Krunk the Great Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1281628196' post='2412754'] Last I checked, Lintwad and not Chron was Emperor of the New Sith Order. He doesn't even hold a government position. [/quote] Kevin, don't you know that the latest craze is that the Emperor's underlings hold the keys? I thought the issue with RoK and the empe-- oh wait one of the emperor's [b]subordinates[/b] (My apologies)-- would have taught you this by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1281633334' post='2412862'] Kevin, don't you know that the latest craze is that the Emperor's underlings hold the keys? I thought the issue with RoK and the empe-- oh wait one of the emperor's [b]subordinates[/b] (My apologies)-- would have taught you this by now. [/quote] Given how that sort of thing has worked out for you in the past you shouldn't let your minor lackeys have contact with foreign alliances because they always screw up and your emperor has to backpedal to try and save your skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1281628196' post='2412754'] Last I checked, Lintwad and not Chron was Emperor of the New Sith Order. He doesn't even hold a government position. [/quote] I don't think it really makes a difference now. Plenty of people who do hold a gov spot feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281634064' post='2412874'] I don't think it really makes a difference now. Plenty of people who do hold a gov spot feel the same way. [/quote] Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it was [i]you guys[/i] that canceled this treaty. Not us. We just have the opinion that the circumstances that led to said cancellation were pretty dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1281633334' post='2412862'] Kevin, don't you know that the latest craze is that the Emperor's underlings hold the keys? I thought the issue with RoK and the empe-- oh wait one of the emperor's [b]subordinates[/b] (My apologies)-- would have taught you this by now. [/quote] Sith Lords speak for the alliance. They always have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1281635212' post='2412896'] Sith Lords speak for the alliance. They always have. [/quote] My point was that Lintwad or Heggo could override the word of a Sith Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1281633831' post='2412870'] Given how that sort of thing has worked out for you in the past you shouldn't let your minor lackeys have contact with foreign alliances because they always screw up and your emperor has to backpedal to try and save your skins. [/quote] I once made my alliance leadership backpedal....it wasn't fun, they yelled at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1281636155' post='2412916'] My point was that Lintwad or Heggo could override the word of a Sith Lord. [/quote] I'm not sure how that applies in this situation. They [b]could[/b], but they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281634899' post='2412889'] Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it was [i]you guys[/i] that canceled this treaty. Not us. We just have the opinion that the circumstances that led to said cancellation were pretty dumb. [/quote] That doesn't nullify that there were people in GATO who were fighting for you and hoped things wouldn't get so bad that we couldn't be pals again someday. Instead of working with those people to perhaps save a future you guys decided to !@#$ all over them thereby ruining any chance of that. Bravo. You guys are real winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 From what I can see NSO is more upset because the wound is still fresh, so fresh in fact its still bleeding. Magic I would give NSO as a whole a bit more of a chance, even as a complete outsider it looks like they want to keep things friendly. Even if GATO-NSO relations are lost forever, dont give up on the friends you made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281600751' post='2412513'] [14:54] <magicninja> If congress does take back the vote would you guys even be interested in keeping the treaty? [14:54] <magicninja> If not then there's no use and we'll be better off eating the PR !@#$sandwich omni served up [14:55] <LintWad> I have no plan to cancel it. [14:55] <LintWad> I would have it canceled it 5 months ago if I didn't value the friendship. I wouldn't even have tried if I didn't think it was something you wanted. So, I guess ask Lint why you guys would want to keep it. And I very nearly did do something. If that damn law wasn't in place the treaty would still be in place. My efforts were wasted on a crap piece of law that I had forgotten about. [/quote] Yeah, of course we wanted to keep the treaty, because we felt that there was still a friendship there. But considering the fact that the lot of you have done nothing but emphasize that those who actually supported our bond were in the overwhelming minority, then frankly speaking, why should we want a treaty? Especially after this? As I said before, magic, the problem with GATO is bigger than you. You may have been able to save the treaty aside from the technicality that rendered your efforts useless, but that wouldn't have erased what GATO did. It would have been a great show of trust, but those abstains more or less indicated to us that despite whatever shows of good faith you put forth for us, GATO as an entity really didn't consider us allies. Edited August 12, 2010 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1281636338' post='2412921'] I'm not sure how that applies in this situation. They [b]could[/b], but they didn't. [/quote] RoK never asked before declaring war (It would have made Hoo wait what....a day at most?). The war started this entire thing with GATO as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Kubla Khan' timestamp='1281603404' post='2412539'] I would add that I am in fact a Deputy AC of GATO, and I would personally like to apologize to you, Chron, as well as all of the NSO membership. No one wanted this outcome, even the members of GATO who didn't want the treaty. You are a good alliance full of good people and this was handled and timed in the worst way possible, there is no excuse for that. I apologize for the insult and with you nothing but the best of luck and a hope that sometime down the future the scar will heal. o/ NSO Be well [/quote] I think we'll wait to let that "heal" for when we feel as if the scales are evened out. Once again, it's pretty clear that the ones who initiated this announcement are pretty satisfied with the results. And so long as those guys are the ones that are the decision makers in your alliance, I for one could care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukapaka Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 What a strange cancellation I guess it's not cool to be friends with Sith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281637485' post='2412952'] Yeah, of course we wanted to keep the treaty, because we felt that there was still a friendship there. But considering the fact that the lot of you have done nothing but emphasize that those who actually supported our bond were in the overwhelming minority, then frankly speaking, why should we want a treaty? Especially after this? As I said before, magic, the problem with GATO is bigger than you. You may have been able to save the treaty aside from the technicality that rendered your efforts useless, but that wouldn't have erased what GATO did. It would have been a great show of trust, but those abstains more or less indicated to us that despite whatever shows of good faith you put forth for us, GATO as an entity really didn't consider us allies. [/quote] Make up your mind. Those abstains were changed from outright votes to cancel. Had the treaty actually be reinstated you would have been thanking them but since it failed you think you can use them as fodder. Again just abusing those that were helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281638861' post='2412987'] Make up your mind. Those abstains were changed from outright votes to cancel. Had the treaty actually be reinstated you would have been thanking them but since it failed you think you can use them as fodder. Again just abusing those that were helping. [/quote] I don't think the fact that they didn't care enough about our treaty to vote on it shows that they want to be friends. Just saying. Had the treaty been reinstated with a 3-2-2, we'd still be like WTF? The fact that so many of your Congress members either dislike us, or don't care about us shows how much they valued this treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281638861' post='2412987'] Make up your mind. Those abstains were changed from outright votes to cancel. Had the treaty actually be reinstated you would have been thanking them but since it failed you think you can use them as fodder. Again just abusing those that were helping. [/quote] That doesn't make sense. You outright stated that the abstains were used as a means for those who went that route to appease the individuals that were in favor of the cancellation. [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281599358' post='2412504'] Those switches to abstain are essentially switches to no in GATO. My guess is they didn't go full no for in house political reasons. [b]They wanted to keep the vote of those who wanted the treaty canceled come next election cycle. Petty maybe but them changing from yes is still pretty symbolic in that they had less faith in the cancellation after I spoke and it would have helped the treaty stay in place had that law not been in effect.[/b] I won't reveal who switched their votes to what but if they want they can let you know. [/quote] And if they didn't do it for that, then realistically, the only other possible reason is that they didn't care. I'm not using anyone as fodder, we're the ones that got hit out of nowhere with this ridiculous cancellation that they voted for and then didn't want to be on the record as retracting later. You don't want us to blame the people that took the steps of canceling on us, and then upheld that cancellation when it became clear they were lied to about us in the first place? How are we supposed to take you seriously if you're asking us to believe something so ridiculous? They were the ones that backstabbed us. Not you, not the general membership of GATO, [i]them[/i]. You refusing to acknowledge that any blame lies with them is a large part of the reason things went the way they did last night in #nso. That's either naive or ridiculously arrogant of you. Edited August 12, 2010 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 Can I ask, who in GATO enforced the 7 votes rule and forced the cancellation to go through even when opinions clearly were changed? Was there internal pressure to enforce this rule? Could there not have been a vote to postpone or cancel the action of the previous vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281639499' post='2413003'] Can I ask, who in GATO enforced the 7 votes rule and forced the cancellation to go through even when opinions clearly were changed? Was there internal pressure to enforce this rule? Could there not have been a vote to postpone or cancel the action of the previous vote? [/quote] Would it have worked if someone had challenged that rule? Edited August 12, 2010 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281639499' post='2413003'] Can I ask, who in GATO enforced the 7 votes rule and forced the cancellation to go through even when opinions clearly were changed? Was there internal pressure to enforce this rule? Could there not have been a vote to postpone or cancel the action of the previous vote? [/quote] There are 7 Congress representatives who vote on all laws, treaties - approval/cancellation, DoW's, etc. Our [url=http://gatoforums.net/index.php?showtopic=92]charter[/url] specifies the number of Congressmen, etc. The issue that came into place is that under current Congressional voting policies and procedures as voted in as law a year or 2 ago, any Congressman can change their votes only once after their initial vote under 2 conditions: 1. It is done within the 24 hour time limit to vote. 2. It is before all 7 votes are cast. All 7 Congressmen voted which meant any votes changes were considered null. =========== On a personal note: this entire situation saddens me as I have made friends in NSO. Hopefully one day we will be able to be on friendly terms again - at least that's how I feel. EDIT: added clarity to the voting policy. Edited August 12, 2010 by Laserwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281639374' post='2413001'] That doesn't make sense. You outright stated that the abstains were used as a means for those who went that route to appease the individuals that were in favor of the cancellation. And if they didn't do it for that, then realistically, the only other possible reason is that they didn't care. I'm not using anyone as fodder, we're the ones that got hit out of nowhere with this ridiculous cancellation that they voted for and then didn't want to be on the record as retracting later. You don't want us to blame the people that took the steps of canceling on us, and then upheld that cancellation when it became clear they were lied to about us in the first place? How are we supposed to take you seriously if you're asking us to believe something so ridiculous? They were the ones that backstabbed us. Not you, not the general membership of GATO, [i]them[/i]. You refusing to acknowledge that any blame lies with them is a large part of the reason things went the way they did last night in #nso. That's either naive or ridiculously arrogant of you. [/quote] They didn't uphold the cancellation. They got screwed on the technicality too. Like I said if that little piece of law wasn't there the cancellation would have been overturned. You seem to be ignoring that congress tried to take it back and would have if not for that crap law. What don't you get about that? You seem indignant that they upheld it but they didn't uphold it. The votes were there to reverse it the law just got in the way. You think those 5 congressmen who changed their vote aren't a little displeased that the law screwed their attempt to make it right? What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281639499' post='2413003'] Can I ask, who in GATO enforced the 7 votes rule and forced the cancellation to go through even when opinions clearly were changed? Was there internal pressure to enforce this rule? Could there not have been a vote to postpone or cancel the action of the previous vote? [/quote] We have more e-lawyers in GATO per capita than any other alliance. It has always been that way. A product of the democracy I guess. We were set to go with the treaty being reversed when one of those law jockeys pointed out that all 7 congressmen had voted so they were not able to change their vote legally. Those of us who worked to have it reversed and the 5 congress men who switched had to take it because it was in fact the law. GATO is a rule abiding, charter hugging alliance if I ever seen one. The only thing that could have been done was another vote to reinstate the canceled treaty but before I could ask if NSO wanted me to go through all that I got bombarded with hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='Laserwolf' timestamp='1281640311' post='2413015'] On a personal note: this entire situation saddens me as I have made friends in NSO. Hopefully one day we will be able to be on friendly terms again - at least that's how I feel. [/quote] I agree with this. As I have said, I will continue to go to our private channel until I am the only one left there. This hasn't changed since yesterday, despite the fact at how annoyed we are with this unfortunate situation with your Congress. I apologize for any slight any of your members took personally, as they were not meant for them as individuals. We were/are openly frustrated with this course of action. When that happens, we get very vocal about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281640373' post='2413017'] They didn't uphold the cancellation. They got screwed on the technicality too. Like I said if that little piece of law wasn't there the cancellation would have been overturned. You seem to be ignoring that congress tried to take it back and would have if not for that crap law. What don't you get about that? You seem indignant that they upheld it but they didn't uphold it. The votes were there to reverse it the law just got in the way. You think those 5 congressmen who changed their vote aren't a little displeased that the law screwed their attempt to make it right? What a joke. [/quote] I'd honestly be more inclined to believe in the sincerity of their change of heart if they didn't try to reverse the decision via technicality themselves. I mean, if a plurality of the changes had been to "no" rather than abstain, then Id be willing to believe that. Or if they all switched to abstain as a protest. But we have a situation where only two of them switched to "no", and the others switched simply to abstain, which could mean anything. And ultimately did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281640906' post='2413034'] I agree with this. As I have said, I will continue to go to our private channel until I am the only one left there. This hasn't changed since yesterday, despite the fact at how annoyed we are with this unfortunate situation with your Congress. I apologize for any slight any of your members took personally, as they were not meant for them as individuals. We were/are openly frustrated with this course of action. When that happens, we get very vocal about it. [/quote] Well I'll be there as well. I completely get your frustration and understand the vocalness* - understanding some have been more so than others. *btw yes i just made up a word. Edited August 12, 2010 by Laserwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts