RiceDoc

And now the fun really begins! /o Anarchy Inc.

I came to Valhalla seeking a respite and, oddly enough, kindred warrior spirits with sufficient targets to make things interesting. Interesting is certainly the right term for my time in Valhalla. May Valhalla live on in our hearts as we move forward in our quest for expanding our goals and empires!

Just because I've been accused of being a tech monster (a close kin to the cookie monster), I'll chime in with the obligatory "TEEEEECCCCCCHHHHHHHHH!!!! I WANT TECH!". Oh, and enjoy having a real life. Some day I may have to try that too.

Like the others above, I'm in for $3M/100 tech 3x3's as a BUYER.

I'm also looking to buy. Currently have open slots too! Just contact me in game and we'll get the deal done. I'll check back here every couple days, but check in game every day (usually a couple times/day) so that will get it moving faster. Thanks!

While I shall never lose my NCAAbbs roots, joining this Nordic bunch has been one of the best moves I've made! Here's to another year with more Mead, more bold deeds and more mixed blood (in the form of sports fans who bleed whatever their team colors might be!).

[quote name='RePePe' date='16 February 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1266362143' post='2186403'] I'd say there's been enough debate back and forth. Whatever result happens will most likely happen regardless. And if you look at Grendel's sidebar he's not even in NCAAbbs, it says NACCbbs. Must be a very cohesive bunch if they don't know what their alliance is called. [/quote] While we are not the mindless sheep you are looking for, we are far more cohesive than you might imagine, particularly when it comes to debating the NCAA, sports in general and defense of our nations. We just aren't wiling to live the game like some who want to spend hours doing administrative tasks that we try to avoid. And despite Grendel's dyslexic fingers, he knew what alliance he was in, just like he knows that he has moved on to another alliance now.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='15 February 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1266253779' post='2183107'] Unfortunately, all conventional means of handling these situations go out the window during war time, had this been a peace time attack I can understand the need for diplomacy and only handling the nations which declared. [/quote] Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Because there is a war going on in which the NCAAbbs has expressly declared itself NEUTRAL, the normal channels of diplomacy between alliances who are NOT at war with each other should be ignored? Where do you draw the line on when to consider diplomacy and when to consider every action as an act of war? It was because there is a war going on that this war brought to this board. That shouldn't prevent a diplomatic solution if there is one. Certainly it shouldn't cut off diplomatic conversations. But I guess you can't be bothered with proper decorum since the is a war going on somewhere on planet BOB. BTW, in the ongoing debate within NCAAbbs on how to respond, there are essentially three camps: (a) One camp says with an attitude like SF Austin has shown, he deserves to get the fight he so desperately wants his comrades to fight (he is is hippie mode himself, so he can't be hit - easy to talk big when you hide in hippie mode, isn't it) and (b) the other camp says ask the nations who are fighting to leave at least temporarily. There is no clear majority at this point, so the discussions are on-going. When there is a resolution, I'll let you know.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1266218645' post='2182551'] Furthermore what I see is two nations declaring on my people.... Th(at) is my concern.[/quote] My point exactly! Your concern is with 2 nations, not with a neutral alliance. [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1266218645' post='2182551'] There is this neat function admin created [i]years[/i] ago to do that, it's called "Alliance Affilliation." There is no need to reïnvent the wheel here, it's not like this situation never came up in the past you know...[/quote] Very true. That NCAAbbs AA that you see flying is an indication of a collective of nations which will defend each other. In a normal war, it would mean that they support each other in the war as well. This is no normal war, which is precisely why I started this weird thread - to insure that the strange happenings didn't get misinterpreted. [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1266218645' post='2182551'] The reality is I know nothing of the sort. You keep using that word neutral. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps the one who said earlier this should have been called 'declaration of anarchy' was right. [/quote] You have evidence in the form of my statement here and nothing to the contrary. In fact, other than the three nations who have declared war for their own reasons, you have the remainder of the alliance that has not declared at all, which also supports the proposition that the alliance as a whole is neutral. Testimony and action based evidence of neutrality; nothing on the other side of the ledger. What do you base your allegation of any other than neutrality on? [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1266218645' post='2182551'] Are you, RiceDoc, government of this alliance? Are you even a member? I couldnt seem to locate a nation for you...EDIT - nm buggy search somehow, I see your nation now. Still want to know if you have any authority beyond your own nation or not though. [/quote] See post 33 above. As far as my nation is concerned, glad you got the search to work for you. For those of you who haven't found it yet or just don't want to do the search but are curious, I've added a link in my signature. I note someone commented about the UPN in my "About me" section. I missed updating that when I moved out of UPN back to my roots in NCAAbbs. I've updated it now. Thanks for pointing that out. Hope that clears things up a little! Like everything else in this war, nothing seems very clear.

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='15 February 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1266218159' post='2182540'] But how is he to know which nations in your alliance will join the fight against him? It's in his better interest to hit the whole alliance now to cripple it rather than let your nations come at him one at a time over a week or so. [/quote] You, sir, miss the big picture here. If he attacks non-combatants, he is guaranteed a fight against the entire alliance. In fact, if he goes that route, he is guaranteeing that nations that are otherwise supporting his allies will enter the fight against him. If he watches who declares on whom, then he has a fight against only those who choose to enter the battle. In other words, it is better to fight the 20% who are against you and keep the 10% on your side with you (and actually that is closer to 30% by NS) and avoid the fight with the remainder. The damages would simply be far less in the long run and you haven't damaged allies in the process.

[quote name='SF Austin' date='15 February 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1266214922' post='2182459'] All I can see is 20% of a alliance called NCAAbbs has decided it is worth their wild to attack Nordreich, It is then in my best interest to eliminate 100% of NCAAbbs to prevent further attacks. If you wish your friends no harm you have 22 hours to remove yourselfs from the NCAAbbs Alliance Affiliation. [/quote] I guess you can't see that 10% of the NCAAbbs nations are supporting your side in the war and that 70% have not entered the war at all? You would rather exterminate supporters rather than identify who is with you and who is against you? Why ratchet up a war unnecessarily? The reality is that you know that the alliance as a whole is neutral, that two nations have entered the war against you and one has entered the war aligned with you. What about the concept of alliance-wide neutrality/MDP's and no support for those who are aggressors do you not understand? It is clearly in your best interest to focus on those who are fighting against you rather than on those who either support your allies or are neutral.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1266214636' post='2182448'] Make up your mind, are the actions of these two nations condoned by your alliance or not? You cant have it both ways. If they are rogues expel them and deal with them. If you wont do that, then you obviously [i]do[/i] condone their actions. [/quote] Their actions are neither condoned nor condemned by NCAAbbs. NCAAbbs is NEUTRAL! By the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you consider these nations to be rogues and why NCAAbbs should accede to your demands to expel them. Why do you care what their AA says? They are not being supported in these actions by the NCAAbbs - THAT is what you should care about. Obviously you think that your way of doing things is the only way of doing things. But you can't explain why any other way is "not right"! You'll have to do a better analysis of the situation than that to convince the NCAAbbs to expel its members. Heck the United States didn't expel half its states when a civil war was going on either! I, quite frankly, think keeping the doors open for reconcilations post war is a far better approach than your approach. What am I missing here? Anything?

[quote name='SF Austin' date='14 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266213586' post='2182411'] Why should I not treat your alliance like Invicta since your alliance has attacked three of my members? [/quote] Because you KNOW that the NCAAbbs alliance did NOT attack your members. You KNOW that two NCAAbbs alliance members did so on an individual basis. Unlike Invicta, who has declared war on your alliance, the NCAAbbs expressly did NOT. In fact, the NCAAbbs has members who have expressed their support for your cause as well (albeit not publicly yet). Would you really want to be declaring on your supporters and on nations who have chosen to remain neutral?

Sigrun, Why do you think any alliance would be justified in declaring on another alliance based solely upon the actions of a nation which you know are not condoned by their alliance? Why does it make any difference whether that nation has been formally declared a rogue and expelled if there is a clear statement that they alliance is NOT defending them? Perhaps you better review the way your alliance deals with ghosts! RE: Beowulf and Magicspoon (me too for that matter), that means Beowulf and Magicspoon and I have chosen to follow our consciences in the war and our actions are attributable only to the nations taking those actions. We do not expect to recieve any help from NCAAbbs and none will be forthcoming from the alliance. That is no more confusing that any of the rest of this war! Shodemofi, You forgot option c) Say they are unauthorized and on their own, then do nothing.

[quote name='morab' date='14 February 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1266212061' post='2182328'] This is not an alliance and you don't look like a leader [/quote] Just how would you determine what is and is not an alliance? I'd sure like to know your definition! By Webster's, NCAAbbs is clearly an alliance. I take it you think leadership is forcing your viewpoint down the throats of everyone in your alliance instead of allowing independent thought. Consider you are dealing with a bunch of collegiate sports fans, who regularly insult each others' teams AND join together to voice their displeasure with the NCAA and other entities operating under the NCAA umbrella. Perhaps you need a lesson from Webster as well: Leader (n)... 2 : a person who leads: as a : guide, conductor b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority ... You will find that the NCAAbbs has a bunch of leaders under that definition, with each taking the lead on projects which are of particular interest to them. I felt it important to let everyone here know that the NCAAbbs was NOT supporting or opposing the positions its members may take in this war so that any attention they draw will be directed toward them rather than the NCAAbbs as whole. Why punish all members of the alliance for the strongly held views of a few? And why quash the few when they could, if they chose, simply join whichever side they decide to support? In this case, we all agree that the members should follow their own consciences and that neutral members should be protected. By the way, I never said I was the leader of NCAAbbs. I said I was the spokesperson on this issue.

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='14 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1266211582' post='2182311'] Would you say it would be unfair for an alliance to declare on you because one or more of your members is attacking them and you're doing nothing to stop them? Because that seems like a strong possibility of how this will end. [/quote] I would say that the declaring alliance would be no more justified than they would to declare on any alliance with a rogue nation. In other words, you could play that semantic game with any and every alliance in the game if you so desired. Would you think it fair for an alliance to declare on you alliance if your alliance had told them that actions by certain of your alliance nations are neither supported or sanctioned by your alliance? What I am saying is that if one or more of the NCAAbbs members attacks a nation, then that member needs to be ready to defend itself. If a nation that has NOT attacked is attacked, then the alliance will be supporting and defending the neutral nation. From a RL example, suppose that the USA declared on the Togo. Should Togo's friends declare on all of NATO? That just doesn't make sense and is not justifiable!

[quote name='Bones Malone' date='14 February 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1266210799' post='2182282'] (OOC: how's Rice looking in basketball Doc?) [/quote] OOC: Rice is improving rapidly, but is very young. With the newly redone gym and new coach, we ended up this year with substantial upgrades in talent, but still not where it needs to get. Give it another year, maybe two, and Rice is expected to be a player in CUSA basketball and not far from the return to one of the 26 million post season tourneys in NCAA basketball. We are seeing the same thing in football except we went at that backwards - new coach and now working on facilities upgrades. Result is the same: improved talent and depth across the board and poised for long term success after suffering through some growing pains.

[quote name='nicktheww2fanatic' date='14 February 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1266210432' post='2182265'] no, I was just wondering how you could call yourself an alliance [/quote] From Mr. Webster: Alliance (n) 1 a : the state of being allied : the action of allying b : a bond or connection between families, states, parties, or individuals <a closer alliance between government and industry> 2 : an association to further the common interests of the members; specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty 3 : union by relationship in qualities : affinity All of those fit the NCAAbbs. Almost all of us started out on NCAAbbs.com as collegiate sports fans shooting the breeze, started playing this game together, have a common interest of the protection afforded by being banded together to defend each other. How could you say the NCAAbbs is NOT an alliance?

[quote name='nicktheww2fanatic' date='14 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266209903' post='2182245'] so....you can't control your alliance? [/quote] The NCAAbs is NOT a dictatorship. Rather, we're just one big, happy, disfunctional family. In other words normal! Our brothers and sisters are free to make their own decisions, but we support our own. If you insist on plugging it into one of your convenient little boxes, think of it as a bunch of nations with MDPs with each other. Is that really so hard to understand?

[quote name='wickedj' date='14 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266208061' post='2182166'] Dont you need a DoE before you can DoN? [/quote] The NCAAbbs has been in existence for over 4 years, so no DoE is required. Several years ago, the vast majority of its members moved to UPN, but a few stayed behind and kept the alliance going. Over the past several years, the original members of NCAAbbs scattered to various alliances. Now, with disagreements with the alliances they were in over the moral (or immoral, depending on your viewpoint) stances taken by those alliances, many of those original NCAAbbs members have chosen to go back to their roots and rejoin NCAAbbs. A few others have decided that they like the idea of an alliance without layers and layers of treaty obligations and have joined in. The net result is that the NCAAbbs has members that support both sides in the war. As noted by another poster, the support of some of those nations is evident from the war page in game. You will note that most nations in the NCAAbbs are conspicuously absent from those pages. Thus, while the alliance as a whole is not choosing to support either side, its member nations are free to follow their own senses of moral responsibility. This declaration was simply to alert everyone that this strange situation exists and that, while the alliance is neutral, its members may or may not be and are likely to be found on both sides of the conflict.

The NCAAbbs alliance finds itself in a quandry. Some of its members, as a result of old friendships, the NCAAbbs membership finds that there are sympathies on both sides of the war. Some support one side; some support the other; some are live and let live hippies who don't desire to enter the war at all (oops, did I type that? DANG, my eraser doesn't work on this screen either. Such is life...). Additionally, the NCAAbbs has NO treaty obligations requiring it to support any alliance in the war. Therefore, the NCAAbbs hereby declares that it is NEUTRAL in this conflict, but is allowing its individual member nations to take whatever steps they believe appropriate, including supporting, trading with, fighting with (or against) whichever side their individual nations support/oppose. While the NCAAbbs is neutral, it will defend any NCAAbbs member which is attacked without provocation. Nothing herein prevents other NCAAbbs nations from supporting their fellow members, but rather such actions will be on an ad hoc and individual basis and NOT on an alliance wide basis. In short, if you attack an NCAAbbs nation without provocation, we will fight back, but we aren't looking to join the fight. Just in case all of the above legalese is impossible for you to decipher, the cliff notes version is this: the NCAAbbs IS NEUTRAL. The individual nations within the NCAAbbs are free to take or not take whatever actions they deem appropriate on a nation by nation basis. This may mean that they end up fighting each other! However, since we support our family, unprovoked attacks on any NCAAbbs member shall be construed to be an attack on us all. If you have any questions, ask me! RiceDoc Spokesperson for NCAAbbs.