Rafael Nadal

And NV peaced you guys out in anticipation you of entering on our behalf. NV

Hey now, that would violate the OUT guideline of no Orange on Orange violence. Aside from that, I don't believe anybody thought ODN would roll with Hegemony. The treaty may have existed only because it had been around for so long, nostalgia, if you will, but clearly that's not where ODN's allegiances were. I'm not going to open up the argument about ODN having ties to both sides, because, that's not what this topic is about.

And what side would that be? The last side would be Polar. Unless you're gonna go way back to UJW, GW2, etc, in which case, that doesn't make any sense, due to who makes up a few of ODN's allies now.

As the leader of one your closest allies, I'm going to ask you specifically to stop posting. Maybe, you haven't been around long enough, but we've been down your road before, and it wasn't so glorious as you think it sounds.

That hasn't been touched, or refuted, because we all know that, and that's not the point anybody has been trying to make.

I know how long and up and down the road has been to relations with our other CnG allies. Truly, I'm happy to see this announced.

I was going to post in this topic seriously, but you basically did my work for me. Thanks.

This is just a ploy so you can gather more stats. You can't fool me. Also, a 5. Though lacking in length, your first sentence showed decent sentence structure variation.

The elimination of deficit spending, the capping of offensive war slots, etc. A lot of things that allowed for variation in how people operated, have been eliminated.

Made me laugh.

Realistically, if you care about your nation, you would just join the largest alliance out there, since they provide the most protection. Also, thank you Penkala, and everybody else supporting this, for providing great laughs.

Completely agree. I disagree with nearly every major mechanical change made. There is less to do in your nation itself. There didn't really used to be such a narrowly defined way to grow your nation "correctly". Nor was war so narrowly guided as it is now. Most of the strategy has been taken out.

Yes, because Athens and FoB really want more !@#$ from the rest of CnG, when this is outed as a setup.

I don't think you'll find the majority of us defending the action so much as defending the action from embellished, inane, false, etc accusations and bad comparisons.

Alliances protect you from tech raids because they will (should) retaliate against your attacker. Just assuming an AA doesn't put a shield to all possible avenues of damage. And yes, being in an alliance offers much more protection against raiders than being on None, still.

They do, obviously, as it's built into the mechanics of the game. If you're talking, alliance member size, then that's going to be a bit tougher, seeing as most alliances Athens' size have an extensive array of treaties. Obviously, Athens' wish is not to start a huge global conflict, otherwise they would.

No, it's not that easy. You would also need to change how you conduct your wars, not just the initial announcement.

So your "wars of oppression" were not full military operations, with nukes, and cm's and whatnot? And after you concluded military operations, you did not demand more tech? Please, I may not fully like the level of this raid, but you can just go home now, if you're going to try and convince us all that Athens' raid was equivalent to your alliance's actions, say regarding GPA.

Hoo PM'ed before I wrote my rebuttal post. I will spare you my planned vitriolic rebuttal for insinuating that I did not do my homework. And I specifically did not go to Echelon to speak about that term, because what they feel about it is immaterial for my reasons to inquire about it. Actually, I did, but you weren't around. Supposedly, two messages were left for you to try and get in contact with me so we could talk about the term, but that never happened, obviously.

Alright, my turn I guess. I don't really know many of these alliances to actually accurately rate them, but I've tried to rate as many as possible through a combination of personal interaction, actions, hearsay, etc, because, a bunch N/A's is just plain boring. If I really just have nothing, N/A is the rating, not a 5, as has been frequently used throughout this topic. TOP: 4: A tough one to rate. We've certainly had our share of disagreements and run-ins in the past, but they are in the past, and you have several members which I enjoy reading posts of and speaking with. However, you also have many members which I don't particularly like, and I'm still not a fan of the way your alliance conducts it's affairs. Your power in sheer NS numbers is undeniable, but you also have TSO on your resume, as well as participating against GPA. MHA: 2: Not really for dislike, but for an overall feeling of impotence. You've been surpassed for influence on Aqua, and for an alliance your size, you don't have your own little FA niche. Also, it's because of this seeming impotence, that it's a shame that LUE is gone, leaving you as the sole Hitchhiker's themed alliance. Sparta: 6: Your overall performance really was poor in Karma, especially in the upper ranks, where many were counting on your help. You say you've been taking measures to ensure that does not happen again, but obviously that waits to be seen. Londo, among others, really vouches for you guys, so your score is higher than it otherwise would be. NpO: 7: We butted heads soon after Grub's ascension, and though that was a while ago, I'm not entirely sure I've moved on from that. Saying that, your rebuilding has been supremely impressive, and the statistical quality of your alliance is clear. Sometimes I think you fall back on WoTC too much, almost as a kind of trump card, in posts here on OWF. IRON: 2: Been around a long time, and remember how significant it was when IRON first started signing treaties. Also remember the RON jokes that accompanied them. Blissful isolation from you guys for quite a while, followed by pretty frequent negative interaction with you. I can't recall ever coming out of a situation involving you guys, thinking positively about you. Again, you don't seem to lead your own FA direction, again, despite your alliance size. Though you were hit very hard in Karma, there is no denying that you were considered the biggest problem to deal with. ODN: 8: ODN can't deny they have a checkered past, and a few good leaders have been stymied trying to reform the alliance. Arsenal seems to have finally cracked the code, and I can't say enough how good of an ally ODN has been since he became SoS, and then moved on to Sec Gen. However, MK are better cheaters. FARK: 4: I wish I could rate you higher, seeing as my first alliance, and long time home, LUE, basically died to protect you, and you showed great resolve making it through GOONS' war and TF!. You have a very active, quality member base, with an assumed great community. However, many that I recognize and interacted with a while ago have moved on, and similarly to Archon, with reports from others as well as leaked logs, I don't get the most positive feeling about you. GPA: N/A NPO: 2: NPO was better years in the past. Maybe you can get back to that level, but that remains to be seen. I also hope you learned your lesson from Karma, but it doesn't seem you have. I still see in your future issuing crushing reps and other terms that lead to alliances disbanding, which is sad, because I think the game would be much better off if NPO didn't issue such game-altering terms. FOK: 6: A Dutch Fark in my mind, though with fewer negatives through reports and logs and whatnot. Pretty good to work with in Karma and I would say we have a good working relationship. MK: 9: Great ally. Active, with good coordination and nation building. Good OWF presence, though sometimes it can be a bit overwhelming and t-rollish in nature. This is the one aspect I don't miss about LUE, though I don't believe MK takes it to the same level LUE did. Probably has one of the most opinionated, political aware, and capable overall memberships in CN. WTF: N/A: It's been a long while since I've spoken to you, but I liked you guys back in the day, when I approached you from ONOS. People like Asa Phillips, The Black Jesus, Redmonster, Kristoff, etc were all cool. TOOL: 4: Your building is pretty impressive, from your massive recruiting start, and Jarko is cool, but that's about all I can offer. TDO: N/A VE: 5: Fine to work with in Karma. Impero is really the only person I've had contact with. A decent alliance, most likely, that I don't know much about. Legion: 1: Your military performance against us in the Universalis conflict was horrid. Somehow, something was worse, and that was your own alliance's gov't's ability to communicate, both internally and externally. First was your part in escalating the issue with Universalis. A whole different fiasco was the peace discussions with you. I'm not going to elaborate on those here, but those made your alliance a laughing stock. Not only the inability to communicate, but the fact you weren't allowed to control your own negotiations. Plus the whole stockholm syndrome thing. The only thing saving you from a 0 is the fact that I don't think an alliance can continue to exist with leadership as poor as yours was during that time period; could I be wrong? Also, historically, your non-participation in GW2, so really, history of inept leadership and/or membership. RoK: 7: We've been closer in the past, but we've always been good to each other. With Hoo back, I hope to re-establish the incredibly close relationship we had. GATO: 4: Haven't had any contact with you, but for sentimental reasons, it's nice to see you have a resurgence. CSN: 4: Don't know you, but you have wickedj, and that counts for something. Also, most people say you're cool. Athens: 8: Great ally. Sometimes need a little guidance on tact, can be brash or overly reactionary, but I can count on them to be there for us. Also, constantly improving overall quality of their alliance. Gremlins: 6: Don't know what to think really. Big membership shakeup after Karma, but I don't have anything really negative to say. MCXA: 3: Never been a fan, though it's unfortunate how it seems TSO's split off seems to have really killed off the spirit MCXA had. UPN: 3: Don't know much about you, truly, you seem decently capable. Purple drags your score down. RIA: 5: Again, don't know much about you, other than Delta's posting and sometimes interacting with him on IRC. I like him, thus you get 5 for his pure presence. STA- 8: Another good ally, though I sometimes feel they take the unjust wronging card too far as well. Invicta: 2: Purple bias. Also, tend to not be assertive. No real good qualities come to mind when I think of you. RnR: 5: We don't have too much interaction, but several people I like like you. All interaction, though not much, admittedly, has been positive. MASH: 3: Wish I could rate you higher due to a collection of former ONOS. However, you're the only logical leak that lead to Legion approaching Universalis. You had decent stats when I checked right before Karma, but you seem disorganized in direction. NADC: 2: ONOS says thanks. You have done nothing positive that sticks out in my mind to push out abandoning ONOS. Then you got rolled, and it was hilarious. It was too bad ONOS was a much more promising alliance. WAPA: N/A: Somehow, you still exist, and are growing. NV: 7: Good ally, though we've been closer in the past. NSO: 5: I believe you know what you're doing, but I'm really not a fan. I range from indifference to mild disapproval. NEW: N/A MA: 4: Never had any affection for you guys, and after going around to most alliances on the front (all of them except yours I think), you're the only one who cares about keeping the term barring Caffine from Echelon gov't. You may not like Echelon and you may not like Caffine, but I hate terms that impose themselves in such fashion as influencing who may serve in gov't. Umbrella: 6: You guys seem cool and most of our allies who have more contact with you guys say you're cool. Also, for the most part, you were good to work with in Karma. We've had some inter-alliance interaction post-Karma. FAN: 5: Don't know much about the new quieter FAN, but props for still being around after what you went through. Also, I still give you points for your D-Day declaration on NoV. That was hilarious. LoSS: N/A TSO: 1: I don't think this needs to be explained. Rating stands on its own. NATO: 3: Don't know much about you, and I don't think I've ever interacted personally with you. Never heard anything real positive about you though. Nordreich: N/A GR: 8: CnG ally. Has gone through ups and downs, but you're still chugging along. Between MK, Vanguard, and you, that's probably about as close to the old LUE-NAAC bond as it gets. Vanguard: 9: We could use more irc and owf presence, as many would consider our membership somewhat reclusive. Indeed our membership is mainly board dwelling, and we definitely have activity swings, but our community is solid and loyal. Our extremely slow influx of new players has helped with the continuity of membership. GOD: 5: Certainly butted heads with Xiph in Karma. However, extremely loyal and you know what you're getting. I've since had some positive contact. FoB: 8: CnG ally. Growing well, maturing as an alliance. PC: 5: Extremely vengeful with TPF, too vengeful in my mind. Has been overly aggressive in some situations in the past. However, we've had some decent communication recently. Valhalla: 4: We definitely had our issues in the past, but those were well in the past as far as I'm concerned. I hope you learned your lesson from the Karma war, as you say you have, seeing as I thought you didn't get all the punishment you deserved. You have pretty respectable stats. GGA: 3: Again, this is mostly based on perceived ineptitude moreso than hate. Would be lower but occasionally, somebody I like says something somewhat positive about you, such as at least you're trying to reform. TPF : 3: Part of your formation was based on TF! I give you 2 points for sticking it out in Karma, but I don't want to hear any whining about your reps. The reps stayed the same and the offer was on the table for quite a while before you took it, iirc. At the time they were first offered, the terms weren't as tough, relative to when you accepted them.

I guess I'll do this sometime, if it's not locked by the time I get around to do it.

Lulz @ you. Agg is sitting on the Vanguard applicant aa, and thus not accounted for in these stats. Don't be bitter, child. Also, thanks for the all the kind comments.

We win as a team, we lose a team. Are you a team player, player? I think I will. Don't need to tell me twice to do less work.

3 mil NS. We hit it. Also, because that was so short, I'd like to point out that we have surpassed 200k tech, a 3k tech per member average, 45k avg ns, and 900 nukes. Come congratulate us on how good we look. Edit: You saw no mspaint fail. >_>

I have not once said this topic wasted my time. In fact I made this announcement to not waste my time. And well, as long as you're marginally enjoying this topic, then I guess I at least marginally agree with my prior decision to post it.