VE discussion

[Sooner]

You sir, give yourself too much credit.

Looking at a long term strategy with short term eyesight will normally result in views such as yours Slick willy

Edit: Wording

That would explain GGA's myopic viewpoint back in the day.

[Il Impero Romano]

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.

And you keep making us right, bringing on the laughs and whatnot.

VE's date on the list should be the one listed.

[Sooner]

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.

So says the person who placed a gun to our collective heads on that day. You may have won the battle but not the war. The victors write the history, which you are clearly not.

[Farnsworth]

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.

Yes, the inclusion of the date of reformation makes it very misleading. How will they ever figure it out, Filrow (or is it Buck?)?!

Edited January 9, 2010 by Farnsworth

[Zulchep]

Okay, so let me get this straight... Bilrow, you're butthurt, basically, that you tried to engineer VE's demise so you could own the senate, then got pissed when your murder plot ultimately failed. Did VE disband? Yes. And they came back. You basically left them to die in the woods, and they came back to hunt you down when they got better.

Then they leapfrogged over GGA, turned the tables, and now you're no longer top dog. Boo hoo. Get over it.

[The AUT]

Okay, so let me get this straight... Bilrow, you're butthurt, basically, that you tried to engineer VE's demise so you could own the senate, then got pissed when your murder plot ultimately failed. Did VE disband? Yes. And they came back. You basically left them to die in the woods, and they came back to hunt you down when they got better.

Then they leapfrogged over GGA, turned the tables, and now you're no longer top dog. Boo hoo. Get over it.

You missed that page where the signed the Jungle Accords with the GGA and snuggled up with NPO entering in through an MDoAP against MK in the War of the Coalition.

But that's neither here nor there, I guess.

Edit: Did DasGirl quit? Kind of sad, I also know Pope Hope of ODN quit as well. Seems llike new faces with not much old ones left.

Edited January 10, 2010 by The AUT

[Rebel Virginia]

VE was never that great? Come on I don't think that you can say that.

You're missing my point. I am saying it is quite silly for reformed and formerly disbanded alliances to pretend they have been a continuing entity for all this time. FAIL was originally formed in December 2007. If I recreated in right now should I really be able to claim, and believably, that FAIL has been around for two years? No. If can't do that, however, why should IAA, \m/, or VE?

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Because there are more of them to whine in the thread about it than there are of you, RV.

[Rebel Virginia]

Because there are more of them to whine in the thread about it than there are of you, RV.

I can whine louder.

[Atanatar]

I can whine louder.

I beg to differ.

[NoFish]

You're missing my point. I am saying it is quite silly for reformed and formerly disbanded alliances to pretend they have been a continuing entity for all this time. FAIL was originally formed in December 2007. If I recreated in right now should I really be able to claim, and believably, that FAIL has been around for two years? No. If can't do that, however, why should IAA, \m/, or VE?

I would argue that VE is a unique case, different from, say, \m/ in that when it disbanded the majority of its members when to distinct splinter alliances, these alliances reformed not very much later, back into the whole.

Imagine, if I may use a delicious metaphor, that an alliance is a cake. VE's case would be as though you cut the cake in several pieces, ate one, and then put them back together a little bit later. To say it is no longer the same cake would be absurd, even if it is missing a slice and has a few cuts in it. IAA's and \m/'s cases would be as though you ran the cake through a centrifuge to separate all the parts, then used the parts that were salvageable to bake another cake. Whether or not this cake is the same as the original is clearly up for debate and I would argue that it's probably not.

[Prime minister Johns]

I would argue that VE is a unique case, different from, say, \m/ in that when it disbanded the majority of its members when to distinct splinter alliances, these alliances reformed not very much later, back into the whole.

Imagine, if I may use a delicious metaphor, that an alliance is a cake. VE's case would be as though you cut the cake in several pieces, ate one, and then put them back together a little bit later. To say it is no longer the same cake would be absurd, even if it is missing a slice and has a few cuts in it. IAA's and \m/'s cases would be as though you ran the cake through a centrifuge to separate all the parts, then used the parts that were salvageable to bake another cake. Whether or not this cake is the same as the original is clearly up for debate and I would argue that it's probably not.

Some members of \m/ went on to have successful careers in other alliances after \m/ disbanded and became well known for being in those alliances so when they reformed into \m/ they took influences from their former alliances with them, and other new \m/ members have absolutely no connection with the old \m/, so the character of the new \m/ is now different enough not to be considered the same as the old \m/, so they are effectively a new alliance that has the same name as the old one but very little else.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Ch33kY]

This makes me glad to have been part of the Viridian resistance aka going nuclear rogue against the GGA. The forces that attacked the VE were sly cowards and political opportunitsts. Shame on them.

As for the reason for this discussion, I would consider the remake of the VE a legitimate continuation of the original because it included so many of the original membership and government, including the founders.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Ch33kY

[Cobalt]

You're missing my point. I am saying it is quite silly for reformed and formerly disbanded alliances to pretend they have been a continuing entity for all this time. FAIL was originally formed in December 2007. If I recreated in right now should I really be able to claim, and believably, that FAIL has been around for two years? No. If can't do that, however, why should IAA, \m/, or VE?

Well, personally I don't think most alliances that disbanded and reformed should be on there. VE for example, was only disbanded for a couple months, in which time splinter alliances were formed which came back together to reform VE when the time was right - as I've said in a previous threads; VE maintained its membership, government, attitude, values, and general culture after its reformation. Internally, the disbandment period is looked at as a dark transition period in the history of the alliance, not a gap in the record.

Memory isn't as sharp on this one because I really don't know much about them, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a very long period between IAA's disbandment and reformation, and again I believe they were re founded by their government/original members etc after not to long a delay.

\m/ on the otherhand, disbanded and did not reform for more than 2 years. I'm not judging them as an alliance, but in terms of "are they the same now as when they disbanded" the answer is clearly no. The same applies to any other alliance which is merely shares the similarity of flag and name with their predecessor.

And really Bilrow? "Its confusing for new players"... come on now, you can do a better job than that of covering your personal bias. Its like trying to hide an elephant under a cocktail napkin... you're not fooling anyone.

[D34th]

I can whine louder.

Louder and in a different color

Well, personally I don't think most alliances that disbanded and reformed should be on there. VE for example, was only disbanded for a couple months, in which time splinter alliances were formed which came back together to reform VE when the time was right - as I've said in a previous threads; VE maintained its membership, government, attitude, values, and general culture after its reformation. Internally, the disbandment period is looked at as a dark transition period in the history of the alliance, not a gap in the record.

Memory isn't as sharp on this one because I really don't know much about them, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a very long period between IAA's disbandment and reformation, and again I believe they were re founded by their government/original members etc after not to long a delay.

\m/ on the otherhand, disbanded and did not reform for more than 2 years. I'm not judging them as an alliance, but in terms of "are they the same now as when they disbanded" the answer is clearly no. The same applies to any other alliance which is merely shares the similarity of flag and name with their predecessor.

And really Bilrow? "Its confusing for new players"... come on now, you can do a better job than that of covering your personal bias. Its like trying to hide an elephant under a cocktail napkin... you're not fooling anyone.

I'm not fan of this new \m/ but they had to wait 2 years to reform for the same reason of yours, they needed support for it, the difference is that you had support to reform fast than them.

Edited January 10, 2010 by D34th

[x Tela x]

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.

\m/ is no different. Pretty much the exact same circumstances. The only difference between the two cases is the time between disband-reformation.

In order to be considered one of the "oldest" alliances, you have to keep the alliance intact for the duration. You can't just skip periods of time because you had to disband for whatever reason. (Cowardice?)

[Arcturus Jefferson]

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.

[AirMe]

Well they did disband after one day of war instead of fighting for their cause.

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.

Edited January 10, 2010 by AirMe

[Chief Savage Man]

Just because VE didn't pull a FAN doesn't make them weak. I was there. We annihilated them. It would be wrong to expect anybody to act as FAN did. VE was not as strong as FAN. Instead, they decided to take an equally honorable way out. The new VE is strong. I had the privilege of working with them during the last war and they have my respect. If the war had gone as expected, I imagine VE would have been a tough and fierce combatant.

[Smooth]

Yay now we have a topic about us. We're cool, I guess.

Anyway now that we've decided, it seems, to debate VE's disbandment I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say the following:

1) Anyone who believes that the Entente, by disbanding, didn't win the "war" against, well, Bilrow, is completely ignorant of all that has happened since we disbanded. Our government and alliance pretty much agree that we won unquestionably. Just look at us now?

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.

2) Our situation is different then say IAA or \m/ as almost the entirety of our former leadership, including founders, reformed and had been planning it from pretty much the moment we disbanded. I'm honestly going to have to allude to No Fish's observation on this one and say that the Entente now is the same cake as we disbanded...save for being wiser to what our "allies" were capable of.

3) On us joining the War of the Coalition against MK, I honestly don't understand why that was even brought up as an issue. The Entente and the Mushroom Kingdom have quite amazing relations and we consider them to be good friends. (Even one of their members is our "Lord." I love you SC) Plus, we honor our treaties. We're sorry if our sense of honor and duty offend some people? I think our stance in the world is pretty clear at the moment, and has been since a few months before the Karma War.

4) I'm not going to decide for CN whatever you guys feel as deciding what our "real" date should be, however, as a representative of the Viridian Entente, I can tell you that this July 12th we shall be celebrating our 4th Birthday, regardless of what you all say and think.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Smooth

[avernite]

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.

Maybe Bilrow did that, but even so he used a joke of an alliance (well, it wasn't yet at that point, but on the road there according to your argument) and managed to use it to kill VE (using his allies, maybe, but that too requires skill).

Also, I never noticed the continuity of spirit between VE1 and 2, some general trend as with NAAC and GR maybe. But well, that's an outsider looking in and all.

[x Tela x]

1) Anyone who believes that the Entente, by disbanding, didn't win the "war" against, well, Bilrow, is completely ignorant of all that has happened since we disbanded. Our government and alliance pretty much agree that we won unquestionably. Just look at us now?

You seriously think you won a war in which the result was your disbandment? Wow. You people are redefining the word delusional with that.

[Letum]

1) Anyone who believes that the Entente, by disbanding, didn't win the "war" against, well, Bilrow, is completely ignorant of all that has happened since we disbanded. Our government and alliance pretty much agree that we won unquestionably. Just look at us now?

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.

[Vilien]

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.

So who won the Great Patriotic War?

[New Frontier]

So Bilrow is an idiot. How does that make VE a "great" alliance?