An Agora Announcement

[Bob]

Thanks for the thought, Bob. I looked up BLEU's old treaty also. It was explicitly a Unity treaty and it contained this:

Not eloquent, but you see the point.

Anyway, I think we had never considered anything other than BLEU as a model for blue unity. Perhaps we should have looked at ICE and OUT more. For the time being, it is what it is. I do find it interesting that the same people that bemoan the loss of BLEU cry "foul" at an entrance policy that is exactly the same.

I smell hypocrisy!

BLEU was also a MADP bloc, which you are not. I am not sure of the process that was used for the economic BLEU treaty, but correct me if I am wrong, weren't you guys dissatisified with BLEU and what they had done so you decided to create a different bloc to support blue unity (a concept that I don't think it encouraged at all, but still)? Why would you use their standard for the construction of this treaty and not a treaty that has gone over well, like OUT? OUT is arguably the standard for unity treaties, but yet instead you use a treaty that you all removed yourselves from?

EDIT: I also want to point out that the process of the one applicant who has not made into signatory status is NOT over. There were a number of issues that included, as Triyun pointed out, another bloc. We still need to work that all out.

So being told that you are /rejected/ is not a definitive answer? I know what happened in the scenario and personally I think that Agora should have accepted them and not let old grudges or whatever it was disallow a honorable alliance. I don't know what other bloc you refer to, but its been a few months now (two?) I don't quite understand how it is not worked out by now.

[Penguin]

You brought it up, publicly. What am I supposed to do other than question your source?

Very well then; I don't mean to disrupt your thread any longer, but I will comply with your request. About three weeks ago I had a nice discussion with Doctor Fresh of MCXA about the direction of the Blue Sphere. It became clear to the two of us that certain alliances both inside and outside of Agora did not get along well and we discussed avenues to pursue trade and senate unity despite this crutch. We discussed the possibility of lowering the entry requirements into Agora such that it could accommodate alliances that did not really like one another, but could still function towards a free senate and equal access to trades. I was told that Agora would not be willing to sacrifice its own friendly, cozy and unified atmosphere in order to accommodate the entire team and that certain alliances who could not get along with certain other alliances in Agora would not be welcomed there. I wholeheartedly respected and understood that position as one directed towards the protection of the bloc atmosphere that you hold dear and I was not offended or upset by that direction. I reaffirmed that Polaris's loyalties would always lie to the sphere above Agora and that we simply had a different opinion of what was best for the blue team. I suggested that we examine the possibility of a new treaty that could bring stability to the blue trading sphere without requiring the member alliances all love one another right from the get go. Then we broke for lunch. If this position has since changed, you need only let me know.

We're supposed to vote on EVERY alliance in the blue sphere? Why would we have a bloc, then? Why not just proclaim domination of the sphere? I've never heard of an alliance entering a bloc without applying.

edit:However, Penguin, if you send me a list of every blue sphere alliance, I will give it a shot.

You have a bloc to provide for a free senate and give all member alliances equal access to trades and tech deals. Ideally you would either amend the unanimous decision clause or you would start actually accepting all blue team applicants. The problem is not so much in the language as it is in the information I have received as to the prospects of other blue team members.

For reference, there is a list of all Blue team alliances on the wiki:

1TF | AE | ARES | BRIG | Echelon | FCO | Genesis | GDA | GR | ICENI | IPA | LOSS | YUC | MCXA | NADC | UBD | NV | NpO | OcUK | REC | TFD | USB | USA

Anyway, I think we had never considered anything other than BLEU as a model for blue unity. Perhaps we should have looked at ICE and OUT more. For the time being, it is what it is. I do find it interesting that the same people that bemoan the loss of BLEU cry "foul" at an entrance policy that is exactly the same.

I smell hypocrisy!

I have not once bemoaned the loss of BLEU in this thread, nor have I said anything hypocritical. I don't believe any blue team alliance would have ever been rejected from the BLEU economics treaty, however. BLEU began with an open invitation to all alliances on the sphere, while Agora was formed in secret without inviting or even informing many of the remaining blue alliances. Furthermore, it was formed while a more ubiquitous and open team treaty, BLEU economics, already existed. Many of the current Agora members who now wish to carry the mantle of Blue unity, at one point broke from the only remaining unity bloc on the blue team.

Granted, BLEU existed in a different time and no one would even suggest that such a treaty could function in the current atmosphere on the sphere. It should be pretty clear that we don't want an MDP with you, so there is no need to suggest that we wish to model Agora after BLEU. What I do want is some kind of stabilizing treaty which recognizes that we all share the same trading and senate sphere and can treat each other politely even though we don't all like one another.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Penguin

[SpiderJerusalem]

I see people criticizing Agora for many things. It's biggest signatory is red, it's currently a bit lacking on portraying blue unity and it doesn't even come close to BLEU in most areas.

But none of these reasons are the reason I laugh at Agora every time their name come up.

The reason I laugh is simple. Out of the top six alliances in blue, you only have two members. Two members? Your combined blue membership couldn't even defend blue if needed, much less promote unity within your sphere. You're a project that is doomed to fail if you don't shape up and shape up fast. And if you don't, I am afraid that everyone will realize soon enough that you'll break up faster than a Britney Spears marriage.

So, good luck with that I guess, because I know that you need it.

[Bob Janova]

Anyway, I think we had never considered anything other than BLEU as a model for blue unity.

Interesting then that you did not invite the ex-BLEU who stuck with the bloc for the Polar/Hyperion War . But I think this is your big mistake. BLEU, despite its name, was not a Blue Unity treaty, it was an MADP bloc that was used to promote a very particular political agenda on Blue. It sanctioned a Blue-on-Blue war (NADC), for example. BLEU realised this and made another treaty (the BLEU Economic Treaty) to cover the unity part once the 'bad' elements had been purged from Blue. Using BLEU, an instrument of political power, as your template means that in Agora you have ended up with an instrument of political power (albeit a weak one due to your decision to make it ODP) – and as BLEU was never a unity treaty, nor is Agora.

[MaGneT]

@Bob Janova: IIRC, the Economic part was implemented well before we attacked NADC. We implemented our ODP section after NADC, though.

-----------

This bloc is the biggest joke on Planet Bob.

A Group of Obedient Red Team Assistants

AGORA?

Red Team's Assistants for short.

Obsequious/Obvious/Obedient are interchangeable.

With that in mind, seeing alliances like UBD and NADC in this disappoints me.

We're supposed to vote on EVERY alliance in the blue sphere? Why would we have a bloc, then? Why not just proclaim domination of the sphere? I've never heard of an alliance entering a bloc without applying.

At BLEU, we managed to do that. IIRC, which I do, whenever someone saw a new blue alliance pop up in the OWF, we would start a thread in our government area and discuss who they were, make sure at least 2 alliances had a diplomat there, and in most cases, most alliances were offered an economic partnership within a month.

Offered. Invited. Open advocation of blue unity. Those of us in the Blue Leadership were really Ensuring Unity. Much unlike the RTA.

Anyway, I think we had never considered anything other than BLEU as a model for blue unity. Perhaps we should have looked at ICE and OUT more. For the time being, it is what it is. I do find it interesting that the same people that bemoan the loss of BLEU cry "foul" at an entrance policy that is exactly the same.

I smell hypocrisy!

BLEU had that selective policy for our MADP core group. Tell me, would you trade with someone who you were fighting against? During the Continuum-BLEU War, two of my trades were with Echelon members and a third was with a NPO member on the blue sphere.

But you're right, I smell hypocrisy too. Things that reek so badly of it (RTA, for example) really ought to be placed in the proper receptacle.

tl;dr:

-Agora shall henceforth be referred to as RTA (Red Team's Assistants)p

-Poor attempts at posturing are poor.

Edited February 15, 2009 by MaGneT

[RandomInterrupt]

Interesting then that you did not invite the ex-BLEU who stuck with the bloc for the Polar/Hyperion War . But I think this is your big mistake. BLEU, despite its name, was not a Blue Unity treaty, it was an MADP bloc that was used to promote a very particular political agenda on Blue. It sanctioned a Blue-on-Blue war (NADC), for example. BLEU realised this and made another treaty (the BLEU Economic Treaty) to cover the unity part once the 'bad' elements had been purged from Blue. Using BLEU, an instrument of political power, as your template means that in Agora you have ended up with an instrument of political power (albeit a weak one due to your decision to make it ODP) – and as BLEU was never a unity treaty, nor is Agora.

The initial intent of BLEU was not specifically and primarily Blue Unity, although it was a part of it. Initially we wanted to take alliances we liked and worked well with, and bind them together to improve the team. We sought Blue improvement, not Blue Unity. There is a serious difference. Eventually, we succeeded in Blue improvement. We had the senate under control, we had fantastic trade systems, and we were politically dominant. At that point, we created the Economic and ODP level treaties. As far as I can remember (I no longer have access to the forums to verify but my memory is pretty good) no one was ever rejected from the Econ treaty. Infact we tried to get every single blue alliance to sign it, even the NADC who we had fought. The econ treaty was "voted" for but it was a rubber stamp. Voting on the econ treaty was basically "So and so wants to join. That cool?" and everyone was like "Sure dude bring 'em in". Through the multi-level approach we were able to offer both Blue Improvement and Blue Unity. I can not think of anyone who would have been denied and at no point was anyone unwelcome.

Compare that to Agora, who has apparently already blocked one potential member, and by bringing in a non-blue alliance has created a situation in which many potential members would not be welcome nor comfortable. When BLEU folded, which it did for many reasons, there was nothing but cheers from Agora. Yet if unity really is your goal (it's hard to say considering how badly you flip-flop on whether you seek unity or improvement and fail to understand that they are different) then you are failing horribly. If unity is not your goal, then just say it already and stop pretending. Pretty simple really.

[watchman]

Instead of quoting everyone, I'll summarize.

Summary: Certain commenters have declared that Blue Leadership Ensuring Unity was not a unity treaty at all.

Response: Fair enough

Summary: Agora is an exclusive alliance because it suspended one applicant.

Response: this is still in progress

Summary: Agora is a big dumb joke because NPO is involved.

Response: Turns out, NPO is not that evil. I know! I was surprised, too!

Summary: BLEU was not invited into the creation of Agora.

Response: When Agora was formed, BLEU was still alive. The bloc was formed by non-BLEU alliances. If BLEU were not in existence at the time, maybe things would have been different.

Summary: Red vs. Blue ZOMG!

Response: RAWR RAWR RAWR

[Baden-Württemberg]

Summary: Red vs. Blue ZOMG!

Response: RAWR RAWR RAWR

watchman won the thread.

[MaGneT]

Watchman, you're missing the point.

I highly doubt that many people who were true to BLEU have much interest in joining RTA.

People are against RTA simply because it presents itself as a sphere unity bloc (as a poor attempt) of garnering political gain, when, in reality, it was created to polarize the blue sphere, and keep blue alliances from joining forces again. Why? BLEU was a "threat" to Pacifica, mainly because Polaris and Pacifica had a falling out, and we were NpO's principal allies. Polaris was isolated from the rest of the world, but they still had a powerful bloc to stand with them. Get rid of that, and NPO can easily reestablish its dominance over the blue sphere.

Newsflash, Watchman, Pacifica signed RTA for the same reason Ivan formed Polaris a long time back. The NPO's strongest opposition then, NAAC, was on the blue sphere. They needed to contest their power on their sphere, give them some instability, shake them up.

NpO : NAAC as RTA : BLEU

The same trick doesn't go without being noticed twice. I daresay that signing RTA may have been the biggest political blunder the NPO has made in their history.

[HeroicDisaster]

Summary: Red vs. Blue ZOMG!

Response: RAWR RAWR RAWR

That made me laugh, congrats to UBD for the cup.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Watchman, you're missing the point.

I highly doubt that many people who were true to BLEU have much interest in joining RTA.

People are against RTA simply because it presents itself as a sphere unity bloc (as a poor attempt) of garnering political gain, when, in reality, it was created to polarize the blue sphere, and keep blue alliances from joining forces again. Why? BLEU was a "threat" to Pacifica, mainly because Polaris and Pacifica had a falling out, and we were NpO's principal allies. Polaris was isolated from the rest of the world, but they still had a powerful bloc to stand with them. Get rid of that, and NPO can easily reestablish its dominance over the blue sphere.

Newsflash, Watchman, Pacifica signed RTA for the same reason Ivan formed Polaris a long time back. The NPO's strongest opposition then, NAAC, was on the blue sphere. They needed to contest their power on their sphere, give them some instability, shake them up.

NpO : NAAC as RTA : BLEU

The same trick doesn't go without being noticed twice. I daresay that signing RTA may have been the biggest political blunder the NPO has made in their history.

Go away with your witchcraft and logic...

[watchman]

Watchman, you're missing the point.

I highly doubt that many people who were true to BLEU have much interest in joining RTA.

Hey Magnet, I have a ton of respect for you. I think I get where you are coming from. I recall your unfailing dedication for your vision of BLEU. We have disagreed on this often and I am glad that we can disagree without antagonism.

All I'll say is that NPO treatied to both Polaris and Agora seems to be more of a uniter than the divider that many make them out to be. I have seen Pacifica's efforts to bring friends together and their actions just don't match the hyperbole floating around from ex-BLEU. A lot of people like to think in terms of Good vs. Evil and group Pacifica in the evil section. This has become a strange rallying cry because it is unfounded, in my experience.

EDIT: "Magnet," not "maget" yikes o_O

Edited February 15, 2009 by watchman

[keltoi]

Why do you non Agora members care what we are/aren't? Seriously, if our existance offends your sensebilities so much then ignore us.

[MaGneT]

Hey Maget, I have a ton of respect for you. I think I get where you are coming from. I recall your unfailing dedication for your vision of BLEU. We have disagreed on this often and I am glad that we can disagree without antagonism.

All I'll say is that NPO treatied to both Polaris and Agora seems to be more of a uniter than the divider that many make them out to be. I have seen Pacifica's efforts to bring friends together and their actions just don't match the hyperbole floating around from ex-BLEU. A lot of people like to think in terms of Good vs. Evil and group Pacifica in the evil section. This has become a strange rallying cry because it is unfounded, in my experience.

Watchman, that respect is mutual. I was actually about to go into #NADC and make sure that you knew that I wasn't saying any of this out of disrespect to you, but you beat me to it. You're absolutely one of my favorite players on here, regardless of whether we agree or disagree on some things.

I'd like to point out the fallacy of defending an ally/friend of yours as "good people", however. Of course someone you are allied to is going to do good things for you. While more than half of Planet Bob hated Polaris and Sponge a few months ago, we in BLEU loved them as much as ever. Why? They were great allies to us.

I'm not calling any group good or bad there, just pointing out something ridiculous that we all do.

Back to NPO and RTA, though. The fact is, they're treatied to more than half of you and Polaris. This announcement claims that the Agora Accords were written for blue sphere unity, but the actions of the RTA bloc do not corroborate that whatsoever. RTA has presented itself as the anti-BLEU; a major repellent for anyone who was once tied to BLEU. That is not going to earn allies, Watchman, nor will it create unity. The inclusion of NPO screams to those ex-BLEU people who remain on the blue sphere that alliances who abandoned BLEU have no interest in extending an olive branch, but are instead dangling their 1V membership in front of the ex-BLEU's tauntingly.

Why do you non Agora members care what we are/aren't? Seriously, if our existance offends your sensebilities so much then ignore us.

Why do you RTA members care what we think/don't think of you? Seriously, if our opinions offend your sensibilities so much, ignore us.

UCWUTIDIDTHAR?

Edited February 15, 2009 by MaGneT

[Tygaland]

Why do you non Agora members care what we are/aren't? Seriously, if our existance offends your sensebilities so much then ignore us.

Well, it appears to me that the non-Agora nations seem to have an issue with how Agora is advertising itself in these announcements. It is advertised as a "blue unity" pact when it appears to be more an exclusive bloc than a unity pact.

People like Penguin and Magnet seem to be arguing that description rather than any real care about Agora existing or not.

That's how it appears to me anyway.

[Penguin]

People like Penguin and Magnet seem to be arguing that description rather than any real care about Agora existing or not.

Please Tyga, I'm a bird. But otherwise, you're correct. I have absolutely no problem with Agora as a bloc. It's always good to have friends that you can rely on in this world. I feel bad that your threads keep getting hijacked by this same discussion. I just get confused when I am told one thing in private and see another thing in public.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Penguin

[KinKiac]

First Id like to say that I do NOT speak for my alliance, but for myself and myself only. Id also like to say that I may not know all the facts, but here is how I see it.

I am not government, I never have been, in any alliance. Most of you do not know me whatsoever. I originally came from the old NFL which was an NPO protectorate. While in NFL we were part of the BLEU econ treaty. I received an invite to join TVE to make some extra cash. It worked out really well for me, I was able to grow pretty quickly. After NFL disbanded suddenly I decided Id like to join a larger alliance and since I was already tech dealing with NV I thought joining them would be a good idea(it was). Since then Ive been watching, in my own forums, and on here. Just listening in the background, minding my own business. I do not claim to know everything but I have a pretty good idea of what has happened over the last year or so.

Now, I normally force myself not to post on the OWF for one simple reason, I am argumentative and opinionated, and I dont want to get my alliance into a PR mess. That being said I really just cant hold back any longer.

With regards to Blue unity, Id like to say that I dont believe that that will ever happen through AGORA. The fact is that AGORA was formed while BLEU was still alive. That in itself undermined the unity that existed on the blue sphere. At almost the exact same time there was a major war, alliances left BLEU, some stayed neutral, others fought to the end and got curb stomped. Then along comes AGORA. It doesnt matter if it was AGORA's "intention" to bring unity to the blue sphere. The fact is that it has "done" the exact opposite, regardless of the intentions. The fact that AGORA was formed while BLEU still existed, during a major conflict that ended with the fall of BLEU, is what has caused any unity that existed on the blue sphere to be lost. There's some bad blood on both sides for these exact reasons, the details and validity of which do not matter and do not change things. Blue is divided right now.

This is why I do not think that AGORA will ever achieve unity on the blue sphere. If unity for the betterment of ALL of blue is to be achieved, then in my opinion, it must be done by and for blue. I also believe that it must be done "outside" of AGORA, due to the bad blood between AGORA's founders and some of the other major players on blue. That doesnt mean AGORA cant still exist. But it in itself will never achieve unity due to the circumstances in which it came into existence. The only way for blue unity to be achieved would be to form a new treaty, free from any previous bad blood. It would have to start and end as a collaboration between ALL the major players on the blue sphere, and it would have to be done out in the open. Any alliance serious about blue unity has to be able to see this. And, if blue unity means the economic prosperity on the "blue" sphere, and the alliances wanted the "most" economic prosperity for the whole of the blue sphere, that would mean tech dealing exclusively to and from blue nations, as much as possible. If there was an excess of sellers, then yes, selling to other teams would benefit the blue sphere. But, if there is no excess, then selling to another team does not benefit blue, at least not to its maximum potential. Sellers are usually harder to come by then buyers and tech is a major factor in the defense of a nation, an alliance, and a team as a whole. As such, if an alliance, bloc or treaty has the intention of bettering their team before any other, it must sell to their team, before any other.

I do not know if AGORA sells a lot of tech to NPO, or if it sells mostly to blue nations, I really dont care. I have nothing against AGORA, and I have nothing against NPO, or any alliance for that matter. All I am saying is that selling to and from blue exclusively is what is best for blue. Same as selling to and from... green lets say, is what is best for green. If this is the goal of any alliance then it should not be recruiting for its own military bloc. It should be simply organizing blue nations, making sure that everyone who wants to sell gets to sell, and everyone who wants to buy gets to buy. This could be achieved with simply a common forum, open to all blue team members, run by leaders of all the alliances who decide to join, without any need for any type of military treaty. Not a single member should have to feel militarily obliged to help the other in times of war. That's what military treaties are for. A true economic treaty should have nothing to do with war, and should be considered void and null in times of war. Once peace returns, operations could resume as they were, and during war, that's when the treaties kick in and decide who helps who and who attacks who.

Anyway, that's my opinion, but for now I have to go. Congrats to AGORA on the successes you have had, and good luck in the future.

[Fireandthepassion]

It is not complete without polaris. If blue were to attain unity, it would need ALL blue alliance such as what orange did.

You're forgetting GDA, NV, ARES, and a list of other great alliances. Polaris, MCXA, NADC, TFD, and UBD are not the only alliances on blue.

[HeinousOne]

Considering the feuding and previous fighting between some alliances that hold sway on blue, why is it in the best interest of everyone on blue to keep blue tech on blue and not to sell to alliances not considered part of blue?

Agora seems like a peaceful enough place. Sure some of the signatories might not vote yes for every Blue alliance that isnt yet part of it but I would say the best way to turn Agora from what it is into a Blue uniting force then the whole argument of take all of us in or take none of us is doomed to fail. Get a couple of you in and then when inside talks begin to wear down at the old enmities then some of those alliances that seem like they have no chance to get in Agora may then have a chance.

You can still stand by your friends faithfully by joining Agora and speaking out for them during discussions about whether to let them in. You will then have a vote and a say from the inside rather then continuing to build the iron wall with the All Or Nothing statements.

[Penguin]

Considering the feuding and previous fighting between some alliances that hold sway on blue, why is it in the best interest of everyone on blue to keep blue tech on blue and not to sell to alliances not considered part of blue?

Agora seems like a peaceful enough place. Sure some of the signatories might not vote yes for every Blue alliance that isnt yet part of it but I would say the best way to turn Agora from what it is into a Blue uniting force then the whole argument of take all of us in or take none of us is doomed to fail. Get a couple of you in and then when inside talks begin to wear down at the old enmities then some of those alliances that seem like they have no chance to get in Agora may then have a chance.

You can still stand by your friends faithfully by joining Agora and speaking out for them during discussions about whether to let them in. You will then have a vote and a say from the inside rather then continuing to build the iron wall with the All Or Nothing statements.

Unity is an all or nothing quality.

[HeinousOne]

Unity is an all or nothing quality.

Idealistically speaking that is a proper line but Unity is not achieved in the time frame of flicking a light switch.

[Choader]

Summary: Agora is a big dumb joke because NPO is involved.

Response: Turns out, NPO is not that evil. I know! I was surprised, too!

How does the response rebut the initial statement in any way?

An evil Pacifica is not what makes Agora a joke, it's the ridiculous fact that they are involved in something claiming to be a blue unity bloc in the first place. That and the incredibly one sided team senators arrangement.

[Penguin]

An evil Pacifica is not what makes Agora a joke, it's the ridiculous fact that they are involved in something claiming to be a blue unity bloc in the first place. That and the incredibly one sided team senators arrangement.

Don't feel bad about the senate. Drai of Greenland Republic is the most popular senator on any sphere by a margin of 159 votes.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Penguin

[raasaa]

yada yada yada....blah blah...we have been over this same crap so many times now its getting boring.

First Id like to say that I do NOT speak for my alliance, but for myself and myself only. Id also like to say that I may not know all the facts, but here is how I see it.

When did you get out of the closet

Edited February 15, 2009 by raasaa

[Bob Janova]

Considering the feuding and previous fighting between some alliances that hold sway on blue, why is it in the best interest of everyone on blue to keep blue tech on blue and not to sell to alliances not considered part of blue?

This should be obvious and I can only assume you are deliberately not seeing it due to the fact that Pacifica has a vested interest in the Blue alliances in Agora exporting tech to you. A tech deal benefits both parties, and therefore it is in the best interests of any entity (alliance, bloc or colour) to keep both sides of the deal internal. If you buy the line that Agora is supposed to be about Blue Unity then it clearly makes sense for the sake of Blue economies to keep the deals on Blue.

Sure some of the signatories might not vote yes for every Blue alliance that isnt yet part of it but I would say the best way to turn Agora from what it is into a Blue uniting force then the whole argument of take all of us in or take none of us is doomed to fail. Get a couple of you in and then when inside talks begin to wear down at the old enmities then some of those alliances that seem like they have no chance to get in Agora may then have a chance.

This is not unity. Taking some alliances and not others clearly does not unite the colour. Besides, there are many alliances who will not listen; when every alliance has a veto you have almost no chance of conducting change from the inside. It seems to me that the ex-BLEU+ alliances are quite happy with the current position anyway, they are simply pointing out that Agora is not a Blue Unity treaty. If it wishes to change that perception, it is incumbent upon Agora to change its ways, not those alliances.

I am on the outside looking in but my perception would line up with KK's: because Agora was set up as an almost explicit 'anti-BLEU', it has too much baggage to ever function as a vehicle for Blue Unity. If you truly seek a united Blue you need to set to with all the major Blue alliances to draft a new treaty, and take out the parts of Agora that would clash with it (notably the Senate clause).