MaGneT

[quote name='Britishdude' timestamp='1310792667' post='2757095'] We have quite a few former TGE members in our alliance; if they would like to leave us because they find TGE more appealing, then more power to them. My point was I don't appreciate having my members poached, regardless of what alliance they used to be in. [/quote] If he papered your entire alliance, that'd be poaching and improper behavior. If he was contacting old alliance-mates or friends to inform them that he was interested in having them in his alliance, there's really no problem with that. [quote name='Kaiser Wilhelm I' timestamp='1310792871' post='2757098'] When I first started the endeavor, I admit I did message a few members. I have admitted and sincerely apologized for this. It's not a proper way to go about things and as Nemhauser has stated: it won't happen again. There's no other way to put this. [/quote] Guys, stick to your guns... you can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want.

[quote name='Britishdude' timestamp='1310791666' post='2757082'] ^this, I tend to get annoyed when I have former TGE members who are like "oooo my Vaterland is back! and they have asked me to come help!" [/quote] So you're blaming TGE because members of yours would prefer to be in their alliance rather than yours? I'll be sure to support you in your endeavors to prevent the creation of alliances with any potential of being more appealing than yours.

Nordreich, way to show your mettle and maturity. Hats off to you, as always.

[quote name='Nikita Ilyich Lenin' timestamp='1310690781' post='2756339'] protecting dead AAs is dumb tbh [/quote] Brb, raiding iFOK and PC.

When I see someone say something along the lines of "haters gonna hate" it tells me that those haters probably have reason. For your use of that phrase alone, I hope that your alliance disbands.

I just don't understand why some people are so masochistic...

You might want to join a successful alliance and serve in their government for a few terms before you try this. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just based on the OP, I'm pretty sure your effort is doomed to fail. Sorry buddy. I may as well go a step further and be shameless. Consider joining DT. We're pretty cool and we don't have a Secretary of the Level 9 Airforce.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1310602150' post='2755710'] Move in the wrong direction for OT. [/quote] I am not remotely informed about this, but since this man is in my alliance... Awful move OT. Truly awful.

[quote name='Avakael' timestamp='1310450671' post='2754795'] Or we could keep the momentum rolling and have GOD/Valhalla sign an MDP. [/quote] I have a feeling Valhalla would need some serious beer goggles going on before they even thought of getting in a bed with you.

Back in the day, VE was really chief example of how a so-called "cookie cutter alliance" can have genuine uniqueness, integrity and respectability. Happy fifth.

Cheating on us with some other Templars? I spy a barfight coming on...

The answer to this question, like many questions, is that you need a happy medium. The game is more fun when you have more people involved in politics. The truly problem micro-alliances are those who have 10-20 members, 4-8 of whom are active on their private forums and they do no outside interactions except with their protector. Those are alliances that should merge into their protectors, so those active players can contribute to a larger base and have a say in the larger world. The same can be said for mega-alliances, who have loads of active members but, like Alterego said, many get trapped in a huge bureaucracy and don't ever rise to make a difference. A financial officer who helps line up trade circles and tech deals in a huge alliance might not be shaking things up out here.

Definitely deserved. Congratulations Thrawn and Asgaard

[quote name='Franz Ferdinand' timestamp='1310335179' post='2754047'] I agree with your statement on this, Penlugue, I just don't see the point of forums when all you need is direct communication. If the alliance in question is of a large size, then yes, forums are required. [/quote] An AA doesn't need to be organized to merit protection, does it?

This is why you do not post under the influence.

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1310233109' post='2753363'] Why must their be fighting in every thread on this forum anymore Congrats to both of you, although it makes me wonder whats going on in NOIR if you need a ODP on top of an ODP? [/quote] Your allies taught us a lesson. ODP's are just cause for extortion. They never said anything about a double ODP plus oA!

[quote name='Xiao Weng' timestamp='1310216842' post='2753241'] But this does let me know what the thought processes are over there. [/quote] I wasn't aware that there were any.

[quote name='Hetman Vladislav' timestamp='1310191827' post='2753139'] I never took any quotations out of context. I merely pasted a line and juxtaposed it with a comment about your treaty. Whatever you took from that was of course your own interpretation, though I must admit it achieved the desired effect. On the subject of context, what correlation is there between Sarmatian and this treaty? [/quote] I would say that both of the quotations mentioned would be causes for this treaty.

[quote name='Hetman Vladislav' timestamp='1310143617' post='2752578'] Finally a treaty based on collective security and mutual understanding. Congratulations to the both of you and to LoSS for getting coordinated! [/quote] Ah, if you'd like to play the game where we take quotations out of context, we can also play the game where we keep other quotations in context, right? That gives me an idea! Would you like to see some logs of your valorous leader Sarmatian standing straight much thanks to the strength (and existence!) of his spine and backing his allies decisively? It could be arranged. [quote name='Hetman Vladislav' timestamp='1310168428' post='2752916'] I'm glad we are in agreement about LoSS's performance in the last war. Your devotion to bettering them makes my heart grow. [/quote] It was more of a lack of inter-alliance coordination than intra, for the record.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1310178024' post='2753025'] Woah now, this isn't actually about us. That's a gross oversimplification of what all went into the decision to end our treaty, also. [/quote] Ah. Well I'm not privy to all that, I suppose.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1310153647' post='2752742'] Why don't you ask me directly, as you clearly know I will answer any question asked. But then where is the fun twist to that right Alyster? Let me answer it for you now vs you playing this little game: The problems with Legion specifically started in the DH/NPO war. Pacifica clearly and with earnest takes accountability for the time we failed in communication. That however ended by mid war (if not sooner). None of that took away from just bad moves and a clear break in similar paths. It grew on both sides as time continued. Regardless of either sides want to talk about things, it just didn't happen. In addition anyone to state we were trying to get terms for Pacifica only is A) a complete moron B) just trying to create drama where their is none. I was in negotiations for all of us. If we were in just for Pacifica we would have just done our own thing and damn everyone else. The simple fact is TCK spoke for the rest of the Coalition by Coalition choice while letting us (NPO) determine our NS/TOP tier situation. Learn the facts or shut up. To know anything about Pacifica is to know nothing moves quickly and (as many of you love to fault us and call us cocky/stuck up or whatever) it always moves at our pace. To say this was sudden and because of NSO is a straight out lie. The fact Legion and NPO didn't properly talk about NSO and the future was certainly a capper as it were (again clearly on both sides here), but the source? not even close. Why did Pacifica state we would not support this a war between Legion and NSO? You seem to conveniently forget I had been look for Legion for days at this point and got nothing so when asked point blank I answered. As for why I stated that: clearly and simply because it (A potential war between Legion and NSO) would escalate and immediately would have us choosing between Legion or TPF (Or having TPF choose between NPO or NSO). Allies don't do that to each other. And while Legion stated "you will not have to fight TPF" the mere fact we would be supporting a war against them or a war against Legion = the NPO sits out. The truth is never pretty, it simply exists. [/quote] So if you were intent on canceling since the DH/NPO war, then why did you let NSO cancel on you when their beef was simply your ties to Legion? Why not say that you value NSO as an ally more than Legion, tell them to hold the treaty and cut this one? Because you weren't. It was politically expedient for you to drop an ally. So very Pacifican of you. [quote name='Farrin Xies' timestamp='1310171816' post='2752955'] ITT: We learn that Steve Buscemi [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103458&view=findpost&p=2752742"]can't read[/url]. [/quote] ITT: No u

That's a pretty veteran lineup. Nice.

[quote name='rtellez06' timestamp='1310099017' post='2752090'] Also [b]Magnet[/b] has a sexy voice. [/quote] Fixed. [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1310099133' post='2752093'] I knew about this on January 29th about a half-hour before update. Congrats to both parties. [/QUOTE] Please don't tell me that you went back and looked up the date... and for the love of Admin please tell me that you don't actually remember the date (unless it was your birthday or something else that'd make it obviously memorable) [QUOTE name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1310099133' post='2752093'] Almost forgot... MaGneT [/quote] Ooh, I like that. I like that a lot. [quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1310102633' post='2752138'] ew, DT are treaty whores. [/quote] Tell me about it. Ask anyone else in gov, I've been complaining all month... EDIT: Oh no! This is an ODAP? Didn't we learn our lesson that it's awful, [i]just awful[/i], to honor an optional clause? Downright immoral it is. I guess you guys didn't learn your lesson! Here, I'll fix the damn treaty. This is why you can't have idiots like Bob running our FA department... [QUOTE][b]Article VII[/b]: Addendum Should Article III be activated and optional military assistance is given, the activating party shall be required to pay 40,000 in technology levels to the alliance that they strike in preemptive repentance for the reprehensible war crime of honoring an optional treaty, so sayeth GOD.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1310118605' post='2752292'] Did I miss something...I could of sworn SOM was in that position months ago... [/quote] The announcement bureau over at CsN had some trouble with all them newfangled [center] and [img] doohickeys, it took them until now to finally figure it all out. Of course, they had to call their de facto viceroy for a little help after about 5 weeks of struggle, but poor ol' Pxychosis, after typing the announcement for 'em, got pretty durn frustrated as he couldn't quite teach the Commonwealth folk how to click the "Post Topic" button. (Is that better Gibs? )

[quote name='char aznable' timestamp='1310139981' post='2752530'] sad to see that things did not pan out that well KOwens at least csn seems to be a respectable alliance to merge into. [/quote] Bahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaah HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA HAHA. Ha. That was rich.