Charles VI

In five years? Without a reset, it is impossible for the game to continue for that long.

Oh come on, it is necessary to include a smiley for a post to be taken as a joke?

What, does my alliance affiliation prevent me from making a parody of a mere observation? I didn't mean to make a statement, just a joke.

They could neither make a comment of surprise nor of lack of surprise. They must take a position.

For future posters, please follow the already-established trend and ensure that your post includes all of the following: A clear expression of either admiration, praise or adulation for the Viridian Entente. Utter surprise at this announcement, or if applicable, a smooth ''I know why'' or ''I saw this coming'' comment. To the VE: pity to see it come to this. That said, I have absolutely no clue what happened or what instigated this announcement, so I'll leave it at that.

Not that I even compare in reputation and influence to the fine people that have already put their name to this document, but I'll sign.

Nice reference there. +1 for you.

The GGA affair is so confusing. First NPO controlled the GGA, then it was the GGA that was controlling NPO, and now Vox Populi controls the GGA. Dear God, GGA changes hands so fast.

Of course, of course, no need to point out the very obvious. Just noting the ''good will'' that these types of treaties try to establish among a sphere when the Senate positions were partly designed to increase competition for influence within a sphere.

Always interesting to see attempts to establish sphere unity - especially when the number of significant alliances is greater than the number of Senate seats to distribute.

So who's finally going to be on the show tonight?

From what I've been hearing, I voted #cupcakery. For that same reason, though, I'm staying clear of that channel.

Forums - NSO. A combination of Invisionfree, a humongous flag at the top with little else to it, and a plain grey background. Avatar - A deformed human face? It's pretty ugly. Mistake - Probably number 3, though it was a hard choice.

Just because something tries to influence the public opinion doesn't mean it isn't true. However, in most cases, propaganda doesn't outright lie - it simply doesn't care about the truth

Newb. This Week in Pacifica. A weekly ''journal'' published by Schattenmann. Some periodical attempt to discredit the New Pacific Order, basically.

Basically five people trade with each other. Once a successful trade ring is established, you can be pretty much secure that your trades will not be cancelled lightly, unless one of the trade ring members goes inactive.

Nice flag, brilliant forums. You should have been President long ago Jorost. Also, remember me?

Basically. But I had to point out that people are much, much less willing to loose stats when they have spend a huge amount of time gaining them.

Experienced players dominate the politics of established alliances, and it is usually these same players that have been building the most time into their nation development. They are the same ones who are most opposed to war, as they are the most apprehensive of loosing their preciously-gained pixels in a war against an opponent of similar strength. At this point in the game, where the NS of many nations is the result of years of buying infra and collecting taxes, war is unlikely. Also, I have made this point before, but what the heck: war, from a purely game-mechanics viewpoint, is highly unprofitable and undesirable unless the war in question is an absolute tankroll over the opponent. When the opposing sides are of similar strength, it is in the interests of no one to go to war, as each side will undergo too many losses regardless of who wins. Sure, one might say, both sides loose a lot of NS but fighting and winning the war will still yield a relative gain. That might be true, but that fails to bring about war for 1) the reasons outlined in the first paragraph and 2) the potential belligerent sides realize that in the case of war, whatever major party that -isn't- involved in the war will come out greatly advantaged. In order words, the amount of time that this game has passed without a reset and game mechanics jointly discourage war.

This poll is Florida in 2000, ArgoNaut is Ralph Nader, and Nemesis is Al Gore. ArgoNaut: stop stealing the votes to validate Nemesis' rightful claim to the boat.

Maybe I'm reading the section incorrectly, but I find nothing wrong with Section V. The emphasized part clearly indicates that this ''sweeping appropriation of power'' to attack others with no limitations cannot be invoked unless there is an ''act of Hostility'' committed by the party in question. Now, let's examine the OP's interpretation. The emphasized part is clearly untrue. As said before, any military action by the OBR would only be legally justified if an initial act of Hostility was committed against the OBR. Again, under the wording of Article V, the right of the OBR to ''decimate their alliance'' would be dependent on that alliance being engaged in Hostile activities towards the OBR.

When in doubt, pick C.

Well, that's why I said ''the only alliance there''. Still, how many more AAs of significant NS can there be? It's still... jaw-dropping.