Don Chele
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Don Chele
-
-
Thank you for the well-wishes. I hope my automated audit robots improve the efficiency of our nations and my winning personality improves morale. May my reign of economic terror be a jolly one!
-
I definitely cannot see large alliances placing half of their members on alliance A and the other half on alliance B to declare non-nuclear war on each other and fill up their war slots while still being able to send out aid during an actual alliance conflict. Such shenanigans would never occur amongst the honorable alliances of this world. Furthermore, since it has a totally legitimate thread explaining, and predating, the conduct, it would certainly not violate Admin's First Commandment: "Thou shalt not slot-fill".
-
[quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1316571023' post='2805003']
For the thousandth time, we're not going to war. Start a war with your own alliance and stop trying to start something with ours. After all parties responsible are identified they will be dealt with in a manner of our choosing at a time of our convenience. Outsiders who attempt to damage our Box will always be dealt with, in the fullness of time. History is on our side. We will bury you.
[/quote]
After you identify yourself as "all the parties", make sure you leave a note so the rest of us have a clue what went on in your mind... -
[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1316490341' post='2804231']
Are you saying that VE is uncool?
[/quote]
[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1316490490' post='2804235']
I wonder who has more influence in pb. VE or MK?
[/quote]
Shush. Everyone knows VE is both the brains and the brawn of PB. Especially Impero. -
[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1316233399' post='2801969']
This is actually the perfect time to check alliance activity and organization for all you stat junkies out there, since the trade system is about to be overhauled and everyone should be doing their back collection before things get screwy.
[/quote]
Isn't a high activity level in response to the trade change more accurately a sign of either 1) a lack of confidence in the alliance's ability to organize and secure trades quickly, or 2) a reflection of a strong centralized mandate to collect now or else (unwisely synchronizing 90% of the alliance's collection cycles)?
I don't see why an over-reaction and tactical mistake in response to a change that makes things easier for the well organized should be seen as a badge of honor...
I'm sure the wiser and better will let me know the errors in my reasoning, though.
Edit: I know the activity level isn't based on collection, I'm speaking about the reasoning of the OP and following replies, not the use of the activity statistic to support it. -
Congratulations Jerdge and the rest of the elected. Sal, congratulations to you, too. Your persistence in the same buffoonery that you alone found amusing a year ago warms the very cockles of my heart. I know I can always count on two things: the GPA's neutrality and your inane responses when they announce elections.
Jerdge, I'm happy you decided to reconsider retirement from government. The GPA is fortunate to have you in charge and I hope you'll continue to visit your embassy on our forums. I'd hate to see some other embassy get more page views... -
Although Schatt gave me credit for hard work on this, I hope that the community realizes that the work was not hard. Those formerly flying the DNA flag are people with whom I had an immediate bond and the work of merging our goals was therefore easy. My one hope is that people know the former DNA members to be as congenial as I know them to be as a result of this joint venture.
-
[quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1314809303' post='2791656']
That is sort of the point, but you are taking it a step too far. The entire reason for holding a protectorate treaty versus a full "mutual" treaty is this distinction. I have always held the opinion that an attack on a protectorate is an attack on the protector. When I say "This alliance is under my protection" I am saying that I am taking certain ownership over their defense. There most certainly is an aspect of sovereignty that is surrendered by the protectorate, but that is done so in exchange for protection. It seems fair.
I've been a big fan of protectorate treaties and have personally arranged, signed, and managed quite a few (going back to early 2007). All of Polaris' protectorate agreements have been as I have described above. I have always believed that the major strength of a protectorate agreement was this change in normal defense sovereignty. As a protector I have a lot more options and can better defend an alliance when their defensive responsibilities are mine. This is also why we "graduate" protectorates eventually. An alliance asks us to defend us, they announce, they surrender a degree of sovereignty, we protect them with all of our resources, and then eventually when they are capable of being a fully equal mutual partner we remove the protectorate and establish a proper treaty.
If the defense of a protectorate is not a part of the protector then there is literally no benefit to holding a protectorate treaty over a mutual defense treaty. Also, as ChairmanHal has indicated, the view held by the two of us is one that has historically been accepted. Disagree if you will, but it's how most alliances have always handled it.
[/quote]
I think you misread my point, or I misunderstand you. Of course attacking a protectorate is like attacking the protector [i]for the purpose of defending the protectorate[/i], it simply should not be for the purpose of [i]non-chaining treaty clauses[/i]. Protectors have every right to ask an ally to help in protecting, and that ally has every right to provide help, but the ally should not have any [i]obligation[/i] to assist in defending the protectorate if the non-chaining clause is to be given its intended meaning and the protectorate is considered a separate entity from the protector. -
I have to say I agree with WorldConqueror and goldielax25, here. (Gasp, a Justitian agreeing with a Viridian.) To take the opposing interpretation of the effect of a protectorate treaty would defy logic in its reliance on semantic gamesmanship. If attacking a protectorate were to be a direct attack on the protector for the purposes of non-chaining treaties, then the protectorate would not exist at all as a sovereign entity, but rather only as an annex of the protector with a separate affiliation listed like an applicant "alliance affiliation". That, or it would require complete disregard for the meaning intended by the non-chaining treaty's signatories when they included the non-chaining clause.
That said, logic rarely seems as necessary around here in the interpretation of treaties or obligations as convenience does, so I suppose we should only look to whatever would be most convenient for the party complaining the loudest if we want the realistic interpretation. -
I welcome our new friends from what was once DNA to the path of Justitia.
-
[quote name='Fenerbahce' timestamp='1314402021' post='2788987']
Sattim gitti
[s]3 slots is available[/s]
2 slots is available
[/quote]
Offer sent, thank you. -
[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1300741365' post='2672540']
Okay, I'll bite; perhaps you are right on that count (although I think your definition needs a "threat of"; otherwise I believe it's considered robbery). In that case, all reps are extortion unless they are offered voluntarily after the cessation of battle. Reps are goods promised under the threat of continued force, thus extortion, regardless of how the battle started.
[/quote]
The extortion of extra-planetary intellectual property couched as reparations under intra-planetary threat of violence, however, is possibly actionable in an extra-planetary court of law if it can be proven that intra-planetary violence affects extra-planetary tangible resources, which can surely be proven at least in limited cases (regardless of the commandments or intervention of Admin Almighty, although arguably a violation of those commandments as well). It would seem to be wise for alliances to therefore limit their "reparation" demands to intra-planetary resources and property. -
[quote name='Carson' timestamp='1298516504' post='2643419']
how about this: we promise not to seek reps, if you promise not to visit?
[/quote]
I can support this plan. -
Congrats guys, I loved my time there.
-
o/ Sigrun
Good luck old friend. -
Seriously, after reading the rules that disqualify both of my previous nominations (prob for being a sitting executive and Lennox for being a joke that isn't funny):
Nominee: Angevin
rationale: back in the day, when most current members of the GPA where still mere thoughts in the minds of their parents, he spawned more hilarious discussion than anyone I knew. He takes precedence over his foil Salpta, because Salpta was less amusing and far more neutral.
Nominee: Gorbie
Rationale: one of the best MoD's the GPA has ever had. -
[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1295924035' post='2597724']
Do I get an honorable mention for my long term roguery on GPA?
[/quote]
Nominee: Lennox
Rationale: For being the most recently ZI'd dbag/rogue by the GPA due to his military excellence.
Nominee: probablementeno
Rationale: Obvious. He has something like 70 thousand terms as the President/Herder of cats. 3 times more terms as Pres than any other in GPA history, without leaving the alliance, probably 6 times more terms than any former pres still in the alliance. -
"Thou shalt not take the name of Admin in vain." Enjoy His banhammer.
In case I'm wrong, if I move to Gray will you declare on me plz? -
Lennox, you are definitely the most valuable player in this game. I totally support all of your decisions and find you to be a scholar and a gentleman. This world needs more of you.
-
My greatest contribution is replying to this topic... quite literally. I used to be a neutral...
-
I approve of this topic generally, and of Californian's photoshop/ms paint skills specifically. It saves Schatt the trouble of explaining the true nature of these events and Justitia's will as to how this is going to play out.
-
Lennox, I don't like you, but you are willing to eat neutral nukes all the way to ZI out of boredom. In that sense, I'm sad to see you go, it gave me something to talk about.
-
Nice flags, and a great idea.
-
I will definitely miss patjenn. There are only a few of my original role models still around. It's kind of sad.
[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1287893750' post='2491773']
Good bye PatJenn. You had a massive nation, yet contributed nothing to CN in my opinion.
[/quote]
Really Lennox? Still smug from [s]ZI[/s]? I prefer patjenn's contributions.
EDIT: So, they didn't drive you all the way down, the point stands.
The Lion and the Lady
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by Don Chele
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321420801' post='2845394']
edit: snip long quote
[/quote]
I hereby activate my option to like this accord.
Signed,
Don Chele
Dadouchos, CoJ