VE discussion

[Letum]

So who won the Great Patriotic War?

It was a white peace, and neither side even came close to accomplishing their goals. That makes it so close that it is debatable, but since you seem to be asking for my personal opinion, I'd call it a draw.

[King Srqt]

Dear Bilrow,

The VE today is 10 times the alliance your GGA ever was, I was a member of both and the VE has more of a spine and an independent mind than the GGA ever did.

[Smooth]

I don't make it a policy to enter discussions between grudge-bearing parties (they are rarely rational), but what you've just said is such an extreme stretch, that I just have to comment.

Looking at you now, VE is indeed a successful and strong alliance. But the argument that your current status somehow changes what happened historically is not a rational one, no matter how "long-term" one's view might be.

Disbanding an alliance cannot be twisted into a "victory". When you fall apart you have lost. Being able to return in the future does not change that; it merely means that you survived and "won" in a new war.

Certainly, if you take the (admittedly biased) view that "the goal of the enemy was for us to not survive", then you can portray survival as one form of success - but to twist it so far as to claim that not being eradicated from the face of the planet is a victory is disingenuous. Especially since it is impossible to actually destroy a player - most alliances that have disbanded in the past have resulted in a wave of "immigration" of players to other alliances and splinter groups - much like VE did. And, much like VE, those players have ended creating shifts in world politics.

Obviously, what those individuals do does not end with the alliance. For example, whilst the LUEnited Nations might no longer be amongst us, its former members have continued to be very successful leaders, with similar political alignments. When the Karma war came around, they were mostly amongst people on the winning side, and admittedly achieved some form of revenge for their past. However, their victory in the Karma war did not somehow change the results of GWII or GWIII.

I do see your point, that a long term view is important. The future is always in motion. But is is equally important to distinguish that the present should not be the basis of changing the interpretation the past (unless it involves new information being released). If we were to use that line of thought, then, for the sake of speculation, GGA might experience explosive growth over the next 2 years, and then force VE into some form of submission. (Bear in mind this is purely theoretical) Would that event change the present success of VE? Of course not - doing so would take the "history is written by the victors" idea to a new extreme.

VE was defeated. Yes, their defeat was a temporary one - but in this realm, every defeat is temporary. We cannot pretend every time a new guy is on top that they have "won" every historical conflict due to their present success. Yes, you are successful - at this point in time. The past and the future are separate from the present.

I apologize for misconveying my views. I intended that, by putting war in quotations, people would realize I wasn't referring to the physical manifestation of this conflict that happened during the Green Civil War. We lost the Green Civil War. None of us deny that. Rather, we consider the entirety of the conflict to be a success. Get me?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Smooth

[Solaris]

We have walked the path of the guerrilla ninja, and we have prevailed.

Viridia Prevails!

[Watson895]

Edit: To point out another thing to add is that there are plently of ways to win these battles. Our method was just as effective as Fark's or FAN's as both are free alliances now and so are we. Both have avenged their past and so have we. We just, in our opinion, did it smarter (at least than FAN) and quicker. Big deal we disbanded, get over it.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, We fought the good fight, and afterward many joined other alliances only to return home after peace was achieved. We basically did both, and in the process, kept our pride. And when you're knocked down to nothing, that's all you have left. But now we are restored, definitely worse for the wear, but we will never have to defend ourselves in a thread like this.

[Grossman]

Ohhhh Bilrow. Yes he helped blow up Viridia for his own ends. No it didn't last, and now he's paying reps to VE whatever that means. I think that normally the argument about disbandment interrupting the lifespan of an alliance is valid, but not in Viridia's case. We came back so long ago and are so well established in reference to how short that disbandment was. Everyone, almost everyone, agrees the disbandment was in reaction to dastardly forces that have now suffered due to karma, if they are around and still in their same form. The disbandment is a miniscule fraction of the time of Planet Bob. When P rises from the ashes and we get the second smack down can we insist on disbandment? Then we can watch the word smith that is bilrow twist it in some more fantastic way when they come back. I actually think P would go FAN style before disbanding at this point to be honest.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Grossman

[Smooth]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, We fought the good fight, and afterward many joined other alliances only to return home after peace was achieved. We basically did both, and in the process, kept our pride. And when you're knocked down to nothing, that's all you have left. But now we are restored, definitely worse for the wear, but we will never have to defend ourselves in a thread like this.

Not trying to belittle what FAN did. The respect for you is there, unquestionably. Your point is valid as well. Opinions differ.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I apologize for misconveying my views. I intended that, by putting war in quotations, people would realize I wasn't referring to the physical manifestation of this conflict that happened during the Green Civil War. We lost the Green Civil War. None of us deny that. Rather, we consider the entirety of the conflict to be a success. Get me?

How do you suppose you gained a victory over Bilrow? Didn't he leave VE before your overall victory came to be?

Perhaps I'm missing something here. From what I can tell, he killed you off and then left GGA while they were still superior to VE in strength and allies.

[Bergerland]

What were these VE splinter alliances that reformed into VE? I only got about half the history there, but Brigade is still alive and kicking - separately.

And why is it such a good thing that the leadership that was politically outmaneuvered by the GGA et all and then decided to disband was retained after the reformation? And they come back to sign a deal with the devil, no less.

When VE disbanded it split into the Brigade, the Directorate, and the Royal Dominion. The second two merged to reform the Entente.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Bergerland

[Watson895]

Not trying to belittle what FAN did. The respect for you is there, unquestionably. Your point is valid as well. Opinions differ.

I know, just saying that we have different values and payed a different price for peace. Neither was smarter, it was simply what was important to the respective alliances.

[Caesar833]

You disbanded the alliance. That means it was over and done. Then you reformed. That means that you restarted something that wasnt there. You can not claim the original start date anymore. I dont see why this is hard to grasp.

[Il Impero Romano]

I know, just saying that we have different values and payed a different price for peace. Neither was smarter, it was simply what was important to the respective alliances.

This basically.

Also, I don't feel like quoting a ton of posts, but I believe what smooth was saying when he was speaking about winning the war was along the lines of "they may have won the battle, but not the war". The intent to reform was there from the beginning, and when the reformation did happen shortly thereafter we did so with a vengeance, quickly surpassing where we were when we disbanded. The goal of those who attacked us back then, specifically Bilrow, was to get rid of VE because we threatened the supremacy of GGA, and seeing as VE is the largest non neutral green alliance and GGA is not even close, that goal failed.

Therefore, internally at least, we do not look at it as two separate alliances, but rather one alliance that choose to use disbandment as a tool rather then utterly change itself at the whim of Bilrow so that we could continue on where we once were in the future. The time period between disbandment and reformation was short. The reason disbandment was chosen at the time was quite simply we were not prepared to go the FAN route back then and, as odd as it seems, it was the best way to ensure we would be able to remain the same alliance in the future. The people who took part in both were the same. The spirit and core value of the alliance is the same. To us, nothing changed, and disbandment along with the inevitable subsequent reformation was just a large obstacle that needed to be overcame in our path.

This itself is a bit of an exception around here, rarely alliances disband and reform shortly after. Also rarely do alliances disband and are able to come back the same. Finally, even more rarely are alliances able to quickly regain their former strength and surpass it such as we did. To me, all these things point to the fact that the alliance that disbanded is the alliance that you see here today, and as such we never really went away at all.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Sunstar]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the fact that the VE spirit survived that break. However, VE as an alliance did disband (legally as per its own charter), and that is what we are discussing, are we not?

[Sir Sci]

Sorry Bilrow, but you make me laugh.

Despite P_C's craziness, the GGA as a whole was better under him than after he was deposed. Oh, and the best members of the GGA became the CGS/CDS.

Just my opinion.

[Rebel Virginia]

Don't know what all the arguing is about, but it's pretty simple. VE disbanded. That ended their "streak" of not disbanding. They reformed. This started a new "streak" of not disbanding. I don't see why they should be given special considerations just because a few people respect them for some reason.

Though, I do agree with you on one point, VE needs to go with the reform date and not the original form date. Ronin will always go with the reform date. I don't care if an alliance lives on in spirit, if it's not around it's not around.

This is exactly what I was saying. I don't understand what there is not to understand, or even why you people are getting upset. Or why you're bashing Bilrow in an attempt to make an argument. It does not change the fact that you disbanded.

[Il Impero Romano]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the fact that the VE spirit survived that break. However, VE as an alliance did disband (legally as per its own charter), and that is what we are discussing, are we not?

Well no, I'm actually not sure what we are discussing...it seems posts were pulled from the other thread and moved here lol

The fact that we disbanded is obvious, so I'm guessing the topic at has is more "is this the same alliance as when VE originally formed". In my post above, I think I covered why it is well enough. However, I can see where if one were to look at it very linearly where it would seem to be two things. One thing cannot be another thing.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Bilrow]

This is exactly what I was saying. I don't understand what there is not to understand, or even why you people are getting upset. Or why you're bashing Bilrow in an attempt to make an argument. It does not change the fact that you disbanded.

Shhh...they aren't upset according to them.

[Cairna]

All the analogies in this thread are horrible and anyone who has made one should be ashamed.

You disbanded. You reformed. The reform date should be the one used.

Not that it matters either way. Yes. Yes VE is doing pretty good right now. High five.

[Penkala]

And yet, you keep proving me right.

VE's date on this list should be one of their reformation, since it's misleading to new players of the game to use the initial starting date.

I hate to agree with Bilrow, but he's right. Slippery slope and all. Could I form an alliance today, disband it tomorrow, and reform it in a year to announce its one year anniversary? Sure, it's not exactly the same, but the point is, if an alliance didn't exist for one year, then it didn't exist for one year.

[Asriel Belacqua]

Even the Browncoats use their Reformation date.

For historical purposes we use the old founding date (such as, well, we originally founded *here* then disbanded, the reformed on the two-year anniversary of the original founding on *this date here*).

I get that VE spirit was alive and they weren't gone for very long, however, NAAC's spirit is still very much alive. Would it be fair to say that if the NAAC reformed now, after being "dead" for 2 years, that it would still be the same alliance? Not in the least. The same people would flock there as were there originally, the same attitude even, same flag, possibly even the same forums (doubt that, just using it for the sake of the argument), but it would not be the same alliance because of that small time when it was gone and everyone learned things and did things outside of the NAAC that made them smarter/dumber/wiser/more foolish/whatever.

Browncoats even changed. We have the original founder with us, and a few of the first members, but is it the same? No. Even though we weren't gone for 2 years like the NAAC, we still learned things while away from that alliance and came back with a different attitude. So too did VE.

It's fine to have both dates for historical purposes, but you cannot say that you are the same exact alliance.

[Ardus]

The cycle of pride and tender personalities in this thread amuses me.

[Valerius]

You do realize that you helped turn the GGA into the joke it is today? You also realize that your alliance killed the color green and that it has taken about 2 years for the current green leadership to undo the damage that you caused?

You really have no place to talk. Though, I do agree with you on one point, VE needs to go with the reform date and not the original form date. Ronin will always go with the reform date. I don't care if an alliance lives on in spirit, if it's not around it's not around.

EDIT: Engrish is my friend.

This. VE is cool, GGA isn't. But reformation dates should be considered the beginning of an alliance's run. This, of course, applies to IAA and \m/ as well.

[CylonNL]

What a bothersome subject, what matters to me is that the group never ceased to exist at all. Formally you data huggers may be right. Still it depends how you approach the subject, but I'm getting tired of using metaphors.

Our AA may have been abandoned, but the alliance itself never ever died.

I can't wait to celebrate our 4th birthday on the 12th of July.

Edit: Oh, and Bilrow hun, you're invited off course.

Edited January 10, 2010 by CylonNL

[Zizka]

I like VE well enough and bilrow is an $@!, but he's right in this instance - form, disband, reform, the reform date is the new "foundation" date. Anything else is frankly ridiculous.

[Reptyler]

You disbanded. You reformed. The reform date should be the one used.

Not that it matters either way. Yes. Yes VE is doing pretty good right now. High five.

This sums up my thoughts right here. To me, it feels mostly like the same VE, but trying to erase the disbandment from our collective memories doesn't mean it didn't happen. I can see why it's a sensitive subject, to be sure, and I know exactly how Smooth feels about this, but really guys, try not to have a cow over this. We had to disband. We're better now. I don't feel like we have to feel bad about that anymore.