Official New Sith Order Press Conference

[Heft]

How do all those people with such big egos remain in the same alliance so long? I mean, usually big egos tend to compete/hate each other. How do you keep them in the walls? I must know this secret...

Well, see, that's why Ivan is considered such a good leader, cause he can pull that off.

Will you continue your trend of bullying smaller and/or politically weaker alliances while hiding behind Frostbite like cowards? Or have you realised that not even Frostbite will stop you from getting rolled if you persist with your present course of actions?

I find you to be ignorant, pigheaded, and acutely obtuse in all matters pertaining to my alliance.

[savethecheerleader]

Will you continue your trend of bullying smaller and/or politically weaker alliances while hiding behind Frostbite like cowards? Or have you realised that not even Frostbite will stop you from getting rolled if you persist with your present course of actions?

What exactly is that present course of action? I see you complain a lot about us, but it's always in a sort of "you guys just suck" sort of way.. I'm curious as to what, in specific, causes you to think we're such a bad alliance?

Edited October 14, 2009 by savethecheerleader

[Rebel Virginia]

Will you continue your trend of bullying smaller and/or politically weaker alliances while hiding behind Frostbite like cowards? Or have you realised that not even Frostbite will stop you from getting rolled if you persist with your present course of actions?

Are you still bitter over.....what exactly have we done you again? You cannot truly believe we have done anything to warrant this spite? Let me guess, you don't like some of the things some NSO members have to say, yet, I am sure there are things some members of every alliance says that someone else really dislikes. While it may be true that a casus belli is not needed for a war, from what I can learn of your alliance, you don't believe that. You're champions of morality, if I may be so bold. Yet you want to see NSO rolled because you just don't like us? Forgive me if I sound confused, because I am. I merely wish to understand how your various and seemingly conflicting views are in anyway compatible.

[Corinan]

Will you continue your trend of bullying smaller and/or politically weaker alliances

So.......you don't like us? No but seriously, if you want the answer to that question you'll just have to declare war on us. Please do it.

[Mechanus]

I stated it was an economic treaty, particularly because it was only an economic one without any sort of obligations or things of that matter which would require a strong relationship. If it was a serious treaty then yes that is justified, but economic treaties aren't really something that should be toiled over. Thus why it was a slap in the face at the time...compiled with the various comments that we were "taking over brown" etc. etc.

As for why I stir it up, well because it's the only thing that ever annoyed me greatly when I was a government member. So for nostalgic purposes I brought it up.

It wasn't just an economic treaty, but one with an ODP clause. Due to how the 57th interprets and handles military clauses we felt it best to get to know NSO before we decided to sign a treaty with them that held a military clause, much like another member of the Amber Accords. But I'm guessing that's irrelevant to the issue as it doesn't help the picture you are wanting to paint. It's also one that the 57th pushed to have removed so that AA was nothing but economic and yet you felt no need to sign once that was removed. And we could go into Brown Econ talks, but I'm sure that would only further NSO from the image of "wanting to unite Brown". But please, continue on as I do enjoy the tales told in this thread about NSO, Brown unity, and open Brown economics that excludes specific alliances.

[Heft]

It wasn't just an economic treaty, but one with an ODP clause. Due to how the 57th interprets and handles military clauses we felt it best to get to know NSO before we decided to sign a treaty with them that held a military clause, much like another member of the Amber Accords. But I'm guessing that's irrelevant to the issue as it doesn't help the picture you are wanting to paint. It's also one that the 57th pushed to have removed so that AA was nothing but economic and yet you felt no need to sign once that was removed. And we could go into Brown Econ talks, but I'm sure that would only further NSO from the image of "wanting to unite Brown". But please, continue on as I do enjoy the tales told in this thread about NSO, Brown unity, and open Brown economics that excludes specific alliances.

I also believe you to be pigheaded and willfully ignorant in matters pertaining to my alliance. Which is especially tragic because, unfortunately, you are actually relevant to my alliance's concerns.

[Vilien]

Are you still bitter over.....what exactly have we done you again? You cannot truly believe we have done anything to warrant this spite? Let me guess, you don't like some of the things some NSO members have to say, yet, I am sure there are things some members of every alliance says that someone else really dislikes. While it may be true that a casus belli is not needed for a war, from what I can learn of your alliance, you don't believe that. You're champions of morality, if I may be so bold. Yet you want to see NSO rolled because you just don't like us? Forgive me if I sound confused, because I am. I merely wish to understand how your various and seemingly conflicting views are in anyway compatible.

I've actually seen DF members repudiate morality frequently. Self-righteous indignation may be our specialty, but it isn't unique to moralists.

[Rebel Virginia]

I've actually seen DF members repudiate morality frequently. Self-righteous indignation may be our specialty, but it isn't unique to moralists.

So, they are no longer interested in always doing the right thing like their CN Wiki claims? When did that change.

[Daikos]

I've actually seen DF members repudiate morality frequently. Self-righteous indignation may be our specialty, but it isn't unique to moralists.

WTB: Evidence

[kevin32891]

Will you continue your trend of bullying smaller and/or politically weaker alliances while hiding behind Frostbite like cowards? Or have you realised that not even Frostbite will stop you from getting rolled if you persist with your present course of actions?

So I'm guessing you don't like us.

Whatever k.

[Vilien]

So, they are no longer interested in always doing the right thing like their CN Wiki claims? When did that change.

I believe one of their members was bragging on the OWF about how brave he was for raiding Red unaligneds, and his alliance mates backed him up. Or something. Who was that guy?

WTB: Evidence

I'm a bit slow with the useless acronyms these days. What are you trying to say exactly?

[Rebel Virginia]

I believe one of their members was bragging on the OWF about how brave he was for raiding Red unaligneds, and his alliance mates backed him up. Or something. Who was that guy?

I am going to assume that this is either while or after the NPO was at war with Karma. But yes, enough about these people. No need to give them the attention they crave. Back on topic. Questions will be answered.

Also, when will this new government structure that's been mentioned earlier be announced on the AP?

I do not have an exact date for you, however, I can tell you that it will be announced eventually.

[Vilien]

I am going to assume that this is either while or after the NPO was at war with Karma. But yes, enough about these people. No need to give them the attention they crave. Back on topic. Questions will be answered.

Why can't I quit you?

[Daikos]

I believe one of their members was bragging on the OWF about how brave he was for raiding Red unaligneds, and his alliance mates backed him up. Or something. Who was that guy?

I'm a bit slow with the useless acronyms these days. What are you trying to say exactly?

I apologize, I sometimes forget that not everyone is familiar with online rpg lingo. WTB = Want to buy. As in, show me some proof to back up your claim. And when I'm asking for proof I mean actual proof, not concocted stories about members of our alliance raiding red unaligned nations since our charter has never, ever allowed for raiding.

[Griff]

They wanted more time to get to know you before sharing a treaty... seems fair. Can't see why you'd get all upset by that really. Why are you trying to stir this up anyway?

Did you even read what he said?

[Vilien]

I apologize, I sometimes forget that not everyone is familiar with online rpg lingo. WTB = Want to buy. As in, show me some proof to back up your claim. And when I'm asking for proof I mean actual proof, not concocted stories about members of our alliance raiding red unaligned nations since our charter has never, ever allowed for raiding.

Oh, I was confusing you with Dark Templar and Starcraftmazter for Supa. An honest mistake.

[The Big Bad]

If NSO and The Bad were to meet in a dark alley and battle, West Side Story style, for the love of Heft in the role of Maria:

Who would win?

Who would Heft/Maria choose?

And Who's Bad?

[Lord Brendan]

We reach out a friendly hand to everyone, and regardless of what they think of us we continue to stay as friendly and cordial as possible. I think that our ever improving relations with Silence are a good indicator of the success of this.

We havent signed the amber accords because there is no point too; they provide 0 economic benefit.

I personally have just set up a new economic system and forum for brown, the brown economic trust. Right now it includes Silence, Browncoats and every Terra Cotta alliance. Any nation is welcome to welcome to sign up for a trade circle here.. . The accompanying forums are still receiving some finishing touches, but once those are complete nations will be able to buy and sell tech/donations, create custom trade sets, spam to their hearts desire, co mingle with thier brown brothers; pretty much everything you would expect from a team unity forum.

Care to expand on that? You expressed a desire to unite the Brown sphere. How does a sphere-wide non aggression pact (even if you ignore the other articles) not help further that goal?

The team forum certainly sounds like a good step, although I notice a few names missing. Good luck getting the others on board.

[willirica]

Care to expand on that? You expressed a desire to unite the Brown sphere. How does a sphere-wide non aggression pact (even if you ignore the other articles) not help further that goal?

The team forum certainly sounds like a good step, although I notice a few names missing. Good luck getting the others on board.

Because we dont want anything to be forced, a purely economic venue provides a great way to kick start relations.

Yes there are a few; right now its only those who have expressed great interest in the project, as I am still training trade reps and finalizing everything. I hope to see all of brown soon.

Thanks for the well wishes; i hope to announce and finalize everything shortly.

Edited October 14, 2009 by willirica

[jerry wagner]

Because we dont want anything to be forced, a purely economic venue provides a great way to kick start relations.

Yes there are a few; right now its only those who have expressed great interest in the project, as I am still training trade reps and finalizing everything. I hope to see all of brown soon.

Thanks for the well wishes; i hope to announce and finalize everything shortly.

Well.... I am fairly certain that you will have some difficulty in achieving your 'hope' considering that some from your alliance choose to utilize trades as a political weapon to ensure the exclusion of those that they disagree with for past problems. I for one have no intention of supporting a venture that hopes to isolate one alliance for daring to question your alliance when you were seeking to join a treaty bloc. BTW since it seems to be glossed over many a time, the 57th never actually declined NSO's entry to AA the first go around.... It was CoIN.... the 57th merely withheld their response until they had some of their questions answered. We were uncomfortable and unwilling to accept someone into our group that we did not know or trust as of that point in time. We have a finnicky way of viewing our treaty obligations and part of that is if we have an ODP or higher level treaty with a partner, we are damned well going to be there if they have trouble. Unfortunately that unsettled some on the NSO and they were unwilling to understand our opinion.

Now instead of addressing those concerns over the past months, some of the NSO have continually attempted to isolate the 57th at every turn. I will admit from watching it happen that not all government members of the NSO that I have dealt with participated in this, but the situations have never been properly resolved and that is exactly why we are where we are now.

To believe that there will be a unified brown is folly and to sacrifice all of our ideals to ensure a unified brown is foolish. We should try ensure that our ideals, those that are firmly rooted in our founding, are retained and celebrated. Those that seek to partner with us should be able to, and willing to, accept us understanding that we hold certain principles unrepentantly. CoIN has been brown for its entire short life and we have no desire or intention of abandoning brown. We have every intention of supporting a SAFE, ATTRACTIVE brown for the betterment of all peaceful parties on brown, BUT we will not do so in a manner that undermines our ideals. We are willing to put aside old mistrusts should those that have taken part in the grievances make some measure of atonement. CoIN is not a bastion of unreasonable stubborness, nor are the 57th, we are a group of people that value our ideals and that is all.

Sorry for the long-windedness.

[willirica]

Well.... I am fairly certain that you will have some difficulty in achieving your 'hope' considering that some from your alliance choose to utilize trades as a political weapon to ensure the exclusion of those that they disagree with for past problems. I for one have no intention of supporting a venture that hopes to isolate one alliance for daring to question your alliance when you were seeking to join a treaty bloc. BTW since it seems to be glossed over many a time, the 57th never actually declined NSO's entry to AA the first go around.... It was CoIN.... the 57th merely withheld their response until they had some of their questions answered. We were uncomfortable and unwilling to accept someone into our group that we did not know or trust as of that point in time. We have a finnicky way of viewing our treaty obligations and part of that is if we have an ODP or higher level treaty with a partner, we are damned well going to be there if they have trouble. Unfortunately that unsettled some on the NSO and they were unwilling to understand our opinion.

Now instead of addressing those concerns over the past months, some of the NSO have continually attempted to isolate the 57th at every turn. I will admit from watching it happen that not all government members of the NSO that I have dealt with participated in this, but the situations have never been properly resolved and that is exactly why we are where we are now.

To believe that there will be a unified brown is folly and to sacrifice all of our ideals to ensure a unified brown is foolish. We should try ensure that our ideals, those that are firmly rooted in our founding, are retained and celebrated. Those that seek to partner with us should be able to, and willing to, accept us understanding that we hold certain principles unrepentantly. CoIN has been brown for its entire short life and we have no desire or intention of abandoning brown. We have every intention of supporting a SAFE, ATTRACTIVE brown for the betterment of all peaceful parties on brown, BUT we will not do so in a manner that undermines our ideals. We are willing to put aside old mistrusts should those that have taken part in the grievances make some measure of atonement. CoIN is not a bastion of unreasonable stubborness, nor are the 57th, we are a group of people that value our ideals and that is all.

Sorry for the long-windedness.

Well i dont have much to say to this other than that is completely false and baseless. Any nation is welcome to sign up for a trade circle; in fact we have formed many circles already.

You see for us there is no animosity to complicate things; despite CoIN and the 57th going above and beyond to try to impede our efforts, we soldier on and try to be as friendly and hospitable as possible. I can definitely respect you following in your beliefs; but myself being relatively new to the NSO those beliefs seem like biased and undeserved hate towards the NSO; who goes above and beyond to be friendly and welcoming to ALL brown alliances.

We have done nothing to "Isolate" the 57th, in fact up until a few weeks ago we continued to try to start talks that we lead to better and more normal relations; feel free to look over them on our forums and make your own judgment. Since those talks were beginning to become counter productive we decided a live and let live policy with little direct interaction was preferable. To this day we would welcome them as brothers, we just ask that they come with an open mind and friendly attitude; something they have never afforded us.

If you really think you are being excluded why havent you found me before this? Silence had no problem doing so and look where it has gotten them, they will soon be full partners in this venture.

Edited October 14, 2009 by willirica

[Heft]

Well.... I am fairly certain that you will have some difficulty in achieving your 'hope' considering that some from your alliance choose to utilize trades as a political weapon to ensure the exclusion of those that they disagree with for past problems. I for one have no intention of supporting a venture that hopes to isolate one alliance for daring to question your alliance when you were seeking to join a treaty bloc.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The NSO has consistently refused to allow political drama to get in the way of inclusion of any alliance in Brown progression. The impact that our political differences should have on our intra-sphere relations has in fact been one of the main points of contention between our alliances, as we've consistently maintained that it shouldn't stop us from working together and others have instead steadfastly held to their "ideals" (more on that later), even if that means either excluding the NSO or, since that is not really practical, excluding themselves.

But we have never excluded anyone.

BTW since it seems to be glossed over many a time, the 57th never actually declined NSO's entry to AA the first go around.... It was CoIN.... the 57th merely withheld their response until they had some of their questions answered. We were uncomfortable and unwilling to accept someone into our group that we did not know or trust as of that point in time. We have a finnicky way of viewing our treaty obligations and part of that is if we have an ODP or higher level treaty with a partner, we are damned well going to be there if they have trouble. Unfortunately that unsettled some on the NSO and they were unwilling to understand our opinion.

I...your opinion made no sense then, and never will. I don't really care anymore, that was a long time ago.

Now instead of addressing those concerns over the past months, some of the NSO have continually attempted to isolate the 57th at every turn. I will admit from watching it happen that not all government members of the NSO that I have dealt with participated in this, but the situations have never been properly resolved and that is exactly why we are where we are now.

We have done no such thing. Your view of reality seems twisted to force us into being the bad guy, which, surprisingly enough, is not always the case.

To believe that there will be a unified brown is folly and to sacrifice all of our ideals to ensure a unified brown is foolish. We should try ensure that our ideals, those that are firmly rooted in our founding, are retained and celebrated. Those that seek to partner with us should be able to, and willing to, accept us understanding that we hold certain principles unrepentantly. CoIN has been brown for its entire short life and we have no desire or intention of abandoning brown. We have every intention of supporting a SAFE, ATTRACTIVE brown for the betterment of all peaceful parties on brown, BUT we will not do so in a manner that undermines our ideals. We are willing to put aside old mistrusts should those that have taken part in the grievances make some measure of atonement. CoIN is not a bastion of unreasonable stubborness, nor are the 57th, we are a group of people that value our ideals and that is all.

Sorry for the long-windedness.

We are doing what we can to improve Brown. If not everyone is willing to actually help with that then we'll just move on without them. Anyone who actually wants to help is more than welcome to get on board, but we're done trying to cater to those who insist on constantly dragging their feet. I have no idea what your ideals are, the only expression of these "ideals" has been "NSO is wrong, let's not cooperate with them." This leads me to conclude that "ideals" is just a convenient cover for "We don't like you and don't want to work with you." I don't really care if you don't like us, and there are plenty of people who let their ignorant bias against us cloud their judgment, but we're not going to let that get in the way of actually accomplishing something anymore.

[Nintenderek]

We are doing what we can to improve Brown. If not everyone is willing to actually help with that then we'll just move on without them. Anyone who actually wants to help is more than welcome to get on board

I can personally back up Heft's statement. When Browncoats first announced that we would be on the brown team, NSO members were some of the first to join the Browncoats channel, and have been nothing but friendly towards us ever since. They've been willing to help us all they can with brown economics, including trades, and they've been a huge help. To say that NSO wants to just take over brown, or never tried to be nice to all the other brown alliances, is a lie.

And yes, as MoFA of BC, I can say that is official Browncoats stance on the matter.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Nintenderek

[Starcraftmazter]

I believe one of their members was bragging on the OWF about how brave he was for raiding Red unaligneds, and his alliance mates backed him up. Or something. Who was that guy?

We don't even allow raiding, please get your story straight.

To NSO, it was a simple question. The actions which I referred to, were waging two wars (excluding Karma War conflicts) which many would claim were unjustified, as well as recruiting from neutral alliances. I am not entirely sure why there would be any ambiguity as to what I was referring to.

So to re-iterate, is NSO going to continue committing acts of unwarranted aggression against other alliances?

[youwish959]

We don't even allow raiding, please get your story straight.

To NSO, it was a simple question. The actions which I referred to, were waging two wars (excluding Karma War conflicts) which many would claim were unjustified, as well as recruiting from neutral alliances. I am not entirely sure why there would be any ambiguity as to what I was referring to.

So to re-iterate, is NSO going to continue committing acts of unwarranted aggression against other alliances?

Shutup, you know exactly why there is ambiguity. We don't like you, your alliance, or your repeated following of us around these forums, as if we are some deadly monster infested with the bubonic plague. I don't understand why you consider to care about us, when we obviously don't care about you. It shows a large amount of immaturity on your part, I think. It is like a puppy biting at your shoe in an attempt to get you to kick as a reaction.

Seriously, go away.

Edited October 14, 2009 by youwish959