Priest Kahn

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1294271479' post='2564924'] Yeah, I need to slow down and check thins more carefully. Solution to this is easy though, I just add the two mushroom kingdoms together. [/quote] Is TOP really not a choice for Most Active Alliance?

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289603044' post='2511408'] This is not a raiding policy, this is a defense policy. I just want to clear any misconceptions you might have. This isn't so we can have fun raiding, this is so we can look out for ourselves and ensure that rogues are dealt with in a proper manner. [/quote] It is both a raiding and a defense policy. It's a defense policy for you and an anti-raiding policy for others. In essence whenever you declare a group of nations unraidable, you are allowing only yourselves to raid them. Now, your intention is obviously to destroy the nation instead of just getting tech and land, but raiding is still involved. [quote]The fact of the matter is, raids on rogues cause great harm to alliances. They cause harm to alliances on all sides of the political spectrum. If someone decided to 'tech raid' Metherage while he was raging against GOONS, I do not suspect they would be all too happy. Everyone has rogues. That's why nearly everyone agrees with this. I'm just spelling out what 90% of alliances accept for the truth, because there are 10% who still think it's their Admin given right to raid rogues no matter the damage they cause to the people defending against the rogue. And when you spell it out in legal terms, you need a legal rationale, which sovereignty provides. [/quote] Again, I agree with your policy. I'm just saying you don't have any God-given right to make it your policy and have that be the end of it. You have no sovereignty. In order for a policy to be valid, first your allies have to recognize it (at which point it turns into a CB), and secondly your enemies must recognize it (at which point it becomes a standard of conduct). [quote] And FYI, I suspect that if MK were to declare Aqua off-limits to tech raiders... Well, a week ago, I would have said they could get away with it, but now, I'm not so sure. [/quote] I don't see much difference between your policy and protecting a single color sphere. In both cases, all nations involved are affecting the alliance making the policy (with color spheres, they contain NONE nations that people would like to trade with; raiding may scare them off). And, again, whether we could get away with it would be not about our sovereignty but how other alliances view us. [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1289602874' post='2511406'] This policy in no way effect all of none. It only effects those going rogue on 64 Digits. Imagine that once they go rogue on 64 Digits their new AA is "64 Digits Rogue" and it becomes much more clear as to how this policy goes into effect. And it's a very good one, one that should be obvious but often isn't at all. We've had several cases of either slot filling on rogues or raiders refusing to do more than GA. [/quote] I understand the policy and was making a comparison to a more extreme situation. To use your words, imagine that once a person creates a nation their new AA is "Protected by MK". We may be a sovereign alliance but we have no sovereign right to do this.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289443268' post='2509936'] This is correct. If the rogue hits anyone else, those parties automatically get to do whatever they want to the guy. Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that you have no intention of respecting our sovereignty. When you attack, now we know it's blatant aggression and not just a mistaken raid. [/quote] You don't have unlimited sovereignty. MK can't declare that all none are protected by us and then proceed to raid them only ourselves while claiming that anyone else raiding none is performing blatant aggression. That's not to say I disagree with this policy though, only that you can only "get away" with this because it's the accepted norm already, not because you have some sort of magical sovereignty that lets you do whatever you want.

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1289305306' post='2507916'] I'm going to go out on a limb here. The NSO only agreed to the terms because, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just going by what I see from announcements and logs, they have two options in this situation. As a forethought, NSO didn't negotiate because they know MK would never have agreed on a simple 3mil return sum (which is in reality, the only thing that was lost), being the greedy !@#$%^&* that they are. Option 1: Pay the reparations (which are far too excessive for a ruined trade circle and a wayward lost 3mil) and be on their merry way. Option 2: Refuse and get rolled. Now to those who would say "Oh no no no no no, we wouldn't attack them at all, not one infra point lost, we swear". Just forget it and take your damn mask off. Because the fact is no amount of hushing and shushing from Neverender could possibly calm the clamour of voices that would inevitably arise from not just MK, but other groups who would love to have another go at NSO. You'd all be moaning, saying things like "BUT THOSE EBIL SITH RUINED THE TRADE CIRCLE AND MK LOST THREE MIL AND THEY WOULDN'T PAY UP AND HURR DURR". On the matter of whatever was lost from tax collections, really, don't even go there. Cue curbstomp number two. I mean, let's be serious here, you folks are looking for the slightest possible legal CB to roll NSO. If that isn't true, then I am very interested in why MK is so keen to hold NSO as responsible for the mishap. They have already stated that the guy was a ghost and that there was a simple administration error that left him masked as an Acolyte. This may or may not be true (the Sith could be lying after all), but let's not forget, they have even done MK the courtesy of booting him, allowing them to reclaim the lost 3mil. But no, MK are still not satisfied. [b] So, asking Neverender personally here, just why the hell are you going after the whole alliance rather than sending your premium raiding squads out to reclaim what was lost from the nation that actually committed the offence?[/b] [/quote] So wait. Basically we're looking for a CB because you KNOW we're looking for a CB and anything we say to the contrary is just a lie? We wouldn't have accepted less because you KNOW we wouldn't have accepted less and anything we say to the contrary is a lie? I'd tell you to quit spying, but if you actually had spies you'd see how ridiculous what you're saying is.

It's like a rebellion against Corinan!

[quote name='Mussolandia' timestamp='1280809760' post='2399112'] This is Doppelganger's greatest achievement. Congratulations! [/quote] o musso

[quote]If the membership of the entire alliance approve the proposal, the vote becomes effective immediately and the alliance either merges or disbands.[/quote] Does this mean that if one person votes to remain then the alliance can't disband?

[quote name='Jace Couture' timestamp='1280773044' post='2398591'] You know, somehow this is gonna be our fault. Right? Am I right? \m/ I applaud you either way you go/went with this, be either the hammer of our righteousness or, I dunno, what would you be if you did nothing? ^not official NATO gov position. edit: for self-clarity [/quote] Didn't NATO run to peace mode in fear of CIS declaring war?

Today, NSO improved 100,000,000,000,000,000%

Nation Link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=349553 Resources: Pigs/Spices Which set and circle do you want to be in? Set 1 Circle F Are there any specific wild card resources that you want? Uranium If you are not in AQUA, will you be able to move when the circle is complete? In Aqua

White peace is not unconditional peace. Literally, it is returning things to the state they were before.

Wait, you skipped the part where CnG set everything up just to start a global war and kill IRON. Oh, hold on, "our side" was looking for peace. Whoops.

An excellent view on history, to be sure.

I don't think either of those are anyone's primary arguments. First off, it was more than a month earlier. Secondly, if you read his resignation he basically stated he was bored, so that may put things in perspective. Right, which is why Rish would have been punished if he still had a nation. Except there is no actual proof that Ragnarok had any intent on spying.

...the other way around meaning NATO was spying on Rish? This is certainly an interesting development!

Well! Why are we even bothering to argue or anything? NPO knows everyone's opinion on all matters, past, present, and future!

Does your mind honestly think that a person can only spy for his alliance's gain? You've never been curious as to exactly what goes on in the other side?

Are you saying Rish has done something wrong? This is news to me!

Well, considering he almost certainly didn't have knowledge of an upcoming war at that time, yeah, sounds like a coincidence.

tbf, i ended up as MK's Minister of Intelligence back in 2007 without ever being elected, appointed, or anything.

In one case leadership knew about it, in another case leadership did not (as far as anyone can tell) know about it. Completely opposite scenarios. Members are responsible for their leader's actions - like it or not, that is how things are. Leaders are only responsible for their member's actions if they clearly condone them.

Sorry, what did that have to do with the topic at hand?

The other nation was also in Rok.

That wouldn't really accomplish much since I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.

Quite the opposite, I'm arguing only for taking known intentions at face value and ignoring all speculation. Unless you want to argue that TPF had no malicious intent toward Athens when they were setting up ZH? If that is so, go ahead, I'd love to hear what you have to say.