PotFace

[quote name='Moe Szyslak' timestamp='1293930721' post='2560389'] I understand the No Deposit, No Return argument, but there's another side to this entire story too. The membership of BCOM put their faith in their government to provide for the common defense (and no doubt, something to this tune was in the recruiting messages that sent them there in the first place.) What gives PotFace any right to, with no notice, cancel all treaties and disband BCOM? Some clause in a charter apparently, but it still doesn't make the action right. He could just have easily left and trusted the alliance to new hands as well. Their leader, instead of doing what was his duty, to serve in the interest of his alliance members, packed his bags, came to a public forum and said "All protection agreements for these people are canceled. Let the world begin raiding." At that point, it should be no surprise that there were people that felt the need to say "Hey wait." and give some of these people a fighting chance to find their way. Forgive me Bud for picking your post to quote alone, when so many of them could have been responded to with this same message. I just needed one to pinpoint what I was responding to exactly. [/quote] I'm going to make this exceptionally clear for you, so that you won't be confused about it anymore. I paid for the BCOM domain and server. I customized its forums. I did its artwork. I wrote its charter, developed its policies and procedures, wrote its guide, implemented its programs, managed its embassies at home, sent out the alliance PMs, encouraged activity, made its monthly newsletters and posted them here, altered its government structure, listened to input and made proper adjustments, managed the IRC channels, reached out to allies - securing its protection, all the while, making graphics for other alliances as well. Do you know why I did all of those things? Because nobody else would, or could. But that's not all!! I developed BCOM's Wiki page to no avail. I directed training exercises, to no avail. I begged and pleaded with BCOM's membership to make us grow by recruiting, to no avail. I required monthly sign-ins, to no avail. I required proper training, to no avail. I organized required military unit affiliation, to no avail. I encouraged IRC activity, to no avail. I went through a host of changes to show that BCOM would adapt and overcome to its state of affairs, to no avail. If there were any interested and experienced hands to place BCOM into, I would have done so. There were none. And so, what's the only other logical step from that point? Prompt disbandment. All the while, I had taken exceptional care of the BCOMrades - busting my butt in the kitchen while everyone sat at the dinner table banging their forks and knives on the table, demanding what would be expected of any leader. I complained about it only to my 2nd in command. Does that give me the right to disband BCOM at will? You bet your ass it does, despite what the charter says. It was my call to make, not yours. And while you weren't there, and you obviously have little to no understanding behind BCOM's disbandment, because of all of that time you didn't spend getting to know BCOM, or seeing the same depressing reports coming from it's monthly newsletters, time and time again, you're going to come here and offer mal-informed accusations as to what you think an alliance's disbandment should include and exclude? Yeah, sign me up for [b][i]that[/i][/b]. Now. If you're still confused, then it's only because you want to be.

CN needed for TWiP to return. Regardless of where the cross-hairs go.

Hey guys... do me a favor and just let the Commission RIP.

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1293579668' post='2556628'] BCOM and Asgaard had our past squabbles, as did the leadership of OO and Asgaard, so yes this one is a victory in my mind and I can't wait till OO follows BCOM's example. This "power-play" by CB and OO shows the disrespect you guys have for your more successful allies, you guys know full well that you are too small to offer protection to anyone (hmm... go figure that was what caused the conflict we had with OO in the past), and to put your allies in harms way over an (inactive) alliance that you are not allied to is just ridiculous, especially considering AzN does have an MDP with BCOM, and the leadership of BCOM intentionally didn't seek protection(and Randalla hasn't offered it). This is not noble, it is a spiteful power-play to try to ruin the fun of some raiders while bearing little if any risk yourself. Additionally if you want to give BCOM a chance, get their members to join you, as has already been explained the "members" of BCOM provide little more than ghost NS. They aren't suddenly going to succeed because OO protects them. This is also an insult to the sovereignty of BCOM but that is a whole different matter. [/quote] Mmmm hmmm. I mean, we could just try it my way and wish them luck in finding a new home without getting raided first. That would be so much easier and just, wouldn't it?

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1293499700' post='2555688'] Apparently multiple alliances are needed to protect dead AAs these days. [/quote] I don't know about other cases, but in this case, I [i]promise[/i] there's absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

[quote name='Zhaan' timestamp='1293486406' post='2555504'] That's interesting. As a former member of BCOM government, although it's been a while, I still visit the forums on a regular basis. I can attest to the fact that Potface was dead on with his assessment of the BCOM membership. Despite encouragement, by Pot, for them to get active and contribute to the alliance, this never happened. Hasn't in quite some time. Like Pot, I frankly don't care if that offends anyone reading this who was a former member of the Commission. I felt his pain. They were given all the tools and failed to use them. If anything, they left their leader hanging out to dry during their tenure there. Now, some might say that Pot should have taken the time to post notice of an impending disbandment, and he could have done that, sure. But, he gave back what he was given. No deposit, no return. [/quote] More prominent alliances would call this phenomenon..... "Karma". Seems like I need to talk a few people in here to get screened for amnesia or something.

[quote name='Weezy' timestamp='1293428185' post='2555045'] I am sorry Locke, for I have let you down, and not kept with the newest "unofficial" rules of the cyberverse. Please forgive me? [/quote] Meanwhile, those that you're sticking your necks out for are currently 100% oblivious as to what's going on in the world around them. And like it that way.

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1293421517' post='2554949'] [i](....excellent post)[/i] [/quote] It's all about the ability to adapt and overcome to adverse contingencies. You can't avoid them. We were able to adapt and overcome to everything - except for lack of growth. That being said, you could almost look at it as an .... art. Sometimes one little imperfection to the picture makes it greater than it otherwise would be. It's been a real pleasure being on a team with you, Hadrian. If we have the skill and will power to found BCOM and usher it to what we did, imagine what the future has in store for us both...

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1293413824' post='2554837'] I'm curious where these folks came from; were they spam recruits? [/quote] The folks that currently remain under the BCOM AA are definitely a product of messaging. Everyone else came from networking and has since left.

[quote name='Zhaan' timestamp='1293412563' post='2554798'] I have always admired Potface for his bluntness. I can appreciate a man who calls it like it is. As stated previously, more people could learn from him. I have. And, I can attest to the fact that Pot did all that was humanly possible for one man to achieve with his AA...structure, forums, graphics, discipline...you name it. Ultimately, however, you can't force anyone to do anything and the lack of contribution from a majority will eventually take it's toll on the active minority. Good luck, Potface (hold your head high. i know it's disappointing but you did all you could)...and George if he's still out there anywhere. These were the only two remaining active members I was aware of. [/quote] Well, you know, when I first thought about it, yeah, it was a bit disappointing. But now that I look back on all of it, to me it was a creation - like a work of art. The alliance itself had enormous potential. And while the stats and activity stayed low, BCOM still ran circles around many other alliances in other areas. So, it's something that I can look back on and smile on with satisfaction. In the BCOM DoE, someone mentioned that it was the equivalent to setting the political difficulty level to "nightmare", and still we were able to go color-hopping unscathed. We watched other alliances come, grow to be larger and more powerful, and then undergo coups, disbandment, you name it, while we continued to swim, event-free. We still provided all of the services most other alliances provide, in spite of losing all but 2 senior government officials. What we managed to pull off was nothing short of epic, imo. But at some point, it had to end. At the end of the day, the struggle was pointless.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293412065' post='2554789'] Not our fault this time. Good luck where ever you guys end up. [/quote] Lol!! Oh you.. we sure could use some humor in here, and your timing was perfect.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293411466' post='2554779'] I agree. So did you expel or ask anyone to leave the AA? I wonder what you think of large "teams" like MHA. [/quote] And this is where I get to say, "I'm speaking from experience". As far as BCOM went, I tried it all. Early on, I set high standards - sending out messages for everyone to increase activity and the like, but to no avail. I then progressed to "monthly sign-ins", where if you failed to sign-in, it would result in dismissal. I enforced that policy for a short time, when I realized that BCOM would effectively lose 80% (or more) of its member base at that rate. By today, after governmental reformation, new policies and procedures, a new board, new art, new ideas, you name it.... none of it worked. Which was slightly surprising, I must admit. The only common denominator was, it was directed toward people who simply didn't want to contribute. Now, as for "large teams" like MHA - honestly, size doesn't matter imo. MHA, like any team, is bound by the same principals. If, for example, 80% of their members simply couldn't be counted on, that will certainly reflect in times of war. Many alliances like to keep stagnant players because it increases their stats, and that's fine and well during peace time. But any stats generated for any alliance by any stagnant player might as well be zero if they refuse to fulfill their basic obligations to their alliances.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293410612' post='2554766'] How is it "at others' expenses"? There is really no way that inactive members cost anyone anything. [/quote] Not true. Alliances are "teams". Teams are composed of members that [i]rely[/i] on one another. There's no point in joining a team if you can't be counted on. Likewise, there's no point in keeping those that you can't count on. I mean, this is something that human civilization has figured out thousands of years ago - there's no point in struggling with the idea...

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1293409801' post='2554760'] cus 'em some slack, Ed. the war is ending and everyone who fought had fun no need to drag it out Good luck to former Blackstone members(i hear Athens is recruiting ) [/quote] You know what we all ought to do? Have alliances offer up their stagnant players as "poker chips" in a poker tournament, to do with as they see fit. Sure, everyone has the [i]right[/i] to be stagnant, but when it's at others' expenses, well, that's a different story. If you want to be stagnant, then go rogue. If you want to mooch without paying your dues, then your dues should be forcefully taken from you.

[quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1293404229' post='2554713'] No. C'mon Sardonic, do you really care about the supposed "Dignity" of this AA in any way, shape, or form? [i]C'mon...[/i] [/quote] The "dignity" of the Commission isn't something that's left up to someone else.... the way in which it disbanded (allowing the cyberverse to figure out the rest) is pretty dignified imo. Whatever happens afterward doesn't even matter. BCOM is gone. Those who fly its AA aren't alliance members anymore. They're uninformed rogues.

[quote name='Weezy' timestamp='1293398995' post='2554635'] Nothing better to do? If you really must know, I was a former BCOMrade and personally wanted to make sure all BCOMrades have a chance to get to a safe haven before being raided. WarriorConcept and CB appreciated it and I'm sure the BCOM members appreciate it. Whether this pleases you or just gives you another reason to dislike us, we could care less. [/quote] Well, since we're on a truth-seeking mission, that would mean you put more care and concern into BCOM and your BCOMrades after you had left than when you were there. I have 1 post from you on file - a membership application. [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1293400006' post='2554654'] Farewell BCOM, it was good getting to know some of you while you were a protectorate under NSO, and it sucks whenever instability and inactivity can destroy a lot of hard work. Anyways, good luck to all! [/quote] I know right? Hey, that's okay tho - hard work is what it's all about for some of us. Question is, who deserves to benefit from it?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1293392560' post='2554513'] For arguments's sake, PotFace's reasoning behind the lack of protection is very well put: "No deposit, no return." Why do you believe that you should supercede his authority on this matter? [/quote] [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1293392773' post='2554516'] That's kind of a dick move, he wants to punish his former lazy members, why not let him? [/quote] I'm not seeking "punishment" for lazy members - I'm simply demonstrating that you get out what you put in. As the Commission has disbanded, their fate will be determined by the tides. If the tides happen to be gracious, well, more power to them. If not, then it's their own faults. I do, however, encourage the cyberverse to understand that serving up nice things to thankless people is a poor investment, and encourages stagnation.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293392269' post='2554506'] Good luck finding new homes. I hope you gave the 32 members enough time to find new alliances and that this announcement is not as sudden as it appears. Anyways, good luck. [/quote] BCOM doesn't have 32 members. And BCOM gave them the equal of what they gave BCOM.

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1293391294' post='2554490'] On behalf of NEW - is this AA being formally protected by any parties? [/quote] [quote]Any homeless BCOM member is now entirely unprotected as a product of their own malaise.[/quote]

[center][img]http://www.blackstonecommission.com/bcomseal.png[/img][/center] Fellow citizens of Bob, If you want to have a home, then it’s imperative that you periodically do something (anything) to help keep it standing. It doesn’t matter what programs you have in place, what your training curriculum is like, what team color you choose, how good your graphics are, or how much effort you make into foreign investments. The Blackstone Commission is a text-book example of what happens when faced with a simple lack of motivation and enthusiasm. Although it would be feasible to continue taking up space in Bob’s treaty web as long as we desire to, today it is clear that it would be entirely pointless to. We reached a height of 32 members, yet today we aren’t much better off than we were when we established ourselves as an alliance in April. It would be unfair to our allies to continue on this path that we’ve been on over the last several months, as we simply aren’t able to return the same care and concern that has been so graciously given to us by our treaty partners. This, combined with the notion that Bob’s active citizens are spread entirely too thin over a vast array of alliances; as well as the ever-present “RL” which lingers over us all, it’s finally time for us to come to terms with the notion that growth simply will not come for the Commission and that our time and attention would be better spent on more deserving teams, doing our part, however small or otherwise insignificant it may be to consolidate activity. By the authority of our charter, I hereby terminate all treaties and formally disband the Blackstone Commission indefinitely. It’s high-time that the cyberverse enter into an “Age of Accountability”. Any homeless BCOM member is now entirely unprotected as a product of their own malaise. No Deposit, No Return [img]http://www.blackstonecommission.com/forums/images/potface.png[/img] Executive Director Blackstone Commission

How did these guys grow to be a big as they are, with the inability to think? Ah-HA !! It all makes so much sense now....

[quote name='Trikoupis' timestamp='1292398284' post='2540079'] It sounded like a fun process, so I checked it out a bit . But it looks like we have 429 nukes to strap your 7 members on, while you don't have any nuke to strap any of our 75 members on . [/quote] Well, you know, that's all fine and good - unless your alliance has the most nukes, there will always be someone out there who has more. In that respect, I'm not impressed. I'm just saying, if you're looking to get people to like you more, misleading them probably isn't the best approach.

Those who post titles that are lies in order to get you to see something that you, for very good reason, would otherwise have absolutely zero interest in, should be strapped to a nuke and and rocketed toward someone else who continues to do the same, in an expeditious fashion in front of cheering masses.

Congrats guys - let's see how this works out. I'm pullin' for ya...

Judging by your flag, I think there's a chance that we could be natural allies. You have good taste in design.