AtheistRepublican

I'm just a little out of the loop here. Are we talking about people benefiting from their own multis? If so, good show! Or are we talking about people who have (unknowningly) bought tech from nations who turned out to be multis? I'm not aware of any such purchases in my past, but I have sold donations, and one such nation was deleted during mid-payment (I don't know why, however)...I'm concerned if I am going to have tech randomly disappear from my nation, will I at least get a message about it? It's not as if I have knowingly traded with rulebreakers. If I am applying a $25-30 donation to their nation I assume they're legit about it, after all...

And we're still at 100%?

I'm selling the donations. So I'm paying the $30 or whatever. :P

Yes, this is acceptable. I'm doing multiple donations, so if others are interested, please shoot me a PM. I'm also especially looking for a re-occuring deal.

Still doing this, and donations got an upgrade!. :) Any donation level. 600 tech for $30 500 tech for $25 400 tech for $20 etc.

Please send me a message here or in-game. Thanks!

Ahh MK...in all my wars, I had never been at the receiving end of a 3-nation quad before, it was indeed magical... I apologize to my opponents, I worked too much during the week to really participate in this war, to my regret. But I did get some hits in last weekend, which was all I wanted. And of course my goodbye nukes... <3

[quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1341095824' post='3000791'] This has all the earmarks of putting yourself into anarchy which would result in giving yourself a defeat alert. This would account for the infrastructure and tech losses as well as the missing spies. were you missing any money? Overdeployment could do it directly. How sure are you you only deployed to just above 20%? Or you could have indirectly become overdeployed. It's possible if you were real close to the line that winning the GAs put you under the 20% and caused you to anarchy yourself (the land gained from spoils increasing your number of citizens which in turn lowered your percentage of troops home under the needed 20%). [/quote] I razed land, I didn't capture any. The only thing I gained from the GAs was tech, but as I said, I gained ~32 according to the reports, but only gained ~6.7 in reality. The thing is, I lost the 32 spies BEFORE I deployed any troops or did GAs. So I was fully 100% at home, did the op, says I lost 20, I go to rebuy and I'm missing 32. So maybe someone did an assassinate spies on me at nearly the exact same time, and I just never received any notification? I am not aware if I was missing any money. I was relatively sure of my math when deploying, but it's completely possible I self-anarchied. I was always under the impression I would get notification on the Confirm screen before deploying if I was in danger of self-anarchy? The self-anarchy does make sense for everything but the spies, though.

I am either experiencing a very weird bug, or my account was compromised and someone is messing with me. I performed the following military operations today, and experienced these weird things: I had 800 spies (I checked before sending). I performed a successful spy op, but lost 20 spies. When I go to rebuy, however, I am missing 32. When deploying, I keep 20% of my soldiers (just over). Yet I was put into anarchy (I am not sure if this happened when I deployed or did my GAs). When doing my GAs, I won both, but I am down 101 infra. I also won ~32 tech, but I am only up 6.73. I am not sure at this time if I lost more units than reported when doing my GAs (I wasn't paying attention when I rebought =/) I am not getting any messages of spy ops being performed, but even so, there is more than 3 ops worth of damage being done. Also, the reason I wonder if it was my account being compromised, is that after I finished my GAs I was logged out (or rather, encountered the login screen).

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1340244204' post='2990939'] Zeal with it. [/quote] Exquisite.

You just watch yourself, MK. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems.

[quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327925652' post='2910540'] Also it appears to me, as a casual observer, that the decision to remove Bob and Joe was made by a few people, that just happened to include the owner of the forum, and not by the membership. If the removal was done with the backing of the majority of the membership, then why would there be a need to ban Bob and Joe from the RoK forums? If this was truly about what the majority of the membership wanted and not just a few coupers taking control, why was Bob and Joe not allowed to make their case to the membership? [/quote] From what I understand, they did make their case to the membership. The membership's response was outrage, which led to the removal and then the ban. However, I do admit that there is not a whole lot of detail being released. On the other hand, Bobby Joe's removal has sparked the return of some very longstanding RoK members who left because of their actions. Soooo...you know, as I said, if this isn't really supported by the membership, I suspect we'll find out soon enough. But I have seen nothing but a united front in all the interactions I have had with RoK members so far, and no, that does not just include the new gov't. That being said, how RoK decides their politics, and who to allow or not allow on their forums, is really none of our business. We know, as allies, that they are stable in their core values. This coup has shown that they won't compromise those core values even if it means losing face on the OWF. And honestly, nothing in RoK's actions have surprised us, because that is exactly how we would expect the alliance to act. The only thing that has surprised us in all of this are the actions of Bob Ilyani and Joe Stupid, who have readily admitted their actions to us in private, and still yet we were stunned in disbelief that they could stoop to such a level. They were the real unstable elements of RoK, apparently. You guys are taking their BS "about a few people" manhandling the coup hook, line and sinker. But honestly, I won't insult you, because I know you guys aren't that gullible or stupid. You're using this as an excuse to exercise past grudges [ooc]and OOC grudges[/ooc], so let's just be up front about this all, shall we? In fact, let's be clear on a lot of things. Hardly any of you care about RoK or it's membership. You do not care about the individuals of this alliance or whether "proper procedure" was followed in a coup, of all things. So please, let's cut the crap. It's contrived outrage, and it's beneath you.

[quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327918439' post='2910509'] If possible, would you please explain how it is possible, under the RoK charter, for you to remove Bob and Joe? [/quote] If possible, would please explain how it is possible, for Bobby Joe to actually rule RoK if the membership doesn't support them or doesn't follow their orders? Would Bobby Joe, after cancelling all of their other treaties, have come to NATO, NSO or NoR and gone, "Our members don't listen to us, we need you to attack them so that they'll do as we say." Apparently, though, they would have gone to MK and TOP. So, sorry that you guys lost out on being RoK's nannies - you still have Bobby Joe to babysit, though. Seriously, though - and Mega, baby, I still love you, but seriously. RoK's charter doesn't forbid coups. Most charters do have a clause in there about treason or punitive action for violating charter or what have you. RoK's charter, however, is ridiculously short; it just has four rules...one of which they violated by allowing, if not encouraging, others to do. It has no guidance on what should be done in the situation of ANY charter violations...but obviously something is done, or else why even have the rules in the charter in the first place? Their charter is lacking in words to give freedom to the membership (and honestly, the government) to do whatever they please. And at the end of the day, if the RoK membership doesn't agree with it, they'll leave the AA or start attacking each other. Soooooo...I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, except to say that the RoK charter says bum all about anything, which I suspect the alliance already knows.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1327909440' post='2910473'] And here I thought we were done with the whole GOONs thing. I guess it's better than always being an inactive bottom feeder alliance, like NATO is. [/quote] That was honestly a typo on my part, but I'll stand by it.

[quote name='Chickenzilla' timestamp='1327909128' post='2910466'] This is scarrrrrryyyyy [/quote] We at NATO know fear: [img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-va1ci-ZcVzQ/TyY_warjoNI/AAAAAAAAAuk/45hL-fex-mQ/s400/Chickenzilla.png[/img]

[quote name='Njero' timestamp='1327907707' post='2910438'] But at least we'll be there to cuddle away the pain. [/quote] We are magnificent cuddlers. United Equestria doesn't have &#%* on us.

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1327907615' post='2910434'] Oh, NPL? It's time for Doomhouse to clean house. Doomhouse declares war on everyone not in Doomhouse. [/quote] SHARK WEEK!

[quote name='Chickenzilla' timestamp='1327905468' post='2910383'] Roll NATO over this. [/quote] [img]http://www.thehammerclan.com/docs/rollover.png[/img] Done. Next?

Certainly a trial by fire for any new government. All our love, RoK.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1327904907' post='2910356'] What a shame. [/quote] Yea, this weirdness of being politically aligned with the GOONs has just been too much for my heart. I'll miss you; be sure to send someone by to talk dirty to me. #cnnato

[center][img]http://cnnato.org/images/natosflag.png[/img][/center] A long time ago, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization protected a fledgling alliance by the name of Ragnarok. While our official relations with this alliance were not always politically aligned or connected by treaty, we have always maintained a deep respect and admiration for the Ragnarok membership. Our current treaty with them, despite being optional in defense and aggression, was one that we literally only signed after a [i]year[/i] of re-establishing our friendship with the Ragnarok membership after our previous falling out. Although recent wars had aligned our alliances politically once again, at the time of the treaty signing, this was not so. Neither of us entered into this agreement lightly, because even though the writing of the treaty included the word "optional", the commitment was a serious one. We never had any intention of going "lol, sorry, odoap" to a situation where Ragnarok truly needed and requested our assistance, and we were confident they felt the same. Now, while we ourselves have made and broken treaties in the past based on particular governments, and certainly we do not begrudge or intend to belittle those who do likewise, [b]we want to make it absolutely clear[/b] that in this particular treaty, our allegiance is [i]not[/i] towards whoever or whatever the government of Ragnarok may be. It is towards the members that we know and love. Ragnarok is full of many wonderful and awesome individuals. They know honor as very few alliances do and we are proud to call them our friends. The membership of Ragnarok have made their [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=108801]choice of government[/url] clear in this matter, as we believe all alliances have the right to do, and we support the new government. Our treaty is not cancelled, and honestly, it never even entered our minds to do so.

Love you guys! Congrats on [s]sex[/s] six years!

o/ MONGOLS But not o/ for declaring on GO.

I LOVE YOU TFD!! HAIL HAIL HAIL!!

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1323484970' post='2871573'] Oh yeah, woo hoo us, for all of you saying "here is to another 3", why you hate us so much? [/quote] Here is to another 3 + ∞ years, Olympus. A lot of the Oly gov, plus TK, are what got me interested in being an active member of my alliance, so I have you all to thank for where I am now!