Don Chele

[quote name='Ronjoy Sholokhov' timestamp='1357624465' post='3072691'] have we/our alliances ever talked chele? Anyways, thanks for the support [/quote] Yes, when one of your members raided a member of one of our protectorates about ten or eleven days ago, which was eventually resolved amicably. You're welcome for the support.

I, for one, am glad that it is now clear which government we should speak to regarding all important matters concerning GPF.

Congrats everyone, especially glad to see Tevron up there.

The real question isn't what constitutes a legitimate alliance. Any individual or group of people can determine that they are an alliance, and determine that they are legitimately so on their own terms. The pertinent questions are 1) what such an alliance must do in order to earn universal (more importantly universal among raiders) respect of their legitimacy (usually sign a treaty or include some number of members) and 2) to what degree the global community will tolerate the conduct of the raiders in their disregard for the legitimacy of alliances. If the community tolerated attacks on 50 person alliances with political ties, raiders would conduct such raids if they thought they could withstand the retaliation of that alliance. If the community decides that 5 person alliances may no longer be raided without global consequences, raiding alliances will change their policies. My preference is not a mystery, I think a one-man AA is perfectly legitimate with or without ties and that raiding such an alliance is unacceptable, but so long as my opinion remains in the minority then raiding alliances have no obligation or incentive to change their position. If people generally agree that raiders are doing something wrong, then they should "do something about it" by collectively voicing their changed opinion or forcibly making it known. Perhaps some people may decide that there has been such a significant reduction in global population so a standard that made since when the population was 5x higher should be reduced proportionally. Others may feel that there are 5x too many alliances for the population level and people should consolidate. Neither I nor anyone else gets to determine the standards of the community. They will arise on their own and if people want to influence how that occurs they must be actively involved in the process.

If I were to use this as an opportunity to rail against the mercy boards, I'd probably have to say something objectively false ("innocent victim" comes to mind as an example). All I can come up with is that if there were no such mercy board, my brain never would have had to process this thread. That doesn't really feel like goons's fault, so I'll just say that I wish the worst of luck to everyone involved, and a speedy resolution of this issue so I don't accidentally read more atrocious rhymes than I already have.

I'm online right now, imagine that. #coj is the best way to contact me, which I encourage.

Congratulations on the new Prince. I hope he does his job and that people are happy with the job he does. May he be Prince for as long as he is here, and should he leave may the next Prince come in feeling he has very large shoes to fill.

You all can debate whether your policies are the product of Schattenmann's influence, and whether DoorNail has made good rhetorical points, but the outcome of either debate has no effect on the fact that the GOONS's decision to place an alliance leader on the EoG/PZI list for defending his alliance against an openly aggressive war is frankly bovine excrement. Of course I'm not saying you "can't" do it, clearly you have. [i]That[/i] is not in keeping with the policies of all the other raiding alliances, no matter how Rush Sykes wants to reframe the argument. Of course we disagree on the definition of a valid alliance, but the point here is not the original raid anymore. The point is that GOONS has decided not only to raid, but to extort anyone who would dare to support their raid victims. That policy is simply unique, and uniquely reprehensible.

[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1350434392' post='3042002'] In most alliance charters there is a minimum number of people required before they will recognize a group of players as an alliance. 6 doesn't meet our number requirement. Your requirements may differ but that does not meet ours. It doesn't matter what you think about it, it matters what we think about it. And according to our charter that is years and years old, you need more than 6 before we recognize you. If you have an issue with it man up and make us change. If not stop whining it isn't fair. All you forum warriors sit there cuddling your nations and never actually do anything to make this game the way you think it should be. You just whine and complain on the forums. I know it's cliche but if you don't like DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That doesn't have to be war. You could start some negotiations with our envoy's and Doornail to work an agreement to let him go and pay for it to, or find someone who will. Otherwise you are farts in the wind, good for nothing but making stupid noises. [/quote] I agree with you that you have your charter, and that if people dislike it they must express their disdain with more than words. My point is that you cannot call your charter moral with a straight face and not admit that you are being disengenuous. I also agree with you that somebody needs to man up and make you change if they dislike your immorality. Where I disagree with you is that it doesn't need to be war. Different people have different learning styles, and clearly GOONS do not learn well from written language. It seems that the only educational tool that GOONS understand is brute force, and eventually somebody will have to educate them in that manner. Before you reply with multitudinous :frogout: posts and why don't you do something about it posts, I'll save you the trouble and say I recognize the relative size of my alliance compared to the size of your allies. We don't need to rehash DH-NPO to prove that you can call in your big brothers when a bunch of micros are running you out of town on a rail.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350027181' post='3040520'] We have a very well defined set of moral beliefs in GOONS. We value Alliance (Read: Real Alliance) sovereignty, collectiveism in foreign affairs, and individual raiding freedom. Through raiding and forcing people into the alliance treaty system we are civilizing the barbarians who live in the wilderness. It is a thankless task to uplift these inferior peoples, but we raiding alliances do our part to move global society forward. [/quote] You have to understand how ridiculous it is to state that your beliefs are moral in the context of the extra-GOONS community. Morality can only ever be judged by disinterested observers, and the actions of GOONS here elicit responses of moral disgust among those who are disinterested (not GOONS, not DoorNail, not GOONS allies, not TSL). You certainly have some internal values with which I disagree, but acknowledge you have the right to hold. To call them moral in the greater Digiterran community, however, is intellectually dishonest and you are smart enough to know that. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't expect your entire hyper-reply squad to be intellectually honest, but you and SirWilliam at the very least are intelligent enough to make your case without being so utterly disengenuous.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350026404' post='3040508'] We are [s]both[/s] legally [s]and morally [/s]justified [b]under our charter[/b]. [/quote] Fixed that for you. Really Sardonic? I'm not saying you don't have the right to raid, but calling your actions moral takes some serious brass. Bravo.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1350025205' post='3040487'] It isn't. But once again, length isn't the only factor. How dumb are you exactly? [/quote] I'm not the one who brought up the length of his posts, you did, and I have not yet made any claims about either my intelligence or yours. I haven't read his comments on your forums so I have not and cannot speak of their coherency. If the length was unimportant, then you shouldn't have mentioned it. Since you have decided that ad hominem commentary is appropriate, you should be more careful in your the internal consistency of arguments and your detail of reading comprehension lest you open yourself to the same kind of question you ask of me.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1350024836' post='3040481'] It's not just the length I was getting it but also the content, and specifically how poorly written that content is - and even more specifically, how incomprehensible it has been. Take that and do it with 2,000 characters. Nobody wants to read that kind of garbage. [/quote] 2,000 characters shouldn't be too much to read for an alliance that once asked for a 5 act Shakespearean play as part of terms for peace...

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1350013290' post='3040350'] Not quite. We feel alliances may exist, certainly, but don't recognize entities as such if they don't have formal relations and if they don't exceed a certain membercount. [/quote] As I said, the definition of what constitutes an alliance is not defined by the GOONS charter. Your raiding policies are, and you are following those here. This is an alliance if they say they are an alliance, and they do not have to comply with your raiding policies in order to exist. However, until more people are willing to place their infra behind their principles, I don't deny the fact that you have no incentive to change your policies. Don't be disingenuous, though, and pretend that the definitions in your alliance's raiding policy are universally accepted as what is and what is not an alliance deserving sovereignty.

Every alliance, however small, has a right to exist, and that right is not defined by the GOONS v. 2.0 charter. Sir William is correct though, that they can continue to defy that fact as long as nobody forces them to stop doing so at gunpoint.

Congratulations friends!

CoJ hereby protects BloodFury from the Combine, and vice-versa... should Civil war break out we will attack ourselves with all proper vigor, unless we decide it is against their best interest.

[quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1339131469' post='2979231'] If you're not gonna post the details about the treaty, then why make the announcement in the first place? Anywho, congrats on getting over your bickering I suppose. [/quote] Why? so that you know we have a treaty. The details are of no concern to you. If you hit one of us, now you are informed that the other may or may not respond, the degree to which that is certain to happen is our business. If one of us hits you, the other might or might not also hit you, the degree to which that is certain is irrelevant to you because it will be obvious from the DoW anyway... There is therefore no benefit for us giving you all the details, and no real harm for you in not knowing them.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1339118663' post='2979119'] Secret treaty terms are immoral! [/quote] So are public treaties, we have to pick our battles.

This is a good thing, for us anyway. I'm not sure what the rest of you are going to do...

Congrats Pacifica! 10 mil more NS and you'll graduate out of the need for RD protection... jk. You guys have earned every inch of ground you've gained against the doubt and hatred of many who would hold the past against you. This world of Chaos needs Order, and I have every faith that you will deliver it to us.

Many thanks to all those who have helped us get this far and to those who hope we go further.

[quote name='porksaber' timestamp='1337793868' post='2971197'] as long as the way they deal with it matches your definition of appropriate. [/quote] You're correct. I believe DoWing an alliance with what amounts to disbandment "individual" terms because they suffered from a nation ghosting their AA and rogue-ing another AA is inappropriate. Do you disagree? I'm clearly not in the minority in my opinion, what supports yours?

[quote name='porksaber' timestamp='1337793095' post='2971194'] so what you're saying is that Tetris needs your permission to be able to deal with an attack on their alliance? [/quote] Literally nobody ITT has a problem with anyone dealing appropriately with a rogue/ghost.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1337792216' post='2971186'] Have fun with that. [/quote] Didn't you hear USMC? The case is closed as far as your alliance is concerned...