Official Announcement from the Grand Global Alliance

[Mind Virus]

[quote name='Emperor Noodla' date='11 March 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1268352480' post='2222611']
P.S. Has anyone realized we've fallen below 1 mil NS? O.o o.O O.O =O !!!!!!
[/quote]

I remember announcing that GGA had passed 1 million

[Farnsworth]

I do wish only best for GGA.

Congrats on ending the transitional period with admirable speed.

Also, very glad to see the triumvirate done away with - they're alright, in theory, but so is eugenics.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='andre27' date='11 March 2010 - 04:23 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]

I have no dislike for any former members that choose to not use their position as a former member to attempt to induce chaos within the alliance, as some have chosen to do. You are always welcome, as is everyone else (as I have said many times before) to communicate with me personally, on any of the variety of forms of communication available to you, at any time. I do not turn away private inquiries, even from those who have attacked me with baseless insults.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='11 March 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1268361753' post='2222806']
I have no dislike for any former members that choose to not use their position as a former member to attempt to induce chaos within the alliance, as some have chosen to do.
[/quote]

You call it inducing chaos, I call it having fresh in my mind the memories of when I was privileged enough to have to endure you and your games in a leadership capacity.

The words of myself of Andre or anyone else should not be discounted just because we're not in the alliance now. Various issues have caused us to move on, but it doesn't negate the years of service we've put into this alliance. I think, at heart, once you're a member, you're always a member. To ignore both the time we've put into this alliance along with our criticisms because we're not members now is ludicrous. I carry Andre's opinion as someone who recently left his alliance of almost three years with a much higher level of respect than someone like Jonathan who forced himself in as Emperor after being removed from the alliance two years earlier.

Edited March 12, 2010 by DerekJones

[King MyLife]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='11 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1268367209' post='2222936']
You call it inducing chaos, I call it having fresh in my mind the memories of when I was privileged enough to have to endure you and your games in a leadership capacity.

The words of myself of Andre or anyone else should not be discounted just because we're not in the alliance now. Various issues have caused us to move on, but it doesn't negate the years of service we've put into this alliance. I think, at heart, once you're a member, you're always a member. To ignore both the time we've put into this alliance along with our criticisms because we're not members now is ludicrous. I carry Andre's opinion as someone who recently left his alliance of almost three years with a much higher level of respect than someone like Jonathan who forced himself in as Emperor after being removed from the alliance two years earlier.
[/quote]

Good Point...I Vote for DJ to be GGA Emperor....

[Laserwolf]

Sorry I'm late to the party.

Congrats GGA on making through the difficult transitional period. I look forward to good things from you all.

*cheers*

[Sir Sci]

The Scots Empire is fully in support of the Sovereign Brookbank and the rest of the GGA leadership. I believe that with such people as Byron, Roy_Mustang, and Dementual that the GGA has a better future than what any others would provide.

[MTTezla]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='11 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1268367209' post='2222936']
The words of myself of Andre or anyone else should not be discounted just because we're not in the alliance now.[/quote]

Wait, really? I'm pretty sure that people no longer in an alliance usually wield less influence.

Edited March 12, 2010 by MTTezla

[Emporor]

Couldn't remember if I posted and didn't feel like looking so... yeah.

Good luck
Congrats
o/GGA

[Haflinger]

[quote name='MTTezla' date='12 March 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1268373391' post='2223107']
Wait, really? I'm pretty sure that people no longer in an alliance usually wield less influence.
[/quote]
Considering that the Emperor was quite recently a member of MK, this idea doesn't seem to apply to GGA.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='11 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1268367209' post='2222936']
You call it inducing chaos, I call it having fresh in my mind the memories of when I was privileged enough to have to endure you and your games in a leadership capacity.

The words of myself of Andre or anyone else should not be discounted just because we're not in the alliance now. Various issues have caused us to move on, but it doesn't negate the years of service we've put into this alliance. I think, at heart, once you're a member, you're always a member. To ignore both the time we've put into this alliance along with our criticisms because we're not members now is ludicrous. I carry Andre's opinion as someone who recently left his alliance of almost three years with a much higher level of respect than someone like Jonathan who forced himself in as Emperor after being removed from the alliance two years earlier.
[/quote]

If you were a member at heart, you would be in the alliance pushing change and shaping it into what you hope and wish it could be. Anything else is plain failure or a sad excuse for loyalty.

[RedHand]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='12 March 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1268407993' post='2223377']
If you were a member at heart, you would be in the alliance pushing change and shaping it into what you hope and wish it could be. Anything else is plain failure or a sad excuse for loyalty.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that members should stay and have a vote on the direction the alliance should take? We tried that already, with the vast majority of those who voted voting against change, yet JB and his band of merry men just decided that they knew what was best for the alliance and installed themselves as rulers. The loss of over 40% of the membership shows just how popular an uprising it was.

They can bangle their coup.....

[Rickyman1984]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='12 March 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1268407993' post='2223377']
If you were a member at heart, you would be in the alliance pushing change and shaping it into what you hope and wish it could be. Anything else is plain failure or a sad excuse for loyalty.
[/quote]
I lol'd so hard when I read this. Let's just say that it's somewhat ironic considering what DJ has tried to do in the past for GGA. If anyone has paid his dues, it's him.

[Flonker]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='09 March 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1268165163' post='2219528']
There is a difference between ex-members who are jaded or ex-members who were long ago driven out and people who would gleefully watch us burn for no other reason than to validate their own opinions.
[/quote]

True enough there. We at M*A*S*H saw something at the core of GGA's beliefs and traditions that was worth preserving, thus, our first treaty with them, followed by the current treaty as our relationship developed. We felt that leaving them out in the cold to die wasn't a Good Thing, that change takes time and effort, and they deserved the time to get their house in order.

This charter is an interesting read. It should make for interesting times in our ally.

[center][insert cute seal pic here someplace][/center]

Call this our seal of approval, m'kay?

[Flonker]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 05:24 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]

Given several alliances' statements that they [b]will[/b] first-strike at any given opportunity, a generic ban on first strike nukes doesn't make much sense at all. What this does for them is allow the individuals the choice to first-strike [b]if they deem it necessary.[/b] It gives them a bit more tactical flexibility than to swallow a nuke or 3 before getting authorised to bring up the Strategic Rocket Forces.

[Sir Sci]

[quote name='RedHand' date='12 March 2010 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1268412719' post='2223425']
Are you suggesting that members should stay and have a vote on the direction the alliance should take? We tried that already, with the vast majority of those who voted voting against change, yet JB and his band of merry men just decided that they knew what was best for the alliance and installed themselves as rulers. The loss of over 40% of the membership shows just how popular an uprising it was.

They can bangle their coup.....
[/quote]

No, that does not appear to be what he is suggesting at all. It seems more accurate that what he's saying is that if anybody wants to influence the course that the GGA is going, that they should be in the alliance. You can't help or influence an alliance internally without, well, being in it. Simple logic.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Sir Sci' date='12 March 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1268420442' post='2223498']
No, that does not appear to be what he is suggesting at all. It seems more accurate that what he's saying is that if anybody wants to influence the course that the GGA is going, that they should be in the alliance. You can't help or influence an alliance internally without, well, being in it. Simple logic.
[/quote]

Or you could influence it by illegally taking it over from the outside. That seemed to have more of an effect than legitimate members voting down these very same decisions about their alliance. Obviously not so simple logic.

[Ejayrazz]

What are we on about?

[Sir Sci]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='12 March 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1268423528' post='2223534']
Or you could influence it by illegally taking it over from the outside. That seemed to have more of an effect than legitimate members voting down these very same decisions about their alliance. Obviously not so simple logic.
[/quote]

Actually, it is. Ya wanna know why? Because if new leaders has no support in a coup of sorts, then it doesn't work. If JB, Dementual, and the others didn't have the support of the majority of the members in the GGA, then nothing would have happened. Take for example the coup that Depraved tried to stage in GATO. He took over the forums, banned leadership, and so on. It didn't make a difference because the membership didn't support the new "leadership." So, new forums were created and Depraved failed to take over.

In the case of the GGA coups really aren't out of the question, now are they? P_C was removed via an illegal coup and the international community supported it. Now that the charter has been reverted to something much closer to how it first was, I think this is a more legitimate government than has existed in a long time in the GGA.

So, at the end of the day, if the membership didn't support this as a whole, then the new leadership would have failed.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Sir Sci

[KungFuHamster]

[quote name='Sir Sci' date='12 March 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1268425612' post='2223556']
Actually........failed.
[/quote]

If a 60% membership retention is an effective coup .... well, thats just a shame.

EDIT: Decided to use retention stats instead of loss stats.

Edited March 12, 2010 by KungFuHamster

[Sir Sci]

[quote name='KungFuHamster' date='12 March 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1268428292' post='2223578']
If a 60% membership retention is an effective coup .... well, thats just a shame.

EDIT: Decided to use retention stats instead of loss stats.
[/quote]

Oh good job, address part of what I said but not all of it. I'm so proud.

And obviously it was an effective coup, because they're the GGA and those who aren't with them anymore, well, aren't.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Sir Sci' date='12 March 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1268441738' post='2223797']
Oh good job, address part of what I said but not all of it. I'm so proud.

And obviously it was an effective coup, because they're the GGA and those who aren't with them anymore, well, aren't.
[/quote]

I think the point that he was making is that it was hardly a coup of the people, especially when you lose 40 percent of your members as well as enact measures that, when put to popular vote, did not pass. Don't confuse support for apathy.


This is also discounting the fact that this version of the GGA is hardly what I'd call successful. Rather than fight, members who are active who didn't support the coup left and formed new alliances with the belief that starting fresh would yield more results. So far, all Jonathan and co. have done is take over a mostly lethargic membership base that's lost most of the reputable members it had left from a dwindling membership base. Time will tell if the coup is truly successful, but I'm not holding out much hope.

[Sir Sci]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='12 March 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1268443118' post='2223829']
I think the point that he was making is that it was hardly a coup of the people, especially when you lose 40 percent of your members as well as enact measures that, when put to popular vote, did not pass. Don't confuse support for apathy.


This is also discounting the fact that this version of the GGA is hardly what I'd call successful. Rather than fight, members who are active who didn't support the coup left and formed new alliances with the belief that starting fresh would yield more results. So far, all Jonathan and co. have done is take over a mostly lethargic membership base that's lost most of the reputable members it had left from a dwindling membership base. Time will tell if the coup is truly successful, but I'm not holding out much hope.
[/quote]

And yet, there they are, with the Grand Global Alliance. They exist, they still have 60 members, and the fact is that coups are nothing new for the GGA. The previous charter was established via a coup that, at the time, many members left because of. Did that make the last charter and its governments not the GGA?

For those who would say that the new GGA is the GGA in name only because of the coup, then I will argue that the GGA has been the GGA in name only ever since P_C was overthrown.

[Emperor Noodla]

[quote name='Sir Sci' date='12 March 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1268443760' post='2223842']
For those who would say that the new GGA is the GGA in name only because of the coup, then I will argue that the GGA has been the GGA in name only ever since P_C was overthrown.
[/quote]

Then you are an idiot.....plain and simple. The situation, circumstances and environment surrounding P_C's coup was drastically different from the present.

[Sephiroth]

Congrats on the new gov and charter, hopefully things work out for you guys.