Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phineas

  1. Actually I was more curious if Zoom taking control of that nation and then declaring war on GOD is something he will take ownership of, you know, since he is the new leader of the nation now.
  2. Whatever it takes, so long as you follow through with the claims you stake.
  3. Now that this ruler claims you lead this nation, will you defend it alone or enlist Non Grata's aid now that it is under attack again?
  4. Never implied that, Zoom. Out of curiosity about whether this was a raid turned vindictive like only NG knows how to do, or simply a creative liquidation, I pmd the nation ruler several days ago asking what his previous alliance was. He read it, but did not reply.
  5. Former member of Non Grata liquidating assets or something else? Also, hi!
  6. Source: Imperial Announcement from the Global Order of Darkness
  7. Phineas


    That's a rather exaggerated reaction to the OP, where he described how he white-hatted a cause and went to war himself.
  8. magicninja and kerschbs, I appreciate your answers. You've given me much to think about.
  9. Phineas


    I like the cut of your jib.
  10. Perhaps instead of unsavory, I should have been more direct and wrote the following: Exclusively via the C&G Union, GATO is shackled to the following alliances and blocs that are quite open about not sharing anything resembling an embrace or support for world peace: TLR: MDoAPs with Doom House members MK and GOONS and Pandora's Box members GOONS and Non Grata ODN: MDoAPs with Doom House member MK and Pandora's Box Member Umbrella GATO: No direct military treaties with Doom House or Pandora's Box alliances The International: Also no direct military treaties with Doom House or Pandora's Box alliances Two of these alliances are not like the other two, thus the OP re: GATO. INT gets a pass here for obvious reasons.
  11. I'm sorry that you misundertand me. I questioned how GATO's members reconcile the disconnect between a charter they hold very sacredly with their membership in a bloc that has some unsavory ties and associations. If anything, I understand the place where they find themselves today a little better. They feel they are operators in a political web that has little rhyme or reason where principles are concerned and, as such, it appears that they think they are trying to make the best of it. Also, thanks and you're welcome.
  12. Thanks for the honest answer, Laslo. A few more things make sense to me today.
  13. That's Hope you're feeling okay today!
  14. Touché. Does the membership of GATO believe that membership in C&G embraces and supports world peace?
  15. The preamble to GATO's charter in part reads as follows: Does the membership of GATO believe that membership in C&G promotes world peace?
  16. Depends on the situation. For example it's fine for a member to sign up on another alliance's forums to be go meet new people etc. but it is not ok for said member to say speak on behalf of GATO or offer up treaties without MoFA or AC consent. War or spying without authorization is something we really have zero tolerance for because those things can get a whole alliance in trouble and most incidents leading to those actions can be handled easily through diplomacy. A member will be charged every time. If ever there was an alliance that took it's charter, laws, and tenets seriously it is GATO. We don't put these laws in place to hold down the membership or to try to be inefficient. It is so proper thought and oversight can be given to any action and loose cannons do not jive with that philosophy. I can see where Walford is coming from in some respect but he should know better than anyone that those words in those documents do not bend for anyone. Source: Why I joined Polaris
  17. Thanks to everyone who has invested their time into this. It's greatly appreciated.
  18. I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players.
  19. I fixed it for you, Phineas. My bad, thanks.
  20. You know what? I think I am asked the wrong question in the OP. I think I got it backwards. Now i think the question should be is there any alliance someone can name that DOES NOT have a dogma? Because what I am seeing now is every alliance has at least a basic dogma regarding what they'll do to survive, and most of the politically active ones (excepting those mentioned above here) also have a dogma like the NPO's. I'd posit they just don't talk about it the way the NPO or the CoJ or anyone else with a pronounced dogma does. If that's true, our problem is not lack of dogma, but lack of admitting to any dogma. Maybe this is why somuch debate is style over substance? That's the best defense mechanism?
  21. I hyperlinked ours in the OP as a truth to power dogma, Roq. Whether that's what you think of it or not, I welcome your thoughts. Per the history shared last night, hopefully I have not gone all Grey Council on us. And yes, Deinos' moralism not being mentioned shows again how much I have to learn.
  22. Also, that was a great show. Seriously. Brehon and Schatt were both on point and it was pretty awesome. If anyone has not heard it, hopefully someone recorded it because it is really worth a listen.
  23. My apology for the slight, chalk it off to the elephant in the room? But yes, the CoJ also should have been highlighted in my post, especially given its loud purpose and history.
  24. So… I listened to a fair deal of Schattenmann's chat with Emperor Brehon last night. The part where they talked about developing (or just getting) better dogmas struck a chord here since I have been tempted to be a full-time idiot poster since there really is not much good debate on the OWF.... and being an idiot seems to get the most attention around here and.... why yes, I am an unapologetic attention seeker. So, some reaction: if I understand correctly, the NPO's dogma is to have no rigid dogma, they believe in living the idea that an alliance should be able to change as reality changes. Please correct me if I misunderstand or mischaracterized that. Now what about other dogmas out there? I know the gpa has a dogma of neutrality at almost any cost (correction from Jerdge, this should read at any cost ). I know the goons have a dogma of something awful at all costs. I know my alliance has a dogma of speaking truth to power at a lot of cost, but what about other alliances? What other alliance dogmas are out there that might be less obvious but are more talked about? Do we have enough dogma pieces to build on to start making another kind of sense out of our politics?
  • Create New...