Moe Szyslak

Gratz to both parties on reaching this agreement.

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1296839935' post='2619364'] Okay, how has this gone on for 19 pages with people still not getting this? Nobody has said that ML is bad for not posting a DoW when defending allies. We have never said it was necessary, and have never said that them not doing so is cowardice. Had anyone bothered to ask MK, we would have acknowledged that we were at war with TPF, and whoever else we have a war or two declared on. There simply was no need to clutter the OWF with announcements for each one, particularly when we're only dedicating one or two nations to that front. I mean, could you hear the trolling? "LOL MK declared war on TPF but only declared 2 wars, they're goin downhill man". We are capable of assisting allies without any formal declaration. What they did do, to cause us to accuse them of cowardice, is when confronted about it, they said they were not at war with us, but were merely attacking rogues. They defined our own members as rogues, because our members were defending allies without an official DoW. When they were informed, no, this was sanctioned by Government, they grew stubborn and continued to insist that no matter what MK government said, the nations they were attacking were merely rogues. THIS was the act of cowardice, a classification of terminology designed specifically to let them attack our nations without becoming embroiled in the larger war. Well, we certainly were not about to let the good name of nations doing as they were told be besmirched by an act like this, so the only solution available was to recognize hostilities between us and ML officially, so none could deny that this was in fact a war, just like every other conflict MK has been engaged in since initiating hostilities with the NPO has been. [/quote] Since when did name-calling or setting your own definitions become an act of cowardice? Nations all around the world utilize different languages. [ooc]should the U.S. bomb France just because their word for pencil is crayon?[/ooc] I see your point though in noting that you didn't want anybody to make great notice of the fact that MK has gone downhill. Seriously though, if you were telling Molon Labe that you were officially at war with their allies, then their declarations on nations that weren't attacking directly as a response to such sanctioned alliance actions against their allies was justified. And if they insist on calling you a rogue alliance, that's really not an act of cowardice, it's just an act of name-calling.

Seems to me that if MK and Umbrella were attacking TPF nations without a formal declaration on those nations, then ML had every right to come to their defense with an equally non-existant DoW. Why all the surprise? I fail to see where it's only ok when one side does it.

We've got a couple sellers. Meet in #cn-slap on IRC if you'd like to get links to these sellers for 3/50 deals.

good luck

Good luck in your arena TLR. You guys are a fun bunch to hang around.

[center][img]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii50/azace/flag.png[/img][/center] By royal decree, Sovereign League of Armed Powers hereby issues a foreign aid embargo against the coalition which calls itself Doomhouse until further notice. What you've done is wrong, and for our part, we will not be any part of supporting your ways.

I always thought MK had more class than this. I guess time really has done a 180, and now NPO have become the victims of tactics used by previous generations of their alliance. I wish NPO the best of luck with this conflict.

o/ ODN The Network Hungers, may it feed on every single last point of MCXA's infrastructure

o/ INT o/ Tetris MCXA are going to be the first victims of the new international tetricide.

o/ INT and Tetris!

Enjoy the fireworks ODN.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1294559435' post='2569534'] Again, why does it matter? If they're masked or not, ARE were still given the chance to do what they wanted with those nations, but that wasn't good enough for them. But, by ZIing Keve, you'll teach them a lesson! [/quote] Giving a nation up when it's clear you're only going to rebuild them when it's over is a lot different than pointing your finger and saying "gtfo!" If the attackers were members of UINE gov, then I'd say that their actions were clearly gov sanctioned, and UINE is completely on the hook for those actions. Keve, I've always liked you, and I still don't know that I can justify this ZI. If you need some help rebuilding when it's all over, I'll buy tech from you at 3/100 (slight chuckle). srsly though, you'll rebuild from this quickly no doubt. You would probably fare best in this matter if you did not continue to argue over the OWF though about the fairness or unfairness of terms that you've already accepted and chose to bow out of this thing gracefully. Best of luck to everybody in the rebuilding effort from this war. I refuse to call the terms just, but nonetheless wish everybody the best in recovering and completing these terms.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1294549665' post='2569321'] He reneged on several deals and was generally a snake throughout. [/quote] That doesn't sound like Keve at all

SLAP Studios in conjunction with UCR Productions presents the following presentation. [quote][center][img]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii50/azace/flag.png[/img][img]http://www.cn-slap.com/images/flags/ucr_flag.png[/img][/center] [center][size="5"]SLAPped So Hard Yo Momma Went Commie Pact[/size][/center] Preamble: In an effort to promote the goals of the common man, and rid the world of whatever our alliances may construe as "evil" at the time, it is important that we not only build friendships, but that we cement the right friendships that may prosper through unity, perseverance, loyalty and trust. As we see these qualities in our fellow man, we must explore the possibilities of greater ties. It is because of these qualities, that the Sovereign League of Armed Powers and Union of Communist Republics unite today in an agreement to work together by sharing peace, intelligence, and aid. Article I (Peace): No nation flying the AA Sovereign League of Armed Powers or Union of Communist Republics, nor any nation flying any banner which shall be considered property of either of the undersigned, shall engage in openly armed conflict with one another. Any violation of this article shall be responded to with the responsible party to this treaty being fully responsible for cleaning up the mess done by their members. In addition, our governments and personnel agree to maintain the peace by solving any disagreements as privately as possible and seeking peaceful resolution to any conflict. Article II (Intelligence): No spy operations shall be conducted by either of the undersigned upon one another. Any spy information gathered shall be considered a shareable resource. In addition, if either of the undersigned becomes privy to information regarding attacks, shady tactics, or other intelligence that would be of value for the other party to know, they shall share that information in the fastest and most private means available to them. Article III (Aid): Should a nation of either of the undersigned be on the sphere of the other undersigned, the undersigned agree to prioritize trades with said members prior to doing so with the general public. In addition, the undersigned agree to exchange technology deals and aid programs with one another prior to doing so with alliances with which we share no treaty. Article IV (Review): The undersigned shall review this treaty a period of 60 days from its original signature to determine if this treaty is the appropriate level for the relationship which exists at that time, and this treaty may be upgraded/downgraded/canceled or remain intact once that analysis has taken place. Article V (Cancellation): Should either party no longer be happy with this treaty, they may contact the other to notify them of activation of article V which shall activate the cancellation period. Once said contact has been made, the cancellation period of this treaty shall be deemed to be as long as it takes to complete any remaining aid contracts, at which time this treaty will be considered null and void. Signed for Sovereign League of Armed Powers: The Kings: Spoonman pmacdaddy The Prime Minister: AzAce The Ministry: Banned - Minister of Foreign Affairs Andover - Minister of Economics MCLET ME BE - Minister of Internal Affairs Signed for Union of Communist Republics RA2Leader, Premier Tillistan, CPUCR President[/quote]

Good luck to everybody in their new homes and with their new ventures. I wish everybody the best of luck on their journey. Agree or disagree with the way things have happened, I think everybody has said their piece. Hadrian, I'd love to sit and debate with you, but given that Potface and I have come to an understanding of each others positions and have agreed to respectably disagree but to do so with understanding of each others positions, and given the request of others to let this die, if you'd like to discuss this issue further and get a response to your rambling, you'll have to find me in more private channels. I can be found on (ooc) IRC as Banned[SLAP] or Banned[SLAP|MoFA] (/ooc)

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1294245620' post='2564434'] Who the hell are you[/quote] He's one of those "inactive" people that "did nothing". I see the "Polar Recruit" on your AA, so I'll assume that with the tone that you asked that question, this is pretty much just a blind hailing of an alliance mate and trying to come after anybody that doesn't agree with Potface's position? [quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1294245620' post='2564434']As for this arguing over closing the discussion...the OP requested a cease of said discussion, which you all ignored. This makes you, frankly, disrespectful and dishonourable.[/quote] Somebody coming in here opening a topic doesn't make them the sole owner of all discussion. I assume that you would feel differently if I were to open a post, say about something derogatory regarding you and/or your alliance and then said "Please do not discuss this matter any further for I have spoken." I could be wrong, maybe you'd accept that at face value and let your name be dragged into the dirt, so I doubt it. However, if you wouldn't be willing to accept that, then please don't use that as your argument. The facts are there. He not only set his alliance up to be raided, but personally invited the entire raiding world to come in and get their shots in. There's your facts. Please remove all personal opinion from your argument and state only facts. Let me know how that works out for ya.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1294207358' post='2564086'] 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] Gratz on posting the reply after 3 edits. Was just trying to see things from your perspective so I could try to understand where you're coming from. But yet, here you are again addressing people in a way that is drawing them out to reply. You continue to prove my point that you aren't maintaining a stable position on things. To respond to that, who's complaining? I was simply stating an opinion.

Are you? The more you continue to discuss things, the more of a discussion that there is going to be on an issue. Simple conversational science. If you weren't so stuck on replying to everything that got said, what you claim you want would happen. This topic would die quickly. But as I said, as long as there is no 2-way conversation. You say you want the topic dead, but you say you have to reply to everything that there is to be addressed. Then you address other people in a way that they're expected to reply. You're defeating your own purpose.

[quote name='Georgelopez' timestamp='1294194075' post='2563768'] PotFace, I respect you, and I always will. You taught me everything I know about the game. I don't like the way you ended things with BCOM, but I guess we can't change that. [/quote] And that's all I've been saying the whole time. I don't know how things went inside BCOM, and quite frankly it's not a matter of importance to me. All I know of Potface is the first impression I have of the guy. It happens to be the last impression that BCOM members had of him, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that somebody basically asked the entire tech raiding world to attack those guys. It's a distasteful way to end things. As far as what happened before that, well I haven't heard any argument from anybody saying that somebody wronged Potface in a way that would justify that move. Okay, so some people were inactive. The alliance disbanded. These things happen, and nobody would bash anybody here on that basis alone. However, the way it was done, and the way it was worded toward the general public seemed classless. [quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1294192481' post='2563723'] At no point in time did I ask everyone to not protect BCOM's displaced members.[/quote] But you've made multiple posts in this topic in response to protection of BCOM members calling it a worthless venture, pointless, a waste of time, and using phrases like "nothing to gain" right? Even if you don't ask people not to do something, you can still be a party to discouraging such activity and belittling the efforts of those alliances that choose to offer said protection right? Isn't that about the approach that you're coming after me for? I mean, I never said you were a bad alliance leader, or at least I don't recall saying that. I think the approach that you took with the disbandment was distasteful, and that you let your people down, but one action doesn't speak to who are. Your rather defensive nature in your replies speaks volumes however. 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 name='PotFace' timestamp='1294204447' post='2563989'] 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] 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 name='PotFace' timestamp='1294170308' post='2563300'] 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] Sorry, had to run to school and deal with college issues, so my apologies that I wasn't fast enough to respond to your previous message. Truth be told, I really don't care about what you did, but I don't care for your method either. It's not a matter of kicking up dirt or whatever you choose to call it. The only fact here is that we disagree on the way things were handled. You're right, you were in the mix, and I was not. The fact that there are a couple of former BCOM members that have visited our IRC fairly frequently, or that we feel we got a great member out of somebody who is claimed to be in a pool of people where "nobody did anything" are entirely moot points. You don't want to be judged for what you did by outsiders who weren't there, fine. Nonetheless, I refuse to agree with the choice of creating an original post in this topic in short saying "tech raiders, have fun." I do not challenge the sovereignty of BCOM to enact it's own choice to disband. However, I do also support the sovereign right of other alliances to choose to protect that AA, which my own alliance did for some time. Left and right however, you have challenged the right of those alliances to protect an alliance of which you are no longer a member, even so much as to offer BCOM's members to find new homes... time that you did not allot to them in your abrupt disbandment. If my friends and allies do not share so much as the same cause as I do, then so be it. I don't feel that it's your place alone to ask that nobody speak of BCOM again. You have found a new home. That much was sorted before this topic was ever posted I think, as I don't believe you would have posted such an inviting message to prospective attackers. This makes you a self-serving individual, of who left their alliance their alliance hanging when things weren't going their way. You can spin it however you want, but ultimately, that is the perception that you gave others by choosing such a rapid way to disband and invite the hounds in to feed on the remains of your brothers-in-arms. Despite all that, and to return to my point, you are in no place to say that I am unrespecting of an alliances sovereignty simply because I chose to take part in protecting a disbanded alliance against the wishes of a former member of that alliance. Blackstone Commission is no longer under your control, therefore you are no longer the single point of contact to determine its sovereignty. If it makes me look like a moron to say so, then so be it. If others that support my position change their mind about supporting my position based on what I've said so be it. Right isn't always popular, and popularity doesn't make you right. So your argument is based on some serious logical fallacies. Please come again.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1294166136' post='2563219'] 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] 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. [quote name='Cager' timestamp='1294159733' post='2563155'] That's hilarious. Why should he forewarn members of his alliance of disbandment. It's not like they forewarned him that they were going to be completely useless alliance members to him when they joined his alliance. [/quote] 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.

Wait, who's protecting who?

Could this be true?

must... stop... laughing.