Say there boy, pull this here lever and watch what happens.

[x Tela x]

That's a uh... pretty big difference.

Yes, it is. However, it doesn't mean a thing to those outside of GGA & Echelon. They're comfortable with it. It really doesn't concern anyone else.

From my time in Echelon, GGA was always forthright and honest in every aspect of the relationship, as Echelon was to GGA. What more do you want?

Incidentally, GGA was technically the very first MDP+ treaty partner that Echelon signed with after their formation. (Pacifica followed shortly - both were re-signed from before the merge that created Echelon) The bonds are deeper than outsiders could even imagine. They go deeper than just alliance leaders being buddies. (As many of the parties involved have switched alliances or retired, such as Bilrow and myself)

[shahenshah]

No-one's slate is really dirty post-Karma, except possibly Athens' or NSO's. But yes, there have been encouraging signs from GGA, which is why a re-signing of a Hegemonic treaty is surprising. I don't particularly mind that they are still friends, although they could have picked better , but when a treaty's forcibly cancelled it's a good opportunity to assess whether it's at the right level. Ironchef pretty much said earlier in the thread that the MADP was re-signed so as not to offend Echelon.

Re-signing of Hegemonic treaty... so are you suggesting they not be freinds? Does a war now means that a loosing alliance ditch its allies and friends out to satisfy the victors? Is that the new standard by which they will be judged? Pathetic. You know how MK and NpO came out strong after the wars...because they stuck out with I guess they dont sign treaties on purely strategic POV, they throw in the 'freindship' card in between too..before they sign them, but hey if you do that, its good too, whatever floats the boat. The treaty cancellation was forced upon the sides, that instrument is valid no more. I personally think that even re-signing was not necessary, merely a notification if needed would be more than enough.

[Goldie]

i think the point he is making is that some ex-hegemony alliances have gone around telling people 'we are different, we are not the same alliance we were before karma, trust us we will show you how we changed', and then they go and sign the same treaties they had pre-war, and really show how in the end, maybe they dont want to change. its entirely their option to do what theyd like, but the point is that dont say youre trying to change if you really arent going to.

[Neo Anglia]

But if the aggressor is you, how will you assure that your ego is kept in check? You have more responsibility on your hands, the security and sanctity of not one, but two alliances? How will you ensure that peace is kept knowing all of this hangs above your head?

Depends upon the reason, you know that. Outside of raiding we rarely rolled alliances just for s***s and grins. There is usually an underlying cause for any alliance to go to war with another.

Nonsense. People sign these things with the specific purpose of activating it at some point. If they didn't want to activate it, they wouldn't add it in the first place.

Of course they do. We aren't naive enough to believe that someone with a chip on their shoulder about either us or GGA(or both) won't come knocking at some point. But that doesn't necessarily mean we intend to be pre-emptive, does it? It's called an MDAP, not a MADP. I'm pretty sure there is a reason for that semantic.

[Weirdgus]

MADPs are so yesterday's thing now.

Don't these guys know that MDoAPs are the in thing now ?

[The Corrupt Teacher]

i think the point he is making is that some ex-hegemony alliances have gone around telling people 'we are different, we are not the same alliance we were before karma, trust us we will show you how we changed', and then they go and sign the same treaties they had pre-war, and really show how in the end, maybe they dont want to change. its entirely their option to do what theyd like, but the point is that dont say youre trying to change if you really arent going to.

What if both want to change together? Personally GGA has taken good steps forward and so has Echelon. And heck its hardly like they were the masterminds behind all of the Hegemony's evil plans. The real issue is still paying out millions in reps and won't be an issue for a few more months.

[shahenshah]

i think the point he is making is that some ex-hegemony alliances have gone around telling people 'we are different, we are not the same alliance we were before karma, trust us we will show you how we changed', and then they go and sign the same treaties they had pre-war, and really show how in the end, maybe they dont want to change. its entirely their option to do what theyd like, but the point is that dont say youre trying to change if you really arent going to.

So according to you the change is a change only if they ditch their friends and jump on the boat with you? So being allied with your friends is now evil and hegemonic. Great.

Edited November 28, 2009 by shahenshah

[Goldie]

So according to you the change is a change only if they ditch their friends and jump on the boat with you? So being allied with your friends is now evil and hegemonic. Great.

thats a pretty large stretch for what i actually said in my post. i never said 'evil' or 'hegemonic'. i stated in my post that what people do with their alliances and their treaties is their own prerogative, who am i to say what is right and wrong for them to do? my commentary was more towards 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' nature of this treaty.

[Bob Janova]

Re-signing of Hegemonic treaty... so are you suggesting they not be freinds

In the post of mine you quoted:

I don't particularly mind that they are still friends

I think that says it all about the honesty of your posting here.

Goldie, I wouldn't let him drag you into the game of twisted words if I were you.

[shahenshah]

In the post of mine you quoted:

I think that says it all about the honesty of your posting here.

Goldie, I wouldn't let him drag you into the game of twisted words if I were you.

But yes, there have been encouraging signs from GGA, which is why a re-signing of a Hegemonic treaty is surprising.

Ah so you Dont mind friends signing treaty yet this action was not encouraging for you.

And how can I dare get into a twisted words game with the High king of Morality on CN? You'll take me down to your level and beat me by experience, no BJ, I see what you did thar.

Anyways, Since you guys seem to have clarified and agreed with me signing/re-signing treaties between friends is absolutely fine, I rest my case.

Edited November 29, 2009 by shahenshah

[Bob Janova]

I don't even know what your point is this time, to be frank. But it's painfully clear you're posting with an agenda – anti-Karma – and trying desperately to twist what I am saying and what Goldie is saying into something which isn't there. If you have honest questions then I will respond in kind; if you just try to spin my words like a top then there's not really much point.

Edit because you edited: My problem with this treaty is (i) Echelon are a crappy alliance and it's disappointing to see GGA revert to them, but mainly (ii) it's an MADP. The one lesson Karma should have shown everyone is that MADPs are a liability – particularly with Echelon, who have in the past bailed on an MADP partner, been aggressive, and unstable members of BLEU.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Bob Janova

[shahenshah]

I don't even know what your point is this time, to be frank. But it's painfully clear you're posting with an agenda – anti-Karma – and trying desperately to twist what I am saying and what Goldie is saying into something which isn't there. If you have honest questions then I will respond in kind; if you just try to spin my words like a top then there's not really much point.

Karma does not even exist BJ. I can say the same about you trying to desperately twist my words. However if we are in agreement that signing treaties between friends is absolutely fine, then I think my agenda has been met.

Edit: Okay, I see your reasons, my apologies if I misunderstood them in the later posts, I thought something else was being implied subtly.

Edited November 29, 2009 by shahenshah

[ironchef]

My problem with this treaty is (i) Echelon are a crappy alliance and it's disappointing to see GGA revert to them, but mainly (ii) it's an MADP. The one lesson Karma should have shown everyone is that MADPs are a liability – particularly with Echelon, who have in the past bailed on an MADP partner, been aggressive, and unstable members of BLEU.

BJ, you know I respect you and your opinion on things however, we don’t feel Echelon is a crappy alliance and we didn’t revert to them we never left them to begin with.

Like us they did make some mistakes in the past and have grown from them. I know it’s a bit of a shock to see an MDAP signed nowadays but I have read the treaty over and over and just don’t see what is so wrong with it. Yes if Echelon or GGA does something stupid we will be the ones to deal with the consequences. You have to trust an alliance to do the right thing if you are going to sign an MDAP with them, and we do trust Echelon.

ARTICLE III:.. Mutual Aggression

It is the understanding of the signatories that both parties are obligated to come to the aid of the other in case of an external armed attack against such party. In addition to this, both signatories pledge support in the event that aggressive military actions are conducted by either signatory. The manner of said support shall be dependent upon the responding parties abilities. Additionally the aggressive party may request that the other party remain out of any conflict as they see fit.

If you read this you will see there are other ways to support in an aggressive military action. It can come in the form of mediation, or financial aid. Military action would be a last resort in any case.

[memoryproblems]

I don't even know what your point is this time, to be frank. But it's painfully clear you're posting with an agenda – anti-Karma – and trying desperately to twist what I am saying and what Goldie is saying into something which isn't there. If you have honest questions then I will respond in kind; if you just try to spin my words like a top then there's not really much point.

Edit because you edited: My problem with this treaty is (i) Echelon are a crappy alliance and it's disappointing to see GGA revert to them, but mainly (ii) it's an MADP. The one lesson Karma should have shown everyone is that MADPs are a liability – particularly with Echelon, who have in the past bailed on an MADP partner, been aggressive, and unstable members of BLEU.

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Echelon, but if i may, I'll let you in on a secret, we really don't care about your out-of-touch and offbase opinions. We really don't, and for what its worth, I really don't care for your alliance either. Why don't you stop complaining about things that no longer apply, but I suppose if you did that, we wouldn't hear much from you.

Did your mother never teach you that if you didn't have anything nice to say to not say anything at all. GGA seems to like Echelon, and Echelon loves GGA, and seeing as we were willing to take the risks of a MDAP, I don't see why your complaining. Your issue is not with the MDAP, your just upset to see alliances you don't like continuing to have friends. I don't know if nobody told you, but there are alot of people in the world who don't agree with you, just as there are many who don't agree with me. Just because you don't like an alliance doesn't mean that others shouldn't.

[SupremePrince]

What wrong with old friends reconnecting with each other through treaties? I'm pretty sure many alliances had reconnected through treaties with their old buddies after a large conflict had pass by.

Congrats and good luck guys.

[Khyber]

I don't even know what your point is this time, to be frank. But it's painfully clear you're posting with an agenda – anti-Karma – and trying desperately to twist what I am saying and what Goldie is saying into something which isn't there. If you have honest questions then I will respond in kind; if you just try to spin my words like a top then there's not really much point.

Edit because you edited: My problem with this treaty is (i) Echelon are a crappy alliance and it's disappointing to see GGA revert to them, but mainly (ii) it's an MADP. The one lesson Karma should have shown everyone is that MADPs are a liability – particularly with Echelon, who have in the past bailed on an MADP partner, been aggressive, and unstable members of BLEU.

Bob, are you living in the past? None of the leaders that made those decisions are in goverment in Echelon, and most have long left during the period of the situation with BLEU. Heck, I think only 1 of the 7 councilors that made that decision remain. None of the 3 tris at the time are there. Out of the ministers I think only Neo remained, and ministers had no voting power and are the organizers rather then policy makers. Hefe, Death666angel, Solidus, Badboybill2007 all major position holders in the days leading up to the Karma war have also left. Neo is the only old guard leader from the Karma era, and in the time of the WotC Neo was in no position where he could influence the vote of standing by NpO or not.

Neo's actions include standing up behind a treaty Echelon signed long before his time and honoring it, not leaving when the going was tough, and finding compromises to get his alliance out of war when they were beaten and could do little else. Sure he may have his flaws, but he doesn't tend to be overly aggressive from what I've seen of him. Chog the other guy in charge last time I checked is actually a really nice guy, not aggressive in the least, and what I got to know of him tutoring him while in Echelon, he seemed like a stand up guy, that said I don't know his leadership style and never got to know him in tough situations. Mckinnon is a very nice guy, pretty thoughtful, mature and easy going. McKinnon is perhaps the one I like the most out of the three, but had gone inactive in my last days in Echelon and am glad to see him back.

This is not the batch lead by Tela, Caffine, Solidus, Death666angel, all whom I consider far more aggressive then I like. Heck, even Hefe, when the war was a leader, is not someone I would consider aggressive.

The only negative I have with Echelon is Caffine readmitance. I think it was stupid, and really it gave me a bad taste in my mouth. However, you have many cooler heads in charge now, and from my understanding Caffine has no official athority (although that does not mean he has no influence in Echelon).

Normally I tend to agree with your posts, but this is way off in my opinion and frankly I think your talking out of your $@!, and should seriously take the time to re examine Echelon or at least put your prejudice behind you conserning what Echelon is these days.

That said I disagree with MADPs in general. What happened with the NPO in the Karma war is a perfect example why you don't want them. Allies will always disagree on things, and being dragged into wars over things you disagree with is dumb in my opinion. So while I like Echelon I wish they had reconsidered signing MADPs.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Khyber

[memoryproblems]

Hefe, Death666angel, Solidus, Badboybill2007 all major position holders in the days leading up to the Karma war have also left. Neo is the only old guard leader from the Karma era, and in the time of the WotC Neo was in no position where he could influence the vote of standing by NpO or not.

This is very true, although Solidus and Death666Angel have returned, however Death angel is limited in his contributions, and Solidus is our prime minister, a position which he won very narrowly in an election of the members of Echelon. I was never around to know tela, and I was never particularly impressed with Badboybill2007, as for Hefe, DA and Solidus, I've always found them to be likable guys, even though El Hefe didn't exactly leave Echelon on the most favorable terms. As far as DA and Solidus go, I hold them in the highest regard (especially that Solidus bloke). I know this may seem like I'm poking holes in your defense of Echelon, which I really do appreciate, but I think its important to say that alot of Echelon's past was due to circumstances, and its important to keep your past in mind when plotting towards the future. We don't intend to be the past Echelon, we fully plan on being a completely different entity, far better, and I think that both DA and Solidus can be integral parts to that. As far as intelligence goes, they are some of the brightest people I've ever had the pleasure to work with. Changing people alone does not change an alliance, people change as well, and a combination of old and new faces keeps respect to the Echelon of old while looking forward to brighter horizons.

The only negative I have with Echelon is Caffine readmitance. I think it was stupid, and really it gave me a bad taste in my mouth. However, you have many cooler heads in charge now, and from my understanding Caffine has no official athority (although that does not mean he has no influence in Echelon).

Many in Echelon think of Caffine highly, if not for his body of work, for his demeanor and dedication to the alliance. He's a valuable asset if managed appropriately. As for the re-admittance, we're talking about a guy who left on well-enough terms (although I don't agree with everything he did in the past), and was simply looking to come home once more. Even without the ridiculous surrender term that Karma pushed upon Echelon about Caffine, its unlikely that Caffine would ever be the face of Echelon's FA, particularly in the forseeable future. As far as influence goes, I like to think that every member of Echelon who takes the time to talk has influence, Caffine's influence goes about as far as the respect that other have for him.

That said I disagree with MADPs in general. What happened with the NPO in the Karma war is a perfect example why you don't want them. Allies will always disagree on things, and being dragged into wars over things you disagree with is dumb in my opinion. So while I like Echelon I wish they had reconsidered signing MADPs.

One of the things about this MDAP is that it doesn't say in what form that the mutual aggression must come, it can come diplomatically, financially, or militarily. A MDAP would work in situation where the alliances are very close in vision, where there is good communication and they keep one another informed of their plans and situations. I think the relationship between Echelon and NPO was lacking in all three of these aspects, and hence was how Echelon got sucked into a situation to defend our ally for something we didn't completely agree with. (there is an important difference between us supporting our ally and supporting what they've done.) I think that with Echelon and GGA, we're close enough to make an MDAP work, and we are compatible on a majority of things. With a MDAP, communication is key, because of the additional risk you must be aware of all situations.

The Echelon of the past and the Echelon of today are two different things. I don't particularly care when people like BJ talk ill of Echelon because 1) he has no idea what he's talking about and 2) Despite many who would like to have seen Echelon done away with over the past, we're still here, and we have every intention of being around for the years to come.

Edited November 29, 2009 by memoryproblems

[Andre27]

BJ, you know I respect you and your opinion on things however, we don’t feel Echelon is a crappy alliance and we didn’t revert to them we never left them to begin with.

Like us they did make some mistakes in the past and have grown from them. I know it’s a bit of a shock to see an MDAP signed nowadays but I have read the treaty over and over and just don’t see what is so wrong with it. Yes if Echelon or GGA does something stupid we will be the ones to deal with the consequences. You have to trust an alliance to do the right thing if you are going to sign an MDAP with them, and we do trust Echelon.

If you read this you will see there are other ways to support in an aggressive military action. It can come in the form of mediation, or financial aid. Military action would be a last resort in any case.

The Echelon of the past and the Echelon of today are two different things. I don't particularly care when people like BJ talk ill of Echelon because 1) he has no idea what he's talking about and 2) Despite many who would like to have seen Echelon done away with over the past, we're still here, and we have every intention of being around for the years to come.

I was going to respond to your post BJ since in general have a clear understanding of what's happening on planet bob.

IC has already explained the reasoning behind the current treaty. When they approached us for a resign of the treaty Echelon was/is quite aware that the current GGA =/= pre-karma GGA. Upon further discussions we determined that the Echelon of today warrants the level of trust needed for a high level treaty such as a MDAP.

Many here speak of the lessons learned from the karma war and amongst others one very important lesson is that everyone, be it person or alliance, is deserving of a second chance. We need to stop living in the past.

[Khyber]

Supporting a war is supporting a war. Saying you will support it via funds or via political capital or what have you changes little. Having the courage to disagree with your friends when they do something you can't stand behind is something I believe all alliances should do, and should do so without breaking their word of honor. By binding yourself this way you simply put yourself in a situation where you either break your word, or put your beliefs to the side, and sacrifice what you believe in to appease a friendship, niether of which I would ever put myself in.

This is something that I loved about the relationship between the alliances in Citadel. Something I don't see in any bloc except maybe FB but I know too little about that bloc to make an educated decision.

When did DA and Sol return? I still think they are too aggressive by my standards until I see different. Sol would be great managing the military and is a great guy 1 on 1 with friends, but in the past when talking to those in weaker positions he tends to be demeaning and bullish. But that is just my view on things. Also the prime minister seems to hold little power in your charter the last time I read it, and it tends to be more of a figure head position.

[memoryproblems]

Aye, a MDAP puts you in a sticky situation, but its a superior bond of friendship that only the best of friends can make work. You obviously don't enter into a MDAP (especially in today's age) without a lot of trust and respect. We obviously trust GGA enough to believe that they won't ever put us in one of those situations, as I'm sure they trust us not to do such.

When did DA and Sol return? I still think they are too aggressive by my standards until I see different. Sol would be great managing the military and is a great guy 1 on 1 with friends, but in the past when talking to those in weaker positions he tends to be demeaning and bullish. But that is just my view on things. Also the prime minister seems to hold little power in your charter the last time I read it, and it tends to be more of a figure head position.

They've returned within the last two months. As for Sol, my impression is that he's the sort of guy who has solid opinions and he's willing to stand up for what he believes in, which is something that I personally see as a positive attribute. There are people who stand for nothing and cave to the wills of others. Solidus is certianly not one of those people, and thats one of the primary reasons why I have so much respect for him. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything, but I respect him for the way he fights for what he thinks is best.

As for the prime minister bit, the powers aren't great in number, but it is a bit of a figure-head for the voice of the people in our government, and has serious powers in its own right.

Edited November 29, 2009 by memoryproblems

[Bob Janova]

Well that caused more of a storm than I expected. I only came back into the thread because Shahenshah specifically referenced me.

IC:

we don’t feel Echelon is a crappy alliance and we didn’t revert to them we never left them to begin with.

Obviously you don't . I'll maintain my opinion until they show themselves to be different, though (and having Caffine back in the alliance is a bad sign to me). Yeah, I guess 'revert' was a poor choice of words – reverting to the treaty you had before is what I meant.

The manner of said support shall be dependent upon the responding parties abilities

This doesn't mean what you say it does; if GGA go to war and Echelon are able (not necessarily willing) to offer military support, they would have to with the wording you have there. If you had actually written in the treaty what you (and MP) are using in your argument, it would be an MDoAP and I probably wouldn't have posted at all.

MP:

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Echelon, but if i may, I'll let you in on a secret, we really don't care about your out-of-touch and offbase opinions. [long post] [and another long post]

If you don't care, don't respond B). It's only my opinion, after all. Two long posts rather implies you do care.

Andre:

Many here speak of the lessons learned from the karma war and amongst others one very important lesson is that everyone, be it person or alliance, is deserving of a second chance. We need to stop living in the past.

True enough. I just think that an MADP is too strong for a historically aggressive alliance. You say yourself that the GGA has changed, which I personally have also seen signs of, and I don't want you to be in the position of having your treaties used as levers by other alliances again.

Khyber: Whoa, you left TOP? Also, I don't believe that an alliance changes just because the leadership moves on (unless it's a complete one-time exodus like TSO). If that was true, no treaty would last more than three months. An alliance's policies are shaped by the wishes of its membership, so I look to a change in actions not personnel to determine whether an alliance has changed. (If I remember right you supported Citadel's attack on Polar even though Sponge had gone for this very reason.)

It's true that Echelon showed some signs of life by not cutting and running in Karma, and that lifted them out of the gutter. Maybe they will convince me over time that they are a new alliance, the same way TPF is trying to do.

[natas31]

There is no reason for an alliance to "change" if not for the betterment of itself. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well parts of every alliance could use a touch up or some fresh paint, but if the structure that's being painted is broke, you just have something that looks good, but still functions poorly. We in the GGA are rebuilding our structure and giving it some new paint, not because we want to impress the neighbors, but because we know what was broken and are fixing it to improve ourselves. Yes sometimes it takes a view from the outside to see the problems that lie within, and we have seen that view through Karma. But still, it's as if the pre-Karma hegemonic alliances are in some kinda of box scrutinized by the rest of BoB and you are the judge, jury, and executioner. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Khyber]

Aye, a MDAP puts you in a sticky situation, but its a superior bond of friendship that only the best of friends can make work. You obviously don't enter into a MDAP (especially in today's age) without a lot of trust and respect. We obviously trust GGA enough to believe that they won't ever put us in one of those situations, as I'm sure they trust us not to do such.

All I can state is my opinion on the matter, but here is my reasonings.

Paper does not make a superiour bond of friendship. There are probably some ODPs that are stronger then MDPs, and some MDPs that are strong then MADPs. You would be a fool to think your pledge of support translates into friendship. No one year cancelation clause, no mutual aggression, none of them make your bond of friendship stronger. They are nice flowery words, but your friendship only you decide on, and only you can judge. It is also more fluid and far more difficult to nail down, waning and waxing depending on many variables.

You say you trust the GGA enough to believe that they won't ever put you in one of those situations, but you did the same with the NPO pre Karma. You should have learned that you can't trust 100% anyone, and signing away one of your most important rights for a show of friendship (not sure if it is for the world or a show for you) serves no purpose except maybe make you feel better about the bond you have, or try to ward people away with a flexing of the political muscle.

In the end you've put yourself in a compromising situation all because of a show, when an MDoAP would simply have required them talking to you in an aggressive operation, and you simply saying yes, even if you disagree with the war, if your bond of friendship really is as strong as you say it is.

The reason why I find MDPs easier to swallow is because of the benefit it offers you for the loss of soveriegnty you sacrific. It is often enough to ward people away or get them to recognize that it won't be just you. Defense, although at times it could get murky, tends to be far more reasonable to promise to someone, and most are set up that it is nonchaining, which in my opinion all MDPs are. And you know that you are lossing nothing because you would be defending them anyways if they are attacked due to your friendship, something that is not as often the case with aggressive wars. So the show doesn't give more security, places you in a compromising position, and takes away rights that in all honesty you may wish you had at a later point in time.

Then again I tend to dislike most pieces of paper.

[Wu Tang Clan]

In the end you've put yourself in a compromising situation all because of a show, when an MDoAP would simply have required them talking to you in an aggressive operation, and you simply saying yes, even if you disagree with the war, if your bond of friendship really is as strong as you say it is.

The reason why I find MDPs easier to swallow is because of the benefit it offers you for the loss of soveriegnty you sacrific. It is often enough to ward people away or get them to recognize that it won't be just you. Defense, although at times it could get murky, tends to be far more reasonable to promise to someone, and most are set up that it is nonchaining, which in my opinion all MDPs are. And you know that you are lossing nothing because you would be defending them anyways if they are attacked due to your friendship, something that is not as often the case with aggressive wars. So the show doesn't give more security, places you in a compromising position, and takes away rights that in all honesty you may wish you had at a later point in time.

Then again I tend to dislike most pieces of paper.

Quoted for truth. MADPs create a mess, and if you aren't 100% willing to be in it (which if you had an MDoAP and in the same situation you'd be in it anyways) than you really end up hurting yourself more than anything.

I don't like MDAPs myself. MDoAPs are the way to go.

[Solidus117]

When did DA and Sol return? I still think they are too aggressive by my standards until I see different. Sol would be great managing the military and is a great guy 1 on 1 with friends, but in the past when talking to those in weaker positions he tends to be demeaning and bullish. But that is just my view on things. Also the prime minister seems to hold little power in your charter the last time I read it, and it tends to be more of a figure head position.

I'm flattered Kyber!

But no, the Prime Minister really is just a governmental quartermaster. That's the way I see it at least. Also, in the event of Chogs and Neo becoming incapacitated and/or dead, I become the acting Director. Neat huh?

Solidus plans the double-assassination of the Echelon Directorate...

Edited November 30, 2009 by Solidus117