CzarBomba

Well this is cool treaty. I like Olympus, and TLR must be alright for them to sign with. /o

Good show Sarm and Legacy! This was completely unexpected when I found out about it. I have nothing but respect for the quality you all have shown.

Congratulations gentlemen.

Well done gentlemen.

Congrats on the new lineup.

I usually don't take the time to make a comment in dumb threads.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1317184774' post='2810090'] What right does DT have to prevent former NV members from being given information about new alliances at the very point in time when they need that information? [/quote] NV is loaded with experienced players that can make decisions on their own. I don't think they need help from countless spammed messages. Glad to see us do this.

Classy as ever Nordreich.

Good move. Hadn't even dawned on me.

Never an easy decision to make. I wish nothing but the best in finding new homes.

I'm glad to see this come to fruition. Congrats to us both. Awesome flag too, James.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1316684557' post='2805829'] I think he didn't miss the crux of his argument, it was just a little bit weird to talk about something not happening if another thing would not have happened. I mean if I FOK wouldn't existed, neither would iFOK and we would never have started trouble on Purple and Invicta would still be there. In my eyes it's very simple. Yes FOK messed up with authorizing the raid and the attacks that happened until then were not taken into account. The fact remains that DT continued to raid willingly even after they were instructed to stop attacking. This willingness is the key argument here. Both members that continued the raid were a) active every day, b) were (ex) high gov members. So they did read their message (I'm sure they also were told to stop on their forum or irc to stop attacking), but yet continued to attack. And those nations that choose to ignore the request to seize attacks are now paying the reps. I think that is an absolutely fine arrangement. Insulting either alliance and even threatening my allies was quite unnecessary and does not sit well with me. I have lost quite a bit of respect for several alliances over this event. [/quote] Pretty fair assessment, really. That's why we created this topic at FOK's request, after all. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1316711100' post='2806005'] Since when try to make someone stop to steal or at least make them pay reparations for what they stole is wrong? And if you and your allies are so sure that what FOK did is wrong and are so outraged with what FOK asked, why you agreed in pay reparations and apologize then? Wait, wait, don't answer! I know this one: Infra > self-respect right? [/quote] We were so outraged that we decided to resolve this diplomatically. We stepped in to prevent our raiders from getting rolled, something most other alliances would not do. [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1316710412' post='2805997'] Mistakes were made. They were repaid. Move on. [/quote]

Congrats on retirement and to the new trium. Stewie will be a fine replacement.

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1316331183' post='2802916'] I would rather not have people in my alliance that don't want to be there. [/quote] [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1316350485' post='2802963'] the people you forced over would most likely becomes spies and I'd get screwed. [/quote] It's an interesting idea, but these two sum up my opinion pretty well. For the sake of this debate, I'll say forced disbandment is actually a better term. It accomplishes essentially the same thing by effectively and permanently neutralizing the opposing alliance (as I'm sure this would also be the goal in annexing nations). Though at least with disbandment, players would have a choice of which alliance to join next. A nation that willingly joins an alliance is much more likely to be an active and contributing member of said alliance. A nation forced to join would likely be either inactive, a cancer to the alliance they're joining, or a spy. I'm not saying disbandment is the way to go. I'm saying it's a better alternative to this. I would be more interested in seeing a scenario where terms are placed before, or immediately after war breaks out. Wagers, if you will. Stipulations would obviously be needed to prevent a dogpile. The potential would be there to see more frequent and smaller scale wars. This may not work in the current political climate, but it is something I've thought about for a while.

Yup, I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh. Well done.

I never get tired of these, nice work.

Good stuff here guys. I like the charter and it feels like my brain is exploding with wisdom.... though I guess it could just be a headache. The Wise One has spoken words in the hall, Needful for men to know, Unneedful for trolls to know: Hail to the speaker, Hail to the knower, Joy to him who has understood, Delight to those who have listened.

I've always wanted to see something like this involving both aforementioned alliances. I've always held both OBR and Creole in the highest regard.

Awesome stuff. Congrats guys!

Nice to see this happen.

^ Pretty cool, actually.

I think some of you are overestimating the ambitions of people in CN. MK, historically, are power players. They are the antithesis of the NPO and its' power structure. This does not mean that other alliances' ambitions are the same as these two groups. Blocs exist for their defensive purpose every bit as much, if not more than, aspirations for "power". A bloc is a group of alliances that share common interests and act in concert in international affairs. This includes mutual treaties held between bloc members. A group of alliances that each hold identical treaties with each other alliance in that group are a bloc, as a bloc is group of alliances that each hold identical treaties with each other alliance within that bloc. This is how more treaties should be done. The multi-polar power structure that many groups have claimed to fight for exist in the form of these blocs. Each bloc represents one of these spheres of power. Again, this does lead to stagnation in regards to war, as they create obvious sides in a war. You cannot attack a member of a bloc without expecting each other alliance within that bloc to come to its' defense, as an attack on one is considered an attack on all. However, you can frequently attack an alliance that is not a part of a bloc without worrying about each of its' treaty partners coming to their aid (a much bigger problem in the treaty web than blocs, by the way). This emphasizes the defensive purpose of a bloc. Spheres of power should not revolve around individual alliances, but rather groups of alliances. The exception being if an alliance is simply so large that it can fend off an entire opposing sphere (or bloc) on its own.

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314746449' post='2791268'] Not to mention that countless treaties aren't honoured when a war actually starts. [/quote] I was going to add something like this to my post, but it was turning into a rant on the subject and I decided to take it out. This man concisely states one of the biggest problems with the web in one sentence.

I don't think blocs are a bad thing at all. Many folks have already mentioned why they are useful. I think they are mostly right. The key is for blocs to strive towards having cohesive foreign policies. The bloc itself provides the groundwork for this cohesion between the member alliances. Blocs do lose some of their usefulness when member alliances are all pulling in different directions. However, as long as the member alliances of the bloc consider each other of the highest priority, then the bloc serves its' purpose. If that mentality is lost, then the bloc probably should disband. I do agree that blocs are a deterrent for wars. This is because an attack on one member alliance is (or should be) considered an attack on all (kinda like that DH policy). Obviously, they are viewed this way. An individual alliance (or another bloc) looking to attack another alliance is much less likely to do so if the would-be attacked alliance is a member of a bloc. There's much less guess work involved than if you attack an alliance who (merely) has treaties going all over the place. Personally, I would rather hold a few mutual treaties between alliances than spread each of those treaties all over the web. Blocs don't solve treaty web issues, but I believe they help it more than hurt it.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314665010' post='2790682'] This list is close, but more a representation of the average of each alliance when compared to eachother. [/quote] Agreed. I think perhaps that was the intention, to a large degree, at least.