mrcalkin

Your information is bad. I know for a fact we fought more than four alliances that war. M*A*S*H in particular disbanded shortly after we were through with them. I guess you weren't really paying attention though. True, most alliances we declared on that war were only hit by small amounts of nations (10 or so) since most of our guys were out of range, but we were also heavily restricted since the primary combatants were two of our traditionally-closest allies. The hit on TSO was particularly controversial since we were hitting one of TOP's direct treaty partners. MK was (rightly IMO) mad at us for not doing some of the heavier lifting on TOP considering the nature of how that war broke out and Umbrella's relative strength in the top tiers, but the leadership at the time (Roq) and most of the alliance deferred to the length and closeness of our relationship with TOP to the chagrin of those who would have rather canceled the treaty months earlier after the whole situation that winter and left ourselves open to help MK in bipolar. I'm sure all of this is a little too complex for you of all people to understand, so, in short: you're wrong here and you're probably wrong most of the time when Umbrella is concerned.

Needs more !@#$%*ing, only 7 pages of half-assed FUD so far

Great to see us treatied! You guys definitely got a lot of accolades from everyone who had run into you before.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335087224' post='2957056'] Oh. Is there like an alliance size cap? Or is it just protected nations that are off-limits? Like I remember you praising the Spartan intervention in the AGW thing. Might make sense for NATO to have like guidelines. Like raiding in Umbrella has really strict guidelines. No raiding alliances above 12 members and no raiding without gov approval. [/quote] While it doesn't affect your point, Umbrella has recently amended our charter so that raids are fully at the discretion of the President and Field Marshal alone with no added stipulations, effectively removing any hard cap as long as the President or Field Marshal approve the raid. [quote name='Revised Umbrella Charter'] 1. A valid raid target shall be determined at the discretion of the Field Marshal/President. The Field Marshal and President are encouraged to base their choice on internal guidelines, but the decision is ultimately up to them. 2. Raids will be authorized by the Field Marshal/President on a case by case basis only; raids will consist of ground attacks only, and peace must be offered following every set of attacks. 3. Retaliation to counterattacks by the raid target shall be made solely at the the authorization of the field marshal or designate.[/quote]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332530303' post='2942257'] How about you take your own advice, mrcalkin? [/quote] Can do, later my old friend <3

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332529362' post='2942248'] Nope. Not what Natan said and Raken had been planning to put it forth before that. I'm glad I kept up the charades, as well. The fact that an inconsequential twitter message was what pushed Umbrella to cancel a treaty is hilarious and just makes you look dumb if you're putting it forth as the true story. It also shows Natan was really responsible unlike what the logs depict. So either he was lying, or you are. Which is it? Yet, nothing happened, which triggered the twitter thing to begin with just goes to show he has no control over the alliance he supposedly leads. I'm glad I kept it up as well, because you were never going to ditch DH anyway, so it was inevitable and I should have just assented to the downgrade plan when everyone was else was calling for it. The idea you have in your head that Umbrella can get away with everything consequence free, but take every thing done against them as some sort of crime against humanity is ultimately what shows Umbrella is dumb. [/quote] I was the only one who called for the cancelation and got no seconds. That is a fact. No Raken, no anybody. Natan himself ripped me to shreds for bringing it up. But thats a little easier for me to figure out [i]since I'm in the damn alliance after all[/i]. While Raken might have supported the idea given your antics, he wasn't willing to push it forward til after your repeated threats and abuse of privileges finally pushed the alliance opinion over the top. I find it hilarious that you think this somehow makes domisi a weak leader, considering how petrified you were of the membership going against your own wishes in your lengthy span as leader. Get away with consequence-free? What am I trying to get away with? You're the one who was begging us to ignore what you did with the twitter. Once you get upset, you can't control yourself. It's why you blackmailed us in the first place, its why you took advantage of the fact that you could still post on our twitter, its why you've tried to poach our members off facebook and our app aa, its why you can't help but respond to every criticism of your behavior, real or imagined. You have been this way forever, and I should know, we only talked daily for years. If you would just pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a dick and recognize that we're really not trying to get away with anything, you might lower your blood pressure a bit, but that's probably a bit too much to ask from someone like yourself.

The richest part to all this is that I was really the only vocal one who wanted the Sparta treaty canceled before Roqgate (I got laughed out of one of our threads for even putting forth the idea and that was even AFTER you had already tried to blackmail us, lol. Glad you kept up the charades after that though, made things a lot easier). I mean hell, Domisi was still completely gung-ho about aiding the !@#$ out of Sparta for weeks after your initial threats until the twitter thing became the straw that broke the camel's back. They should be really glad someone with your levelheadedness and self-control is looking out for their interests Roquentin.

I wouldn't call my feelings "dislike", its more akin to "pity". I'm more upset that you decided to throw a long friendship away because of politics. edit: apologies for sending this off-topic, congrats again to ODN gov.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330802645' post='2932592'] Jgoods: pinnacle of excellence. This Spring: OsRavan, mrcalkin, and JA star in Reluctant MK Toadies III. [/quote] "boo-hoo" Remember when you were someone to be respected? Back when you had judgment?

Congrats to OsRavan, I look forward to more book recommendations from you

RIP Janax, you are awesome Hook em rusty!

ochocinco's birdbrella lives!

where is my rating :<

Oh yeah, good to see relations restored (and strengthened!)

$%&@ yes, GOONS are my favorite

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1318093788' post='2820902'] As you repeated this a few times I'll ask you a question. If I am not mistaken the treaty was a MDP (maybe MDoAP) that got downgraded to an ODP. That changes both your FAs from a position in which you'd have to "obligatory" defend each other to a position in which you have ground to do so, but you don't "have" to. (And maybe you also lost the oA part, which is less relevant but not completely irrelevant either.) I think that it's a very significant change, why do you insist that it would have been pointless to announce it? [/quote] We don't post these types of things, period. We have never (in the three years of our existence) posted these types of things, period. It is not a new change, it isn't simply because we consider it pointless, it isn't because it isn't a big change (though, I do feel "significant" might be hyperbole since I don't believe this downgrade would actually change our course of actions in the foreseeable future). We have our reasons and if you talk to any member or gov member of the alliance, they'll give you their own justification. This is how we do things, and we (probably) won't be changing it anytime soon.

crack some skulls for me NG

brb moving to grey time to end the tyranny of the grey council happy birthday to argent (hook em rustynail)

I agree with a lot of the problems you identified, but I am unsure we are actually at the point where we can fix things. A lot of the playerbase has aged and grown tired of the game, this seems rather evident in my dealings with people who have been active and driving forces for the past few years. On top of that, the game development staff, for balancing reasons or whatever, seem hesitant to introduce structural changes to the game along with the problem of sculpting solutions that not only encourage new players and keep old players interested but are actually able to be added to the existing game code. Maybe branching out into the mobile game market (iphone/android apps for instance) could give a small invigoration, but it might also shift the focus away from the forum and IRC-based politics that have been such a hallmark of this game since its inception. In short, I have no answers and many of the suggestions I can come up with seem to have more downsides than benefits. I suspect a lot of other people in the community are in the same boat.

While we do have an organized tech program in Umbrella, we leave trades largely up to the individual members unless you just happen to fit in a circle someone else is making. We pride ourselves on activity and keeping trades in order is just part of that.

Ah yeahhhh that's the spot

return Meer thanks in advance

I really need to check some nation bios ASAP

I'm liking this, good work NG :3

Funny, I've owned a few Acers, they all worked better than my Dells and replacement parts for the A/C adapter or battery were fractions of the price. For instance, my e1505 dell went through something like 3 or 4 adapters in 4 years, each one costing over $100 first-party or $50+ 3rd party and each being easier to break than the last (was a bad design on the computer-side plug) while my latest Acer cost me a whopping $12 shipped for an extra adapter for the office and batteries are something like 1/10th to 1/8th the cost. While these are anecdotal, I have friends with cheaper Acers (I have also have a cheap one, the as1410, an 11.6" model they used to sell) and none of them have had any problems. I think the problem is we rely too heavily on brand names when it comes to computers. When I buy a new TV, I don't go buy a random Sony because it has the Sony logo on it, I go online, I do my research and I buy the best model for the buck, with brand only affecting it slightly (mainly just avoid brands that I have had bad experiences with during customer service situations) and I think most smart consumers would probably do the same thing. However, when it comes to computers, it seems like many people are simply brand zombies, painting some as "good brands" and some as "bad brands" based mostly on anecdotal evidence or gut reactions.