Official Announcement from the Grand Global Alliance

[claphamsa]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1268268580' post='2221525']
Perhaps it is, but i am not convinced that this policy is in the best interest of either the GGA or it's allies.
[/quote]
good thing your not in GGA then huh?

[sethb]

[quote name='andre27' date='11 March 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1268268580' post='2221525']
Perhaps it is, but i am not convinced that this policy is in the best interest of either the GGA or it's allies.
[/quote]
I think doing the most possible damage they can would be in their best interest.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1268268580' post='2221525']
Perhaps it is, but i am not convinced that this policy is in the best interest of either the GGA or it's allies.
[/quote]

I appreciate the concern, but none of our allies have expressed any concern to me over our new charter.

[Andre27]

It's a two edged sword and such a policy is only remote viable when you have a clear advantage in the number of nuclear weapons.

Good luck though.

Edited March 11, 2010 by andre27

[New Frontier]

I continue to be amazed at Andre's complete lack of regard for the GGA or its allies, as he continues to speak for them despite neither of them requesting such assistance.

[Kim Jaym Il]

Andre, that's the exact mentality that put GGA into the position that it was in. Fear of change is something that brings the growth and progress of an alliance to a halt.

Nobody you fight nowadays is going to pull any punches when it comes to nukes. Why not use that to your advantage and score the first anarchy?

[Heft]

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that a duumvirate is even worse than a triumvirate, so I find it interesting that you put in place a de facto one whenever the Sovereign isn't available. Kind of makes that bit rather pointless if no one is actually in charge when the Sovereign leaves.

I mean, GREAT CHARTER AWESOME WORK GUYS

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Heft' date='10 March 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1268273674' post='2221638']
Hmm. I'm pretty sure that a duumvirate is even worse than a triumvirate, so I find it interesting that you put in place a de facto one whenever the Sovereign isn't available. Kind of makes that bit rather pointless if no one is actually in charge when the Sovereign leaves.

I mean, GREAT CHARTER AWESOME WORK GUYS
[/quote]
It's actually a working triumvirate should the leader leave. I agree that it's not as good as a single second-in-command, but it works.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Heft' date='10 March 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1268273674' post='2221638']
Hmm. I'm pretty sure that a duumvirate is even worse than a triumvirate, so I find it interesting that you put in place a de facto one whenever the Sovereign isn't available. Kind of makes that bit rather pointless if no one is actually in charge when the Sovereign leaves.

I mean, GREAT CHARTER AWESOME WORK GUYS
[/quote]


[quote name='New Frontier' date='10 March 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1268274071' post='2221643']
It's actually a working triumvirate should the leader leave. I agree that it's not as good as a single second-in-command, but it works.
[/quote]


It doesn't matter. I never leave; I am always here.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Jonathan Brookbank

[Ardus]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1268267029' post='2221483']
Personally, my experience with Jonathan has not proven him to be anything but a manipulative, self-serving individual with more interest in his personal achievements and accolades and less in actually saving the Grand Global Alliance. Was the charter change necessary? Probably. The Triumvirate system showed some serious issues that caused a lot of problems for the alliance. Are there a million better people who should have been considered for the position? Yes, preferably somebody who was actually a member of the alliance rather than someone who spent the last two years trying to undermine it.
[/quote]
I can't help but echo these sentiments; he'll rage and crusade against anybody who gets in the way of his opinions, then throw any friend or ally he's got under the bus to try and save his skin. That's why he's never succeeded in any position of leadership and is why this "new" incarnation of GGA is just as laughable, if not more so, than the last.

I can't even properly hate the GGA anymore. All I can do is scratch my head and go "really?" It's tragic. Anybody who makes me pine for a Bilrow-led GGA shouldn't be trusted to lead an expedition to the restroom, let alone an alliance of any history whatsoever.

[Lord of the Port]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='11 March 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1268271936' post='2221593']
I continue to be amazed at Andre's complete lack of regard for the GGA or its allies, as he continues to speak for them despite neither of them requesting such assistance.
[/quote]
I think Andre27, who spent the last 3 years in the GGA, has more authority to speak on behalf of the GGA then Jonathan Chieftain, an individual who spent the last two years outside of the alliance.

[Byron Orpheus]

I am sure that no one is questioning the dedication of a three-year effort in our alliance. The fact remains, however, that he is not currently in our alliance, and our Sovereign is. One can then conclude that current members have a greater understanding of our mindset as well as the needs of our allies and our relationship to our allies than one on the outside.

However, I would once again like to extend a welcoming hand to those of you who are so concerned with GGA's well-being. It would be beneficial to have such individuals within our alliance, and I am sure that we would be more than happy to approve the applications of all those who so desperately want to aid us in these dark times. No doubt you hesitate joining outright simply becaues you are not sure whether we would be pleased to have you, but I assure you that you would be more than welcome. There is so much you could do within the alliance, and, since your concern seems to be so prevalent, I am sure that you are quite ready to join and help put your ideas into practice.

edit: typo

Edited March 11, 2010 by Byron Orpheus

[eyriq]

Good luck GGA. This restructuring seems to be quite dramatic so I for one look forward to watching how the new GGA carries themselves.

[Rickyman1984]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='11 March 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1268328409' post='2222229']
I am sure that no one is questioning the dedication of a three-year effort in our alliance. The fact remains, however, that he is not currently in our alliance, and our Sovereign is. One can then conclude that current members have a greater understanding of our mindset as well as the needs of our allies and our relationship to our allies than one on the outside.
[/quote]
That's some good logic. A person in the GGA for 3 years in the highest position (at the time) of Government has less of an understanding of things in the GGA then "current members". I'm looking forward to my nations "take your child to work day" where I can inform any employee that calls in sick that they're not needed as the child currently in the office obviously knows more about how to run things then they do. Because they're [i]there[/i] right now ya know?

With that said, good luck GGA, we'll see how you do in the months to come. I sense that most people have moved on from "lolgga" and honestly wish you well.

[Andre27]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='11 March 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1268271936' post='2221593']
I continue to be amazed at Andre's complete lack of regard for the GGA or its allies, as he continues to speak for them despite neither of them requesting such assistance.
[/quote]

Is an announcement such a this, including a new charter, not also meant to ask questions?

Does a departure from an alliance automatically mean you wish to see its demise?

The answer to both questions is no. During my time as triumvir we actually discussed changing our nuclear policy both within the triumvirate and amongst the members.

At that time we decided that the risks did not outweigh the benefits and to this day i stand by that opinion.
Off course the current leadership of the GGA and it's members are free to have a different opinion, but i fear the GGA will pay a terrible price for this change when it finds itself at war in the future.

Edited March 11, 2010 by andre27

[Cormalek]

pamparampam, It seems that getting out of the line, and to help out recent opponents is my new thing now.

[quote name='Rickyman1984' date='11 March 2010 - 07:30 PM' timestamp='1268332528' post='2222297']
That's some good logic. A person in the GGA for 3 years in the highest position (at the time) of Government has less of an understanding of things in the GGA then "current members". I'm looking forward to my nations "take your child to work day" where I can inform any employee that calls in sick that they're not needed as the child currently in the office obviously knows more about how to run things then they do. Because they're [i]there[/i] right now ya know?[/quote]

[quote]I am sure that no one is questioning the dedication of a three-year effort in our alliance. The fact remains, however, that he is not currently in our alliance, and our Sovereign is. One can then conclude that current members have a greater understanding of our mindset as well as the needs of our allies and our relationship to our allies than one on the outside.[/quote]

An alliance, as any entity changes over time, as it's priorities, experience, etc change. With recent coup and charter change, GGA made quite a turnaround. It is not what it was 3 weeks ago. If one disagree with the new direction, and mindset behind it - he might choose to exit said alliance, as he and the ones currently in charge have different ideas of what GGA is/should be.

Byron, sorry for going into your turf, I sometimes have the urge to speak up when no one asks me to. I try to work on this vice, but I hope it could do some good by clearing the air here right now. I blame winter, as it leaves me too much free time.

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='11 March 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1268328409' post='2222229']
I am sure that no one is questioning the dedication of a three-year effort in our alliance. The fact remains, however, that he is not currently in our alliance, and our Sovereign is. One can then conclude that current members have a greater understanding of our mindset as well as the needs of our allies and our relationship to our allies than one on the outside.[/quote]

[quote name='Rickyman1984' date='11 March 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1268332528' post='2222297']
That's some good logic. A person in the GGA for 3 years in the highest position (at the time) of Government has less of an understanding of things in the GGA then "current members". I'm looking forward to my nations "take your child to work day" where I can inform any employee that calls in sick that they're not needed as the child currently in the office obviously knows more about how to run things then they do. Because they're [i]there[/i] right now ya know?[/quote]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='11 March 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1268334938' post='2222336']
An alliance, as any entity changes over time, as it's priorities, experience, etc change. With recent coup and charter change, GGA made quite a turnaround. It is not what it was 3 weeks ago. If one disagree with the new direction, and mindset behind it - he might choose to exit said alliance, as he and the ones currently in charge have different ideas of what GGA is/should be.[/quote]

Agreed; Ricky, Your Analogy isn't really fitting to what Byron is saying. Whereas he might have had a very thorough understanding of GGA, and it's policies at the time, As Cormalek said before me, Alliances Change. With this new turn, GGA is a very different alliance from what it was a month ago and as such requires a different understanding, one that Current Government [i]would[/i] in fact have over those whose information is slightly outdated.

[Rickyman1984]

Yeah, but Andre isn't speaking about things he doesn't have knowledge of. He's speaking of a charter change. I sincerely doubt that anyone in the GGA (outside of JB and maybe a couple others) knows more about the GGA charter in either it's current form or in it's past forms than Andre.

EDIT: Regardless, Andre asked his question, JB answered, and they had their back and forth in a fairly professional and dignified way. I'm just amused by Byron trying to re-recruit the people driven away on one hand and also passive-aggressively disparaging what they know and what they did.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Rickyman1984

[Lord of the Port]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='11 March 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1268328409' post='2222229']
I am sure that no one is questioning the dedication of a three-year effort in our alliance. The fact remains, however, that he is not currently in our alliance, and our Sovereign is. One can then conclude that current members have a greater understanding of our mindset as well as the needs of our allies and our relationship to our allies than one on the outside.
[/quote]
Bollocks. Absolute Bollocks.

If I were to sign into the Grand Global Alliance today, I would not have a greater knowledge of the dealings of the GGA then Andre27, despite me being inside the alliance, and Andre being out. You are only talking to the benefit of an usurper, a mere boy who will use you as a toy until the time comes that you are no longer necessary for him. When that time comes, and heed my words, it will, you will be cast aside as mere rubble, without as much as a second glance.

I pity you for such blind trust.

[Goldie]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1268267374' post='2221488']
While that is true, does a position where the usage of nuclear weapons is limited not benefit the GGA as an alliance better?

The usage of nuclear weapons from the start reduces the chances of settling armed conflicts before they get out of hand to a minimum.
Using nuclear weapons is also a two edged sword, while doing more damage one takes more damage and unlike other alliances with nuclear first strike policies the GGA does not have the large average nation strength to quickly recover from even a short nuclear conflict.

Edit: added JB's response to avoid confusion.
[/quote]

I was unaware that GGA's charter revision also changed the game code to allow for nukes earlier than a day after war is declared.

[Andre27]

I want to ask everyone to stop pressing these arguments onto persona. I hesitated a great deal before asking the question about the change in nuclear policy simply because i realize that i am probably one of the least liked persons by the current GGA administration and i wanted to keep any discussions free of personal attacks.

Good luck to the GGA.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='andre27' date='11 March 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1268342946' post='2222443']
I want to ask everyone to stop pressing these arguments onto persona. I hesitated a great deal before asking the question about the change in nuclear policy simply because i realize that i am probably one of the least liked persons by the current GGA administration and i wanted to keep any discussions free of personal attacks.

Good luck to the GGA.
[/quote]
And yet you continued to press the issue after it was shown to be completely baseless, proving you not only completely foolish (who in this day in age honestly supports a no-first-strike policy?) but showed that you have a fairly obvious chip on your shoulder.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='11 March 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1268345749' post='2222485']
And yet you continued to press the issue after it was shown to be completely baseless, proving you not only completely foolish [b](who in this day in age honestly supports a no-first-strike policy?)[/b] but showed that you have a fairly obvious chip on your shoulder.
[/quote]

Nations with several infrastructure large, tech low and warchest low nations. Fighting without nukes is unendingly advantageous for these alliances. There are several out there.

[Lord of the Port]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='11 March 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1268345749' post='2222485']
And yet you continued to press the issue after it was shown to be completely baseless, proving you not only completely foolish (who in this day in age honestly supports a no-first-strike policy?) but showed that you have a fairly obvious chip on your shoulder.
[/quote]
Of course, the answer to cease the ad hominem attacks are [i]more[/i] ad hominem attacks.

[Emperor Noodla]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='11 March 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1268345749' post='2222485']
And yet you continued to press the issue after it was shown to be completely baseless, proving you not only completely foolish (who in this day in age honestly supports a no-first-strike policy?) but showed that you have a fairly obvious chip on your shoulder.
[/quote]

I find it funny how there are people who are more antagonistic towards our past leadership than some of the current members of the GGA. Hooray! You hate them more than we do and are taking it out in our thread!!!

Anyways, I didn't, and still don't, support a return to monarchy and hierarchical ranking of membership and had preferred a shrinking of government, but it is obvious who prevailed. This is not to say I don't (begrudgingly at times)support the government, but I still think a better system could have been used. Any who, we'll see how things go; hopefully for the best, if not then meh. I guess we'll find ourselves here again in a few months if things go awry.

P.S. Has anyone realized we've fallen below 1 mil NS? O.o o.O O.O =O !!!!!!