Aguacenta

This should be fun!

Happy to see this. A very good choice in selecting bandnerd to head up foreign affairs, if I do say so myself. ...and I do.

Congratulations on your elections. Neutral Menace .

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1338427242' post='2974871'] I'll be honest, I thought Symphony merged with someone ages ago. But I'm really glad they didn't. I like this treaty. Lots. [/quote] Semi-off-topic, but you're correct in your memory. We've had a couple alliances merge into us in part or in whole in the past, but have always maintained the governmental structure, charter, and name that we were founded with two years ago. ...or maybe we disbanded and no one told me. Both, seem equally likely to me. *toot* *toot*

I liked this treaty before it was cool.

Looks good to me. Onward and upward.

[left]This is pretty much sums this thread:[/left] [center][img]http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/11/12094/12384893.jpg[/img][/center]

Finally, an OWF announcement related to this war that I like.

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1323573211' post='2873139'] This. [b]Bob is ultimately driven by an Anarchic System of international politics.[/b] The course it sets is entirely dependent on who has the power and how they choose to use it. [/quote] Sure, if you buy into realist/neo-realist explanations for systematic interaction...

Wow. Can't say I saw that one coming. Not that it matters, but I can not say this pleases me either.

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' timestamp='1322119000' post='2850344'] Both alliances are horrible and should be ashamed of coming together and signing into this horrible fact. I hope to see you both rolled in the next war. [/quote] As a completely unbiased observer, I second this.

The following is a list of Symphony trade rings seeking members. If you or a member of your alliance is interested in one of these rings. Please contact the person as identified as the rings contact person with regard to the status of the ring and for further details. While we make every effort to keep our trade databases and lists up to date and accurate things do change, times do get busy, and occasionally things slip through the cracks. [hr] [b]Resources:[/b] Aluminum - Wheat - Iron- Uranium - Marble - Lumber - Cows - Coal - Gems - Rubber - Water - Oil*#* [b]Bonus Resources:[/b] Construction Steel Beer Auto Asphalt +Uranium Cattle Gems [b]Seeking:[/b] Water Oil [b]Contact Person:[/b] Symphony Economics - Aguacenta (lost) [b]Resources:[/b] Aluminum - Lumber - Iron - Water - Oil - Fish - Gold - Marble - Wheat - Coal - Uranium - Rubber*#* [b]Bonus Resources:[/b] Beer Asphalt Construction Steel Autos + Uranium & Fish [b]Seeking: [/b] Wheat Coal Uranium Rubber [b]Contact Person:[/b] Symphony Economics - Aguacenta (lost) Rings Marked with *#* are rings managed by the Symphony Department of Economics (Sym Econ). For details on the status of these rings you make make an inquiry to a Symphony Economics Officer via IRC, Symphony Forum Message, or In game PM. [hr] GENERAL TRADE DISCLAIMER NOTICE : ALL rings set up by Symphony Economics are located on the BLACK sphere unless otherwise noted. Symphony trade rings operate on a first come first serve policy. The first person who is confirmed for a spot in a ring is the first person that will be assigned to that position. Symphony trade rings operate on a first confirmed first completed policy. This means that while you may be confirmed in multiple rings, the first that is completed with all members confirmed will be the one you are placed in. This has the reverse effect as well. If people assigned to your ring are confirmed in multiple rings and your ring has not been fully confirmed they will be assigned to the other ring first. Building trade rings is a slow and complicated process that involves the interaction of multiple individuals spread across multiple alliances. Due to this fact complications often occur that result in a ring falling apart or being reorganized prior to its implementation. Occasionally we run into complications when setting up rings and can no longer offer them. If this happens you will be informed immediately. DO NOT cancel your current trades until all potential participants have been confirmed and you have been informed by the Economics Officer handling your ring to cancel your trades. We will not be not held responsible if you cancel all your trades prior to being informed to do so. Rings without *#* are rings that are privately coordinated by Symphony members. While Sym Econ makes an effort to assist privately coordinated rings, we will not be held responsible for any promises, statements, or commitments made by the rings operators unless they violate Symphony's Charter, in which case they will be handed over to Internal Affairs for processing. If you intend to withdraw from a trade ring set up by Sym Econ, we ask that you give all members of the ring as well as a Symphony Economics Officer a minimum of 72 hours notice prior to canceling your trades. Trade ring set up is a service offered by Sym Econ. We maintain the right to revoke access to this service for individuals who continually cause difficulties for Sym Econ and/or Symphony Members.

Hide your dishwashers. A lot of my favorite people are from that era, some are still around, but most are long gone. It's really a shame, 'cause some of them were the best CNer's that have ever played the game. However, people have a tendency to glorify the past, even though we didn't have a clue what we were doing back then. That's all I'm going to say about that.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1310130413' post='2752376'] Holy !@#$, Christmas comes early! [/quote] Yep, and this year we picked our own present...

Onward and Upward.

Let us raise a glass to our new friends and brothers at arms. May our future together be a glorious one. Salud.

@Rayvon, Haflinger, Solaris and Others I find it funny that my motivations for leaving should come up in public. Especially because I've in large part kept them to myself and I'd appreciate it if the lot of you would cease speculating on what I've done and why I've done it. I'm sure that you can come up with many reasons why it "seems" I left, but my reasons are my own, and attempting to speculate about them will certainly be fruitless, Especially when you consider that the events that you are still bickering back and forth over happened nearly a year ago and is becoming increasingly irrelevant to anything. So if you would kindly cease bringing up what you may think my intentions and motivations may have been, I'd be much obliged. Regards, lost

A very good day indeed.

If I may, You have made a few assertions about sovereignty. 1. Sovereignty only exists if an individual or group can defend itself again another individual/group from forcing their will on them. 2. bloc formation limits and/or eliminates the full sovereignty of an individual or group. If you take into consideration the first point, then no alliance can ever truly be sovereign in any sort of realistic environment. Any single alliance can be made 'un-sovereign', for lack of a better word, by any sort of coalition, whether it be ad hoc, or standing. Which then leads you to think "in what situation could an alliance be sovereign?" which leads to the second point. If an alliance can form a standing coalition that will be more powerful than any other possible coalition that could oppose it, then it could then be sovereign. Which leads to the second point, that blocs prevent a alliance from exercising some or all of its sovereign authority. If this is the case then it impossible for any alliance to ever be truly sovereign unless that alliance can somehow become more powerful than all other combined alliances and unaligned nations in the Cyberverse, or all nations somehow united under a single banner. Let me instead suggest this line of reasoning. All alliances that have the ability to compel its membership to obey, or have memberships that will obey of their own volition are eternally sovereign. In the Cyberverse as the situation stands now, alliances can not be forced to give up their sovereignty. Certainly the members of alliances can have their nations reduced to rubble, however total conquest of those alliances is impossible. (read this as, an alliance can be held in a perpetual state of war but it can not be forced to surrender or give up the aforementioned abilities) It must make a choice to surrender and accept the terms and consequences of those terms, which can erode or destroy an alliances sovereignty. However, if an alliance never chooses to surrender, it still retains its sovereignty as long as it retains the abilities Rorin has stated. As to whether or not an individual is completely sovereign when it enters in an alliance. This is another matter. As the glorious admin creator of all nations on digiterra has endowed every nation with certain freedoms. While often times alliances limit the ability of what an member nation may or may not do as a prerequisite for membership, for example, perhaps you can not declare wars, or you must reside on a certain color sphere. This would be a limit on sovereignty. But, it is not necessarily a detrimental thing to the individual nation, as the benefits gained for entering in to a social contract (safety, rule of law, etc) are arguably more beneficial than the freedoms lost by exiting the state of nature. However, at a fundamental level the basic freedoms granted by the almighty admin can only be given up willingly.

A long time in coming, but we couldn't ask for more better friends or more honorable allies. Drinks are on Ray.

The USA should have beat Ghana, that was really sloppy goal keeping. It's a shame really. On the plus side, at least they didn't go out in a 4-1 route like the English.

As a life long Redskins fan, I couldn't agree more.

Welcome to the days of simpler politics, in 2006, the treaty web was a bit less complex: A little while later it started to get more complicated: If my today self could show my previous self how complicated the web is today, I'd probably call myself a liar.

I'd love to see a team tha everyone thinks doesn't have a shot win it. It would bring me great joy to see an African team, like Ivory Coast win it, just because it would make the whole world gasp. While I'm secretly rooting for my homeland (USA) and there will always bee a special place in my heart for the Azzurri (Italy). I don't see either of them taking it, lets face it the United States isn't great at football, and Italy isn't looking that great right now. Despite being the favorites of many I don't think Spain or Brazil will wind up taking the cup this time. Although, they're less favored than Spain and Brazil, England and Argentina both have good pretty good squads, and I think they're both capable of taking it. If I only get to pick one...I guess...Argentina...

It's certainly a possibility. Given a large enough population, all things can and will happen. However, if/when certain other circumstances (factors?) are also present, certain possibilities are much more probable than others. Thank you, glad you enjoyed it (or at least appreciate a philosophical work.)