Zombie Glaucon Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 What an insane amount of trolling. A dog that barks doesnt bite. Pretty much the most ill-conceived truism I've come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Lastly what none of us in TOP wanted was us to support an alliance that was recruiting from the inside. Gee, it's a shame that TSO had no qualms with publicly admitting they recruited "from the inside" and in a manner that was harmful to MCXA then, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Gee, it's a shame that TSO had no qualms with publicly admitting they recruited "from the inside" and in a manner that was harmful to MCXA then, huh?It's also freaking hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Pretty much the most ill-conceived truism I've come across. I believe it might come from language issues because I am sure you have heard "all bark and no bite" which I am guessing is basically what he was going for there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenrpg Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) Congradulations TSO, I wish you nothing but the brightest of futures. Edit: If I am not mistaken this has to be one of the first threads to be so heavily derailed and yet did not end up about Vox or the NPO. Edited February 25, 2009 by Frozenrpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 If I am not mistaken this has to be one of the first threads to be so heavily derailed and yet did not end up about Vox or the NPO. I was actually just thinking that... Mebee it's because they are secretly orchestrating this entire debacle as a way to ensure Red sphere unity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I was actually just thinking that...Mebee it's because they are secretly orchestrating this entire debacle as a way to ensure Red sphere unity? Or maybe Blue Sphere unity (under Agora) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Or maybe Blue Sphere unity (under Agora) It's obviously part of the campaign for Maroon unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewatk432 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 No! Purple Unity... Red + Blue = Purple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan1 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) no longer relevant Edited February 25, 2009 by logan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 edited out put message in my CN about me page.sorry to waste a post but i no longer have permission to post in this thread and i am following that order. Did MCXA gag order too? Man dont you hate when alliances do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 No! Purple Unity...Red + Blue = Purple... Blue with added red and green is Aqua...so there could be a conspiracy with green that involves Aqua Unity! To the battlements! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Did MCXA gag order too? Man dont you hate when alliances do that? If they had any sense they might have done it 40 pages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Pretty much the most ill-conceived truism I've come across. Its still true in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 The best comparison I can think of here is if myself, choop, Thick, and KungFuGeek all left TORN to start a new alliance because we didn't like how things were going.If, as LEADERS of your alliance, you couldn't make your alliance a place you wanted to stay, that doesn't bode well. You guys built the MCXA into what it is, so leaving it because you don't like it's direction is more a reflection on yourselves than on anyone else. And now that I've vented my piece, best of luck to all. Forgive me, I was referring to the vacancies in the rest of the High Council. Given that Co-Chancellors serve for life, I thought it was pretty much implied that Sam and Celt would have to resign first in order to hold immediate elections for their position. I was going off of Gopherbashi's post: "For the next several weeks, the MCXA will be governed by a Transition Council until elections are held." It appeared as if most of the previous High Council, elected at the end of January, did not finish their two month term. Looking through their recent elections announcement here, I compiled a mental list of MCXA government members who left the alliance this month. February-March High Council who joined The Sweet Oblivion Sam (Co-Chancellor) Celt (Co-Chancellor) SleepIB Skingrad Enimecnegnev Cadie Jesse James Dragonaspect Lakie February-March High Council who left MCXA Gonefishin TFS February-March High Council who remained in MCXA Dr. Fresh Gopherbashi I'm really sorry if I offended you with my ignorance, watchman, but it appeared to me that a good portion of MCXA's current elected officials were no longer in the MCXA. I'm willing to retract my hasty statements if there were some sort of unusual High Council elections during the two month term between January 28th and March 28th. When were the most recent MCXA High Council elections? Sorry, in my ignorance, I must have missed the announcement. After reading Archon's comment about bigwoody, I went back to read it, and I have to whole heartedly agree. Having been in leadership of a democracy for over two years, I understand very well the desire to break away and start fresh when the general membership seems to be on an entirely different page. In fact, I've almost succumbed to the temptation a couple times in the past. Initially the only thing that stopped me was a refusal on my part to leave the alliance until I had made sure that I had found a replacement. As time progressed, though, I realized I had all the raw materials already constructed into an alliance. If I couldn't form what I had into an alliance I really wanted to be a part of, what does that say about me? It takes a lot to be a leader in a democracy, but it seems like a lot of people forget what the word leader actually means. Yes, you are beholden to the will of your members, but it's still your job to lead them. If you can't get them to respect you enough to listen to your views and take them seriously, to convince them you are right, that doesn't say much for your leadership skill. Yes, it's long and difficult work to bring large numbers of opinionated people around to your point of view. But it's always going to be. Every alliance in CN is at base a democracy. If you can't get your members to agree with you, they will eventually vote with their feet and leave. I've seen it happen enough times. What I don't generally see is a government, especially a high government, jumping ship and going on to a bright new future. It's possible that TSO will accomplish it, but all I see here is either a lack of ability to lead, or a a desire for instant gratification. Neither of which is a great thing in a leadership. Maybe I'm way off base, but as someone who has fought the uphill battle to mold a democratic alliance into something I'm truly happy with, I can definitely say I'm much more pleased with the results than I could have been by breaking away. The above, just for reference for those that may have forgotten. Now my thoughts. I won't comment on the reasoning behind the MCXA split, nor will I attempt to venture as to future possibilities. While a difference of opinion as great as that which engrossed the MCXA would surely lead to an alliance such as the Sweet Oblivion... as was completely evident from this discussion, the parties responsible handled it in the absolute most pathetic way. (Not worst. If it were worst, there would be much more fighting going on and some wars to boot.) Now, addressing The Sweet Oblivion: When you constitute the entirety of an alliance government, most especially when that alliance is the third largest in the entire world, and you remain in the midst of your term, you have absolutely no right to abandon the alliance to which you serve. If you have any inkling that you do not belong in said alliance, you MUST resign immediately. You CANNOT lead an alliance when your heart is not with the alliance, or at least as Delta said, you are not intent on reforming the alliance. It reflects on your character most clearly that you believe the best course of action either a slow and silent trickle from the alliance, or a massive exodus. You claim to have given the MCXA fair warning of the plan. Even discounting the evidence suggesting this only occurred due to a glitch in secrecy, the timeframe thrown out there has been slight: ONE week. This is no time at all. One who intends on amicable parting will inform the alliance of his differences, will resign any leadership post, and will not just Happen to have all of the rest of government sharing his view. Now, for ALL of government to feel this way, the burden is even greater for those who would abandon their posts. There is no justification for leaving such a power gap without enough prior notification and work to bring in successors, if the parting was amicable. Nor could your reason be that you all drifted away from the alliance and desired a smaller, closer-knit community. If that were the case, you would feel no rush. You might say that you did all these things. Again, I say you could not have, if the alliance only found out about this one week prior to your departure. I am bewildered that a group of government with such extensive experience could even fathom doing such a thing. Another point of the matter that strikes me as odd involves this protectorate agreement with TOP. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a 2million NS+ alliance, governed by those who led the third most successful alliance on the planet, should need a protector. No one can make the claim that this is Normal. No one can say that Everyone needs to start up with somebody backing them, while they conclude transitory periods. Alliances simply do Not get attacked for existing. Alliances consisting of members with such powerful friends simply do not get attacked for existing. No, this is not a proper explanation. And if it is truth, then it is again, simply pathetic. Rather, the only reason The Sweet Oblivion would have to seek a protector was actual fear or worry of danger. The parting, whatever it was, was not amicable. and TSO sought to immediately prevent whatever aggressor they imagined from having a chance at a shot on them. Now, under TOP's parasol, TSO can sign real treaties, and the protectorate agreement will be allowed to expire. It might even be upgraded to MDP. [OOC: My congratulations to the whole of CN for making an absolutely wonderful thread. Of the 40 pages, I must say only 5 or so were junk. For the most part, you (the community) have posted at a higher intellectual level of discourse, asking reasonable questions and engaging in meaningful dialogue. Perhaps gone are the ways of the mindless hailfests or the baseless accusations of trolling in important topics?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Another point of the matter that strikes me as odd involves this protectorate agreement with TOP. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a 2million NS+ alliance, governed by those who led the third most successful alliance on the planet, should need a protector. No one can make the claim that this is Normal. No one can say that Everyone needs to start up with somebody backing them, while they conclude transitory periods. Alliances simply do Not get attacked for existing. Alliances consisting of members with such powerful friends simply do not get attacked for existing. No, this is not a proper explanation. And if it is truth, then it is again, simply pathetic.Rather, the only reason The Sweet Oblivion would have to seek a protector was actual fear or worry of danger. The parting, whatever it was, was not amicable. and TSO sought to immediately prevent whatever aggressor they imagined from having a chance at a shot on them. Now, under TOP's parasol, TSO can sign real treaties, and the protectorate agreement will be allowed to expire. It might even be upgraded to MDP. Though I agree with many of your points, I don't agree with this one. It's been commonly established that any new alliance, regardless of experience/influence/NS, be protected while they get themselves organized. I've also seen that just because a certain person (group of people) have influence in one alliance, it does not automatically follow that they will still have that political influence in the new alliance. Having a protector helps TSO get their internal affairs sorted prior to working on external ones. Being a protector helps TOP evaluate the reliability of a new potential friend and ally. Seems a win-win to me. There is, of course, always the chance that you are right. However, I am not familiar enough with the details to comment on that. Again, good luck to all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 <snip>Another point of the matter that strikes me as odd involves this protectorate agreement with TOP. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a 2million NS+ alliance, governed by those who led the third most successful alliance on the planet, should need a protector. No one can make the claim that this is Normal. No one can say that Everyone needs to start up with somebody backing them, while they conclude transitory periods. Alliances simply do Not get attacked for existing. Alliances consisting of members with such powerful friends simply do not get attacked for existing. No, this is not a proper explanation. And if it is truth, then it is again, simply pathetic. I thought it was quite apparent from many of the posts in this thread that there seems to be a good deal of animosity toward the members of TSO from certain parties. As such, it would also seem to make perfect sense for the TSO to seek formal protection, through a treaty with those who are friends, from those who appear to want to do them harm. As discussed above by Syz and Ejay (iirc) a time-limited protectorate makes more sense than an MDP straight off the bat, as TOP doesn't tend to rush into making weighty decisions about treaties with new alliances. It takes time, due consideration and discussion and a vote to reach that point. Rather, the only reason The Sweet Oblivion would have to seek a protector was actual fear or worry of danger. The parting, whatever it was, was not amicable. and TSO sought to immediately prevent whatever aggressor they imagined from having a chance at a shot on them. Now, under TOP's parasol, TSO can sign real treaties, and the protectorate agreement will be allowed to expire. It might even be upgraded to MDP.<snip> As stated above, our allies in the MCXA have not indicated that they intend any ill-will toward the TSO. The ill-will, as evidenced by the vitriol displayed here and in other discussions, appears to originate from external parties bearing grudges that presumably relate to past events rather than this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 As stated above, our allies in the MCXA have not indicated that they intend any ill-will toward the TSO. The ill-will, as evidenced by the vitriol displayed here and in other discussions, appears to originate from external parties bearing grudges that presumably relate to past events rather than this incident. They haven't indicated any ill-will toward TSO here, in the open. I have it on good authority that while they may not be ready for open warfare they do consider this a treasonous act and are keeping their options somewhat open in that regard. Contrary to the claims by TSO and TOP, this was not handled in a diplomatic manner and once the whole story comes out some people are going to look very, very bad. When the whole story comes out we'll find that TOP had a lot more foreknowledge of this than they are letting on, and that several members of both TOP and TSO have told blatant lies in this current discussion. Stay tuned sports fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 They haven't indicated any ill-will toward TSO here, in the open. I have it on good authority that while they may not be ready for open warfare they do consider this a treasonous act and are keeping their options somewhat open in that regard. Contrary to the claims by TSO and TOP, this was not handled in a diplomatic manner and once the whole story comes out some people are going to look very, very bad. When the whole story comes out we'll find that TOP had a lot more foreknowledge of this than they are letting on, and that several members of both TOP and TSO have told blatant lies in this current discussion.Stay tuned sports fans. I look forward to it coming out on The Tattler Seriously though, I hope it's more than just looking bad, we need more drama and conflict, I mean after all, that's why we're here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I look forward to it coming out on The Tattler Seriously though, I hope it's more than just looking bad, we need more drama and conflict, I mean after all, that's why we're here I find myself laughing and agreeing on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claphamsa Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I look forward to it coming out on The Tattler Seriously though, I hope it's more than just looking bad, we need more drama and conflict, I mean after all, that's why we're here finally this much discussed war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 They haven't indicated any ill-will toward TSO here, in the open. I have it on good authority that while they may not be ready for open warfare they do consider this a treasonous act and are keeping their options somewhat open in that regard. Contrary to the claims by TSO and TOP, this was not handled in a diplomatic manner and once the whole story comes out some people are going to look very, very bad. When the whole story comes out we'll find that TOP had a lot more foreknowledge of this than they are letting on, and that several members of both TOP and TSO have told blatant lies in this current discussion.Stay tuned sports fans. Can we know now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Can we know now? Good things come to those who wait. In seemingly unrelated news I will be appearing on AirMe's talk show tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nc1701 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 As stated above, our allies in the MCXA have not indicated that they intend any ill-will toward the TSO. The ill-will, as evidenced by the vitriol displayed here and in other discussions, appears to originate from external parties bearing grudges that presumably relate to past events rather than this incident. This has been stated numerous times without facts to back it up. I would like TOP to provide some evidence of support from the MCXA. Any logs you could share with us? If you can't do that you should retract these unsupportable statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urmom Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 This has been stated numerous times without facts to back it up. I would like TOP to provide some evidence of support from the MCXA. Any logs you could share with us? If you can't do that you should retract these unsupportable statements. Why should we have to release private discussions logs? MCXA hasn't come out and said anything against us saying that they gave us the go-ahead on signing the treaty, so why are you questioning its validity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts