Jump to content

mco119

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mco119

  1. Tri-I disagree with much of your last post, and, frankly, it's pretty obvious you're not understanding a lot of what is being said. If you don't get some of these things by now, you're not going to. I'm not willing to write another long post trying to clarify it for you. I do find your recollection of what happened regarding the ceasefire..um..interesting, and I'm sure Phillip110 and some of ADI's former government members would echo this. Again, if you'd like IRC logs from a couple of weeks ago to support this statement, I can PM them to you. You're painting a picture of events that may cause you to look better..but it isn't reality. These types of games are, at minimum, a part of how you personally have tarnished ADI's reputation, at least in the eyes of numerous people I have spoken to. As for your past not being relevant..you are very misguided, my friend. The way you have handled your past is the [i]best[/i] indicator of how you will deal with your future..especially since you seem not to have learned at all from your mistakes. In fact, you deny many of these mistakes entirely in your post above. Again, if you want to know what kind of leader a man will be, look at his track record of leadership. One more time, let's STOP this. PM me privately if you wish, but let's cease and desist from the OWF debates. I'm as much of a problem here as you, but I'm more than willing to halt these public arguments. We aren't going to agree, and that's fine.
  2. [quote name='Lord Tri' date='19 April 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1271733548' post='2267327'] You drove an alliance to disbandment and you are still not satisfied? You drive an alliance to the point where it loses crucial members (including myself), rejects its founder, publicly apologizes to TDO, and eventually gives up the name and flag to which many of them so staunchly defended, and you are still making them out to be cowards and scum? Give me a break man. I mean, good Lord, would you like them to start spoon feeding you as well? I really did like speaking with you on our previous occasions mco, but this is just getting ridiculous. Leave them be, and let them forge a new path in the world. It's also a possibility I misread what you meant by your post, but to me it looks as if you are being quite snide. [/quote] First, allow me to be a bit wary of ADI. They have earned the skepticism of Planet Bob, and you have been a major factor in the process. Second, I said quite plainly that I believe everybody deserves a 2nd chance. What that should have told you is that, my concerns aside, I'm open to giving them another shot at righting their wrongs. So, yes, I would say you are partially misreading what I wrote. If ADI disbanded a couple weeks after our attack, it is because they hope to shift the focus away from the reputation [i]they [/i]earned. If they shunned Warbuck, they did it because they understood (allegedly) that he was a maniac, one that brought war to their doorstep via his actions. Further, I didn't cause you personally to abandon your allaince, when 9 of yours nations were still at war, without even being sure they were discussing potential peace terms. Your lack of integrity caused that, something your former government members likely agree about. You decided to leave ADI, and that is 100% your choice. Incredibly bad form..a fact that I have been respectful enough to you not to point out over on the thread announcing your leadership of a new alliance (as worrisome as that is). Also, if we "drove" ADI to apologizing to TDO, as you implied above, then I guess you have helped clarify whether or not their apology was sincere..if it was forced, I'd imagine it wasn't. That should be something the CN world notes. Finally, I most certainly didn't call them "cowards and scum." I simply implied I am hesitant to accept the "new" face of ADI...hesitant, but not unwilling. Again, I'm perfectly able to believe people can change, it's just that most of the time they don't. You're reading into things a bit. My reason for posting today was to point out ADI's name change..people can draw their own conclusions about why they chose to do this. I'd probably advise you to stay clear of this..you're the leader of a new alliance now, and, frankly, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to your conduct as ADI's leader. Despite what you may think, your past DOES have great bearing on how you will lead your currect alliance..personally, I think anybody that joins you should know about it. ETA: Let's BOTH just end these debates. I take responsibility for starting them up again by posting today. As relevant as ADI's new identity might be, I was just asking for a major thread hijack by even showing up here.
  3. It appears that ADI has now changed the name of their alliance to "The Shadow Proclamation." I would guess they are sick of the bad press they have been getting, and now they are hoping to start fresh...you know what they say, a rose by any other name.... Still, I guess everybody deserves a 2nd (or in this case more like a 3rd) chance.
  4. [quote] I did in fact bring these terms to my government. I informed Shades, Grant, and I believe Kap and Archon as well. I instructed them to continue the peace talks in my absence, which they did. I also informed your leader, Philip110 of my resignation. So if anyone is having communication issues, that would be you. [/quote] Ignoring the rest of your post for obvious reasons, I'll deal with this briefly. You and I spoke with Phillip on Tuesday night about peace terms via IRC. A full 48 hours later, we spoke to two other ADI government members about the ceasefire. We were able to eventually resolve things by dealing with them. However, neither had heard anything about these peace terms, and both expressed disgust that you had not posted about it on your forums, nor discussed it with your government. I believe the comments were "he never follows the charter, and doesn't consult us." I certainly can provide you with the IRC logs, should you desire that. As for Phillip, yes, he did inform me you were resigning..this does not take away from the contradictions I see between what you said during our private converstaions, and what is being said now. I can provide you with IRC logs of those conversations, too, of course. Also, you mention that leaving ADI was acceptable since "peace was secured.." Well, sir, peace was not secured. The reality is that you left your position as ADI's leader when EIGHT of your nations were still engaged by my alliance. Yes, a ceasefire was in effect while peace talks were underway, but ADI was most certainly still at war. In fact, you handed the negotiations off (supposedly) to your subordinates while continued war was a STRONG possibility..Please understand that resigning as leader [i]during[/i] a devastating conflict, ceasefire or no ceasefire, is very different than doing so once a peace treaty has been signed. Poor form, IMHO. Whether it be due to you preparing to leave for another alliance, or to just the terrible organization and communication skills of ADI, your people came very close to seeing the peace talks fail..they squeaked in with a mere two hours to spare before the expiration time of the ceasefire, and that is due solely to zero progress being made for days after we spoke to you. In any event, there is no point in continuing to debate this. If you appointed Nathan Grant, then any act of poor judgment can be put on you, and not on ADI as a whole. That is a good thing for them. Hopefully they will show greater wisdom in the months to come. Furthermore, Nathan Grant may prove me, and many others, wrong. As you said, perhaps he is very different from John Warbuck. Only time will tell, but I'll be the first to apologize if my concerns turn out to be misplaced. Until then, try to understand why people are skeptical of ADI's sincerity, as well as its potential for future change. Many of its members, yourself included, have done much to bring this about. The original poster attempted to humbly admit that..You might want to consider doing the same. At least see where people like me are coming from. Should you have anything further to say, or if you'd like to see those IRCs logs, please contact me privately. No reason to derail this thread further (something I am as guilty of as anyone here). I've said my peace, and so I won't be responding again. ADI-best of luck. I hope a year from now I'll be amazed at the alliance you have become.
  5. [quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 April 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1271013952' post='2256502'] I am pretty RyanGDI is leading Gremlins at the moment. You know TDO always seems be involved in things they should not be. [/quote] To hit again on a point you seem to be missing, TDO had absolutely nothing to do with this attack. The plan, the goals, the timing, all of it was 100% on us. I assure you that The Democratic Order was just as surprised as everybody else when we started to roll. So far as the above mentioned goals of this attack go, one of the major ones was that ADI would see and understand its past political mistakes, then steer in a new direction. That is why we stopped our attacks before wiping them out entirely, which would certainly have happened over the additional 4 weeks of war we had planned; We let them go because we believe in second chances. That being said, although I consider the two government members we dealt with the most, Shadeslayer and Hamil, to be sincere in their wish to not repeat past mistakes, I have a hard time buying into this for ADO on the whole. For starters, after fighting a devastating war that caused 11 nations to leave their alliance, including several government members, and left many others in ruins, what did ADI do? They appointed a new leader that has, historically anyway, shown himself to be a close supporter of the man most responsible for ADI's current problems, John Warbuck. Even now Nathan Grant defends Warbuck, admits that he agreed initially with the proposed attack on TDO, and seems totally clueless regarding ADI's current situation. There is also, if I might be so bold, a tone of arrogance presented by Grant that is similar to our not so beloved lost friend Warbuck. The fact that ADI would come out claiming to want change, right as they elect a leader that is as close to Warbuck as they can find, is very troubling. Nathan Grant, a note to you personally: when people say you should avoid the OWF, LISTEN TO THEM. You seem to have the same "We're going to do whatever we want!" kind of attitude that Warbuck did. It would be wise for you to ask how that worked out for him, then follow those thoughts to their conclusion. Finally, I suppose I just question the sincerity of ADI across the board. They say they want change, so they elect Lord Tri. Then, following a war that should have convinced them more than ever of the need to change, what do they do? Right back to a Warbuck groupie. Lord Tri enters peace talks. He tells us that he "will never leave ADI, and will fight to the death!" That "if ADI goes down, he goes down," and that "he loves ADI too much to ever see it fail." We agree on tentative peace terms, and Tri agrees to take them to his government. Two full days pass with no word, and then we find out that not only were the peace terms never even MENTIONED to ADI, but Tri has flat out left the alliance. So much for honesty and the giving of one's word. We enter peace talks with other government members, who assure us that nobody in ADI ever knew about the attacks but Warbuck. We're highly skeptical of that, but things continue. This thread is started. First it is claimed people didn't know about Warbuck's plans, then Nathan Grants admits most did. First it seems okay to denounce Warbuck, then Grant says it isn't. Initially things are humble and sincere, then ADI's leader, with Warbuckesque flair, expresses they will "keep posting as much as they'd like on the OWF, no matter what anybody thinks." I suppose my point is that ADI doesn't seem to be able to tell up from down, or top from bottom. Sorry, ADI, but at this moment I am very skeptical of you... Fianlly, Nathan Grant, you claim to not agree with paragraph 7 of the initial post, correct? This whole document should have been approved by you and your government BEFORE it was ever posted. So did you agree with it then, and now don't because it is unpopular? Or did your government members post this document without their leaders knowledge? It's one or the other. Edited to add: apologizing WAS the right thing to do, and I don't mean to take away from that. I question whether real change will come to your alliance, but I do hope for it. In any event, each long journey starts with one step, and it appears you've tried to make that movement forward this week. So congrats on that...now just don't drop the ball
  6. [quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='10 April 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1270942931' post='2255905'] ...especially since based on Nathan Grant's post they still really seem not to understand what is going on. [/quote] Exactly what I was thinking. It's pretty concerning..
  7. [quote name='the masheen' date='10 April 2010 - 04:20 AM' timestamp='1270887619' post='2255312'] As for TDO, regardless of what you have to say, it's quite clear to me that you have nudged the rogues in ADI's direction. I really could care a less about what you have to say on the matter, because like most polititians, I'll just assume you're lying (and I hope I'm wrong). You're a nuetral alliance. Stay out of everyone elses business and just sit there like peaceful infra huggers you are. If you can't handle the simple task of not doing anything...then I suggest you stop pretending you're nuetral. This whole thing makes me sick, and I feel bad for anyone who puts an ounce of faith in any of you classless alliances. [/quote] I cannot stress enough that TDO had absolutely NO knowledge about our plan or intentions to attack ADI. Our nations quietly seperated from TDO one at a time over a period of several months, and they were never informed about ANYTHING that was in store for ADI. We would never have put them in that situation. They have nothing to do with this attack. For right or wrong, the nations of Semper Tyrannis acted 100% independently. If you wish to assign any blame to TDO, be aware that you are persecuting a completely innocent alliance. If you take issue with anything that has happened, discuss the problem with us. We did this, not TDO, and I assure you that we were not "nudged in ADI's direction" by them in any way.
  8. I had the opportunity to speak with your new government member, Archon Daverin, on IRC last night, and I can say that I believe ADI has made a wise choice appointing him. He strikes me as a very humble, cool-headed person, and one that is capable of hearing, and understanding, both sides of a debate. That is a very rare quality. Although my alliance has clearly taken issue with some of ADI's actions, I have no doubt that Archon will be a positive addition to its administration. Credit where credit is due.
  9. [quote name='supercoolyellow' date='06 April 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1270533923' post='2250116'] I think you're just mad that you don't get to as much damage to ADI as you wanted to b/c they are outsmarting you. You go rogue, but they hit peace mode and you can't do anything about it. Then instead of fighting ADI, you get all their friends spread out among different alliances afterwards. Enjoy ZI. [/quote] Didn't do "as much damage?" My friend, where have you been? Anyway, I've made my point as well as I can. Let's continue this conversation next month.
  10. [quote name='Lord Tri' date='06 April 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1270532213' post='2250085'] This has absolutely nothing to do with the post at hand...but it's all good. Only a fool would deny that these rogues have caused significant damage to ADI, they were well prepared and well organized. At the same time only a fool of a leader would endanger his member nations while these rogues are on their way down, particularly when such damage could be easily avoided. The only reason they are in peace mode is because I ordered it to be so. So no, they aren't hiding, they are following my orders. [/quote] So, if I understand you correctly, you would rather ask nations from other alliances to die for you, simply because you would rather not "endanger" your members? What of their members? Is their tech, land, money, etc, less valuable? You may be able to "avoid" damage to your members, but you certainly don't seem concerned about your allies getting the same break...irony at its finest, seeing as ADI turned its back on their allies in a time of need. You are quite lucky your friends take a different view of what is "in their best interest." Something to think about in closing: do you know many nations have attacked Semper Tyrannis, Lord Tri? 27. Do you know how many of those attacking nations were ADI? ONE. Keep in mind that ALL our nations, with the exception of mine, are in range of your middle strength nations. Many of your nations are actually bigger than ours at this point (and have been for over a week and a half)..at minimum, they are on nearly equal footing. There's no excuse for them not to be engaged, except for you feeling you'd rather just sacrafice your friends. We are not rogues either. We have an alliance, and that can be clearly seen....and, my friend, you are so sadly mistaken if you think we are on our way down. What could POSSIBLY make you think that at this point? Has this attacked come off as poorly planned to you? All I will grant you regarding us being "on the way down" is that we only have $12 billion between our 9 nations left..so our funds have dwindled some. Best of luck in the weeks to come. No further hijack from me from this point on.
  11. [quote name='Lord Boris' date='05 April 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1270524430' post='2249968'] Very few alliances would not take a lot of damage from coordinated rogue strikes. You're overplaying the situation, probably based on your personal opinions. [/quote] I didn't say anything about "taking a lot of damage." Very different than what is going on. It appears you haven't heard much yet about "the situation." Anyway, no point in debating it. We're just further hijacking the point of the thread.
  12. [quote name='Lord Boris' date='05 April 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1270523665' post='2249952'] And that's better than picking an alliance that repeatedly destroys [b]itself[/b], how? [/quote] I admit I don't know much about the alliance they moved to..probably should have stayed out of this discussion. Still, it sure seems like they couldn't do much worse than ADI..ha, I guess it's possible
  13. Probably a wise move, seeing as only 8 nations have all but destroyed ADI in just two weeks.
  14. [quote name='Axolotlia' date='28 March 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1269752316' post='2238946'] Keep in mind the difference in the type of government. We are not the United States. You say The United States doesnt work where they have the emeritus members of government stay in the current government, where as in Cybernations, usually old gov still does have a say in matters and does retain some power. My 2 cents [/quote] Respectfully, you are either missing my point, or arguing semantics to distract from my point.
  15. [quote name='John Warbuck' date='27 March 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1269747840' post='2238872'] My position is the Lord High Sentinel Emeritus, which is a fancy way of saying that I'm a retired Lord High Sentinel that advises the current administration. [/quote] This thread has been full of comments essentially implying that ADI is "a different alliance now," and that it "regrets its former actions, and is going in a new direction." With respect, the fact that the current ADI administration has retained you at all shows that none of this is sincere. If an alliance has truly learned from its mistakes, why would it have as an advisor the individual that is largely responsible for its past troubles (to say nothing of its current reputation)? The message this sends is that although ADI wishes to project an image of change, they aren't really all that serious about it. If it were a serious attempt to go in a new direction, to right past wrongs, you would not have ANY position in the government, and, further, you would likely be flat out removed from the alliance. Look at the real world..did the Obama administration, which claims to wish for a new direction for this country, retain President Bush as an advisor? Of course not. One of the first rules of governmental change is to show the people that efforts to this effect are genuine, which is best accomplished by disassociating from those the public holds responsible for whatever the problem is. ADI has failed to do this, and I believe this is because you, John, are still a major influence on the actions of this alliance. However, even if this were not the case, even if you had left the alliance, ADI would not be excused from its past mistakes. They must be held accountable, and that is exactly what is happening now. Whether we like it or not, we must all, in one form or another, be brought to account for our errors. Can ADI run its government as it wishes? Of course. However, it should accept the consequences of this decision, and not spend time trying to convince people here that it really "means well." This will not be believed by most. Now, is John Warbuck the sole problem in ADI? No, he is not. That being said, his continuing presence serves as a constant reminder of past grievances, as well as almost certain future indiscretions.
  16. [quote name='Lord Tri' date='27 March 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1269744213' post='2238795'] Far from it, thanks for playing. I thank you for wishing us luck with the rogues. I also will acknowledge that some members of ADI have posted in this thread in a manner not befitting ADI, as such they will be reprimanded for it. Since when has it been "being said that Warbuck is still running the place"? I can assure you that if Warbuck organized it so he's still the man behind the scenes, I am the last person he'd have picked to be his mask. Why? Because I disagree with him...all the time. While Lord of Foreign Affairs, I found myself butting heads with Warbuck over almost every decision the alliance made. While yes, it is true that I will present ideas to Warbuck in the hopes of gaining another take other than my own, but it is my decision that is final, not his, not anyone's. [/quote] Is Warbuck currently a member of your administration? Does he hold a government office? Yes or no?
  17. [quote name='claphamsa' date='27 March 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1269719312' post='2238514'] ADI missed the memo.... [/quote] It would appear, judging by the newest change to their situation, that they missed more than that...
  18. [quote name='Nathan Grant' date='26 March 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1269593956' post='2237213'] The question is, will we be surprised by your reasons and the eventual answer to the quintessential question, "why attack ADI?" I think not. Please delete! Response not worth it at this time.
  19. [quote name='John Warbuck' date='26 March 2010 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1269589448' post='2237185'] Actually, one of you, can't remember who, already told one of the nations helping us what your reasons were and I found them to be quite misguided if they were in fact the true reasons. But the vandalizations of ADI wikis have made me question the integrity of any statements that have been made by you guys. [/quote] Regardless, sir, of what you claim here, you do not know our reasons. You will soon. As for the Wiki page, this shouldn't have occured, and was not authorized. The situation was immediately rectified, and an apology was given to the ADI member in question. Regardless of what you may think at this time, right and wrong is important to this group..this is what helped motivated our attack in the first place. Again, our reasons will be shared with all of you shortly.
  20. I'm truly moved by the send off all of you are giving us. We've been privileged to know all of you, to call many of you allies and friends, to have fought alongside some of you when the going got tough. It's a sad day for us, but it's made a little easier by the kind words offered here. God speed to all of you, and may our paths cross again. As we slip away into the CN history books, we salute all of you in our own Kalashnikov loving way :
  21. Title says it all. Please PM me in game to work out the details. I'll be looking for the donation in late August/early September. Thanks!
  22. Title says it all. I need to buy 100 tech for $3 million and I would like to get it asap through middlemen. You set them up. If it goes well I can commit to tech deals every ten days until next year. Please let me know. Thanks! http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=151716 MCO119
  23. Hey, folks. I need 100 tech asap and will pay $3 million for it. Only trick is that I would like it all at once, so you'll need to setup middlemen. If you're reliable I can offer you a longterm tech deal that will last into next year. Please PM me in game. Here is the link to my nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=151716 Thanks! MCO
  24. Title says it all. I'd like to do this donation in early to mid June. You provide the middlemen. Please PM me in game. Thanks! http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=151716
×
×
  • Create New...