MOAIS
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by MOAIS
-
-
-----
I don't know if you got a recruitment letter from us or not, but something you should know about The Corporation is that we WON'T pay you a small fortune to join. It's not that we can't, it's that we just don't believe in it. If we have to pay you to join us you're not worth having. What we WILL do is give you an income--we'll teach you how to work tech trades and we'll arrange the trades for you. In this way you earn an income, not a handout...and you help us at the same time because you learn how the game works.
Also, our recruitment letters don't beg you to join. In fact they simpy let you know we're here and they spell out what we stand for. You have to visit our forum and apply for membership--which may or may not be granted depending on how you respond to our "essay" section (which asks, among other things, how you define "Honor" and "Leadership").
The Corporation believes, as you do, that most nations on Planet Bob are herded like sheep...but we also believe that most nations probably should be. We're not interested in sheep. We want the shepherds.
Visit our forum and apply, if we seem to be what you seek. If we aren't, then honestly you're not what we seek either.
Only one way to find out, though...
-----
-
-
-----
This morning an apparent deserter from the DevilDogs' conflict with NPO began flying The Corporation as his AA. He is not, and has never been, a member of our delegation.
A warning message has been sent to Donitsu Nation ( http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=128821 ) making our position clear. He is currently involved in three separate wars; those three nations have been advised that he is not a Corporation member also.
This is an official statement from The Corporation.
-----
-
-----
PART ONE of TWO...
---
I fear you have badly misunderstood the initial article, and seem to assume that is claims a number of things that it does not. I will not go through all of these in this response since for every small misconception you make I would have to respond with a lengthy explanation, so I will focus on the most significant and hopefully these will cover most of the others as a by-product.I assure you I haven't misunderstood your original post; I believe you and I equally suffer the difficulty of trying to fit our rather large points into rather small sentences and paragraphs. In truth, as I reread my response to your essay (several times) I didn't like the way parts of it came across. More specifically, I didn't like that it appeared to draw larger conclusions than I had supported in fact. Such is the nature of this forum, though. There were also elements of your theme that I wanted to agree with but I did not address them simply because I didn't have the time. I'll try to do that within this response.
Firstly, I do not suggest that freedom is "all or nothing;" indeed, much of my article concentrated on outlining the different levels of freedom available under different forms of sovereign. The point I was making, as outlined in the graph I included, is that as the absolute freedom of the state of nature decreases, the freedom of potential of civilisation increases; not in a binary fashion where it jumps straight from one to the other, but along a gradual, exponential, slope.I mistakenly used the word "freedom" while too-quickly trying to address the point alluded to in that particular paragraph. I wasn't referring to freedom as defined by your "absolute freedom/compromised freedom" slope, but rather to the goal that waits at the furthest end of that slope. Perhaps the choice of "all-or-nothing" to express what I was trying to say was also poor. Again, taking this part of the discussion much further would require a category unto itself, and I don't wish to do this because it hijacks the original topic. Suffice it to say that by "all-or-nothing" I don't mean the immediate outcome of an action, but rather the goal itself. In other words, your original premise seems to indicate that it must be the goal of every nation to reach a state of absolute peace, absolute growth, absolute prosperity, etc., and that only at the very end of this progression exists absolute civilization. This seems to presuppose that there is no place for conflict in the building of a nation; that strife is a condition to be avoided by whatever means necessary; and that conditions that fall anywhere along that slope you've mentioned are by default a "lesser" civilization. There's more (good/evil, yin/yang, Coke/Pepsi) but I just don't want to go far down that road. I just mean to say that Utopia is not necessarily a condition to be envied or striven for. Also, I missed the graph to which you refer (if it was an actual image). I don't know if I just somehow bypassed it or if this was a browser problem. In any case I did not see anything of that nature.
More important, however, is the claim that I assume that everyone in an alliance is exactly the same, with the same interests, concerns and priorities. In fact, the entire premise of my argument lies on the basis that this is not the case, since if it were, there would be no need for a sovereign institution at all, as conflict would be non-existent and everyone would cooperate in total harmony -- the state of nature would be a utopian paradise. Rather, the point is that an absolute sovereign resolves the conflict of interests inherent in groups of individuals, thus allowing them to peacefully work together and achieve their full potential.I never said that you assume that everyone is the same; I was expressing my belief (perhaps too vaguely) that in order for the supreme sovereign to be the best form of government everyone would have to be the same. From there I simply carried the discussion along with that in mind. In the final full paragraph of my response I reach the same conclusion that you do regarding the Utopian paradise, though I didn't state it fully either--I emphasized the end result of NOT having that harmony. I disagree that an absolute sovereign resolves the conflict of interest inherent in groups; his power merely forces others to bend to his will, compromising their own beliefs and attempting to ignore (internalizing instead) those conflicts. I also submit that as the size of the group increases, so does the size of the conflict (due to the more varied bases of belief, desire, ability, etc. from individual to individual) until it is no longer reasonable to believe that the conflict can remain substantially hidden/internalized, and certainly not without at least the threat of force--which would wreck the premise that a supreme sovereign provides a platform for more freedom. Real human history proves this point more than any other; dictatorships work well for relatively short periods of time, but invariably crumble under the weight of an increasingly disenchanted/disenfrachised populace.
TO BE CONTINUED...
-----
-
-----
Now let me apologize to Walford; I had no intention of aiding in the hijacking of your thread, but under the circumstances I felt compelled to answer. I assure you I won't have need to do that again. I'll leave that to the proper parties.
Please continue with the topic.
-----
-
So many words, so little meaning.
A couple of random responses:
1. \m/ is not dangerous, they got destroyed in less than a week by the Legion (LOL!)
2. MOIAS (too lazy to see if that's correct) is verbose and cocky and irrelevant.
3. Josef Thorne is a god amongst men.
4. LOL Walford
5. God I love you Starfox.
-----
It is difficult to address the rules of the game "in character", so let's get this out of the way so that we may eliminate any questions (and perhaps avoid having to cross this bridge yet again). Regarding the highlighted portion of the quote above, if you wish to address the substantive basis of a post I make, In Character and absent your poorly-disguised attempts at character assassination and intimidation, you are welcome and within your rights to do so. Anything outside of this, such as said highlighted portion, is known as FLAMEBAITING, and considering you're making a point to conduct this type of personal attack in multiple threads, could also be considered STALKING/HARASSMENT. For a complete description of these terms and a definition of the rules pertaining to them you can go here. In short, if you can't confine yourself to a civilized discussion of issues, within the rules set by the board administrators, I feel certain it would be better to not say anything at all. Sooner or later I'm convinced a moderator or administrator will notice your disregard for these simple tenets, will investigate other threads in which this type of behavior has taken place, and will take appropriate action.
Does that clearly enough get my point accross?
-----
-
-----
So many words, so little meaning.A couple of random responses:
1. \m/ is not dangerous, they got destroyed in less than a week by the Legion (LOL!)
2. MOIAS (too lazy to see if that's correct) is verbose and cocky and irrelevant.
3. Josef Thorne is a god amongst men.
4. LOL Walford
5. God I love you Starfox.
The entire quoted post is OOC Spam which makes it by definition irrelevant. So while MOAIS (too disinterested to bother to correct you) may indeed be cocky and verbose, at least he has the intellect and good sense to make posts which abide by the rules and are pertinent to the topic at hand.
-----
-
-----
I understand OP's problem with getting all of his ideas across in a limited space. For the sake of brevity I will likely be similarly constrained. When I draw a specific conclusion in this text, take into account that I simply cannot provide every element that went into conceiving that conclusion. I will touch on the basics, reinforce with the most general reference, and leave a lot to simple common sense. Unfortunately, even common sense isn't so common--so should you disagree with my conclusions please look first to the commonly-held ideals and maxims behind them, and then to the more specific areas from which I may have drawn my references.
Make no mistake when reading my response; I admire the work presented here. This is obviously well thought out, deeply considered and I believe the OP has made a concerted attempt to utilize a great deal of advanced logic to reach his conclusions. The problem I have with it is simply that the advanced logic has no bearing on the premise; the premise fails on the most basic logical level. This is because the most critical aspect of the argument is seemingly ignored, and conspicuous in its absence.
That aspect was correctly identified by a subsequent poster. It is simply the Human equation.
First let me state that I have a problem, I think, with the initial basis of the discussion; I interpret the OP's foundation as being flawed because it seemingly regards freedom (and anarchy, and growth, and prosperity, etc.) as all-or-nothing propositions. I believe he also fails to adequately recognize (probably because to do so would require a book-length manuscript) the correlations between these elements, and their interrelated dependencies. However these are not issues I want to address (doing so would require more time than I care to devote)...though what I am going to discuss has direct bearing on all of these things.
The issue at hand is the failure of the premise to take the Human element into account. I contend that the only way absolute sovereignity could work in the long-term (for a small collection of people) or could work at all (for a large collection of people) is if every human being in the group believes exactly the same thing and does exactly the same thing as every other; or more specifically, if every human's interest is exactly the same as every other human's interest, including the sovereign.
OP - "An absolute sovereign cannot be corrupt because his will is law. If the argument being made is not that the absolute sovereign will invariably be corrupt, but that he will invariably act against the best interests of the alliance, then I again must disagree. The implication here is that the sovereign will act in his own self-interest, with the further implication that self-interest comes with the negative vices of personal power and greed (I disagree that this is an inherent part of self-interest, but I will act on the assumption anyway since I don't think it matters).
The fatal flaw in this argument is the assumption that such a self-interest will damage the alliance. It is true that it will damage an electoral system or a system with a separation of powers, but this is only because it will damage the system and by extension the alliance: an absolute sovereign has no such system. Since an absolute sovereign already has total power within the alliance his self-interest there is satisfied, and so the only self-interest that can exist is in expanding the strength and influence of the alliance. This is actually a positive development for the alliance, not a negative one. Where you need to be truly concerned about corruption is in alliances that do not have an absolute sovereign."
OP suggests that the interests of the sovereign are precisely the interests of the Alliance; further, that the interests of the Alliance are the interests of all who are members. If everyone believes exactly the same things, and does exactly the same things, this suggestion could be defended. Of course this is not the case. Humans represent the entire gamut of life, from the basest forms of "nature" to the highest forms of reason...there is no possible way that every interest of one individual could coincide with every interest of another, let alone ALL others. "Expanding the strength and influence of the Alliance" may indeed be the goal of the sovereign, and may be viewed by the sovereing (and the OP) as a positive development, but using an example from Real Life, the Amish would most assuredly disagree. How much further could we take this? How about the establishment of a single language (surely in the best interest of those who speak that language, but what of those who dont)? What about the establishment of a national religion? A sovereign would have to speak every possible language and believe every possible religious theory to utterly remove himself from the willful (and necessary) pursuit of his own self interest, which must automatically be at the expense someone else's interests. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the two EXCEPT if everyone believes exactly the same thing and does exactly the same thing. This is a basic truth that even the most benevolent and least self-serving sovereign just cannot get around.
Reading ahead, then, OP must revise the theory to say that it is in the best interest of most of the Alliance to be controlled by a sovereign with absolute authority, whose self-interests match most of the rest of the Alliance. Even if this were true (and it likely isn't), THE MOMENT THAT DISTINCTION IS MADE the premise fails because it depends entirely on the idea that the Alliance is the only way for any nation to have freedom, security and prosperity...but being [in an Alliance that is] controlled exclusively by a single all-encompassing entity whose ideals and interests lie counter to our own is the opposite of freedom, and certainly the opposite of security. It should also be remembered that the moment we (humans) feel sufficiently disaffected we will engage in behavior that is definitely not to the benefit of the others in our group--whatever group that may be. In this case, unrest of this nature could result in abandoning of assigned responsibilities, general revolt, espionage, coup d'etat, etc.
I do think it is fair to say that an Alliance may benefit when dominated by one individual whose interests closely match those of the Alliance membership, but naturally this will not be everyone. Case in point, some of us find the act of Tech Extortion (some call it "Tech Raiding"...I call it strongarmed theft) simply abominable, while others commit the act as easily as changing underwear. For those who condone this activity to band together under a single leader who also finds the practice acceptable would presumeably be beneficial to the entire band of similar-thinkers. But what of those who do not? They simply could not exist peacefully, prosperously or freely within those environs, and would need to band together under their OWN single entity who shares their distaste for the practice in order to work toward their vision of peace, prosperity and freedom. Carrying this forward, and assuming that everyone could find some niche group that satisfies their individual needs, goals and ideals, the OP's premise STILL fails. The failure is proven when we extend the premise further forward, in terms of scale.
The original poster's conclusion only allows for the supreme sovereign--his conditions do not permit any other form of government. On Planet Bob, a "nation" is simply one human being. By extension then, an Alliance is a community of humans. It is generally agreed that an Alliance provides the best opportunity for a nation to grow and prosper specifically because of this "strength in numbers". Taken on a larger scale though, the Alliance is no more or less protected than the individual nation. My Alliance of 33 nations is no match for OPs Alliance of 600+. My membership is protected from individual raiders, but not from aggression by larger groups of nations. The Alliance becomes a de-facto "nation" of its own, in a sea of other similar "nations", no further removed from the "state of nature" described in the original post than before those individual humans joined my group. The only difference is that the attacks they endure may come less frequently. How does an Alliance escape the ravages of a larger group? There are only two ways...one would be to engineer a mass defection to your Alliance; the other would be for your group to merge into the other, in both instances creating an even larger Alliance. The merging of different-thinking Alliances, like the merging of different-thinking nations, involves the clashing of ideals that simply prevent, at some point in the exercise, a single ruler from adequately representing the entire mass of the society.
Reconciling these realities requires compromise. A "supreme sovereign whose will is law" and "compromise" simply do not go together. They cannot. The OP's thesis states that the absolute sovereign works best in all situations. Clearly this cannot be the case.
I would also point out that if one continues the progression up the chain, to the natural conclusion where all of the individual "nations" (Alliances) are brought under one umbrella to escape the "state of nature" described in the OP, the individual nations must all think exactly alike or we are simply returned to exactly the original state from which we emerged--individual nations doing their best to survive and grow amid many other nations who do not share our ideals and who may choose to molest us. One ruler cannot impose his wll over the entire planet--but for the OP's conclusion to be accurate (that leadership by a single sovereign is the best--and only--way that nations can truly be free and grow) it would have to follow that he could.
It was a great read, though...and I'm sure will continue to be.
-----
-
-----
We aren't. It's a regretable side effect to standing up for what you believe in, and a price many NONE members are willing to pay.An admirable response to the question posed. Kudos.
-----
-
-----
I too hope he remains, and I believe he is a necessary aspect (evil? virtue?) in the CyberNations environs. I admire his prose and if he is earnest in what he claims to be doing, I admire his attempt. Mostly, I'm just happy that no matter the (somewhat silly) bashing he often takes, he still comes back for more, with aplomb. And--as I said--he is just the flip side of the very same coin we Alliance leaders/members often occupy. I'm sure that what peeves people most about Walford is that one has to work awfully hard to goad him in these forums, and he's so damned hard to exterminate.
I suppose now I've just compared him to a cockroach (someone will draw that parallel, anyway)...well, consider that a positive reference then. La cucaracha has been with us for millions of years, lives in every environment, hides extremely well, freaks everyone out, and won't die no matter how much we wish they would. And in an Eastwoodian sort of way, "Walford the Cockroach" kinda has a nice ring to it.
-----
-
-----
I can't speak for Walford, but I have to question your statement here. I haven't seen a post by Walford on the CN forums in months. It seems to me that there are far more people putting inane crap on the international stage who need attention than a man who posts once every long while. Walford needn't say anything noteworthy to get attention, his name draws crowds wherever it appears.I should have perhaps made a better reference, or offered a more specific example of where my conclusions emerge from. My experience with Walford personally is limited; I spoke briefly with him to settle a roster issue involving a member of my own delegation who, very early in his CN career, was also involved in None. The nation in question asked me to resolve the issue which is why Walford and I had occasion to speak. Our discourse was brief, and the time I spent on the None forum was also brief, though it did leave me with the beginnings of the impression I have regarding an overdeveloped ego. Again, let me state clearly that I don't find this to necessarily be a bad thing, and in fact it's a trait shared by many if not most who play this game and post on these forums...myself included.
The other encounters I've had with Walford were not actually with him, but with others who had encountered him and were posting on their own forums, or in threads on the CN forums; drawing on what I had seen personally and what I could infer from these instances, and capped by the series of posts in this thread, I made the (perhaps overzealous) psychological observations that I did.
-----
-
-----
I've read the entire thread, and I've seen some of Walford's stuff before. Let me first say that he's seemingly quite bright and actually does mount intelligent discourse (I won't vouch for the truth of what he says, but he presents it well and it at least carries the appearance of legitimacy). This stands in stark contrast to many who post on these forums. It's actually rather refreshing to see someone who for the most part doesn't wallow in the shallow end of the intellect pool, or absolutely revel in his own asshat behavior. Sadly, far too many do.
Much of what Walford has to say is an accurate description of life on Planet Bob. Many of the noble ideals he professes to support are truly far overdue here as well. We are supposed to be leaders of nations, and groups of nations; were we truly of the leadership elite, we would be able to regularly conduct discourse without constant reference to our military might or how many nations we've ZI'd this week. Alas, this is why we play a game of leadership instead of using this time to actually lead. But I digress.
The point of my post is to point out that Walford is most assuredly his own worst enemy. First, he apparently has a history that will forever make it impossible for him to be given any serious consideration when dealing with the stronger nations/Alliances on Planet Bob. Without this the most he can be politically is a mild amusement. This status will make him interesting for short bursts, but ultimately meaningless within the political realm which is, in truth, the real reason to get involved in CyberNations in the first place. There is only one other possibility for maintainng an interesting gaming environment, besides politics--and Walford is his own enemy in that arena as well. It's good for all, though, that he is--or he could pose a real pain in the butt.
I'm speaking of the military realm. Consider this--it is readily apparent to anyone with even a passing interest in human psychology that Walford's ego is simply off the scale. He craves, absolutely NEEDS, attention. He NEEDS the limelight, which is why he keeps appearing on the radar. He positively must have his hand in things, have his say, have his way to the extent that he can. I don't fault him here--I and many of you are exactly like him. That's why we're all here.
But imagine for a moment if he DIDN'T need recognition. Imagine if, like the Jackal, he did everything in his power to AVOID detection? Imagine if he was clever enough (and he might be, were it not for his overdeveloped sense of self-worth/self-importance) to truly develop a shadow network of Nones? I don't believe it would really be that difficult. Concerted nation adds/deletes, hidden communications, effectively-concealed and properly "run" spies, well-managed money laundering--think about it, he could really cause a lot of consternation. It wouldn't be difficult; it wouldn't be easy either, by any means...but I'll bet it could be done.
Just a ponderance on my part.
PS - Walford, take no insult from my post. I'm remarkably self-inflated too. I actually admire that in a person.
-----
-
-----
But you are right on one thing...this really is pointless. I'm making reasonable and rational points and you just want a fight. "Your squadron is stronger than my Alliance". Good one.
You can have your thread back. I'll find intelligent life to have a mature discussion with.
-----
-
I would consider the fact you're new to the game/community, that you're from a nobody alliance, and your rampant misjudgments of the situation at hand very "relevant".
You have no idea why we did what we did and when you speculate so wildly, you only make yourself look foolish.
I've been here for six months so I'm hardly "new" by CN standards. I am from a comparatively small Alliance (just as the Orders were once small Alliances) but the size of my delegation does not impact my "relevance" in any case, and as I've said before--I may be misjudging the situation in your opinion; it remains exactly that.
You refuse to look at the impact these mass defections have had on an Alliance that was once your very own ally. You keep saying that I (and apparently nobody else) has any idea what actually has gone on, but you don't bother to elaborate--just the standard "We're the Orders, we do what we want, I'm stronger than you, your infra will suffer' claptrap. And you think my statements make ME look foolish?
What's so insane about all of this is you keep saying "What WE did". I've pretty much made it clear throughout my posts that the Orders (since many of us consider NPO/NpO as conjoined twins) needed to back away from NoV for awhile. I've repeated that enough that it should have by now sunk in. Does that mean that CIS should have done the same? The point remains that NoV has much less of a chance of getting their affairs in order now that the entire Planet views them as an Alliance on their way out. Even Legion is given a better chance at this point of surviving their recent troubles--and they surrendered! NoV isn't even in an Alliance war and they have more going against them at the moment. Check out some of the IRC channels, and the Cboxes on the major Alliance forums. The demise of NoV is the hot topic of the moment. Why?
-----
-
The four man squadron I lead has about 60,000 more NS than his whole alliance does.
And this is what you would consider "relevance" to the issue at hand?
-----
-
-----
OOC: So that we don't get closed for excessive spam, I'll briefly remind you...I'm the guy who used to coach baseball at G'burg College. I was married on the Battlefield, my wife graduated from GHS, we talked about how surprisingly good the food was in the dining hall. Remember now?
-----
Oh, an IC post so as not to be strictly spam: "MOAIS of Libertaire thanks the ranking delegate for maintaining the decorum of the thread and providing all an opportunity to express their take on situations at hand."
-----
-
-----
OOC: Hello, Dilber. How are things in G'burg this fine evening?
-----
-
Supports no actions against us. It doesn't say they support us. Additionally members in the thread I linked were members when they posted, as this announcement was made after.
Supports no action vs. support in this case is an issue of less-than-critical semantics. The meaning of the post was clear.
And I have no doubt there were some reactionary, even inflammatory things said and done in the immediate aftermath of the Fall declaration. The fact remains that NoV appeared by these posts to be involved in a difficult internal implosion, and that the leadership (as expressed by Martens) was interested in crushing the part of the rebellion that had ill feelings toward the Orders. My whole point remains that these desires and actions should have garnered support, not multiple kicks in the teeth. It is entirely possible that Martens' legs were knocked out from under him before he even had a chance to right this situation, purely because NoV was automatically placed in a position of (real or perceived) weakness on the world stage--and indeed within their own ranks, at that point. It was the mass of treaty cancellations that placed them there.
-----
-
Yes I have seen that thread. It is irrelevant to my point.
It DIRECTLY addresses your point. You said that no NoV'ers were supporting NPO. Does this thread and it's leading post not clearly indicate otherwise?
-
That thread was restored quite a while ago here, but thanks for trying to base your craziness on something we can all see is false. I see no NoVers siding with the NPO in that thread, only (a few) NoVers supporting it.
Also, lol, MOAIS.
The NoV'ers were addressing the issue in a thread that they started apart from the DOW post by the "Whatsitsnamers". That thread begins with this post from Kaiser Martens:
"Norden Verein does not in any way endorse any actions against IRON, GGA, NPO, or NpO.
All Nordlanders found to be colaborating with Fall Gerechtigkeit, are considered instantly expelled, and will not be in any way protected.
-Martens"
...and can be found in its entirety here.
OOC Edit: I thought "Gerechtigkeit" meant "God Bless You", but my German sucks.
-----
-
-----
MOASIS, I think its clear your opinion is neither wanted or needed here. We told you we weren't attacking you.You're doing all of this for attention. Its quite sad.
Everything I do on CyberNations is for attention. It is the same for you, and anyone else who takes this game seriously. If we didn't want attention we wouldn't be on the Forums. If we didn't seek attention, Cybernations would be a "pay bills-collect taxes" exercise in perpetual boredom. And I speak for myself, just as you do. Who values or desires my opinion is not your call to make. They may have no value or interest to you, and it's certainly your prerogative to dismiss them. But dismiss them for you, not for your entire Alliance or all the others outside of the Orders who read these posts. These others can speak for themselves.
-----
-
-----
I'm one of the (lucky?) few who actually got to read the entire thread that was posted by the rogues who attacked the NPO nation that begins with "Y" (I'm pretty intelligent, but I can't spell or pronounce the name of that nation, or the name of the Nordreich-inspired group that attacked it). I was actually following the posts as they were being made, literally right to the moment the thread was deleted without warning. From there, I sought out the posts of NPO regarding the situation, and the NoV posts of the same nature. Naturally the attacks were not amicable, but everything else between NPO and NoV seemed to be. Those two Alliances dissolving all "paper" ties was a no-brainer...simply something that HAS to be done in order to allow things to settle and, if nothing else, to allow all parties involved to save face if things went badly.
My response was to the flood of treaty cancellations that followed. I initially posted because I'm a big fan of Honor, as you can see. It seemed to me (still does) that these cancellations were a piling-on that served no good purpose; that these cancellations failed to recognize the fact that NoV appeared to be siding with NPO rather than against them, and that if anything NoV needed support through this difficult time, not abandonment. Even if there were behind-the-scenes things that were unpleasant, it seems this would make it even more important to try to prop up a government that is expressing interest in reforming and getting their house in order. Lastly, and I think everyone on Planet Bob would agree especially having just seen it in GWIV, it seems that treaties are entered into and broken with no more regard than one would give a made-or-cancelled dinner reservation. To me, the ultimate statement of trust and cooperation is a treaty; sure, they have escape clauses. These are a necessary evil. But I don't believe these clauses should be invoked unless the most sinister of betrayals has occurred. It's true I haven't seen every shred of negative evidence against members of NoV. What I have seen, though, is an earnest attempt by those in control of the Alliance to correct mistakes made by their (former) members. This leads me to believe there is no reason for anyone outside of the direct fight (namely NPO and NoV) to rush to judgement and activity. This is kicking the leadership in the teeth before they even have a chance to prove themselves earnest, and I believe it weakens them in their fight for control of a potential civil war. These are positions I spent some time developing, intellectually. There is nothing knee-jerk here. Certainly I could keep my opinions to myself (and perhaps that would be wisest) but until this last few hours I had a pretty good reputation as a voice of reason in unreasonable times. I've even heard from NPO members that my opinions have value to them. It seems there are members of the Alliance for whom this is not the case.
At any rate, we (the members of Planet Bob) can continue to run up charges on our credit cards (signing treaties) with no intention of paying for those purchases later (honoring the treaties if times get tough or questions arise); or we can make a stand and say "I've committed to you--I'll see this through until you give me reason not to". I just don't think that was done in all cases regarding this issue. It seemed to me (still does) that some of NoV's previous "supporters" were too quick to jump ship. That's a slippery slope that Planet Bob as a whole is already gliding down at a pretty good pace; it was my intention to try to draw a halt to this practice that I frankly find disingenuous. I believe (even now) that thinking men will understand completely where I am coming from.
That's the whole thing in a nutshell.
As to my reaction to the threats (idle, real or perceived) I received, I suppose I can be viewed as weak (abandoning my Alliance in a troubled time) or strong (removing myself from my Alliance to spare them trouble they did not deserve). I'll let the rest of you to judge that. I've taken counsel from NPO leaders who tell me there is no threat and I choose to believe them because they've given me no reason not to. Much like a treaty partner, I'll take them at their word because that's what civilized folks do. We have no treaty, it's true, exept that I would describe as the bond of men; we say what we mean, we mean what we say, we keep our promises.
Surely there are those who will read this who agree with that philosophy without question. You'll know if you're one of them if you're nodding your head right now. If you're scowling, there's simply nothing I can do or say that will translate effectively. You will not change your mind, and I will not change mine. This is okay, so long as this kind of impasse is not met with words and actions of war. That is not the way of a leader. This is my opinion.
OOC: Besides, the Steelers lost today and that put me in a really rotten mood. One can't expect me to be completely on my game when the Black and Gold were off of theirs.
-----
-
Threats expressed were a warning to stop and were given not by those who could actually implement a decision for attack on you but from regular membership.
OOC: In any case, thanks for the clarification.
-----
-
-----
Threats expressed were a warning to stop and were given not by those who could actually implement a decision for attack on you but from regular membership. They in content and character were not saying your getting attacked, and I do not know why you jumped ships so quickly but well whatever works for you I guess,....its your decision to be made.Anyway, we are getting sidetracked here.
I am swimming alongside the ship. This way if there is cannonfire directed at me the ship is less likely to be hit; if no artillery is brought into play I can still grab hold of the lifelines and rejoin my comrades.
I'm selfless, but I'm not stupid.
-----
Here's your decleration of war
in Alliance Politics
Posted
-----
This is not true. We would absolutely care.
We would care that the soccer [expletive deleted]'s were taking up space on a perfectly good football field.
(That's American football, for those of you who want to confuse the two).
-----