Jump to content

Emperor José

Members
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Emperor José

  1. This should be fairly common sense, but just to clear up any confusion, anyone aiding a nation at war with a member of The Sweet Oblivion will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
  2. I guess I'll join up. Fish/lumber. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=16016 EDIT: Never mind, seems I was too impatient with my other trade circle
  3. Methinks a bump would be helpful at this point.
  4. Here's exactly what I was looking for. Fish/lumber http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=16016
  5. I knew the MCXA Charter inside-out backwards and frontwards, and there was nothing banning political parties. It was simply a taboo.
  6. And he did that how many times...? None, as far as I can remember. I don't think he ever appointed a HC member to serve as Ololiqui's pick, either. My point is simply that it wasn't as simple as Fran makes it out to be.
  7. Well, seems I'm 10 pages late, but I still feel the need to clarify something: there was never a pro-democracy vs. pro-dictatorship debate in MCXA. It was a level of transparency debate. I was myself a High Council member, and I supported the release of HC topics to the public after 30 days, with the exception of topics which were still deemed sensitive. I was a supporter of fairly high levels of transparency compared to many others. Of course, everyone didn't have the same view, and some such as nc1701 wanted such extreme levels of transparency that MCXA would have been an easy target for...well, spies. No one ever advocated the elimination of the High Council or the allocation of more powers to the Co-Chancellors. In fact, the High Council was increased in size from 9 to 13 members, meaning more representation for the masses, more democracy. Your view of the topic is not only simplistic but highly skewed as well. I'd also like to take a moment to point out one inconsistency I see in your argument: you claim that you were a huge supporter of democracy, yet you felt the need to undermine the majority and spy to move MCXA in the right direction. If you were a true advocate of democracy, you would have attempted to achieve the changes you wanted via democratic process, no? And if you had been defeated in those attempts by a majority, you would have understood that part of democracy is losing some battles and winning some, no? Your argument doesn't add up. Apparently you didn't understand the ideals you claimed you stood for.
  8. Just two quick nitpicky things. One, you have some staunch NPO supporters in your current government who have sided with them as long as I've known them. Two, you didn't "eject" us; we left of our own free will. But congrats on peace nonetheless
  9. I'm here. Took a nice beatdown for NAAC in GWI...good times.
  10. Well, saying I didn't trust USN at all is not true, but perhaps you're right. I'm not claiming to be perfect. Anyways, I have real life issues to attend to. I've presented my case as best I can. It will be interesting to see how many of you continue your condemnations of TSO based on misconceptions and half-truths.
  11. How else do you plan for a new alliance? Of course you have to tell people in advance. And perhaps you're right. I'm not going to for a moment lie to myself or anyone else and say that I haven't made any mistakes. To me, heading to USN for a while seemed like the best plan. See my above response. I can't speak for arivili. I'll have to admit that I was not, no. I discussed that with sig as well, but since we had already had a leak, I didn't plan on creating another one by spilling the beans. I didn't know the USN government, so you can hardly blame me for not implicitly trusting them. I'm sure they're a great bunch of people, but I wasn't going to go around flapping my mouth and create another potential security issue.
  12. I shouldn't even respond since I said I would only answer to polite, thoughtful questions, but rushed to form TSO, thanks to a rather unfortunate leak of information. Not abandon MCXA. It may look like that from the outside looking in, but as I said, that was never my intention. If our intention was to abandon MCXA, we would have up and left the moment our plan was leaked rather than at least attempting to give forewarning and transition peacefully.
  13. Apparently you didn't read any of my previous posts about how we got rushed.
  14. Just a quick clarification: I was in MCXA still when the discussions started, so it was hardly poaching.
  15. Which doesn't amount to 40+ people. Look, I'm not going to claim that this was perfectly executed by any stretch of the imagination. Of course we made some mistakes. Now, campaigning started long before this talk of TSO even began, so of course we ran. The day elections started we began discussions (yes, just a coincidence, for those of you who would immediately jump to a different conclusion). The day they ended we had to move our declaration of existence plan ahead. I assume we would have attempted to train other members who planned on staying put throughout the term, so when we left the transition would be smooth.
  16. Because I was fed up with MCXA, and couldn't stay there any longer. Thee environment was too hostile, too aggressive, too untrustworthy. I planned to commit fully to USN until TSO was announced. What else would I do? Stay unaligned? Ghost?
  17. Ahh, I figured that question was coming as well. Well, I have to pull the same argument I've been using for a while now: when I joined USN I was planning on staying there at least until April. I resigned quite a while before the rest of the MCXA'ers did, and in that time our plans changed. Same goes for Gibur/arivili. I even discussed that with sig to attempt to clear up any misunderstandings, and he did say he wasn't pissed, he just wished I would have stayed.
  18. It wasn't a secret, though. It was leaked only a few days after we began talking about this whole thing, meaning plenty of people were able to make their own decision and ask to join.
  19. Again, you overlook the fact that we originally planned to announce our existence on the 2nd of April, not the 23rd of February.
  20. Well, it is time for me to make one of my rare big boards appearances. There have been far too many misconceptions, slanders, outright lies and early judgments lately, so I'm going to attempt to clear some of those up. Now, obviously I am no unbiased third party, but I will attempt to detach myself and look at this fairly objectively. I'm sure for many of you who have already condemned TSO, this post will look like a desperate shot at saving our skins, but I write this only to take care of the discrepancies I've read 50 pages worth of. (Also, all relevant logs are at the bottom of this wall of text ) First of all, I found out about Project 91 (as it was called at the time) on the 13th of February. I was out and about when I got a text from a fellow MCXA gov't member telling me that quite a few members were planning on leaving to start their own alliance. Obviously text messaging is hard to communicate effectively on (160 character limit ftl), so I didn't find out much more of anything until February 14 (I was out late the 13th). Our original time for announcing was April - we would plan carefully and work closely with MCXA to iron out the details and make sure the transition happened without incident. Then someone leaked everything about our plan, to not only our own members but also other alliances. That seriously screwed up our plan. When I talked to sam on the 16th, he was estimating only two weeks now, due to this. The MCXA general membership was (perhaps understandably) unhappy that many longtime members would be leaving, and hanging around would have only been detrimental to both sides. Due to high levels of drama llama, flaming, etc., the date was, as of the 17th, moved up to Sunday the 22nd. I began the process of writing our charter, and we worked diligently throughout the week to talk to MCXA leadership (i.e. Fresh, Gopher) and TOP leadership as well. Many of these conversations took place on skype, so obviously I have no logs of them. I did, however, approach Gopherbashi to address some issues with him on the 17th. I had seen some evidence that he was angry at TSO for essentially recruiting from MCXA, so I approached him to try to clear up the issue; I had no intention or desire to harm MCXA or its membership, and I didn't want to leave on bad terms. He assured me that he didn't see it as recruiting, and I felt better about that. I don't know what more I can say in terms of defending our actions. We didn't leave MCXA high and dry or leave with no warning. We planned for April as a declaration of existence, but that had to be moved up due to our entire plan being leaked. We didn't recruit from MCXA (most members either approached Project 91 about joining, or we simply informed them that it would be happening without actually telling them to join). And we made attempts to clear things up with the MCXA government before we left. Now, on to maxfiles' post. I will say that you are dead wrong about some things, and full of misconceptions on others. Time to dissect your post. Yes, by the 16th we had moved our date forward. To me, I am being a loyal member of MCXA by joining TSO. I loved MCXA for what it was, not its name. When the reason I came to love MCXA in the first place changes, so must I change with it. Not sure what you're getting at, so I'll leave that alone. I don't know where you got the idea that we somehow had this plan in place for months. The first I knew about it was the 13th, and I was among the first to know. We didn't plan to have our members slip out slowly - really, someone would notice when 40 long-time members left in the course of a couple months. Sam announced on the 12th (to the General Assembly) that he would step down as Co-Chancellor, yes, but that had nothing to do with Project 91/TSO. And he announced it to the High Council a few days before. (I can't verify/screenshot this, as I am obviously unmasked on the MCXA boards.) In fact, many then-MCXA members at that point attempted to convince sam to keep his position (which they did). There was no malicious intent when no one withdrew from the elections. For one, the elections ENDED on the 16th, and the plan just a few days before had been to announce in April. If there was malicious intent, we could have done many more things. We could have destroyed your forums. We could have deleted your guides, or made ourselves back-door usernames to log into the forums with. We did none of those things. We tried to transition as peacefully and easily as possible. I still love the MCXA, and I harbor no ill will towards her, but I have had to go my separate way :/ There's no way around that for me. Now, obviously I haven't touched on every criticism of TSO, as my wall of text would be many times longer if I did, but I hope this clears up at least some of your misconceptions. And I will be happy to answer any polite, thoughtful and relevant questions regarding to this issue to the best of my ability. And logs (threw them all under one quote tag since if I don't I exceed "the allowed number of blocks of quoted text."):
  21. Why, then, does CN standard allow special characters, but not CNTE? Seems odd to me. But now that I go back and read more carefully, I see it does say no special characters. My bad EDIT: For those of us who don't read as thoroughly as we should, it'd be nice if there were a validation process that happened so instead of just magically changing our names, we'd get a little JavaScript alert.
  22. I posted in the bugs thread the other day that accents in ruler names screw up the registration (thus I'm now Emperor Jos in CNTE), and I've refrained from creating a nation yet so I don't have the same problem there. So I was wondering 1: have you fixed this, as there was no response in regards to it in the bugs thread, and 2: can you fix my ruler name (yes, I know that's against the rules and all, but this wasn't actually my fault.). Sorry to be a pest.
×
×
  • Create New...