\m/ Announcement

[Shakira]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1282180833' post='2422343']
No I don't. And I haven't changed my opinion of \m/-Bellair-InternetSuperhoes-RAD. Go back and read posts I've made about the garbage that was put together to make \m/ and you'll see I've been very consistent.
[/quote]
[color="#FFFF00"][font="Comic Sans MS"]I'm not going to lie but RAD was awesome.. But when they merged with IS, ugh...[/font][/color]

[Corinan]

[quote name='LadyDakota' timestamp='1282176897' post='2422264']
They have to find a way of not feeling like the only failures on CN. What else is there to do in their case?
[/quote]

This is hilarious coming from you considering the fact that you're literally the worst member we ever had.

"TECH DEALING IS DEGRADING!"

[LadyDakota]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1282185427' post='2422496']
This is hilarious coming from you considering the fact that you're literally the worst member we ever had.

"TECH DEALING IS DEGRADING!"
[/quote]

That was 2 years ago! When I still had "issues". Now I'm singing a different tune. As for worst member, I HIGHLY doubt that.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' timestamp='1282168035' post='2422036']
[url="http://thecastlehall.com/boards/index.php?board=674.0"]http://thecastlehall...php?board=674.0[/url]
It's based on anyone signed up on MK's forums vote.
[/quote]

An unslanted and objective survey group, I'm sure.

[Alex the Great1]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1282179828' post='2422323']
:[

I like drama, but not when it involves friends of mine. I hope you guys get this all sorted out.
[/quote]

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='LadyDakota' timestamp='1282176897' post='2422264']
They have to find a way of not feeling like the only failures on CN. What else is there to do in their case?
[/quote]

There's plenty of failure to go around in this world. What are you, new?

[Crymson]

Marx felt the need to shoot first, regardless of any possible violation of the charter. It fits nicely with his petty, power-hungry move with GGA, and it also places quite nicely alongside the cowardly actions he took to end that. Bravo, Marx; are you still talking big now?

[Remaliat]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1282184296' post='2422468']
If that's in your charter then how can you....?
[/quote]

Quite simply, \m/ doesn't honor there own charter. They never have.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Remaliat' timestamp='1282190159' post='2422597']
Quite simply, \m/ doesn't honor there own charter. They never have.
[/quote]

These were my thoughts at well. Whatever one's opinions on the last war are, no one can possibly be surprised that \m/ government might dare do something not permitted under their charter. It's terribly sad seeing those expelled feigning outrage over this, and even sadder seeing people buy into it.

edit: As an interesting note, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet - more a technicality than anything - these expulsions in contradiction with the charter actually violate the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454"]peace agreement[/url] from the Bipolar War.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Moridin

[raasaa]

[quote name='Millencolin' timestamp='1282176071' post='2422247']
2. Impeachment:

i. Triumvirs may be tried by impeachment proceedings upon a simple majority from the collective ministers. The Triumvirs being impeached have a right to make their case against their accusers. The Director of \m/land Security will oversee the trial and act as an impartial Judge. The Ministers, excluding the individual who called for the Triumvir’s impeachment, will act as the Jury along with 4 randomly selected Deputy Ministers. If the Triumvir is found guilty by the Jury, the Triumvir has been impeached. In order to remove the Triumvir from office a vote must be taken by the Membership to remove the Triumvir. The case for and against the Triumvir must be presented in an orderly and professional manner. The membership will be given 3 days to read the material and decide for themselves whether or not to remove the Triumvir from office. On the 4th day, an impartial Vote will be taken where the membership will be required to post “yea” to remove the Triumvir, or “Nay” to keep him. After 48 hours, the vote will be closed and the votes will be tallied. The vote must be at least 75% or higher to remove the Triumvir from Office. If the vote fails to remove the Triumvir, his powers will be returned to him. [b]Individuals who move for the Impeachment and removal of a Triumvir may not be removed from \m/ for their stance during the Impeachment and Removal proceedings[/b].

Now, I can understand me and d3filed getting kicked for our "treason", but the other two are protected via the charter.
[/quote]
I remember one of your government chaps saying
"the charter is only a set of guidelines and need not be followed to the letter. We can do whatever we want to do, even if its against the charter, cos it boils down to our interpretation of the charter".

I cannot find the exact words, but something similar was mentioned by your government during the bi-polar war.

So...you can forget quoting the charter...its pointless....

Edited August 19, 2010 by raasaa

[Earogema]

[quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1282194949' post='2422731']
I remember one of your government chaps saying
"the charter is only a set of guidelines and need not be followed to the letter. We can do whatever we want to do, even if its against the charter, cos it boils down to our interpretation of the charter".

I cannot find the exact words, but something similar was mentioned by your government during the bi-polar war.

So...you can forget quoting the charter...its pointless....
[/quote]
That's pretty much what we all said. The difference there was we were interpreting the charter regarding a foreign agent. A foreign agent cannot force us to enact their view of our charter, but internally they can.

That said, you are right.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Earogema

[NinjaDude]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1282193525' post='2422686']
These were my thoughts at well. Whatever one's opinions on the last war are, no one can possibly be surprised that \m/ government might dare do something not permitted under their charter. It's terribly sad seeing those expelled feigning outrage over this, and even sadder seeing people buy into it.

edit: As an interesting note, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet - more a technicality than anything - these expulsions in contradiction with the charter actually violate the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454"]peace agreement[/url] from the Bipolar War.
[/quote]

Obviously the traitors cunning plan has been revealed! Either they impeach Marx, or force \m/ to break the peace treaty, causing chaos and destruction. Truly heinous.



In all seriousness, good luck to those expelled. Sad to see this happen to members loyal to their alliance.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Wentworth the Brave' timestamp='1282165771' post='2421989']
So you wanna roll NATO now?
[/quote]

Aww cmon Wenty. That statement was more of "dont declare on \m/ or you will have her allies to face as well". You know, just a heads up for any that might be salivating at the thought.

NATO is too good to want to do that.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1282170375' post='2422081']
I challenge you to name one way in which STA is a failure.
[/quote]

- Not getting an admittedly stupid joke?
- After not getting a joke, deciding to "do something" about a joke?
- Attacking a member of an alliance and then somehow getting him retroactively declared a 'rogue'?
- Asking someone to name one STA failure after the previous three?

There's four.

EDIT:

- If you like, I could go back to the post where you said the STA would stand up for the NSO....and then didn't.

That would be five.

Do I win a prize? Please tell me I win a prize.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[pezstar]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282196229' post='2422755']
- Not getting an admittedly stupid joke?
- After not getting a joke, deciding to "do something" about a joke?
- Attacking a member of an alliance and then somehow getting him retroactively declared a 'rogue'?
- Asking someone to name one STA failure after the previous three?

There's four.
[/quote]
Yeah, we pretty clearly won all of those. Thanks for trying, though!

[Choader]

This whole affair is very unfortunate.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1282196392' post='2422758']
Yeah, we pretty clearly won all of those. Thanks for trying, though!
[/quote]
Awww, and here I thought you were going to try to get all tough with me.

Just for that, you get a turnip laugh.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Remaliat' timestamp='1282190159' post='2422597']
Quite simply, \m/ doesn't honor there own charter. They never have.
[/quote]
My last post here, then I'm done with the OWF for a while.

Our charter specifies that members may not be expelled for their views in calling for a tri impeachment.
These members were not expelled for their views, but rather their actions.

Suffice to say, things are changing around here.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Caliph

[wickedj]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1282197991' post='2422786']
My last post here, then I'm done with the OWF for a while.

Our charter specifies that members may not be expelled for their views in calling for a tri impeachment.
These members were not expelled for their views, but rather their actions.
[/quote]
rabble rabble \m/ you're terrible, disband already rabble rabble

I think i summed this thread up nicely

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1282197991' post='2422786']
My last post here, then I'm done with the OWF for a while.

Our charter specifies that members may not be expelled for their views in calling for a tri impeachment.
These members were not expelled for their views, but rather their actions.
[/quote]Right, the action of calling for an impeachment.

Two of them did nothing except that, and the two who DID go to PC can barely be construed as having tried to harm relations or whatever you're trying to dress it up as.

In the end, \m/ violates it's own charter [again]. If I were a member I'd up and leave any alliance in which the leaders can't respect the basic core documents.

Also, interestingly, you violated your peace terms with Polaris by violating your charter. You just don't know where to stop, do ya?

[Moridin]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282198504' post='2422797']
Right, the action of calling for an impeachment.

Two of them did nothing except that, and the two who DID go to PC can barely be construed as having tried to harm relations or whatever you're trying to dress it up as.[/quote]

Attempting to get a treaty downgraded seems to me like a fairly clear case of trying to harm relations between the two alliances. The appearance (whether perceived or real) of damaged relations between the two alliances was, in fact, the entire purpose of approaching PC, as d3filed states [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90839&view=findpost&p=2421642]here[/url]. I agree that the other two seem innocent enough, or would be in an alliance that held itself to its own charter, but I can't imagine why in an alliance like \m/ - or indeed most any alliance - someone would expect any sort of immunity when trying to overthrow the government.

[quote]In the end, \m/ violates it's own charter [again]. If I were a member I'd up and leave any alliance in which the leaders can't respect the basic core documents.

Also, interestingly, you violated your peace terms with Polaris by violating your charter. You just don't know where to stop, do ya?[/quote]

I merely noted the violation of peace terms because I found it to be an amusing anecdote. The peace terms were quite clearly intended to hold \m/ to raiding only smaller alliances rather than following every clause of every article in the charter, and I would be surprised if the New Polar Order decided to make an issue out of it or even cared.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1282199161' post='2422806']
Attempting to get a treaty downgraded seems to me like a fairly clear case of trying to harm relations between the two alliances. The appearance (whether perceived or real) of damaged relations between the two alliances was, in fact, the entire purpose of approaching PC, as d3filed states [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90839&view=findpost&p=2421642]here[/url]. I agree that the other two seem innocent enough, or would be in an alliance that held itself to its own charter, but I can't imagine why in an alliance like \m/ - or indeed most any alliance - someone would expect any sort of immunity when trying to overthrow the government.



I merely noted the violation of peace terms because I found it to be an amusing anecdote. The peace terms were quite clearly intended to hold \m/ to raiding only smaller alliances rather than following every clause of every article in the charter, and I would be surprised if the New Polar Order decided to make an issue out of it or even cared.
[/quote]

I know I don't care, less \m/embers is a win for everyone except the poor alliances upon whom their excess baggage is dumped.

[Biff Webster]

This is why charters are silly. They are used more by foreigners to play "gotcha!" than be that guiding document some pretend them to be. If no \m/ charter existed, would this situation suddenly become ok?

[chris8967]

\m/ I'll always love you guys. Your just some crazy mother &*^%$(, I call friends.

[D34th]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1282204475' post='2422927']
This is why charters are silly. They are used more by foreigners to play "gotcha!" than be that guiding document some pretend them to be. If no \m/ charter existed, would this situation suddenly become ok?
[/quote]

Morality speaking? No(But \m/ members and great part of this community doesn't care about morality)

Legally speaking? Yes. The charter is what guide the alliance's processes and define it structures so without it everything is possible and nothing is illegal.