Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1328001369' post='2911462'] Yeah, Isaac is pretty much the last person you want to be acting as your public spokesman. [/quote] Yeah im not anyones public spokesman but yall can hop off for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonAce Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in, I haven't said much on OWF. Ignoring anything that occurred before the coup, and going on what [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Charter_of_Ragnarok]this[/url] says (and it's probably outdated, but it's all I've got at this moment), there is nothing forbidding the RoK membership from overthrowing the Emperor. Joe and Bob have a logical claim as leaders of RoK if you assume RoK is a monarchy or oligarchy. Since they've been ousted by their own membership, they can claim leadership all they want, but unless the majority of RoK's remaining members even want a Joe/Bob leadership, they're SOOL. Chalk all of this up to a poorly written charter, a poor choice of government, and poor FA decisions (that is, if the RoK membership overthrew Joe/Bob because of such decisions). I stand by my alliance in supporting RoK's membership and recognize Adel as the new leader of RoK. However, I fear RoK's time may be up shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote]I stand by my alliance in supporting RoK's membership and recognize Adel as the new leader of RoK. However, I fear RoK's time may be up shortly.[/quote] I think as long as RoK handles the Kait situation with care they should be fine. I hope so anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) The whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Edited January 31, 2012 by Kowalski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1328041325' post='2911692'] KK has continued her nuclear assault against the Mushroom Kingdom and has hereby been placed on our Goomba List. I would also strongly advise against aiding a nation at war with my alliance. [/quote] Result Achieved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1328044926' post='2911766'] The whole thing has been blown out of proportion. [/quote] I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328041891' post='2911705'] Well, I guess MK have declared their hand – they don't want to be reasonable, they want to bait Adel-RoK into a war. [/quote] Hang on a sec. I haven't really been keeping up with these threads, but are there actually people who think the Kait coup was legitimate and Adel installation is the rightful government and treat it as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328041891' post='2911705'] Well, I guess MK have declared their hand – they don't want to be reasonable, they want to bait Adel-RoK into a war. [/quote] If KK wanted peace she should have had an audience with the government of RoK and MK and talked through diplomatic channels, instead of retaliating with nukes, twice. I don't know how you run your alliance, but in mine, when you fight us, you don't get to retaliate and seek peace at the same time. I hope MK force her through a mercy board. Edited January 31, 2012 by Sardonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328044399' post='2911756'] Ignoring anything that occurred before the coup, and going on what [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Charter_of_Ragnarok]this[/url] says (and it's probably outdated, but it's all I've got at this moment), there is nothing forbidding the RoK membership from overthrowing the Emperor. [/quote] The charter lists the Emperor (as well as Regent and Vice-Regent) as lifetime positions. This directly contradicts what you're trying to claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328041891' post='2911705'] Well, I guess MK have declared their hand – they don't want to be reasonable, they want to bait Adel-RoK into a war. [/quote] Yes because nuking mid-negotiations is such a wise and honorable move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonAce Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1328046572' post='2911789'] The charter lists the Emperor (as well as Regent and Vice-Regent) as lifetime positions. This directly contradicts what you're trying to claim. [/quote] I know that, but the RoK membership ignored their own charter, which makes the charter unenforceable, worthless, and by the looks of it, no longer void. How can you run an alliance when the majority of the membership doesn't comply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328046867' post='2911797'] I know that, but the RoK membership ignored their own charter, which makes the charter unenforceable, worthless, and by the looks of it, no longer void. How can you run an alliance when the majority of the membership doesn't comply? [/quote] I think a valid question at this point would be - Is Ragnarok even an alliance right now? They are barely displaying any of the characteristics of an alliance, save sharing a mutual alliance affiliation tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328046867' post='2911797'] I know that, but the RoK membership ignored their own charter, which makes the charter unenforceable, worthless, and by the looks of it, no longer void. How can you run an alliance when the majority of the membership doesn't comply? [/quote] Right, but you [i]literally[/i] just said that there's nothing in the charter that prevents the membership from overthrowing the Emperor. That's false. If they follow the charter then it's not possible. If they don't follow the charter, then how do they call themselves Ragnarok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328046867' post='2911797'] I know that, but the RoK membership ignored their own charter, which makes the charter unenforceable, worthless, and by the looks of it, no longer void. How can you run an alliance when the majority of the membership doesn't comply? [/quote] Oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1328046642' post='2911790'] Yes because nuking mid-negotiations is such a wise and honorable move. [/quote] Nuking in self-defence is not dishonourable, although against an opponent who wants to make something of it it can certainly count as unwise. She put the ball in your court, but you still had the option to be the bigger men, particularly as this mess is RoK's fault, not really Kait's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328047850' post='2911808'] particularly as this mess is RoK's fault, not really Kait's. [/quote] You're right. Kait has been an innocent bystander in all of this. The true victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonAce Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1328047355' post='2911800'] Right, but you [i]literally[/i] just said that there's nothing in the charter that prevents the membership from overthrowing the Emperor. That's false. If they follow the charter then it's not possible. If they don't follow the charter, then how do they call themselves Ragnarok? [/quote] Having a line in the charter as simple as "Any calls for the Emperor to be removed forcefully by any Ragnarok member will be met with extreme force" could have cleared up any ambiguity. Just calling the Emperor position a lifetime position doesn't hold enough weight if you don't have consequences to those who would seek to usurp. I agree with calling RoK's allianceship(?) into question. Adel and co. need to overhaul the government before it's too late. They need a new charter. Edited January 31, 2012 by JonAce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328047850' post='2911808'] Nuking in self-defence is not dishonourable, although against an opponent who wants to make something of it it can certainly count as unwise. She put the ball in your court, but you still had the option to be the bigger men, particularly as this mess is RoK's fault, not really Kait's. [/quote] The only "bigger man" who lets an unaligned get away with nuking your members while negotiations are ongoing with no repercussions is a "giant idiot". MK is not obliged to take damage for attacking what the former RoK government declared an unaligned ghost, especially not while negotiations for the unaligned are in progress. It is Kait's fault the situation has evolved. Edited January 31, 2012 by Sardonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1328046642' post='2911790'] Yes because nuking mid-negotiations is such a wise and honorable move. [/quote] Yeah, it sucks that kait got on in time to defend her self against the 3 wars against her...also a guy from MK just declared on her today at 1:02...is that honorable? Edited January 31, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Sardonic, I think we simply disagree over the morality of demanding that a tech raid target lay down and take it, and it's probably best not to derail the thread onto that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) The thing about alliance leaders is that they are ALWAYS accountable to their membership. What is a charter? It's an agreement between the membership. And if the membership agrees on something else, like, say, "This guy is really bad news, and we're going to kick him out, lets put our other agreement called 'the charter' to the side for a minute," then guess what? That's perfectly acceptable. Against the charter? Yes, it is. But not against the will of the people, and it is the will of the people that is supreme, not a silly piece of parchment. Edited January 31, 2012 by HeroofTime55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1328048829' post='2911822'] Sardonic, I think we simply disagree over the morality of demanding that a tech raid target lay down and take it, and it's probably best not to derail the thread onto that. [/quote] It's not a tech raid, and when peace is being negotiated neither party is supposed to conduct aggressive acts (she did), this is incident diplomacy 101. Regardless, fine, I'll stop posting about it until a more appropriate venue opens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1328048824' post='2911821'] Yeah, it sucks that kait got on in time to defend her self against the 3 wars against her...also a guy from MK just declared on her today at 1:02...is that honorable? [/quote] Yeah, the nation we put on her after the talks broke down. Yup. That one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1328049125' post='2911827'] Yeah, the nation we put on her after the talks broke down. Yup. That one. [/quote] You know thats not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328047992' post='2911811'] Having a line in the charter as simple as "Any calls for the Emperor to be removed forcefully by any Ragnarok member will be met with extreme force" could have cleared up any ambiguity. Just calling the Emperor position a lifetime position doesn't hold enough weight if you don't have consequences to those who would seek to usurp. [/quote] That's not necessary at all, and this is a stupid argument. It's already implicit that if you disobey your alliance's founding document that you're liable to be expelled from the alliance and have your nation destroyed. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1328049008' post='2911824'] The thing about alliance leaders is that they are ALWAYS accountable to their membership. What is a charter? It's an agreement between the membership. And if the membership agrees on something else, like, say, "This guy is really bad news, and we're going to kick him out, lets put our other agreement called 'the charter' to the side for a minute," then guess what? That's perfectly acceptable. Against the charter? Yes, it is. But not against the will of the people, and it is the will of the people that is supreme, not a silly piece of parchment. [/quote] There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you have enough support to back up that decision. I was just pointing out that it's silly to try and argue that a coup is valid within a charter when it is clearly not. Edited January 31, 2012 by ktarthan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts