Citadel Announcement

[bogeyd6]

Honestly gents, the reasons outlined in the OP are a mixed bag of issues that arouse with OG over a long period of time. Some where not directed at all the different alliances, some were. You want a black and white reason x for asking OG to leave, you won't get one. The reasons are all varied, from individuals to alliances. I am not going to list them here or anywhere to be honest, because what I can is already on the OP. Yes it's vague, but I would rather take what you throw at us here then start pissing on our friends in a dirty little tell all......

Congratulations, this is my first post. You are winrar.

It is very rare to see someone with intelligence and the god given ability of insight. You hit the nail on the head and your post is well thought out and portrayed. Thank you sir. Everyone likes to pick a point and drill into it. We all know that this was exactly for all the reasons, not just one.

Edited June 26, 2009 by bogeyd6

[terveis]

Lots of Citadel threads involve personal insults and lots of circular arguments in their debates?

Yes. Its an awesome bloc with awesome discussions.

[Heft]

Perhaps those in STA may be sheep and follow every single word Tiga shoves down their throats, but we in Citadel are much different. Each alliance that makes up Citadel prides itself on their respective democracies and ability to discuss things at length, allowing us to capture the thoughts of all members. I'd like to think that we're all pretty opinionated on every issue that comes up from discussion, and so you will have those whom argue on one side, and those on the other perhaps.

In the instance that, should a Citadel alliances membership be extremely split on a voting matter, the two votes can be cast as such to incorporate the real feeling of the alliance i.e. in this case one vote for expulsion, and one against.

I know this was a few pages back now, but wow is this post retarded.

Also, what a shock. Hard to care much either way when it was a foregone conclusion weeks ago.

[RandomInterrupt]

I don't understand what it is people like you are looking for. Did the Citadel ever purport to be supermen?

Yes, actually.

[Dr. Dan]

Yes, actually.

We are supermen.

Seriously, this is the dumbest argument ever. "You guys aren't as great as you want us to think you are!!" Are you all that insecure? It's god damn pathetic is what it is. I don't care what you think of us. Come back when you have something to talk about that actually matters rather than this babbling about how we're just like all of you.

As for the Citadel's charter, yeah, it has got some problems. I wouldn't be surprised to see it completely fixed at some point here. (Then you can all call: Saw this coming!!!)

Edited June 26, 2009 by Dr. Dan

[Sephiroth]

And this very thread has shown this to not be true. Citadel is just like everyone else, and far less dignified and organized than several blocs before it.

Citadel has lasted longer than the blocs before it iirc, so I'd like to think we're doing something right at least. This is the first time we've felt the need to remove someone from the bloc and they are still on good terms with several current signatories. If we were just like everyone else that would be pretty boring, I'd like to think different blocs each have their own unique aspects that make them different. I consider Citadel to be special and somewhere I'd prefer to be over anywhere else, which is why I'm part of it, but I don't claim Citadel to be better than everyone else and don't see why we need to be held to impossible standards. While I understand you weren't happy with the noCB War (I wasn't happy with that war either ), can't we let the past be and move on from that? OG getting removed from Citadel is in no way relevant to these old issues, and you've since moved on to a new alliance...

[Baden-Württemberg]

This is especially laughable considering the method in which TOP arranged for the Citadel (minus the FCC) to attack in the NoCB war. You know, the part where TOP went around selling the idea that there was a devious plot against them where no such plot ever existed and there was never any proof. You were sheep then and you'll do it again quite easily.

That's funny and wrong.

[RandomInterrupt]

Citadel has lasted longer than the blocs before it iirc, so I'd like to think we're doing something right at least. This is the first time we've felt the need to remove someone from the bloc and they are still on good terms with several current signatories. If we were just like everyone else that would be pretty boring, I'd like to think different blocs each have their own unique aspects that make them different. I consider Citadel to be special and somewhere I'd prefer to be over anywhere else, which is why I'm part of it, but I don't claim Citadel to be better than everyone else and don't see why we need to be held to impossible standards. While I understand you weren't happy with the noCB War (I wasn't happy with that war either ), can't we let the past be and move on from that? OG getting removed from Citadel is in no way relevant to these old issues, and you've since moved on to a new alliance...

I don't consider longevity to be the best marker, but that's subjective. How is Citadel alliances being led into a false war not relevent when they later claime the STA are sheep? Seemed pretty relevant to me.

[HeinousOne]

a perfect paraphrase of LJ Scott's evasive attempt at a non incriminating answer.

Thank you for finally bringing some light onto the discussion that was being shrouded in shadow.

Honestly gents, the reasons outlined in the OP are a mixed bag of issues that arouse with OG over a long period of time. Some where not directed at all the different alliances, some were. You want a black and white reason x for asking OG to leave, you won't get one. The reasons are all varied, from individuals to alliances. I am not going to list them here or anywhere to be honest, because what I can is already on the OP. Yes it's vague, but I would rather take what you throw at us here then start pissing on our friends in a dirty little tell all.

Couple of things I will make clear:

1) TOP has no intention to drop our treaty with Old Guard, and we still consider them allies and friends. I've already made my intentions clear to them on this point.

2) Umbrella never to my knowledge gave an ultimatum. To not consider Umbrella's position would have been stupid of us, so it was a factor. But we try to consider all our allies positions before doing something, even when we disagree with their position, consideration is a must.

3) OG handled themselves with class throughout the process.

4) This sucked. I don't know how to say it differently. It was nessessary but it sucked having to go through this.

And I know this sounds cliche, but I hope to one day to have OG back in Citadel. I think many will see great things with the new face of OG, and some of the old if Genobadass decides to come back in full force. I've been impressed in the discussions we had.

Lastly Reyne, I know she gets all fired up, says some stupid !@#$ when she does, and I know that some people like to cast people into roles of hero, or villian, or idiot, or you name it. Thing is, like everyone you take the time to know, there are different faces and facets of them. Argent accepted Reyne on something they saw and liked in her. It is not my place to go about dictating what they should and should not do and niether should any of you. If this really is an issue for you, they are good guys, just talk to them. And I honestly believe she may have had a choice of more then one alliance in Citadel, so Argent's entry was not a convience exploited to dump Reyne in.

If you want answers you can pm me, yes, you know how these things are, I can't reveal some stuff, but I'll be honest with what I can.

'Till then all that can be asked is you respect our decision, and please try to consider how difficult this was.

Khyber, you know I respect you personally and quite a few other people from the alliances that make up Citadel. This all started from my standpoint with simple questions about the situation. It quickly grew into something I know I had no intentions for it to become but the one thing Citadel has is alot of defensiveness. If some folks wouldnt get all uptight about simple discussion in their threads then Citadel threads wouldn't turn out this way. I know you guys like folks to come to you with questions because of the way things turn out here but to be bluntly truthful alot of that is caused by your own people and the way they respond to folks asking questions about your announcement. You know, its a pretty damn big announcement, you know questions will be asked.

I personally think the move makes sense, there were some details though that didn't so I personally asked about them. Asking about those details got some folks all riled up into defensive mode which then made it appear as if there was more to hide. So then you mix that atmosphere with me being told things as well as then being responded to in some not so polite ways and you have yourself a catastrophe of a thread.

You guys really could have just said that their choice of side in the War led to a lack of trust from the other alliances towards them. We all know which alliances that would be coming most from and it didnt have to even be said. Unfortunately it was those alliances that also got the most defensive here. Of all the alliances in Citadel I am sure this was hardest for you guys in TOP thus I tried to keep from including you guys in my questioning due to the relationship you guys had with OG.

Just tell some of your other friends to not get so damn defensive on this board and especially in Citadel threads and these repeated headaches for you will happen much less.

I will say as much as I know about an ultimatum however I honestly don't know if one was formally issued or not. When I was still in Umbrella, ejayrazz asked me if it was correct that Umbrella would leave the Citadel if OG was not booted, and I said that the membership at that time, informally polled by myself, were leaning towards leaving Citadel if OG was not booted. I do not really know if an ultimatum was issued before or after (I was rapidly becoming inactive in Umbrella myself and hadn't really been keeping up on gov affairs for quite awhile before I left) but I never saw any logs or anything that could be clearly called an ultimatum (i.e. a log that said "Umbrella or OG" or something similar). I know it was often brought up by Citadel governments but if this stemmed from me, it was really just my attempt at answering an allied gov's question honestly.

Thank you sir for ending that debate. I figured it wasn't an official statement but word gets around in Citadel.

Its not a citadel thread if it isn't at least 30 pages of personal attacks and circular 'arguments.'

Perhaps then since they are the common denominator in your statement they should look to their own actions in their threads. That is simple scientific theory.

I don't understand what it is people like you are looking for. Did the Citadel ever purport to be supermen? Why are they suddenly held to such saintly standards. I don't like neither the Citadel nor Old Guard but the signatories of Lux Aeterna have done what any other group would in their situation. Why do you make them out to be some sort of criminals for choosing to disassociate themselves from a purported ally that would side with their enemies in war?

No one is calling them criminals for such, in fact most of us said disassociating themselves from a purported ally that would side with their enemies was a smart thing to do. We were simply asking why they wouldn't just say that in their reasoning. I realize this thread is a tough read but if you followed it all you would see how it evolved from such into what it became.

I don't consider longevity to be the best marker, but that's subjective. How is Citadel alliances being led into a false war not relevent when they later claime the STA are sheep? Seemed pretty relevant to me.

Actually I think it was just LJ who tried to claim we are sheep. No one else was riled up enough to make or back up such a silly statement.

Edited June 26, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Joe Kremlin]

I don't consider longevity to be the best marker, but that's subjective. How is Citadel alliances being led into a false war not relevent when they later claime the STA are sheep? Seemed pretty relevant to me.

They being one member?

Seems like an irrelevant off topic side argument to me.

You guys really could have just said that their choice of side in the War led to a lack of trust from the other alliances towards them.

Like we've said this has been an ongoing issue and did not just come up because of the war.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Joe Kremlin

[Haflinger]

I love how you say you just stated your opinion and in the same post accuse ender of spinning the situation when he did exactly the same thing.

Sun WuKong stated his opinion about events in OG, an organization which he was directly involved in.

Ender stated his opinion of Sun WuKong.

Not "exactly the same thing."

I'm sure if NV were deemed relevant here, then you'd have your answer.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Citadel has lasted longer than the blocs before it

CDT is older.

[WarriorConcept]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Boss of who, exactly?

[Aeternos Astramora]

1. Who the hell cares whether Citadel alliances get one or two votes? Why is it so important? Does it make sense? Maybe. If it doesn't make sense, does it have an important effect? No.

2. Reyne is not barred from office in Argent. She must wait 45 days, like all new members to Argent, to be elected into office. However, she has expressed no wish to do so.

What actions would that be? Besides a masking mistake that was fixed shortly after it was discovered.

It seems to me that "reviled" was supposed to be "revealed".

[Monster]

I don't consider longevity to be the best marker, but that's subjective. How is Citadel alliances being led into a false war not relevent when they later claime the STA are sheep? Seemed pretty relevant to me.

Only one person claimed the STA were sheep and they did it because they were riled up. It was a tangential discussion that really shouldn't have been delved into. (the split vote thing)

I've found that a lot of the people who were independent posters on these forums ended up going there. I think it makes for a solid community.

I've liked most of what the STA has done during my time on Planet Bob and despite there being some bad blood over the events of last month, I haven't really changed my stance on that. I hope the bad blood will go away eventually.

No one is calling them criminals for such, in fact most of us said disassociating themselves from a purported ally that would side with their enemies was a smart thing to do. We were simply asking why they wouldn't just say that in their reasoning. I realize this thread is a tough read but if you followed it all you would see how it evolved from such into what it became.

It was a lot more than that. In my opinion, their role in the war was just symptomatic of the actual issues.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Antoine Roquentin

[Haflinger]

Boss of who, exactly?

I was poking some fun

Jeez you people.

[pasquali]

What do you mean, "You people"???

[KagetheSecond]

I was poking some fun

Jeez you people.

Off Topic: What do you mean, you people?

On Topic: I think that everything that needs to be said about the OP has been said. I hope that OG can reorganize themselves and be back in Citadel in due time.

[Dr. Dan]

Off Topic: What do you mean, you people?

On Topic: I think that everything that needs to be said about the OP has been said. I hope that OG can reorganize themselves and be back in Citadel in due time.

Getting slow in your old age.

[KagetheSecond]

Getting slow in your old age.

I know D:

[Haflinger]

What do you mean, "You people"???

All these humourless rascals of course.

[Tygaland]

Each alliance can cast their votes as they please. Though your logic makes sense, not every alliance is democratic and the leaders are there to make decisions based on their own methods, though I generally agree they should, I can see why some people would wish for a split.

Sorry for the double post

My alliance isn't democratic. I was explaining how the voring should work for a democratic alliance if they are going to go to the trouble of polling their membership on the issue. You might want to read the discussion before posting next time.

Every alliance functions differently and every alliance represents different wishes. If someone, by chance, voted one and one...that is perfectly fine. You don't need an exact percentage to split a vote, yes, your logic makes sense but so doesn't the opposing view. I am disagreeing in your concept being the only correct method, following my former statements within this post.

I know. It was my alliance and government being insulted by an Umbrella member if you had bothered to read the discussion rather than leap to reply to a soundbite out of context.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Tygaland

[Näktergal]

Quick question.

We're all aware that many of the leaders of OG who were the core of the problem have left the alliance, and I'm personally aware that at least a few outsiders, ex-members, and friends of the alliance have actually joined in the last week or two solely to help OG weather the current situation. In other words, it might be safe to say that a significant percentage of OG today is different from what it was a month ago. It's probably also safe to predict that current events and the dramatic shake-up in membership will lead OG to re-evaluate its place, its methods, its policies, and its friendships.

So where I'm going with this is, hypothetically speaking, would there ever come a time when OG has changed enough to successfully reapply to Citadel and be taken seriously? Or would the scars from this particular incident and fears that history might repeat itself block any such future plans?

If there's a sentiment that OG would be welcomed back if they "correct" what Citadel saw as their flaws, precisely what sort of changes or reforms would Citadel expect before being willing to give them a second chance?

Just curious.

This I don't know. All I heard was that they basically just voted 'yes' on whatever the gov told them to do. IMO even with responsible leaders, this is a HUGE liability for any alliance (we Citadel guys highly value activity and active participation, you see) and any blocs that the alliance is part of. It also allows the gov to run wild with their decisions, which can be much more nakedly influenced by personal grudges or aspirations.

I've seen this come up a few times, but I haven't seen anyone else bring this up yet, so I will:

How much information did OG members have to make educated decisions on their own?

Essentially, what I'm asking is, how much information was disseminated throughout the alliance, that would allow them to question the decisions of their leadership in the first place? For instance, if most important Citadel-related info was restricted to top-level diplomats, and Reyne was able to filter any information coming in before it reached OG's general membership, it's entirely possible that the members simply rubber-stamped her decisions because they lacked the necessarily information to know her decisions were flawed in any way. If that was the case, then accusations of either apathy or ill-intent on their part are incorrect, as they were as much victims as anyone else.

Past experience suggests that there are certainly alliances - even ones in Citadel - where the members are absolutely not told everything their leaders know, or are given highly compressed versions of talks going on at higher levels. At least, this was the case in the past, and I can only assume it's still the case now.

So, just how much information did the OG rank and file have? Could Reyne and other leadership have passed inaccurate and manipulative information on to the general membership? Is it possible that the membership would have been more critical of her actions if they'd been getting information from alternate news sources?

I honestly don't know, but I'd like to hear some perspectives on this.

[ShadowDragon]

Citadel has lasted longer than the blocs before it iirc, so I'd like to think we're doing something right at least. This is the first time we've felt the need to remove someone from the bloc and they are still on good terms with several current signatories. If we were just like everyone else that would be pretty boring, I'd like to think different blocs each have their own unique aspects that make them different. I consider Citadel to be special and somewhere I'd prefer to be over anywhere else, which is why I'm part of it, but I don't claim Citadel to be better than everyone else and don't see why we need to be held to impossible standards. While I understand you weren't happy with the noCB War (I wasn't happy with that war either ), can't we let the past be and move on from that? OG getting removed from Citadel is in no way relevant to these old issues, and you've since moved on to a new alliance...

SF is like a month older then you guys.

>_>

[Diomede]

My alliance isn't democratic. I was explaining how the voring should work for a democratic alliance if they are going to go to the trouble of polling their membership on the issue. You might want to read the discussion before posting next time.

While what you have been talking about may be true for some democracies, it is not correct for all. There is a very important difference between direct and representative form of democracy.

[Tygaland]

While what you have been talking about may be true for some democracies, it is not correct for all. There is a very important difference between direct and representative form of democracy.

Which still has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing. Seeing as so few can be bothered following the conversation, let me summarise.

A member of the STA asked how a system for 2 votes per alliance would have a situation where an alliance cast one vote for and one vote against a proposal.

An Umbrella member then launched into a diatribe about how Citadel alliances are democratic as opposed to the mindless sheep who form my alliance that parrot whatever words I ram down their throat. He also said that it was possible that if the vote was close that an alliance would split their two votes as that is more representative of the close result.

I pointed out that if such a vote occurred within an alliance and the bloc votes were used to reflect the opinion of alliance membership, then any majority, no matter how small, would be the opinion of the membership. Therefore a representative vote would not be a split vote but using both votes to reflect the majority opinion of the alliance. The only time a split vote would be representative of alliance opinion would be if the vote was exactly 50/50 at the alliance level.

I did not raise the alliance voting as an example. So your and Ejayrazz's comments really miss the mark as you are holding me to processes I never advocated. The direct democracy example was raised by a member of Umbrella in an attempt to insult my alliance. I merely went with that example and discussed it with respect to the use of 2 votes to reflect the membership's opinion.