VE discussion

[Seerow]

Not everyone wishes to keep battling like FAN did, if I recall correctly TPF got scolded for trying to do what FAN did: Continue fighting for what they believe in. Of course, this could be spun either way.

FAN kept fighting rather than disband because they refused to disband.

TPF tried to keep fighting to appease Mhawk's martyrdom.

I don't see how you can even compare the two.

[Cortath]

You have a point. The NS NPO and the PRP are nothing like the alliance that currently calls itself the New Pacific Order. There's a different ethos and a different culture. And different people.

Oh ho! A challenge from a mysterious person who claims to know much about the New Pacific Order, yet doesn't have the courage of their convictions to come and say who they are! How droll.

My alliance has its roots in the New Pacific Order established in that other place. If you want to make some silly argument about we've changed, go for it. I love it when people make the change argument: as if by changing to adapt to a changing world, we've somehow lost authenticity.

[Sir Paul]

Oh ho! A challenge from a mysterious person who claims to know much about the New Pacific Order, yet doesn't have the courage of their convictions to come and say who they are! How droll.

My alliance has its roots in the New Pacific Order established in that other place. If you want to make some silly argument about we've changed, go for it. I love it when people make the change argument: as if by changing to adapt to a changing world, we've somehow lost authenticity.

Oh come now, Cortath, as a Senator appointed by Franco hiself, I can tell you I am a completely different person than I was six years ago.

[Branimir]

You changed Cortath. You are no Cortath anymore. There was so much more chuckle in you before,... lol

Either way about the VE issue. It is not a negative thing, or something "bad", that they re formed. Again I must say how they shouldnt really get defensive over it, nothing bad with re forming.

[Cortath]

Oh come now, Cortath, as a Senator appointed by Franco hiself, I can tell you I am a completely different person than I was six years ago.

What have you done with the real Sir Paul?!

*chuckles*

Edited January 11, 2010 by Cortath

[Ejayrazz]

FAN kept fighting rather than disband because they refused to disband.

TPF tried to keep fighting to appease Mhawk's martyrdom.

I don't see how you can even compare the two.

I forgot the sarcasm smiley.

[Lonely]

Oh ho! A challenge from a mysterious person who claims to know much about the New Pacific Order, yet doesn't have the courage of their convictions to come and say who they are! How droll.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem! Here's a suggestion: try rebutting my arguments.

My alliance has its roots in the New Pacific Order established in that other place. If you want to make some silly argument about we've changed, go for it. I love it when people make the change argument: as if by changing to adapt to a changing world, we've somehow lost authenticity.

Quite frankly, almost nobody remains from the Francoist time save Vladimir. The rest appear to comprise of 3rd generation and former opponents who set aside all their principles for power. If they can live with that then good for them. As a result of this, the culture changed. Even you yourself, Blackbird, are former ADN.

The NPO have become thugs, all swagger and little substance. Kultur is absent conspicuously as well as the political rhetoric. For lack of a better word, they are bullies. Had the originals stayed and not handed power over to the second and third generations things might have been quite different. But tragically they didn't.

[Branimir]

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem! Here's a suggestion: try rebutting my arguments.

One needs to first present an argument, for an argument to get rebutted.

Quite frankly, almost nobody remains from the Francoist time save Vladimir.

TAKE THAT SIR PAUL

[Rayvon]

This thread hurts my head.

Both sides of it.

[Cortath]

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem! Here's a suggestion: try rebutting my arguments.

Quite frankly, almost nobody remains from the Francoist time save Vladimir. The rest appear to comprise of 3rd generation and former opponents who set aside all their principles for power. If they can live with that then good for them. As a result of this, the culture changed. Even you yourself, Blackbird, are former ADN.

The NPO have become thugs, all swagger and little substance. Kultur is absent conspicuously as well as the political rhetoric. For lack of a better word, they are bullies. Had the originals stayed and not handed power over to the second and third generations things might have been quite different. But tragically they didn't.

*chuckles heartily*

If you knew anything of our alliance at the time it was founded in this world, you would know that we left our prior allegiances to those other world alliances, in that other world. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Try again.

Boo hoo. I've heard this song before. If you think we've lost some je nais quoi, I invite you to join our alliance and bring back whatever glorious vision of Francoism remains in your addled head.

If you truly believed what you say, and had the courage of your convictions, you'd be in our alliance rebuilding it and contributing to our culture, but it's a lot more fun, a lot easier and a lot more cowardly to throw stones at the outside than to try to build something great.

[Groucho Marx]

I love how everyone here are such experts on \m/.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Emperor Marx

[Sloppy Joe]

I think most of us can agree that there are two schools of thought going on here. So how about we distinguish, first, what those schools of thought are...

First there's the school of thought that I'll refer to as the Formation Birth Date. The idea behind this belief is that an entity can't be considered continuous if it died. Whether the community is the same, or not, is of no consequence. If you weren't alive during a period of time, then you didn't exist. Thus, you can only celebrate your birthday starting from the date of your latest date of existence. This is a solid school of thought and one that should be taken into consideration, for sure. It's an easy way to measure existence.

Then there's the school of thought that I'll refer to as the Foundation Birth Date. The idea behind this belief is that the date the alliance first came into existence, whether it disbanded or not, is the date of birth for the alliance. There are also arguments that not all disbandments are the same. So this would mean that we have to take each into consideration individually to determine what would be considered "continuous" and what wouldn't be. This would also mean that there's going to be a lot of arguing based on opinions, which is understandable. This school of thought isn't as solid and can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Measuring such a birth date can be trivial if an alliance disbanded at some point only to reform later on.

The Bakersfield analogy, given above, was interesting. The analogy focused on a city that formed, was discontinued and then reformed. The date of celebration for the city's existence is based on the reformation date and not the date it was originally formed. This analogy helped support those that believe the Formation Birth Date is what should be used.

Let's take a look at another analogy really quick to balance it out for those that support the Foundation Birth Date view.

A person is born into this world, they grow up, live their life and then get hit by a car. As the ambulance arrives to the scene, the victim dies and is clinically dead for 20 minutes. Then after some work on the part of the medics, the person is revived and continues to live their life, possibly stronger and wiser than before. Although the person died, he still celebrates his birthday on the day he was shot out of his mother. Not the date he was revived at the scene of a car accident. The body (community) was still intact and the medics (the government) worked hard to bring the body back to life. The community never died, but was merely incapacitated for a brief moment in time. This supports the idea held by many members of the Viridian Entente that we never stopped existing. We were merely invisible in the CN world for a brief moment in time while we were planning our alliance reformation in the background.

What we're arguing here is a difference in opinion and possibly a difference in how we're to interpret some silly list of "Oldest CN Alliances." I can agree with the folks who want a more solid, easy-to-interpret way to measure age. Personally, I'm going to celebrate VE's birthday according to the Foundation Birth Date. I've been VE the entire time and even while I was in some VE splinter alliances after disbandment, my VE mentality was still there and I was just waiting for the return of my beloved alliance. I never stopped being VE in my mind because I was sure we'd be reforming the alliance fairly soon after disbandment. So I'm going to celebrate VE's existence according to the date Egore first founded the alliance.

If all of you kids want to celebrate my alliance's birthday on the date we reformed just for your silly list, then so be it. But I know that many of my alliance mates are under the notion that we never stopped existing and that we were merely invisible for a moment in time. And you can at least respect our beliefs even if you don't agree with it.

Overall, how about we stop bickering about something so silly? It's retarded and everyone who's been pulled into it is being ridiculous. And if you can't stop the bickering until a decision is made on if, for some stupid list, the alliance should be considered only as old as the date of reformation, then make a poll for it and poll the people of CN to determine what should be the general view. Make sure both arguments on the matter are displayed and easy to understand and then let the people determine for themselves how they want the list to look. Is that so freaking difficult? Seriously?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sloppy Joe

[Caesar833]

Hey guys i still have my mentality from when i joined Illuminati in 2006. I have never faltered from the Illuminati way, so i would like Illuminati to be added to the oldest alliance list.

[hawk11]

I think most of us can agree that there are two schools of thought going on here. So how about we distinguish, first, what those schools of thought are...

First there's the school of thought that I'll refer to as the Formation Birth Date. The idea behind this belief is that an entity can't be considered continuous if it died. Whether the community is the same, or not, is of no consequence. If you weren't alive during a period of time, then you didn't exist. Thus, you can only celebrate your birthday starting from the date of your latest date of existence. This is a solid school of thought and one that should be taken into consideration, for sure. It's an easy way to measure existence.

Then there's the school of thought that I'll refer to as the Foundation Birth Date. The idea behind this belief is that the date the alliance first came into existence, whether it disbanded or not, is the date of birth for the alliance. There are also arguments that not all disbandments are the same. So this would mean that we have to take each into consideration individually to determine what would be considered "continuous" and what wouldn't be. This would also mean that there's going to be a lot of arguing based on opinions, which is understandable. This school of thought isn't as solid and can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Measuring such a birth date can be trivial if an alliance disbanded at some point only to reform later on.

The Bakersfield analogy, given above, was interesting. The analogy focused on a city that formed, was discontinued and then reformed. The date of celebration for the city's existence is based on the reformation date and not the date it was originally formed. This analogy helped support those that believe the Formation Birth Date is what should be used.

Let's take a look at another analogy really quick to balance it out for those that support the Foundation Birth Date view.

A person is born into this world, they grow up, live their life and then get hit by a car. As the ambulance arrives to the scene, the victim dies and is clinically dead for 20 minutes. Then after some work on the part of the medics, the person is revived and continues to live their life, possibly stronger and wiser than before. Although the person died, he still celebrates his birthday on the day he was shot out of his mother. Not the date he was revived at the scene of a car accident. The body (community) was still intact and the medics (the government) worked hard to bring the body back to life. The community never died, but was merely incapacitated for a brief moment in time. This supports the idea held by many members of the Viridian Entente that we never stopped existing. We were merely invisible in the CN world for a brief moment in time while we were planning our alliance reformation in the background.

What we're arguing here is a difference in opinion and possibly a difference in how we're to interpret some silly list of "Oldest CN Alliances." I can agree with the folks who want a more solid, easy-to-interpret way to measure age. Personally, I'm going to celebrate VE's birthday according to the Foundation Birth Date. I've been VE the entire time and even while I was in some VE splinter alliances after disbandment, my VE mentality was still there and I was just waiting for the return of my beloved alliance. I never stopped being VE in my mind because I was sure we'd be reforming the alliance fairly soon after disbandment. So I'm going to celebrate VE's existence according to the date Egore first founded the alliance.

If all of you kids want to celebrate my alliance's birthday on the date we reformed just for your silly list, then so be it. But I know that many of my alliance mates are under the notion that we never stopped existing and that we were merely invisible for a moment in time. And you can at least respect our beliefs even if you don't agree with it.

Overall, how about we stop bickering about something so silly? It's retarded and everyone who's been pulled into it is being ridiculous. And if you can't stop the bickering until a decision is made on if, for some stupid list, the alliance should be considered only as old as the date of reformation, then make a poll for it and poll the people of CN to determine what should be the general view. Make sure both arguments on the matter are displayed and easy to understand and then let the people determine for themselves how they want the list to look. Is that so freaking difficult? Seriously?

Seriously? You wrote the longest post in this thread, and then you try to call the argument silly? Really?

Edit: And you try to patronize us by calling us kids? This might just be the post of the year here!

Edited January 11, 2010 by hawk_11

[Branimir]

We were merely invisible in the CN world for a brief moment in time while we were planning our alliance reformation in the background.

Whatever works for you guys, I guess.

I really cant stand CN analogies any longer,... Anything to make them stop.

Please,....make them stop,...

Edited January 11, 2010 by Branimir

[Farnsworth]

This thread and any of its potential arguments are fairly pointless.

The issue originated in a thread that VE does not control or maintain. If there are issues with that it should be taken up the proper authority and in the proper thread. The majority in Viridia do not care where we fall on the list. If our reformation date is used then we'll be bumped next door to our great friends in RoK - great company, imo. I would take that any day.

-Some (perhaps even most or all!) can and will accept our date of reformation as the date of our birth - that makes perfect sense.

-Viridians will, for the most part, accept the original formation date - that makes perfect sense to us.

To those that are not Viridian (and especially those that are not even allied to us), it neither need make sense nor be all that important or relevant to you what we chose to recognize internally as our birthday. Once again, feel free to accept the date of reformation - it's entirely legitimate, as you're clearly willing to argue. I will not argue otherwise.

[Lonely]

*chuckles heartily*

If you knew anything of our alliance at the time it was founded in this world, you would know that we left our prior allegiances to those other world alliances, in that other world. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Try again.

Oh, that's total rubbish. Why would the Citrus War have occurred, except for grudges brought over from !@#$%*? There was certainly continuity between NS NPO and early CN NPO. It was after that that the changes began to occur.

Boo hoo. I've heard this song before. If you think we've lost some je nais quoi, I invite you to join our alliance and bring back whatever glorious vision of Francoism remains in your addled head.

So what you're saying is that Francoism doesn't matter? This is coming from the Emperor of NPO? Christ...

Besides which, I'm in NSO because it's full of the original NPO members, who your alliance $%&@ed over. I'm happy here and I have no desire to join NPO. Even if I could be bothered putting the colossal effort into trying to change your culture, it would be impossible without the participation of the rest of your alliance, and frankly I don't have much confidence in you.

If you truly believed what you say, and had the courage of your convictions, you'd be in our alliance rebuilding it and contributing to our culture, but it's a lot more fun, a lot easier and a lot more cowardly to throw stones at the outside than to try to build something great.

I'm in NSO, contributing to its presence on the CNF and enhancing its culture.

But it's a lot more fun, a lot easier and a lot more cowardly to make ill-thought-out criticisms than think about what I'm saying.

(by the way, I'm about to catch a plane, so I might not respond again for a while.)

[Sloppy Joe]

Seriously? You wrote the longest post in this thread, and then you try to call the argument silly? Really?

Edit: And you try to patronize us by calling us kids? This might just be the post of the year here!

You obviously missed the point of the post. Which implies that you're either ignorant or blind.

It was an explanatory post to help clarify both sides of an opinion-based argument. It was not in itself an argument, which means it's not a contribution to either sentiment of this debate. Even at the end, there was an option to help identify a possible resolution to the previously stated arguments. Which is more than you've offered thus far, my child.

If you really want to troll, why don't you make it a little less obvious. It's more fun that way. I promise.

[Cortath]

Oh, that's total rubbish. Why would the Citrus War have occurred, except for grudges brought over from !@#$%*? There was certainly continuity between NS NPO and early CN NPO. It was after that that the changes began to occur.

So what you're saying is that Francoism doesn't matter? This is coming from the Emperor of NPO? Christ...

My point remains that you resorted to an ad hominem attack against me, by bringing up my prior character in that other place, made all the more hilariously ironic by the fact that you accused me of making an ad hominem attack. I don't particularly care to go back and argue the Citrus War of all things, but if you want, I'd be happy to discuss it in PM, rather than subject the whole CN forum to it.

Francoism matters quite a bit. It matters to me, and it seems to matter to you. If it matters so much, I invite you to come to the New Pacific Order, and engage our alliance in a productive discussion on Francoism, and help make your vision of a Francoist alliance a reality.

Besides which, I'm in NSO because it's full of the original NPO members, who your alliance $%&@ed over. I'm happy here and I have no desire to join NPO. Even if I could be bothered putting the colossal effort into trying to change your culture, it would be impossible without the participation of the rest of your alliance, and frankly I don't have much confidence in you.

I'm in NSO, contributing to its presence on the CNF and enhancing its culture.

But it's a lot more fun, a lot easier and a lot more cowardly to make ill-thought-out criticisms than think about what I'm saying.

(by the way, I'm about to catch a plane, so I might not respond again for a while.)

I have to say, I don't believe the New Pacific Order has committed any grave offenses or actions against the New Sith Order. We all seem to get along pretty well, and I'd like to think your government and mine are on cordial terms.

I pity the man who shirks from a challenge because he admits it is too great. Why live if not to challenge yourself?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Cortath

[Il Impero Romano]

Either way about the VE issue. It is not a negative thing, or something "bad", that they re formed. Again I must say how they shouldnt really get defensive over it, nothing bad with re forming.

I agree, I think many members are just explaining how they see it and then lots of angry people tell them how they should see it, so on and so forth.

However, no ones really getting defensive...we did not make this thread (if you look at the OP and the next few pages, they were literally pulled from the other thread after the issue had been laid to rest there).

[Branimir]

Why don't we agree on the fact that alliance is old as much as it was/is in existence and end it on that.

Its my existence theory.

Analogy.

We have a thing that came to life. It had long hair and enjoyed long walks on the beach. That thing (lets say, like an CN alliance) exists (is in existence) as long as it is there (in CN until it doesn't come forth with its disbanding announcement which means that it doesn't exist any longer).

Now, it can re form. Nothing wrong with that. It can even consider old birth date of the original matrix upon which it re formed as its only and true. But in the category "how old it is" (like in a thread where alliances are listed by how old they are), the time it wasn't there doesn't count. So it has to be listed down a little, which inherently, isn't a bad deal.

Whatyasay? Am I on to something or what!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Branimir

[Farnsworth]

I agree, I think many members are just explaining how they see it and then lots of angry people tell them how they should see it, so on and so forth.

However, no ones really getting defensive...we did not make this thread (if you look at the OP and the next few pages, they were literally pulled from the other thread after the issue had been laid to rest there).

This. It's unfortunate that it was not kept there. It was dead and rightfully so. Think of the time we'll never get back!

[Alekhine]

It seems that instead of "Oldest Alliance" we should consider "Longest Lasting Alliance", and measure the days that an alliance has existed, meaning that VE would have as many days as it did in its first existence plus the number of days in its second existence, and then we wouldn't have to have this argument.

EDIT: I thought about changing the name of "Longest Lasting Alliance" to something else, but then I decided not to.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Alekhine

[hawk11]

You obviously missed the point of the post. Which implies that you're either ignorant or blind.

I've heard this line tossed around so much on the CN boards that I typically ignore all posts after it, but you continuing here:

It was an explanatory post to help clarify both sides of an opinion-based argument. It was not in itself an argument, which means it's not a contribution to either sentiment of this debate. Even at the end, there was an option to help identify a possible resolution to the previously stated arguments. Which is more than you've offered thus far, my child.

is making me drop the gloves. Your post stopped being an informative, non-argumentative post the moment you hit this paragraph.

If all of you kids want to celebrate my alliance's birthday on the date we reformed just for your silly list, then so be it. But I know that many of my alliance mates are under the notion that we never stopped existing and that we were merely invisible for a moment in time. And you can at least respect our beliefs even if you don't agree with it.

I'm sorry to tell you, this is contributing to the argument. And trying to dance around that idea, kid, is just nonsense. I hate to tell you, but announcing the disbandment of your alliance makes it official in the eyes of the community, and if you want to go on with your pie-in-the-sky beliefs that we just turned and looked away from that one, you're nuts.

Now show me how stupid you really think this argument is with your next post.

[Branimir]

But it's a lot more fun, a lot easier and a lot more cowardly to make ill-thought-out criticisms than think about what I'm saying.

Actually, I am sure it is much more fun, easier and a lot more cowardly to hide behind a re roll mask and make ill-thought-out criticisms only being backed and fueled in some harsh feelings of a re roll in hiding.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Branimir