Schad

[quote]Well Pansy, (might add a great name for you as your nothing more then a pansy) unlike you i do not flip flop when people in power change, I am sure once NPO becomes top dog again you will start sucking them again.[/quote] Seriously, Pansy...one new treaty in the past year? You've turned Olympus into the village [s]bicycle[/s] ewe.

Congrats to the new government members for getting elected, and congrats to the old government members who no longer have to deal with that !@#$.

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1327367472' post='2905864'] So does this mean FAN is still at war? [/quote] Good question. If they feel that the terms as presented do not reflect those which were agreed to, the logical course of action would be to declare them void and reengage.

Few if any alliances can claim to be as dependable or as steadfast. Congrats on five years.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1327306837' post='2905398'] Agreed, which works as long as alliances don't shoot first ask questions later. Having a clear policy in place means that Argent's interests are protected, and they don't have to jump in front of traffic (albeit with a tank) to do so. To be clear, not arguing that Argent is doing anything wrong here at all, just arguing having something in place would make their lives easier. [/quote] 99 times out of 100, such a policy is going to be anachronistic, because the second party will enjoy the protections bestowed by the loving embrace of the treaty web. And a clear policy really isn't possible beyond; it's not like one can set a dollar figure at which you intend to protect your investment, and then expect that would-be party-spoilers will look through the total aid history of the two alliances to determine whether it runs afoul of the policy. Said things are best handled case-by-case. And if someone had jumped the gun in the 90 minutes between the posting of this topic and Otter's statement on the matter, it would appear that the cancellation period of the protectorate is in effect for 48 hours after the time of the announcement, and surely Ragnarok would have held up their end of the bargain had it come down to that.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1327305980' post='2905388'] Its just something that could lead to problems given that I don't think anyone either realized the involvement with Argent until it was made clear.[/quote] Which is why, I believe, they stated what they did when they did. Problems prevented. [quote] Actually I would think they have enough members that they are off the radars of everyone (or most everyone). See the example of Knights of Ni! and Athens for what happened when that was tried last time. [/quote] Risk mitigation is never a bad thing.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1327305179' post='2905381'] I would absolutely agree that the amount of tech invested in GPF is significant enough to warrant some form of protection from the buyers as Argent clearly has a large amount of deals with them. This is why I asked what they consider to be enough to warrant such protection, so if the situation does arise in the future people know to contact them in regards to it. I personally wouldn't expect the people attacking an alliance with legitimate reason to go to /every/ buyer of tech from the individuals to gauge it. That being said, I know with FOK that they protect their sellers. If someone was to attack my member who was selling to them, I would tell them before countering just to prevent any problems. Clarity can prevent issues from occurring over trivial stuff, which I personally prefer.[/quote] Doubt very much that they or any other alliance have a set dollar figure at which the situation merits protection; it's also not a situation that comes along with too much regularity. Alliances tend not to tech deal with unprotected groups, so it generally takes a sudden loss of protection to produce such a need. [quote] Also, who was planning to roll GPF? I still haven't figured that one out. Obviously the dude from the three man alliance was talking about it but for some reason I doubt his ability to do so. [/quote] Heh, an unprotected alliance of smalls who'd recently exited protection, has no firm diplomatic ties, features a cast of characters who haven't exactly won themselves a tonne of friends, and are becoming available at a time when a great many alliances have just exited a war? I'm going to say [i]everyone[/i]. If they didn't end up getting raided into oblivion, I'd start to wonder what Planet Bob has come to.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1327304132' post='2905369'] Huh? I don't think I ever called for Argent to be rolled at all for their policy. I think its smart to protect the alliance that is 90% (at least) of their tech deals, however I was wondering where they draw the line.[/quote] He was joking, I believe. The party rolling Argent in his post would be us, rather than you guys. [quote] I wasn't asking about this specific incident, I was asking in general. I have no desire to see GPF rolled. I wanted to know if Argent had a policy regarding it. In terms of a war happening, I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. I said when war happens, you expect your dealers to give you tech if they still owe you after the war. Is this not the case for you? [/quote] I cannot speak for Argent either, but yeah...when a war happens, you generally expect dealers to pay you back regardless, unless an agreement is reached. Generally though, wars in this game are of the large, sprawling variety, so you pretty well have to make do with the circumstances as given; kinda difficult to put the brakes on a global war because a couple thousand tech hangs in the balance. In the case of saber-rattling against a fairly isolated group, however, only a truly terrible alliance would sit on their hands rather than taking the steps necessary to ensure that the purchased tech makes it safely to its destination. And Argent isn't [i]quite[/i] that bad.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1327299434' post='2905311'] I have a question though, at what point does Argent deem an alliance worthy of protection due to the fact that they have tech deals going on with them? you have ongoing tech deals with TSI, GPF, BN, NsO, UE, State of Nirvana, VE, and Deinos, which of those alliances are you protecting as well? I know you are treatied to a fair amount of them, but at what point do you extend your protection as a result of that investment? [/quote] The point at which is becomes necessary. [quote] I think its pretty standard to if a war happens to expect the nations to get you your tech after the war in general. [/quote] There isn't a war happening.

Glad to see that they've come to their senses. Good work, everyone.

For those who aren't fans of triumvirs, it's all Jack's fault. In leading BN to date, he set expectations for our leadership position that none of us can possibly match while maintaining some semblance of sanity; if someone were to take over as sole leader, they'd be expected to run half the bloody government departments, make every tough call, settle every dispute, and tuck everyone in at night, as he did. He set the bar such that any single individual taking his place would need a super-human level of activity and competence to match, and that's just not a fair expectation of anyone. So we're splitting it up. For those who need to contact us (all one of you per month), the outward-facing part of our government doesn't change. EndofArgument and myself are still in charge of matters FA, and as before his word on behalf of the alliance means BN's word, just as with mine; this ain't the sort of system where the ministers are just glorified messenger-boys and the triumvirs have all the real authority. The triumvirate doesn't replace the existing structure of our government, it just (hopefully) serves as a means to oversee the whole proceedings and keep the government (which comprises roughly 95% of our alliance membership, it seems) in check. Thanks, Jack; glad that you're sticking around to tell us when we're doing it horribly wrong. Edit: for those who don't know J Bibbs, it's possibly because he goes by UGottaPlayJJ on IRC and our forum.

[quote name='Teddyyo' timestamp='1327108926' post='2903959'] There are some terribly misguided folks on this board :S (when they correctly restructure the bill) Yes, you will lose the ability to torrent free !@#$. Boo hoo. No, Youtube, Facebook, and such will not be taken down. [/quote] My level of technological expertise is below that of many species of mollusks and I could get around SOPA/PIPA with ease. People who want free !@#$ will find free !@#$, but a lot of perfectly legitimate sites would get $%&@ed over in the process. DMCA is already used to try to screw over competitors/people who have the temerity to criticize one's brand while reproducing an image or some such.

I'd guess TOP's side as well. If you assume that all of the anarchied nations are in war mode (all aren't, but the vast majority probably are), it reduces it to 1957 possible peace mode nations for TOP's side vs. 470 for Polar's side. Even if three quarters of the non-anarchied Polar side nations are in peace mode, it'd take only 18% on the opposite side for The Avengers to have more peaced-out nations.

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1326909301' post='2902222'] Yeah on a coordination scale I really dont know the different as I never coordinated in TE, but I believe the basic order of attacking is the same is it not? [/quote] The primary difference in TE is that you dish out far more damage in a short period of time; warchests are important, but not as important as in SE, because most wars don't last longer than a couple weeks, and the losing side in a war regularly loses more than half its strength in a single six-day round of wars. I've fought a number of WTF's top nations in TE (where they play as Catharsis), and most of them have a pretty good idea of what they're doing...might not be up to the level of many 120k-250k nations who've been through it time and again, but they'd do damage. Now, whether their warchests are at the standard necessary to fight for a month or more, no idea.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1326833968' post='2901655'] And Argent-PF. [/quote] So now the truth comes out; no wonder you wanted that redundant and unannounced treaty we more or less signed!

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1326761606' post='2901212'] That's the point. I am the running joke of the DFA even though I am arguably the biggest supporter and follower. Why would I subject myself to the abuse again? 1st time is bad luck. 2nd time is a coincidence. 3rd time is a pattern. 4th time is a conspiracy. If I come back for a 5th time I am a freakin idiot. [/quote] You should subject yourself to it because, while anyone can win on occasion and finish in the anonymous middle otherwise, it takes something special to get crushed in memorable fashion each and every time out. Embrace it; rather than fearing the moment when it all goes excruciatingly wrong, look forward to adding another chapter to the legend.

[quote name='isolde' timestamp='1326390440' post='2898150'] We are not fools, whilst we want to make sure everyone is appeased and not left out of pocket there is a burden of proof. We have already asked all our members to account for deals promised and not fulfilled so we can get any and all unresolved deals rendered as quickly as possible, a schedule of payment if you like, this will free everyone concerned from the ties that bind and allow for a more proficient and proven rebuilding plan for our own nations to take effect immediately. Many on both sides of the war lost a good deal of Infrastructure and Technology, and no matter what political reasons are given, the underlying reason is always economic. We merely seek to get our own rebuilding plan into action without being beholden to those who seek only to destroy our good name and reputation. My fear is that some nations were told to reroll so they could escape payment of said tech and not be accountable or held responsible for the failing of this ill conceived plan. That is fraud and obviously punishable. That said if nations have gone inactive, are now ghosting or have moved alliances we really don't have any control over their character or judgement and the fault of unrealised deals lies primarily with the broker. [/quote] All of that sounds fine up until the final graf. The fault may be with the broker, but the reality is that if promises were made in the name of your alliance, it would probably be a good idea to reimburse those affected even if results in TGE being out a bit of tech. This isn't a veiled threat or anything...you could probably get away with the "not our problem, caveat emptor" line of defense, but you'll have one hell of a time convincing any sane person to buy tech off your alliance in the future.

[quote name='isolde' timestamp='1326388223' post='2898134'] not our government our former emperor[/quote] Yeah. It doesn't really get more government-y than your emperor, and whatever circumstances they left under, if they made promises in the name of your alliance, your alliance made those promises. [quote]I have already traced one deal and that can be resolved by a simple tech deal, money was sent and the tech will be paid. As to the rest of them I have yet to make any findings. [/quote] This is good to hear, because the phrasing of the OP (especially the part where those who sent money need prove it "beyond shadow of a doubt") and the general air of blame-shifting sounded as if you were planning to try to weasel your way out of making good on the promised tech.

[quote name='isolde' timestamp='1326383117' post='2898076'] Now we know that many promises were made to alliances such as RoK, Asgaard and the like to furnace them with tech if they injected a certain amount of $$$ to our selling nations. However this "boost" program was underwritten by our former Emperor and is not upheld or endorsed by the current government. If you have issue with non delivery take it to the Broker. [...] tl;dr: TGECN cancels our participation in The Emperors boost program, though will endeavour to pay tech owed as quickly as possible through alternative agreements if and only if evidence of owed monies can be proved beyond shadow of a doubt [/quote] tl;dr: No one in their right mind should take your government at its word, because if you change leadership, all bets are off and all promises broken? Pray tell, what is an alternative agreement to paying back tech that your government promised?

Black with neon links sounds an awful like Umbrella's Stylish extension.

[quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1326270270' post='2897320'] I do want to say I agree with one of the points brought up a few posts ago. I would tend to agree that Umbrella is not an elite military force. They are an elite upper tier military, but that is more of a problem to them than a compliment. Umbrella could say "We declare war on XYZ alliance." and I would giggle for two reasons. First, their targets would be limited. And second, their targets fall out of range very quickly. Then what? How elite is the force that is glaring menacingly from above while the force below dances about merrily like nothing happened? [/quote] Yeah, Umbrella's somewhat limited if fighting against just one or two opponents, because they'll obliterate any semblance of their top tier in a round or two and be left with nothing to do. The real value from a coalition standpoint is that, if desired, they can hit several alliances at once or in sequence, force those fronts toward a resolution and move on, similar to what they did in BiPolar.

Welp, only fought two alliances, but I'm going to write far more than is necessary about them, [i]because I can[/i]. United Blue Directorate: 1. Whoever is responsible for the maxim that one should not speak ill of the dead never chanced to fight against UBD. We had the pleasure for only two days, but during that time we received almost no resistance...only a small minority bothered to nuke, and most didn't send so much as a ground attack; they were active enough to accept peace offers rather quickly, but it was patently clear that they were simply counting down the hours until peace was declared, even before it became evident that front-wide peace was in the offing. It was rather annoying; as it was our first war in SE, most of our members were looking forward to seeing how we stacked up against the competition (albeit against an alliance that had a reputation for being quite poor in combat). Instead, we encountered an inert lump, and no one wants their first time to last five minutes and end with tears. Bleh. Global Order of Darkness: 6. Given my/our relative lack of SE experience, it's rather difficult to place GOD as an opponent. This could be overly kind, or it could be entirely unfair, because I'm grading against an unknown average (if I graded on a curve involving UBD, it'd be a 10. So would GPA). But it's what I'm going with. In terms of preparation and fighting, it was a mixed bag; many of GOD's nations had solid-to-very-good warchests for their strength range, others were damned near broke from outset (one 90k NS nation was bill-locked within five days), almost all had the full complement of major military wonders unless they began the war quite small. Their more active nations coordinated, their less active ones didn't. The fact that much of the war happened over the holidays doesn't really help in that regard, because some people are necessarily going to be inactive...a few were in and out around Christmas through no fault of their own. Those who managed to hit peace mode, as we had few nations below 20k with which to stagger, typically rotated back out to fight, though a handful of large nations remained in peace mode for the duration. So, yeah...probably a bit above average.

Alternatively, what about rating alliances that one has fought against? Otherwise it just turns into a way to fluff one's allies, and while most people are liable to say that all of their opponents were terrible, there might be something worthwhile in the degree of terribleness assigned. Maybe.

Haven't done anything the least bit noteworthy in two years, and I'll be damned if I start now.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1325834446' post='2893914'] SF lose in the battlefield but after all the hatred and harsh terms promises towards them and mainly towards GOD/Xiphosis, this terms represents a huge political victory for them, so congrats guys. [/quote] We don't take reps. We said as much in our DoW thread.