Rating Alliances 2.0...now with blocs!

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1304575159' post='2706685']
Edit: I've decided its unnecessary to respond.

See you in the near future.
[/quote]

That's alright, I saw your original post. I'll leave a light on for you.

[flak attack]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1304566222' post='2706556']
Let me guess next you're going to tell us that TOP didn't preempt C&G, and then turn around right after the war to sign with MK who at the time was the very heart of C&G. Talk about revisionist history.

Why anyone would trust what you or anyone else from TOP says is beyond me.
[/quote]
I see you're still not over them turning down the treaty offer you guys gave them.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1304573684' post='2706667']
STA is the roadblock, because you won't man up and own your past. lolk
[/quote]

Who said I wouldnt own up to what my part in things were? All I said in the above is that I wouldnt be a party to an OWF posting of any apology just for STA's approval.


If you choose to equate one with the other then by all means please be like Tyga and join him in inserting your head where his has been for quite sometime.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1304576937' post='2706699']
Who said I wouldnt own up to what my part in things were? All I said in the above is that I wouldnt be a party to an OWF posting of any apology just for STA's approval.


If you choose to equate one with the other then by all means please be like Tyga and join him in inserting your head where his has been for quite sometime.
[/quote]

Then why do delegations from Valhalla keep turning up asking for our "approval"?

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1304577091' post='2706700']
Then why do delegations from Valhalla keep turning up asking for our "approval"?
[/quote]

Because they unlike myself retain some hope you may have changed your stance on said 'term'. So when the issue of STA comes up internally every now and again the discussion inevitably comes down to why the wall of silence and the reply of STA's owf apology 'term' being the issue is something most of them think they can address, albeit to this point futilely but I do admire their attempts to try.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1304583542' post='2706732']
Because they unlike myself retain some hope you may have changed your stance on said 'term'. So when the issue of STA comes up internally every now and again the discussion inevitably comes down to why the wall of silence and the reply of STA's owf apology 'term' being the issue is something most of them think they can address, albeit to this point futilely but I do admire their attempts to try.
[/quote]

Actually, they usually come knocking when making good with us will get you something you want. But, let me state it here for the record. The apology is required and always will be so unless you are willing to apologise then don't waste our time and the time of your diplomats by knocking on our door in future.

[Cataduanes]

Alot of love on show in this thread

[OrangeBeard]

GPA - 0; Boring neutrals are boring.
NATO - 10; Yep...thats about it.

[Mayzie]

Someone mind changing the topic title of this? Something relating to STA / Valhalla arguing should do the trick.

[Tygaland]

You might make TOP feel left out if you do that.

[pezstar]

Good morning, forum people!

I'm not even touching the TOP thing. It's been argued into the ground two dozen times right on these forums, and if folks want to know where each side stands, they're welcome to look it up. At the end of the day, each side thinks the other screwed up. I can say that it wasn't an easy decision for STA, but also that we give no craps whether or not TOP dislikes us, so enh. I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding between us, but I don't think we did anything wrong, so we're not sorry for how we handled things.

As for Valhalla. Heh. Well.

At the end of the day, STA doesn't care at all about making up with them and burying that grudge. As far as I can recall, we've never approached them to do so. Starting not too long after noCB, Valhalla approached us about it. We said then that we'd be glad to bury the hatchet if they'd admit they were jerks in a couple of incidents and apologize for it. They went away. A few months later, they came back talking about how they needed to have some enormous, weeks long internal discussion to decide whether or not apologizing was a politically wise thing to do. We more or less said thanks but no thanks... we aren't interested in fake apologies, we're only interested if you actually realize that you were wrong and WANT to apologize, and taking weeks to discuss whether that is the case means you're not. Since then, we've had a couple more brief visits and a few incidents of Valhalla wanting to be pals with a couple of our allies, and trying to get our allies involved.

But we're really not interested. Honestly, we're pretty much indifferent to whether or not we're friends with Valhalla or enemies. If they ever want to apologize, we're here to listen. If not, we're ok with that too. We've had fun over the years with the RAWR HATE VALHALLA, so it's not like it's any skin off of our backs to continue. We're certainly not going to change our position on it. We've said exactly what it will take from the beginning, and have never deviated from that. If Valhalla doesn't want to apologize, then they shouldn't do so. Fake apologies are lame anyway.

[Crymson]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1304570065' post='2706619']
As for the statements from Grub, he himself refuted TOP's mistaken belief that he favored a new front in the war.
[/quote]

Really? Eleven pages of logs--many people have seen them--prove that you're wrong, and Grub ppenly admitted, as early as the night Polaris declared war on us, that he had approved and approved of our strategy.

Gracias for saving us all the trouble of refuting your words; you've done so by making it very clear that you lack even the most basic knowledge of the situation. Can you and your alliance do [b]anything[/b] right these days?

[Aurion]

As [i]fascinating[/i] as "We were 100% right and everyone else was wrong nevermind any details nyah!" argument #1,000 about BiPolar is, I don't suppose you could all shut up or take it to the other thread?

Seeing people rate alliances is much more interesting.

Edit: Also it isn't like any of you are going to actually convince anyone else.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Aurion

[Solaris]

[u][b]Alliances Included in First List:[/b][/u]
Mostly Harmless Alliance - 6
Green Protection Agency - 8 - I believe you're safe
Fark - 6 - I know so little of these people, but they have some qualities I can appreciate
Independent Republic Of Orange Nations - 6
Sparta - 7 - Your capacity for dialogue and cooperation is appreciated
World Task Force - 4 - pretty unknown
Orange Defense Network - 7
The Order Of The Paradox - 8
Umbrella - 9 - what you lack in numbers, you cover with technique and power
New Pacific Order - 7 - slacking lately, structurally fascinating and historically successful
Global Alliance And Treaty Organization - 4
Viridian Entente - 9
The Democratic Order - 4 pretty unknown
New Polar Order - 5 - historical decision making processes decreseases the score of this otherwise interesting an alliance
FOK - 9
R&R - 6 - quite unknown, but I have a positive instinctive stance in regards to this alliance (I also know why people prefer to use RnR instead of R&R)
Mushroom Kingdom - 9
Nordreich - 6
LoSS - 5
Nusantara Elite Warriors - 5
The Legion - 3
Valhalla - 5
Multicolored Cross-X Alliance - 3
Nueva Vida - 5
The Foreign Division - 5 - pretty unknown
Federation Of Armed Nations - 5 - pretty unknown these days
NATO - 4
Global Order of Darkness - 8
The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons - 4
Legacy - 5
The Templar Knights - 4
The Order Of Light - 4
Asgaard - 4
iFOK - 8
Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations - 6
Athens - 6
World Federation - 7
Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism - 8
Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics - 5
Global Democratic Alliance - 4
Argent - 8
Guru Order - 4
Christian Coalition Of Countries - 3
Ragnarok - 4
The Phoenix Federation - 4
Random Insanity Alliance - 5

[u][b]Alliances Added to List:[/b][/u]
Siberian Tiger Alliance - 4
The Prolific Empire - 4
Olympus - 3
Poison Clan - 8
Colossus - 5
Greenland Republic - 5
United Purple Nations - 4
Hydra - 4
Carpe Diem - 3
Créole - 4
=LOST= - 3
Europa - 4
Dark Templar - 3
Imperial Assault Alliance - 4
The Order of Righteous Nations - 5 - pretty unknown these days
Phoenix Rising - 4
Seaworthy Liberian Carboard Boxes - 5
Invicta - 3
New Sith Order - 5
North Atlantic Defense Coalition - 2 - oh dear
The Imperial Order - 4
United Blue Directorate - 4
Gotham - 3
SOS Brigade - 2
Nebula-X - 3
The Sweet Oblivion - 3
Union of Integrated National Entities - 2
Exodus - 3
Molon Labe - 5
\m/ - 2
Atlantic Sphere Union - 3
OMFG - 5.1


[u][b]Blocs:[/b][/u]
Complaints and Grievances Union - 5
Superfriends - 5
Synergy -
Doomhouse Accords - I don't think it's a bloc, actually
Pandora's Box - 10
AZTEC - 5
Blood For Friends - 3
Chestnut Accords - 3
Terra Cotta Pact - 3
Checkmate -
Kel-Morian Combine -
Poseidon -
Victory Not Vengeance -

[NoMercy]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304046584' post='2701684']

[color="#FF0000"][b]The Sweet Oblivion[/b][/color] - 5 bad beginning, inactive now, being very generous because they are allied to
[/quote]
We aren't inactive.

And to everyone who gave us less than 4 points: Thanks, you are the reason we are still here!

[youwish959]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1304612778' post='2706905']
Gracias for saving us all the trouble of refuting your words; you've done so by making it very clear that you lack even the most basic knowledge of the situation. Can you and your alliance do [b]anything[/b] right these days?
[/quote]
Your random insults of people and alliances purvey the image that you are a bitter man.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1304588309' post='2706750']
Actually, they usually come knocking when making good with us will get you something you want. But, let me state it here for the record. The apology is required and always will be so unless you are willing to apologise then don't waste our time and the time of your diplomats by knocking on our door in future.
[/quote]

If that apology is also always required to be on the OWF then I guess we both will sit on either side of the wall of enmity forever, so if you were really serious about just wanting an 'apology' you would remove the impass. By not doing so all you show is that your just interested in some public display of humility and shame. Sorry if not participating in that throws your panties into a wad but then this issue started out with that type of display(yes by me to STA) and however it finishes that isnt going to be it...

Edited May 5, 2011 by chefjoe

[NoMercy]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1304188265' post='2702620']
[color="#0000FF"]Alliances Added to List:

The Sweet Oblivion: 5 - Without SAM or Watchman I have no real reason to hate you.
[/color]
[/quote]

We need them back, badly.

I don't get why people still discuss the performance of other alliances or alliance leaders. Excluding GPA every alliance had its good and bad moments and success really should be defined by its members and not some statistics.

[pezstar]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1304620522' post='2706976']
If that apology is also always required to be on the OWF then I guess we both will sit on either side of the wall of enmity forever, so if you were really serious about just wanting an 'apology' you would remove the impass. By not doing so all you show is that your just interested in some public display of humility and shame. Sorry if not participating in that throws your panties into a wad but then this issue started out with that type of display(yes by me to STA) and however it finishes that isnt going to be it...
[/quote]


Actually, you recently refused to even come to our forum to attempt to talk things out. You went to one of our allies with whom you are interested in befriending and told them you really wanted to bury the hatchet, but you are afraid to make a post on our forum about it out of fear of our members mocking you. Our members have never mocked you on our forum. Ever. We've all been less than receptive to anything other than the required apology, but that's about it. There are about three of them who give a crap about Valhalla at all. At any rate, you asked our ally to approach us to mediate something, and we declined, once again citing our three year old requirement as the only thing necessary to mend fences.

At any rate, my point is that for ages and ages, your alliance has come up with one reason or another why you can't or won't or don't want to apologize. And that's fine. That's totally cool with us. We don't care one way or the other, and are perfectly content to continue disliking your alliance. You guys are the ones who seem to care about what we think of you, and as such, it's up to you to meet our requirements. Since we don't care about it, we see no need to bend on it. Disliking you really has no downside for us.

Edited May 5, 2011 by pezstar

[chefjoe]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1304623936' post='2707011']
Actually, you recently refused to even come to our forum to attempt to talk things out. You went to one of our allies with whom you are interested in befriending and told them you really wanted to bury the hatchet, but you are afraid to make a post on our forum about it out of fear of our members mocking you. Our members have never mocked you on our forum. Ever. We've all been less than receptive to anything other than the required apology, but that's about it. There are about three of them who give a crap about Valhalla at all. At any rate, you asked our ally to approach us to mediate something, and we declined, once again citing our three year old requirement as the only thing necessary to mend fences.

At any rate, my point is that for ages and ages, your alliance has come up with one reason or another why you can't or won't or don't want to apologize. And that's fine. That's totally cool with us. We don't care one way or the other, and are perfectly content to continue disliking your alliance. You guys are the ones who seem to care about what we think of you, and as such, it's up to you to meet our requirements. Since we don't care about it, we see no need to bend on it. Disliking you really has no downside for us.
[/quote]

Works for me


Edit- Idk where you got that impression about why I did not come to your forums but that is incorrect.

Edited May 5, 2011 by chefjoe

[chefjoe]

dbl post

Edited May 5, 2011 by chefjoe

[Bionic redhead]

I've read through this topic and I've come to the conclusion that only in Cybernations would an alliance be disliked for trying to do anything possible to help their friends.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1304620522' post='2706976']
If that apology is also always required to be on the OWF then I guess we both will sit on either side of the wall of enmity forever, so if you were really serious about just wanting an 'apology' you would remove the impass. By not doing so all you show is that your just interested in some public display of humility and shame. Sorry if not participating in that throws your panties into a wad but then this issue started out with that type of display(yes by me to STA) and however it finishes that isnt going to be it...
[/quote]

Wait, what? Because we require an apology and you refuse to offer it it is our responsibility to remove that requirement else we are the ones holding the issue up? No matter how you try and spin the same line it gets no traction because it is nonsense. Your delegations, including current government members, stated to us that an apology was warranted for past actions against the STA by Valhalla. Us requiring that apology, which costs you nothing other than a few moments of contrition, is not a roadblock to putting the pas behind us. Your refusal to offer it is.

My panties are not in a bunch over this. I could not care less whether you apologise and we move on or if you stubbornly refuse to apologise and things stay as they are. I don't lose a moment's rest over it and no one in the STA cares. Your alliance keeps coming to us or badgering our allies saying you want to put the past behind us yet you are unwilling to do anything to facilitate it.

So, the advice Pez and myself are offering you is this. The apology is a requirement. No amount of wriggling and lying is going to change that. Trying to get our allies to pressure us into caving is not going to work. So, if you are unwilling to man up to your past and apologise for what you did then don't waste your time and ours with another attempt to weasel your way out of the apology. It won't work.

Now, if you are willing to man up then we are all ears.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Bionic redhead' timestamp='1304641590' post='2707166']
I've read through this topic and I've come to the conclusion that only in Cybernations would an alliance be disliked for trying to do anything possible to help their friends.
[/quote]
CARPE DIEM BROKE TERMS ZOMG -5


Oh Cybernations.

[Lord Levistus]

The entire STA/Valhalla issue is a load of crap and so twisted with half truths and misperceptions on both sides that even as an insider it makes my head hurt just reading about it.

So can we change the topic of this to something along the lines of rating alliances?