mrcalkin

[quote name='ROMMELHSQ' timestamp='1289565896' post='2511101'] I think it was common that when some member of an alliance go rogue while still a member wearing the AA, that the alliance usually pay reps or deal with their member themselves. [/quote] To be honest, every rogue situation I have seen has been handled differently. There isn't one real consensus on that at all. It really depends on the alliances and individuals involved.

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1289485062' post='2510376'] And it seems that nothing ever came of this. Figures. Just for anyone in the future, if you're going to make the claim that so and so has until xx hour on xx day to do xx, and if they don't do xx by such a time that we're going to "do something about it" well, please actually do something about it before the deadline has come and gone. This chest thumping is boring to witness if you're not going to man up and actually back up your petty threats. [/quote] Just for anyone in the future, if you're going to get all pissy about an alliance not FULFILLING THEIR WORD you might want to check to see if, you know, maybe their "xx" was fulfilled and therefore they won't be "doing something about it". Next time actually read before you post.

While we are still above yesterday's score level, I do want to note that we lost Eden Taylor tonight after the sanction update. He was one of our longtime members and a returnee recently after taking a rogue sabbatical. RIP, you're posting sprees and trans-genderism will certainly be missed, Princess.

OK if NSO's only options were to accept the 15m/250t or get rolled as some seem to be alleging left and right, how was taking it public ever an option? Wouldn't this hypothetical MK that would have rolled NSO had they negotiated also roll them for taking it public? I guess I don't understand why anyone would agree to something they consider abhorrent enough to post a gigantic thread about it "to expose the truth" if they were so afraid of getting rolled for simply trying to negotiate 15m/250t down in the first place (which hell, even my 6k ns nation could send out solo right now). I definitely don't get the point of lying about the guy's member status if he actually had a mask and the alliance aa. Maybe the last five alliances I have been in are weird, but we never had masked ghosts and I would consider such an in-between state existing to be unacceptable for most alliances. We might have a couple crappier members that don't take part as well as the rest, but they are still very much Umbrellans.

We have a similar system in place, glad to see this

so having not read all of this, you guys are ZI'ing battalion because he got upset and DoW'd because you are little !@#$@#$ pricks and purposefully $%&@ed up his stagger? You guys have only proven that you are both [b]terrible[/b] alliances over the last week, but jesus if the turtle people don't come off as the little !@#$%*es of the two.

Apology accepted.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1288935813' post='2502721'] Same. I was trying to find the original treaty topic since calkin and I had our names on it, and that makes this even more of a somber occasion. Really wish it didn't have go like this. [/quote] While I thought I did, it was actually uaciaut's name on it: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58273 RIP brothers edit: oh just read up, I didn't remember the whole temporary treaty thing at all, lol.

I know things got rocky between us recently, but I won't forget how awesome it was to fight Valhalla side by side with all of you. I have made some great friends because of Kronos and no matter what, it sucks to see yet another alliance I have been close to disappear this year.

Glad XR1 is in some !@#$%* alliance that isn't on black this time; at least we don't have to deal with his immaturity and nonsense in NOIR anymore.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1288717745' post='2499953'] Congratulations to Umbrella for reaching 7 million NS. [/quote] Is this your way of getting around our lack of announcements kowalski!

One of my favorite alliances of all time makes a return. Treaty us now imo.

I definitely see those clauses being an issue shortly!

wow =LOST= actually stands for something? I never realized it was an acronym. Congratulations to two pretty sweet alliances :3

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288266232' post='2495097'] This is obviously false, as Grämlins cared about MK and they were in the Continuum. [/quote] Check your facts. Gre turned down MK's treaty attempt during the blacklisting and while they were still in the Continuum. Only after Gre had already left Q and MK was out of terms was a treaty signed and a real relationship established. edit: wow beaten twice over

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1287800766' post='2491024'] That is nice story. But arent we forgetting something,...like the most important and key element? TOP/Gre got burned in devastating wars while you didn't. That is how you make up for gaps in this world. There is no other way. That is how they made those gaps in the first place anyway. Maneuver the seas of politics with grace, and you shall succeed. Yes and drive, willpower, tactics,...yadda yadda,... [/quote] And I am fully aware of that (though Gre had already lost much of their peak strength by the time of the war). It doesn't mean another alliance now wouldn't be able to take advantage of Umbrella's participation in wars later on. Considering we started as new nations in January 2008, I am still impressed with our nations in comparison to TOP and Gre by the Karma War, considering the initial gap. Had the last war not happened and Gre hadn't had its exodus, I think I would still be very confident in the state of Umbrella's nations and warchests now, and I do not think it would be impossible for another alliance to do the same. [quote]Cool story. And now for what actually happened. World burned in a nuclear holocaust, while we didn't. That is how we are second now. The first? Only big alliance to not actually suffer much from the holocaust. Go figure. Reps were quite effective. Without them, NPO would be much further away in its strength. Like,...tremendously. OP was a good story. I enjoyed reading it. But as already Heft hinted it, its just a story nothing more. [/quote] "Cool Story." And had you not been either under terms or recently out of terms (I cannot remember which, NPO has never really been a focus of mine), I am sure there would have been more pressure for you to assist your friends and now-treaty partners, especially when the war went south for the other side. I am sure paying reparations hurt the NPO, but at best, it was a minor annoyance that probably just pissed most of you off rather than really destroy your growth potential in the long run. I guess it also depends on what the objective of the terms levied are: punishment/payment of damages or hampering growth of the defeated alliance.

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1287783218' post='2490811'] You make it sound almost as though being given heavy reps is a good thing. Go back and read the Trashcat's comments about TDSM8's disbandment, and shortly afterwards. I don't think heavy terms did them much good, and I am sure they are not the only group that considered reps to be a burden. Also, ask NPO how much that "security blanket" was worth during their recent terms. Saying this sort of thing is beneficial to people paying reps is just whitewash. [/quote] I am of the opinion that heavy tech reps alone don't really do much to punish an alliance, if that is what is intended. They'll slow their growth maybe, but they'll also get the benefit of being "punished" by not keeping nukes (big savings per day to large nations) and getting their tech intake hurt, but also hurting the tech intake of the alliance they are paying reps to (ask any alliance that has organized large tech rep transfers and you'll find out that leaving slots open for weeks/months is common). When it seemed Genmay was going to be given heavy reps or not given reps at all, we made the decision to disband and regroup. I would say that was a much better result than trying to keep a bloated carcass alive. Now all that said, I and most of my alliance are generally anti-terms in wars that aren't directly against us (we have declined reparations in major wars since the WoTC). Reps in particular would only hurt our tech intake considering our normally high slot-usage. If an alliance hit us, we'd almost certainly have to levy other kinds of terms if we wanted to discourage future opportunists. I'd also note that the NPO was not attacked since Karma and now occupies the #2 spot in the game. If reparations were intended to hold them down or punish them, it was obviously ineffective in actually effecting the alliance's ability to grow and become powerful. So its not to say that heavy terms are the way of the future and that we all need to start going around disbanding alliances or whatever, but simply levying huge financial reparations on alliances is, at best, ineffective.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1287779583' post='2490778'] In the early years of CN, it seemed the ticket to success was recruiting a lot of nations, as it only took a bit of growth for them to be relevant. Today, its more about attracting older nations to your alliance, and not really building anything new from new nations. Case in point MK drew from LUE, and now it attracts members from all over CN. Umbrella, the same, but from Genmay. Is it really possible in today's situation that an alliance can be destroyed and a few of its members leave and create something great? [/quote] Again, if you are going to use the example of Umbrella, you have to look at what actually happened. Very few of the experienced members of Genmay ended up in Umbrella. Of our first government (ochocinco, Kevin, and MaoKhan) only Mao had ever been in the government of Genmay, ochocinco had been an outside acquaintance of a Genmay member but never very influential within the alliance, and Kevin had been a virtual unknown prior to the Unjust War. On top of this, fearing retaliation and also in an attempt to make sure our nations were set for the future with regard to trades, we rerolled practically every single one of our nations prior to the formation of Umbrella. It wasn't the fact that we got the older, bigger nations or the most experienced members of Genmay, it was more the product of being lucky and having a subgroup of the alliance that was very tight-knit and a drive to want to make our own path/decisions. At the time of formation, we saw the Gremlins and TOP as our main inspirations and tried to copy their model closely. I don't know how many times people said we were too late or would never be able to catch up on Infra/tech/warchests/whatever. We realized we were a year or more behind them but we tried different things and gambled (successfully, I might add) a few times on preparation vs growth early on. With the right tactics, drive and the willpower to do things right, I can guarantee another alliance could replicate these successes; you just have to be in for the long haul and not throw your hands up in defeat before you even start.

I agree with a lot of the first post, but as a long-time member of both Genmay and Umbrella, I am obviously a little biased. I think one of the important parts that often is overlooked with regard to Umbrella though is that not all of Genmay was included or even invited to join in either the planning or formation of the alliance. It was mostly the active and dedicated core IRC base and the most prolific and talented contributors to Genmay who were included early on and even early on after formation, only those who were known good members or who were personally known personally (ooc:irl) by members were allowed to join. The process to streamline and improve Umbrella over our predecessor alliance was not entirely natural in that case; we didn't simply wait for those members who were disloyal or not dedicated towards the group to filter themselves out, instead we tried to take an active role in determining who would have a positive impact on the alliance and attempting to not repeat some of the mistakes of Genmay (like letting in anyone sight-unseen). While we were not 100% on the ball with all those who were chosen and let in, I think this practice and the general sense of camaraderie amongst this group born from the months preceding the Unjust War were some of the essential keys to our success. Basically to sum up what I am trying to get at, I don't think its just the destruction that is important, which you note in your OP for all the cases where victimized alliances faded away rather than re-surge, but a drive born from desire for revenge, desire for community and desire for improvement that can result from being on the business end of a shotgun. edit: [quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1287779313' post='2490771'] You could say that by giving brutal terms to the defeated, you're doing them a favor - what doesn't kill them will only make them stronger. My concern is that the alliances watching from the sidelines could be traumatized by it. [/quote] In almost all the "success" cases listed though, the defeated or disbanded alliances chose [b]not[/b] to fulfill any terms, at least at time of disbanding or defeat. In some of the cases, no terms were even given to begin with. I am not sure monetary terms alone do anything but take alliances out of the game for long periods of time in which they can rebuild without the burden of military costs or fear of having to participate in a war. I think they can be strong discouragements for senseless declarations against your alliance from small groups, but at the end of massive wars its basically a security blanket given to the defeated party, that has the side effect of making the defeated party feel like martyrs and give them something to rally around as being unjust or unwarranted.

Some areas require you to crush cans/bottles before recycling; I know it was this way up in Washington state where my grandparents lived.

Onward to the top Umbrella!

I don't know, I always liked Michael Crichton but Timeline felt a little half-assed. The ending kind of sucked (though to be honest most of his books end poorly, as if he just decided he was done writing) and really the only part I really liked was the whole "we don't actually understand time travel in this dimension, so we are going to destroy your body and then in another dimension where we [i]do[/i] know how to make this work, we'll recreate you" which is probably poorly paraphrased since I read the book years ago.

We've used Parapluie internally before (only so many umbrella-themed words after all, lol)

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1287186579' post='2485526'] "KN is a rogue alliance because they don't have any diplomatic ties to established alliances - and nobody better dare to change that!" Give it up GOONS. KN is now an alliance by even your own absurd standards. I know you won't, I know if push comes to shove you'll threaten people for merely signing a treaty with someone you don't like, even though it in no way obligates them to participate in this war. Just so you can keep up your "KN isn't an alliance and we can do whatever we want to them" charade. (Though, the Sons of Aiur should have talked to their protectors first, before putting themselves in a position where GOONS will threaten them.) [/quote] God, I can't wait until you are banned again.

Handled very nicely DT. If only every incident could go so smoothly.