The End

[Pintos5150]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='21 March 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1269225259' post='2232702']
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think GGA's main problem was ever a lack of membership. If we judged alliances by how many memebers they had then some of your most respected alliances would no longer be respected. I think the whole point of the announcement (correct me if I am wrong JB) was to show GGA would be reaching out to those on the green sphere in their long road of repairing their foreign policy. [b]Why a simple announcement gets so many haters is beyond me though.[/b]
[/quote]

Because it was a grab for attention. It would be entirely different were the GGA actually able to [b]do[/b] anything to prevent an alliance from joining the Green sphere; or were they able to take any retaliatory action against nations who commit these vague "aggressive actions", for that matter.

As it stands now, this announcement was basically of the "Hey, look at me!" variety.

[Sognatore]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='22 March 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1269225259' post='2232702']
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think GGA's main problem was ever a lack of membership. If we judged alliances by how many memebers they had then some of your most respected alliances would no longer be respected. I think the whole point of the announcement (correct me if I am wrong JB) was to show GGA would be reaching out to those on the green sphere in their long road of repairing their foreign policy. Why a simple announcement gets so many haters is beyond me though.
[/quote]

If most of your active members have left it does become a problem. You need people to run an alliance I haven't been in GGA for almost a year now but when I was we were reaching out to the green sphere. It wasn't done just now. UJA was created almost two years ago in an attempt to create friends on green not enemies. There's nothing new here.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Pintos5150' date='22 March 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1269225743' post='2232707']
Because it was a grab for attention. It would be entirely different were the GGA actually able to [b]do[/b] anything to prevent an alliance from joining the Green sphere; or were they able to take any retaliatory action against nations who commit these vague "aggressive actions", for that matter.

As it stands now, this announcement was basically of the "Hey, look at me!" variety.
[/quote]

I disagree GGA's biggest problem is appearance. They have to show the world that they are changing. Is this not a first step? I beleive so.

[Pintos5150]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='21 March 2010 - 08:55 PM' timestamp='1269226489' post='2232722']
I disagree GGA's biggest problem is appearance. They have to show the world that they are changing. Is this not a first step? I beleive so.
[/quote]

But you can't exactly change what you don't have any influence over.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Pintos5150' date='22 March 2010 - 03:56 AM' timestamp='1269226586' post='2232725']
But you can't exactly change what you don't have any influence over.
[/quote]

Are you saying they have no influence over GGA? Of course they do they are its government

[Pintos5150]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='21 March 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1269226805' post='2232730']
Are you saying they have no influence over GGA? Of course they do they are its government
[/quote]
I was more meaning that they have no influence over the Green sphere, so any stance they should take on the matter is purely theatrics. If they truly want to change, they should change things that they can actually control. Begin with internal policy, rather than external.

[Sognatore]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='22 March 2010 - 02:55 AM' timestamp='1269226489' post='2232722']
I disagree GGA's biggest problem is appearance. They have to show the world that they are changing. Is this not a first step? I beleive so.
[/quote]

This step was taken already by others a long time ago. At least put credit where it's due.

[Iotupa]

I appreciate Phoenix Rising's attempt to further Green unity by bashing a Non-Aggression Pact with the Green color sphere that was issued by their ally. Your behavior and attitudes are doing much to increase the quality of the Green sphere and relationships between everyone within it.

[Sognatore]

We're only pointing out that you can't take credit for things you didn't do

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Sognatore' date='21 March 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1269227781' post='2232757']
We're only pointing out that you can't take credit for things you didn't do
[/quote]

I just issued a unilateral NAP with Green. Given that prior to me issuing it, there was no unilateral NAP between GGA and all Green alliances, I did do it.

I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

[Sognatore]

[quote]i. The undersigned alliances do agree to refrain from any and all aggressive actions towards one another.[/quote]

That seems to say no one is attacking each other on green. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Also, prior to you throwing away the old charter, GGA had a blanket NAP so, no, you didn't do anything that hadn't been done by previous gov.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Sognatore' date='21 March 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1269228707' post='2232780']
That seems to say no one is attacking each other on green. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Also, prior to you throwing away the old charter, GGA had a blanket NAP so, no, you didn't do anything that hadn't been done by previous gov.
[/quote]

That only applies to signatories, as has been pointed out more than once in this very discussion. When voting upon the new charter, members chose to no longer hold on to the blanket NAP in the charter, so I felt it necessary to issue one for Green.

[Qaianna]

As I mentioned earlier, and which no-one ever answered, under the prior charters we had we had a blanket non-aggression pact with EVERYONE (with the same exception that was put in article three here).

I'll throw this question out to the crowd: had this announcement been made the day after the Alliance's surrender to the Mostly Harmless Alliance, and been made by myself and Andre 27, what would your REAL reactions have been? Or even if the coup had never happenned and we just threw it out now?

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='21 March 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1269228993' post='2232786']
As I mentioned earlier, and which no-one ever answered, under the prior charters we had we had a blanket non-aggression pact with EVERYONE (with the same exception that was put in article three here).

I'll throw this question out to the crowd: had this announcement been made the day after the Alliance's surrender to the Mostly Harmless Alliance, and been made by myself and Andre 27, what would your REAL reactions have been? Or even if the coup had never happenned and we just threw it out now?
[/quote]

I imagine it would be fairly similar, as the same trolls have been trolling GGA for years now. I would have applauded such a move, personally, although under the former charter it would have been unnecessary.

What question was not answered?

[Sognatore]

/me sigh

The intention of UJA was to make a pact for all of green and make a sphere that people felt safe to inhabit. No one on green is going to attack anyone on green. This was a pointless statement.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Sognatore' date='21 March 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1269229314' post='2232797']
/me sigh

The intention of UJA was to make a pact for all of green and make a sphere that people felt safe to inhabit. No one on green is going to attack anyone on green. This was a pointless statement.
[/quote]

Given that that is not what the UJA says, this is in fact not a pointless doctrine. You are, however, welcome to your opinion.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='21 March 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1269229277' post='2232795']
I imagine it would be fairly similar, as the same trolls have been trolling GGA for years now. I would have applauded such a move, personally, although under the former charter it would have been unnecessary.

What question was not answered?
[/quote]
Well, in this case, why would a blanket NAP not suffice, and why would it need to be specifically Green only?

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='21 March 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1269230140' post='2232813']
Well, in this case, why would a blanket NAP not suffice, and why would it need to be specifically Green only?
[/quote]

Because we are only declaring a NAP with the Green sphere, not with everyone.

[Free Quebec]

Maybe the policy is covered in other places, I don't care.
I like to see GGA admit they screwed up, even if many years later.

[Ashoka the Great]

Strange that the loudest voices against the GGA here are the same people who did their very best to destroy it.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='21 March 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1269230314' post='2232816']
Because we are only declaring a NAP with the Green sphere, not with everyone.
[/quote]
Hm. If memory serves, the blanket worldwide non-aggression pacts were written into the charters because of the idea that such a pact is more of the 'normal' status with other alliances--for example, the Grand Global Alliance is in a de facto non-aggression stance with, say, the Sandwich Confederation (they're the first one on the list who I figure GGA wouldn't really be dealing with now). Signing an actual NAP with them would really mean little in the grand scheme of things--many decry 'worthless' treaties, and consider mutual defence pacts and above the only meaningful documents, and that thinking went into the original blanket non-aggression pact. Why, then, the explicit exclusion of other colours?

[Farnsworth]

Good show, GGA. I am glad to see this.

I anticipate additional fair-minded actions, policies, and announcements in the future.

Mutual-respect and goodwill should be welcome on Green.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Farnsworth

[Byron Orpheus]

[quote name='Andre27' date='22 March 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1269219088' post='2232602']
Find a replacement ambassador to Phoenix Rising (i was the last GGA ambassador there) and these tips can be discussed in a more private setting without the hassle of timezones.

Edit: fired a PM your way with a more detailed explanation.
[/quote]
Phoenix Rising knows where to find us, and I believe that the terms of UJA pretty much sum up our relationship.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1269231047' post='2232857']
Hm. If memory serves, the blanket worldwide non-aggression pacts were written into the charters because of the idea that such a pact is more of the 'normal' status with other alliances--for example, the Grand Global Alliance is in a de facto non-aggression stance with, say, the Sandwich Confederation (they're the first one on the list who I figure GGA wouldn't really be dealing with now). Signing an actual NAP with them would really mean little in the grand scheme of things--many decry 'worthless' treaties, and consider mutual defence pacts and above the only meaningful documents, and that thinking went into the original blanket non-aggression pact. Why, then, the explicit exclusion of other colours?
[/quote]

Call me old fashioned, but I don't jump right into bed with someone without getting to know them first.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='21 March 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1269231490' post='2232875']
Call me old fashioned, but I don't jump right into bed with someone without getting to know them first.
[/quote]
Of course, Mr Brookbank. However, the question isn't jumping into bed; rather, of declaring who you won't randomly headbutt while walking down the street.