Official Announcement from the Grand Global Alliance

[F15pilotX]

[quote name='President Kent' date='09 March 2010 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1268133211' post='2219150']
I'm always glad to see triumvirates done away with. Good luck on your continued restructuring.
[/quote]This. Now I'm somewhat interested.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

This charter will probably function significantly better than the old one.

While I do think democracy fails in CN, I wish you would have elections for the original sovereign and so on, if for nothing else than to legitimize the coup.

Good luck.

[DerekJones]

Jonathan Brookbank: Emperor of the Grand Global Alliance. Can't say I'm surprised, but it's still kind of low for him to come in under the self-proclaimed aura of "Savior of the Grand Global Alliance" and just work a power play to take over as the supreme ruler. It's too bad nobody is left in the Grand Global Alliance that seems to remember the fact that you tried to gut the Grand Global Alliance to start your own, or how you clashed with the Grand Global Alliance out of your own sheer arrogance at the expense of one of your own alliances, The Dominion. I wonder how many people remember the fact that you were too preoccupied with your e-peen contest in the CelticBrewer incident, causing you to subvert the rest of your government to successfully clash with us. Too bad everyone who remembers is either long gone or without enough fight to do anything about it. I'd say Rest in Peace GGA, but I doubt I have to wait very long to watch you bury it yourself.

If anything, I'll have my popcorn ready to watch Brookbank's Empire.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='WildeKaard' date='09 March 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1268166664' post='2219554']
Anyone who posts here can be interpreted to be a "public face." The point I make is that the political weight of the alliance should not be considered behind a statement unless it is marked as official. This is common parliamentary decorum and I am simply asking for that to be held in respect.
[/quote]
..WildeKaard, how long have we been in the Grand Global Alliance ourselves, as well as observers and occasional participants here, and seen the decorum you speak of given a treatment the likes of which would make used toilet paper feel pangs of remorse and sympathy upon witnessing?

Or, come to think of it, any convention on civil discourse?

As far as the 'new and improved' charter goes ... well, it's there. Don't forget the mistakes of the old, I guess.

[Leftbehind]

[quote name='Niedalry' date='09 March 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1268173049' post='2219710']
I was expecting a disbandment. At least the triumvirate is done away with.
[/quote]

I personally hate the idea of a triumvirate. If only MASH would get rid of it. Congrats GGA on the charter and Government. I can't wait to be assigned to work with you guys.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1268207102' post='2220751']
Jonathan Brookbank: Emperor of the Grand Global Alliance. Can't say I'm surprised, but it's still kind of low for him to come in under the self-proclaimed aura of "Savior of the Grand Global Alliance" and just work a power play to take over as the supreme ruler. It's too bad nobody is left in the Grand Global Alliance that seems to remember the fact that you tried to gut the Grand Global Alliance to start your own, or how you clashed with the Grand Global Alliance out of your own sheer arrogance at the expense of one of your own alliances, The Dominion. I wonder how many people remember the fact that you were too preoccupied with your e-peen contest in the CelticBrewer incident, causing you to subvert the rest of your government to successfully clash with us. Too bad everyone who remembers is either long gone or without enough fight to do anything about it. I'd say Rest in Peace GGA, but I doubt I have to wait very long to watch you bury it yourself.

If anything, I'll have my popcorn ready to watch Brookbank's Empire.
[/quote]

I think the current leadership is far better than the past. I only wish NSO had fangirls like you.

[Seerow]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='09 March 2010 - 02:50 AM' timestamp='1268121338' post='2219092']
Our Sovereign is crowned by divine right. The throne has been vacant, watched over by our government, awaiting one who would be worthy to lead our grand alliance.
[/quote]

And the best you could find was JB?

I'll join the chorus of "lol GGA"

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='10 March 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1268236663' post='2220961']
I think the current leadership is far better than the past. I only wish NSO had fangirls like you.
[/quote]

Yes because past leadership saw a 40 percent decrease in membership within a matter of weeks

Glad to see blind stupidity is still rampant here

[New Frontier]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1268242586' post='2221034']
Yes because past leadership saw a 40 percent decrease in membership within a matter of weeks

Glad to see blind stupidity is still rampant here
[/quote]
I guess he forgot the part where the majority of GGA membership were valuable, intelligent members that you can build an alliance around.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1268242586' post='2221034']
Yes because past leadership saw a 40 percent decrease in membership within a matter of weeks

Glad to see blind stupidity is still rampant here
[/quote]
Past leadership was responsible for some truly remarkable debacles. Saying that the current bunch is [i]better...[/i] well let's just say that you don't need to reach very high to exceed that level.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='New Frontier' date='10 March 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1268244641' post='2221076']
I guess he forgot the part where the majority of GGA membership were valuable, intelligent members that you can build an alliance around.
[/quote]

Most of those people got out when they realized the ship was sinking. All that's left are people who seem to have no problem blindly following an outside individual that took over and declared himself Emperor.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1268260925' post='2221331']
Most of those people got out when they realized the ship was sinking. All that's left are people who seem to have no problem blindly following an outside individual that took over and declared himself Emperor.
[/quote]

Don't worry I am really Emperor and Jonathon is my puppet. Now when it fails, I am the one to blame and Jonathon can weasel out of taking the responsibility. Win/Win for all.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='10 March 2010 - 07:39 AM' timestamp='1268207102' post='2220751']
Jonathan Brookbank: Emperor of the Grand Global Alliance. Can't say I'm surprised, but it's still kind of low for him to come in under the self-proclaimed aura of "Savior of the Grand Global Alliance" and just work a power play to take over as the supreme ruler. It's too bad nobody is left in the Grand Global Alliance that seems to remember the fact that you tried to gut the Grand Global Alliance to start your own, or how you clashed with the Grand Global Alliance out of your own sheer arrogance at the expense of one of your own alliances, The Dominion. I wonder how many people remember the fact that you were too preoccupied with your e-peen contest in the CelticBrewer incident, causing you to subvert the rest of your government to successfully clash with us. Too bad everyone who remembers is either long gone or without enough fight to do anything about it. I'd say Rest in Peace GGA, but I doubt I have to wait very long to watch you bury it yourself.

If anything, I'll have my popcorn ready to watch Brookbank's Empire.
[/quote]

You've always seemed like a smart guy who gave a crap, I really wish you would let sleeping dogs lie and lend a helping hand rather then cause angst.

VE obviously has no official stance on the internal happenings of GGA. Personally though, I don't really see how it could be a power play. What power is there left to play in GGA? (no offense, GGAers). What type of personal gain would be in this for them? Sadly, there is none, so it is impossible for it to be a power play. What I have seen so far from them is not some sort of diabolical scheme or delusional sense of a newly found world power, but rather a genuine interest in growing GGA into something that matters once more. I've seen a disire to further green, to work with others, and to actively cultivate progress within UJA and their alliance itself. We've seen that old bizarre and archaic charter done away with. All in all, we've seen more progress in the last few week from GGA then we've seen in months or more, and if nothing else that's good for green.

Why dwell on the past? If you care enough to comment over and over again, it would make sense to help progress in the future instead.

[TimeMaster]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='10 March 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1268263676' post='2221401']
You've always seemed like a smart guy who gave a crap, I really wish you would let sleeping dogs lie and lend a helping hand rather then cause angst.

VE obviously has no official stance on the internal happenings of GGA. Personally though, I don't really see how it could be a power play. What power is there left to play in GGA? (no offense, GGAers). What type of personal gain would be in this for them? Sadly, there is none, so it is impossible for it to be a power play. What I have seen so far from them is not some sort of diabolical scheme or delusional sense of a newly found world power, but rather a genuine interest in growing GGA into something that matters once more. I've seen a disire to further green, to work with others, and to actively cultivate progress within UJA and their alliance itself. We've seen that old bizarre and archaic charter done away with. All in all, we've seen more progress in the last few week from GGA then we've seen in months or more, and if nothing else that's good for green.

Why dwell on the past? If you care enough to comment over and over again, it would make sense to help progress in the future instead.
[/quote]

It seems that all people are capable of caring about is the past when it comes to GGA. I, for one, am determined to help GGA see better days. I would hope that those who hold a grudge against GGA (or dislike us for some reason) will keep their remarks to themselves. Airing your grievances and posting insults accomplishes nothing, and uses energy that could be used to post constructive comments.

[Andre27]

One man's grievance is another man's concern. Some of the issues brought up, NEED to be brought up if the new GGA leadership really wants to improve upon the old.

I'm not here to discuss that though, but I'm here with a question regarding the new charter: What is the reasoning behind the change in policy towards the usage of nuclear weapons (previously the GGA held a no-first-strike policy).

Edited March 11, 2010 by andre27

[NewPoseidon]

..........don't know what to say. Good luck I guess.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1268266233' post='2221459']
One man's grievance is another man's concern. Some of the issues brought up, NEED to be brought up if the new GGA leadership really wants to improve upon the old.

I'm not here to discuss that though, but I'm here with a question regarding the new charter: What is the reasoning behind the change in policy towards the usage of nuclear weapons (previously the GGA held a no-first-strike policy).
[/quote]

I appreciate the straightforward question, Andre. Given the current state of warfare in CN, we felt it was prudent to make a change to the GGA charter. It was something discussed with the membership and nearly all of them agreed. The old "no first strike" rule came out of the days of the "Think of the Children" nuclear treaty and that mindset, while today's world sees nukes flying as soon as possible in every war.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='10 March 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1268263676' post='2221401']
You've always seemed like a smart guy who gave a crap, I really wish you would let sleeping dogs lie and lend a helping hand rather then cause angst.

VE obviously has no official stance on the internal happenings of GGA. Personally though, I don't really see how it could be a power play. What power is there left to play in GGA? (no offense, GGAers). What type of personal gain would be in this for them? Sadly, there is none, so it is impossible for it to be a power play. What I have seen so far from them is not some sort of diabolical scheme or delusional sense of a newly found world power, but rather a genuine interest in growing GGA into something that matters once more. I've seen a disire to further green, to work with others, and to actively cultivate progress within UJA and their alliance itself. We've seen that old bizarre and archaic charter done away with. All in all, we've seen more progress in the last few week from GGA then we've seen in months or more, and if nothing else that's good for green.

Why dwell on the past? If you care enough to comment over and over again, it would make sense to help progress in the future instead.
[/quote]

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.

[Andre27]

[quote]
I appreciate the straightforward question, Andre. Given the current state of warfare in CN, we felt it was prudent to make a change to the GGA charter. It was something discussed with the membership and nearly all of them agreed. The old "no first strike" rule came out of the days of the "Think of the Children" nuclear treaty and that mindset, while today's world sees nukes flying as soon as possible in every war. [/quote]

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.

Edited March 11, 2010 by andre27

[Iotupa]

[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]

If we limit the usage for our nations, our nations will simply be getting nuked without being able to retaliate. There are so few alliances that don't first strike nuke now, it is pointless to limit your members from preemptively protecting themselves when they're already in a war. It also prevents enemies from declaring on even more nations, because they will be in nuclear anarchy. It's a sound strategic decision and it is something that was supported by the membership, therefore we chose to do so.

[Wad of Lint]

[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'm not sure why you care any longer. You had your chance to make changes and you decided to move on. Now why are you getting your panties in a twist because other individuals wish to give it a go? It's no longer your alliance, if it was, you'd still be in it.

[Andre27]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='11 March 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1268267626' post='2221494']
If we limit the usage for our nations, our nations will simply be getting nuked without being able to retaliate. There are so few alliances that don't first strike nuke now, it is pointless to limit your members from preemptively protecting themselves when they're already in a war. It also prevents enemies from declaring on even more nations, because they will be in nuclear anarchy. It's a sound strategic decision and it is something that was supported by the membership, therefore we chose to do so.
[/quote]

The nations of the GGA were allowed to retaliate when attacked with nuclear weapons. A first strike policy however seems to guarantee that nuclear weapons will be used, while a "no first strike policy" had the option to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1268268033' post='2221507']
The nations of the GGA were allowed to retaliate when attacked with nuclear weapons. A first strike policy however seems to guarantee that nuclear weapons will be used, while a "no first strike policy" had the option to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.
[/quote]

Given the current state of the world, it is entirely unlikely that one alliance's policy will have any effect on another alliance's policy as far as nuclear weapons goes. Also, as I said, not only was it strategic, but it was something the members wanted, so we implemented it in the new charter.

[claphamsa]

[quote name='andre27' date='10 March 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1268268033' post='2221507']
The nations of the GGA were allowed to retaliate when attacked with nuclear weapons. A first strike policy however seems to guarantee that nuclear weapons will be used, while a "no first strike policy" had the option to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.
[/quote]
anyone who thinks a war wont go nuke is stupid! like GGA no WRC stupid

[Andre27]

Perhaps it is, but i am not convinced that this policy is in the best interest of either the GGA or it's allies.