Crimson Guard Edict #9: Notice of Disbandment

[DragonsPhyre]

Point out any topic from your DoE till know that is worse than your worst topic.

I dunno. GATO's made a lot of topics. Milestones, while internally significant, are typically not really worth announcing the world, exempting birthdays since those are a real measure of an alliance's staying power. Milestone threads are really just ego-stroking announcements, since anyone can see what your stats are at any time.

[Tygaland]

you should have waited til october 4-10th, thats my spot in the pool ><

No one told me there was a pool!

[ooc]the logo in your sig kind of looks like a vagina[/ooc]

[Valerius]

Milestone threads are really just ego-stroking announcements, since anyone can see what your stats are at any time.

Exactly. And whilst I don't view milestone announcements with the same blind animosity CG is currently copping, I find it intensely hypocritical that many, most of whom are in alliances which would frequent milestone announcements, are calling CG "attention whores". CG did reach milestones, but we refrained from announcing them on purpose; we were aware our [OOC]threads[/OOC] attracted pages of attention and that they hung around for days, and we wanted to preserve our 'quota', if you will, for the Edicts that were actually necessary to keep people informed.

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

Not at all! :D

I do believe it does.

[Z3000]

I can't say I'm suprised honestly. But good luck in the future you guys

[Grinder]

Our Edicts focused on important issues which CG was dealing with. Statement's of Clarification regarding Banned Member, and the ones that came out of the war, were all undoubtedley necessary. I realize that the Edicts featured for days on end, but it's not our fault they were so widely read and adressed. Many alliances with less cause make announcements just as frequently, they just aren't as popular. I'm sorry, but I had to say it.

You seem to not understand the difference between being laughed with and laughed at. The former rarely applied to CG. The latter is not an indication of popularity or that your subject matter was important beyond CG and the other immediate parties involved. The world needed not know the details, and the more we knew, the more like watching a train wreck your edicts became: so disastrous you couldn't turn away...but certainly nothing positive to speak of by any means.

The announcements by other people aren't so less popular than your edicts as they were less amateur in nature...people opened them, read them, made a mental note, and moved on. Yours spawned many comments that were nothing but mockery. This is nothing to boast about or defend. In this case, it's more appropriate to call them "less distracting" than "less popular."

Perhaps if you kept your serious business to private channels instead of airing your dirty laundry out for all to see, and focused on milestone threads that consist of nothing but undeniably positive news that would have had people thinking "oh gee, they're achieving something, cool" instead of "oh boy...more drama news from CG...is it another member issue or another tease at having undeclared support in a dispute with another alliance?" that had so many people betting on when you'd disban.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Grinder

[Hegemon Rob]

Sad to see, but I expect to see you guys around still.

[Valerius]

You seem to not understand the difference between being laughed with and laughed at. The former rarely applied to CG. The latter is not an indication of popularity or that your subject matter was important beyond CG and the other immediate parties involved. The world needed not know the details, and the more we knew, the more like watching a train wreck your edicts became: so disastrous you couldn't turn away...but certainly nothing positive to speak of by any means.

The announcements by other people aren't so less popular than your edicts as they were less amateur in nature...people opened them, read them, made a mental note, and moved on. Yours spawned many comments that were nothing but mockery. This is nothing to boast about or defend. In this case, it's more appropriate to call them "less distracting" than "less popular."

Perhaps if you kept your serious business to private channels instead of airing your dirty laundry out for all to see, and focused on milestone threads that consist of nothing but undeniably positive news that would have had people thinking "oh gee, they're achieving something, cool" instead of "oh boy...more drama news from CG...is it another member issue or another tease at having undeclared support in a dispute with another alliance?" that had so many people betting on when you'd disban.

By popular, I did not necessarily mean liked. I understand that CG's reputation was ...mediochre. My point was that our announcements were read and replied to by vast amounts of people; indeed they consumed [OOC]this forum[/OOC]. That is why I chose the word popular.

[RandomInterrupt]

My obvious concern was that if they were going to bust up the alliance anyway, they may have seen a brief war as a way to make some quick cash before calling it a day. IS wasn't the first alliance to have members attack CB, but in that scenario CB would counter attack and then would have demanded substantial reparations for the entire alliance from IS while CB leadership went to the forums to generate public sympathy and increase the pressure for IS to pay those reparations.

It would be a slick con if the reparations collected were high enough and the damage taken was low enough--everyone, or at least the CB leadership walks away with a nice amount of tech and/or cash in their pocket as they head off to their new alliance. From what you are saying however, damages were at least as high as the reparations. That would hardly make the con worth it.

You raise a good point/scenario, however you are ignoring the major point, which is the gross incompetence and failure of CG's leadership at every single opportunity. I just don't think they had the combined brainpower to come up with a scheme like that. I guess someone could have been leading them, but if so they didn't do a good job there either.

[Valerius]

You raise a good point/scenario, however you are ignoring the major point, which is the gross incompetence and failure of CG's leadership at every single opportunity. I just don't think they had the combined brainpower to come up with a scheme like that. I guess someone could have been leading them, but if so they didn't do a good job there either.

Enough. Enough with the conspiracies and enough with the digs at our leadership. CG was intended to be an alliance relatively out of the spotlight, for a group of friends. We made many mistakes, beginning with Banned Member and Baseballer, but I refuse to accept this portrayal of CG as some sort of 'noob' alliance. We helped champion Red Unity and had enough friends in well respected alliances to ward off a large scale tech raid. We weren't perfect, but we are certainly not lacking in brainpower.

Edited August 26, 2009 by President Kent

[Grinder]

Enough. Enough with the conspiracies and enough with the digs at our leadership. CG was intended to be an alliance relatively out of the spotlight, for a group of friends. We made many mistakes, beginning with Banned Member and Baseballer, but I refuse to accept this portrayal of CG has some sort of 'noob' alliance. We helped champion Red Unity and had enough friends in well respected alliances to ward off a large scale tech raid. We weren't perfect, but we are certainly not lacking in brainpower.

I will argue several things you claimed here.

When every important decision your leadership makes is a bad one, and they make a high-profile announcement about each of them (multiple announcements about the same issue in some cases) while having no military power or official allies, and get attacked, and all 16 members stand unified in support of the leaders that made all these decisions, you really have little choice but to accept being portrayed as a noob alliance.

The only remote successes CG had always involved someone else's contributions to that success, often in response to some initial failure by CG.

I'm sorry you're having trouble recognizing the situation for what it truly is, but we could do a timeline of all actions CG publicly broadcasted and fill it all in completely with why each was the wrong thing to do in each situation.

[Banned]

Best of luck to all of you in CG wherever your membership may go from here.

[Valerius]

I will argue several things you claimed here.

When every important decision your leadership makes is a bad one, and they make a high-profile announcement about each of them (multiple announcements about the same issue in some cases) while having no military power or official allies, and get attacked, and all 16 members stand unified in support of the leaders that made all these decisions, you really have little choice but to accept being portrayed as a noob alliance.

The only remote successes CG had always involved someone else's contributions to that success, often in response to some initial failure by CG.

I'm sorry you're having trouble recognizing the situation for what it truly is, but we could do a timeline of all actions CG publicly broadcasted and fill it all in completely with why each was the wrong thing to do in each situation.

I just don't agree. And thankfully the majority doesn't either. Of that I'm certain.

Edited August 26, 2009 by President Kent

[DeeLeeshush]

This saddens me..but oh well

I wish the members well and hope u all find homes you love

u guys had some great people...

*cheers to your futures on CB*

[RandomInterrupt]

Enough. Enough with the conspiracies and enough with the digs at our leadership.

No?

CG was intended to be an alliance relatively out of the spotlight, for a group of friends. We made many mistakes, beginning with Banned Member and Baseballer, but I refuse to accept this portrayal of CG as some sort of 'noob' alliance. We helped champion Red Unity and had enough friends in well respected alliances to ward off a large scale tech raid. We weren't perfect, but we are certainly not lacking in brainpower.

Well, right away you state that it was supposed to be out of the spotlight. I can relate, as my own alliance, The Liquor Cabinet, is also not an alliance that demands to be in the spotlight either. How many alliance announcements has tLC made compared to CG? (I'll give you a hint, I don't think we've done a single one, save signing a few carefully chosen and well thought out treaties) You then point out that you accepted a banned player and one of the worst players ever. One that many (including myself) warned all of CN about. So far you're showing competence... As far as Red Unity, you may have planted a seed, but I haven't seen anything major come out of it. Perhaps history will show that you had an impact there, but we aren't there yet. And yes, you did manage to make a few friends, but you took the graces of said friends and burned it up by making fools of yourselves. They stood up for you and you gloated and boasted about how you humiliated your attacker. So even in your rebuttal to my claim of "gross incompetence and failure", you can't point out one thing you did right. I am being a jerk, yes, but look at my first dozen or so posts in regards to your alliance. I offered excellent advise quite a few times along with many other experienced statesmen in CN. You ignored it all, so I don't feel to bad pointing it out.

You also may feel that I have an agenda here. Well, I do. I plan to use CG as a cautionary tale about what happens when you do everything possible wrong. By pointing this out, I hope many others will listen to the critiques here and learn.

I will argue several things you claimed here.

When every important decision your leadership makes is a bad one, and they make a high-profile announcement about each of them (multiple announcements about the same issue in some cases) while having no military power or official allies, and get attacked, and all 16 members stand unified in support of the leaders that made all these decisions, you really have little choice but to accept being portrayed as a noob alliance.

The only remote successes CG had always involved someone else's contributions to that success, often in response to some initial failure by CG.

I'm sorry you're having trouble recognizing the situation for what it truly is, but we could do a timeline of all actions CG publicly broadcasted and fill it all in completely with why each was the wrong thing to do in each situation.

Pretty much agreed here too, especially about needing others contributions.

We really should stop agreeing on things. It's freaking me out.

[Grinder]

I just don't agree. And thankfully the majority doesn't either. Of that I'm certain.

Claim majority support when you have a poll of everyone's opinion on the matter in hand. I'm not going to sit here and argue "well I bet more people agree with me!"

No, instead, I'd rather you go point by point and explain in detail, in your own words, where and why Random and I are wrong. Don't try to speak for a majority you'll never be able to prove supports you. Would it help if I break down my point of view for you more and use more specific detail?

EDIT: instead of waiting for you to respond, I'm doing it anyway:

#1: Your leaders appointed 2 of the most controversial individuals of contemporary times to key government positions, and when questioned on this, they then decided on the spot to claim to be an alliance of second chances, and in that same announcement stated they'd not extend that opportunity for redemption universally. It was a cheap face-saving spin they didn't even have the stomach to continue lying about believing in when lightly pressed further about it, but all we got was more cheap spin.

#2: In removing both of said controversial members of CG, the leadership either initiated or participated in grand public displays of dramatic behavior.

#3: One of your leaders seemed intent on insulting TSO without provocation. Granted several members of TSO gave as good as they got in that regard, none of them were TSO government...in CG, it was your Chancellor. Even when wished success in meeting the generic alliance milestones like the different million alliance NS levels and such, her response would be to chastise TSO's methods. On IRC, in public channels other than that designated for either TSO or CG, she would go out of her way to make snide comments in the presence of many of our members without anything being said to her, and on at least one occasion in #mcxa, actively instigated and participated in sudden rushes to dehop and attempting to kickban people from both NSO and TSO that she has a public history of disliking without them saying anything to or about her for periods of time over half an hour in length. This is not the behavior one should look for in a leader. This is petty, immature, and just ridiculous. Worst of all, while I'm referencing specific events, this behavior is far from isolated. It's more like a standard from her.

#4: Every bit of information publicly announced in any of your edicts that contained negative news about CG was something that could have been handled behind closed doors without the world knowing. If the world really did need to know, it could have easily waited and probably helped in your diplomatic endeavors to wait to announce the matter until you could tag "the issue was resolved through private channels between the leaders of the alliances involved" onto the ends of them. Your inability to do so makes you look weak, unprofessional, whiny, petty, and self-indulgent. It became pain-stakingly clear why that protectorate that was always promised to be "announced next" never came. Your leadership had zero diplomatic skill.

#5: You never stopped posting announcements even when people stated in your threads that it was not the smartest thing to have such a high profile without any treaty partners. It appears to me IS just got tired of you claiming support without naming anyone or having anything on paper, and decided to call your bluff. I'm honestly surprised it didn't happen sooner. maybe they collectively made a bet with someone else when you'd disban and saw their window to win closing and wanted to force the hand, I dunno, I don't care either. Point is, you broadcasted your vulnerability to the world and then cried, cried, cried when someone decided to take advantage of it.

#6: You made no significant progress in growth as an alliance, but never stopped acting like the greatest thing to do with the color red since Twizzlers went on sale, claiming moral superiority without displaying any morality but boasting a membership filled with checkered pasts. There were few days where I thought groups like Liquor Cabinet ever liked CG for any other reason than their mutual dislike for groups like TSO and others. Unfortunately, that's not enough to make a treaty partner, and your arrogance displayed by your leadership and membership made it really hard to warm up to you (frostbite...crimson guard used images of fire...warm up...see what I did there? I kill me sometimes...not as often as Random would like but it does happen...).

#7: Whenever someone did come to your aid, your gratitude was shorter lived than a mayfly. Where you should have been working to pay back their support with support of your own, you instead claimed solo victory like CG accomplished something when the only reason anything good happened for you, like IS backing down, is because of their fear of the muscle of those standing around you...but never fear of YOU. You never realized that, and if point #6 was a hole in the ground, I'd swear this point would be like a post-hole digger in CG's hands. So many alliances that share similar political views of other alliances as CG did came to your aid and offered a hand, and you took the hand but gave nothing in return. You probably would have gotten protectorate offers in droves had your leaders simply went out of their way to publicly thank these alliances for their unconditional support. But who wants to sign a treaty with an ungrateful alliance whose only recourse when confronted with anything slightly difficult is to come here to the global community and publicly beg for help? You couldn't even expel someone without turning it into a major dramatic point of discussion when no one really cared beyond a simple "oh by the way, about that member that was a problem, we got rid of him, so let's talk treaties..." behind closed doors.

#8: I've seen CG's chancellor claim that 6 hours of trying to resolve a war exhausted her diplomatic skill and patience. Do you realize how many of the Great Wars took months of diplomatic posturing and positioning before either side was ready to make a move? Complaining about 6 hours of inter alliance diplomacy over a war you pretty much asked for is like carpenter complaining about a splinter. That is the biggest signal of all she was not ready for the responsibility of managing an alliance...at least not one as high-profile as she made CG out to be.

#9: Instead of recognizing the utter incompetence of your leadership, your 16 members stood solidly behind them like a bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand. For the love of Ann Frank, man, you just got promised reps from an alliance that you will never see because your leadership decided NOW, of all times, instead of prior to exhausting the political support in a war of many alliances that had no obligation to you at all, to disban for unclear reasons. You got hosed on reps by a decision your leadership claims to be made without much forethought at all. And yet here you are, still singing their praises? She got asked about those reps in this thread and pretty mush said she didn't care about it, or any of you getting what you obviously felt you were owed by virtue of even asking for them to begin with. At least with TSO, if we don't care about you, we tell you up front and don't waste your time with empty promises and a membership we have no interest in helping you to benefit from.

#10: Even after your alliance disbans, you, sir, are still sitting here, defending how awesome your edicts were when several people are telling you to your face they were terrible and contributed directly to your failure to get treaty partners. These are terrible announcements. They put you in the spot light without a treaty partner, couldn't do anything for you without anyone else's interference in CG affairs, screwed you out of reps they had in the bag for you, and after complaining about 6 hours of diplomacy felt their time was better spent trying ti kick-ban me from #mcxa while discussing membership activity with other current and former MCXA members that didn't involve them. Stop defending this failure of leadership. All it does is convince the global community that CG's incompetence went beyond its leadership and was simply pervasive throughout.

Now, if you care to disagree with any of these and offer some proof or justification why I should change my opinion, feel free. If all you have is "well more people agree with me, I reckon" please don't further perpetuate the opinions of incompetence that is becoming synonymous with CG.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Grinder

[Groucho Marx]

Actually it was a war as soon as IS broke their raiding laws.

I'm disappointed that after all that drama, you guys will just disband.

What more could you possibly expect from an alliance who was too incompetent to sign treaties to prevent all that drama in the first place? I mean, come on.

[Puppet Master]

The class coming from most corners of Bob in this [OOC]thread[/OOC] is truly overwhelming.

This coming from you made me giggle.

I just don't agree. And thankfully the majority doesn't either. Of that I'm certain.

*puppet master falls out of his chair*

Are you serious? This is so funny that it made me fall out of my chair. So first you say that CG's announcements are more important than larger alliances that actually hold power on planet Bob and now you say that all the decision made by the CG's government are good ones.... Are we talking about the same CG here my good sir?

[Tron Paul]

What more could you possibly expect from an alliance who was too incompetent to sign treaties to prevent all that drama in the first place? I mean, come on.

This man speaks the truth.

Thanks CG, you've made us folks in IS laugh so hard that we're crying.

[SunnyInc]

I just don't agree. And thankfully the majority doesn't either. Of that I'm certain.

The responses you've received in this thread would indicate otherwise.

[Ellis]

[ooc]the logo in your sig kind of looks like a vagina[/ooc]

I see it now

Sad to see you go, CG.

I'm starting to think the ghost of the moldavi doctrine is hanging around the red sphere or something.

[Kevanovia]

Can't say I'm too proud to once be apart of this.

[Sir Taefir Estavok]

Does this mean CG members will join Solitude?

For what it's worth, your alliance has my condolences. I thought you did OK in the spotlight.

[Valerius]

Claim majority support when you have a poll of everyone's opinion on the matter in hand. I'm not going to sit here and argue "well I bet more people agree with me!"

No, instead, I'd rather you go point by point and explain in detail, in your own words, where and why Random and I are wrong. Don't try to speak for a majority you'll never be able to prove supports you. Would it help if I break down my point of view for you more and use more specific detail?

I made that claim on the fact that most replies to this thread are relatively civil, and include declarations of support, as was seen in all of our Edicts. I'm going to dismiss your points as your opinion, since I think it has gotten to the "agree to disagree" stage.

CG retains a lot of support from notable 'statesmen', just sift through these pages. Our public image may go down in history as 'noob' or 'laughing stock', and this saddens me, but at the end of the day we still have a lot of good friends, and to me this is all that really matters.

[Grinder]

I made that claim on the fact that most replies to this thread are relatively civil, and include declarations of support, as was seen in all of our Edicts. I'm going to dismiss your points as your opinion, since I think it has gotten to the "agree to disagree" stage.

CG retains a lot of support from notable 'statesmen', just sift through these pages. Our public image may go down in history as 'noob' or 'laughing stock', and this saddens me, but at the end of the day we still have a lot of good friends, and to me this is all that really matters.

No, I see a lot of "oh you're disbanning? Sorry to see you go...oh well" and "so what does this mean for [insert random aspect of alliance]?"

That's very different from "You guys were AMAZING, your government was SPECTACULAR, and your edicts were AWESOME!"

I personally have wished CG well on many occasions. Never once did I support CG, nor did I think you'd rise too high if you were able to stick around, but I wished you well in trying. If these "notable statesmen" (I put that in quotes because just by being nice to you is not what determines someone as notable or a statesman) were really so full of support, you'd have had treaties and would not have been in a situation where disbanning was such a highly considered option.

You can make whatever excuse you want and cop out with "agree to disagree" if you really do want to, but I am very interested to understand exactly WHY you disagree with me, but you seem quick to shy away from justifying your opinion, which disappoints me, but that's what I've come to expect from CG, so I can't say I'm surprised.