Hyperbad

[quote name='Seoul' date='06 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1265500615' post='2165387'] Well, I have a mom and dad, so I don't need people to care about me. Sorry Fizzy! I want to join an alliance that can teach me how to grow my nation strong. It has nice friendly people to talk to also. I don't want the alliance to be tiny, because then they are probably all like me and don't know anything. [/quote] Some of what will help in proposing alliances for you to look into is what your perspective on the use of war is. Do you wish to be involved a lot, little or not at all (if possible)?

[quote name='The Thief' date='06 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1265499977' post='2165356'] Nope, you're probably thinking of five-year olds on speed. Not quite as bad. [/quote] ahhh, my mistake.

Necessary, no. However it is in ones best interest if you seek honest discussion for it avoids misunderstandings and undesired implications. For honest discussion usually, to correct inaccurate statements or to uncover things about the events which transpire of interest to ones self. Having an uninvolved party point out issues can help either at that moment or later down the road after events have long passed by causing one to reflect on their actions and statements. One doesn't necessarily care about helping an issue if they state an opinion however. There are far more one can do besides making a public post, all of which are far more efective. Depends on the meanings used and the circumstances surrounding their involvement, including their reasons. That depends upon the issue and parties involved as with what steps were taken. Some things can cause things to boil over while letting some things slide shows sensibility and can keep other parties from feeling threatened.

An alliance typically exists for the benefit of its members, for mutual protection against clear and present threats. Through this common goal friendships are made and communities develop. Someone has to take on the responsibility of making the important decisions and vital daily operations in order for it to be effective. Should the members grow complacent then they will be ill prepared to deal with any threats. If others are more eager to take up the reins of power for the betterment of the whole then I see nothing inherently wrong with others sitting in the background, provided if the time comes where you must defend a fellow member you do so. Quietly leaving after having done nothing openly and actively is perfectly acceptable provided you have held that willing mindset. That alone is a payment to the cause, the purpose your alliance has thus no debt remains upon your departure unless you explicitly stated one such as owing money to a bank. Anything beyond the original purpose of the alliance which your bring is merely a bonus given to the whole and it ends when ever you wish it to. To my knowledge virtually every alliance in this game only operates here even if members come from elsewhere. Once an alliance becomes a community which operates wings in different games then there might be more required of its members and that merely depends upon the conditions of your joining. I owe nothing.

It only takes one to start a trend thus only one having done it - and recently - shows nothing. More time is needed to see if that picks up. Personally, I think there will be fewer treaties held by some alliances but others will pick more up to balance it all out. I don't really see any significant change here. I miss the days games where alliances were decided by leaders, known to all and things were decided mutually or if unilateral action was taken, it was a given you were on your own. Despite what any wall of text says, you don't have to defend anyone if you do not wish to. People are afraid they'll receive negative public relations for making a decision on their own rather then following blindly. Being friends or allies is not an unconditional thing but rather requires a close and working relationship. Frankly, it is my perspective that if you get into a conflict and know your ally or friend doesn't agree with your decision or they were simply never consulted then you should expect to fight on your own and accept your fate as you chose to make it by getting involved. Really, it all depends upon the circumstances. If they didn't heed warnings or showed open lack of regard for you then clearly there is no reason to defend them. An alliance is an agreement between you independant political entities typically formed for mutual benefit and in such a circumstance it might not be beneficial in the short or long term to get involved. It could do very well for humbling them when they were getting out of control rather then enabling them by just tagging along. More to the point, an alliance has obligations for the protection of its members above other alliances. Thus if it's in their benefit then sure, get involved, otherwise I see no reason to endorse an act you might be principally opposed to. I think the concept that treaties chain is one of the things to be done away with as is this blind obedience people clamour for. If you're really going to get involved in everything together then there is little sense in attempting to project an image where you maintain any degree of independance.

[quote name='The Thief' date='06 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1265491946' post='2165145'] When world-changing decisions are made by five-year olds on meth. [/quote] I thought that was the case normally.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='06 February 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1265443326' post='2163987'] It is absurdly hilarious, that we all THINK the same thing about situations when it is convenient for us to do so, and we all bemoan the SAME situations when it is in our best interest.[/quote] You had my interest here then totally lost it after it seemed as though the content of your post wasn't going to follow your introduction. Rather the rest of your post appears to have degenerated into a rant against TOP rather then a self reflection followed by a request for others to do the same, which is what I expected.

[quote name='D34th' date='06 February 2010 - 04:14 AM' timestamp='1265447647' post='2164102'] We honored ]all of our treaties with [b]both sides[/b], nobody can't claim that we are chosing an ally over another now, also we are defending GR and then canceling on them, you canceled on us and supported the winning side. You did what you did to save your infra, we did what we did because we care for what we believe not for our infra. See the difference? Principles =/= Cowardice [/quote] eh, your leadership agreed to a NAP of conveniece with TOP's leadership for the purpose of conducting this war and backed out of it in support of others. I'm not certain I'd say you honored all of your treaties unless you wish to say those officially announced in long winded prose are treaties and what was said isn't a treaty but a simple agreement. Semantics really doesn't matter here except in trying to rally people to a side with propaganda so we'll. Either way, no matter what you wish to call it, your word would have been broken. One can not deny NpO allowed itself to slip into a no win position and no matter what you would take some heat once Grub made that assurance. It does come off a bit as something to boost relations with some of your closest allies, or at least keept them from deteriorating too much after recent events so as to maintain some degree of influence. That isn't to say it's the case but merely how it looks to outsiders due in large part to a lack of knowledge with regard to the discussions NpO membership and its leadership has had since the start of the conflict. It's become difficult to place the NpO with what exactly you believe, what principles you are upholding and why now if they were the same ones your leadership was prepared to toss aside before. It's things like this where I refuse to make any sort of definitive judgment because no matter what, unless one is a member with proper clearance we will never know exactly what reasons you have. I feel in large part alliance decisions are driven by a number of different considerations and any one claim will still have a void of information within it.

[quote name='Nizzle' date='06 February 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1265436351' post='2163419'] So...which side is now the most underhanded? I mean, just out of curiosity. [/quote] If only I had a digital camera I'd take a picture of some cards laid out as if the game War was played and war was caused by double sixes with the face up cards at the end of war again being double sixes. Alas, I opened my pack of cards (which I've had for a decade unopened) in vain. I have nothing with which to take the picture. I sure wish someone else would do it for me I think the picture would speak well as to the general all situation.

[quote name='Godwin' date='31 January 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1264975742' post='2148426'] Leeroy vs. the Dragon Whelps certainly has a nice ring to it. [/quote] That would work if it was just TOP but Pals4Life would be better, tried to organize it but it didn't go quite as planned or hoped.

Originally I saw great potential and enjoyment in writing up treaties. Prior to this game (I first joined in 2006) I was doing (forum based) nation sims for about 5 years but my interest was dieing. I'm here now because sad as it may be I have nothing better to do with my time. In previous games I played both the benevolent leader with an interest in world peace and the interventionist type plotting to take over the world. What makes games interesting or just plain fun is tension built up over time with the potential of boiling over into all out conflict but the tension being over legitimate disputes which can be solved but not to eithers benefit or liking. This game lacks the potential for those types of disputes due in part to any real semblance of geography. It takes a strategic element out of it and focused sense of urgency, fear or despair. If one so wishes in this game it's actually quite easy to achieve never ending peace due to the simplicity behind the issues of dispute. One disadvantage this game has is the very little room for manuevering in game with regards to grievances. By no means is it the fault of admin because of the complexity involved in coding things with such potential. Still, the simplicity and straight forwardness in methods to deal with things in game removes an element which otherwise could revive any fun people have. The game isn't really built for full out war to be a common occurrence but for it to be the climax of long held tension. I think this is reflected by the community by a lack of any real care or concern and reckless and rashness, for the most part, being typical. I don't really see it changing and while recklessness can be refreshing, that's only truly in the event of cautiousness or overly so is the norm. All in all, I'm really bored. You see a lot of the same type of behavior and attitudes from individuals to alliances with little deviation. That's just my initial thoughts though.

[quote name='CptGodzilla' date='31 January 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1264997054' post='2149494'] Or they will be lucky next time and get someone like me, who doesn't care about the general community and their faux moral standards. [/quote] I was responding to someone who presented just such a perspective as you. I merely pointed out other possibilities and what the potential consequences of such a perspective might be. I do concede the more likely outcome of the two presented thus far is what you propose. I'm sure there are many just as incapable as yourself of containing your emotions, your rage, and acting based upon objective reasoning. The most likely is that they'll be given terms no different then otherwise. [quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1264997592' post='2149521'] IT has been stated that part of the reasonign behind the term was that some feared Caffine had left Echelon simply to take heat off Echelon when terms negotiations came around. The fact that Caffine began inquiring about being able to be in gov the moment he rejoined Echelon is only proff that this was the case.[/quote] It certainly proves his having an interest in being government. How does his expressed desire of wanting to jump right back into a government seat upon his return along with Caffine inquiring about the term in question prove that Echelon hasn't made an attempt to follow the term? It certainly allows for it to be a possibility but your entire argument right here is about Caffine and his actions and statements then the jump to Echelon making no effort. At the least to make it plausible (note that I haven commented to the effect they didn't break it prior to this) support the notion with something Echelon's government did to show it felt indifferent to the term before reaching (or stating) your conclusion. [quote]Looky here, Caffine goes and spends a couple months in the Ronin Halfway House where he's magically reformed, tada, now he's back in Echelon and wants gov eventually, and kazam, here Echelon is saying they'll do just that.[/quote] Yeah, this announcement is what, several months later and stating he'll have a minor seat some time in the near future? It certainly proves Echelon's intent never to follow the term up until now. There are far better arguments for your point posted in this thread you could use and I would be in agreement to a degree. [quote]Silly. The body as a whole are surrender terms. No one talks about surrender term. It's a matter of jargon. The document as a whole is "surrender terms" and if one part of the document is violated then the whole thing is collectively trashed.[/quote] Precisely why I was seeking the clarification, to see what kind of jargon you would be using here as the same way you and others phrase it the meaning could also be taken that there were more then one terms violated. The jargon can get confusing particularly with little to actually work with and put into context to figure out how you would differentiate the two. With such lacking I ask. [quote]No it doesn't. The statement that "Caffine has been acting as gov in everythign but name, anyway" makes any argument about which of its titles Echelon defines as government or not, since they acknowledge that he has been government. [/quote] I've seen an RIA guy state that but I haven't seen anyone from Echelon say it. The RIA guy also said they knew about it and spoke with the other signatories to see if there were issues and they never brought it up with Echelon. Echelon apparently feels deputies aren't government members thus why would an advisor (something Caffine admitted to doing) be considered one? I'll check again later though to make sure I didn't miss an Echelon member say it.

I don't know what's more hilarious. The bickering in this thread or that the term was actually used. Silly humans. Yes this was a good move for internal affairs principle, bad in execution. Yes this comes across as opportunist whether it was intended as such or not. This is being announced during the midset of a major war which has potential to escalate further where those who put the terms on you have their forces committed. No, they should not have agreed to the term if they disagreed with it and should have negotiated for the lifting of the term. Yes he could still be government in other alliances even if Echelon's surrender terms were kept. Nothing was accomplished by it and nothing is accomplished now by people focusing on the terms and the method Echelon chose to be rid of it. Who ever is slighted and did the slighting may wish to contact each other in private to work it out. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1264945125' post='2147468'] But you can't just say 'Well actually, we signed these terms but we don't believe in them any more'.[/quote] Sure they can and the OP supports such a notion. The illogical thing though is doing something like this and expecting there to be no consequences. [quote name='James I' date='31 January 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1264945446' post='2147472'] edit: By the way, you used your sovereignty to sign those terms, so don't use that argument. If you agreed to this for all eternity, then I guess you're bound to your decision. [/quote] While I don't disagree over their having used sovereignty to accept the terms willingly, they did by doing so surrender sovereignty and have now reclaimed it. [quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1264962105' post='2147929'] The manner in which this was done is indicative of Echelon's continued pre-Karma mentality even if Caffine has moved on.[/quote] I'm not sure making a decision to reclaim by unilateral action ones own sovereignty previously signed away can be used as a sound basis for saying it's indicative of a pre-Karma mentality. [quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1264975880' post='2148436'] Caffine hasn't even been in Echelon all that long. His AA seniority is 83 days, that's less than 3 months. The minute he rejoined Echelon, he started trying to join gov again--as he has admitted by saying he asked for the term to be rescinded "several months ago". Echelon has not even made an attempt to follow the terms. And that's why the term is necessary. Boom, Caffine waits til the coast is clear, then biggity-bam he's back in Echelon and he's back in gov being Caffine again. [/quote] Echelon not making an effort to follow the term of Caffine being barred from government would indeed be a good reason to keep it, but not a reason as to why it was necessary in the first place if that is your assertion (I don't believe it is but just to cover that base). I also note you state terms as opposed to term and wish to ask (because I've seen others type the same) if that's a typo or there are other violations you wish to assert. Lastly, Caffine trying to become government isn't the same as Echelon disobeying the terms. Rather it's an indicator that he wishes to be government and acknowledges a road block. The way you go about asserting Echelon hasn't made an attempt to follow terms is by saying he's government in all but name now and for however long. This becomes problematic because of the semantics involved. I'm sure you have seen just the same as I have what is considered government varies from person to person, organization to organization. To some one must have actual power. To others they merely need to be an advisor. To another group carrying out tasks for government would be considered it. A fourth group might consider anyone capable of voting for government officials or legislation to be government themselves. I'm sure there are other possible definitions and they're not all or even mostly out of a desire to "e-lawyer" things but out of experience with the usage of the term and sort of impressions those it's used on give. Thus it's pointless to argue and since no definition of the term was given by those issuing the terms then the meaning of what defines a government position is left entirely up to them to decide. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1264988786' post='2148951'] Well, all I can say is that if I were at war with Echelon in future, I'd know that they wouldn't stick to their surrender terms and therefore I wouldn't give them any. [i]That[/i] is why you don't just decide that you're not going to stick to your terms; the next time you get rolled (and considering the personalities you're putting back at the top, it will be sooner rather than later) you might well not get any, because you can't be trusted to keep them. [/quote] Or they may get white peace because giving them terms is useless and PZI (or was it EZI) is something I hear is frowned upon by the general community. Also, don't equate one term to all of their terms not being followed. As has been stated the others were. It was a very specific kind of term which is not being followed now.

Hush you, no one's touching my Great Temple

Honestly, I just can't be bothered to sell down for a clown.

I grow curious. I've seen some comment on TOP being a bit paranoid that there were some actively seeking to destroy them and that they won't be pushing for an end any time soon and in fact wish for it to go on because of the manner in which this war was extended or launched. A question to those with such a perspective (as I readily acknowledge most if not all are rank and file members): would that not feed into their paranoia where as a "white peace" would put some nerves at ease and such an over reaction less likely to occur in the future? While TOP appears to have caused a self fullfilling prophecy the perspective presented by some individuals also appears to be self defeating. The result of this not only will heavily impact the politics for months to come more then it already has but also the mindset the different alliances and individuals feel and express. That kind of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

Since I posted it in the previous thread I'll post it here for good measure (though your refusal to carry over nominations doesn't make sense to me) much as I doubt it'll get any votes, I doubt many others will: Pwnani War

If this isn't a joke thread - I notice no Cortath signature and the general way things are phrased makes me question it - then I must say I'm surprised. If it is a serious announcement this may hurt you in the long run should you desire a switch back to involvement. Those you will recruit while under the DoN will likely leave you in a position where your stats are inflated above what member involvement you will receive in peace and war.

I must admit, when I heard of this I thought it was a joke [OOC: forums were down so link no worky]. My jaw literally dropped when I read it was true. I wish luck to all the concerned parties in this conflict. May you get the satisfaction you so desire and tear each other apart. I was laughing at the posts about the penalties. You're all doing it wrong though. They're not doing diplomacy or foreign relations (Europa Universalis) any more. They're taking a full out total war approach (Hearts of Iron) with their economic policies (Victoria) on hold as well. Get it [the reference] right please. You vastly underestimate the community's desire to out do itself in stupidity. There have been others before that were very stupid moves, merely they aren't as recent or have as far ranging consequences for the political landscape of Bob as this one does.

Pwnani War I wasn't quite sure if the Pwn portion was really applicable, if the sides will remain relatively even and how it will turn out anyway. The other way it can be read is people finally getting something to solve their blue ball issue.

I was about to start offering tech for negative rep I do love the change though

I've spoken to a few people about the game but they all end up with a puzzled look on their face like I stopped speaking english. Most of them then laugh and say it's to much, I need to get a life or something. I did manage to recruit a coworker back around May who joined WAPA but he was never into it, still isn't. He can't be bothered to read anything on the forums and so feels the game lacks any sort of purpose. I've tried to get some girlfriends into the game but when they ask for your help on how to delete a file or how to make a web browser bigger (maximize it), expectations aren't running very high. In the end I stopped talking about the game let alone recommending it. Most people I know just aren't very aware of politics or foreign relations but are more into other things. It would take to long to explain basic concepts the community feels then the actual issues for it to be worthwhile, not to mention I'd have to repeat myself endlessly because they forgot. I'd talk about it on facebook I guess but my relatives are on my friends list and I face palm enough as is.

Mostly Harmless Alliance: Big Cat The Order of the Paradox: Diplomat New Polar Order: Palooka Independent Republic of Orange Nations: Me-Too Sparta: Centurion Orange Defense Network: Sycophant Fark: Bong Green Protection Agency: Lurker New Pacific Order: Big Dog Viridian Entente: Eagle Scout FOK: Big Cat The Order of Light: Ent For anyone that's seriously reading this, only a fraction of the above do I actually believe, some I took from general forum perspectives and others, well, just because. Chances are if you find something offensive, I was joking (and I know I got TOOL wrong and Bong was picked for Fark because there was no Drunkard). Okay, now for the real thing: Mostly Harmless Alliance: 42 The Order of the Paradox: Interactive New Polar Order: Cold Independent Republic of Orange Nations: Sparta: laconophilia Orange Defense Network: Selective Fark: Drunk Green Protection Agency: Solitude New Pacific Order: Calculating Viridian Entente: FOK: u (first thing that popped into mind, immature as that may be ) The Order of Light: Bright Well... ya got me. Only a few were serious once more and I can't think of anything for two up there obviously. I can't really put a description to an organization in one word and for most of the alliances lack the amount of knowledge I desire before truly forming an opinion of them. Edit to add link

They also have the option of either just doing it or not doing it. They could go based on no knowledge of support or with that of those who condone such behavior. Otherwise maybe they'll have competent ambassadors that keep factbooks on the alliances they are responsible for and profiles on their leaders with all pertinent data to avoid such "misunderstandings". There is no question of "need" here; only a question of acceptable risk. I expect the purists view the treaty not having any amendment clauses (at least that I could tell) making an amendment impossible. (Now using your quote to transition into my thoughts) Truth be told the quickest way to be done with the treaty is to state their no longer considering it relevant thereby cancelling it, voiding it or breaking the treaty. Use which ever term one prefers. The only use a cancellation clause has ever had is by providing a "get out" option with the party wanting out keeping their "honor" intact. Otherwise having a "perpetual" clause is a method that can be used to guarantee the closest of relations or simply maintain them but the treaty might end up being redundant if it isn't already. Nothing inherently wrong with that though, merely observing. If the state of affairs between the two signatories would be maintained if the Accords were done away with - like that of those other treaties - then I don't see why it's being used as a defense (unless I'm misreading people) to keeping the Accords. It comes off as a view running contrary to what was stated elsewhere in this thread. On a tangent, I have absolutely no clue what the majority of Harmlins think and feel and it is conceivable that there's a detail in the Gramlin's newest FA philosophy which doesn't apply to the Accords. I won't pretend to know anything about that. I am interested though as to how they will evolve after this and if there are any other changes we might anticipate. Edit to add the bolded above

The reason for mixing the two was to investigate the reasons behind the lack of declarations when the counter attack was launched and to see what was the probability of them having an influenced had the attacks been launched sooner. There was a week of notice that war was more then likely coming to the CC and still we had so few declarations. Thus while there are some differences between the two points in time the question of what happened that there was such a poor response is left open. It is possible that they took it as meaning they were just looking to protect themselves or that the constant alert made them become complacent feeling their involvement will be delayed a while longer. Both such explanations play into the idea that an earlier declaration would have been much more effective then what had happened. I would believe a noticeable even if barely significant number of members would be in peace mode for extended holidays and you illustrated beautifully that a number of players were responsive to their government's message. I wager more players would have declared war if it was launched sooner on their end. I suppose I'll ask what strength in nations you would consider an effective counter requiring