crazy canuck Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Matthew PK' date='20 June 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1277094562' post='2344684'] It looks bleak, that doesn't mean that we were unjust. [/quote] There are a great many adjectives one could use to describe your actions. Unjust is far down the list of rather more descriptive and accurate words that might be used. You yourself said that anyone who thought you could defeat your foe was an idiot and yet you talk about unconditional surrender. I will leave it to the good people of CN to draw their own conclusions as to what adjective they might use. Edited June 21, 2010 by crazy canuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy canuck Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='ChairmanHal' date='21 June 2010 - 06:54 AM' timestamp='1277128467' post='2345151'] All the power you receive as a result of your charter is derived from the people that make up your alliance. Without them you have no alliance, no charter, no power. Beyond that, you as someone in charge have as your top priority the protection of membership, for they are encouraged to put everything above themselves. [/quote] Thats a good point. Regardless of what an alliance calls its government structure, at the end of the day all CN alliances are a kind of democracy since their members can vote with their pixel feet and leave the alliance if they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote]That is moronic. I'm not in a democratic alliance, but if I were, I'd make sure that the voting process isn't idiotic. [/quote] Actually I disagree, it means that the members who are more informed, more active and more trusted have more say in who gets to run the alliance. It means that you don't get the 'popularity contest' that simple democracy can lead to. The part I don't understand is why so many people vote for Ramirus (even back before he went completely nuts). [quote]You bargaining terms of your surrender is not the same as refusing to comply with draconian terms. [/quote] Actually, it is exactly the same. 'Those terms are too harsh, we won't accept them, give us some better ones' is bargaining (and really, the only bargaining [i]any[/i] surrendering alliance gets to do – you either take the offered terms or fight on to try to push the opponents into giving you better ones). And yeah, it's sad to see Robl go. Please, to the remaining 23, if you're sick of Ram's shens, there are plenty of welcoming alliances you can apply to – don't just abandon your nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booter Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Matthew PK' date='21 June 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1277133242' post='2345213'] Your post is correct, but misleading by omission. Ram got exactly half the popular vote minus one. In [b]any[/b] weighted voting system he would have won. The Gremlins are not a democracy and have never claimed to be. EDIT: Sorry, dbl post. [/quote] Unless the member that voted abstained then he didn't get exactly half the vote. He got 1 less vote than the half. Abstaining is that you acknowledge the vote but can't decide either way. I'm sure you'll dig into your own dictionary and use your own terms but hey; I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booter Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 22 now. Just lost another 84K NS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 The double posting ends now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 June 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1277137565' post='2345287'] Actually I disagree, it means that the members who are more informed, more active and more trusted have more say in who gets to run the alliance. It means that you don't get the 'popularity contest' that simple democracy can lead to. The part I don't understand is why so many people vote for Ramirus (even back before he went completely nuts). [/quote] Yes you do Ram for his faults was the only person crazy enough to keep the gre tech buy programme running and the tech must flow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Booter' date='21 June 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1277145108' post='2345466'] 22 now. Just lost another 84K NS. [/quote] Are DAWN nations just quitting CN now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Chickenzilla' date='21 June 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1277146298' post='2345497'] Are DAWN nations just quitting CN now? [/quote] You mean Gre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 June 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1277137565' post='2345287'] Actually I disagree, it means that the members who are more informed, more active and more trusted have more say in who gets to run the alliance. It means that you don't get the 'popularity contest' that simple democracy can lead to. [/quote] I do recall many (and I mean [i]many[/i]) Gre members for years stating how difficult it was to scale the ranks, regardless of how informed, active or trusted they were. I heard the joke that the only way to reach Archon status (that was the top rank, correct? I am a little rusty...) was to be elected to one of the top three positions in the alliance. This is where a system that supposedly entrusts those most fit to rule breaks down. Gremlins never addressed this issue and it was a matter of time before one of the old boys established control over the alliance through member shrinkage and a failure to promote bright new members to the highest ranks (and thus the higher voting brackets). Or at least thats what I have been made to understand by current and former Gremlins members in the past. Feel free to correct me since you were obviously there in the thick of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccabal86 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='21 June 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1277146607' post='2345509'] You mean Gre? [/quote] Chickenzilla was making a teh funnay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Geoffron X' date='20 June 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1277012062' post='2343464'] Attacking someone who's clearly already lost a war without citing a treaty. I wasn't aware there were any other definitions? What's the non-NPO definition? [/quote] Yes, IRON had clearly already lost the war about 1.5 hours after they started it. The Harmlins were only the second or third alliance (alliances I guess) to start hitting nations that had declared on CnG. TOP, IRON and co still had a pretty clear advantage when Gre hit (which was before the NpO-\m/ peace IIRC, though it was announced afterword). Standing up for your friends when they need you even if there's no treaty is something I have supported since my alliance did it in GW2. [quote name='shahenshah' date='21 June 2010 - 05:58 AM' timestamp='1277114271' post='2345040'] Was it FCC or something? Cit, then Gre. [/quote] I believe a certain other alliance dealt the deathblow to Cit. I think it had something to do with a member abandoning a second member so they could hit that second member's MDoAP partner without a CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='21 June 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1277151892' post='2345577'] I believe a certain other alliance dealt the deathblow to Cit. I think it had something to do with a member abandoning a second member so they could hit that second member's MDoAP partner without a CB. [/quote] I feel like you're doing a disservice to the various individual egos that helped prepare Citadel for such a suicide; there were a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Eden Taylor' date='21 June 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1277152801' post='2345590'] I feel like you're doing a disservice to the various individual egos that helped prepare Citadel for such a suicide; there were a lot. [/quote] Fair enough. My overall point was more that Gre can hardly be blamed for the fall of Cit more than any other alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='21 June 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1277151892' post='2345577'] Yes, IRON had clearly already lost the war about 1.5 hours after they started it. [/quote] Yes, this is in fact the case. That's why they offered a peace agreement right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='21 June 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1277153034' post='2345601'] Fair enough. My overall point was more that Gre can hardly be blamed for the fall of Cit more than any other alliance. [/quote] My apologies, I thought you were attempting to draw blame away from Gre and point it squarely on a single alliance rather than somewhat more uniformly upon all signatories of the Lux, as was much more so the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote]I heard the joke that the only way to reach Archon status (that was the top rank, correct? I am a little rusty...) was to be elected to one of the top three positions in the alliance.[/quote] It was a good joke, and even had the essential shred of truth in it . I think three consecutive new Archons were indeed promoted because they won an election around the winter of 2008-9, though they were all being discussed for a normal promotion at the time if I remember right. Throughout 2009 people were promoted normally though. Obviously it's easy for me to say (as an Archon the whole time) but it wasn't [i]that[/i] hard to get promoted, considering that Archons had full information access (like government positions in most alliances) and therefore it should be handed out with caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 June 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1277154124' post='2345625'] It was a good joke, and even had the essential shred of truth in it . I think three consecutive new Archons were indeed promoted because they won an election around the winter of 2008-9, though they were all being discussed for a normal promotion at the time if I remember right. Throughout 2009 people were promoted normally though. Obviously it's easy for me to say (as an Archon the whole time) but it wasn't [i]that[/i] hard to get promoted, considering that Archons had full information access (like government positions in most alliances) and therefore it should be handed out with caution. [/quote] Do you think that had a negative impact on the alliance once members started leaving in mass, especially at the higher rank levels? Where their votes had once been diluted simply because Gre had 100+ members, those archons suddenly found themselves with a lot more power to influence and guide elections/decisions, I would assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Many of the people who left were Archons, so I don't really understand your point. The base members' (Zealot) votes counted for [i]more[/i] when people like LM, HellAngel, Celial, Syz etc were leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Schad' date='21 June 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1277100342' post='2344893'] From their charter: The majority didn't vote for him, but he got the majority of the votes under the weighted system. [/quote] [quote name='Geoffron X' date='21 June 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1277102680' post='2344941'] That is moronic. I'm not in a democratic alliance, but if I were, I'd make sure that the voting process isn't idiotic. [/quote] Not really, it just fails because the alliance is too small. Giving more weight to leadership, is a sound decision, the problem arisies when the alliance gets to small for the members to override the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 [quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 June 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1277161630' post='2345769'] Not really, it just fails because the alliance is too small. Giving more weight to leadership, is a sound decision, the problem arisies when the alliance gets to small for the members to override the government. [/quote] But if the alliance is big then giving that extra weight to the leadership becomes pointless! It's really stupid either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Geoffron X' date='22 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277179822' post='2346182'] But if the alliance is big then giving that extra weight to the leadership becomes pointless! It's really stupid either way! [/quote] No it means close votes tend to go the leaderships way, which you'd want assuming you believed that your leaders knew what they were doing. It means that something really popular or really unpopular will go relatively unchanged, but in positions where its close the leadership posses more 'swing' force. Obviously the swing force lessens as the alliance grows, but assuming that government grows with an alliance they should still maintain noticeable forces. Edited June 22, 2010 by TypoNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathcat Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 And then.. there were 22... Unfortunately, Gremlins is losing Quality with Quantity. I really can't think of anything positive to say at this point, so I will leave this thread and forego posting further in it.. That should raise the IQ level a hair.. right? Good luck to IRON. May you bring this war/thread to a close SWIFTLY at this point. oo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 [quote name='ccabal86' date='21 June 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1277151424' post='2345570'] Chickenzilla was making a teh funnay [/quote] I considered the possibility, but rejected that conjecture on the basis of it not being funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 So I have this theory. Gre actually colluded with IRON to keep this war going in order to delay IRON's paying of their reps indefinitely. Gre was actually on IRON's side all along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts