Stewie Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 MEAT still exists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 there's like 19 active maroon ones for some dumb reason... lol maroonity, MEP, SPAM, MEAT. don't forget about dark vows too >.> [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Vows"]http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Vows[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkEra97 Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 You're in good hands GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 [quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1353451212' post='3055193'] Orange, Maroon, Purple, Blue and Red teams still have color unity blocs if the wiki is to be believed. [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Citrus_Trade_Initiative"]Citrus_Trade_Initiative[/url] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Prosperity_on_Purple"]Prosperity_on_Purple[/url] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Blunity_Accords"]Blunity_Accords[/url] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Dawn"]Red_Dawn[/url] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Maroon_Economic_Pact"]Maroon_Economic_Pact[/url] & [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Maroon_Economic_Attack_Treaty"]Maroon_Economic_Attack_Treaty[/url] I can't vouch for their activity but they still exist. [/quote] Well, damn. Consider me corrected, though they are largely ineffective now that trading isn't a point of contention anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1353453166' post='3055229'] Well, damn. Consider me corrected, though they are largely ineffective now that trading isn't a point of contention anymore. [/quote] yeah trade / color blocs are useless imo, though some of them have senate sharing elements in them as well too, like dark vows and red dawn i know off the top of my head. Edited November 20, 2012 by Rogal Dorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Ah finally. It's not like you gave a !@#$ about it anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) It's a bit sad to see the #36 AA, with 3.7 mil NS and an ANS of approx. 85k, entering protectorate status. Edited November 21, 2012 by Prodigal Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1353457855' post='3055282'] It's a bit sad to see the #36 AA, with 3.7 mil NS and an ANS of approx. 85k, entering protectorate status. [/quote] wait what the fudge. how the... why the... im scratching my head here.... >.> I thought GOP was a lot smaller. now this comes off like GOP is saying "we're neutral!... but protect us because we cant" Edited November 21, 2012 by Rogal Dorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Rogal Dorn' timestamp='1353463953' post='3055352'] wait what the fudge. how the... why the... im scratching my head here.... >.> I thought GOP was a lot smaller. now this comes off like GOP is saying "we're neutral!... but protect us because we cant" [/quote] Both of us understand the potential ramifications of being a completely unaligned alliance in CN, therefore they have always existed under 'protectorate' status from UJA, this agreement carries over that protection rather than let it dissolve with UJA. If someone hits a random neutral alliance, more than likely they won't have any official political ties. This is so GOP continues to not find itself in that situation. This isn't a protectorate treaty as the word is commonly used, as they do not need our help getting off their feet and the like, but that is just the easiest way to describe a one-direction mutual defense pact and so this agreement bears its name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Farnsworth' timestamp='1353429076' post='3055004'] Huh, didn't realize this old thing was still around. When did GPA leave UJA? [/quote] Never. Which raises the question about how the treaty was dissolved by VE, given that it stated, to dissolve the treaty it would require the consent of all signatories, making no difference between standard signatories and neutral ones (or, for that matter, protectorate ones) Anyway, we where saddened when you informed us you planned to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1353469991' post='3055395'] Both of us understand the potential ramifications of being a completely unaligned alliance in CN, therefore they have always existed under 'protectorate' status from UJA, this agreement carries over that protection rather than let it dissolve with UJA. If someone hits a random neutral alliance, more than likely they won't have any official political ties. This is so GOP continues to not find itself in that situation. This isn't a protectorate treaty as the word is commonly used, as they do not need our help getting off their feet and the like, but that is just the easiest way to describe a one-direction mutual defense pact and so this agreement bears its name. [/quote] I think it's partially due to that there are other neutrals that are smaller that dont have protectorates like grey council or creole for instance. Pax corvus does have the weird one way protectorate thing with apparatus which is even more weird considering pax is two times the size of App. but meh, i spose people are going to play the game how they want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Have to agree with Caladin here. Edited June 9, 2013 by Kurdanak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Caladin' timestamp='1353479605' post='3055458'] Which raises the question about how the treaty was dissolved by VE, given that it stated, to dissolve the treaty it would require the consent of all signatories, making no difference between standard signatories and neutral ones (or, for that matter, protectorate ones) [/quote] Viridian Entente [i]is [/i]UJA. Viridian Entente [i]is [/i]Green Sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Rogal Dorn' timestamp='1353484880' post='3055475'] I think it's partially due to that there are other neutrals that are smaller that dont have protectorates like grey council or creole for instance. Pax corvus does have the weird one way protectorate thing with apparatus which is even more weird considering pax is two times the size of App. but meh, i spose people are going to play the game how they want to. [/quote] For sure, however GOP wants to play the game, we're here to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorponok Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1353457855' post='3055282'] It's a bit sad to see the #36 AA, with 3.7 mil NS and an ANS of approx. 85k, entering protectorate status. [/quote] I know what you mean. Do neutral AAs even need protection?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1353510200' post='3055559'] I know what you mean. Do neutral AAs even need protection?! [/quote] You never know, some bully might come out and just DoW GOP. They won't have any help if VE isn't protecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1353510200' post='3055559'] I know what you mean. Do neutral AAs even need protection?! [/quote] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Democratic%20Order&anyallexact=exact]some of them seem they sure could use it[/url] Something tells me most neutral alliances might need less than TDO appears to, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1353510200' post='3055559'] I know what you mean. Do neutral AAs even need protection?! [/quote] If they wanted a MDoAP they would have had it, this fits best with what they want to do with their alliance's politics, so we are here to assist them in doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1353511866' post='3055568'] If they wanted a MDoAP they would have had it, this fits best with what they want to do with their alliance's politics, so we are here to assist them in doing that. [/quote] It's a generous move on behalf of VE, so I don't think anyone's knocking you guys for this. It just seems like a bit of a...let's say "timid" way for an alliance that size to exist, in my completely unsolicited opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorponok Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Eumirbago' timestamp='1353510581' post='3055561'] You never know, some bully might come out and just DoW GOP. They won't have any help if VE isn't protecting. [/quote] I thought all neutrals stuck together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorponok Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1353511079' post='3055564'] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Democratic%20Order&anyallexact=exact"]some of them seem they sure could use it[/url] Something tells me most neutral alliances might need less than TDO appears to, however. [/quote] That just Timmehh, he's just enjoying making every top 100 nation cower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 : ::summon Bilrow:: : : ::summon Dilber:: : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1353513309' post='3055575']It's a generous move on behalf of VE, so I don't think anyone's knocking you guys for this. It just seems like a bit of a...let's say "timid" way for an alliance that size to exist, in my completely unsolicited opinion.[/quote] The understanding has always been that, because the GOP is more involved in our sphere (helping with rogues when called upon, active in the Senate when elected, a stabilizing force, helping bust ghosts when asked, helping establish trade circles when possible, giving preferential tech deals to Green nations when approached, etc) that the sphere (then embodied by the UJA) saw the benefit in offering us an added layer of protection. As Goldie has said, with the dissolution of the UJA, this new agreement simply caries forward the status of protection that has existed almost 1,400 days already. Also, as Goldie mentioned, this is a pretty limited protection agreement - it's not like most protectorate treaties in CN. We just see this agreement as a longtime friend of our alliance formalizing their willingness to offer us cover fire if ever we need it. I should add, too, that we are not "neutral" in the traditional, hippie since. We just rather think political treaties are too often arbitrarily enforced and we try to take what we think is a more honest, practical approach. As alluded to earlier, we call our brand of neutrality "soft-line" neutrality. Our "Don't Tread on Me" accords afford us the opportunity and legal justification to involve ourselves in conflicts that we feel are destabilizing to any of our three spheres of interest (the Green sphere, Neutrals, and Conservatives). That potential - which does not really exist with other neutral alliances - has been a big reason for both VE's continued agreement to offer us protection if ever we need it and our willingness to be so involved in the Green sphere. Edited November 21, 2012 by Rooman33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 GGA is going to roll you for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1353510200' post='3055559'] I know what you mean. Do neutral AAs even need protection?! [/quote] Ubercon was raided into oblivion just last spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.