mistake after weeks, the GPA is capable and willing to engage in actions that violate the spirit of Neutrality. We're perfectly willing to be friendly with the GPA, we just don't consider them neutral.
-
It pleases me beyond words that you'll still be around. It was great to work with you, and I look forward to continuing to do so. The game and Polaris will never be the same.
Hail Sponge
Hail Emperor Assington
-
Directed towards Conan the Barbeque, regarding the rationale behind the withdrawal of our own signature, which I believe shall shed light on the GDA's decision:
Yes, a member of GPA failed to boot a member with a disgustingly offensive nick.
Yes, the GPA took nearly 3 weeks to expel a member that had committed an act against IRON
You can declare repeatedly you punished the individuals responsible for these acts. You can say that there have been problems with a few members, but that the GPA still stands for what it always has stood.
It was clear to nearly everyone that you had made a grave error about Error404, and I applaud IRON's restraint in this situation. If I were Shan or DarkMistress, IRON would be kicking down your door as soon as the "Not Guilty" verdict was uttered. And now, Conan, you complain that alliances that were uninvolved are removing their signatures from the Declaration of Neutrality? The New Polar Order and the New Pacific Order removed our signatures for an incident we were uninvolved in as well, but I recollect no such grievances
The issue at hand may have been solved. But for the past 3 weeks, the Cyberverse has seen weak, unstable, and inconsistent diplomacy and decisions pour forth from the GPA, that have been neither neutral nor honorable. You optimistically claim it was just a few members, and that those who botched the trial have been removed. Well, I hold no such optimism. Your government is showing trends of ineptitude and decisions contrary to your core purpose.
We no longer believe in your neutrality, and we are unwilling to keep our signatures on a document that affirms such.
EDIT: IRON, not GOONS. "Shouldn't have drank so much Surge."
-
Thank you IRON. You know I love you guys
Congratulations to all the others!
-
A Wise Decision.
You have our thanks
-
In no way did I claim that IRON violated our neutrality. I am pointing out that our neutrality is a two way street and will be enforced for both the "goose and the gander".
I don't think you're comprehending this issue especially well. The GPA has defined itself as a neutral alliance, and has vowed to maintain the policies of neutrality. As far as I know, this is like a member of Nordreich upholding the principles of German nationalism. It is the defining characteristic of your alliance, apart from perhaps your size.
A member committed a very non-neutral action, by aiding a nation whose alliance is at war, and who, I believe, has nuked IRON nations. As a GPA member said in the previous thread, Error404, who must have saved for a few days to afford this, as well as supply a sizable portion of his tech, to what was apparently a RL friend. Thus, it's fair to assume that Error404 was aware GOONS was in a war, and by sending that nation aid, he is committing a non-neutral action. That it is not within the law is irrelevant, he violated the principles on which the GPA was founded and conducts it's foreign affairs. You are following your law, but you are not obeying your ideology. The GPA is essentially saying "Anything that is not codified in these laws that is not neutral is acceptable behavior for a GPA member," instead of something like "A GPA member should at all times strive to uphold neutrality and the principles on which the GPA was founded."
Please correct me if I'm misinformed, but this is the impression I believe many of us are under.
-
What is the GPA's official explanation regarding the reasons for aiding a GOONS nations, or do they consider this irrelevant. As New Reverie observed in a related thread, that he was trading makes no sense. Following our espionage policy, we spied on the GOONS member and confirmed that he is not trading with Error404.
Can someone in the GPA clarify why Error404 was aiding the GOONS?
EDIT: Bakunin beat me to it
-
IC: To manipulate the policies and peoples of the Orders for my secret CoaLUEtion agenda.
-
True that.
I happily voted for Meinhoff for MoFA.
I probably would have, too, come to think of it.
-
Nice choice. Meinhoff, right?
Leave no NDOer behind!
If only GATO had listened to me when I was MoFA
-
Your forums are win.
My costume is a bit dated, but it looks original enough
-
An excellent treaty. An excellent alliance
Hail Viridia
Hail Polaris
-
What's been left unanswered to this point: how did he get on so many perma-ZI lists? My assumption is that it has little to do with attacking IRON nations or just being a Triumvir of \m/.
Regardless of ZI lists, Warrior Concept has not surrendered to the New Polar Order or any of the ~ allies, and is thus, ~ and WC are still in a state of war.
-
He was Banned. Along with L_E. 2/3 of our triumvirate gone within a couple days of eachother.
I thought they were banned at the same time, because of the Fransjosef thread?
you guys. 
Polar Milestone
in Open World Forum
Posted
Excellent, Socks on the Rocks is my favorite (old Polar joke)!