kingzog Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I believe we here are happy to see old alliances getting fresh new starts. We are indeed. Doesn't mean we can't have some fun. Seriously....isn't SWF still (technically) at war with the NPO? While in the current 'climate' it doesn't really matter, it's something you may wish to take into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Single White Female And here I was all excited. I leave this thread disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadeev Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 We are indeed. Doesn't mean we can't have some fun.Seriously....isn't SWF still (technically) at war with the NPO? While in the current 'climate' it doesn't really matter, it's something you may wish to take into account. Well, i thought they gave white peace to everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadeev Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I love my red zombie brethren, but I find Articles 14-16 of their constitution to be very limiting. [ooc]It was the primary reason that I resigned my military commission in the SWF's twin from a parallel universe. I love a good fight too much to join an alliance that loves peace as much as these fellows.[/ooc]Regardless, all are great guys and I hope they prosper. -Craig Craig, just stop being childish! We love U too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jftsang Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Why, hello, Socialist Workers Front. I still hold a vendetta against you for ZIing me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanaX Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I was beginning to wonder if you'd forgotten the whole reformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 We are indeed. Doesn't mean we can't have some fun.Seriously....isn't SWF still (technically) at war with the NPO? While in the current 'climate' it doesn't really matter, it's something you may wish to take into account. How do you still remember !@#$ like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Welcome back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Your charter confuses me. Are you a neutral alliance, or will you simply never leave protectorate status? I ask because Article 16 prohibits you from signing ODP or MDP level treaties, which makes it difficult to provide security for your members in the long run. Secondly, article 7 is a dangerous one. If you need to vote on something time-sensitive or critical, or if you have a bad case of (ooc) RL (/ooc), you might find your alliance paralyzed. I think you guys need to put a little more thought into this, but best of luck nonetheless. Edit: Also, article 15 can be interpreted as you guys sanctioning rogues, as you have no mechanism to remove them from your alliance and indeed you have entrenched their right to war without putting any restrictions on that. That, coupled with being prohibited from going to war as an alliance, I guarantee will land you in trouble. Edited June 17, 2009 by Kevin McDonald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Thanks again for all the nice comments. I'm happy to see this thread is generating such interest. But how about we clear a couple of things up: So, the Socialist Workers Front isn't Communist? Nope, although some of our members are. Many are not. We welcome all leftists. Also, things have changed in the intervening years since SWF last existed. We are not aiming to recreate SWF exactly as it was. I love my red zombie brethren, but I find Articles 14-16 of their constitution to be very limiting. Yes, I think that part of our constitution makes us rather unique. Sorry that we are too liberal for you. Also, please don't advertise in our DoE, that was seriously messed up. The International can't appease everyone's ideals, but it's easier to see when people are looking for reasons to quit, and start their own alliance. Why don't you go straight to hell? I didn't found this alliance, and no one is sadder to see the direction INT is taking than me. I was just going to quit entirely, but I figured I might as well help some good comrades get set-up. And for the record, you were a dick to work with when I was your deputy that one term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 ...Article 16 prohibits you from signing ODP or MDP level treaties, which makes it difficult to provide security for your members in the long run. Article 16 prevents MDPs but not ODPs. In the long run, our constitution will be re-written should we reach 30 members and thus the size of our alliance makes it unfeasible to continue following this constitution. Secondly, article 7 is a dangerous one. If you need to vote on something time-sensitive or critical, or if you have a bad case of (ooc) RL (/ooc), you might find your alliance paralyzed. We'll be ok, but thanks for the concern! Again, small numbers of people are easy to organize informally. Edit: Also, article 15 can be interpreted as you guys sanctioning rogues, as you have no mechanism to remove them from your alliance and indeed you have entrenched their right to war without putting any restrictions on that. That, coupled with being prohibited from going to war as an alliance, I guarantee will land you in trouble. Article 15 prevents anyone from forcing anyone else to go to war. That doesn't mean we won't ever attack rouges because we want to. B) Hoped that helped! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I have to say I'm not happy seeing this. Reading it though I can't see why you would get any crap from people that don't like the former one. You seem to be very very distanced from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Article 16 prevents MDPs but not ODPs. In the long run, our constitution will be re-written should we reach 30 members and thus the size of our alliance makes it unfeasible to continue following this constitution. Not to nitpick, but article 16 DOES prevent ODPs. Art. 16. No treaty may be signed by the SWF whose conditions may force the Front to declare war. ODPs may force your alliance to war, and are therefore prohibited. ='Defender']Article 15 prevents anyone from forcing anyone else to go to war. That doesn't mean we won't ever attack rouges because we want to. B) Again, not to nitpick, but attacking a rogue from your alliance (not a rogue attacking your alliance) takes away their right to war. Therefore, you are not allowed to under your charter. Vague charters are a big cause of trouble, I urge you to consider rewording it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 ODPs may force your alliance to war, and are therefore prohibited. Technically, ODP's never FORCE you to go to war. They provide you with a way in if you choose, but it's never forced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Technically, ODP's never FORCE you to go to war. They provide you with a way in if you choose, but it's never forced. Bah, I suppose that's true. But since the leaders of the alliance can't force their alliance to go to war, signing ODPs would still be useless. /me shrugs I dunno... I just hate vaguely worded charters that don't stand up to scrutiny. But, they can do what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Bah, I suppose that's true. But since the leaders of the alliance can't force their alliance to go to war, signing ODPs would still be useless. At the same time, can you imagine the mess you'd see if an alliance went to war without any sort of "treaty" connections no matter how trivial in nature? They'd be called "bandwagoners" and subsequently crushed. Though I suppose with this alliance, that's not a bad alternative at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James IV Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 How do you still remember !@#$ like this? Exile does things to one from what I heard. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfg4ng Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I remember when the left was all fractured like this, and then everyone ditched the LSF, good times. Welcome back and hopefully history does not repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I remember when the left was all fractured like this, and then everyone ditched the LSF, good times. Welcome back and hopefully history does not repeat. INT and LSF are treatied forever, and SWF is a protectorate of the LSF. I think that everyone knows better than to engage the SWF. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 INT and LSF are treatied forever, and SWF is a protectorate of the LSF. I think that everyone knows better than to engage the SWF.-Craig assuming that anyone around here knows better than to do anything is your first mistake, Mr. Craig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Commie menace is at it again! )): Glad to see you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 assuming that anyone around here knows better than to do anything is your first mistake, Mr. Craig. Heck. I was trying to to be subtle in my reminder. I fail. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Houston Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 INT and LSF are treatied forever, and SWF is a protectorate of the LSF. I think that everyone knows better than to engage the SWF.-Craig So SWF is in fact single? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Welcome back You were missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I wonder if you're fail meter is gonna break against from overload? I'm betting yes. spelling Edited June 19, 2009 by Hydro 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.