Jump to content

Jhouserok[FCC]

Members
  • Content Count

    399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jhouserok[FCC]


  1. Please don't think that Sileath's post was endorsed by the Government of the NSO. We have more class than that. However we are governed under the concept that the strong will survive. Soldier collapsed, apparently, because of a failure to have strong leadership. It's easy to see why NSO members may not much care about a disbandment based on internal collapse. The strong will survive.

    Honestly, never have understood the taboo of suggesting applying to an alliance in the disbandment announcement of another alliance; one is dead and one is still around, thus if one would like to be in an alliance I would think the more options they are aware of the better. But really, meh.


  2. Well Mogar is rather off on the idea of having OBR in Citadel. The discussions on which included OBR, were held when the formation of Citadel was occuring, back on the DOVE boards(pre-Citadel planning forum), and has been brought up casually in passing only a scant number of times since by people casually reminiscing about things in the past. I don't believe there has been a serious suggestion regarding OBR and Citadel for nearly a year and a half now or more. :mellow:

    Anyhow, I'm gracious that OG was given peace, though I will admit the conduct of some during part of this conflict left me rather inflamed.


  3. If FAN got white peace, which is the only peace they'd accept, they'd get the same thing they were going to get when they fulfilled their previous peace terms; a massive influx of hungry tech buyers jumping in to fill the slots of people who are beaten down so much they can stand to make a sizable profit off cheap tech trading. They can't and won't be allowed to return as any viable threat so any debate on whether they should get peace is pointless; the only thing which has a thread of a chance of happening is the utter destruction of the NPO, which some have been plotting and trying to do in a variety of ways since we started here on Bob.


  4. Above all else, having been in the game since just before PWII, I can honestly say out of all the things I miss the greatest frankly is Ivan Moldavi; love him or hate him, he was one of the single most polarizing personalities inhistory, he was never apologetic about his actions whether you thought him right or wrong, you always knew where you or your alliance stood with him, and he was never bashful about reminding you about his and the NPO/NpO's dominance. Cybernations as a game is just not the same without him. I harkon for the days of yore. :(


  5. Sorry, you can't beat the LSF on this one. I want a link to that FCC forums, constitution and wiki NAW :P

    Follow my sig to find what you need about LSF.

    If FCC can compete with us on that, then i propose an mdp for the mere sexiness of it :lol:

    As for others, i'm afraid that a Tri is much less liberal than an anarchist direct democracy. Isn't that obvious enough? :P

    This, it's LSF by a long shot above us, our elections for Senate are bimonthly and our elections for directorate are quarterly; while nearly all of the decisions on direction are made or at least run by the general membership, we've had out of necessity to keep some things within the executive/leadership regarding decisions made through our diplomatic obligations. Out of the handful of other alliances I know I'd have to suggest Vigilance for the third position, based only on me thinking Peppermint Pig has always been the leader there, so there's little change over.


  6. It's not in my nature to participate in curb stomps, nor is it in my alliance's nature, quite the opposite really. Although we hold such opinions and dislike curbstomps, we recognize it as the state of Planet Bob, but are not looking to be some revolutionary force throughout the lands. Frankly, the current situation while not ideal, is rather predictable from an outsiders perspective and harkons back to what was said earlier, if you're looking to become a major dominant force in the game without working within the established hegemony, you'll be dismantled.


  7. Firstly, I'd like to address the whole arguement regarding: 'Jack formed the alliance he doesn't have to swear an oath.' Then why frankly does anyone have to swear an oath to uphold their charter and be a member, the leader of a democratic alliance is no better than those he rules and is subject to the same rules imposed on the membership. The foundation of my alliance consisted of all of the founders, 12 of them, swearing an oath to the alliance and to uphold it's charter.

    What seems to be done here is the leadership of an alliance disagreeing with the actions of their leader and taking action, though seemingly not the correct procedure laid out in their charter, they jumped the gun so it seems. You would be wise if you can weather this storm to make sure your charter explictly states you can not surrender your sovereignty at any time; had your alliance had such a passage in your charter you wouldn't be in this situation at all as Jack's actions would be in terrible violation of it. Though I'll have to take a more thorough look through your charter before being certain this could have been legitimate had you done it right, as this is an interesting dilemma.


  8. This member, however, was not demasked for a whole week, from my understanding.

    The simple fact is that ITA was poorly managed; with some competence they would have never left themselves open, nor would they have committed so many diplomatic faux pas. Anybody who might have been interested in a protectorate treaty with ITA perhaps now is a little wiser in the ways of the world.

    FCC must needs watch their aid transactions perhaps, and better monitor their members; that aid is potentially an act of war, although *perhaps* innocent. By rights the FCC owes GGA some reps here for aiding a rogue in action against GGA, and frankly I'm stunned the FCC government would not be on top of this and seek to immediately and proactively resolve these (and similar) issues, but perhaps Citadel protection has made the leadership somewhat... lethargic?

    Considering there really isn't a timeline for how this was all dealt with I have no idea how long the demasking took after the expulsion. Don't know anything about the ITA's managment, nor do I really care. I do happen to know you quite dislike their managment, ie Thrash56 and are responsible for having them tech raided by Poison Clan only to gloat about it at our boards causing you to be banned for using our alliance boards as a means to exact revenge for past slights while you were an FCC/IAA member, but then this is kind of off point. As to insulting our government, I think you know better of how we handle things, and once matters are brought to our attention they're given swift and judicious action based upon our ideals.


  9. Forgive me for a moment, but I have to ask you for information regarding:

    While the Communist Party of Cybernations and the Fifth Column Confederation have been working with us to solve this incident (and I thank them for working with us)

    There has been nothing that I've seen, nor has anyone mentioned, until after this DoW regarding our involvement in this affair with ITA. I certainly haven't seen record of anyone from GGA talking to our members about this. To explain, some of our members have been using ITA for tech trades for a rather long time, they're rather reliable. Being as the ITA is rather peaceful in most cases I don't think anyone thought to check the war screens of the nations they were tech trading with. On another note, as one of the few active admins at the FCCs boards, it sometimes takes me a day or two to get around to demasking members who have left out because I have ooc issues preventing me from checking our forums. However I do agree, if someone larger than you says jump or we'll shoot you, and you don't have any protectorate agreements preventing them from doing so, you're kind of in a position where you have to say how high, or just be killed.


  10. 'Back at it again'? 'Back at' what exactly? This is the kind of stuff most alliances look down upon with shame, leaving your alliance to fight in a war against someone your alliance wasn't in conflict with. It might suck being placed on a ZI list; certainly this method of dealing with it, rather than approaching them like you were instructed to, is going to achieve better results for you. :rolleyes:

×
×
  • Create New...