Havvy

The lowest of subpoints sums up an entire argument? And in what way does it invalidate it? Your counter-argument is naught but an assertion that ones opinion affects one's argument, which is false.

A long life of actions leads to humility, not to a perception of greatness. To not understand this is to not understand ones place in the universe. I am only of the alliance under special circumstances. At no point in the past year have their edicts been binding on me. Why? Because I care not what happens in the game. I care about people. I care about the general mesh of varied views that CN brings to IRC. To be quite honest, up until today, I had no real understanding of the peace terms being offered. I myself give no opinion on them. They merely are outside of my sphere of interest. Even still, my nation takes damage from this war, but I have not even attempted a single retaliating strike. I'm probably close to or at 0 infrastructure right now (unless I'm facing the worlds most incompetent forces). I've denied any aid. Why? Because I affiliate with CSN socially, not ethically. All-in-all, for what I am debating, that is a straw man. Whereas on the other hand, the proclamations of people trying to act elite are in my sphere of influence. You are not 'great'. You are pathetic. Especially when you say to hundreds of people specifically (NSO and NpO members) that you are greater than them. And it does not matter to me who would make a statement like this. If Liz or Penkala or Allied_Threat or anybody else I hold in high regard made an equal post, I would also point out their foolishness, and bring them to the lower rung known as humanity. Your God complex is the issue at hand here.

Small blurb about me: Yes, I'm in CSN. No, I don't know anything about the war front. I'm only in it to stay on the IRC channels. What I'm about to say is not in defense of CSN, but rather a statement about RV after looking at his words. Rebel Virginia, you are a conceited person whom does not understand the fallibility of ones self. To call oneself "Great" in a blog post just to belittle through nothing but baseless assertion is the ultimate act of anti-intellectual elitism that proves you have nothing to offer this conflict. You delude yourself into thinking you have importance, but in the end, this is nothing but a game. Your so-called statement of importance contains no factual information. So please, in the future, save the peoples of Bob your screed. And furthermore, the claiming to be all that is good is a slap on the face to those of us with even a moral and ethical ounce in our body. It is never good to announce yourself as that which is good. It leads to the dangers of apathy into understanding that which is good, even if you were the embodiment of all that is good, which you are not. I see many morally repugnant characteristics about you. (tl;dr: Claims of greatness aren't.)

I'd vote Legacy, if it said I could. (Maybe I have to post to vote?)

Lunar Eclipse = Eclipse of Bob behind the veil that is obscurity for this may very well be the last large war.

LEWS: Lunar Eclipse Winter Solstice (which is starting about now!)

The CSN will continue to stay ahead of the RIA!

To alleviate confusion, I shall try to explain what is going on, using only the information gleaned from the arguing in this thread. At the end of a war, the NPO had to pay reparations to fifteen alliances under surrender terms. Part of these reparations was a minimum monthly amount. If the NPO failed to meet the minimum monthly amount before all reparations were paid, by default, all fifteen alliances would be in a state of war against the NPO, whether or not reparations were fully paid. Then, this war started, and alliances are at war. Since sending aid to nations at war is an act of war, and the NPO did not want to be declared on alliances that are considered its 'allies', the NPO asked for a temporary suspension of the agreements. Fourteen alliances, supposively, out of the fifteen, agreed to suspending the terms until the wars were over. Only one alliance (again, supposively), GOD, did not agree to this. As such, the NPO must send its minimum reparations to GOD, or the treaty will enact. Now, I'm not sure in this case if only GOD would be declaring or whether all fifteen alliances would be. I'm not even sure if it is possible for fourteen alliances to change the terms when there is one defecting from agreement. In effect, there should be a declarative statement of action from these fourteen alliances saying what parts exactly they are suspending. As long as the monthly minimum is suspended by these fourteen alliances, these alliances do not have to declare war for breaking the treaty. Now, you might ask what right do they have to suspend parts of the treaty? That I cannot answer unless there is an unwritten agreement about surrender terms that alliances do not have to act if the terms are broken. Or maybe the surrender term gives them a CB to declare war, but not a mandate? In any case, it seems that the fact that fourteen alliances agreed to suspending this part of the treaty is challenged. Further, if the challenge is true, the NPO can technically send reparations to alliances that do not need reparations anymore, unless there is a clause against that. The clause for how much to send before terms end and the clause for minimum reparations per month are separate. At least, that is my understanding of this mess. All in all, it is a good case study of contracts.

I suggest that you guys are on Maroon, for Maroon is epic and spamilicious. Having an alliance known as Epic will even more solidify it.

And I was just about to declare....ah well, good show.

Them ^^

Mad props to you and your awesomeness. You are more respectful then those that chickened out.

Join the Islamic SuperPowers. We needs moar members.