VIdiot the Great

Well from the recent trend, it appears that post war will look like a discussion as to whether or not to go to the latest concert, for example: "Hey guys, want to go to the latest Journey concert?" "Uh, isn't that the Journey without Steve Perry? That's not the real Journey!" "Hey guys, want to reform X alliance?" "Uh, isn't that the X alliance without [insert 'necessary' member here]? That's not the real Alliance X! Yes, so I foresee wars over who has the right to reform Alliance X coming up in the near future.

Excellent piece, Vladimir, I found it very interesting how you took the abstract, ie, thesis, antithesis and synthesis and related them to events within the game. I suspect you could go into great detail regarding the formation of antithesis, and I hope you consider doing so in some future article. Good read, my friend.

I don't know how I forgot this one, as it played constantly during the NoV war in my apartment. My wife now hates the song. The live version of Battle Without Honor or Humanity at Budokan.

RyanGDI. A close second to Hormones74 who is not afraid to self anarchy just to show you he means !@#$@#$ business.

Say what you want about GGA, but they've got some damn loyal members. I'm not sure many of us would be willing to commit and fight for an alliance that kept making mistake after mistake. And yes, I'm being serious. The membership is incredibly loyal to stick it out after the missteps of the past three months. Hopefully, a government structure will be put into place that will justify the loyalty of the membership. Good luck guys. VI

For the most part, FACE takes it on a case by case basis. Most of the members we've had leave do so to try their hand at running their own alliance. I can think of very few members that have left that wouldn't be welcomed back into our tight knit little community, but there are a couple. And no, we don't have any formal policy, just a discussion between myself and hormones usually along the lines of 'hey, X wants to come back, any issues?' 'Nope, none on my end.' 'Ok, I'll let them know.' VI

I listen to any one of the following: Stranglehold - Ted Nugent You've Got Another Thing Comin' - Judas Priest Mean Streets - Van Halen Pull Me Under - Dream Theatre Rainy Days and Mondays Always Get Me Down - The Carpenters

Glad to see this finally announced. Good luck with this Schatt, and drop by some time if you're bored. Regards, VI

Of course. However, here's a further thought: don't come posturing on the boards that you want war (please!) if you're not willing to, you know, actually make it happen. You were given a couple suggestions on how to make it happen (i.e. sell your infra, or aid a TPF nation to bring them in your range) and came up with 'oh, I want to rebuild.' So I don't think anyone has an issue with you enjoying war. What I have an issue with is the empty posturing you're doing like you're some tough guy and then when offered advice on how to get what you ostensibly want, you talk about rebuilding. Just my 2 cents. VI

Ok, let me break it down for you, since it seems to escape you. TOP had an MDoAP with NPO. That 'o' as it turns out, is very, very important. It means 'OPTIONAL' as in 'hey, we will decide on a case by case basis whether we will join you in an AGGRESSIVE (the big 'A' after the little 'o') venture. Now we've all seen the Tattler logs where TOP was mediating, or attempting to mediate, peace between OV and NPO. That right there is a pretty good indication that TOP probably was not along for the ride. Otherwise, you'd have to assume TOP was acting in bad faith in mediating those talks, and I really haven't seen anyone say that TOP didn't mediate in anything but good faith. And for what it's worth, I know TOP did want those peace talks to work, and they were in fact very hurt when they didn't work out. But anyway, so TOP was not along for the ride. At that point, whoever attacked NPO for its AGGRESSIVE action on OV was not subject to TOP attacking based on the DEFENSE clause because...wait for it...it wasn't a DEFENSIVE action. Just because NPO chased what they thought was a bear cub into a cave, only to discovery 'holy !@#$, ma and pa bear are home and super pissed' does NOT transform this action into a defensive one. At best, it transforms it into a poorly conceived aggressive action. So it did not matter who attacked NPO at that point as the action was aggressive by its inception, hence whether it was 'TOP's friends' or however you want to put it, shooting at NPO doesn't invalidate, or require a cancellation of, the treaty. And if you know anything about TOP canceling a two and a half year old treaty was not something taken lightly, or without discretion and discussion. And let's face it, in two and a half years, a lot has changed, so it's not slanting the truth to say that certain actions required a re-examination of this treaty. In short, it wasn't overdue because nothing was 'due' at this time at all. VI

Good luck to you Vox members in your new homes. May your paths be clear and your future endeavors successful. Regards, VI

Wouldn't it just be easier to sell your infra instead of relying on them to buy infra, given the fact that they've been at war for a long time and probably need all the money they can get? Just a thought. VI

Sad to see this come to pass. But I definitely see the reasoning behind it, as Apocalypse was the brain child of BadOmen. I like all the changes made, and hope Aeon flourishes in its new form. Congratulations, guys (and Jewel!) Regards, VI

I would humbly suggest the Charter needs a reworking if people who are not in power, i.e. elders, can remove current triums. This seems very bizarre, and counter productive. Don't the two recently deposed Triums now become elders? If so, what's to prevent them from removing the remaining trium, assuming he hasn't stepped down. And no, I'm not here to make fun of you guys, but it really seems like you could benefit from solid leadership, a focus on internal affairs, then worry about the FA direction you may or may not take. It is kind of sad to see an alliance that has been around for this long suffer from these kinds of issues. Good luck in rebuilding your community. Regards, VI

I was at -27 or -28 after the NoV war.

Join us today! We have all the tools to help you build your nation. Plus, we like to annoy TOP. You can't beat that. VI

EZI plain sucks. It should never be used due to IC reasons, and frankly, anything constituting OOC reasons ought to be reported to the proper authorities. It's a game. When people 'lose' they shouldn't be prevented from playing again. Expect my vehement vocal objection if it used again. I didn't like it when it was used by the so called hegemony, and I won't like it any better if used on any of them. Regards, VI

Oh, THAT guy? Good Lord, if it's the same guy, stay far far away.

I have a lot of respect for the community you guys at FAN must have to persevere for so long under terrible conditions. Congratulations and good luck in the future, enjoy it, you earned it the hard way. Regards, VI

I certainly can see where the OP is coming from, but I hardly think this situation is any different from any war that involves more than a few alliances. If 'Karma' is to be believed, and this coalition came together very quickly, it's no surprise that 'members' of Karma have disputes regarding peace terms. It's one thing to agree to go to war. That's a simple decision. However, the motivations of each participant, though they can be initially be ignored because the end result is that they want to fight, become very important. And in not deciding the answer to the following question beforehand, often leads to major disagreements. "What does success look like?" I'm sure 'Karma' alliances have many different answers to that question. Initially, you would think it's not an important question, but frankly, it's the most important question of all. This is not a criticism of Karma, I saw first hand how this played out during the NoV war. And those parties were close allies. One leader would say 'we want you guys peaced out, no reps,' another party would say 'no peace yet, but individual terms' and yet another would say 'the war has to go on a bit longer, and they'll probably be reps.' In fact, during the majority of the surrender talks, I was under the impression that there would be no reps. At the last minute, a couple of alliances insisted on them. And the reps were light, just in case anyone thinks I'm !@#$%*ing. The point though is 'fighting the NPO' is not an answer to the question posed above. It's theoretically a means to answering that question. So the idealists in Karma (and again, not making fun, I believe many are fighting for change) will have to compromise with the realists (also not making fun, as they are probably fighting for the perceived good of their alliances) will have to compromise with the grudge holders (also not making fun, not my personal style) and come up with a solution. Each 'group' got into this for a different reason, thus 'success' will look very different to each group. Ultimately, a good settlement is one in which all parties walk away a bit pissed off. And if I had to hazard a guess, the idealists, realists, and grudge holders, as well as 'hegemony' alliances will probably all walk away a bit pissed off. Good luck in resolving this issue to all the parties. Regards, VI

Awesome to see this treaty guys. Congratulations to MFO and our allies at Ether. Rock on, guys, rock on. Regards, VI

I have to respectfully dissent with the bolded section. All treaties are valuable, but not necessary. I don't know when the view became that treaties are necessary to defend or help friends, but it's a view that I disagree with at its core. Alliances are free to do what they choose to do, unless they give up some of that sovereignty (a very valuable thing) in the form of a treaty. Even a NAP has value - and as always, the value depends largely on the parties signing. So any treaty can be valuable if you (the parties signing it) want it to be. Nonetheless, good luck 57th, and I certainly can't say that stating your intentions beforehand isn't a good thing, because it is. Regards, VI

Now you're just trying to piss me off. If you continue to make statements that I agree with, I will be forced to reroll so I can get back to disagreeing with you wholesale. All kidding aside, I'm quite surprised at these terms. That said, I wasn't one with skin in the game so to speak, so my opinion really isn't all that important. I do understand certain parties' frustrations given Valhalla's past actions. Good luck to the parties going forward. Regards, VI [OOC]Sponge, thank God you're a Giants fan, so I can continue to mock you for that at least![OOC]

The direct history is this: NPO claimed that Ordo Verde had spied on them. As an aside, it was not clear how they came by this information. TOP attempted to mediate a peaceful resolution, however NPO declared war on Ordo Verde with the assistance of TORN. A bunch of alliances then responded with their own declarations of war, a side that calls itself in part 'Karma' though no one is positive who exactly is and isn't in 'Karma.' It appears the 'Karma' side (for lack of a better phrase) is winning the conflict.

I'm a little surprised to see your hate of TOP, but everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion, however uninformed it may be. Having spent a lot of time speaking with TOP, their guiding principle in entering the war was 'where can we do the most good for our friends and allies?' At least, that's what I heard and what I saw from TOP. That was not an easy question for TOP to answer, and yes, their process may seem a bit slow. Such is the nature of democracy. I never heard a member from TOP approach this from an opportunistic angle. They tried to keep this conflict from happening in the first place. That doesn't sound very opportunistic to me. You seem to be under the impression that TOP was seeking a way to benefit from this conflict. Based on my conversations with TOP, I don't think they sought to 'benefit' from this conflict at all. If anything, they didn't want to see this conflict happen at all. Just my 2 cents. Regards, VI