Joint VE/GOONS Announcement

[D34th]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282740500' post='2430729']
That's some impressive digging, but you'll note that those quotes come from September 2009, 11 months ago. GOONS have learnt and matured as they aged which is why you don't have a more recent example to use.

The difference is simple, it's that this GOONS wants to be a part of the normal diplomatic world and act according to its norms, and when it crosses a line it learns the lessons from that and doesn't do it again. The old GOONS was interested in 'collecting pubbie tears' (though I don't think they used that phrase themselves) above all else. This GOONS are very sensitive to comparisons with the old one and that in itself will act as a brake on 'antics'.
[/quote]

I could dig more but I'm lazy, but if I remember correctly you had a quote of GOONS in your sig of they saying that they don't need a excuse to bully the weak.

But nice to know that the new argument is "the the new GOONS isn't the same GOONS of the 11 months ago"? Should I remember you that they raided FoA(?) with \m/ and PC in January and that you spoke against it as well? So the new argument will be " "the the New GOONS isn't the same GOONS of January."?

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282740500' post='2430729']
The difference is simple, it's that this GOONS wants to be a part of the normal diplomatic world and act according to its norms, and when it crosses a line it learns the lessons from that and doesn't do it again. The old GOONS was interested in 'collecting pubbie tears' (though I don't think they used that phrase themselves) above all else. This GOONS are very sensitive to comparisons with the old one and that in itself will act as a brake on 'antics'.
[/quote]
Bob is correct, however it is still important to note that we do still enjoy 'pubbie tears', for example the ones shed by RV, schatt, and others right here.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1282741767' post='2430743']
I could dig more but I'm lazy, but if I remember correctly you had a quote of GOONS in your sig of they saying that they don't need a excuse to bully the weak.
[/quote]
That quote was never intended to be taken literally, it was tongue in cheek.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Sardonic

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Smooth' timestamp='1282715413' post='2430559']
I don't believe any in VE have stated it wasn't "out of character." We have all acknowledged that there are some glaring differences between our two alliances. However, our government's continued stance in this thread as proof, the Entente looks for things in relationships other than similarities.[/quote]

I acknowledged that you seem to think this treaty is a good idea a couple of posts ago actually. I just don't see this treaty having a long life and very likely it will be VE canceling it over something GOONS has done.

We'll see. If I'm wrong, feel free to bring up the above quote later.

[Goldie]

I can't think of another ODP who ever had so much debate tossed around over 16 pages. Maybe a MK-TOP one would do the trick, or a reformed OV with NPO.

[D34th]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282742566' post='2430751']
I can't think of another ODP who ever had so much debate tossed around over 16 pages. Maybe a MK-TOP one would do the trick, or a reformed OV with NPO.
[/quote]

Neither of above are a good comparison, may be \m/ and NpO, ONOS and NPO, LUE and NPO, NAAC and NpO or TPF and Atlantis are better ones.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282740500' post='2430729']
The difference is simple, it's that this GOONS wants to be a part of the normal diplomatic world and act according to its norms, and when it crosses a line it learns the lessons from that and doesn't do it again. The old GOONS was interested in 'collecting pubbie tears' (though I don't think they used that phrase themselves) above all else. This GOONS are very sensitive to comparisons with the old one and that in itself will act as a brake on 'antics'.
[/quote]
If I've learned anything in my stay it's that some people hate GOONS no matter what we do. Diplomatically, we're actually a lot more tightly run and rule-bound than other alliances. I constantly see us get chewed out over things that people don't care if someone ELSE does, or see other alliances do things that I say "Man, if WE did that..."

For a recent example, a month or two back we ended up raiding someone in a small alliance that was actually protected, and when a gov came to us about the issue but couldn't actually produce evidence of the protection, a thread blew up on the OWF talking about how terrible GOONS are for not taking the word of a gov and peacing out immediately. After reconsidering our stance and handling the issue with the person involved, we reached a resolution. And even though both sides were happy with the outcome, people continued to GOONS for several more pages.

Then a week or so ago, NSO uses "the word of a gov and active wars are circumstantial evidence" as their defense and everyone on their side just nods.

goes out to VE for noticing that we're actually pretty cool people once you get to know us. Oh and you guys aren't half bad either.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Beefspari

[Goldie]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1282741767' post='2430743']
I could dig more but I'm lazy, but if I remember correctly you had a quote of GOONS in your sig of they saying that they don't need a excuse to bully the weak.

But nice to know that the new argument is "the the new GOONS isn't the same GOONS of the 11 months ago"? Should I remember you that they raided FoA(?) with \m/ and PC in January and that you spoke against it as well? So the new argument will be " "the the New GOONS isn't the same GOONS of January."?
[/quote]

I was, is, and will always be philosophically disgusted by what those alliances did. Were \m/ not an ally of my ally (unfortunately) you would have had to fight for your warslots on them. Most, if not all of my colleagues in VE feel similarly. GOONS knows how we feel about that. If they hadn't made great strides in revising their raid policies, instituting a gov member to oversee raiding and ensure compliance, and learned the ropes of diplomacy a bit so that these things get settled with some reps and a handshake and not on the OWF, you wouldn't be seeing this treaty. GOONS had and may have some growing pains, but that is to be expected for any alliance who grows from almost nothing a year ago into what will probably be a sanctioned alliance in a few months.

Would I like to see tighter raid laws? Absolutely, I think the act of raiding 14 man alliances is reprehensible. Does GOONS know this? Yes, because when two friends have a good, healthy relationship, they talk to each other about what bothers them. Will that be a hinderance to this treaty succeeding? I don't think it will, because the good that GOONS represents far outweighs the negative attachments of it.

No one was in this kind of uproar when we ODP'd Argent. Hell, we fought Argent 5 months ago. That wasn't Old Argent and this isn't New Argent. It is Argent. Friendships can be found in unlikely places, and in the case of our two recent ODP treaties, we found them. Why not just back off of the heated debate D34th, and allow two friends to announce their treaty in peace?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282742566' post='2430751']
I can't think of another ODP who ever had so much debate tossed around over 16 pages. Maybe a MK-TOP one would do the trick, or a reformed OV with NPO.
[/quote]
The Agora Accords had a lot more actually.

I thought it was silly at the time too.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Smooth' timestamp='1282716244' post='2430570']
And the opportunism in this would be...?

Oh, a "once great alliance" with "values you've stood for." Find me a post of you praising the Entente, bro, in all the 4 years I've been on this planet with you. Would those values be laughing with GOONS in Initiative government channels at the League? Or would that be the values in which you played a part in the Great Civil War? Or could it be when your alliance attacked FAN? Or wait, was it the other curbstomps you, as a government member of the Pacific, no matter what level, were involved in? Or perhaps you are the opportunistic one that is now complaining about "curbstomps" and "terms" and "evil treaty partners"

And I assume you call us "opportunistic" because we sided with NPO and then grew apart from them, and now are firmly routed in the opposite side, all while avoiding the downfall of the old Hegemony? Or should I remind you that you, too, should be labeled as an opportunist flip-flopper by your own scheme.

No, snake, your lies deceive no one.
[/quote]
ChairmanHal, oh, Hal! Here's what I mean. Smooth takes joy in trying to kill RV with his membership in NPO by listing all the things VE's treaties with NPO made possible and thinks he's a genius.

[quote name='Smooth' timestamp='1282717030' post='2430582']
why is it so shocking for you to accept that two different alliances such as GOONS and VE can get along.
[/quote]
This line, this "getting along" crap has also permeated this thread, and comes up every time someone questions a VE FP move. "Getting along" is not the basis of a military relationship. I get along with almost every alliance on Bob; I have 2 military treaties. Both treaties are clear expressions of a foreign policy tha tis in line with CoJ's character and desires. Signing treaties with every bro that you have fun with on IRC isn't a foreign policy.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1282742083' post='2430745']
Bob is correct, however it is still important to note that we do still enjoy 'pubbie tears', for example the ones shed by RV, schatt, and others right here.
[/quote]
I've been a goon since 2001, and thanks for the tears itt they were deleeeeeeeecious. I'm sorry you get so mad when I talk about GOONS.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1282743483' post='2430768']
Signing treaties with every bro that you have fun with on IRC isn't a foreign policy.
[/quote]
Yes, it is Schatt. It's just not a good one

It's remarkably common though.

[D34th]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282743093' post='2430762']
I was, is, and will always be philosophically disgusted by what those alliances did. Were \m/ not an ally of my ally (unfortunately) you would have had to fight for your warslots on them. Most, if not all of my colleagues in VE feel similarly. GOONS knows how we feel about that. If they hadn't made great strides in revising their raid policies, instituting a gov member to oversee raiding and ensure compliance, and learned the ropes of diplomacy a bit so that these things get settled with some reps and a handshake and not on the OWF, you wouldn't be seeing this treaty. GOONS had and may have some growing pains, but that is to be expected for any alliance who grows from almost nothing a year ago into what will probably be a sanctioned alliance in a few months.

Would I like to see tighter raid laws? Absolutely, I think the act of raiding 14 man alliances is reprehensible. Does GOONS know this? Yes, because when two friends have a good, healthy relationship, they talk to each other about what bothers them. Will that be a hinderance to this treaty succeeding? I don't think it will, because the good that GOONS represents far outweighs the negative attachments of it.

No one was in this kind of uproar when we ODP'd Argent. Hell, we fought Argent 5 months ago. That wasn't Old Argent and this isn't New Argent. It is Argent. Friendships can be found in unlikely places, and in the case of our two recent ODP treaties, we found them. Why not just back off of the heated debate D34th, and allow two friends to announce their treaty in peace?
[/quote]

My main argument about VE treating GOONS wasn't about their raids, I used it just as an example to show why I think that the new GOONS are not so different from the old one, but of course you and VE can disagree and in the end of day you treaty everyone you want, but don't expect that everyone accepts that and just hails your treaty I think the whole "allow two friends to announce their treaty in peace" a bad thing, happily the days when people made controversial announcement and then asked the thread to be closed is long gone, and now people have two choices, don't bring their announcements to OWF or face the critics what in my opinion made the political environment more healthier and enjoyable for everyone.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1282743483' post='2430768']
I've been a goon since 2001, and thanks for the tears itt they were deleeeeeeeecious. I'm sorry you get so mad when I talk about GOONS.
[/quote]
OOC:
If you are a real goon, link your SA account.
IC:
Your inane "no sir it is u who are the one who is crying" arguments are boring, try harder.

[Diomede]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282743093' post='2430762']
No one was in this kind of uproar when we ODP'd Argent. Hell, we fought Argent 5 months ago. That wasn't Old Argent and this isn't New Argent. It is Argent. Friendships can be found in unlikely places, and in the case of our two recent ODP treaties, we found them. Why not just back off of the heated debate D34th, and allow two friends to announce their treaty in peace?
[/quote]
I was wondering how long we'd have to wait for a shout out.

Haf - Agora was a bloc, no? Slightly different to a bilateral agreement.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Diomede' timestamp='1282743856' post='2430776']
Haf - Agora was a bloc, no? Slightly different to a bilateral agreement.
[/quote]
Yes, but it was an ODP bloc, and the tinfoil hat crowd all started bawwing about how NPO was taking over Blue with it. Just crazy talk.

[Dayshade]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1282661504' post='2429433']
I'm somewhat perplexed by how many people regard VE as a moralist alliance. Sure, we don't tech raid, but we've never been one to tell others they shouldn't. Of course there is the ZI Peace Pact, but we have very close allies who did not sign the document. It is impossible to agree with your allies on every issue nor would it be healthy. To each their own.

I mean sure, Bob Janova, a highly respected member of the community is a Viridian and he makes no bones about being a moralist, but I don't think many would mistake Impero as a moralist. We're a mixed bag and therein lies our strength. You're not going to find 300 sycophants mindlessly following a cult of personality in the VE.

And to those who are surprised at this announcement, understand that this didn't happen overnight. All I can say is that if you take the time and really get to know these guys, you'll find that they are genuinely good people who are undeserving of the negative labels that have been placed on them by many in the community.

Count me as one who is glad to see this treaty happen.
[/quote]
I not one who likes being raided for a joke when I have a protectorate. I have a grudge against GOONS for that, but you're right--I've never really got to know them.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282743093' post='2430762']
GOONS had and may have some growing pains, but that is to be expected for any alliance who grows from almost nothing a year ago into what will probably [b]be a sanctioned alliance[/b] in a few months.
[/quote]
And here we have the reason for this ODP. Nothing new to see here, Schatt; this is just VE's traditional foreign policy manifesting itself once again.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282740500' post='2430729']
That's some impressive digging, but you'll note that those quotes come from September 2009, 11 months ago. GOONS have learnt and matured as they aged which is why you don't have a more recent example to use.[/quote]

Actually they were essentially the same GOONS 2.0 that "came back from the Moon" that I experienced "elsewhere". Fortunately it seems they left Saniel behind or at least shoved him out an airlock in transit...good call.

[quote]The difference is simple, it's that this GOONS wants to be a part of the normal diplomatic world and act according to its norms, and when it crosses a line it learns the lessons from that and doesn't do it again. The old GOONS was interested in 'collecting pubbie tears' (though I don't think they used that phrase themselves) above all else. This GOONS are very sensitive to comparisons with the old one and that in itself will act as a brake on 'antics'.[/quote]

This GOONS contains enough experienced leadership both here and "elsewhere" many of those lessons should have already been learned. They aren't an up and coming alliance that is run by people who simply were naive about the way Planet Bob works and were learning on the job. This GOONS 2.x, raids as frequently as GOONS 1.0, has the same off world connections as GOONS 1.0, bullies small alliances as much as GOONS 1.0, and purposely and cynically positions itself in the treaty such that those who would do something about their behavior find them untouchable, just like GOONS 1.0. You say they aren't the same animal. True, but the odd thing about ducks is that they are always ducks. Not the exact same thing, but certainly the same breed.

All that said, I think that GOONS 2.x leadership understands that unless they continue to evolve they will ultimately meet the same fate as GOONS 1.0. Indeed the same fate as GOONS 2.0 "elsewhere". This GOONS actually apologizes for the more moronic activities of some of its members for example. You can only depend upon the treaty web to protect your backside for so long.

Anything calling itself GOONS (whatever you want to say the acronym stands for) is always going to be held to a higher standard of behavior and be called for missteps faster by its critics. If GOONS doesn't like it, they have a few options: prove the critics wrong every day, ignore the critics hope that their luck doesn't run out, or disband. It is no different than those that dared to don the black and gold of \m/ faced, and before them to a large extent (though certainly they aren't as infamous) the green of VE.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282744389' post='2430781']
And here we have the reason for this ODP. Nothing new to see here, Schatt; this is just VE's traditional foreign policy manifesting itself once again.
[/quote]
Sorry to burst your bubble but we sought them out, not the other way around. This treaty is not merely some power grab by both alliances.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282744389' post='2430781']
And here we have the reason for this ODP. Nothing new to see here, Schatt; this is just VE's traditional foreign policy manifesting itself once again.
[/quote]

How astute of you to take one point of many and point it out as the 'reason' for a treaty.

Tell me Haf, how many sanctioned alliances does VE have a treaty with right now? I'd say Invicta's foreign policy is downright realpolitik compared to ours, with your MDPs+ with significantly bigger alliances.

[SirWilliam]

Goddamn, I'm allied to VE now!

<3

[Branimir]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1282744587' post='2430785']Sorry to burst your bubble but we sought them out, not the other way around. This treaty is not merely some power grab by both alliances.[/quote]
Oh, so it was a power grab just by your end

<commercial> [i]Feeling insecure? Scared of tech raiding the wrong bunch? Having second rate membership? Well we at CN consulting agency might just have the answers you need to make you feel better. One word-- treaties, lots of them scattered across. That is six words, so I lied." [/i]</commercial>

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1282744962' post='2430796']
Oh, so it was a power grab just by your end
[/quote]
I would have thought you, being of NPO, would know all about power grabs. This treaty is not one.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1282745438' post='2430806'] This treaty is not one.[/quote]
This coming from such a fine gentleman as yourself, I am sure is correct.

Let me congratulate you gentlemans, on this fine treaty.
Do not mind my passing joke, the field was open so sometimes I cant resist.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282744852' post='2430793']
How astute of you to take one point of many and point it out as the 'reason' for a treaty.

Tell me Haf, how many sanctioned alliances does VE have a treaty with right now? I'd say Invicta's foreign policy is downright realpolitik compared to ours, with your MDPs+ with significantly bigger alliances.
[/quote]
You're funny. We have two MDPs with sanctioned alliances, which also happen to be our only two MDPs with alliances that are bigger than us. Both alliances originally became our MDP partners in 2008, although the NPO was under terms for some of that time and were not able to continue being allied to us.

You guys, on the other hand, have MDP+ treaties with the following alliances that are bigger than us. (We are the 54th-largest alliance.)

* FOK (#14)
* Umbrella (#15)
* GATO (#17)
* NV (#18)
* RoK (#21)
* RIA (#22)
* iFOK (#36)
* GOD (#45)
* WF (#48)

Actually from a glance at this list, it looks very much like the reward for almost being sanctioned - but not quite - is an MDP with VE. You're only missing IRON, UPN and TOOL to complete the set, and somehow, I don't see any of those signing with you.

Well... maybe IRON, you and GOONS could reform WUT.

[Sandwich Controversy]

What does IRON have to do with WUT?