Sigrun Vapneir

Yes you did make a sort of clarification there, but it seemed almost too much an ad hoc justification for why of course your current alliance in current situation wouldnt do it but really how seriously can we take that? You know what you did as Emperor yourself, but you know of real infiltration, not just receiving information, being sponsored by every alliance that was a contender at one point or another for the past, oh, 3 years? Really? That's an awful lot of alliances for you to have pretty deep knowledge of at once, not just your own.

How on earth do you figure I have my head in the sand? I know some alliances do this. I believe I made that perfectly clear already. I disagree that *all* do this. You claim that "everyone" does it and *that* is a massive exaggeration, and a self-serving one at that. Either that or you are, like so many others, falling into the trap of conflating "spying" in the special cn sense of infiltrators with normal intelligence gathering aka "receiving information." I was actually rather hoping this was the case and you would clarify but I guess not.

It was commonly assumed. I only *knew* firsthand that certain allies did it for her, not that she dirtied her own hands with it as well, though of course given the former it naturally followed she would be prone to the latter as well. Thank you for the confirmation. When I was a neutral I had an intel gathering network, but there was no spying. I have seen no reason to believe the non-neutral alliances I have been in since were any different on that point. You can learn a lot from what an alliance voluntarily reveals, and what they cannot but reveal, without needing to stoop to the point of employing oath-breakers. There was an interesting psychological study awhile back, that showed that dishonest people tend to believe everyone else is dishonest. You might be projecting just a little here.

Better a PIAT with an alliance that will honour it than a MADP with one that wont. Also MADP is mutually assured destruction pact. There's nothing wrong with optional clauses, they shouldnt be interpreted as "we'll only help if you dont need it" but rather "we'll only help if you werent being an arsehat" imop.

That's how I remember it too. I was with Azaghul in GPA at the time. GOONS, in particular, had violated us enough to completely kill any sympathy for them though. Gah that was a long time ago.

Different doesnt have to be completely opposite. And it's really just basic diplomacy and common sense RV. And it has nothing to do with whether or not your AA number 1 or 1000. If you were actually trying to solve the ostensible problem, you probably would have first jumped on irc and got a .gov member to tell this guy to stand down within minutes. But even without irc, you would have written the guy back pointing out that you were already told that MHA would not protect Sileath, and advise him to check with his superiors. You would have CC:d WCR, Shamshir, and Crushtania, who are the current triumvir of the MHA, which I found out with google in under 10 seconds. And there would have been no more problem. Instead you post it here with a lot of insinuation and "threatening or incompetent, which is it?" junk thrown in to try to make some drama. Look I appreciate the effort but find some better material.

Which is why the rules apply to everyone else.

Congratulations and welcome.

You dodge the thrust as if oblivious to it. It is what you say at one level. But the reference is to the exceptionalism. Not the details you are talking about, but rather this deeply held belief that the rules apply to everyone else.

Laugh if you like, but as long as I have been here we've been told that Pacificas score proved her philosophy. It would seem the change in score needs to be accounted for now. Did Francoism suffer from a hidden flaw, or did she fail to follow it sincerely?

And by that yardstick your current policies appear quite ill-advised. And the fact that just about everyone else remembers this differently, including Polar members, including people who were Pacificans then but since moved on, does that suggest anything to you at all? Polar managed it, why cannot Pacifica? Sorry, I dont get what you are saying here, could you rephrase?

I dont necessarily agree, but I can see they could have been phrased better. "If Moo had been smart, he would have accepted them on the spot. That part of this argument just isnt credible." Please understand this is a colloquial phrase and it doesnt imply Moo is not a smart person, just that his choice here was not very smart. Long periods in peace mode can be more devastating to an alliance than paying reps. Speaking as someone who has done both. Further, while he was apparently busy convincing his troops that no offer from the enemy could be trusted, this appears to me quite untrue. As I say, they painted themselves into some corners, and even though some might even joke about declaring again just before terms wore out, no one would dare actually try that or anything of the kind. It would be a suicidal move. So, had the NPO accepted terms initially offered instead of fighting a losing battle here and on the fields for all this time, it would be considerably ahead of where they are now. This is my logic. "At the same time, without it, it's completely assured that the NPO will focus all available resources on destroying them. Simple as that." You disagree? Please. You've been here long enough to know that's true. And at the very least, it's what the leadership opposing them can reasonably assume to be the case based on history.

What specifically did you think was phrased combatively?

Any reparations affect the members. To believe that the terms were designed to kill the NPO only makes sense to me if you credit "Karma" leadership with excellent foresight and posit they were certain they would be rejected. If Moo had been smart, he would have accepted them on the spot. That part of this argument just isnt credible. As to why the terms dont call for leadership change, this is where they painted themselves into a corner. They swore not to impose 'draconian' terms. They swore not to do the things that were considered the very worst level of what the NPO has introduced and practiced in the past. And so they cannot impose regime change as terms. At the same time, without it, it's completely assured that the NPO will focus all available resources on destroying them. Simple as that. So they are reduced to trying to impose terms which while not 'draconian' are instead 'harsh' - designed to keep you poor for as long as possible, to delay your ability to seek revenge at least, as the only available substitute. (Just my opinion, I'm nobody.)

If that is your choice then that is your choice. I dont think anyone would deny you the right to make that choice. But you cant choose to refuse peace and then whine and kvetch all day here about how awful your opponents are for continuing to war you. Well, you *can,* obviously, but why would anyone take it seriously?

Leaving your alliance under fire is certainly not a positive honourable act. However one does always have to look at the circumstances of an act as well. In this case, the alternative would hardly have been any more honourable, quite the contrary.

If the parties to the disagreement are satisfied then it's settled and the rest of this is just bored people trying to stir things up I guess. I am not a party to the dispute, I'm just putting in my two cents because I did take the time to read this whole crazy thing so I might as well. If I were a party to the dispute I would be very disappointed in this apology. I am not sure I would have accepted it. However as I have no iron in this fire that is only an observation, nothing more.

Many nations join alliances specifically to stop the recruitment spam. It's more annoying than the tech raiders. Recruiting alliance members has always been considered at the very least like a slap in the face. Is that an act of war? Well sort of, if it is deliberate, if they keep doing it, refuse to apologise, eventually it would reach that point. It's sort of like if you start dropping leaflets on a neighboring country telling them their government sucks. How do you really expect that to be received?

Grub, I gotta say this "decree" really disappointed me. You compare Polar's position last year with Pacifica's today, and to do so is to disparage your own alliance, unjustly. You of course should not need to be reminded that your predecessor was deposed before the shooting even started. Moo and his IOs still run Pacifica, beyond question or doubt. Need I really say more? Polaris was an alliance that was once perceived as arrogant and hostile, and not without cause. Your reign has seen it change in many ways, for the better. The stuff the Pacificans are posting on the other had make it abundantly clear they have made no such changes. And they have even been offered peace. They can flat out buy it any time they want, without any of the humiliating bend-over-and-hold-your-ankles crap they pulled on others. Moo even stays. What is so bad about this deal for them again? Yes, the price is high, but they are a large and very capable organisation we all know is capable of paying it. It's been on the table a long time. Had they taken it when first offered, they would be well along on their way to being out of terms already. But you cant blame those offering them terms for their refusal, surely? Who claimed it WAS "passive defense?" Hmmm? Would that have just been something you pulled out of your tailfeathers right as you were posting, eh? Passive defense is also known as suicide. Any General that ordered it should be immediately relieved of duty. At this point you are a wolf whining and blaming the sheep for planning a defense. How dare they?

I believe the irony of that post must have sailed right over your head. Go back and look at the AA of the poster. Fact is, only one alliance on planet bob has a history of behaving like that. The one you have chosen to join. No one is forced to wear an AA, they are chosen, and when you put one on you get the badwill as well as the good. Tis silly to complain about that. If the shoe doesnt fit take it off.

If you believe this is true you must be positively livid with your own government for playing so completely into their hands, no?

Tyga, sorry if I misunderstood you. No point to say more I think, that conversation has run its course.

I didnt respond to this simply because I was too many pages behind when I saw it the first time... and by it I mean the allegation that the intention in a vote must always be to reflect solely the majority view. There's just no reason this has to be the case. If it's a 51-49 split it would in fact be more accurate to translate that into 1 aye and 1 nay than into two ayes. Thought experiment - two alliances are 90% plus aye. 3 alliances are 51-49 nay. One way of voting that's 7-3 aye. One way it is 6-4 nay. Which outcome is best? Assuming the alliances are of comparable size, 7-3 aye would more closely mirror the popular vote. But 6-4 nay would reflect the fact that the majority of the alliances are deeply conflicted and only two really have a consensus to vote aye. Either method of counting is legitimate depending on what the architects of the system are trying to do.

Being a member of clergy does not make one a holy man. Quite the opposite, it seems, at least in most cases. I wonder what Walford is doing now though.

As I understand it: Each alliance has two representatives. It is entirely up to each sovereign alliance to determine who represents them. Lux Aeterna does not make any presumption about our government form, or dictate internal procedures. Therefore of course it is logically possible for an alliance to send two representatives that wind up voting differently. If STA were a member of Citadel I suppose Tyga would have to appoint a second representative, so even in that case it would be possible for STA to split their vote. Although presumably the fact that Tyga could replace that second representative at any time would be a strong factor to discourage it.