Tenages

This proposal, while I certainly don't agree with everything in it, is very much the type of thing that would be worth discussing at the summit Pre's proposing. Which I'm all for btw.

Long as you harass us like you always have when I start to get lazy and let the quality slip, or just start trolling, we'll be fine

Gotta give credit to Ragnar for that. I could be wrong, but my recollection > 90% of our propaganda is his work.

I resent the hell out of being lumped in with Abbas. We're on completely different levels. (Jodo though, we cool)

I see no evidence of that. All I see is them doing the same shit over and over again. That's not trying to improve. That's continually running into a wall and hoping that either the wall magically stops knocking you on your ass, or that people stop noticing you getting knocked on your ass.

The word you're looking for is incompetent. You have been proven, time and again, to be an incompetent leader. Though I suppose you could also say that you've proven to be incompatible with actual leadership.

Just to put some hard numbers out there, since all debates are better with hard numbers. --- Of the SI nations that haven't logged in in over a week. 1 is over 30 score 2 is between 20-30 score 3 are between 10-20 score. The rest (didn't count how many) are under 10 score. That means of SI nations, 13% of those over 10 score and 6.5% of those over 20 score are over 7 days inactive. ---Of those nations that last logged in between 3-7 days ago 1 is over 70 score 1 is between 60-70 score 2 are between 20-30 score 4 are between 10-20 score The rest (didn't count how many) are under 10 score. That means of SI nations, 17% of those over 10 score and 8.5% of those over 20 score are between 3-7 days inactive. --So total, about 30% of the SI nations over 10 score, and 15% of those over 20 score are 3 or more days inactive. As far as raids go, the stats are as follows. There are 4 currently active raids against SI 1 of those is against a nation over 7 days inactive 1 of those is against a nation between 3-7 days inactive So 50% of current raids are against a nation over 3 days inactive, 25% against those over 7 days inactive. There are 14 raids against SI that ended in the last 4 days (I couldn't be !@#$ed to go further back) 4 of those were against a nation over 7 days inactive (currently, they could have been less inactive when they started, didn't check) 1 of those was against a nation between 3-7 days inactive (currently, they could have been less inactive when they started, didn't check) So 36% of recently ended raids were against a nation over 3 days inactive, 28.5% against those over 7 days inactive) And like I said, I couldn't be bothered to find out inactivity for those nations when the raids started, so those numbers could be even lower. What it breaks down to is, imo, Hereno having a pretty good point; the majority of the raids are against nations that have been active within the last 3 days, and a huge majority are against nations that have been active within the last week. That being said I do agree with Pre that I don't understand why you'd leave inactive nations sitting on your AA. EDIT: *Disclaimer, it as always possible I !@#$ed up my count, though I don't think I did.

What's even more amusing than the continued ineptitude of HIL is the people keep giving them chance after chance after chance. I mean shit people, at some point it becomes obvious that they're incapable of getting their shit together. (That point was a while back btw).

Being large and being competent are not the same thing. In fact it's common for one aspect to be present without the other. Especially the size without the competence. The history of any browser nation sim shows that clearly, as in fact does the history of reality.

Indeed it is. An updated flag for a new era.

o/ May the Warrior lead you to victory. Teach those fools a lesson.

So, maybe try to be a little more competent in the future? Because currently you're profoundly unimpressive. You announced a merger on the forums that hadn't actually happened, and ended up not happening. You for reasons passing understanding, trusted a brand new, zero day nation, so much that you made him heir of your alliance, and then were shocked that he turned out to be untrustworthy. And now your new alliance is going to work on "the same principles as before." Presumably these are the same principles that allowed this to happen in this first place. Just a suggestion, but you might want to consider tweaking them. EDIT: I guess competence was far too much to ask for: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2746-recognition-of-hostilities-from-the-socialist-international/ If ever a group deserved to have it's alliance stolen out from under them and the bank stolen it's y'all, just for how much you quite clearly suck at leading and running an alliance. Godspeed the Socialist International, teach them a lesson. I disagree. There is a reason heirs are able to remove leaders. Every alliance has a different way of choosing its leaders. Some have fairly frequent turnover due to elections, etc. Sometimes a leader refuses to leave after their term is over, or just goes bat!@#$. The heir being able to remove the leader provides at least some degree of safeguard against such action. It's not perfect, but nothing would be, and at least it's a check to some degree. And if you don't want anyone being able to remove you ever from leading your alliance, just don't make someone an heir, pretty simple fix. Not sure about accessing the bank, but I know officers can't remove or reassign the alliance leader, so nothing to worry about there.

Everything in here is an excellent suggestion. Though I'd say suggestion 1 is out of all of them, the most important.

Yeah it was an issue on the SK end. The link they gave Sheepy was to an old, out of date folder that got deleted when I was doing maintenance and cleanup on the SK server. Someone should be providing him with a new link in a day or so.

Don't let it get you down Pre. It's both a noble and excellent idea. Reaching out to help devastated alliances, especially smaller, less wealthy ones is a wonderful act of community, friendship and generosity. It's a step towards fostering the type of global community that it's a pleasure to be a part of. Obviously some alliances will benefit more than others. So what? Some alliances were hit harder than others, and some alliances are less able to rebuild than others. If you're that self-interested and greedy that you can't or won't abide a situation where you don't benefit as much or more than everyone else, well not only is that just said, frankly in the long run that attitude will hurt you more than help, as less and less people will interested in aiding you in the future. And it that's the case, and you just aren't interested in the concept of helping alliances that aren't your own out, that's a valid perspective, but at least have the guts to own up to your motives. Don't hide behind the idea that participating in this effort would somehow cripple your own alliance. 50% of income for 1 DAY is hardly a damaging amount long term, or even short term quite frankly. While I no longer speak for SK's govt Pre, I can say that I heartily applaud this idea, and I've brought it up within SK to very positive response. Talk to Cody about specifics, but I'm sure we'll be happy to help with this plan.

Nation Name: La Fantastique Nation Link: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6271

I did leave Mikey in charge. You just can't find good help these days.

Don't ever apply to join SK. It's a terrible idea, and frankly you wouldn't make the cut anyway.

Your old flag was better

It's our second flag in that charter image ffs. I expect original founders to know this Cody. Also where are our sexy sigs? I leave and it all goes to !@#$. Typical.