Rating alliances

[Xiphosis]

To be honest... i am surprised this thread stayed civil for 20 pages. I mean, every rating below 5 is basically an invitation for bursting out with anger.

Doesn't bother me too much. There's been more pleasant surprises in here than the 1's, so it balances out. A few had comments that were worth a reply but I just PM'd.

[Tygaland]

Like Kry has already said this would best be discussed in another thread, or privately from gvt to gvt because I am enjoying this thread.

But I ask you to put yourself in my shoes for a second. When I joined Valhalla it was december 08 and as we all know within a few months time karma came along, and this changed things for Valhalla, they had to take a good long look at themselves.

My point is that this is the only Valhalla that I know. My time in this alliance has been the duration when they were actively seeking reconciliation, to make up for the mistakes they made in their past. So when I hear that all alliances but one were receptive to Valhalla's attempts to rebuild bridges, it makes new nations in Valhalla like me (one's who didnt exist during the feud) take an interest in the alliance which is being hostile, and become wary of them. Acting hostile towards diplomats will only sustain the feud, and if this sustained any longer you are going to find yourself with a grudge against an alliance whose majority nations were born after the incident.

Im not arguing whether there should be an apology or there shouldnt be, but acting immediately hostile towards diplomats who just arrived on your forums is not the best approach in getting one. I hope that this is still something that can be worked out, and I have had the appotunity to talk to one or two of your members privately about the incident to get their side of it, and when discussing their anger with my alliance they never went as far to wanting to see us disbanded and leave the game but like you said, resolving it by apologising.

tldr; Even if you feel you are right to ask for an apology, dont show the valhallan diplomats the door as quick as you can, but talk to them see what can worked out, or this will drag on and you will be holding a grudge against those who dont even know why you hate them.

I've been replying to Kryievla and ChairmanHal via private message to prevent derailing this thread any further. I will send you a private message addressing your comments.

I ask any STA members to not discuss Valhallan issues further in this thread.

[Skippy]

Edited after reading Tyga's post

Edited November 8, 2009 by Skippy

[nutkase]

Pardon?? i don't remember getting my $@! kicked about...quite the opposite actually.

Well considering I was UCN at the time, declared on 3 ODN nations with only 1 providing really any type of resistance and no counter-declarations during the whole war.

Also hearing the exact situation with other members of my alliance at the time.

Then comparing the number of UCN, WP and FEAR nations against ODN.

You get my 3 with the comment that followed, if you don't like it....well bad luck

Though have to admit ODN conducted themselves very well and honorable during the conflict

Edited November 8, 2009 by nutkase

[Style #386]

Comparing the NS lost by WP,FEAR and UCN to ODN. It showed a pretty big margin.

We had a splinter alliance toward the end of the war. It's called DAWN and has some awfully large nations (between the first three of them you're looking at about 300k NS), not to mentioned some 90k NS guy that kicked it off to GOONS and a handful of others that went to IRON. Our war-time losses were pretty negligible.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Style #386

[nutkase]

We had a splinter alliance toward the end of the war. It's called DAWN and has some awfully large nations (between the first three of them you're looking at about 300k NS), not to mentioned some 90k NS guy that kicked it off to GOONS and a handful of others that went to IRON. Our war-time losses were pretty negligible.

Changed the post on ya

Thank you for the information, I didn't relies that a splinter alliance had formed during the war accounting for NS lost.

[Some-Guy]

TOP - 10: Great community, and great nation builders. We suck at OWF politics, and lack in politics in general.

Clearly your opinion counts for NOTHING, you detestable troll.

[Locke]

Our war-time losses were pretty negligible.

Ehh...not sure that's something you want to be proud of.

[Style #386]

Ehh...not sure that's something you want to be proud of.

We dealt out a considerable amount ourselves, so I don't see why not.

Changed the post on ya

Thank you for the information, I didn't relies that a splinter alliance had formed during the war accounting for NS lost.

Yeah, I guess graphs don't exactly show some of those more minor details.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Style #386

[Bob Janova]

You know I went back through the thread to check up on this NSO-RoK argument, and it turns out Corinan started it – having been baiting the thread for the first few pages, he then posted a set of ratings which was highly negative against many alliances, and accused several including Ragnarok of 'Wanting to kill us but lacking the stones to do it'. You can hardly be surprised by a negative reaction to that.

[TehChron]

You know I went back through the thread to check up on this NSO-RoK argument, and it turns out Corinan started it – having been baiting the thread for the first few pages, he then posted a set of ratings which was highly negative against many alliances, and accused several including Ragnarok of 'Wanting to kill us but lacking the stones to do it'. You can hardly be surprised by a negative reaction to that.

Actually, I don't think he was baiting. I think that's his honest opinion.

He is a very, very hateful man. To be fair though, it's not like the accusations are out of left field.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Chron

[Londo Mollari]

You make that sound like it's a good thing.

You know it is baby.

You know I went back through the thread to check up on this NSO-RoK argument, and it turns out Corinan started it – having been baiting the thread for the first few pages, he then posted a set of ratings which was highly negative against many alliances, and accused several including Ragnarok of 'Wanting to kill us but lacking the stones to do it'. You can hardly be surprised by a negative reaction to that.

Well then, it looks like the argument is mostly NSO's fault then. Even so, (and I realize I have relatively little room to talk here since god knows I've done it before too) rising to the bait is kinda silly.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Londo Mollari

[Archon]

The scribes are working furiously to copy my notes into something legible, but I'm afraid they'll need another day or so.

OOC: I'm getting really sick, so this has to wait. Sorry folks.

[kevin32891]

Corinan started it

Who's going to end it?

[Corinan]

You know I went back through the thread to check up on this NSO-RoK argument, and it turns out Corinan started it – having been baiting the thread for the first few pages, he then posted a set of ratings which was highly negative against many alliances, and accused several including Ragnarok of 'Wanting to kill us but lacking the stones to do it'. You can hardly be surprised by a negative reaction to that.

And I don't even care that no one else will get the reference!

Edited November 8, 2009 by Corinan

[Hydro]

Well then, it looks like the argument is mostly NSO's fault then. Even so, (and I realize I have relatively little room to talk here since god knows I've done it before too) rising to the bait is kinda silly.

Having an opinion and voicing it are hardly the same thing as dropping a hook in the water for the unweary, especially when the whole purpose of this thread was to voice said opinions. It's really kind of a shame when someone gives an honest opinion, after it was specifically asked for, and is consequently attacked for doing so.

[scythegfx]

Invicta 1 (nothing good has ever come from this abomination)

Except me,

TOP 4 lolstats

MHA 4

Sparta 3

NpO 8

IRON 5

ODN 3

FARK 5

GPA 4 Neutrals.

NPO 7

FOK 6

MK 10

WTF 4 Neutrals

TOOL 7

TDO Neutrals

VE 4 <3 Aguacenta

Legion 7 fingolfin<3

RoK 3

GATO 5

CSN 2

Athens 7 (xr1 brought this down )

Gremlins 8

MCXA 8

UPN 7

RIA 2 Penkalafinegentleman

STA 5

Invicta 6, due to the loss of a bunch of people and the SLCB stunt. 2 weeks ago this would have been an 8 or 9

RnR 5

MASH 7

NADC 5

WAPA 3

NV 6

NSO 6

NEW 7

MA 6

Umbrella 6

FAN 4

LoSS 5

TSO 1

NATO 7

Nordreich 5

GR 5

Vanguard 6

GOD 1

FoB 7

PC 1

Valhalla 6

GGA 1

TPF 8 Coven <33

[Lord Brendan]

And I don't even care that no one else will get the reference!

So that makes you Lardass?

[Corinan]

So that makes you Lardass?

In this scenario, yes. Normally I'm lean and svelte.

[Random]

This is what the cool kids are doing these days, I guess I'll jump on the boat too. If you get a 5 then it's because I don't know your alliance or the people in it well enough.

TOP - 7 - They're not bad people, my alliance may have butt heads on some opinions but no reason to not like them

MHA - 5 - Don't know them so 5 is default

Sparta - 3 - You made the alliance because of the movie 300, I despise alliance theme's based on popular movies.

NpO - 10.5 - These guys are so awesome they get a .5 higher since that's the cool thing to do

IRON - 5

ODN - 2 - Optional Defense Network, nuff said.

FARK - 5

GPA - 1 - What a waste of nations.

NPO - 3 - I just don't like them and I never have.

FOK - 5

MK - 9 - These guys are awesome, plus they have Archon and Bros.

WTF - 5

TOOL - 5

TDO - 1 - Neutral if I'm not mistaken, thus waste of nations/

VE - 6 - I don't really know them but I liked them in the past

Legion - 5

RoK - 4 - Sorry but the name "Ragnarok" is so overused and overrated that you lost a point.

GATO - 5

CSN - 5

Athens - 5

Gremlins - 6 - Good people there

MCXA - 4 - Never liked the alliance

UPN - 5

RIA - 5

STA - 11

Invicta - 5

RnR - 5

MASH - 5

NADC - 5

WAPA - 7 - Scottish Alliance, cool.

NV - 8 - They have Hizzy, also they're cool

NSO - 10 - They're awesome and they got Heft and Chron.

NEW - 5

MA - 5

Umbrella - 5

FAN - 5

LoSS - 5

TSO - 5

NATO - 5

Nordreich - 5

GR - 8 - Always liked these guys, plus they were based off of NAAC if I'm not mistaken

Vanguard - 8 - Awesome guys

GOD - 5

FoB - 5

PC - 5

Valhalla - 1 - Because of UJP war and noCB war

GGA - 3 - They're GGA..

TPF - 6 - Mhawk is a good guy so +1

[Bob Janova]

Having an opinion and voicing it are hardly the same thing as dropping a hook in the water for the unweary, especially when the whole purpose of this thread was to voice said opinions. It's really kind of a shame when someone gives an honest opinion, after it was specifically asked for, and is consequently attacked for doing so.

If he wasn't baiting, he should understand that the way he phrases his posts comes off that way and try to not do so in future. He'd been talking about 'feeding off the hate' and so on before his rating post as well .

And yes, rising to the bait wasn't clever, but people were trying to claim that Ragnarok/Hoo had been unreasonably aggressive towards NSO, when in actuality his response to Corinan's (real or apparent) bait was fairly diplomatic.

[Khyber]

Bob, are you seriously using the "they started it first" arguement? Why not just drop it this is not needed, at least in this thread.

[AnCapistan]

This seems fun.

TOP - 1: Bailed on all of Q and admitted to using it as a tool to take out the New Polar Order

MHA - 2: Pretty much same as TOP minus Polar

Sparta - 1 Read: MHA

NpO - 9: Survived a woopin' that would have crippled a lesser alliance. Fun people in there too.

IRON - 7: They're okay.

ODN - .5: Self-Explanatory really

FARK - 5: Don't know them to much

GPA - 5: Neutral = Irrelevant but not bad

NPO - 5: At the moment: Irrelevant

FOK - 3: I just don't like them that much

MK - 7: Cool

WTF - 5: Read: GPA

TOOL -6: Jarkko is cool

TDO - 5: Read: GPA

VE - 6: They're okay

Legion -5: I don't know much about them but Matt the Great is okay

RoK -6: I like AvT

GATO -8: Cool Peeps

CSN -5: Don't know them much

Athens - 4-6: My Opinion of these guys changes alot

Gremlins - 5: Meh

MCXA - 9

UPN - 5 : No Contact

RIA - 7: Delta's not to bad

STA - 7: Cool guys

Invicta - 4: They need to get their head on straight. Plenty of Potential in my opinion

RnR - 5: Not enough info

MASH - 6: They're okay

NADC - 7: Kaj

WAPA - 5: ?

NV - 7: Hizzy is cool

NSO - 7: Drama is cool. And Heft's not to bad

NEW - 5: ?

MA - 5: Read Above.

Umbrella - 4: Meh

FAN - 6: They would be a 5 but +1 for keepin' on

LoSS - 2: I just kinda don't like them

TSO - Less than 0 - List to long

NATO - 5: They're okay

Nordreich - 5: Not enough info

GR - 5: They're okay

Vanguard - 5: Meh

GOD - 1 : I think their leader is a little insane sometimes

FoB - 5: Okay

PC - 3: Don't like them

Valhalla - 7: Kry

GGA - 5: Okay

TPF - 6: They're okay

B)

[Sunstar]

I suppose I should get around to actually doing some rating. Justifications given for large alliances and/or ones I care about.

TOP - 5 - It is impossible to doubt the toughness and activity of their nations, but they haven't fought substantially in an non-curbstomp war since GWIII. I'm sure they could fight, but the fact is that they don't.

MHA - 5 - Lots of members and fast growing, but for an alliance with almost double our membership, we have more SDIs; not exactly a great indicator of average member quality.

Sparta - 3 - Performance in the Karma war was pretty fail, and I'm not aware of them actually carrying out the cull of members who refused to fight like they said they would.

NpO - 9 - Nothing to criticize except some of their choices in allies. Without a doubt the second best alliance statistically overall, and what most alliances should strive to emulate.

IRON - 6 - I have some pretty big problems with their government for the way they keep their membership in the dark and specifically demonized my own alliance to them, but I have respect for the quality of their membership (activity, wonders, rebuilding after Karma, etc). Plus, Matt Miller is a tank, and any alliance which has someone like him goes up at least another point in my book.

ODN - 12, Obviously.

FARK - 8 - Proved themselves to be pretty damn potent in Karma, not to mention their awesome sense of humour.

GPA - 1 - Neutral=Fail

NPO - 5 - Don't know of anything they've done well since Karma to boost their rating that much (besides paying reps I guess). I do like that their membership are posting around the CN forums more now though.

FOK - 8 - More elite of an alliance every day, but they need to act like it more often.

MK - 9 - Active, militarily awesome, and hilarious to boot. They lose one point for being better cheaters than we are.

WTF - 1 - Neutral=Fail

TOOL - 5 - Its hard to be a TPF lackey when TPF is now much smaller than you. Decent quality of nations though.

TDO - 1 - Neutral=Fail

VE - 3 - Decent stats, but more facepalm inducing leadership cannot be found (see signature for example).

Legion - 5 - Stockholm syndrome just doesn't make sense to me.

RoK - 4 - Meh. Still not sure if they're better with Hoo back or not.

GATO - 8 - Been through fire and back...twice now. Some really good people.

CSN - 5

Athens - 7 - Pretty good. Londo's avatar does not help their score.

Gremlins - 5 - During Karma this would probably have been an 8. They've been falling pretty hard since though, and less and less of their cool members are still around.

MCXA - 5 - Somewhat surprised they still exist.

UPN - 6 - Used to be cool but with some people leaving I'm not really sure anymore.

RIA - 4 - I guess for a mediocre three and a half year old alliance that still has not come anywhere close to sanction they're alright. They'd probably be at a 2 if they still had Srqt.

STA - 6 - Some really cool members and some less so.

Invicta - 2 - This has pretty much fallen a point a month since May.

RnR - 8 - Great people who don't display their awesomeness on the BBs enough.

MASH - 4 - Meh.

NADC - 4 - See above.

WAPA - 2 - Since the only thing I really remember them for is failing to tech raid/recruit Opethian, you can't really expect them to score that high.

NV - 5

NSO - 4 - While I appreciate their efforts to "revolutionize Bob", they're way too impressed with themselves. Paraphrasing what someone else said, Ivan could post his shopping list and people would worship it. That's not a principle worth basing an alliance on.

NEW - 4 - I don't think I've ever even heard of them before.

MA - 4

Umbrella - 5 - Meh.

FAN - 7 - Their commitment for such a long time still impresses me. I really wish they would actually do something now though.

LoSS - 4

TSO - 2 - Awesome stats doesn't make up for a lack of honour.

NATO - 4

Nordreich - 1 - Would be a 4 if Kingzog was still around with his old avatar.

GR - 8 - Great quality of membership and great allies. Need to show it on the BBs more.

Vanguard - 9 - Basically the MK of the orange sphere. Better allies cannot be found.

GOD - 3 - Don't know much and what I do know does not impress.

FoB - 6 - Don't really know them but based on the company they keep I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

PC - 2 - See TSO. Realistically, those two would make great friends (until they simultaneously betray each other of course).

lolhalla - 3 - Defintely less vocal since they lost that whole Continuum thing. I wonder why.

GGA - 6 - Improved a lot recently, but still improvement to be done I think.

TPF - 6 - Rolling the hard six indeed. Seriously though, I give them a 4 or 5, purely for the balls they showed in Karma.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sunstar

[Hydro]

If he wasn't baiting, he should understand that the way he phrases his posts comes off that way and try to not do so in future. He'd been talking about 'feeding off the hate' and so on before his rating post as well .

And yes, rising to the bait wasn't clever, but people were trying to claim that Ragnarok/Hoo had been unreasonably aggressive towards NSO, when in actuality his response to Corinan's (real or apparent) bait was fairly diplomatic.

Who's really baiting here? Corinan for voicing a simple opinion and defending it or you for insinuating that Corinan "started it".

OOC: Honestly, I'm tempted to just report you for discussing mod issues but I think it would be counterproductive as you've already done enough damage by making false accusations of baiting after Corinan simply participated in this topic, as per the OP's instructions.