Jump to content

You forced us to disband!!


Recommended Posts

Wait, what the... whuuuut ???

DIDN'T ...... WANT ..... TO ..... BE ...... FAN ????

That's unpossible!

My good sir, Everybody wants to be FAN. (at least this week) :P

Not me.

Being on irc with you guys is horrible. All discussions end up in "Is this gun/rifle/machine gun better than *insert slightly different gun/rifle/machine gun* " arguments.

I would go insane within hours :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Physically, Legion & GATO both survived mentally however there original incarnations did not. It's undeniable that both came out completely changed for better or worse pending on your perspective and opinions.

I so disagree, GATO survived internally as well despite all that happened under the Viceroy, look at the present govt for example! most of them are historical GATO figures, for me GATO is the same community i left at the end of the GATO-1V war...its just the forum that is new :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this topic I would like to say that no alliance should have to face harsh and humiliating terms, and no alliance should have to live like FAN or Vox. Your argument is stupid.

I'm not sure he said that at all. He merely pointed out that alliances choose to disband, they are not forced to. He used Vox and FAN as an example of alliances that refused to disband, not as an example of how an alliance should live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure he said that at all. He merely pointed out that alliances choose to disband, they are not forced to. He used Vox and FAN as an example of alliances that refused to disband, not as an example of how an alliance should live.

From my perspective it looks to me like he's saying that FAN and Vox are the status quo measurement for alliances who choose to disband over terms, implying that no terms are "too harsh".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And if alliances come to you on the first days of war and you are not ready to give them peace, of course you'd tell them that they have no hope, or they'll be an eternal tech farm, or that they need to keep fighting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective it looks to me like he's saying that FAN and Vox are the status quo measurement for alliances who choose to disband over terms, implying that no terms are "too harsh".

Then you are wrong. He used Vox and FAN as an example because they have refused to disband despite horrible terms and eternal war.

In fact, I have been informed that Genmay chose to disband before they were offered terms from ~ because they figured they'd get harsh ones and didn't want to go through it all. I wasn't there and wasn't involved but the source of this was so I think it would be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you are wrong. He used Vox and FAN as an example because they have refused to disband despite horrible terms and eternal war.

What is his point then? To me it seems the point is, the harshness of the terms doesn't matter - it's the alliance's fault if they disband. I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is his point then? To me it seems the point is, the harshness of the terms doesn't matter - it's the alliance's fault if they disband. I disagree.

His point is that no alliance can be forced to disband. Alliances have a choice to continue or disband regardless of what anyone says or does. That is his one and only point.

He posted it to refute the allegation the Genmay was forced to disband made by a certain person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, quit your crying because some of us have gone through a lot worse and still hung together as an alliance. You come off as nothing but spoiled children who break their toys and then cry about it.

Still selling this !@#$%^&*, eh? <_<

Sponge, just about the point I think you are finally *getting* it, you hit the wall in turn 3. There's no point in showing you logs, etc. You think you're right, so you are convinced you're right and that's what works for you. Nothing that I can say or anyone else for that matter can say will convince you otherwise.

Note to those who over the past several months who have come to me saying "he's changed! I tell you, he's changed! he really learned his lesson": :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: OOC: Could be he really is a cool guy OOC, I just don't care.

Just stop trying to rehabilitate your image. Pete Rose bet on baseball, Barry Bonds 'roided up because he was jealous of the power hitters in baseball getting the glory, and Electron Sponge is a former dictator that put "winning the game" before what was best for the long term interests of his alliance and he paid the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His point is that no alliance can be forced to disband. Alliances have a choice to continue or disband regardless of what anyone says or does. That is his one and only point.

He posted it to refute the allegation the Genmay was forced to disband made by a certain person.

But this then implies that harsh terms are not a means to force a surrender. In the more general sense, I disagree with this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His point is that no alliance can be forced to disband. Alliances have a choice to continue or disband regardless of what anyone says or does.

Just like no one can be prevented from "playing the game", right? <_<

FYI: I never bought that line of b.s. either. Could be why I was opposed to EZI long before anyone decided to make it stylish social movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the defeat/disbandment of \m/ or [m] whatever to the "victory" of FAN/OcUK/Vox is just silly. You were fighting a different fight and the leadership of said alliances never had a chance to be incompetent children when it came to the terms table, like the former leadership of the late and my beloved \m/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play the devil's advocate for a moment, I can understand not wanting your alliance to be in eternal war. That is not for everyone. That particular argument is a tad weak to me. Yes, FAN is still alive. Yes they are receiving peace daily and may be able to fully return to their past glory, but I sympathize with those who would not take that path. I once had to the choice to put Polar in that situation, and I did not.

However, I do agree with Sponge's OP, especially in regards to \m/. We've battled and debated this since the day it happened, but the bottom line is terms are negotiable. The surrender terms we offered the NAAC would not have been final. The joke terms we gave \m/ would not have been final. Had they fought on and forced us to divert resources to a blood any costly war, and we felt them to be sufficiently punished, we'd of come up with terms. Terms that at the time would have been called harsh, and today would be called "practically white peace". However \m/ never got those terms because they fell apart before that stage.

I see FAN and OcUK being used as examples of alliances that survived. Yes, they have. However I see Polaris as a better example. It is easy for some to forget the sheer hatred that was expressed towards Polaris during their beatdown. It was a war we lost before a shot was fired. Yet the alliance stands proud today. Why? Because internally the war wasn't that big of a deal. We knew the bad guys came calling, we knew we would survive, and we knew that one day we'd come to collect for the pain being caused. Most importantly, we knew that we wanted Polaris, our home, to remain. And so it did and so it does. We, the membership, the Body Republic, decided we would survive the war, and we did. We knew sacrifices would be needed, and we made them. We knew infra would be shed, and it was. We did what we had to to reach the only end that was acceptable for us. It's both that simple and that complicated all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\m/ declared war on September 12th

\m/ disbanded on September 20th

I can easily see why Sponge gave \m/ joke terms.

The best part about this is, if you assume that they disbanded after their joke terms were rejected, you have to assume the terms were given a few days before disbanding. Which means they were begging for terms almost immediately. But we aren't allowed to use facts and dates as that ignores the fact that Sponge is an evil horrible community killer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L'Eponge;

While this is mostly yet another classic example of Epongist Historical Revisionism, where the OP paints the words with a self-serving interpretation ("it was a joke, I was joking on the terms!"), there is however a ring of veracity, albeit faint, in the bizarre choice (imo) to disband. I do enjoy the chorus of the usual epongist courtiers agreeing sycophantically with the Master's version, it warms my frozen mollusks. That your opponents at the time took your words, the words of said Master, literally, well that is their fault.

OBM

edit: Word was partially in the filter, and was changed.

Edited by OneBallMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hereby blame ES for the global recession, the swine flu epidemic, the Karma War, and why the GRL is so high at the moment. Please make a thread correcting this information, because, you know, being technically correct + CN PR is just so important.

This is like the third or fourth thread attempting to "correct" the masses. I honestly think it's more trouble than it's worth at this point. Besides, I think it would be quite awesome to be blamed for the digital death of hundreds of nations. That's a very nice selling point on any resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you are wrong. He used Vox and FAN as an example because they have refused to disband despite horrible terms and eternal war.

In fact, I have been informed that Genmay chose to disband before they were offered terms from ~ because they figured they'd get harsh ones and didn't want to go through it all. I wasn't there and wasn't involved but the source of this was so I think it would be accurate.

We were told by Toffee that we were not going to be receiving terms. I talked to Myworld sometime in the last year and he said it was a misunderstanding since Toffee was not officially Genmay gov at the time, and was acting on his own (though, at the time, he was basically the one we were listening to since he had at least some info, and access to some of the channels). I know there were some major issues with Toffee post-war amongst former Genmay who had felt he had betrayed us because of this, so like I said before, it was not exactly black and white that we did not receive terms. Morale was extremely low after the ceasefire debacle, people were going rogue, and this statement from Toffee on top of that made it seem especially dire. I don't think anyone can really place any blame on one individual or group of individuals, but I don't think I would place the blame on either NpO or STA really. I know I posted differently yesterday, but, truth be told, I was quite a bit worked up over the Valhalla surrender thread and I think that kind of showed through in my writing, so I apologize a bit for that.

I am still proud to have been a Genmayer, whether the world considers us cowards or not, I had fun every second of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This suggests the leadership may be more important than the alliance as a whole. It begs the question: Was it more or less honorable for the leaders of Legion and GATO to allow themselves to be driven away in order to save their alliances, or for FAN's leadership to remain and fight a guerrilla war? Or were both actions equally valid?

I believe it is more prudent to stay and fight, much like FAN did. FAN has fought there conflict for years now, and do to there struggles they will likely be set free once more. Now, if they will be the same alliance we knew back in there hay-day...that question can only be answered at a later time. Thus, I cannot clearly state either action is valid until the outcome of FAN is determined.

As for GATO & Legion, by allowing there leadership to flee from the alliance one could argue it changed the identity behind those alliances. While it allowed some elements of there membership to stay, ultimately there core and by extension identity was driven out from the alliance. Thus, both alliances had to redefine themselves to the greater community in order to exist. For instance, Legion of old was a large democratic alliance centered around key well known figure-heads. One that comes to mind would be Great Britan. While the Legion of today, has moved to an authoritatian state and no real well known figure-head exists. GATO followed a similar course, but there democratic ideals have remained.

(That being said, I am no expert on GATO nor Legion, as such if there are any errors in my statements...please correct them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like no one can be prevented from "playing the game", right? <_<

FYI: I never bought that line of b.s. either. Could be why I was opposed to EZI long before anyone decided to make it stylish social movement.

If you can point out where I have ever advocated terms that would make an alliance consider disbanding, you'd have a point.

As it stands you are arguing something I never claimed and never have claimed.

I responded to Starcraftmaster's enquiry about what point Sponge was making, nothing more.

If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is more prudent to stay and fight, much like FAN did. FAN has fought there conflict for years now, and do to there struggles they will likely be set free once more. Now, if they will be the same alliance we knew back in there hay-day...that question can only be answered at a later time. Thus, I cannot clearly state either action is valid until the outcome of FAN is determined.

As for GATO & Legion, by allowing there leadership to flee from the alliance one could argue it changed the identity behind those alliances. While it allowed some elements of there membership to stay, ultimately there core and by extension identity was driven out from the alliance. Thus, both alliances had to redefine themselves to the greater community in order to exist. For instance, Legion of old was a large democratic alliance centered around key well known figure-heads. One that comes to mind would be Great Britan. While the Legion of today, has moved to an authoritatian state and no real well known figure-head exists. GATO followed a similar course, but there democratic ideals have remained.

(That being said, I am no expert on GATO nor Legion, as such if there are any errors in my statements...please correct them.)

Mostly right. The Legion refused the disbandment because we knew we (via our leaders) were in the wrong (not all that common in alliance politics) and the guilty parties had fled to safety. The choice facing the membership was a) disbandment B ) long time FAN style war for something that others had caused or c) terms. We chose to live. There would have been no honour in this 'death'. The democratic principle had been tried for the longest time in The Legion and it failed. We had good people in charge pre-purplegate governments, but not good politicians. Hopefully that has changed. We surrendered before a shot was fired and some will see that has dishonourable, but if we did not deserve to suffer for the actions of our leaders, neither would our opponents for we were, and knew we were, in the wrong.

Edited by Hymenbreach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for GATO & Legion, by allowing there leadership to flee from the alliance one could argue it changed the identity behind those alliances. While it allowed some elements of there membership to stay, ultimately there core and by extension identity was driven out from the alliance. Thus, both alliances had to redefine themselves to the greater community in order to exist. For instance, Legion of old was a large democratic alliance centered around key well known figure-heads. One that comes to mind would be Great Britan. While the Legion of today, has moved to an authoritatian state and no real well known figure-head exists. GATO followed a similar course, but there democratic ideals have remained.

The Legion of today is a democratic alliance. Admittedly it doesn't have 1200 members anymore. You might want to read this: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Leg...gion_Government

Also during Purplegate, the bulk of Legion's leadership moved to disband Legion and left the alliance. Some stayed in Legion, and negotiated with Legion's enemies. But your implication that Legion's leadership was driven out by Legion's enemies is simply untrue. Perhaps they would have been, but they left before Legion's enemies had a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...