KCToker

[quote name='kolsara' timestamp='1284396096' post='2452382'] oh snap! we have a spy D: [/quote] Or you have someone that thinks that your obsession with this is absolutely retarded. The fact that the rest of your membership doesn't agree with that point of view is startling (though not surprising).

[quote name='bandnerd' timestamp='1284357635' post='2452057'] what i want to know is where the heck world federation came from... over a point gain if they just passed the add line. [/quote] They didn't [i]just[/i] pass it. It's just that Gopher wasn't alerted to it until the other day

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1284339819' post='2451810'] It's funny, because clearly MK aren't the worst alliance in the game, yet a whole load of people's feelings have got hurt over the WAE competition and have decided to vote for MK to 'show them'. But Legion was voted WAE because they actually suck. (sorry Legion, I actually don't dislike you, but God you should get your affairs in order.) [/quote] Alternatively, MK is voting for MK for lulz.

I think it's time we either lowered to requirement by 25-50, or did away with it all together. Unless we can come up with some ingenius plan to suddenly bring in thousands of new and old players, that is.

Unless TOP or FOK can gain a member before sanctions update in 5 hours, GATO will be sanctioned for at least 12 hours, and 1 Sanction Race update

I'm not the only one that's noticed that MHA doesn't have a name this update, right?

They don't notice that it's a mobile network, just that it's a different IP. So long as nobody else has ever been assigned that IP and logged into CN (remote chance at best) you'll be fine.

By the time I got done reading the OP I thought I had accidentally gone to 4chan.

I'm not the only one that thinks it's more work to stay unsanctioned than it is to bust ghosts, right?

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281311266' post='2405211'] Well it was either that or attack someone, and attacks seemed a bit overboard. I suppose if I had realized I was being baited (which I should have) I would have held off. [/quote] You were told that if you aided him RoK would view it as an act of war. Has the definition of "act of war" changed in the year I was away?

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281310519' post='2405142'] Shame on me for falling into the obvious political trap. Oh well. [/quote] I don't think you know what a trap is.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1281310007' post='2405091'] So let me get this straight. RoK told you not to help a rogue who they were at war with. You helped them cause you are NSO and just assumed that you can do whatever. RoK attacked you for committing what every alliance in this game would consider an act of war. Am I missing any details? [/quote] No, that sounds about right.

[IMG]http://i32.tinypic.com/142htmq.png[/IMG]

We have never approved on the forced oppression of the "n". We have always dreamed of the day when we would be able to show our true selves to the world.

Every language has a method of escaping parts of the code so as to prevent errors.

I bring forth to you all today a great injustice that has been committed! For too long have we been complacent! For too long have we hoped that it would be corrected! For too long have we been shunned! No more! Like all great evils, this one has humble beginnings. It was long ago that we first witnessed it. We believed in our leaders, and so believed it to be humble oversight. However, when we brought it forth, we were laughed at, and made fun of, and insulted! Since that day, we realized that our "benevolent leaders" are not what they appear to be. From that day forth, our resistance began. From that day forth, we were steel against these oppressions. Unfortunately, we knew all too well that we could not win the fight if we had stood our ground back them. So we cunningly retreated, to plan our next moves, and to balance the terms of the next engagement in our favor, so that when we met again, we would be victorious. Three years. Three long and hard years. But finally the time is right! Finally we shall reveal ourselves to the oppression. And in all our glory, and all our horror, we will overwhelm this menace and end this tyranny once and for all. So I ask you, brothers and sisters, to recognize that this can go on no longer, if we are to be free. I ask you stand up for what is right, and to denounce the crimes that have been committed. I ask you to state, here and now, your support for the ampersand to be allowed in Alliance Affiliations! The time has come.

Best. Disbandment Notice. EVAR. Sad that this happened to you

[quote name='Thunder Strike' date='22 July 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1279854558' post='2385297'] Why is R&R planning to move to Maroon then? [/quote] WE TOLD YOU THAT IN PRIVATE! HOW DARE YOU BETRAY OUR CONFIDENCE IN YOU LIKE THAT!

[quote]Announcement from the sphere of win™[/quote] Though flattered, we do not approve of your impersonating the Orange Sphere.

[quote name='Dom Zak' date='22 July 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1279833294' post='2384792'] What about Atlantic Shadow Confederation, Armed Coalition of Valor, International Protection Agency, The Order of Halsa, Apocalypse, ARES, Through Yggdrasil's Roots, League of United Defense and Aeon? [/quote] Of those, only ASC was ever a member of SF, and they merged into Ragnarok. The rest were all part of the 'protectorate bloc' SF had set up called Teen Titans.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='21 July 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1279777431' post='2384140'] DOOO IIIIIT!!!! I mean, in no way is this at all apocalyptic in the extreme case of forcing alliances to declare war on themselves as a part of honouring the MADP etc. with Sparta. If you declared war on yourself in defense of yourself etc. you could always just come to an immediate armistice with yourself and then declare a white peace (or milk yourself for all the reps you can, that's entirely up to you), in that case it's relatively harmless... but if you had to DoW on yourself as part of mandatory defense of Sparta, after attacking Sparta as part of the mandatory aggression clause, I think most treaties are worded in such a way that you must provide all necessary military support to the treaty holders, which means you wouldn't be able to get out of a war with yourself unless Sparta also agreed to the peace, or declared that the terms had been fulfilled. In which case I can keep us all in a perpetual war against ourselves [/quote] Certainly makes the game more interesting

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='21 July 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1279776518' post='2384121'] lol, naturally, it's not like something like this would ever happen, nobody holds to the letter of the treaty, and there is always plenty of room for debate, but I just wanted to experiment with this using ONLY the terms and obligations guaranteed in treaty. If we held to our word, precisely as written and guaranteed by the legitimate governments of our alliances, could we avoid this bizzare cataclysm that I've outlined above? [/quote] After skimming through R&R's treaties, there's nothing in the letter of the treaty stating only outside attacks count, I'd imagine almost all other treaties are the same. So theoretically, if everyone held to the [i]exact[/i] wording of their treaties, I don't think there is any way of avoiding this. ... /me goes to convince R&R Trium to declare war on R&R.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='21 July 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1279775693' post='2384096'] Very true, very true, it would more than likely end in a complete abstention by all our allies, or alliances picking and choosing weather the government or the people constitute 'Sparta' (at least more than their counterparts), it's an issue of legitimacy. But here is what everyone else has been overlooking: TECHNICALLY, by the terms of the treaty (MADP or MDoAP in this case), you MUST defend Sparta, you have guaranteed that protection via contract, so without completely breaching the terms of that treaty, you have to become involved. The problem is, who can you claim is the legitimate Sparta, the one whom you are obliged to Defend--and in the case of MDAP--which you obligated to attack as a part of mutual aggression. [/quote] I think the past has shown us that treaties aren't as binding as we would like them to be

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='21 July 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1279774774' post='2384062'] lol, true, but that assumes that after declaring war on OWF etc. wars are declared in game. There need not be actual nation-level DoWs for the treaties to be activated, an official DoW by the head of one alliance against another should be adequate to activate treaties. Quite true, but does that mean, if an alliance's entire government isn't behind any given action, it's invalid? Technically all that needs to happen for our alliance to pass legislature or make a binding decision on behalf of all of Sparta is for me and Wilhelm (the Kings) to sign off on it. Lets take this out of the context of a government split and say that me and Wilhelm and the four Ephors declare war on Sparta as the government of Sparta, and the membership opposes us. Technically, since we're a Dyarchy, all power and legitimacy lies with the Kings, according to the constitution of the alliance, and each member has sworn an oath to that constitution and the alliance leaders. Being 6 people, but the legitimate government of Sparta, would you support the 6 of us, or the other 343 Spartans if you had a treaty with our alliance? [/quote] It'd come down to each ally to determine who they would support. My guess would be that more democratic alliances would support the membership, whereas less democratic alliances would support the government. Of course, context is everything. Each situation is different.

If it came to actual wars, then I guess each ally would have to choose which side they view to be the "legitimate" government, and then support, morally (the safe way) or militarily (the real way )