EgoFreaky
-
Posts
1,089 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by EgoFreaky
-
-
[quote name='Farrin Xies' timestamp='1337222382' post='2968363']
To those thinking this was gonna be a cancellation on NATO... Nope.
[/quote]
XD
Congrats to both on the upgrade -
In the ordinary course of establishing new relationships, NATO and R&R introduced themselves to one another around nine months ago, across a crowded treaty web. Since then, a strong friendship has developed on the basis of mutual trust and common interests. To reflect the nature of the relationship, NATO and R&R wish to announce:
[quote][center][img]http://i.imgur.com/arxWB.png[/img][/center]
[size="2"][b]Us turning on each other, it's what they want[/b][/size]
[i]Both NATO and R&R will refrain from planning or taking hostile actions against the other party. In the event there is some disagreement, both signatories will commit to resolving any issues in a civil and respectful manner.[/i]
[size="2"][b]It would take only a nudge to make you like me[/b][/size]
[i]The signatories of this treaty are encouraged to cooperate on political or economic matters which may prove mutually beneficial. Both parties consent to sharing relevant military or political information, except in circumstances where there are conflicts of interest due to other treaties.[/i]
[size="2"][b]The same blood runs through both of us[/b][/size]
[i]A declaration of war or hostile act against either signatory will be considered an act of aggression directed towards both NATO and R&R. In such an event, each signatory is required to provide all diplomatic, economic and military assistance requested by the other. Each signatory also has the option, but not the obligation, of joining the other in any offensive military action.[/i]
[size="2"][b]Except you're there and I'm here[/b][/size]
[i]In the event that either NATO or R&R enter a conflict on the behalf of a third party, any military assistance provided by the other signatory is considered optional.[/i]
[size="2"][b]All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain[/b][/size]
[i]This treaty between NATO and R&R may be amended at any time with the agreement of both parties. Either signatory may rescind their commitment to the other under this treaty by providing five days notice to a government member of the other alliance.[/i]
[size="2"][b]Signed[/b][/size]
[i]For NATO
[b]Sir Humphrey[/b] - Secretary General
[b]Berbers[/b] - Secretary of Foreign Affairs
[b]Semi the Hard[/b] - Secretary of Defense
[b]Njero[/b] - Secretary of Commerce
[b]muwen1234[/b] - Secretary of Enlistment
[b]Aress[/b] - Chief Justice
For R&R
[b]EgoFreaky[/b] - President
[b]Bambi[/b] - Vice President
[b]Stealthy[/b] - Minister of Foreign Affairs
[b]Archers92[/b] - Minister of Defense
[b]Epic Reaction[/b] - Minister of Interior
[b]SuthrnBoi17[/b] - Minister of Economics
[b]The Membership of R&R[/b][/i]
[/quote]
edit: I hate you stealthy -
-
Congrats and good luck towards the future
-
I don''t think R&R''s feelings towards FOK are or ever have been a big secret, it wasn't a coincidence that our treaty lasted longer than any (but one) other MDP+ treaty in CN. Even in the rare times that on gov level we didn't see eye to eye our respective memberships straightened us out keeping the love going.
It's sad to see the end of this era and it's sad that we were unable to walk with you on this new journey.
It's always a good feeling when you go to war and you are allied to a great alliance like FOK an alliance that was really there for you as they demonstrated again last war where when all hope seemed lost they once again had our back in a way that you can't honestly expect your allies to do.
I want to thank all current and former FOK members, diplomats and government for all the history and all the great times we had. And as a sign of the respect we have for FOK I want to echo what AmbroseIV (aka matthew aka bambi aka 'the one who needs less names') said earlier in this topic. R&R will protect the FOK AA and the nations on it in honor of our long lasting friendship until the day that we ourselves are no more.
[img]http://www.fokalliance.com/forum/images/smilies/fok-salute.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/upByL.png[/img] -
[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1336058631' post='2962874']
There are alliances that can be considered an elitist mass alliance (yes I said it). NPO and IRON come up.
[/quote]
Well, seeing there aren't 1.5K member alliances anymore the difference between mass and elite should be getting closer and closer. Now i'm not trying to insult the fine people over at IRON, who without a doubt are pretty good at what they do. But I wouldn't call them an elite alliance. NPO neither but i guess they come closer to it then IRON.. but i's probably all in how you define elite and mass seeing everyone has different definitions...
But for me with an ANS below 30K and a slot usage below 50% I wouldn't consider them elite, just very good mass alliances, which is nothing to be ashamed about.
You could even say that every alliance that recruits new CN sign-ups is a mass alliance (even if they only have 20 members that just makes them bad at it) and every alliance that only takes in established/proven nations/rulers is elite (even if they have .001% slot usage, which again just makes them bad at being elite).
I think i like that definition the best.. an alliance with high standard for new members is elite and mass alliances are the ones that go for the unproven newbies and hope to educate them to be the best they can be. That still leaves room for good mass alliances to be better than bad elite alliances. -
[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1336000394' post='2962467']
A mass alliance can do pretty well. It's more a product of enforcing standards on members and kicking out people who are unwilling to do stuff with aid slots.Also putting effort into making sure slot filling is as convenient as possible, but sometimes it's a "you can take the camel to water, but can't make it drink" deal.
[/quote]
[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1336004645' post='2962524']
We do just fine without such madness
Booting a member because they aren't using their aid slots would be pretty crazy, all for the sake of a bigger number in stats!
[/quote]
[quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1336011490' post='2962599']
I'd argue the reverse. Keeping them on the AA as a useless chunk of infra would be for the sake of a bigger number in stats.
[/quote]
and that's why theres a difference between mass alliances and elites.. if mass alliances kick out everyone who doesn't fully utilize their aid slots they'll no longer be a mass alliance and become an elite one..
So yes a mass alliance can do fine.. but not great in order to do that they'll have to reform to something that wont be a mass alliance for long.
Looking at slot stats over the last years i would say most mass alliances will top out around 60% under normal circumstances (so no reparations) while elite alliances can go somewhere from 70-90%. -
needs more 905 but for the rest, good group. Looking forward to start working with Ata
o/ Farkistan -
[quote name='Katy Perry' timestamp='1335379633' post='2959035']
This is brilliant. I have been calling NG to leave this bloc of terrible alliances for ages, and I am glad that it has finally happened.
[/quote]
So many things to say about that XD
But let's just go with one of the classics:
Terrible to see allies drift apart.
I wish Non-Grata the best of luck, wherever the road might take them.
o/ NG o/ PB
or my personal favorite:
Lines being drawn
-
[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1334575818' post='2954213']
Cant quite understand the anger at Bob's post. Most people are generally surprised when friends turn to enemies and then friends again.
[/quote]
I don't recall SF alliances ever seeing NPL as the enemy.. The anger is likely more because SF had RoK's back every step of the way up to the point that their government screwed up and expected every SF alliance to break treaties and promises to follow them on a path they didn't even made clear they were going to take and Bob now trying to make it sound as if SF had Rok oppressed and enslaved.
NPL on the other hand left RoK around that time somewhere and has never given any SF alliance a reason to hate them.
Anyway, congrats to our friends in GOD and NPL -
[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1334192239' post='2951226']
You guys probably would sign onto three blocs. xfd
[/quote]
We would, noone likes being even with you guys -
Congrats FOKkers
No idea who would ever vote for Bomba though -
Gratz to the happy couple. Also you have my guarantee the deer will be shot.
-
Congrats to all elected.
o/ Int! -
Sad to see this happen, but the best of luck to all members on finding a new home.
-
[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330313656' post='2929004']
The common-sense solution is to put the whole "white list" "black list" "official" "unofficial" "refundable" "nonrefundable" business on your own membership, which understands your alliance and its procedures, and to adhere to standard practices when it comes to foreign relations (taking action if your member runs away with somebody's money).
As a tech seller, when you accept that aid, you agree to send tech in return. If you take that money, you're taking the responsibility that comes with it. If you don't follow through on that, your alliance should just send the tech for you and consider it an opportunity to:
1) Keep amicable relations with the alliance the buyer is from, which has just sent an aid offer that would have benefited your alliance
2) Identify and help educate some of your members who may not be very familiar with tech deals
3) Identify 'problem members' and 'aid thieves' at minimal cost to you
All at a low cost of only 100 tech...
OR, you can go this route, insinuate that your membership is too stupid to understand a tech deal, refuse to force accountability on your membership, create needless and unnecessary paperwork and applications, and essentially 'black list' people who would be sending your younger members money that they badly need. You end up getting ridiculed for it (and rightly so), and eventually somebody might test it and end up either exposing your lack of a spine or destroying you and your allies.
All to save 100 tech...
[/quote]
100 tech.. don't really care to look at how many sellers UE has, but i know how many we have and when we're actively recruiting how many nubs we have.. it can add up. And tech is harder to pay then money seeing you have to send money to a reliable techseller and he has to send tech to the nation to refund. So it takes up 3 slot spaces of active reliable members for which you gain nothing.
Now in our case we don't have so much black or whitelists as a simple we're allied or we like you and decide we wanna refund you as a gesture of goodwill. But the alliance does not automatically take responsibility for techdeals not sanctioned by the alliance. Now if you would decide to send tech to one of our nubs hoping he returns tech and he doesn't we would handle it like this:
1. the member in question will be messaged to pay up what he owes.
2. If he still doesn't pay, he's demasked and kicked out of the alliance and you can have someone attack him over it if you like.
(in some cases we would offer to send 3M to a nation of choosing. A lot of the people that are in non allied alliances but are personally close to us try buying tech from our nubs knowing the risk. When they don't get their tech we in return send 3M to a nation of their choosing (this way their slot isn't wasted but the money will reach someone who can use it just like if they had donated it for aid to their own alliance).
Now there's a very simple reason for doing it like this. Every alliance that recruits a lot of new nations knows a big percentage of them goes inactive somewhere in the first couple of months. It's a risk our own buyers are willing to take for the good of the alliance. But we would not offer them as sellers to another alliance without a big disclaimer/warning that theres a high possibility of deletion/inactivity.
Now you can try to spin it as "But me buying tech from your sellers helps your alliance" but guess what, the only reason you would do it is because it helps your nations tech growth, that it would also help one of our nations is an (un)fortunate side effect. And even if you truly from the bottom of your heart believe that you're helping us.. guess what, we didn't ask for your help, so don't expect us to cover your loss if your "help" doesn't give you the benefit you expected.
You all argue "those slots are open, we're helping you".. tech is in short supply in CN, so ever considered theres an actual reason why those slots are free?
And the argument that the sellers should know better is a twisted one as well. Sure a nation 10 days old should know what to do and take responsibility for its actions.. but god forbid that a 2000 day old nation should ever think twice before acting. -
[quote name='lord bitburg' timestamp='1330447872' post='2930039']
Damn it kids. Keep on subject! This is about US and THEM. Now start talking about ME ME ME!
and why does no one address the facts, in the end 1 mongol aided, and we are being attacked, and 1 lone aided, and he is free. Yes thats because this was the plan, its the GET (Goon Entertainmant Television)
[/quote]
Almost feeling sorry for you.. but then i just remember why and how you entered the last war.. have fun being destroyed. -
Didn't know you guys had been around that long, congrats
-
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1329921362' post='2925556']
You'd think this is the first time Doom House AAs have ever heard of alliances not guaranteeing tech deals. Old hat.
[/quote]
Damn.. we've had this exact policy for years.. If I had known it would piss of MK to this extend I would have announced it on the OWF
[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330299589' post='2928850']
Or, you know, UE could use common sense.
Which is the easier and better solution here?
[/quote]
Common sense?
You make a deal with an alliance, the alliance ensures it's paid up. You try to avoid the hassle and make deals on your own, you have to get your tech yourself and the alliance does not guarantee delivery.
Looks like common sense to me. -
Gratz and goodluck
-
[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1329689921' post='2924219']
Are you intentionally being an angle? MK all but said they would have pretty much given in to most of UPS demands had they made them. So yea they could have done something other than war, get with the program and check !@#$ out, this has already been covered.
[/quote]
Ah i see, MK said it, that must make it right..
You know, we would have surrendered during karma if NPO just had bothered to ask for it, but they didn't so they lost the war. Must be true, because i just said it.
MK most definitely did not walk into negotiations with UPN opening up with "Tell us what you want and we'll pay". Not even the most inexperienced micro would do that. Claiming they would have after the fact is just ..... and someone believing it is even more ....
I think they would have gone for an easy out, maybe even offer a small compensation to be done with it. And if they couldn't get that they would have let it come to war, a war they would easily win. Now i have no proof at all for this, but it just sounds so much more believable then "we were willing to pay whatever it took". -
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1329259526' post='2920607']
OOC, since you're clearly OOC:
You know, some of us in MK-TOP-etc. have known Roquentin for a while and are genuinely concerned about his well-being. We're not trying to label him as insane because of what he's doing IC but because we think he's clearly showing signs of unhealthy behaviour. Making 60+ posts a day, over 800 on other boards, querying hundreds of people to discuss (?) events from 2007-2008, often going on monologues, etc.
I'm personally more worried about the people who keep acting like there's nothing wrong with him and just labeling it as "MK attacking someone OOC". You're not doing him any favor. Hell, mods should have intervened already.
[/quote]
[ooc]Someone spending an unhealthy amount of spare time on CN, that's a first. By that standard 90% of all gov members in CN are insane, though seeing i have claimed many times someone must be insane to be in a CN alliances gov i'm not disputing that. But not labeling him as insane? If people are not trying to do this... they're failing miserably.[/ooc]
[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1329260860' post='2920623']
Still, what he did was pretty !@#$%*.
[/quote]
Sorry but someone from MK is the last one that should talk about being !@#$%*. Not saying every MK member is the same, but a bunch of your members are making it into an art.
[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1329266684' post='2920687']
The central point here seems to be that [b]MK spied on several alliances[/b] (at least UPN and NSO from the screenshots). This is not being denied, MK instead relying on character assassination and deflection to try to get people to ignore it. Okay, this particular example is from January 2011, but the individuals involved are still present and in relatively senior roles in MK (bros is forum admin and lebubu is a Prince), so there's no particular reason to think that the spying has not continued to the present day (and Roq outright accuses them of doing this more recently).
Let's just put that out again. MK demonstrably spied on at least two alliances. This goes far beyond what, for example, NpO did to get rolled by VE. Any alliance which retains support for MK is supporting spying, something which would make most of them blatant hypocrites.
Now, there's also the question of how many other people and alliances were complicit in the spying, of whom Roq himself was obviously one. But that should not distract us from the core point that MK has been proved to carry out spying on other alliances, something which is a stone wall CB and which would cause any half-decent alliance to reconsider relations with them.
If it's true that bros either abused admin access or set up back doors or took database backups and used them for intel, then that is particularly despicable, because he advertises himself as a trusted member of the community doing a service. [OOC]And claims it's outside the IC political arena.[/OOC] But that's not proved, all that's proved is that he was acquiring intel from these boards for MK.
[/quote]
Good post, but the problem isn't in MK's allies alone.. say about MK whatever you want, they have a rock solid FA position. Treatied to a few core allies that will keep supporting them. And those allies in turn bring in the real power, you yourself are in one of these blocs.
I don't think many (if any) direct MK allies will cancel over something like this. Which brings the question, what are the indirect allies going to do? For us it was pretty simple, we made the choice not wanting to be tied to MK, we nor any of our allies has a treaty with MK. If that means ending up on the losing side of another war, so be it. We made the choice not to participate in enabling them to continue down their path. Gre has a tie through TOP, so for you and all the other alliances that do there's the question, where do you draw the line and how far are you willing to go? You don't have to answer it though, it's a question for these alliances to think about and their choice to make.
[quote name='Hyperonic' timestamp='1329268066' post='2920716']
So, when are you people going to learn to not let your web host play in politics or using web hosts you basically can't really trust?
[/quote]
Good point, however, i recall Bros coming over to R&R a while back with a similar offer, we're using IPB and he offered to help transfer to SMF. We decided against it because we are fairly satisfied with ipb (not saying it's the greatest forum software out there but it suits our needs) and because we lacked in house experience with SMF. But his offer was tempting enough that i can see how alliances that are less fortunate and lack in house expertise could go for the offer.
[quote name='hobbies0310' timestamp='1329269042' post='2920740']
Spying is bad, I agree. Now why dont you guys do something about it and attack them? If you wont do anything about it then just shut it.
[/quote]
Oh yeah.. thats grade A logic right there!
We got spied on, how can we get even? Let's rush into a losing war and get a curbstomp on top of it. -
[quote name='Ernesto Che Guevara' timestamp='1328812086' post='2917348']
Pretty sure we were in the war rather early, but thanks for your concerns. I'll file them under "Useless Information".
[/quote]
Hey, i don't know when you entered the war, honestly i don't particularly care. You complained that "by the time you entered the war, most of them got into peacemode". If that was a problem you obviously weren't in the war soon enough.
Thing is, not just for you, but so many people are talking about peacemode etc. When an alliance knows its gonna lose a war first instinct is to protect what can be protected. How they try to do that is up to them, personally i'm in favor of ignoring peacemode and just blow !@#$ up as much as possible, but if their tactic is to pull everyone in peace mode and let 1 person fight the war.. their choice. If they can get away with it, good for them. But somehow people around here seem to have gotten the idea that you don't actually should have to work to win anymore..
"We outnumber you 5 to 1 and you hide in PM cowards" I'm just turning it around, "You outnumber them 5 to 1 and let them slip into PM, lrn2stagger". -
[quote name='Parandiac' timestamp='1328775144' post='2917209']
99% of an alliance being in peacemode gets respect from you? seriously? their eight nations at war stuck it out? they all bailed much earlier. Alt was the only person i could fight and he was scared to pick up his nuked infra and fight anyone at his level. seriously, a disgrace. everyone praising UPN for their effort needs their head examined. they fought longer than other alliances only by virtue of the fact that they were late getting on the peace train and sent their nations into peace. this wasn't honourable or noble. it was a disgrace
[/quote]
This is quite a funny post
Lets see shall we, you dominate an alliance, i haven't checked exact numbers but i think saying 5 to 1 would be a nice ballpark figure? And you allow so many nations to slip into peace mode.. If your ability to war matches your ability to stagger you should probably thank your maker for them not fighting the way you want them to.
And then you blame a beatdown nation for not rebuying into a range where he will get dominated again? Seriously? Maybe next time your opponent should sell infra upon the DoW and surrender? People crying about beat down nations terrorizing smaller nations in the winning alliances are the one fun thing about losing a war.
[Quote]
Also when we finally did enter war with UPN, most of their alliance was already in PM, so...whats a dude to do?
[/quote]
Get in the war from the start instead of waiting to see if a victory is guaranteed. Pretty simple.
Anyway, congrats to all on peace. Good show UPN, 2 wars in a row you showed a significant change Keep it up!
An Announcement from The SuperFriends
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
o/ Deinos
Looking forward to working together