Starcraftmazter

This is your own subjective opinion, yet you claim it to be universally correct and one to trump others - a fact.

It's extremely arrogant to claim that your own viewpoint decides who is right and who is wrong.

I love it how you guys are such experts at smears. That's a pretty delusional viewpoint. Also arrogant.

I see what you did there All I have to say in response is Maybe you should stop perpetuating ignorance.

So what, are you admitting fault here or being sarcastic? I really do not understand what you are saying. Are you trying to claim that alliances in team unity pacts don't really want to be in them and won't honour them? I really fail to see your logic here. And who exactly decides what good means? Moldovi? A vote of NSO membership? Do you poll the Cyberverse at large? Oh of course, it has nothing to do with the arguments I've presented against his claim, it's all to do with his alliance.

Most or all of them? It really doesn't matter now.

Well thanks for answering your own question for me.

We all know having actual friends is an entirely new thing for NPO, so let them have their fun while it lasts.

If you admit that it is not always the case (or even the majority of the time), then why even bring it up? I'm not entirely sure what your point there is. It's like of like saying, if nobody goes to war nukes are unnecessary. Well woopty doo Captain Obvious? But furthermore, unity pacts are about more than just civility, they are also about cooperation. Doesn't seem odd to me. It seems odd to me that NSO advocates change be it towards forgotten ideals or new ones. Does that mean if you change situation X into situation Y, you'll then be campaigning to change Y back into X and so forth continuously?

You implied that colour blocs were like BLEU, claiming they put pressure on others to join them and so forth. This is not true. Again, you are making universal statements of truth - saying all folks maintain a basic level of civility. This has been false for several teams relatively recently in CN history, and nobody can guarantee anything for the future. Overall, team unity pacts are not about "we won't sanction you". They are a place where leaders, economists and nations from all alliances of a particular team and get together and cooperate on a wide range of issues. This is necessary, for without it, such logistics and cooperation is difficult. As someone involved in NOIR let me tell you there is no pressure put on anyone to join, not join, roll over or fetch a stick. I can't fathom why you live in such a grim excluded reality where that still goes on. And perhaps it does on some other team to a small extent - I suppose I can not know for sure, but once again, if so, this is not at all universal. This is counter-productive. As others have mentioned, a unified sphere is a strong sphere. Everyone helps each other and works with each other, means there will be lots of inter-alliance trade and tech organisation, means that anyone can get rogues sanctioned, means that smaller alliances can get help from larger ones. Overall, this leads to greater military strength and stability of all involved. It also means that a sphere will be made up of friendly alliances who are willing to stand up for one another, and not let their colour-comrades be bullied or intimidated by anyone else, meaning more and stronger nations on that team for the long-term. They can also coordinate on joint protection and aid projects, etc - there are no limitations to the greatness that can be archived with team unity. This I would imagine is in everyone's best interests - it certainly is in mine. I've been there, believe me. I've just grown tired of the same old story of getting senate seats, for an ultimately useless purpose. It does not serve to benefit anyone - that is my experience. After years of doing it, I'm happy to just relax and feel comfortable knowing that as our sphere stands united, any senator will sanction on request from any alliance - as has happened in the past for us. If NSO is all about changing CN, then why do you insist on preaching to age-old, obsolete ways of doing things? In the past, team unity has largely been "you are either with us, or you are against us. Only we can own senators. You're allowed to join, you are not. How dare you do that on my team?". Now that we actually have real unity and real freedom in spheres, you want us to go back to the old way of doing things? You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am against you generalising about sphere unity - not spheres and what they can do. One one final note, the black team is now the #1 in terms of nations, alliances, NS, nukes and score. Not coincidentally we are also the most unified team.

NOIR will rule the world with it's might one day soon Welcome BTA

Yep...that's where I was about 2 years ago. Now I know better. Why do you assume that every bloc unity treaty is like BLEU? Your assumption is incorrect. It's not. What are you, new or something? I think it's a heck of a lot more important as to which team is more accommodating, friendly, most nations, most organised trade cooperation, etc. And at no stage is there any pressure on anyone to do anything. Those people and alliances who choose to work on sphere unity do so because they want to. Yes, let's all disregard all our friends, ideologies and current political connections, and let our politics be dictated by our sphere in such a way that we make an arrangement with another half of the sphere to join two separate sides of the war... This makes very little sense - just thought I'd point that out. You are talking about this as though anything to do with sphere unity must be a universal truth which must apply to every single alliance, as opposed to each alliance choosing it's own path in it's respective sphere independently. In fact it is the latter.

I don't think Daikos was criticising Sir Paul for making a joke, I believe he was criticising the fact that certain individuals are trying to portray it as both a serious point and a joke - whenever either one is more convenient.

First of all, Daikos isn't and never was a member of FIST. Second of all, your point makes no sense, as it does not fit into the context you are trying to make it fit into. Try harder next time.

Why are people even entertaining the idea that Sir Paul has a valid point? I really don't know, seems like a clear case of twiddle twattle to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire publication is specifically meant to not be taken seriously. Why is there any discussion being held on the stupidity which it brings forth?

Got some mighty fine protectors there, SU

Here's a thought: disregard the opinions of everyone irrelevant to the situation and do what you know is morally right.

Craig Clearly you need to set up some "re-education" gulags.

Why do various NSO people feel the need to completly $@^* on everything that has come to be in CN... If you want to make a bizarre and fundamentally flawed generalisation of something more complex than you clearly know to understand, why do you feel the need to bore everyone else with your ignorance? Every single treaty - regardless of type is worth in value exactly what it's signatories want it to be worth. There is no universal constant to dictate the meaningfulness of treaties.

That's a rather arrogant point of view, as there were quite a lot of alliances and NS on your side of the conflict. Additionally, you completely fail to admit why you became more somewhat isolated and affirm that you will not partake in the same sort of actions which led to that scenario.

Quote a lot I would say. Even better, I think the reverse is also true - that is, I'm sure my RL beliefs were actually changed by CN, caused by witnessing unspeakable evil, and recognising the importance of ethics and morality, etc.

There is absolutely no need to bring that into this particular discussion.

Couldn't agree more. I assume we are talking about representative democracy here, since that is what everyone refers to as democracy. The main two problems with it are corruption and inefficiency. With a dictatorship you have just corruption, but no inefficiency - so it's good that way. I am however quite fond of communism (aka the only true democracy), like used by The International. The reason is that, it is democracy in such true form, as no corruption can occur. Arguably it may not be as efficient, but quick decisions can still be made as necessary be elected representatives. The best thing to do in my opinion is to have no elected position, and to ask all members for input on all decisions and have a high level of transparency. This way you get the best of both worlds - having a practical true democracy on one hand, and having the ability to make quick decisions in times of necessity and act on them on the other hand. It's also good to have foresight and discuss and vote on how to deal with issues before they occur, which I have always found to be very beneficial towards making democratic processes much more efficient.

A point which would not need clarification if you actually followed the discussion you were commenting on...

I am not at all talking about Pacifica-GOONS relations, I am talking about the similarities between their FA policies.