Announcement from \m/

[Durabo]

[quote name='Atanatar' date='06 April 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1270532479' post='2250096']
Indeed, we create excessively long documents so we have plausible deniability should we fark it up
[/quote]

Surely it would be better to draft a shorter charter that dealt more in generalities to allow you more "wiggle room"?

[Atanatar]

I was joking. All government has read and weighed in on this charter. We are confident in it's ability to provide a fair and just rule to our alliance.

[Durabo]

Fair and just rule is for hippies. I expected something cooler and more totalitarian from you guys!

[Merrie Melodies]

The charter is long, possible longer than need be. The reasons behind the charter as it stands are simple, the ambiguity of our original charter created far to many loops that we could wind up hanging ourselves in. Polaris was kind enough to point out one such loop (I would like thank Polaris for not using a much bigger club when pointing this out ) With our present charter the amount of debating that will transpire when another of those spur of the moment events happen should make sure we end up in debate until long after that spur event has passed.

All we are trying to do is to exist in this world with the minimal amount of friction. Heck follow our war screen, we aren't exactly the angsty raiders of past.

Peace out.

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='06 April 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1270592183' post='2250776']
All we are trying to do is to exist in this world with the minimal amount of friction.
[/quote]

For some reason I don't buy this. Perhaps it is because of the high standard of an alliance (19 members) and maybe its also because of the flocking of \m/ nations which feel it necessary to state discontent with an agreement between micro alliances to support the unaligned.

Seems like both those actions are proactive when it comes to causing "friction". Minimal friction in my mind would be a 10 man alliance standard and a no reply in a thread that doesn't even concern you.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='iamwalrus' date='06 April 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1270606548' post='2251066']
Seems like both those actions are proactive when it comes to causing "friction". Minimal friction in my mind would be a 10 man alliance standard and a no reply in a thread that doesn't even concern you.
[/quote]

This thread does concern us, anything about raiding concerns any raiding alliance in the world (or should) and we'll set our own standards. I and the rest of \m/ appreciate your input, we'll have to consider it at a later date when convenient for the Military Staff. We hope you continue to provide good ideas in the future to help us better serve the needs of the unaligned.

Thank you loyal customer,

[i]Emperor Marx[/i], Head of Customer Relations

[Starfox101]

[quote name='iamwalrus' date='07 April 2010 - 03:16 AM' timestamp='1270606548' post='2251066']
For some reason I don't buy this. Perhaps it is because of the high standard of an alliance (19 members) and maybe its also because of the flocking of \m/ nations which feel it necessary to state discontent with an agreement between micro alliances to support the unaligned.

Seems like both those actions are proactive when it comes to causing "friction". Minimal friction in my mind would be a 10 man alliance standard and a no reply in a thread that doesn't even concern you.
[/quote]
Sure it doesn't concern us.

[Caliph]

[quote name='iamwalrus' date='06 April 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1270606548' post='2251066']
For some reason I don't buy this. Perhaps it is because of the high standard of an alliance (19 members) and maybe its also because of the flocking of \m/ nations which feel it necessary to state discontent with an agreement between micro alliances to support the unaligned.

Seems like both those actions are proactive when it comes to causing "friction". Minimal friction in my mind would be a 10 man alliance standard and a no reply in a thread that doesn't even concern you.
[/quote]
Sure, if by "creating friction" you mean "exist", then sure, we are "creating friction".

You'd think that anti tech raiders would support us raising our tech raid limit, but for some reason you appose it?

[Aeternalis]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='06 April 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1270609588' post='2251140']
This thread does concern us, anything about raiding concerns any raiding alliance in the world (or should) and we'll set our own standards. I and the rest of \m/ appreciate your input, we'll have to consider it at a later date when convenient for the Military Staff. We hope you continue to provide good ideas in the future to help us better serve the needs of the unaligned.

Thank you loyal customer,

[i]Emperor Marx[/i], Head of Customer Relations
[/quote]
Wait a minute....

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='06 April 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1270592183' post='2250776']
Heck follow our war screen, we aren't exactly the angsty raiders of past.
[/quote]

We weren't angsty in ancient times, we were peckish. Or was that prickly? No I remember now, we were just plain pric...

Anyways, the 2007 \m/ charter limited the definition of an 'alliance' to those groupings of nations of 5 or larger and that as I recall was reasonably standard in that era. Other alliances well known for raiding have subsequently raised the bar (or lowered it depending on how you look at it).

I would also point out that, had a small alliance or a group of small alliances threatened to attack \m/ back then for raiding us, we would not only laughed them off the OWF, we would have most likely stepped up our raiding and prayed to the holy war gods of Planet Bob that those alliances made good on their threats so that we could have thrashed them to within an inch of their lives.

People complaining about this version of \m/ should keep that in mind...I'd almost go so far as to say it's a kinder, gentler version of the original.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 April 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1270731131' post='2253030']

People complaining about this version of \m/ should keep that in mind...I'd almost go so far as to say it's a kinder, gentler version of the original.
[/quote]


You are wasting your breath. Folks gonna see what folks wanna see. Nuthin' mo nuthin' less. Everyone needs a windmill to tilt at. Its just that \m/ is a rather smecsi windmill in some folks' opinion.

[Jake Liebenow]

Congratulations on the reorganization, \m/. Truly.

o/ \m/

[Chief Savage Man]

Well if we did the stuff old \m/ did, we'd be dead by now. The atmosphere is too different. That's what has been the greatest challenge with this new \m/. Reinventing the concept of \m/ to be able to survive and thrive in this new world.

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='06 April 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1270592183' post='2250776']
The charter is long, possible longer than need be. The reasons behind the charter as it stands are simple, the ambiguity of our original charter created far to many loops that we could wind up hanging ourselves in. Polaris was kind enough to point out one such loop (I would like thank Polaris for not using a much bigger club when pointing this out ) With our present charter the amount of debating that will transpire when another of those spur of the moment events happen should make sure we end up in debate until long after that spur event has passed.

All we are trying to do is to exist in this world with the minimal amount of friction. Heck follow our war screen, we aren't exactly the angsty raiders of past.

Peace out.
[/quote]

Longer charters usually lead to more ambiguity. A charter should tell everyone two things:

1) how you decide who your leader(s) are
2) how you remove them

Add name, a flag and signatures and you're done. Don't even write down when it is ok to declare war, you should know that yourselves. Leave the rest to time.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Mussolandia

[Sephiroth]

Congrats on the charter and giving up your freedoms for the greater good.

I. Preamble:

\m/ is a collection of nations that have come together with mutual views on freedom and democracy while acknowledging limits to these freedoms and understanding that in times of extraordinary crisis we must set aside our freedoms for the common good. We understand that a helping hand is a controlling hand.

Nice preamble.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Methrage

[Rampage3]

Don't sweat the haters \m/.

You just do you...

[Starfox101]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 April 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1270731131' post='2253030']
People complaining about this version of \m/ should keep that in mind...I'd almost go so far as to say it's a kinder, gentler version of the original.
[/quote]
Give it time, I'm working on it.

We aren't kind, or gentle.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='09 April 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1270843972' post='2254568']
Well if we did the stuff old \m/ did, we'd be dead by now. The atmosphere is too different. That's what has been the greatest challenge with this new \m/. Reinventing the concept of \m/ to be able to survive and thrive in this new world.
[/quote]
It's the moralism. How terrible. I'll work on that too.

[quote name='Methrage' date='10 April 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1270880248' post='2255255']
Congrats on the charter and giving up your freedoms for the greater good.

I. Preamble:

\m/ is a collection of nations that have come together with mutual views on freedom and democracy while acknowledging limits to these freedoms and understanding that in times of extraordinary crisis we must set aside our freedoms for the common good. We understand that a helping hand is a controlling hand.

Nice preamble.
[/quote]
It's a preamble bro. Calm down.