Thomasj_tx

We are "prehistoric".

Thanks for the well wishes! Actually, we have been encouraging turnover. It gives our stalwart, long standing government members a chance for a breather. It also helps us develop a deeper bench for the future. Besides, almost all of the outgoing officials have either been voted into another position or will be assistants to the new officials to ensure continuity.

Looking forward to this.

What he said ^2

With all do respect, and I mean that sincerely, how do you define "non-aligned"? Are you saying that your "Alliance" is not aligned?

I was the one that put together the target list after discussing the possibility of attacking the NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE Alliance. I researched their website and learned that they are all Blue and allowed to use any of those AA designations. As you know, AA searches are not case sensitive and there is no way to search Flags. So we targeted all none + Blue nations. That was over 70 nations. We knew well that not all of them were the "official" NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE Alliance. But we also understood that we would be targeting some number of real "none" nations, thereby "spreading the wealth". We figured that there was no downside in that from a "moral" point of view. We targeted a group of 70+ nations, that being "Blue + none" vs our 60ish nations. We felt that there would surely be some collateral damage, that being some level of truly unaligned "none" nations, and there is nothing wrong with that. Did we set out for a curb stomp? Absolutely not! Did we randomly target nations? Absolutely not! Would we have DoW the "NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE" Alliance had we know her actual size? Absolutely not! We did not act dishonorably and I am sure NONE leadership and other observers now know that. I look forward to the "NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE" Alliance's response to our apology, both here and in game. And I am sad that Roo had to dance this dance today, beause he is an honorable man.

And now we watch their Anarchy count grow. For the UJA and our friends!!!!

And thanks for all the well wishes everyone!

I too, rise from the Jungle. Hail UJA!!!

This day in history.... July 30, 1619 - The first legislative assembly in English North America convened in Jamestown, Va.

This day in history.... July 27, 2003 - Comedian Bob Hope died in his home, at the age of 100.

This day in history.... July 27, 1940 - Bugs Bunny made his debut in the cartoon A Wild Hare.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss the real topic of this thread. Norms take a general movement and not individual actions. But I agree that a good discussion is the way to get real change more so than individual attempts. Let's see what happens on this topic and the other topics that have been discussed. I do agree that our values, while no more or less passionate, are distinct. And I am pleased that you can see that different values are not a bad thing, but in fact a good thing for the future of Planet Bob. While you may disagree with the values of other nations and alliances, I could never bring myself to do so. At best I look forward to different values. And at worse, I could care less. Differences in values are what makes PB spin. Without that, it would be very boring.

I appreciate your replies, Heft. It is always good to gain a little better understanding of all the nations and Alliances. Norms are something that develop over time and without any real concerted effort. They are kind of like the unwritten rules of society. I agree that there is an ebb and flow to all norms, but any lasting change in norms does not come from a single incident or the attempt of a fraction of society to change them.. They just have to evolve or they have to be agreed to by the majority of the society. Or else they become unilateral declarations and not real norms. Personally I would like to see a change in the norm about sending and accepting aid while involved in a war. If the aid is obviously the legal completion of a Tech Deal, that should not be considered taboo. But no doubt, that would take a recognition by the CN society. As to the other point, passion manifests itself in many forms on PB. Internal community verses external interaction. Friendly interactions verses confrontations. Economic growth verses military strength. Neither is better at the expense of the other. Just imagine how much more boring PB would be if there was no diversity of approach or ideology. Just imagine how uninteresting this world would be if everyone marched to the same drummer. Just imagine how much smaller this world would be if there were not varied options.

First, thanks for addressing my questions. Let me see if I can be more clear..... NSO chose to challenge the recognized norm against recruiting other alliances. NSO also said that they chose to levy this “challenge” against the GPA because it is an alliance “most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint”. Is your challenge against norms based upon the ideology of a given Alliance or does it apply to all Alliances? Since a "norm", by definition, applies to all Alliances of varying ideology, why did you challenge this norm by targeting a very small subset of all of the Alliances with vastly different ideologies? Why didn't you target a random sampling of Alliances with varying ideologies? Or even those with ideologies that are like the NSO? Also, if I may follow up on this response of yours: I have no basis to challenge the fact that the NSO embraces passion and conflict. However, I do take exception with your assumption that Neutrality does not contain passion and equates to inaction or passiveness. I doubt that you could find many members of the GPA that are dispassionate about their values. And I can assure you that maintaining these values is not a passive undertaking. In many ways, maintaining these values are more difficult in CN then the values of conflict and pot-stirring. If I may sum up what the differences you pointed out in my words.... While the NSO and GPA have equal levels of passion for their values, NSO values conflict and aggression while the GPA values friendly, diplomatic and impartial conduct when dealing with other nations and Alliances. If this a fair summation? Thanks again for addressing my questions.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, the NSO said that this was done to challenge the accepted norms. They chose to challenge recruiting other alliances which seemed to be an admission that not doing so is an accepted “norm”. They also said that they chose to levy this “challenge” against the GPA because it is an alliance “most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint”. I have few questions. 1) If the intent was to “challenge” an accepted norm, then why not challenge the norm through discussions of the validity or need of the norm and then either gain acceptance that the norm should stand or not? 2) Why do you think that the GPA is “most opposed to you from an ideological standpoint”? In what ways? 3) Do you accept and/or reject norms based on the ideology of the alliance? In other words, would you accept a norm for one alliance and reject it for another? 4) What other norms do you feel should be “challenged”? Do you accept the norm that sending or accepting aid while a nation or their alliance is at war is not acceptable? Do you accept the norm that a nation has the right to trade resources with any other nation? Do you accept the norm that OOC personal attacks are taboo? I look forward to your replies and thank you in advance for them.

While I can not speak for the other “neutral alliances”, I have a strong understanding of the values of the GPA (since I wrote the current Charter and DoN). While you may think that the GPA exists to promote “Peace”, that is not the case. Or at least far from what we “perpetuate”. The GPA’s principles are Neutrality, Sovereignty and Protection. We define our Neutrality as conducting interactions with other Alliances and nations in an honest, friendly and impartial manner and not partaking in any inter-Alliance politics or issues that do not directly involve the GPA. Peace may or may not be a byproduct. The GPA has been involved in one of the larger wars on Planet Bob. We also have on going wars almost constantly. Implying that we exist to perpetuate “Peace” falls short of the full truth.

I know that I may be out of line by posting something that at least actually has to do with the original topic of this thread. But given that it is about the relationship and interaction between the GPA and NSO, I have a couple of questions about some posts made by NSO members that I would like a little more clarification: What do you mean by “a Great Lie”? Also, why do you think that the GPA is “most opposed to you from an ideological standpoint”? In what ways? I look forward to your replies and thank you in advance for them.

Given the post-war movement of nations from alliance to alliance, I am curious as to if your alliance has any formal or informal restrictions on former alliance members returning to your alliance. Please vote in the poll and please feel free to describe your alliances rules, policies or practices as they apply to this topic. Thanks!

Already have!

Is it a full moon tonight! And Mary, don't you want to play Trivia any more? I may even be quoted in those logs (I have not even taken the time to look) but they are probably soooooo last year, or the year before, or the year before that. But if y'all are concerned, I made the 4999.99 Infra jump a long while ago and I may have bragged about it in the logs. Forgive me.

On behalf of the GPA, I would like to wish the GGA a Happy Birthday!

Thank you for signing our Declaration! The Signatories List has been updated.

Thank you for signing our DoN! The Signature List has been updated to reflect this signature.

Thank you! The Signature list has been updated to reflect this reaffirmation.