Cairna Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No, there is an order to how things go. First, NSO must get a dominant position in politics, obviously, starting with a strong Brown sphere. A strong Brown sphere is a united Brown sphere. Carpe Diem is doing fine right now, endorsing Terra-Cotta goes along with unifying the brown sphere. A strong NSO is a strong Brown, a la a strong NPO is a strong Red. When NSO becomes supremely dominant on Brown, Brown alliances not signed onto Terra-Cotta will either be "persuaded" to sign it, or declared and kicked off Brown in the name of Brown sphere unity. If you don't have a unified opinion and want to defend Brown alliances against outside aggression, you're obviously not for Brown unity. This is phase 1, NSO becoming dominant on Brown.Phase 2 has more world factors playing into it. Phase 2 is NSO becoming a major world power, since they've already achieved domination of their color sphere (they have no Brown threats to worry about). By various means, NSO needs to become relatively strong world power, be it through incredible growth or the current large alliances being knocked down a few notches; perhaps a combination of both since the extreme of either one is highly unlikely. This here is the turning point to where old time CoaLUEtion members will laugh at people like Carpe Diem. You will have risen to great importance, but only because you're tied to NSO, who is now of great world importance. Here starts the process of Drinking Buddies, WUT, etc again. As NSO rises to power, they will accumulate a variety of allies, who all staunchly support NSO, since NSO's strength protects them. Occasionally, an ally might stray from the nest too far and will be picked off, keeping the others in line, not wanting to be next. The only way to avoid the repeat of WUT/last few sentences of my last paragraph is to jump off as soon as NSO becomes more/just/nearly/etc as powerful as the other top alliances in CN. Oh, and you need at least two evenly matched "sides" to keep each other in check, also last seen leading up to GW2. That's not a real novel concept though, just balance of power in CN. The complex point is balancing all of this. Do you want a balance of power returned to CN? Well, if you do, a strong NSO led by Ivan is probably a good thing. However, if and when the largest alliances in the game get knocked down in NS a little, and if and when NSO is able to catch up to somewhere near this NS, then you must worry about Ivan and keeping him in check. First things first though, you need NSO to be strong. TL;DR: Short term to medium term laughs on brown alliances not signing Tera-Cotta. Long term laughs on allies who stick with NSO all the way through to the top (assuming they get there, of course) and then a few being picked off one by one, just as we've seen happen in NPO's circle. I don't know how to fight such rampant speculation. But we'll be the first to put down an attempt to bring order and hierarchy to this treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 He makes assumptions based on actions from other arenas. I can not fault him for the idea but I do disagree with him. I am truly seeking something different. Running the same plays wouldn't make sense. I can definitely see how someone would forsee a scenario like that based on your demonstrated capabilities. I just have to take issue with the idea that the rest of us on Brown would either bend over or flee. We're nothing if not stubborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I was expressing the opinion many on brown feel. Trades would go a great deal better when NSO joins Amber Accords. Amber Accords doesn't provide security to Brown nations as a blanket Brown defense pact would. That point is not arguable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I was expressing the opinion many on brown feel. Trades would go a great deal better when NSO joins Amber Accords. Who are these many and why have they selected you as their spokesperson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Who are these many and why have they selected you as their spokesperson? Several people have contacted me in private and thanked me for saying what they feel they cannot. If they contact me in private, that is a reason to not give away their identities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I can definitely see how someone would forsee a scenario like that based on your demonstrated capabilities. I just have to take issue with the idea that the rest of us on Brown would either bend over or flee. We're nothing if not stubborn. I agree. If I believed Brown to be weak or easily manipulated then I would not have come. I want comrades that are strong and honorable. If I wanted cowards I would have joined Pink. lolpink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Amber Accords doesn't provide security to Brown nations as a blanket Brown defense pact would. That point is not arguable. My comment was in regard to Conan's trade comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Several people have contacted me in private and thanked me for saying what they feel they cannot. If they contact me in private, that is a reason to not give away their identities. The Pope himself called me this morning and thanked me for joining Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I can definitely see how someone would forsee a scenario like that based on your demonstrated capabilities. I just have to take issue with the idea that the rest of us on Brown would either bend over or flee. We're nothing if not stubborn. Well, by my post, you either sign, flee, or get destroyed and then either sign or flee due to peace negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 lolpink. Now there's something I think we can all agree on! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 The Pope himself called me this morning and thanked me for joining Brown. That's great for you. Means nothing to me. Not catholic and never will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Who are these many and why have they selected you as their spokesperson? I'm not sure if that's a point I feel comfortable arguing on. The more cooperation between trade circle makers, the better it is I imagine. Pooled resources and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 My comment was in regard to Conan's trade comment. It encourages more nations (trades) on Brown because the color sphere is unified in defending itself. The same concept as CTC, though I don't believe CTC is color based. The same concept as NPO's ban on tech raiding red nations. You make brown a safer place to be and more nations will want to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 the_great_one, you have a conflict of interests at hand. You are a member of a white team alliance speaking out for what you believe are the interests of the brown team. Either your allegiance to brown is only one of convenience and you are just unwilling to lose your trades or you are simply not committed to your current alliance, which does not have an agenda regarding brown. Your opinion is impaired whatever the case. The Pope himself called me this morning and thanked me for joining Brown. OOC: Did he finally manage to get you to believe in transubstantiation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerbum Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) The Pope himself called me this morning and thanked me for joining Brown. But neither Pope is still around, good sir. Edited March 20, 2009 by soccerbum879 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I agree. If I believed Brown to be weak or easily manipulated then I would not have come. I want comrades that are strong and honorable.If I wanted cowards I would have joined Pink. lolpink. You killed pink. Lolpink is your own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 the_great_one, you have a conflict of interests at hand. You are a member of a white team alliance speaking out for what you believe are the interests of the brown team. Either your allegiance to brown is only one of convenience and you are just unwilling to lose your trades or you are simply not committed to your current alliance, which does not have an agenda regarding brown. Your opinion is impaired whatever the case.OOC: Did he finally manage to get you to believe in transubstantiation? I fail to see any sort of sense in your post. Nothing prevents me from speaking for my brown friends and former comrades despite being in a different alliance. My allegiance to brown is far more than a mere convenience, I have been brown for over 2 years and most of my CN friends are in brown. My allegiance to STA is also strong, why else would I have offered to leave LEN and join STA in war if LEN did not declare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 That's great for you. Means nothing to me. Not catholic and never will be. Change it to obama, hu jintao, vladimir putin, nikolas sarkozy, gordon brown, Ban Ki-moon and Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, current president of the united nations general assembly then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Change it to obama, hu jintao, vladimir putin, nikolas sarkozy, gordon brown, Ban Ki-moon and Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, current president of the united nations general assembly then. OOC: Hate Obama as well, and the UN fails pretty hard despite the good intentions when it was founded. IC: Nice to see some drama on brown for once. Gets brown into the spotlight. Edited March 20, 2009 by the_great_one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerbum Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Hate Obama as well, and the UN fails pretty hard despite the good intentions when it was founded. Then change it to someone important in your life that you would be excited to receive a call from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Hate Obama as well, and the UN fails pretty hard despite the good intentions when it was founded. You missed the point, unsurprisingly. I picked a random figure who obviously didn't actually contact me as a basis of comparing the quality of such a claim to yours of "speaking for the masses". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Well this thread was more entertaining than I was expecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 OOC: Hate Obama as well, and the UN fails pretty hard despite the good intentions when it was founded.IC: Nice to see some drama on brown for once. Gets brown into the spotlight. So you get the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 So you get the point? Nice brown getting noticed. Yes. Do I think it's being done the right way? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) I fail to see any sort of sense in your post. Nothing prevents me from speaking for my brown friends and former comrades despite being in a different alliance. My allegiance to brown is far more than a mere convenience, I have been brown for over 2 years and most of my CN friends are in brown. My allegiance to STA is also strong, why else would I have offered to leave LEN and join STA in war if LEN did not declare? I usually make a lot of sense and this is not an exception. See, when one intends to speak for others, as you are trying to do, one must do so from a position of authority. Words are cheap. You simply cannot pretend to represent the interests of the brown team when you are a member of an alliance committed to the white team. It's very simple. Could I say I represent the interests of the red team and the New Pacific Order because I was a member for almost 3 years? Edited March 20, 2009 by Mussolandia 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.