Kowalski

That was the old CN, this is the new "fun" CN.

This is poor form. Poaching, is one thing, but degrading the alliance you're poaching from in the PM's isn't exactly dignified behaviour. And for those spouting the "if they were swayed by this then they shouldn't be members" or "we're doing TDO a favour by removing their members who are interested in war" justification, what gives any alliance the right to decide if another should have a particular type of member? It's up to TDO to decide whether their even bothered by any perceived lack of commitment or interest in war in their ranks, let alone whether they want to do anything about it. As for trying to lure neutrals with the option "to wage war" - who exactly are NSO planning to use all of the former neutrals to wage war on?

Ah, that's why it is. It's so obvious now, my bad for forgetting about that. Oh well.

All the best to the new NATO gov, whether elected or having grabbed power by some other dubious means! Drop by MHA some time to say hello.

Change from what? And what power? You clearly completely misunderstand MHA and our participation is the latest war.

MHA wanting a beatdown is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. And Karma white knights? lol For someone who has nothing to do with MHA you seem to know an awful lot.

It's a shame to see LEN go, you were always a good bunch to deal with, good luck to both parties in the future.

If you bothered to read the thread rather than continuing your pathetic tirade against MHA you'd see my response to a similar question - after TAB's original thread there was a FIRE announcement regarding their protection of BTA, an announcement which featured a number of responses that could have been considered as aggressive towards TAB. MHA felt the need to publicly announce that it would like to see this situation end peacefully in response to some of the opinions expressed in the FIRE thread.

MHAil Floyd! Congrats on your ascension through the ranks.

Well inbetween TAB's original thread and this one there was announcement by FIRE regarding their protection of BTA. In that thread there was much talk of standing by friends and going to war, of FIRE vs TAB. This announcement is in response to that.

Alliances can be very personal to some people, just look at the slew of reformed alliances that have sprung up in the last month or two. Those who reformed them could have started a new alliance at any time, but felt attached to a specific name and identity. TAB's point of view is understandable; they were forced to change their name and now the person responsible for that punishment and expelled for it at the time is using the name again. It's a slap in the face, no matter how you look at it.

Hmmm, as much as I would like to avoid slinging mud I'd like to point out an inaccuracy here and answer the question regarding myself. I knew months ago that emily was nation-sitting for the account holder in question in-game but not that she was accessing their forum account (if she was back then). I don't know when the in-game nation-sitting ended but there was a noticeable change in the forum behaviour of the individual in question around that time, from posting spam and send me PM's a few times a week to not posting and reading my PM's but not responding. I put it down to being busy in real life with exams, with no reason not to believe it. I got the impression that emily and the person in question were quite friendly and due to the concern that such an eager member of my team had dropped off the face of the earth I asked emily a few times after then whether she was still nation-sitting or logging on as the individual on the forums, and always got no for an answer. I had no reason not to believe her. Emily and I talked the morning before this blew up and again she said that she wasn't nation-sitting, although I don't think I asked about forum access. I raised concerns about the account's inactivity and emily said she would check how the individual was as they were in contact. Later that day Myth raised concerns about a conversation he had with emily after she and I had talked in which she said she had seen screenshots of a thread in the Members-only area of the MHA forums, and concluded that either there was a spy in MHA that had shown emily screenshots or emily had a way of getting screenshots and was trying to wind Myth up about there being a spy. It was confirmed that emily's account did not have access to the thread, at which point the 'ol lightbulb popped up above my head and I thought to check the compromised account in question. It confirmed that an innocent spam post was made (I believe the thread was 'Count to a Million', one of the old favourites) by this account from the same IP address as many that had been made by emily's account and that was the same IP address that was registered to emily's IRC account. Therefore it was deduced that emily had accessed the MHA forums using an account that was not her own, an account that was entitled to view things that she was not. It has since been confirmed that this was not the first time (or even first day) that emily's IP address had logged into the account. It also occurred to me that emily had posted using the account just hours after I had raised concerns about the account's activity to her, which may or not be relevant. There were other topics of conversation relevant to this thread but I don't see the point in bringing them up, unless there is another inaccuracy attributed to my name that needs clearing up.

It makes sense, unfortunately there's too much information missing for you to form a fully correct opinion. Not your fault of course. Emily isn't being attacked because she raised concerns about a thread, that was done via IRC under the name of emily. I fail to see how what she did was required in order for her to raise concerns about the thread, and that is the issue here.

If that were the case then you may have a point. There would also be easier ways to achieve that goal.

Well this isn't pleasant, I can't see any individual coming out of this looking better. Public trials or inquiries never work because the correct information needed to make an informed decision is never provided. Even I know things that prove some things said here are false or misrepresented, and I'm an idiot.

I have one thing to say on this matter. NEAT = quality.

I don't see what the issue is here, other than anti-Citadel feelings coming from the usual sources. OG had politically taken a different path from the rest of the Citadel and it appeared were also falling short of some internal requirements for Citadel membership.

Congrats to NATO! That's a pretty special achievement and may there be many more.

Well I guess this settles the FOK vs iFOK embassy inactivity contest we're having back at MHA HQ

Very soon, but don't tell anyone. o/ MHAthens

In accordance with our Black Peace agreement I'd prefer some mindless trolling and insults rather than an effective and intelligent question. Please remember this in the future.

Not only did NPO's actions unify Karma but just as importantly it caused a major split between NPO and their allies, who either delayed their involvement in the war or who fought on the opposite side.

I think your xpert rating is also based on activity.

WTF? I'm pretty sure the ZI sentence lasted about 6 hours and we apologised at the time.

WAPA tech-raiding Opethian and trying to get him to join their alliance for peace.