agafaba

never mind lol

Water, Aluminum Link in sig, also will change to black once complete.

I can join, will switch to orange if it completes

[quote name='Marsupial Bob' date='05 June 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1275729563' post='2324391'] Yeah, I'd forgotten how much I hated trading on Maroon. There was a reason I went to blue. Also, I'm bailing on this. Recommending http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=86932 Sorry agafaba. [/quote] Haha thats ok, been fighting nuke rogues for the last month anyway so trades dont make too big of a difference. No infra = no income no matter what circle I am in

[quote name='Marsupial Bob' date='05 June 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1275697863' post='2323933'] Aaaand, suddenly it's two nations left. [/quote] Its the curse of the almost completed trade circle, something I am very familiar with lol.

Water aluminum, willing to switch once its confirmed http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=289088

Nice deal, sign me up if there is still room.

You cleared a line, and although you lose a part of yourself in the process it gives you room to grow. Also it helps increase your score...

[quote name='Walford' date='10 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1268252359' post='2221195'] Not so fast. For those who wish to review NONE's purpose [note the comments]: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=7829 @OP: so what is your history? I see you were recently in Ronin. [/quote] Walford is here, his message is clear. Get used to it. Also I just like walford better because he actually took it to a level much further then anyone else will. (and still does it seems)

Walford did it better, may his holyness rest peacefully.

[quote name='SilentFury' date='05 March 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1267750074' post='2214282'] Fail thread .. Thread is fail.. Why is it important if he switched his AA seriously stop riding him.. [/quote] People are trying and failing to turn it into a pr stunt, and possibly an excuse to start sanctioning nations they are at war with. Its clear a large number of players have decided that the new definition of rogue is wrong and everything at this point is redundant.

[quote name='bluesasquatch' date='01 March 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1267404792' post='2209113'] Woo Hoo! And Canada wins gold! 14 of em! Congrats to our new council, and well done to our outgoing council members. [/quote] Making Canada beat the record for most gold metals during an Olympic game. Congrats to the new counsel, hopefully Pen will enjoy his break away from leadership.

[quote name='Acca Dacca' date='23 February 2010 - 03:51 AM' timestamp='1266897080' post='2198433'] Bushido didnt disband for us. but sweet [/quote] Wait what, and here I thought we were being sneaky by keeping our forums and AA. You guys did perma-kick Craven out... I suppose that would count. Then again I think Hoo said a while back he didnt care anymore, does that mean you lose your immorality point?

Gremlins shouldnt be too surprised at the backlash, the way the OP was worded implies that if the Zenith gov was wrong about what they thought the membership wants they will pay dearly for it. This looks like a strong arm tactic to scare the vote your way. To be honest when I first read it this is exactly what I thought, but after reading some of the posts... I dont believe it is, and I think its just poorly worded. It is good for the alliances at war to agree to a ceasefire to accommodate their democratic combatants.

[quote name='Thunder Strike' date='18 February 2010 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1266459131' post='2188595'] That has to be one of the most incompetent posts I have seen in a while. You realise if you had done this at any other time that GLOF would be a smoking hole in the ground right now? You guys timed this war with the 57th in a way that none of their allies would be able to attack you. And the most disgusting thing of all is that about one day after Nexus peaced out of it's fronts GLOF declares that it wants out. It was cowardly and opportunistic. [/quote] Actually if history has shown us anything its not what you do, but how big the friends that stick up for you are that decide if you become a smoking hole or an irate poster.

[quote name='Ecogeek' date='18 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1266522794' post='2190059'] I did [u][i][b]not[/b][/i][/u] say it was a conspiracy to take down the 57th! I said it was a conspiracy to [u][i][b]help[/b][/i][/u] the 57th. Read. [/quote] Actually that wasnt directed at you, haha a lot of people have said they were trying to take the opportunity to beat you guys down. Sorry for the confusion.

Your right, GLOF only wanted to take down 57th themselves. Thats why they allied them in the first place, and gave them money to rebuild... it just wouldnt be the same if GLOF didnt do it themselves. If only I had saw the truth earlier All this nonsense about conspiracies to take down 57th is a joke, say what you want about bad decisions but you cant honestly believe it was all planned out by GLOF can you?

[quote name='The Great One' date='17 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266435164' post='2187800'] Perhaps in the fact that it has been proven to a high likelyhood that the IP is real? Yet GLoF and its few supporters here continue to refer to it as absolute fact that it was faked? [/quote] But it hasnt, 57th simply said it was... Verifying with a neutral source would go a lot further to claim as such then the word of the accused.

[quote name='The Great One' date='17 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266430431' post='2187717'] Schatt, please stop. All you are is a fancy Charles the Great. You are here out of your hatred, dislike, grudge, whatever it may be against the 57th or Ven. You really bring nothing to the matter other than proving yourself to be a has-been who still yearns for the spotlight. Edit: Missed the o in pr[b]o[/b]ving [/quote] regardless of your opinion of shatt, where do you find fault in his logic exactly?

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='17 February 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1266400817' post='2187368'] So let me get this straight. You attacked your allies without bothering to talk to them and now your declaring the war over without talking to them? This is what you was said on your DoW. Since you did not bother to check before and then quickly found out that the screen shot was indeed a fake your entire reason for war was exposed as a fraud. Then you just started clinging to the idea that although screen shot is a fake, the one it said was fake is also fake. And now your just walking away after you attacked your ally and everything is suppose to be ok? And once again you did not even bother to talk to them? Brilliant. If it was your goal in all this to win the most poorly run alliance on Planet Bob award, then you sir have won hands down. [/quote] It wasnt their only reason for war. As well the 57th is in a much worse condition, and is free to not accept the peace if they really want to continue fighting several wars against alliances each larger then themselves.

[quote name='NoFish' date='17 February 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1266370786' post='2186630'] The fact of the matter is that you have no proof he did anything, so you're falling back on arguments like "he could have done it!" and "it's the sort of thing he'd do!" [/quote] You do have to consider that a lot of people are stating he wouldnt do it, so when they say those things its in response to that. If your going to argue something you have to be ready for them to counter it.

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1266294886' post='2184469'] You don't see why you should have a different level of certainty for not going to war as there is for going to war? Really? If you're [i]not sure[/i] about your CB you don't go to war. It's as simple as that. It's a pretty fundamental principle. A very small amount of uncertainty is needed to prove a CB bad, while a very high amount of certainty is needed to prove it good. Do you see the difference now? And I'd like to note that you [i]still[/i] haven't given me examples of [i]anything[/i]. Does the concept of arguing using facts scare you that much? [/quote] I simply dont have the patience required to sift through thousands of posts looking for when it has happened in the past. I dont have any links ready to.. well anything in the CN forums.

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1266293707' post='2184412'] No, I'm saying that the screenshot wasn't proven to be a fake to a degree of certainty reasonable enough to go to war over - much less with a high-level treaty partner while ignoring the cancellation clause. I cannot remember any time an alliance has gone to war because some of the pixels in a screenshot given to them looked kind of funny. You keep insisting that there's precedent and I keep calling you out on it not being there. Feel free to correct me at any point in time by showing me an actual example, until then I'll keep assuming that there isn't one. [/quote] You know there has been precedent before to change events because a picture has proven to be fake, just as many of you are saying should be done here. I dont see how that is any different from starting a war for the same reason. As well I dont understand what you would consider reasonable, any photoshop done half decently is going to look real except for the exact evidence found in these pictures.

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1266292522' post='2184331'] I asked if you could give me a precedent that you and GLoF keep referring to. So far all I've gotten is long-winded generalization. [/quote] So let me understand this... sending fake screenshots to mess around with an alliance isnt a valid cause for war in your opinion? Just because it isnt an everyday thing so several members dont have links to possibly year old threads where it happened before?

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1266291689' post='2184274'] I've been hearing this and similar lines from GLoF and friends quite a bit, and I gotta wonder, what are all these times where screenshots have been proven fake in the past? I'm really having trouble remembering a single instance where a war was declared over artifacts or discoloration in a picture. [/quote] Maybe not in a while, but I can guarantee that most if not all screenshots that were used for CBs lately have gone through the works, not to mention there have been times when shots were proven fake that were first assumed to be true. If people stop wars because of pixels why is it hard to understand why it could also start them? [quote]Yes, going to war over a possibly fake screenshot before resolving the issue in private channels with your MDP Partner is reasonable to you. I see we're not going to get anywhere. [/quote] I dont know why I would trust the word of someone who by all evidence sent fake screenshots to me to mess around with my alliance, especially when that person is the leader of an alliance. Regardless of 1 minute or 1 month the screenshots are still as fake as they always will be. If you want to argue how long they gave before they decided to act instead of waiting then thats a different matter altogether. Personally I think it was a bit rash, however I have already stated I might do the same thing myself in their case.