PotFace

[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1295504486' post='2585608'] This part here can be said for any alliance allied to Polar. Think about it when was the last time they stuck their neck out for anyone not just Rok? I can't ever think of a time when they joined a war that wasn't forced upon them or they didn't have any real solid opposition. Yet for some reason they get alliances like STA, IAA, Rok, and plenty of other alliances to go out and jump in front of a train for them despite never doing the same for them nor ever budging in their stance to help their allies. The more Polar pushes the knife into the back of theses alliances the more they cling to Polar. [/quote] That, or Polar is a bit more honorable than you might think. Regardless of what you might think, her allies seem to think so. I guess at the end of the day, that's a lot more important.

You know, I didn't really like you guys much in the past, but this right here is just pure win. And it's caused me to stop being so close-minded too. Welcome to the war!! o/ RoK !!

Epic announcement. Welcome to the combat zone !! o/FAR !! o/UPN !!

[quote name='ImperialCubanacan' timestamp='1295416258' post='2583144'] My dear sir, you possibly have the best sig ever on the OWF. I lol'ed. [/quote] Why thank you. I pride myself on doing art work.

Welcome to the war !! Glad to have you guys!! o/ TIO !!

Glad to have you guys on board !! o/tLW

Oooooh, IAA just jumped in. Now you guys are gonna PAY. o/ IAA !!

I remember a time when the bigger alliances would pick on the smaller ones. Seems like these days, it's the other way around. Now, if the smaller alliances seem to have a problem with hegemony, and I'm talking about some old-school hegemony too, then it seems to me like the most illogical thing you could do is to recreate it by bringing the larger alliances closer together by attacking them with weak CBs and lack of attempt for diplomatic resolve, time and time again. Eventually, this practice is going to come to a screeching halt. It's just a matter of how patient those who are on the receiving end decide to be.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1295333446' post='2580592'] This is the second time that Impero has used this trick. A few months ago, he had a VE member (MrMuz) give the admin of CNtel his VE forum password. Once the admin logged in, they ran his IP. The guy had joined CoJ without our knowing, and rather than approach us with a sting operation scenario (which is what it was), Impero came baseball bat in hand with veiled threats. This is VE standard operating procedure. Create a spy, create a CB. Also, big laughs for a guy that can't get his there/their/they're straight, but goes around waving his "exculpate" vocab-of-the-day. Get a good proofreader, Impero, and lay off the booze. [/quote] Mmmm hmmm. And once this is all over with, I can see this playing some sort of a role in the surrender terms for VE as well. I would expect them to be refreshingly harsh, having established such a pattern of behavior. In the meantime, it's come to pass in today's cyberverse that a list of alliances out there exist, only by the good graces of others that are much larger and powerful than they are. How it is that some of them feel that it's strategically viable to screw with those larger and more powerful entities is something that I just can't wrap my head around. But it is commonplace these days. I'd have to say that the "big guys" - the Orders in particular, have been very patient with them; also a role that I see strengthening legitimacy behind any harsh terms issued out by Polaris. I hope they're harsh - I haven't seen any exceptionally harsh terms get issued out in a long time. Maybe that's part of the problem to begin with.

You know, in today's world, it's actually kinda funny to see someone object to serving up some targets, fresh and hot....

Edit: bah, you're gone already. Have fun while you still can. And if you have any legitimate concerns or questions, I'll be happy to get back with you on that. In the meantime, I'm just going to sit back and let the last few posts work their courses. And buddy, I'm going to love every bit of it.

[quote name='Moe Szyslak' timestamp='1294207061' post='2564072'] Are you? Don't feed the little guys that live under the bridge, I promise, they'll go away. [/quote] Well, thanks for admitting to the cyberverse what your intentions are here. You have just lost the right to complain about classlessness and tastelessness. And with that, I can now have you dealt with.

[quote name='Moe Szyslak' timestamp='1294204620' post='2563993'] Your recognition of George's efforts after clearly stating multiple times that there was not a single person capable of leading the alliance or you wouldn't have disbanded the alliance, and that nobody other than yourself did anything, and then your reverse statements that George was the go-to guy for certain aspects of the alliance seemed a bit contradictory. Would you mind clarifying that position for me please, so I can get a better understanding of the whole picture? Cause now I'm not sure if there was nobody capable of taking over or doing anything at all, or if there might have been people that did have the ability to handle things. [/quote] Thank you for proving my point. Anyways, Georgie was capable of handling IRC. He was not capable of running an alliance. Does that make sense? Edit: [quote] ok, this is too good to let go. When was this topic dead? If you don't care about people offering protection to displaced BCOM members then why the replies to the protection notices? Who's making accusations exactly? If you want to let it die, the best way is to just stop replying. Usually when there's no 2-way discussion happening, topics die fast. Just a thought. [/quote] I am the poster of the OP. You come here with questions and accusations. I am here to address them. As long as there's nothing to be addressed, the topic will die. That's usually how they work. Are you new to this?

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1294204003' post='2563984'] Boys, boys, boys....holy crap. Just let it die peacefully. It's already over and done with, and the scene you're perpetuating is kind of getting ridiculous. [/quote] Nah, what's happened here is that they came gallivanting into this disbandment notice, offered protection to displaced BCOM members (which nobody cares, especially me), and then after making themselves appear to be incompetent in every possible respect, attempted to make up for it by digging this disbandment notice back up again after it was already dead and gone, and kicking dirt all over it in any way they could think of. I'm just here to continue answering questions and accusations (because that's what OP posters are supposed to do). These guys are here for no other reason than to drag this disbandment notice through the mud as much as they can, despite my pleas to just let it die.

[quote name='Andover' timestamp='1294202371' post='2563962'] whoopty fricken do, so the only one doing admin stuff was you, this doesnt really prove much considering you and probably 1 other person where probably the only ones with Admin access. Besides, you already stated you set up the forum and everything and this connfirms that, good for you, want a cookie? I dont have a problem with how you ran your alliance, but the way you disbanded was very distasteful and not done very well. [/quote] It's the admin log. It logs everything. Everytime someone logs on, it's in there. You might be confused because it's mostly me that you see in that list. Had you actually looked it over, you would have probably seen Georgie and a few diplos logon, and you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions like that. And like you've done with virtually every other statement you've made here.

I've taken the liberty of unlocking the BCOM board and posting a public disclosure of December's admin log (with IPs removed, of course). Maybe that will paint a better picture for some of you.... http://blackstonecommission.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1025

[quote name='Future' timestamp='1294194091' post='2563769'] But in your previous posts you made it sound like your always on. I don't know if that was just me or not. Saying everyone but you were inactive... [/quote] No, George was the go-to IRC guy. That's what teamwork is all about. Me and George were the only two active BCOM members by the time we disbanded. I did a hell of a lot more actual work, as far as taking tallies go, but I knew that he had IRC under control, which freed me up to handle the board. I was on IRC quite a bit myself as well, and the best way to get in touch with me was by query. I might have stayed logged in to IRC a few weeks at a time, but I wasn't on there since BCOM's DoE, if that's what you're getting to...

[quote name='Future' timestamp='1294193906' post='2563762'] I don't think you can count. Two weeks and several months is a big difference. Shows how much [b]you[/b] got on and acknowledged us.... [/quote] Gee, I guess I was busy with everything else. I'm not a superhuman, you know.

[quote name='Future' timestamp='1294193255' post='2563746'] Thats funny how you made it sound like he did very little. Whenever I talked to him he would always talk about ur alliance. I [b]know[/b] he did more then you say. Then you say wasn't on IRC so you couldn't notify him. He was and is always on there. You were never on. When I joined I was on there every day. You weren't on and I had only heard from you once. That was on forums about being masked. [/quote] That must have been several months ago when RL was killing me and I had placed command of BCOM into Hadrian and Tiberious's hands. It gets us all. But when it does, I make sure to let someone know, and it's not on a permanent basis. I also make sure to tie up loose ends too, when it's for the best. And George, do me a favor and please brief this guy as to exactly who all did what, since he's so interested.... tell the truth...

[quote name='Georgelopez' timestamp='1294192712' post='2563730'] You basically [b]told[/b] people to raid us. [/quote] Well, if that's how you want to look at it, sure. I waited for 4 days to give you some advanced notice, but, you weren't on IRC the whole time. I sent you a PM, but you didn't get it in time, apparently. When you're active, you're informed. When you're inactive, you get surprised. Cause and effect. Sorry you got tossed to the sharks - you're the only one that didn't deserve it. And I'll admit that was a mistake on my part. But I have no remorse for the others. Zero.

[quote name='Moe Szyslak' timestamp='1294188884' post='2563662'] <snip> a whole lot of nothin'.. [/quote] Well, I didn't figure you could let it rest. At no point in time did I ask everyone to not protect BCOM's displaced members. I thought I was pretty clear on that. My position was, and still is, each to their own. If they get protection, great. If not, oh well. Since BCOM has disbanded, it's no longer my place to determine what happens with those nations. I feel like I'm having to repeat everything that I've said to you, and it's getting pretty annoying. While it would seem that it's good to see you disagree, it would only be good if it would lead to some sort of a conclusion here. However, you seem to be incapable of reading, learning, and applying. That's not my fault. It's yours. And round and round we go, everything that you seem to think is "fact" is something that I've already addressed and explained. It doesn't take a political scientist to figure out that once BCOM disbanded, it lost its sovereignty. However, BCOM was still an alliance when I made the choice to disband. That means that the manner in which it disbanded wasn't up to you. And that seems to be where you've concentrated your efforts. You had no say in the matter. You were left standing in the back of the line. Poor you. Maybe you should have posted the disbandment notice for me... Oh, and Georgelopez stuck with me all the way through. He was the only one that did. He didn't do much else besides hang out on IRC, a little recruiting here and there (our most active members were courtesy of him), and sent out some alliance PMs. He made some art as well. Sorry about that George, it wasn't on purpose. Anyhow, Moe, put a cork in it already, will ya please?

No? Good. I'll leave you with this: It wasn't BCOM's responsibility to disband in a fashion which [b]you[/b] saw fit. There were a lot of ingredients to the recipe that led to this disbandment notice - none of which you seem to know anything about, despite my having told you what they were. You preach about responsibility and traits of good leadership and at the same time, you kick dirt all over a disbanded alliance in full view of your alliance and your allies, thinking that your [b]own[/b] standards seem to apply to another sovereign alliance's standards. And I hope you're disappointed too. I sure as hell don't see you going and trying to impose your standards on alliances that [b]haven't[/b] disbanded. So, since we're discussing leadership and responsibility and all, what does all of this say about [b]your[/b] leadership qualities? You don't have to answer that - everyone who's been following this topic already knows. Nobody cares if you think that notice should have been given to BCOM's displaced members. Now, I'm going to ask again, as nicely as I can, to let BCOM rest in peace. You're quickly making a name for yourself in here, and you're drawing negative attention on yourself and on those that support you. Do you think you can handle such a simple request? Your objections were noted and responded to in a thorough and lightning fast manner. At this point, there is no reason for you to continue kicking dirt and making a fool of yourself...

[quote name='Moe Szyslak' timestamp='1294166481' post='2563231'] You can request that BCOM rest in peace all you want. The fact is, that you opened things up for discussion. You may want to have the last word, but it doesn't always work out that way. Either way, it's no longer your alliance. I can say it's a safe bet, that the 3 people that were still in BCOM last I looked are probably the most inactive of that entire alliance. That said, we recently had a BCOM member that joined our ranks in SLAP, and I can honestly say that he's been active on IRC, participating in our alliance aid programs, has followed instructions quite well, and appears to have above average intellect, particularly for a CN player. While the sample pool may be small, I think it shows that there may have been more hope for BCOM that you're admitting on these forums. As a general rule, most new nations are actually quite useless. In my experience you have to recruit a lot of people that lose interest fast for each real player that you get. Running a small alliance is never an easy task. [/quote] Well, I suppose what you mean is that posting a disbandment notice = an invitation for discussion. That's not really true, but I'll roll with you on that. The problem here is, however, after explaining in great detail all of the events that led to BCOM's disbandment, you want to argue with it, as if you have any ammunition to argue with. You weren't even there to see any of it. [u]That[/u] is not a discussion. The BCOM member that you acquired has almost zero CN experience, and thus, isn't capable of leading an alliance. Sorry, as much as you'd like to think all of those traits will make up for experience, they simply don't. Again, as I've said before, there were no viable candidates to give the helm over to. BCOM was in a slump for its entire time - roughly 11 months. That person's presence did nothing to help it. And yes, the last 3 to get off the train were probably paying the least attention - glad you figured that out all on your own. Anything else you wish to "discuss"?

No kidding. It's like these guys are the only ones here that are running around in circles because they can't understand [b]anything[/b] that's being said - be it a request for BCOM to RIP, a detailed explanation of the disbandment, or anything else pertaining to what's been said here. Everyone else seems to get it. We're not dealing with difficult stuff here...

[quote name='Andover' timestamp='1294159422' post='2563149'] So bascially you can be a selfish little brat because you created the alliance, the forum, etc. [i][b]+ a whole lot of stuff that's not written anywhere..[/b][/i] [/quote] These were people that showed up to reap the benefits of alliance membership, yet, wouldn't so much as sign a monthly sign-in sheet. The fact that I still kept them instead of kicking them out of BCOM goes to show how much patience I had. At the end of the day, even without any disbandment warning, they still came out WAY ahead. I did more for them than most others would, that's for sure. They didn't deserve a warning. Plain and simple. If they had deserved it, I would have given it to them. But, we have enough stagnation in the cyberverse as it is, and I'm not going to be the one to reward it. If you're in the business of rewarding stagnation, and promoting it by serving freebies to everyone you can, then stagnation is what you will have. Go pile on a 2nd helping of it - there's plenty of it to go around.