Crymson

This shows very admirable courage.

Thank goodness. It's finally over.

To very old and very close friends---congratulations and cheers!

(Post deleted)

What's that emoticon?

Our charter has no stipulations concerning consecutive terms or term limits. Dr. Dan, shortly after elections, made the decision to leave the game---not the alliance in specific.

I believe that friendship is vital, yes. Our best and most productive relationships have always been with alliances we've been friends with. Those allies of ours with whom we clashed most or disagreed most in the past have been those with whom we had less in common and less of a friendship with. Plus, who wants go to war for an alliance one doesn't truly care about? At best, it would be done reluctantly.

I'd like to nominate myself for most effective Jewish leader of an alliance in 2009. Wait, you say no joke nominations? Darn.

Attaining the #1 spot in nation strength was never a focus of ours, and it was as much a surprise to us as anyone that we ended up in it. It is a meaningless status to us; to be honest, it's more of a pain than anything due to all the attention it generates toward us. In contrast to previous holders of the spot, we are not at all geared towards holding it. It pains me that assumptions are drawn that our foreign policy is at all influenced by the desire to do so.

Shut up, Moridin!

WUT did indeed need to fight in order to gain supremacy, in contrast to Q, and it did indeed succeed at this. However, I feel many forget that the WUT's ascent to the pinnacle of political power also marked, in the event, the beginning of the bloc's clear, steady implosion.

Yes; I was a bit involved in the affair in question (assuming I've correctly identified the matter you're referring to), and it left a very acrid taste in my mouth as well---on many counts, my own behavior included. Life is life and hindsight is 20/20.

I, too, feel that the Drinking Buddies was the bilateral treaty with the greatest impact upon the game; it dictated world affairs---even during the presence of the WUT, as the three alliances involved in the DBP probably comprised the majority of the WUT's strength in any event---from the post-GW1 period all the way to the start of the Unjust War. Whereas many here have named the WUT as the bloc that most impacted the game, I'm going to disagree and apply that honorific to the Continuum. When the World Unity Treaty was signed, there was a de-facto bloc of opposing forces (indeed, the WUT was created in part as a counter to these); not until Great War III, when the latter were decisively defeated, did the WUT become the premiere political entity in the game---and the bloc did not last long in this position, as it almost immediately began to splinter at this stage, likely because of the absence of viable opposition. Indeed, this period in which the WUT was the ascendant bloc in the game was very short; between the end of Great War III and the start of the Unjust War (which saw a much-larger coalition rise against and obliterate the the already much-reduced WUT) was only a period of five months, and indeed that period saw the expulsion or withdrawal (not counting those alliances that withdrew after the war began) of a whopping six of the original thirteen signatories to the bloc. The Continuum, meanwhile, was not formed in response to any opposing bloc; it stuck together despite the lack of outside threat; it contained the vast majority of the strongest alliances in the game; it was indisputably the dominating military and political force in CN until the last month of its existence, a period of some sixteen months; and it was indeed the most powerful presence in the history of the game.

I'm told Roquentin is a midget, so I'll have to vote for him despite him not being on the list. Do you have proof that any of the alliance leaders on your list are small?

That is one butt-ugly avatar you've got, Roq.

Edit: Forget it; this fellow is just looking for attention.

Believe it or not, we do not discuss what we are going to (figuratively) eat for breakfast every day before going off to prepare it. In other words, we do not hold discussions on every tiny matter. TOP speed exists when a very significant matter, i.e. entry into a war---the most pertinent outside reference to TOP speed, it seems---is on the table. Some may have agreed with the policy, while others may have supported it out of defensiveness against whatever condemnation or blanket criticism was being leveled towards TOP on the issue. I'm sure you understand.

As noted, Coursca was a member of IRON at that time. Per the involvement of Bodvar and I, Bodvar's single appearance on your list takes the form of him saying that TOP has no issue with some fellow from Vox---pretty universal from us, and we only participated in that as a matter of form---whilst the only place in which I appear on your list is in a thread in which I tell a PoW from the NpO that the war's end means that he's free to leave the PoW AA. I don't see your point.

The actions referenced were entirely my doing and nobody else in TOP's; I made the pertinent decisions independently. As such, any judgment of the entire alliance on the basis of those actions really doesn't fit, and nobody else in TOP should feel obligated to defend what I did. Hindsight is 20/20; my actions were somewhat thoughtless toward those who were fighting alongside us, albeit unintentionally so.

Our opposition to MK as an extended connection through the treaty web (i.e., MDPed to Citadel allies of ours) was entirely based on the desire to avoid any conflicts between our allies; significant animosity existed between MK and the NPO at the time, and the latter was a close ally of ours at that point. Our own reluctance to open friendly dialogue with MK was, likewise, rooted in the fact that the NPO was hostile towards MK. We never outright disliked MK. In other words, none of this was a result of any hostility or dislike within TOP towards MK; indeed, nothing of the sort existed. Our intention was not to act against MK's interests, but rather to avoid conflicts of interest.

Historically, TOP's membership has only taken exception with four types of alliances: 1) Alliances that have openly threatened TOP. 2) Alliances that openly threatened TOP's allies. 3) Alliances that are shameless and frequent international bullies, i.e. the GGA of old (no offense intended). 4) Alliances that seem---whether true or not---to openly hold enmity towards TOP. If any members of TOP have trolled your alliance in the past, it happened because of the reason #4. Our alliance is community-based, and we have no reason to pick fights with or insult those who do not openly bother we or our allies. You will note that relations between TOP and Sparta were very good for a very long time; unfortunately, they went downhill due to events at the start of the Karma War, and relations between our two alliances are not so good these days. Please do not pretend or imply that this is a one-way street. Whatever you have heard from members of TOP, rest assured that we've all heard quite a bit of open hostility from Sparta, both at the membership and at the government level. Nevertheless, trolling by members of TOP is neither encouraged nor tolerated; we are all aware that the actions of each of us in public reflect upon the alliance as a whole. If you do see members of TOP openly trolling on these forums, please speak with a member of TOP government, and the matter will be dealt with. However, I have not seen much outright trolling by members of TOP, and so I find it hard to believe in the existence of the general volume of vitriol that you're referencing. For the record, we do not take umbrage at references to 'TOP speed'; the speed at which we react in some circumstances is a necessary part of our democratic process, as discussion by the membership is necessary in order that the government be aware of membership sentiment on the issue at hand and so be able to act upon that sentiment. I agree with your assertion that a self-perpetuating cycle of negativity exists, and that such damages the relations between Sparta and TOP; indeed, I feel that we at TOP are at times overly reactive to criticism. However, I disagree with your implication that we are the sole culprits in the operation of this cycle. Note also that attempts on our end to re-establish dialogue at the government level have been met with general silence; I'm sure we'd all welcome a change in this area.

The Order of the Paradox did not---indeed, has never---advocated eternal ZI; and neither the alliance body nor I---indeed, the job of the Grandmaster (that which I held at the time of the WotC) is to represent and execute the will of the membership---at any stage used or encouraged the use of eternal ZI during the conflict in question. The implication that we did actively support and/or engage in this practice is, just as your allegation that we and others involved forced members of the opposition to 'beg' to continue to be allowed to play the game, a serious one, and such should, if earnestly made, be supported by evidence. If you would like for this discussion to continue, please present evidence to support your claims; in lieu of such, we can do nothing other than write off your words as an attempt at simple character insult and so ignore them.

I voted Citadel because of individual members, notably me.

Congrats to you both.

Congrats on a bloodless, stable transition. Power can corrupt, and it can take a lot of courage to stand up against one in a higher position. Kudos for taking action, and best of luck to the new government.