Lehran

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1324450952' post='2883178'] Just kiss, you two. You know you want to. [/quote] We already have

The raiding thing was extended to everybody because 3-4 people strongly lobbied for it. Get your facts straight, please. LeonidasRex, I hope you don't need to brag about Citadel using me as your device anymore. Anywho, this war means I won't be here for long. This whole issue has just been settled on the Citadel DOE thread with much more information. If anyone wants to read it and make a judgement for themselves, please go there.

[quote name='kongland' timestamp='1324450054' post='2883172'] That's right. I didn't request any apology to me - I'm happy to stay an opined and narrowminded Despot Members of Citadel and alliance itself are the most precious things.. Now, all move along - the "Big Brother" show is over. [/quote] That is why I chose to apologize to Citadel members if they feel I crusaded against the entire alliance. Sorry Thomas. I guess the show is over. Let's watch the wars instead!

[quote name='kongland' timestamp='1324446519' post='2883135'] I never said you were flagrunning. However, you keep bringing in your lies or at least bending the truth. I'd recommend you complain to Clash from now on - he is your boss now. He is much more patient than I am - with people like yourself. [/quote] I don't have any grievances with Clash, so I wouldn't complain to him. He is a good friend and a great alliance leader, and our history goes back many rounds. Kong has requested that I apologize to the members of Citadel, and I will do so. I only find fault with the policies of the leader, and nothing with the individual members (who are nice people). I argue only with kong, which will be private from now on. Besides, I have business to attend to as a member of Warriors. I hope this will clear my name from being any sort of flag chaser.

I approve of this DoW post To war!

I have proposed to kong that any more grievances between us be taken privately, since he has gone to personal insults, describing paul711 and me as "lying, selfish, creepy creatures" despite the fact that he does not know either of us in real life. We have our own world of existences and families outside of the game. I'd appreciate if verbal insults are kept within the boundaries of the game, and not personal. I don't want to fight a verbal war with you, so let's make it private from now on.

As for last round, I was in nuke anarchy due to PS, and by the day I got out you three were already all hitting Stoopid Ace, so what was I to do, take the fourth slot? Please. Concerning this round: it was never stated to me the size of the alliance that could be raided, and I only followed the example of a LoSS member (a white team alliance which is friendly to you). Your rules are not flexible. As you said, you kicked me for resigning as Officer (and not before that). That shows just how much you expect from people while giving nothing in return. You didn't consult the other officers, or asked members about what they ever thought. All you wanted was for me to use your forums and not google docs or ingame or whatever the case may be. And you were very rude at that: "just do it please or you're out, it's not a request". Those are your words. And you probably shouldn't make sweeping generalizations. I have never talked with Paul before, but he seems to share the same opinion of you. And you are the first person I've met that has demanded so much (remember, I just came back to TE) and allowed so little. I'm not saying anything bad about Citadel as an alliance, but about your policies regarding members who don't agree with you. Like you said, our opinions aren't always the same. The solution? Kick me from your alliance. As for the assertion that I do this because I'm a selfish flag runner... Well, that has never been and never will be true. I do not seek the flag.

[quote name='Serkr' timestamp='1324409315' post='2882695'] My comment wasn't about James. Actions speak louder than words. You raided nations not on the 'none' aa more than once (and not just single-man alliances) and used up all your war slots at one point. That shows a complete lack of commitment to defending the alliance. You donated to get to the top. I think that speaks for itself. [/quote] Lol, so just because I donated, I want the flag? There are plenty of people who donate, and anyways I bought the donation in SE, which isn't hard to do. In what situation was it necessary to defend the alliance? I don't recall us getting attacked at any point. And just because kong doesn't like raiding doesn't mean others can't do it... It's a personal choice, and I take the risk upon myself. Also, I had only one raid when he complained about it. Confusion, we've already had private discussions and there's no need for you to bring this here. You aren't involved in this argument.

[quote name='Serkr' timestamp='1324400915' post='2882610'] This was never about the way Kong runs Citadel, Neo. You were simply selfish. You were named as the heir and were an officer. You were exempt from the "one raid only" policy, but saw fit to use up all your war slots (thereby neutralising your ability to defend the alliance) and declared on another aa of your own accord. These aren't the actions of a member that has the alliance's best interests at heart, all you did was for you and you alone. We were just a means to an end so you could get to the top spot, why else would you donate your nation all the way up there? If you disagree with the way Kong is running things, fine, that's your opinion. But don't pretend this is some sort of crusade against tyranny, you want the top spot and couldn't give a steaming sh*t what happens to the aa that has you. EDIT: Just fyi, on IRC somebody suggested booting someone else out of the aa cos they weren't making any growth or following guides. Kong was the first person to say it would be better to give them a chance. I can only say from my own experience, but Kong has always seemed reasonable to me. Perhaps raiding an 18-member aa and using up your slots was not the way to have your opinions heard, Neo. [/quote] I never seek the flag. Are you going to pick on me because I can build? In any case, I think this will be proven soon. Kong purposefully kept me as an officer and not deputy because he didn't want me to have any power. As far as the raiding is concerned, 3-4 people complained about the rule and that's why it was changed. By the way, when I raided DF I only had that one raid. If you really think all I care about is the flag, think again. Why would I resign from Citadel, which isn't going to war anytime soon, and join Warriors, which is an alliance dedicated to war? Because I know Clash is a better leader and more reasonable friend. I assure you, and others can back me up, that the flag has never been my goal. Concernng James Aquinas, that post by kong was in officer forums so you don't have the full story. If he would kindly SS the post, he said he didn't care if James left while I posted that he should be given a chance. Get your facts straight before making an accusation, please.

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324398783' post='2882585'] It sounds like your parting ways was the best outcome for both of you. [/quote] Yes it was. However, I just don't understand why I was booted only AFTER I resigned as an officer.

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1324352683' post='2882325'] I'd say the point of an officer and role of a ruler varies based on the type of alliance. In democratic alliances, you are right. Rulers should have to follow the opinions of their members, and officers should have the power to force ideas through when a majority of them agree with it, even if a ruler doesn't, or if its what the general membership wants. In non-democratic alliances, like (I assume) Kongs, or the Roman Empire, the role of the officer is to help the ruler govern, and offer suggestions. I agree that it is good for rulers to consider advice from their gov, but the last say in these types of alliances rests with the ruler. In RE, as ADude mentioned, the Emperor has the final say. The higher gov can make suggestions, disagree, and complain about things that we dont like, and generally emperors have been responsive to the voices of their gov and their members, but at the end of the day, the emperor has the final word, and can act unilaterally. Personally I would suggest you try and find a democratically oriented alliance, or some sort of ologarchic alliance, where it isn't a democracy but the main ruler cant unilaterally overrule his gov. Judging from your posts that seems to be more what you are expecting, but it is important to remember that we all want different things out of our alliances, and some of us are content with benevolent dictatorships Edit: Just saw the reply above. No, they aren't threatened with expulsion if they have differing views, however we make it clear that they have to comply with the emperors orders. If they dont like, say, our WC requirements, or they dont want to go to war with an alliance the emperor declares war on, that is their prerogative and they can say so, however they are still expected to comply. If they still refuse, they are booted, yes. And regarding your issue with him kicking a member who didn't follow the guides. I dont know much about the exact situation, but I know that in RE as well, if you build really horribly, and you refuse to follow the advice we give you, you will be booted from the Empire. We, and Kong I bet as well, have nothing against noobs who are new to TE and dont play well - but we do play well, and we expect them to follow our advice and learn if they are apart of the alliance. I can see why Kong would kick a bad nation who was refusing to follow guides. I have too much free time [/quote] Kong's alliance is a dictatorship, but he doesn't view it as such. He calls it a "community" where he has all the power to govern. When he first offered me the position of Officer, the things that he made clear to me did not match up with my real experience in his alliance. I don't think it is fair when an Officer can be threatened with expulsion when he offers "too many" opinions that aren't exactly the same as kong's. I have lead my own alliance(s) before, and I never ran it like a dictatorship. I personally feel that it is much better in everyone's interest to have the views of the populace represented and not just the iron will of one person. That goes for reality as well. Regarding James Aquinas - he did not "refuse" to follow guides as far as I know, he just didn't follow them since he was new and probably didn't know they existed. Kong just said that he might as well leave. I have nothing against RE whatsoever, and if you acknowledge yourself as a dictatorship, then so be it. I find fault with kong’s Citadel because he gives the appearance of a friendly, community-based alliance but he enforces personal rules such as how I “must” do my duties a certain way and that I can’t do anything my way whatsoever. Additionally, again, any dissenting opinion from kong’s opinions only generates negative feedback and a “please shut up” kind of response whereas in other alliances ruled by one person, that one person was still reasonable and willing to accept suggestions. That is why I found Citadel different from other alliances.

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324351216' post='2882307'] Yes, The Emperor. RE [b][u]is[/u][/b] a dictatorship [/quote] Lol. Are members threatened with expulsion when their opinions differ from the Emperor? Is resigning an unfair position unacceptable?

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324344677' post='2882242'] What is the point of a minister or even staff in an alliance? edited [/quote] The point of staff in an alliance is to represent everyone's beliefs and provide a balance of power within leadership. Is RE ruled by one person alone?

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324344018' post='2882229'] [b]Commandant - kong92[/b] Like it or not I think that says all that needs to be said. [/quote] If that means he has absolute power, that's not a good thing. What is the point of an Officer then, except to do kong's bidding?

ADude, you haven't been able to personally talk to him when you disagreed about something. Rules are rules, but when the rules are made by one person several rounds ago and that one person is unwilling to ever budge, it becomes a problem. Also, just because it is "kong's Citadel" doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion. The reason I resigned was because of his rudeness regarding his "this is not a choice, just do it please" methods. He then expelled me after I resigned, probably because I specified that he should plan his war then, so he couldn't use me anymore. Einer, the guy started late and he is new. Not everyone is as good as you with building

He also told me that "we just have different points of view." That would not be a problem if it wasn't for the fact that everyone must agree with him. Can't two people survive in an alliance without having the exact same beliefs? That's why there is a balance of power and separation of power. However, kong, you just run the whole show so you have the power to expel anyone who tries to disagree with something...

It goes beyond that. You yourself said about James Aquinas that he might as well be gone because he doesn't follow your guides. This is a perfect example of how Kong does not budge on anything - several members have asked to raid, but kong was generally very defiant and would not budge. As for my resigning, that is after your PM where you told me to conform to your rules or get out. We can see what path I chose. Voicing my grievances is not uncivil. Your alliances is run by you and for you, and members' opinions don't count. I first resigned as Officer, but I only left after I reread your PM and thought about your ideals. Again, since I resigned, you didn't need me anymore since all you wanted from me anyways was to do the grunt work - audits, assigning targets for war, etc. but when it came to real issues, only your opinion counts.

Yeah... It seems like he cares about his "rules" more than his members' opinions. I tried to make some suggestions, but everything he said to me concerned his own opinions and he wouldn't budge on almost anything. That's why I'm no longer in Citadel.

Don't join Citadel. If your beliefs don't match up with kong's completely, he will be very rude and threatening. I thought he was better than that at first, but experience proved otherwise...

Also, kong has repeatedly complained about new players who don't follow his guides to the dot. Just goes to show, everything has to go kong's way. He personally said that he wouldn't care if the new players leave.

I thought Citadel was a good alliance, but that is not the case. kong92 has complete control over the AA, and he makes every decision based on his personal beliefs. If your actions don't conform to his whim, then you will be rudely addressed and threatened. Here's an example. I do a roll call via messages ingame, and I send out a general message with building advice, etc. kong92 tells me it's good, but then proceeds by ordering me to use his forums and that it's "not a request. Just do it please". The fact that the forums are named "kong's Citadel" should be enough proof of his absolute rule. He may seem peaceful on the outside, but if you don't agree with him on every single thing, then he gets mad. Don't join Citadel.

[quote name='CEO George Harris' timestamp='1323222372' post='2866544'] Coming from the guy who turtled all of last rounds final fight. [/quote] It isn't easy to fight right off the bat the entire way when you just got out of another war. Also, I can vouch for Stevie that he fought most of our wars.

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1323218063' post='2866446'] Explain why we would attack PS. We weren't the ones butt hurt at the end of last round. Furthermore, yes, DR consists of Anon members and a few additions. However, there is a difference between the two and G-6. Lets see if anyone can take a wild guess. PS: G-6/Anon were flagrunning AAs, DR is a legit warring AA with no interest in the flag. [/quote] That's because you deleted your nation before that occurrence last round Anyways, good luck DR

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1323215342' post='2866320'] What'd LE do to DR? The last memory I have of DR is their turtling in perpetuity for a round then vacating to other alliances. [/quote] DR is made up of Anonymous members from last round. I wonder why PS wasn't hit... hmm

[b]Courtesy of Alexandros o Megas (TheBadWolfGR)[/b] As a member of Citadel in some of the previous rounds (4 or 5 I think), I have wondered what attracted me here and I want it to share it with all of you, who decided to add yourselves in this Alliance from this round of CN/TE or you attent this meaningless discussion over the OWF. In all previous rounds Citadel was a micro alliance of 5-10 nations (apart of its first round when a similar size has been achieved) and it is only in this round that through the efforts of its members (but especially the efforts of Kong we have been nearly doubled. In Citadel even though the number of nations is not the critical point. It is not quite hard to attract many nations in an alliance and then to see them either orienting themselves some towards north, some towards south and some towards east or west, or to notice them shining with their inactivity during the round and then disappearing for the next round. What we want to make our critical point for the growth and prosperity of this Alliance is the general rules, and the climate and culture of this Alliance. As of the General Rules I think it is essential to include there the following: 1. Respect without hesitation to the Order of Command and to the other members of the Alliance. 2. Minimum Activity (Visiting Citadel Forums - if possibly daily - and studying the material there abour Alliance, Nation Building, Trading, Defense etc. and if possible also visiting irc Citadel channel at #Citadel or our public channel at #citadel-te). 3. Solidarity to the last pixel of our nation to our members who are in a defensive war and need our help. As of the Citadel Culture: 1. We are here for friendship and fun. 2. We try to interact with the other members, to know them, to show us and to know us by the rest of the Alliance and so to start creating bonds among us. This way we will defend happily each other during the wars, we will trade easier and more efficiently, we will have nice time and we will want to meet again during the next round. 3. All of us we have - some people less, some people more - our ambitiousness and our personal goals for the game. At the depth of our minds we hope we will win the flag or we will get a nice experience with wars and we will be an exemplary nation. This is true and I am also thinking so as one of you, BUT ALLIANCE GOALS SHOULD ALWAYS PREVAIL personal micro goals. I remember in one of previous rounds been hospitalised by another alliance and been actually used by their leaders to protect their bigger nations to make their life easier to get the flag. I was not alone in this experience and we did not object it - even though ot was so obvious [and unfair] - but we followed orders and we have honored where we came from. That means that many times we have to sacrifice our growth or our nations' prosperity for the Alliance general good and for protecting one of us in need. At the end of the day this is a game and we have to remember this always. Personal relationships and enjoying what we do, gaining the respect of our colleagues and their trust (not swallowing a pill but building it slowly day after day with our actions) and having fun is more important than some pixels in a game. 4. Having the above in mind it is easier to judge our every action before we do it. - Does it help the Alliance general good and prosperity? - Does it help my colleagues? - Is it honorable for me and for me as a member of Citadel Alliance? - How I want to be discussed behind my back - when I am absent - or to be remembered by the rest of our Alliance members and by our Allies or Enemies in wars (yes even them, they have to feel some of our beliefs and appreciate our solidarity and individual sacrifice of each one of us for the general good - then we will gain more members in the future)?