Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='goldielax25' date='21 March 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1269169924' post='2232064'] Read the announcement again. He is correct, you are not. [/quote] [quote]As of this moment, the Grand Global Alliance officially issues a notice of cancellation of all treaties except those with MASH, the Brigade, and the United Jungle Accords and we will fully honor the cancellation clauses of each of these individual documents if necessary.[/quote] Indeed he is. I stand corrected. Good luck GGA although i am puzzled why this announcement is needed. It does not change the GGA policy anything since this policy was adopted long before the current GGA administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryne Farrior Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) No offense here, but is this really necessary considering the current state of your alliance? Save the grandstanding and get to work. edit: Maybe I should read the replies before commenting. :\ Edited March 21, 2010 by Bryne Farrior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadrian Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Not what I expected but the Greenery looks nice. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Were it any other alliance, people would trip over themselves to hail its contribution to peace and stability on Green. Objectively, it's a good policy. Well done, GGA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='21 March 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1269176184' post='2232087'] Were it any other alliance, people would trip over themselves to hail its contribution to peace and stability on Green. Objectively, it's a good policy. Well done, GGA. [/quote] It is without a doubt a good policy for green, but one which has been around for quite some time so announcing it makes little sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Andre27' date='21 March 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1269177217' post='2232091'] It is without a doubt a good policy for green, but one which has been around for quite some time so announcing it makes little sense [/quote] If when in charge, you guys were more about making and touting sensible policy instead of making yourselves constantly look like fools by putting your proverbial feet in your mouth, announcements like this wouldn't be needed by GGA at this time. Sadly, the old GGA relished being incompetent and the laughing stock of Bob so now there is a long road for the current leaders to travel to make GGA respectable again. Edited March 21, 2010 by AirMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadeybob Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Congrats to my friends at GGA! Glad to see this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Three years two late, and indeed rather pointless at this time (no-one seriously believes GGA could pull a move like that again, and besides you're already UJA signatories which declares pretty much the same thing), but welcome nevertheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Name Is Romance Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Hmm, i always thought it was just good form to be nice to your neighbors. But to publicly announce your stance on it i don't understand. Sure maybe you've had a rough patch, but you're also apart of the UJA already. But to announce something most alliances do already, again i don't see the point to this announcement. It's a good policy though so i guess congrats for letting everyone know what that you do what most of us do already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Andre27' date='21 March 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1269173193' post='2232073'] It does not change the GGA policy anything since this policy was adopted long before the current GGA administration. [/quote] Probably because we threw out all the policies of the "old administrations" (and rightly so) and are reconstructing a respectable GGA in our own image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgazza1992 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 nice to see! [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif[/img] o/ GGA o/ JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 So much haters. If you find the doctrine pointless why even bother to reply? I think it's a great first step towards green unity. Obviously there's more work ahead to get some unity on green but this is a good start imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero! Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 It's never too late to admit you're wrong. Never thought I'd say this but: o/ GGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='21 March 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1269186350' post='2232167'] So much haters. If you find the doctrine pointless why even bother to reply? I think it's a great first step towards green unity. Obviously there's more work ahead to get some unity on green but this is a good start imo. [/quote] Actually I'd say Green Unity is pretty damn strong right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Like most other people, I expected something completely different, but what I did find was pretty cool. Congrats and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 March 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1269180246' post='2232115'] Three years two late, and indeed rather pointless at this time (no-one seriously believes GGA could pull a move like that again, and besides you're already UJA signatories which declares pretty much the same thing), but welcome nevertheless. [/quote] [quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='21 March 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1269184323' post='2232142'] Probably because we threw out all the policies of the "old administrations" (and rightly so) and are reconstructing a respectable GGA in our own image. [/quote] I believe Bob Janova hits the nail on the head. The new GGA administration did not cancel UJA and therefor did never "cancel" this old policy. Even though i truly hope the GGA will grow you folks will have to do better than such an obvious PR stunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Andre27' date='21 March 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1269188863' post='2232187'] The new GGA administration did not cancel UJA and therefor did never "cancel" this old policy. [/quote] As our Sovereign said, this policy does not merely refer to UJA signatories and as such is not redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Your sovereign needs to read up on the UJA then: [quote] First Accord - Commitments to the Green Team * i. The undersigned alliances do agree to refrain from any and all aggressive actions towards one another. This includes the use of spies, both in game and out, against each other, as well as unwarranted sanctions from Senators. If any member state of an undersigned alliance is found in direct violation of this article, the quarrel between all affected parties is expected to be resolved by diplomatic means. [b] * ii. The undersigned alliances do agree to refrain from hindering any nation's or alliance's movement to and from the Green Team.[/b] * iii. The undersigned alliances do agree to refrain from forcing any Green nation not under their own jurisdiction to cancel foreign aid or trade agreements. [/quote] from: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/UJA These "new" Emerald Doctrine does not state anything not already stated in the UJA. Once again i wish the best for the GGA, but stop trying to invent the wheel or try to take credit for treaties predating the current administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I rather like the fact that they got people's "hopes up" only to dash them with a classy (albeit symbolic only) document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Andre27' date='21 March 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1269190481' post='2232204'] Your sovereign needs to read up on the UJA then: from: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/UJA These "new" Emerald Doctrine does not state anything not already stated in the UJA. Once again i wish the best for the GGA, but stop trying to invent the wheel or try to take credit for treaties predating the current administration. [/quote] I would hope that you understand that there is a difference between hindering an alliance's move to green and never attacking an alliance on green. Under the UJA, the GGA would have been able to attack any non-UJA signatory on green without necessarily attempting to drive them off of the color itself. This is probably the sort of loophole that would have been exploited in the past by GGA, and it was obviously necessary to close it so that GGA would never have the opportunity to return to the state it was in before the new regime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Well it is a good thing to try to rectify or apologize for past mistakes, but unless you do this from a position where you have a stable growing alliance such attempts will merely be seen as cheap PR stunts. E.g. the old GGA administration did discuss a formal apology to GR and allies for the No-CB war, but it was decided to hold that apology until it could be made from a credible position. This situation is no different, although intentions may be good the current state of the GGA makes the statement look insincere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 SO, you basically just said that you won't just declare a war on a green alliance unless you have a CB? Well, I guess that IS a step in the "right" direction but I didn't realize that you need to make it a policy for it to actually have some impact on your thought process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natan Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Article 3 makes this useless. Also obligatory lolgga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 [quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='21 March 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1269191113' post='2232214'] I would hope that you understand that there is a difference between hindering an alliance's move to green and never attacking an alliance on green. Under the UJA, the GGA would have been able to attack any non-UJA signatory on green without necessarily attempting to drive them off of the color itself. This is probably the sort of loophole that would have been exploited in the past by GGA, and it was obviously necessary to close it so that GGA would never have the opportunity to return to the state it was in before the new regime. [/quote] I was under the impression that the new GGA charter also included a standing non aggression towards other alliances with the exception of the defense of itself or allies. Since i was mistaken on that account the non aggression towards green nations is a step in the right direction, but perhaps your benevolent sovereign should add such a non aggression policy towards all alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Why are y'all whining over a NAP with Green? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.