RedPhx

My condolences and to his family keep your heads up high sounds like he was a hero.

I RedPhx surrender to The International and Orange Defense Network.

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1340082582' post='2988594'] Your alliance should try this first and let us know how it works out in practice. [/quote] If it comes up I will argue for it but since I'm not in the gov for my alliance there isn't much I could do. Also another way to shake things up is the paperless alliance idea that has gained ground in a very far and distant land (pretty much an alliance with no treaties and relies on their FA departments rather then treaties for support) which would help with situations where alliances don't agree with the war but join anyways as well as boost cooperation between alliances since you need to keep them on your side if you want to stay strong. In response to questions that came up about it in the far off land it isn't an out for your alliance when it comes to allies but it isn't a chain to be used to drag eachother into wars.

[quote name='Mephala' timestamp='1340032544' post='2987675'] I appreciate your desire to throw out suggestions and improve the game.[/quote] Glad that someone got the idea. Even when I was thinking over the idea last night I knew that most if not all would flat out say bad idea, but the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of the suggestion are what I see as the reason why CN is slowly dying off which is because one bad war and there goes 3 or 4 years if not more of growing often times in a war that your alliance didn't start but went with it because of a treaty. If anyone has another idea even if no one else likes it, it isn't doing anyone any good staying in your head.

Will put it the same way I put it with another situation recently. Man up. You have played for 5 years so it wasn't like one of those new players who joined an alliance and decided okay there is this war function I'm bored so lets find someone I could hit. If you could see if you could take a ZI which may be easier then spending months paying off what they ask (I honestly don't know how they figure since my nation is one and a half year old but going off of a nation I saw ZIed and how fast it rebounded afterwards), or just find someone who could help talk to them about it.

I first off want to say that I used the term "Zeal" because I had remembered seeing it somewhere not sure where and when I saw ZI the I always looked like a l (first is a capitol i and second a lower case L) and my mind just connected the two. As for my suggestion. There have been a lot of big wars involving a dozen or two alliances on each side, there have been alliances who have said we will fight this war with our allies but we think that the CB is bogus, and there have been more and more players who say that these massive wars have driven away players thus hurting Cyber Nations as a game. My suggestion to fixing these three problems is this, whenever an alliance wants to fight their long time rivals they could just go to them and say we don't like eachother lets fight. I know several players who like fighting and feel that this is a war game so there are some alliances that may go for this. Both alliances bring in their 3 closest allies who want to fight in the war and it just remains to those 8. I know that there are some who will dismiss this idea right off the bat but I feel that whenever there is a problem then the best thing to do is not to complain or point fingers but rather to start throwing out suggestions and this is mine.

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1339885998' post='2986008'] the key difference is that umbrella is not mk [/quote] Both are Doomhouse and both declared on an alliance that they don't like very much. And besides the only one to criticize the CB was in the Deino's DOI which if I understand correctly says that they are still going to help Umbrella.

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1339876159' post='2985911'] As for declaring war without a CB, I think you'd find there'd be even more of an uproar than there is now if we did that. [/quote] Above is the argument and I only wanted to present a counter argument below. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111502&st=0

Wanted to post here that the I in ZI in most programs looks like a lower case L and I have seen the word Zeal used and so I used them interchangably. After having the definition of ZI explained by Tiber Septim from TOP I will use the more commonly accepted ZI.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339834516' post='2985714'] Jesus christ. Stop calling it zeal. It's ZI or ZI listing. [/quote] I apologize for all the confusion and will start using ZI instead of zeal. As I'm sure you noticed before this started I didn't speak up much outside of CRAP's forums and this topic doesn't come up often in the open forums.

I read the page the link was to and wanted to ask to be clear would the final punishment for those in your most serious court be banishment? Also wanted to say that when it comes to CSN's decision I can't honestly say what would have happened if it was up to me but I feel that each alliance does things a different way since we have completely defensive alliances, we have monarchys, we have triumverates, we even have a purely democratic one who had what I see as one of the most amusing wars in the history of the game over how seriously to take a word in their name. What I am getting at is that each alliance has their own ways of doing things and when it comes to zeals even if it involves two alliances then it all comes down to how those alliances handle things and not how another alliance outside of the matter views the punishment handed down.

[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1339827806' post='2985653'] the mushroom kingdom steadfastly opposes zeals and encourages all other alliances to do the same [/quote] Honest question here. Suppose a spy like Rovatele had gone into the Mushroom Kingdom and gave someone else information (leaving Dave93 completely out of this scenario and using Rovatele since there is not much arguing about what he did), how would the courts have decided in worse case scenario of conviction about how to handle it?

And also to Banksy not sure which one since I don't remember seeing it and there aren't many examples of proceedings available to the general members.

[quote name='cookavich' timestamp='1339827120' post='2985640'] Mmhmm, interesting analysis. I don't think I had ever seen it that way before. [/quote] I had an alliance on another game and it was destroyed on the inside by a spy which is why I feel so strongly about them. And as for the information gathering part on the same game but a different server I was an intelligence officer who was good at gathering information from friends and foes alike but never crossed the line of lying about why I wanted it or who I was helping with that information (even left an alliance because it was helping one that I strongly disliked when the war started). And as for the perspective itself I have had a lot to think about and pride myself on trying to see from different angles.

I see it as a type of death penalty really. Reading the Courts part of the CRAP forum it says that the Zeal should only be for extreme cases, and I agree with CSN that someone who would be part of a spying ring that goes in to get information through dishonest ways should be dealt with harshly. As for information gatherers there are always going to be someone that doesn't like a previous alliance and moves to another and add that with CN Spies (the type you buy for $100k on the game) and also people who aren't careful with trash talking is there much that you can't obtain without stooping to that level?

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1339821549' post='2985580'] Is this actually a recognized thing or are you making it up? [/quote] I am going off of how it was explained when my alliance had a player that we had a zeal on.

And @ Drai a zeal is where someone does something bad and the alliance affected attacks you till you have no more Infrastructure, Tech, or Land. It usually is something that affects the whole alliance and this war is because a guy named Dave39 either accepted information from someone who was spying on another alliance or was part of that spying (only part of that story has been told) and so Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations who the information came from declared a zeal on Dave39.

This is the last message on here till my challenge of an actual reason why someone who worked with a spy who sabotaged alliances should be let off the hook due to friendships. I am putting this here because when I first joined Cyber Nations I took some time to actually read the recruitment messages and even though it didn't make it into the top 3 MK's was one of 6 that I kept till the day I decided. I just wanted to contribute a more honest recruiting pitch and say feel free to use it. Tired of playing games in an alliance that follows the rules? Then come join the Mushroom Kingdom. We here at the Mushroom Kingdom pride ourselves for being friends with only those who say we use any excuse to fight whether its friends helping eachother out, or using an existing war to surprise attack alliances that we aren't even fighting. Now for the 30 days if you join bringing with you a zeal from someone we hate we not only will defend you with a war and hypnotic phrases but we will even make you out as an innocent victim. So remember maam or sir join the Mushroom Kingdom and you will be safe from our trolling.

I don't know how this fits into the big picture so I won't say much but wanted to say Kudos to Umbrella for leaving the sugarcoating at home and just bringing the pain.

I have given up on arguing over the hypnotized repeatings of we we are doing this for Dave93 who is being unfairly punished. But I will ask you (or anyone else in your alliance) to give a good reason why someone who knowingly accepted spied information something that looking at the history of Bob is a very serious issue to most if not all of the alliances including MK, should not be held accountable for his actions. I have presented my best argument and will remain silent till I see something from MK that closely resembles an argument.

The top 3 reasons for why the CB is legit is.... #1) Dave93 is our buddy (so in that case all hail the mighty Dave93 whose joining an alliance just before he is done with a game led to their starting a world war. No seriously how often does a new member with a history of being involved in the biggest spying scandal since I started playing get that much respect?) #2) The barbaric CSN is persecuting poor innocent Dave93. After all its not his fault that he was caught with spyed information on another alliance and to top it all off the mean old TIO threw him to the wolves when he did nothing at all. Oh boo hoo hoo just grow a pair already. #3) Poor Dave93 is being chased away from a game that he is already leaving for something that we won't deny that he did. Now MKers that is how sarcasm is done so enough with this we are with Dave93 and fess up that this is just an excuse and nothing more.

Ooc: In a past game I was a leader of an alliance and when I started there were some simple rules to pretty much keep the alliance strong and one of them was that if you did something to start trouble you could ask around for help but officially you made the mess so you need to clean it up. In character: I have read most of the arguing that has gone on here and I have yet to see the man himself (meaning Dave) speak up and try to clear his name. Now with that said how is it an unjust punishment for an alliance to zeal a player who knowingly read spied information which in the past has been a valid CB in countless wars, and how is it any of MKs business to defend that person? Throwing this out as a thought and not much more but is there any mention of MK in those notes of yours Rotavele?

How am I chasing people away? I have only fought in one war (the VE-NPO war) since during the Doomhouse Invasion of the Chestnut Accords I was having computer problems and only on for about 5 minutes a day so I quickly sent out a note and went into peace mode. I certainly never did anything to start one, and never even conducted a Tech Raid. I also have never trolled around making people feel uncomfortable whether its here or in my alliances forum or IC room. And so I ask that since I never did anything to make it harder for people to play and never made people uncomfortable did you just throw out the first baseless accusation of this little run around?