Citadel Announcement

[HeinousOne]

Aww, what are they

Some of the other responses are good explanations to your question. On top of that we also saw how the world saw the double entendre of tC and 1V and the power it in essence gave to NPO. That other possible bloc that was the talk of the world behind the scenes seems to have been scrapped due to not wanting to appear to be tC/1V 2.0. Inviting in MK would be somewhat similiar as the quotes below point out that it would basically start the process of making Citadel and C&G into that tC/1V 2.0 group. Single bloc membership seems to be the way of the future.

I would think that citadel alliances already learned the lesson about being in two blocs, and i doubt MK would be willing to leave C&G

(And i doubt getting into citadel is in MK:s "must do" list)

While personally I think it would be nice to have MK in Citadel, after the issues members having duel membership in Q caused I think many of us would like to avoid members of Citadel being in other Blocs as well. However if C&G were to merge into MK, I would totally be in favor of admitting them.

I like C&G though, so I hope to see it last for a very long time, I'm comfortable with the current situation of C&G and Citadel remaining separate blocs, but having friendly relations and allies within them.

A C&G merge into MK, you sir are a scary man.

[Sal Paradise]

I'm going to rejoin this thread after several pages and respond to replies to my comments way back (and ignore the last twenty pages).

Ok for the sake of the argument im gonna take you seriously for a second, although i think you lack the according knowledge to make a judgement of that degree.

A common tactic, and by simply repeating what is obvious and what everyone else already knows (in the quote below) you have proven it unjustified. If I lack the 'according knowledge' you have failed to provide any to prove your point.

When Citadel was formed, Gre and OG were extremely close. Having fought in GW3 together we thought them to be one of the few alliances we could connect with. Over the time, OG (and reyne in particular) have worked against us. Take for example our departure from Q, when they desperately tried to make us look as bad as possible.

It's just a fact that as soon as OG got so close to NPO, relations to all other Citadel alliances started to dwindle. They thought, like many other alliances did and still do, that a close relationship to NPO is everything you need to survive in the cyberverse. Because NPO always comes out on top, right?

Right.

This was an ongoing process over the last one and a half years. While TOP for example always valued all of their allies, everyone got the feeling that OG just didnt care anymore about Cit. I cant remember a single incident in that timespan where OG supported our goals vocally.

Now please compare OGs closeness to NPO of today to the GW3 era and you know who moved away from whom.

I don't think anyone would deny that the Citadel alliances used to be close, or that OG was close to NPO, and it was this that drove you apart. But somehow you seem to think that OG's buddying up with NPO is unique in the Citadel. That nobody else had a close relationship with them or used laying with the Continuum dogs as a political tool, and then acted all outraged when they woke up with fleas. The Citadel was embedded a great deal in the hegemony and was powerful tool of it. Don't lie to me and say you never cynically considered that relationship a instrument of survival, your place on the green team or your frosty relationship with Polar. You, the high and principled, joined the largest NPO meatshield in history with a supremacy clause over all your treaties, because you were close friends with and trusted all the other alliances in the bloc, right?

You could argue that OG was closer to the NPO than the rest of you, but you could hardly say that constitutes them moving away from you. You were there too. It's more you not having the courage to admit where you were and what you became. Then you left the Continuum, and TOP stayed until a losing war for the NPO was on the horizon. OG attacks GR honouring their treaty with the NPO (treaty you were once a party of, in a relationship you helped build, that TOP had only days prior ended) and Grämlins and FCC violate Lux Aeterna by attacking an ally of OG. And OG gets the boot for 'moving away' from the Citadel.

No offense but my comrad Joker is right: it was obvious who most of Citadel would side with. OG with Hegemony, Umbrella, Grämlins and FCC with Karma. The only wild card was TOP. And it wasn't that much of a wild card as sides were getting clearer.

That's simply not true. And regurgitating a statement without an argument isn't a going to prove the point. It wasn't obvious which side most of the Citadel was taking at all. Days before the war started while the NPO and TPF were grilling OV over their alleged spying, certain government members in the Citadel were flat out against siding with VE and CnG. They said that the time wasn't right and that OV wasn't worth it. They needed to be persuaded. Though I will grant you that the TOP wildcard was obvious when the sides started getting clear. It's a little thing TOP likes to do.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Schattenmann]

Apparently you missed the memo, Reyne is in Argent now. Which makes this move rather puzzling.

No puzzle if Sun Wukong is still in OG.

[Sephiroth]

So what you are saying is, if I ask a member of my alliance to join yours in order to get promoted and pass information to me, that is not spying and is actually your fault for promoting him and giving access? An unusual stance, but your decision to make. Thanks for clearing that up. Sadly my own alliance doesn't use such tactics, but it's nice to know that The Grämlins would be alright with me doing so if I wanted to. I guess some other alliance could still do it.

And no, you've done nothing to clear up any concerns I had with TOP. I've been on pretty good terms with The Grämlins for the past few months already, at least as far as I know. For the most part, most of your members have been upfront and honest whereas TOP likes to pretend that their hands are clean. The Grämlins have taken steps to avoid such wars in the future, and everyone I have spoken to, save yourself, seems to realize that incorrect things occurred and should not happen again.

You're hands aren't exactly clean either, I seem to recall a few alliances forced to disband during the Unjust War, didn't that war start over BoTS tech raiding Genmay despite them being an alliance? Seems strange alliances would be forced to disband for defending an ally protecting them self from raids. I also recall NADC getting attacked, I don't remember if a reason was given for that, but I remember no evidence was shown of whatever they got accused of. Considering NpO Gov isn't really the same anymore I don't fault them, but you were likely in Gov taking an active roll at the time, so your hands certainly aren't clean. I just don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by continuously bringing up the same issue in thread after thread as its already been discussed to death. If you hate Citadel but don't plan to conspire a war against us, why not just ignore threads relating to Citadel, every thread doesn't need to be about bringing up what we already know, you weren't happy with the noCB War and you're not the only one, but we know this already and you seem to have no intention of changing your view towards us.

I do think you're a good diplomat when dropping by our boards, but FCC is part of Citadel, so maybe you can understand why I'm not fond of you taking every opportunity you can think of to try dragging Citadel's name through the mud. This thread is about OG getting removed from Citadel, do you have disagreement with our announcement or are you just here to keep bringing up the same off-topic issue that seems to pop up in almost every Citadel thread you post in. What are you trying to achieve other than letting us know you still dislike Citadel? I appreciate that you've generally been friendlier towards FCC and we've never been on bad terms with you, but ultimately FCC is part of Citadel and what is said about Citadel is said about us as well.

If what your expecting is for TOP to get on their knees and beg you to forgive them, then that isn't happening. That doesn't mean they've never done anything wrong, but there is nothing wrong with having some pride. I haven't seen you admit to being wrong in your participation in every alliance that you've ever participated in rolling then getting reps out of them. Do we want to be stuck in the past arguing over old issues, or can we all just move on, and just realize what happened in the past can't be changed, so constantly bringing them up won't change it?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Methrage

[Delta1212]

No puzzle if Sun Wukong is still in OG.

He's not.

[RandomInterrupt]

You're hands aren't exactly clean either, I seem to recall a few alliances forced to disband during the Unjust War, didn't that war start over BoTS tech raiding Genmay despite them being an alliance? Seems strange alliances would be forced to disband for defending an ally protecting them self from raids. I also recall NADC getting attacked, I don't remember if a reason was given for that, but I remember no evidence was shown of whatever they got accused of. Considering NpO Gov isn't really the same anymore I don't fault them, but you were likely in Gov taking an active roll at the time, so your hands certainly aren't clean. I just don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by continuously bringing up the same issue in thread after thread as its already been discussed to death. If you hate Citadel but don't plan to conspire a war against us, why not just ignore threads relating to Citadel, every thread doesn't need to be about bringing up what we already know, you weren't happy with the noCB War and you're not the only one, but we know this already and you seem to have no intention of changing your view towards us.

I never forced anyone to disband. I never set any harsh surrender terms and I never attacked anyone with the intent to kill them forever. I would have had no problems with \m/ dying and still don't, but I'd of given them terms if I were in charge and they lived long enough to surrender. Considering the post you are quoting talks about spying, and I never taken part in spying nor endorsed it, my hands are perfectly clean. You can spend all day trying to change the subject to my own personal history (that's generally considered a character attack, by the way but I'd say this is more of poor following of the discussion) but it changes nothing.

I do think you're a good diplomat when dropping by our boards, but FCC is part of Citadel, so maybe you can understand why I'm not fond of you taking every opportunity you can think of to try dragging Citadel's name through the mud. This thread is about OG getting removed from Citadel, do you have disagreement with our announcement or are you just here to keep bringing up the same off-topic issue that seems to pop up in almost every Citadel thread you post in. What are you trying to achieve other than letting us know you still dislike Citadel? I appreciate that you've generally been friendlier towards FCC and we've never been on bad terms with you, but ultimately FCC is part of Citadel and what is said about Citadel is said about us as well.

Let me say this one more time, as it apparently isn't sinking in. I only brought up the issue to point out why one Umbrella member's comment was stupid. My point was made and I think we all agree that the comment was not indicative of the majority of the Citadel's opinion. It was Citadel members who have sought to turn this into a debate again. I agree that we are completely off-topic now, and so I'd be happy with letting this drop and leaving the thread.

If what your expecting is for TOP to get on their knees and beg you to forgive them, then that isn't happening. That doesn't mean they've never done anything wrong, but there is nothing wrong with having some pride. I haven't seen you admit to being wrong in your participation in every alliance that you've ever participated in rolling then getting reps out of them. Do we want to be stuck in the past arguing over old issues, or can we all just move on, and just realize what happened in the past can't be changed, so constantly bringing them up won't change it?

I am not expecting anything. Please read my posts all the way through before commenting on them. You asked me to let go of the past, I told you what I need to happen in order to let go, and now you have decided that I expect it to happen. Bad logic at best. So no, I do not expect anything like that from TOP. That's why I don't expect many grudges over the event to ease.

[avernite]

And no, you've done nothing to clear up any concerns I had with TOP. I've been on pretty good terms with The Grämlins for the past few months already, at least as far as I know. For the most part, most of your members have been upfront and honest whereas TOP likes to pretend that their hands are clean. The Grämlins have taken steps to avoid such wars in the future, and everyone I have spoken to, save yourself, seems to realize that incorrect things occurred and should not happen again.

TOP has never denied accepting the screenshots, which is the exact same thing Syzygy is talking about, so what exactly is your issue? He admits it it's okay, we admit it it's somesort of grave error?

TOP did not spy on the NpO, TOP did accept screenshots showing information from the NpO. You accused us of spying a few posts ago, so explain what we did OR say that you referred to the screenshots, because at this point your accusation is rather nebulous and thus is seems it's either untrue, or it's something we have never denied.

[Penguin]

I haven't seen you admit to being wrong in your participation in every alliance that you've ever participated in rolling then getting reps out of them. Do we want to be stuck in the past arguing over old issues, or can we all just move on, and just realize what happened in the past can't be changed, so constantly bringing them up won't change it?

You should tally the total number of reps Polaris has "extorted" before you make statements like this one. You may not have liked the reasons for war, or that some alliances disbanded before reaching terms, but we never took sizable reparations from anyone.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Penguin

[RandomInterrupt]

TOP has never denied accepting the screenshots, which is the exact same thing Syzygy is talking about, so what exactly is your issue? He admits it it's okay, we admit it it's somesort of grave error?

TOP did not spy on the NpO, TOP did accept screenshots showing information from the NpO. You accused us of spying a few posts ago, so explain what we did OR say that you referred to the screenshots, because at this point your accusation is rather nebulous and thus is seems it's either untrue, or it's something we have never denied.

The screenshots didn't come from Polar. They came from an agent of the NPO. I ignored your question before as it was off-topic. It's still off-topic. Please refer to the last dozen times I have explained this in the last dozen TOP threads.

[Sun WuKong]

1) OG attacked Greenland Republic, with whom OBR holds its only MDP. OBR/BW therefore defended GR from OG.

Then by your definition, OG also did not attack GR, as they were activating their MDPs.

Pay attention to the meaning of words. Whether OBR acted defensively or offensively, they struck at OG before OG struck at them - and that is an accepted use of the word 'attacked'.

I don't think anyone would deny that the Citadel alliances used to be close, or that OG was close to NPO, and it was this that drove you apart. But somehow you seem to think that OG's buddying up with NPO is unique in the Citadel. That nobody else had a close relationship with them or used laying with the Continuum dogs as a political tool, and then acted all outraged when they woke up with fleas. The Citadel was embedded a great deal in the hegemony and was powerful tool of it. Don't lie to me and say you never cynically considered that relationship a instrument of survival, your place on the green team or your frosty relationship with Polar. You, the high and principled, joined the largest NPO meatshield in history with a supremacy clause over all your treaties, because you were close friends with and trusted all the other alliances in the bloc, right?

You could argue that OG was closer to the NPO than the rest of you, but you could hardly say that constitutes them moving away from you. You were there too. It's more you not having the courage to admit where you were and what you became. Then you left the Continuum, and TOP stayed until a losing war for the NPO was on the horizon. OG attacks GR honouring their treaty with the NPO (treaty you were once a party of, in a relationship you helped build, that TOP had only days prior ended) and Grämlins and FCC violate Lux Aeterna by attacking an ally of OG. And OG gets the boot for 'moving away' from the Citadel.

An observant and cogent assessment - and pretty much the reason why I stated that "the victors get to write the history books".

No puzzle if Sun Wukong is still in OG.

Keep up with the mob, Schatt. As stated earlier in this Movie of the Week, I left Old Guard weeks before Reyne, when both were (apparently naively) working on repairing relations with the rest of Citadel.

[Essenia]

TOP did not spy on the NpO, TOP did accept screenshots showing information from the NpO. You accused us of spying a few posts ago, so explain what we did OR say that you referred to the screenshots, because at this point your accusation is rather nebulous and thus is seems it's either untrue, or it's something we have never denied.

I would assume he is referring to that dude.

[Sal Paradise]

An observant and cogent assessment - and pretty much the reason why I stated that "the victors get to write the history books".

They can try.

[mrniice]

I hadn't read this thread in a few days thinking that it would have died down by now. Ignoring the tangents and select posts by Citadel and OG leaders I can say that there is only one post in here that speaks the whole truth.

I'll just leave it to you all to figure out which post that is.

I have to say that after two years of not being in the know and in this one case being "in the know" this thread has proven the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Please continue to randomly hit keys. Who knows what may come out next.

[kingzog]

I'm going to save myself (what I expect is) twenty-six pages of:

- people congratulating Citadel

- Citadel telling people to stop being jerks

- various (half-baked or plausible) theories as to what's 'really' going on

- plenty of shots directed at Reyne Mordigan

- numerous arguments about unrelated events that happened some time ago

....and just say that ejecting a member from a bloc is never an easy decision or one that ought to be discussed lightly, especially by those who are uninvolved in said bloc's inner workings.

Good luck to Citadel as you move forward. And good luck to OG as you continue to re-build and recover.

[Diomede]

I'm going to save myself (what I expect is) twenty-six pages of:

- people congratulating Citadel

- Citadel telling people to stop being jerks

- various (half-baked or plausible) theories as to what's 'really' going on

- plenty of shots directed at Reyne Mordigan

- numerous arguments about unrelated events that happened some time ago

....and just say that ejecting a member from a bloc is never an easy decision or one that ought to be discussed lightly, especially by those who are uninvolved in said bloc's inner workings.

Good luck to Citadel as you move forward. And good luck to OG as you continue to re-build and recover.

lol, that's pretty close to being accurate, if you ignore the side-discussion about how citadel votes on it. Thanks, Zog.

[Näktergal]

well wtf then am i the only one who hasn't heard of this Wizards of the Coast nonsense? screw you guys

Look on the bright side, it means you're less of a nerd than the rest of us.

[kingzog]

lol, that's pretty close to being accurate, if you ignore the side-discussion about how citadel votes on it. Thanks, Zog.

Dang. I knew I missed something.

[Diomede]

Dang. I knew I missed something.

I was being serious on you being accurate, it's just that what I mentioned has taken up the past 7 pages or so.

[Haflinger]

Keep up with the mob, Schatt. As stated earlier in this Movie of the Week, I left Old Guard weeks before Reyne, when both were (apparently naively) working on repairing relations with the rest of Citadel.

It's okay, I think Schatt has me on ignore, and I was the guy who pointed that out, and speculated on the possible implications of you being in a Zenith protectorate at the same time as the other two going to Argent, given the history of Zenith-Argent relations.

[Tygaland]

I think people understand what you're saying, but don't agree with it. Assume an alliance like TOP votes with 100% turnout. 105 vote for something, and 104 (or whatever it'd be) vote against. Yes you have the majority, but by casting two votes for you're virtually ignoring half of the alliance. That's why some systems require percentiles to be reached, 66%, whatever before they would go all out.

The people I responded to di dnot understand what I was saying, that is why I had to repeat it 3 or 4 times until they did. And as to your point, th issue was reflecting the majority. Whether it be one vote or 10, it is still a majority and when you vote to reflect the majority you tend to ignore the minority as a result.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

The people I responded to di dnot understand what I was saying, that is why I had to repeat it 3 or 4 times until they did. And as to your point, th issue was reflecting the majority. Whether it be one vote or 10, it is still a majority and when you vote to reflect the majority you tend to ignore the minority as a result.

I didnt respond to this simply because I was too many pages behind when I saw it the first time... and by it I mean the allegation that the intention in a vote must always be to reflect solely the majority view. 

There's just no reason this has to be the case. If it's a 51-49 split it would in fact be more accurate to translate that into 1 aye and 1 nay than into two ayes. 

Thought experiment - two alliances are 90% plus aye. 3 alliances are 51-49 nay. One way of voting that's 7-3 aye. One way it is 6-4 nay. Which outcome is best? Assuming the alliances are of comparable size, 7-3 aye would more closely mirror the popular vote. But 6-4 nay would reflect the fact that the majority of the alliances are deeply conflicted and only two really have a consensus to vote aye. 

Either method of counting is legitimate depending on what the architects of the system are trying to do. 

[Sephiroth]

You should tally the total number of reps Polaris has "extorted" before you make statements like this one. You may not have liked the reasons for war, or that some alliances disbanded before reaching terms, but we never took sizable reparations from anyone.

Compared to us who have never taken reps from a war its a lot in comparison.

Anyways my point wasn't you guys are bad people, just that almost everyone everyone has some bad spot on their record and almost nobody's hands are totally clean since Random was pointing out that he didn't feel TOP's hands were totally clean as a bad thing. Even if I found you guys to be a bit aggressive in the past, it did serve to make the game more interesting and I've never disliked you guys.

[Tygaland]

I didnt respond to this simply because I was too many pages behind when I saw it the first time... and by it I mean the allegation that the intention in a vote must always be to reflect solely the majority view.

There's just no reason this has to be the case. If it's a 51-49 split it would in fact be more accurate to translate that into 1 aye and 1 nay than into two ayes.

Thought experiment - two alliances are 90% plus aye. 3 alliances are 51-49 nay. One way of voting that's 7-3 aye. One way it is 6-4 nay. Which outcome is best? Assuming the alliances are of comparable size, 7-3 aye would more closely mirror the popular vote. But 6-4 nay would reflect the fact that the majority of the alliances are deeply conflicted and only two really have a consensus to vote aye.

Either method of counting is legitimate depending on what the architects of the system are trying to do.

I never said it did have to be the case. As I have stated ad nauseum, I was running with a comment made by an Umbrella member who said the bloc votes should reflect the majority opinion of the membership of the alliance those bloc votes represent. He said this as a means to point out that my alliance is a group of mindless morons (because we do not engage in direct democracy or any democratic process at all) when compared to the democratic genii that form Citadel alliances.

I'm just going to walk away from this thread as it is clear that no matter how many times I state this some other Citadel member trots in to deliberately misrepresent what I said.

I tried.

[Azhrarn]

Then by your definition, OG also did not attack GR, as they were activating their MDPs.

Pay attention to the meaning of words. Whether OBR acted defensively or offensively, they struck at OG before OG struck at them - and that is an accepted use of the word 'attacked'.

If you wish to state that OG and OBR/BW were both activating their MDPs, that works for me. And if you wish to state that OBR/BW attacked OG after OG attacked GR that also works for me. At least both of these statements provide some degree of context.

Off-topic: Wth is Wizards of the Coast?

[Kryievla]

You & hizzy just aren't geeky enough

OOC: They are responsible for Magic the Gathering & at one point Dungeons & Dragons.