Owney OSullivan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Cool story bro! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 It's a shame to lose a signatory, no matter who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Not especially surprising. I'm sure the other OUT signatories will continue in their dealings with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I have dreamed a dream, and now that dream has gone from me. As long as orange isn't attacking each other, orange is still orange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) A pity, because OUT so clearly represented the ability to cooperate despite disagreement.In short, this marks the end of the era that no matter your opinion, you could be part of the Orange community. Now, the question is if such a community is necessary for cooperation, but at least it's clear that we're not going to have that anymore. We shall see what this brave new future for Orange brings. It was for a big part the fault of your alliance and that of IRON (but the latter don't have a mind of their own). Your convulsive struggle to keep TOP in the senate seat no matter what, is now backfiring. You are destroying the unity and stability of the sphere! If roles were turned, I wonder how TOP would have felt. It is always easy to see OUT as a pact that no matter what happens people support each other. But that is just your perspective because you are the one that benefits from it the most. My firm believe is that each sphere should have an open senate race. Let the alliances cooperate how they like in order to get a senate seat. If that means that smaller alliances work together and boot a big alliance out, that is fine in my opinion. Edited September 18, 2009 by kriekfreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 It was for a big part the fault of your alliance and that of IRON (but the latter don't have a mind of their own). Your convulsive struggle to keep TOP in the senate seat no matter what, is now backfiring. You are destroying the unity and stability of the sphere! If roles were turned, I wonder how TOP would have felt. It is always easy to see OUT as a pact that no matter what happens people support each other. But that is just your perspective because you are the one that benefits from it the most. My firm believe is that each sphere should have an open senate race. Let the alliances cooperate how they like in order to get a senate seat. If that means that smaller alliances work together and boot a big alliance out, that is fine in my opinion. Logical...If TOP had a senate seat it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 It was for a big part the fault of your alliance and that of IRON (but the latter don't have a mind of their own). Your convulsive struggle to keep TOP in the senate seat no matter what, is now backfiring. You are destroying the unity and stability of the sphere! If roles were turned, I wonder how TOP would have felt. It is always easy to see OUT as a pact that no matter what happens people support each other. But that is just your perspective because you are the one that benefits from it the most. My firm believe is that each sphere should have an open senate race. Let the alliances cooperate how they like in order to get a senate seat. If that means that smaller alliances work together and boot a big alliance out, that is fine in my opinion. Doesn't that argument somehow fall to the ground when it is currently FOK, RnR and IRON holding the senate seats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 For reference: Orange Senate - Matt Miller (IRON) - MikeTheFirst (iFOK) - PinKstA (RnR) An interesting move. Colour unity treaties are a very symbolic thing, and to leave one is to say that you don't care for the symbolism of unity, and by extension working with alliances on your colour that are not already your allies. I have always been a strong supporter of colour unity (on both Green and Aqua) and were this on my colour, it would sadden me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 A pity, because OUT so clearly represented the ability to cooperate despite disagreement.In short, this marks the end of the era that no matter your opinion, you could be part of the Orange community. Now, the question is if such a community is necessary for cooperation, but at least it's clear that we're not going to have that anymore. We shall see what this brave new future for Orange brings. I don't consider an NAP to be the center of the Orange Community. And if OUT is really indicative of everything Orange, I'm not exactly fully proud of being lumped in with the rest of Orange. Please tell me the last thing that was successfully coordinated through OUT. If I remember correctly, that last thing of any consequence that was decided and acted upon was the attack on GLOF. There has been nothing economic about OUT at all. We almost got a little tidbit with the last trade idea, but, predictably, that never really got started. OUT has the stench of general apathy of the signatories pervading it (which included Vanguard). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) It was for a big part the fault of your alliance and that of IRON (but the latter don't have a mind of their own). Your convulsive struggle to keep TOP in the senate seat no matter what, is now backfiring. You are destroying the unity and stability of the sphere! If roles were turned, I wonder how TOP would have felt. It is always easy to see OUT as a pact that no matter what happens people support each other. But that is just your perspective because you are the one that benefits from it the most. My firm believe is that each sphere should have an open senate race. Let the alliances cooperate how they like in order to get a senate seat. If that means that smaller alliances work together and boot a big alliance out, that is fine in my opinion. To be fair, the Senate agreement is through a separate treaty from OUT. However, this only detracts from OUT, as it strips from it a legitimate reason of remaining a signatory. Edit: But that's not to say there hasn't been disagreement over how to officially rotate the Senate seats. Edited September 18, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I don't know anything about OUT, but I know I like Vanguard, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that this was the best decision. Having personally spearheaded a colour unity campaign, only to see it dissolve around me, I understand how frustrating the issues of colour unity can be. Best of luck to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 For reference: Orange Senate- Matt Miller (IRON) - MikeTheFirst (iFOK) - PinKstA (RnR) An interesting move. Colour unity treaties are a very symbolic thing, and to leave one is to say that you don't care for the symbolism of unity, and by extension working with alliances on your colour that are not already your allies. I have always been a strong supporter of colour unity (on both Green and Aqua) and were this on my colour, it would sadden me. If I really thought this treaty stood for color unity, then I doubt this announcement would be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Maybe not the best move diplomatically but you have to be who you are. OUT sure is an interesting group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Doesn't that argument somehow fall to the ground when it is currently FOK, RnR and IRON holding the senate seats? Not really. It was primary TOP that didn't want to have an open senate or an OUT roulation system. This is also the first time you guys gave your seat to someone else (correct me if I'm wrong). The fact remains that you only trust IRON, FOK and to a lesser extent ODN in the senate race apart from yourself. Or are you gonna deny that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 There has been nothing economic about OUT at all. We almost got a little tidbit with the last trade idea, but, predictably, that never really got started. Rafa, you should perhaps recall which alliance it was that prevented that last trade idea, FWIW. I'm saddened by this because I had put a lot of time into OUT recently and into getting the economic side working, but it seems that isn't going to happen with every Orange alliance now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 If I really thought this treaty stood for color unity, then I doubt this announcement would be made. the OUT stands for the ability to have disparate opinions living peacefully side by side. It does little as it cannot be unified as, say, BLEU was because its ability to have 10 opinions is, to me, its strength. Of course, some more economic initiatives could occur, but the treaty itself is mostly a symbol. And seeing symbols fail is a pity, because it symbolised something I consider good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Not really. It was primary TOP that didn't want to have an open senate or an OUT roulation system. This is also the first time you guys gave your seat to someone else (correct me if I'm wrong). The fact remains that you only trust IRON, FOK and to a lesser extent ODN in the senate race apart from yourself. Or are you gonna deny that? Why yes, yes I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Rafa, you should perhaps recall which alliance it was that prevented that last trade idea, FWIW.I'm saddened by this because I had put a lot of time into OUT recently and into getting the economic side working, but it seems that isn't going to happen with every Orange alliance now. Who prevented it from coming to fruition? Certainly wasn't RnR. And I wasn't deriding just one alliance with that comment, but rather the whole treaty. As I've said, that would have been the only economic aspect of the treaty, and due to my healthy amount of skepticism regarding this treaty, it was completely unsurprising to myself to watch that proposal fall through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 the OUT stands for the ability to have disparate opinions living peacefully side by side. It does little as it cannot be unified as, say, BLEU was because its ability to have 10 opinions is, to me, its strength.Of course, some more economic initiatives could occur, but the treaty itself is mostly a symbol. And seeing symbols fail is a pity, because it symbolised something I consider good. I'm sure we can coexist peacefully, maintaining our divergent opinions, without OUT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Why yes, yes I do. Then you are either misinformed, not in the know or a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'm sure we can coexist peacefully, maintaining our divergent opinions, without OUT. I'm sure we can, but saying you can no longer sign onto a treaty that says effectively just that is surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) I might be wrong, but OUT has been always politically divided, very sharply in some cases. Thats nothing new. Edited September 18, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'm sure we can, but saying you can no longer sign onto a treaty that says effectively just that is surprising. Let's go back to the hours and days before the Karma war actually started. What was the initial thought about who would attack Ordo Verde? IRON and TORN. Why? Because that would keep Vanguard out initially, using OUT as some sort of shield. And it's that type of thinking, that I refuse to sign onto. Unity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Then you are either misinformed, not in the know or a liar. For one, look at the current senate again. There is still another alliance that we apparently don't trust in the senate. We have discussed and offered many more. I'm surprised you know more about our internal affairs than we do. Keep on pluggin though, you might get one right, eventually. Peace...I'm out of this thread, sorry to see you leave OUT Vanguard. Best wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Im not terribly involved in this, but its sad to see it happening. I also wouldnt overintepret the symbolism. When the ICE treaty collapsed, the alliances of the sphere were still friendly towards each other afterwards. 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.