caligula

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='05 June 2010 - 07:57 AM' timestamp='1275721004' post='2324303'] Man... I am sure there will be those that will take you up on this. And we will get a post with tables and pie charts. Which will give rise to another week of discussions. [/quote] . I'd encourage them to. If they can break the inactivity and get over 300 responses I'd be really surprised. Then again, that informations value is in itself quite useless because one can not agree with what someone's doing but still support them as an ally. Then you'd have to take into acount that nearly 95% of the responses would be ill-informed...and then there'd be the response : 42...for nearly half of them. But that's a whole nother can of worms.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='05 June 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1275715817' post='2324279'] Are you saying that the rest of MHA supports Gramlin's position in this conflict? I'm not trying to be argumentative I am just curious what the rest of MHAs opinion is since you say it is different than Scutterbug's. [/quote] You are putting words in mouth, even if you're not trying to be argumentative in this case. [quote name='Haflinger' date='05 June 2010 - 05:25 AM' timestamp='1275711932' post='2324172'] You want to explain how scutter's posts in here are consistent with Article II then? Particularly the fourth sentence. [/quote] [quote name='caligula' date='05 June 2010 - 05:36 AM' timestamp='1275712542' post='2324193'] The Mostly Harmless Alliance is not a dictatorship. We allow our members their own opinions, and they are free to say what they wish under our HitchHiker's Code of Personal Conduct. Scutter is entitled to tell the Gramlins whatever he wishes, so long as it abides by such. Scutter is merely expressing what he thinks about that very line you quote: "All public discourse will reflect the respect, honour, and dignity representative of our individual Alliances and the Härmlin bond." In his eyes, that is the relationship we have. I do not agree with him, but it is his opinion. No one has the right to tell him what he can or can not think nor say. He is allowed to express it so long as it follows our Code of Conduct, and if he had violated it I am in no right to disclose what/if any action was taken, nor is it a public matter. As I and even he has said, Haflinger, it is [b]his[/b] [i]opinion[/i] , not the rest of the alliance's. [/quote] I just said that what Scutterbug thinks/says does not reflect what the entire alliance thinks/says about Gre, and moreso insinuating that his particular viewpoint is an extreme, of which is really truely only held by himself. Not to not answer your question, but I can't. In fact, you'd have to pm every nation of our alliance if you wanted that sort of information. Edit: Grammar etc

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 June 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1275714714' post='2324249'] It doesn't matter who originally said it if you're agreeing with it. I don't see how you can claim that publicly stating that you might consider "trading in the Accords for a straightjacket" as an option in the near future is compatible with the spirit of said Accords. [/quote] I think you've misread the quote. It does not say that we will, and its actual meaning has more to do about how we can manage our own alliance and our own decisions all by ourselves. I apprecaite the sentiments, but we havn't violated any part of the treaty, spirit or not, and I'm seeing that there really is not point to rebut everyone's opinion on their own individual interperetation of our treaty and alliance. I'll leave it up to you.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 June 2010 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1275713990' post='2324227'] I'm not sure how you can say things like this and still claim you're upholding the spirit of the treaty. [/quote] I didn't say it, Bob Janova did. His original statement is as follows: [quote name='Bob Janova' date='20 May 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1274311139' post='2303821'] I'm sure MHA can judge when (if? though I think it's when at this point to be honest) Harmlins needs to be traded in for a straitjacket for Grämlins without being poked about it here I think Piff and Count Rupert are the only two original Harmlins (meaning signatories of the treaty) who are still actually in the Harmlins ... that says something [/quote] I agree with it 100%. Especially the (if?) part. Edit: Full quote

[quote name='Haflinger' date='05 June 2010 - 05:25 AM' timestamp='1275711932' post='2324172'] You want to explain how scutter's posts in here are consistent with Article II then? Particularly the fourth sentence. [/quote] The Mostly Harmless Alliance is not a dictatorship. We allow our members their own opinions, and they are free to say what they wish under our HitchHiker's Code of Personal Conduct. Scutter is entitled to tell the Gramlins whatever he wishes, so long as it abides by such. Scutter is merely expressing what he thinks about that very line you quote: "All public discourse will reflect the respect, honour, and dignity representative of our individual Alliances and the Härmlin bond." In his eyes, that is the relationship we have. I do not agree with him, but it is his opinion. No one has the right to tell him what he can or can not think nor say. He is allowed to express it so long as it follows our Code of Conduct, and if he had violated it I am in no right to disclose what/if any action was taken, nor is it a public matter. As I and even he has said, Haflinger, it is [b]his[/b] [i]opinion[/i] , not the rest of the alliance's.

[quote name='Lusitan' date='05 June 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1275703851' post='2324007'] Well, you already broke most of the treaty provisions. Breaking the clause that says it can't be cancelled is just more of the same. [/quote] I'm sorry...but this is absolutely false. The Mostly Harmless Alliance has honored the Harmlins Accords throughout this entire ordeal, beginning when we came to the assistance of the Gramlins as requested in aggressive action against IRON. Even Ramirus will acknowledge that for quite some time he did not request military aid in the current struggle, and still has not. No part, not a single article of the treaty has been violated. Thanks for the advice.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 June 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1275690953' post='2323834'] The cancellation period would have expired by now See, I told you guys that Härmlins should have a normal cancellation clause ... However, any treaty can be amended or cancelled by mutual agreement, so ask Grämlins if they'd like to see it gone in line with their treatyless FA plan (I use the word 'plan' loosely). If you both want it gone, then gone it is. If they want to keep it but keep going on about how they can't sign a surrender document because it's a treaty, then you can call them out for hypocrisy, and the world's going to be even more on your side when you declare it cancelled. It would be pretty ironic though since that was your 'justification' for entering the war in the first place and burning the bridge with TOP. [/quote] Now, now, Bob. You know as well as I do that just wreaks of e-lawyering, and it would be seen as such. Why would Ramirus agree to such a thing anyway? We are the last bits of timber keeping the dam together, so to say. Like you said earlier, I'm quite confident our leadership knows when to trade the Accords in for a straightjacket for Gre. [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='04 June 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1275680739' post='2323653'] While i agree with you on the Pacifican front, in regards to the Gremlins front, the same thing is being done now. Yet no one in MHA is stating that the Härmlin Accords should be dropped but instead stating how sad it is that ya'll are stuck with it. [/quote] That's quite the generalization, but I'll forgive you if you didn't read all 189 pages where quite a few of our members (granted, we have over 600, and only maybe under 10 responded in this thread,) who don't want the treaty dropped and are merely optomistic and hoping for a miracle or at the very least for certain people to come to their senses. I'd just ask of you not to take one member's opinion and take it for the entire alliances' You'll find that to the contrary, in the MHA there are varied opinions about Pacifica, IRON, Gre, and the rest of the world just as there is in any other alliance. It seems there's little more to write that hasn't been written in this thread. I take my bow. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Sigh... [i]This will all end in tears.[/i]

[quote name='RustyNail' date='01 June 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1275427587' post='2319595'] I predict that this will end well. And to quote one of my favorite lines in moviedom... "I'm your huckleberry. That's JUST my game." [/quote] OOC: OOOOOOoooooooooooo jonny ringo! Tombstone FTW IC: Janax : Yes, the irony is almost palpable, but I think you will not be given that treat.

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 June 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1275382693' post='2318920'] We passed 40! Onward to 42 and we'll be OK. [/quote] Beware the curse of 42, Jerdge. You know as well as I that it took us months to get passed that obstacle, and for good reason.

Point(s) taken. I don't think either side can claim the other "started it." I did some reading...The DoW's were within 2 hours, and the Gramlins believed they were in the right to defend their allies. I call that a wash, because if we got into technicalities then people would ignore the greater message. I don't see Gramlins as really being the aggressor's, so much as just being really diplomatically inept in this situation. To stake an alliance's survival by going it alone on an issue that your allies already communicated that they disagreed with is really quite the head-scratcher. But I also do not agree with the perception that somehow if peace was achieved IRON/Gre would be open to future attacks, as I believe the 180 page thread can vouch that any agressor will be seen as "the bad guy," and I've gathered some sort of moralism has spread over the forums that would pretty much isolate them. (Granted, it being 180+ pages may call into question if either side truly cares about being "the bad guy," if they're doing what they think is right, however, I'd like to think they wouldn't be willing to make the same mistake(s) twice.) I think, then, that this now is more about how IRON would like to finish this. Through the scenario you've described with a slow knockout style affair, or pride is set aside and these two alliances who I've respected for quite some time reach an agreement that benefits them both without the aforementioned expensive process for either. I wish the latter, but as each day passes I'm beginning to think the former becomes more likely. Anyway, these last couple pages have been helpful to me in at least better understanding what's going on. Thank you all.

While I cannot defend the actions of Gramlins nor really understand how this whole situation has come to light being that I wasn't here, I am still nonetheless severely confused on several topics. A. How the Gramlins could use the concept of Unconditional Surrender to take a moral high point with the rest of the game. They later recant and state that their definition of such is just merely the standard operating procedure used by other alliances, yet they wish to stake it all on the interpertation of how surrender should happen. Now, hopelessly outmaneuvered diplomatically, Gramlins still wishes to flip flop on this definition. 2. The belief that Gramlins are currently losing this war, or rather, IRON and DAWN are winning. Just look at the statistics. Sure, Iron and co have numbers, but Gramlins can still do more damage than one can think of with the amount of nations above 110k + ns... and D. The thought that anyone else should bring the Gramlins to their senses. Why should MK and CnG have to secure their reps by forcing Gre to stop by their own hand, basically losing incentive gained from the reps? They're going to get them either way, why not wait it out for them? As for IRON and DAWN using that as the reason to end this ASAP and calling on the international community to, I look back to #2, where IRON and DAWN are claiming victory. If that is the case, they should begin paying reperations back immediately. I just see a whole lot of bad maneuvering going on and can't help but hope this ends soon.

When I reply to something in the AP or any section, this happens: [img]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5963/exampleop.jpg[/img] I can't see what I'm writing, and it's really annoying. (see where the text bar is.

I quite enjoy the lot of you. Keep it up.

The real issue here for China is not of military intervention and U.S. troops at its border, as it may have been in the Korean War, but that China's rustbelt resides upon the area just west of the N.K. border. It's basically a giant zone of land that looks like Detroit. The problem lies in that the Chinese government is propped up only through its ability to maintain order. If an influx of refugees flood that region, pandemonium will ensue and China will have a serious, serious crisis on its hands. The region is arleady pretty destabilized due to poverty but a refugee situation could make it spread, causing a pandemic.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 May 2010 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1274340041' post='2304720'] NPO's score will jump a lot tomorrow as everyone buys aircraft. Then it should start to spiral upwards as the non-linear nature of nuke buying kicks in... tonight's nukes will mostly be the low-NS-count ones, once all their MP nations start getting over 10 nukes you should see a curve upwards. [/quote] Yes. I am quite interested in seeing this trend in regards to how long it really does take for an alliance to regain it's maximum military capacity after said terms. These numbers will be worth watching. Also, stop by the embassy. Please?

In my honest opinion, I would gladly stand by my brother, even at death if possible, for the hopes that he might recover despite whatever condition he may be in now. [quote name='janax' date='19 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1274299827' post='2303623'] Brotherhood is a 2 way street. He would certainly leave you for the wolves were the situation reversed, and has stated as much. [/quote] Yes, and while I have not been around long enough for much of this, it is clear that Ramirus' statements are the root cause of the entire problem. I believe that the MHA is holding onto the hope, although dim, that things will turnaround. We cannot choose who leads the Gramlins, we are sovereign alliances. Call it foolish or silly, but I hope that our involvement in whatever peace process is occuring will allow for GRE to survive this. Whether it has the strength to carry on under the current leadership is not up to us. Being there for them in their time of need is the most we can do in this situation.

These are the general sentiments that I'm hearing, and I'll try to answer them. The Gramlins were our brothers. Both alliances embraced the role. We found a happy medium where we were sovereign alliances, and while we may not always have agreed on foreign policy decisions, we nonetheless stood by eachother. In this instance, despite the overwhelming call for us to cancel the treaty, we are staying at their side. Why? You ask? Is it because we are weak? Is it because we don't want bad PR? Is it that we agree with what Ramirus has done while leading GRE? No. It's because the bond between us was meant to mean much more, and though as I previously wrote I believe that relationship has been weakened, there is a dim, yet existant hope at the end of the universe that GRE will turn things around. This is not a desperation for allies, to sheerly make a point, or simply that we agree with what has happened while Ramirus has led the Gramlins. We're doing all we can to be the bigger brother here who will fend off the bad-guys while taking Ram into a room and letting him know we disagree (understatement,) with what has happened. As brothers though, we're not going to let them be fed to the wolves over one man's action. I would hope brotherhood means much more.

Well, it's been almost a week or so since I've been back. In my time away I've had much to think about in regards to CN as it relates to the real life, and I've come to realize that the Mostly Harmless Alliance is the only place that I'd ever fit. I think there are many misconceptions about how the Mostly Harmless Alliance operates on a daily basis. We have never been an alliance that has ran merely on one person. Suffice to say the government of our alliance is a collection of individuals who are talented/interested in the game, hitchhikers theme, and overall are just good people. We have our bit of fun, some of us are in the military, some of us in college, others just dropping in for a short stint. To clarify: We're all hitchhikers in this galaxy. We all have different reasons for playing the game, and we have varying degrees in the intensity we display for the game. This particular alliance has done me a great service as it's allowed me to balance what I've needed to in terms of intensity, and just the great group of people I'm surrounded by. As an alliance, we share our ups and downs together. Through the years, while IC things may come and go, this alliance has so much more to offer in things unseen. While the MHA has been given the #1 sanction spot, it wouldn't mean much if the character of the MHA had changed since I joined. While many in our alliance are focused just as much as the general population on the IC drama and menial tasks that this game entails, I think that often times we forget the much bigger picture. When I came to the MHA, I was the true definition of a Hitchhiker. I had been bounced from my old alliance for butting heads a little too hard with some of the other members. I came to the MHA not expecting much. I had re-rolled and really had no intention of ever seriously playing the game again. I started going through the motions and realized that the MHA was quite a bit different, in that there was a level of comraderie that I had not seen anywhere in CN. Most importantly, they gave me a clean slate for no good reason. MHA helped me grow, as many of us use our RL persona's for our RP character. I learned a lot about myself and could not be more thankful. However, I think the MHA often does not get enough credit for what it does beyond the numbers as an alliance. The Mostly Harmless Alliance, in my opinion, is one of the best alliances in the game because we care. While at times I can be viritrol in speech, it never ceases to me how quickly things are quickly put into perspective. Recently, a former member's nation, Shamshir, had been deleted due to inactivity. In the Mostly Harmless Alliance it is customary for members of the alliance who are leaving to post a "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish," thread. Someone posted on behalf of Shamshir, and many of the members who had been blessed to communicate Shamshir offered their support for our Lost Hitchhiker. Luckily, he had merely been busy with more important things in RL but nonetheless our alliance was ataken back for a moment. We had a former government member pass away at a young age, and organized an effort to make sure that his family knew their son affected us not through a computer as a meaningless forum nickname, but as a person. The entire alliance grieved, and most of us will never forget. We have a young female member going through cancer, treatments that no person let alone a child should endure. Slipping in and out of a coma, her sickness affected our OOC lives in the prayrers and time we took the time out of our day to just wish her well and talk with her when she was available. This morning, I stumbled upon her thread and learned that she was doing better and that she was on vacation, and thanked us again for the well-wishes and that she couldn't wait to get back. There is no doubt in my mind that being able to be a part of that alone is worth more than #1 spot in this game. While the top sanction may rise and fall, I know that the MHA will only continue to grow because its members truly do share a bond with eachother. The least I could do was offer a thanks, for the past and present. As best said by Douglas Adams, "I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. "

Holy one-liners. This is quite long. Anyway, I don't see this continuing for much longer. While Ramirus' decisions have been analyzed a bajillion and a half times, I would hope things are coming to a close. I'm quite saddened. The Gramlins I knew are mostly gone. Some who have left are openly campaigning for its demise. Times have changed. It is unfortunate that an alliance once thought to be invincible is slowly being reduced to a punchline. As a Harmlin, I can only hope this ends well and recovery and forgiveness may occur. I can only hope for a miracle.

Congratulations from your friends at the Emm Ach Aye

Expected.

From my own experiences, and these people likely would be available each round. Wartime: Head of State: Anu Drake - Cut his teeth in tC days, still around and a wily vet. +1 Alliance capability -1 Neutrality Head of Government: Working Class Ruler - Motivator, knows what to say and when. +1 Wartime Effort Minister of Economics: Tristram - Peak effort in war-time. Won't rest until the job is done, requires a thank you. +3 Aid Efficiency +1 Dissent Minister of Foreign Affairs: John_Rocker - Again, veteran with many contacts and much experience. May rely on them. +2 Current Ally Relations -1 New Alliance Capability Minister of Internal Affairs: Gfloyd2002 - One of the best at dealing with in house issues. +3 Morale Minister of Security: StonewallJaxon - Guy was a crack FAN spy. Knows how to manipulate people. +10% chance to convert alliance to Your Ideology -3 dissent Minister of War: HellsAngel - Worked very well, hard, and thanklessly in co-ordinating military efforts. +2 Organization Peacetime: Head of State: Delta - Intelligible, knows what he's doing. Cautious. Idealist. +3 Alliance Capability, -2 Neutrality Head of Government: Janax - Self-motivated, capable of keeping those under him to task without question. +2 Morale +1 Efficiency Minister of Economics: Nollisar - Selfless Perfectionist, can be frustrated by lack of effort of others +3 Aid Effeciency Minister of Foreign Affairs: Banned Member. Unfortunate I can not name him. Minister of Internal Affairs: BigWoody - Commands Respect, even when the chips are down and mutiny is at hand. +1 Morale +2 Effeciency Minister of Security: WickedJ - He's got the scoop. +15% Chance to intercept foreign policy alignments Minister of War: Doc Taco - Dedicated, can easily manage rogue/minor incidents while keeping MILCOM at ease. +3 Military Effeciency. -10% Rogue effectiveness. Yes, I made up values. Deal with it.

I kept quiet, but I was brought up as the UJP was being formed. Originally of NATO, I had a few run ins, posted my own tech-raiding guide for 10k ns level nations, rose through the ranks of my alliance and have enjoyed the game. I have worked with numerous alliances, I needed a break from MHA and once served as the TORN diplomat to OV the day before we attacked. However, peace was achieved (I intended to stay till the war ended, but it ended.) and I decided MHA was the only alliance worthy of my shenanigans. So the application is in the mail and I'm having fun with it. I go by IYIyTh, or MyTh, or whatever. Caligula was my nation ruler and name before ban. I have changed it and it fits now. I hold numerous titles: One of two members to tie in an election in NATO history. Also the only to lose said tie in a decision by government. I have held several ministerial positions in MHA, and also enjoyed tech-raiding back when it was plentiful and worthwhile. I became less enraged and learned to bide my words with tact, and it has served me well. I also hold the most court cases in MHA history, and 0 convictions. I'm also aware that I'm irrelivant and I'm okay with that. I enjoy the finer things in the game like people entertaining me by fighting over drama. It's good to be back.