The End

[New Frontier]

I find it ironic that a group widely considered to be among the worst leaders in the history of Cybernations are finding it proper to give the current leadership of GGA a few lessons. I must have missed the first classes though, it seems they've already expanded on their opinions regarding fellatio.

[Rush Sykes]

[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 know the great things that GGA did to help the green sphere were few and far between, and that most things they did, actually hurt the sphere. So it makes perfect sense that you would want to protect the sanctity of one of the few decent things(UJA) that you were involved in. Hurray for you. It does, though, seem pretty petty to me that you would so vehemently fight for this point of the great deed that the old GGA government did, while the current gov tried to shed itself of all the facepalms that you created. My suggestion to you is to let it go. You should really just trust me on this.

Also, to GGA, good luck with this, and your future.


Also..to whomever it was that said they discussed an apology for past wrongs, but decided to wait until they were in a better position for the apology.... I say this.... If you felt you NEEDED to apologize, then there is no justifiable reason for delaying the apology. An apology is meant to be between the wrongdoer, and the wronged, and station of the wrongdoer is irrelevant. A conscious attempt to "delay" an apology, was merely a ploy to try to position the apology itself to be a PR stunt. It is quite frankly disgusting that you would think delaying an apology is a GOOD choice.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='22 March 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1269230994' post='2232855']
Strange that the loudest voices against the GGA here are the same people who did their very best to destroy it.
[/quote]

Maybe the shortest reply in the whole thread, yet it said more than every post in every prior page combined.

[Rickyman1984]

I enjoy how Andre and Qaianna are now viewed as the people who got GGA into the mess it was (is?) in, instead of long-term general membership put into Gov after everything had bottomed out. They had a pretty thankless job, and honestly for anyone acting like they had ANY part in creating the state of fail that was the GGA, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

As for this doctrine, meh, it's unneeded but I suppose getting some positive PR might be as good a move as anything.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='AvengingAngel256' date='22 March 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1269290901' post='2233436']
I think you might want to re-read the third clause. It's not "unless we have a reason to attack you", it's "Unless you attack us".
So GGA will not engage any alliance on green unless that alliance should attack GGA (or one of it's allies) first.
[/quote]
It does not say "if you attack us". It says "aggressive actions". For instance, badmouthing GGA is aggressive. It's meaningless.

Of course, who would [i]ever[/i] badmouth GGA?

[Byron Orpheus]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='23 March 2010 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1269309365' post='2233760']
It does not say "if you attack us". It says "aggressive actions". For instance, badmouthing GGA is aggressive. It's meaningless.

Of course, who would [i]ever[/i] badmouth GGA?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, you have it wrong, and the person you quoted has it right.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='22 March 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1269312262' post='2233835']
Unfortunately, you have it wrong, and the person you quoted has it right.
[/quote]

History has shown that it is the prerogative of the leaders of an alliance when it comes to defining an aggressive action. This could be spying, aiding, an actual war, or anything else, whatever the leaders want to spin it as. Saying you won't is great and all, but the language you've chosen makes this clause fairly flexible, as Geoffron pointed out.

[King Hendrix]

[quote]Article Two is voided by an alliance if it commits aggressive actions towards the Grand Global Alliance or an ally of the Grand Global Alliance.[/quote]
Translation:
"We wont attack ANY green alliances... Well, unless you're at war with somebody we like. We wont attack any green alliances unless we get caught up in a cluster $#%@ of treaty webs. Ok, so we probably will"
Replace Green with any color and this is what most alliances do. Although some do try to not attack others in their own spheres. GGA however, hasn't shown me yet that it will do this though, but human nature does.

Here should be the revision:
Article Two is voided [s]by an alliance if it commits aggressive actions towards the Grand Global Alliance or an ally of the Grand Global Alliance[/s]

[b][u]Note:[/u][/b]
I do not speak for Polaris. I speak as an individual.

Edited March 23, 2010 by King Hendrix

[Byron Orpheus]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='23 March 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1269313137' post='2233852']
Saying you won't is great and all, but the language you've chosen makes this clause fairly flexible, as Geoffron pointed out.
[/quote]
And yet more straightforward than 90 percent of anything else that gets announced aroudn here.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='King Hendrix' date='22 March 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1269313455' post='2233859']
Translation:
"We wont attack ANY green alliances... Well, unless you're at war with somebody we like. We wont attack any green alliances unless we get caught up in a cluster $#%@ of treaty webs. Ok, so we probably will"
Replace Green with any color and this is what most alliances do. Although some do try to not attack others in their own spheres. GGA however, hasn't shown me yet that it will do this though, but human nature does.

Here should be the revision:
Article Two is voided [s]by an alliance if it commits aggressive actions towards the Grand Global Alliance or an ally of the Grand Global Alliance[/s]

[b][u]Note:[/u][/b]
I do not speak for Polaris. I speak as an individual.
[/quote]

It's not a matter of being at war with someone we like, it would be in the situation that it was a direct ally. In that situation, attacking that ally would be the same as attacking the GGA.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='22 March 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1269316647' post='2233918']
And yet more straightforward than 90 percent of anything else that gets announced aroudn here.
[/quote]

Such is the world around us. Nobody wants their hands tied because of unforeseen circumstances, hence the flexibility aspect. But, back to your original post, Geoffron is very far from wrong.

Edited March 23, 2010 by DerekJones

[Byron Orpheus]

[quote name='DerekJones' date='23 March 2010 - 05:50 AM' timestamp='1269319823' post='2233971']
Such is the world around us. Nobody wants their hands tied because of unforeseen circumstances, hence the flexibility aspect. But, back to your original post, Geoffron is very far from wrong.
[/quote]
And here I thought GGA's interpretation of the text was all that was important, considering it is the GGA's doctrine.

[DerekJones]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='23 March 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1269350108' post='2234157']
And here I thought GGA's interpretation of the text was all that was important, considering it is the GGA's doctrine.
[/quote]

The interpretation is yours to make. It's great if you have no intention to attack a green team nation unless they attack first, but the wording leaves in quite a loophole if you change your mind. Those are the usual tricks of Cybernations though, so this really isn't anything worth being concerned about. I'm just stating that you were wrong in telling Geoffron that his exact quoting of the language of your own doctrine was wrong

[President S O]

I honestly don't see why this is still going on. Who gives a flying #$%^.

Move on.

Best of luck in getting on from this, GGA.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='23 March 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1269350108' post='2234157']
And here I thought GGA's interpretation of the text was all that was important, considering it is the GGA's doctrine.
[/quote]
I guess we'll see then. It just seemed silly to me for people to be lauding you (The GGA) for an action which has a very unknown effect.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='King Hendrix' date='22 March 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1269313455' post='2233859']
Translation:
"We wont attack ANY green alliances... Well, unless you're at war with somebody we like. We wont attack any green alliances unless we get caught up in a cluster $#%@ of treaty webs. Ok, so we probably will"
Replace Green with any color and this is what most alliances do. Although some do try to not attack others in their own spheres. GGA however, hasn't shown me yet that it will do this though, but human nature does.

Here should be the revision:
Article Two is voided [s]by an alliance if it commits aggressive actions towards the Grand Global Alliance or an ally of the Grand Global Alliance[/s]

[b][u]Note:[/u][/b]
I do not speak for Polaris. I speak as an individual.
[/quote]
Hendrix now I understand thank you. Did I mention I love you?

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

While this isn't a bad policy, I certainly hope GGA can work on fixing it's other problems - mainly the fact that it's experienced negative exponential growth in the past 30 days.