Rebel Virginia Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 My apologies, but you offer accusation without proof. I can only respond with the same. Without knowing what events you speak of, I cannot refute them. At the same time, I'm not convinced that your opinion on this matter is worth my time. If you are automatically biased against everything I stand for, what use is talking to you at all? Your leaders know exactly what I am talking about. If you don't know, I suggest talking to them. If they don't talk, then oh well, you'll know soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelenAzrael Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Then it would seem to me that any problems you have are with the leaders not with the alliance. It might be best to separate them because they are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Then it would seem to me that any problems you have are with the leaders not with the alliance. It might be best to separate them because they are not the same. I'm afraid that particular line of logic doesn't fly; mostly because your alliance and its allies pretty much pioneered the whole "the alliance leaders speak for the alliance" line of thinking to support some of their shady CBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Mundokiir, I have looked for logs from MD that support any of this, but I can't. I do not have concrete proof only circumstantial evidence. If things had gone strictly good for BTA where everyone MD talked to said that is fine, why would people be pissed? If House has taught you anything, it should be that people lie and people don't change for no reason. If the logs MD put down were true, what happened between then and now for Sorum to change. Why was TAB angry with MD? Everyone lies, it is true, but actions certainly indicate a lot. People are pissed because they all thought that because they used to be in an alliance means no one has the right to it anymore. So, in an effort to "peacefully" get that alliance to die again, a smear campaign was started. Now, I can understand TAB being a little upset, but they gave up the BTA and started over. MHA, though? You've got a couple of pissy leaders who left the alliance that abandoned the alliance name we're all !@#$%*ing about now, so why does it concern them? They should focus on the alliance they lead. And don't give me this "We support our allies" nonsense. If your leaders weren't former TAB/BTA, I doubt there would have been a topic like this created. I've seen your alliance work in the past, and it's just not the MO. This is far more personal and, really, this drama is not what you should want in your leaders to get you dragged into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Then it would seem to me that any problems you have are with the leaders not with the alliance. It might be best to separate them because they are not the same. And that is where you are mistaken, my friend. Your leaders are your alliance, and everything they do is reflective of your alliance. So, when this is all over with, I would advise you to discuss your leaders with your friends, and with their friends. And then ask yourself, are your leaders really doing what is best for MHA, or what is best to satisfy their own petty grudges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Good luck to both parties on finding a peaceful resolution to this. I'm sure cooler heads will prevail and we'll all go back to being one big happy dysfunctional cyber family soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelenAzrael Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 You are right, the alliance leaders speak for the alliance, but that doesn't make them the alliance incarnate. They are capable of personalities and emotion and cannot be held for those. If they say we support something, we support it; if they say we declare something, we do. At the same time, if they get in an argument with someone else, it is not the alliance that is getting in an argument. While I will stand behind my leaders, I am not going to assume they are infallible. In addition, this is going to hold for any alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 You are right, the alliance leaders speak for the alliance, but that doesn't make them the alliance incarnate. They are capable of personalities and emotion and cannot be held for those. If they say we support something, we support it; if they say we declare something, we do. At the same time, if they get in an argument with someone else, it is not the alliance that is getting in an argument. While I will stand behind my leaders, I am not going to assume they are infallible. In addition, this is going to hold for any alliance. So you admit that your leaders let their emotions get the better of them. Tell me, if they do that, are they in the proper mindset to be able to lead? If so, then I do believe that it is quite apparent that this entire debacle has no rational basis to it, but is simply an emotional response fueled by a petty hatred of MD. But what I find most shocking is that you intend to blindly follow these people in spite of this, knowing exactly what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 You are right, the alliance leaders speak for the alliance, but that doesn't make them the alliance incarnate. They are capable of personalities and emotion and cannot be held for those. If they say we support something, we support it; if they say we declare something, we do. At the same time, if they get in an argument with someone else, it is not the alliance that is getting in an argument. While I will stand behind my leaders, I am not going to assume they are infallible. In addition, this is going to hold for any alliance. So, what you're saying is that they are representatives of what you want you want as alliance leaders, considering they are in power and you are happy with them... but they don't represent your alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelenAzrael Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Do you assume that anyone is any better, any more capable of leading? I believe, at this point, that this has become an argument between MD and Sorum and probably best settled in private channels. I have not yet met anyone incapable of letting their emotions getting the better of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackjackCF Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 So you admit that your leaders let their emotions get the better of them. Tell me, if they do that, are they in the proper mindset to be able to lead? If so, then I do believe that it is quite apparent that this entire debacle has no rational basis to it, but is simply an emotional response fueled by a petty hatred of MD. But what I find most shocking is that you intend to blindly follow these people in spite of this, knowing exactly what is going on. Funny, I think I can say the same for Master-Debater about Sorum and Crush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Do you assume that anyone is any better, any more capable of leading? Yes. Me. As for your little tidbit about private channels, how about no. Who do you think would have advantage? One of the larger alliances out there, or a small group of seven nations. Some off the grossest abuses of power have taken place in private channels. The public stage, however, is the great equalizer. Where nothing can be hidden from the judgment of the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelenAzrael Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I can't argue against the first part. I think that if it is a personal issue, the matter would be 1 on 1. I don't think that people would just go along with any attacks made due to what came of it so any threats would be useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1a Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 You have a reputation as an alliance that doesn't do anything, sort of like Sparta, but when you do do something, it usually is an unjustified abuse of power I wasn't aware of that. Out of curiosity, could you give some examples of the latter part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I doubt that very much Sunnyinc, these mates you speak may not be friends of mine or Francesca's but they do have a basic sense of decency. You should have learned from them instead of getting pissy and storming out of TSO yourself. Thats a stitch coming from a guy with a lengthy track record of throwing tantrums and quitting alliances when he does not get his way. You make it sound as if I pulled a textbook "nc1701" act and kicked up a huge fuss on the government and general member forums when the rest of the government -- who you've just confirmed are decent people -- diagreed with me and then posted a lengthy, heart-wrenching resignation letter when it became clear that things were not going to change a few days later. No, I never attempted to manipulate the decsion making process or get my way by making myself into a martyr, only to return when I got my way. The difference between you and I is I respect the decision making process and I have a tonne more class than you: an individual who will do, say and behave however he wants to carry out his own agenda despite everyone else. We used to be friends Sunnyinc, but you've changed and not for the better, pick up what decency you have left and move on, following Francesca around like an abused puppy trying to find chances to get back at her for actions you don't understand is beneath you. [ooc]I see people making comments which I disagree with all the time but I try to refrain from responding unless I know the person or the situation well enough to comment. Its not my fault that Francesca is the most outspoken and controversial person who regulars the open world forums and I understand well enough to respond. Her and her troll-possy have tried to convince me many times before that I have no idea what motivates her but they have failed to realize that she is as transparent as sheet of fog-proof glass. I do not diagree with her because she is Francesca, I disagree with her because of what she says and there is no way in hell anyone is going to stop me from calling her to account when she makes the most ridiculous comments and expects everyone to swallow it.[/ooc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 We have a MDoAP with TAB. It is not a Protectorate. Sweet Jesus you people love your semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Her and her troll-possy ... Obviously it's time for another global notice that trolling is a moderation issue, and that throwing that accusation around on the main OWF and subforums is an offence. If you think a post is trolling, report it in the appropriate way: a thread in Report Forum Abuse or a PM to a moderator. Calling other players trolls will get you a verbal or a formal warning depending on context and your past record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Lol at the attention ***** club. Any more ****** want to join this alliance and play "We're the underdog, we really are! We didn't do anything, we didn't know this would happen! Everyone else is evil, we're on the moral high ground here! This is unjust even though two seperate entities have equal claims and qualms about our reformation! Thus, of course, we should ***** and moan until everyone thinks tha somehow our claim is more valid because we spend most of our day on cn forums! We're full of sh**!" card? Seriously. I don't known how anyone takes these characters seriously. Edited July 2, 2009 by caligula Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Yes. Me.As for your little tidbit about private channels, how about no. Who do you think would have advantage? One of the larger alliances out there, or a small group of seven nations. Some off the grossest abuses of power have taken place in private channels. The public stage, however, is the great equalizer. Where nothing can be hidden from the judgment of the masses. I'm curious. As to what part do the masses play in your claim? You make it seem like you're trying to use them as a weapon. There is no unjustice going on around here. Two groups of people had claims. An ally supported another one. A non-ally supported the other one for attention. Just because 9 people think OOC: holocausts /ooc are good ideas does not always mean they are. The amount of lies and dirt you spew is inconcievable. Any slander here is not even directed from the BTA but individuals who are quite clearly bored with themselves and need an enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Well, I don't know about you, but Rebel Virginia don't play that. No, I grab life by the balls and toss it about. That's what I do. Scholar sighting! I wonder who named Sileath spokesman of the MHA. Can I too become spokesman of a huge alliance less than a week into my tenure? If so, cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Rebel Virginia, your multiple attempts are clearly aimed at inciting an angered response from the MHA: what happened? You can behave better than that. Could be he's still a bit ticked over when you guys ordered a Blue trade sanction on him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 He can't behave better than that. Hi Dilber! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Could be he's still a bit ticked over when you guys ordered a Blue trade sanction on him? Ah, that's why it is. It's so obvious now, my bad for forgetting about that. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Ah, that's why it is. It's so obvious now, my bad for forgetting about that. Oh well. Well, it's nice to know that you guys care. Step on people toes and then tell them to get over it. That kind of winning attitude is going to work well for you. I guarantee it! Scholar sighting!I wonder who named Sileath spokesman of the MHA. Can I too become spokesman of a huge alliance less than a week into my tenure? If so, cool. I will say this. Losing Sileath was the best thing to happen to Athens for a long time. I'd like to feel sorry for MHA, but I find it hard to distinguish him from any of their other members. He's of the exact same caliber you see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Well, it's nice to know that you guys care. Step on people toes and then tell them to get over it. That kind of winning attitude is going to work well for you. I guarantee it!I will say this. Losing Sileath was the best thing to happen to Athens for a long time. I'd like to feel sorry for MHA, but I find it hard to distinguish him from any of their other members. He's of the exact same caliber you see. Damnit, RV, we need to quit agreeing. But yes, losing Sileath almost makes up for GGA-Athens in the credibility department, yet sadly it does nothing to make up for the fact Sileath was given a government position within days of joining Athens. 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.