ToxicPepper

TGH’s deliberate actions to tank the gold color bonus are antagonistic and aimed at directly harming EVH’s economic interests. You can have your own opinion on the matter, but NAPs are not intended to offer protection while one party provokes the other. EVH has provided a clear and diplomatic path toward de-escalation by requesting that the alliances invited by TGH to tank the color bonus vacate the color.

Statement from Spectre Command: Spectre is in full alignment with our allies in EVH, Spectre views TGH’s recent actions on the gold bloc as provocation and aggression which violates the mutual understandings underpinning our Non-Aggression Pact. Rather than honoring the principles of good faith diplomacy, TGH instead has deliberately undermined the gold bonus for nations by bringing along their low average score allies (THT, AA, etc). Let it be clear that Spectre views this move by TGH as a provocation that demands a firm response. Should EVH require support following the 5 day deadline, Spectre remains open and ready to assist our allies in defending them against any aggression or provocation.

I meant Spectre, the alliance, rather than any individual or one person when I stated - “you probably didn’t like us before this”. Might have been wrong to assume that but you were being harsh and aggressive with your comments even after I offered to clarify.

Hey Sval, Under most circumstances, we agree with you. Spectre does and will attempt diplomacy where possible however we won’t hesitate to act against alliances who remain on the Maroon color bloc after being asked to leave / diplomacy has failed.

You've listed a number of issues but many of them are vague and lack any specifics. I strongly encourage you to re-read the post. I offered to clarify our positions as it's evident you are making assumptions based off the post, yet you respond with vague claims and insults. If I had to guess, you probably didn't like us before this. 1. I have a huge issue with you guys being massive hypocrites This statement doesn't really offer much as you don't provide any examples of us being hypocrites but regardless this is a blanket statement which would apply to almost every alliance in this game. 2. Ignoring game norms with colour Color policing is not outside of the "norm". In fact, it's a fairly common practice and many alliances partake in policing their colors such as t$, TFP, Grumpy, EVH, etc. 3. Intent to break NAPs This statement is just false; Spectre doesn't intend to break our NAPs. At this time, Spectre's only current active NAP is with Rose & Co. and we are committed to honoring that NAP. If you're going to level accusations, please ensure they’re backed by evidence and grounded in the reality of how alliances function. Otherwise, this just reads as baseless hostility.

Hey Mayor, I’m open to clarifying our positions when needed but I’d like to understand in your view what contradiction was made in this post? Thank you.

Camelot / Rose / TFP Peace Agreement (Peace Thread) Spectre congratulates Rose and The Fighting Pacifists on reaching a peace agreement with Camelot. We commend the fair and balanced terms agreed upon by all parties, as they represent an important step toward de-escalation. We view this agreement as a positive foundation for restoring and rebuilding trust between all parties. Spectre remains open and willing to work alongside Camelot in supporting efforts to rebuild trust with Rose and The Fighting Pacifists and bring an end to its political isolation. Maroon ("What a Maroon!") Color Bloc: Effective immediately, Spectre will be strictly policing the Maroon ("What a Maroon!") color bloc alongside our partners in World Task Force and Camelot. Any uninvited alliance entering the Maroon color bloc will be considered a hostile actor, encroaching on our sovereignty, and will be met with a coordinated military response regardless of any existing Non-Aggression Pact with Spectre. Alliances interested in pursuing the Maroon bloc are encouraged to reach out and seek the approval (of Spectre, World Task Force, or Camelot) through the appropriate channels before taking any action. Official Response to Threats Against Spectre Members: Upon joining our server, the above member of The Penthouse (formerly of The Syndicate) has issued threats to target members of Spectre "in the coming weeks". Spectre does not take such threats lightly, and as such is firmly committed to returning any damage in full should this individual act on their statements. We will carry out this response following their rebuild, and our policy will remain in place regardless of the alliance they join or the Non-Aggression Pact (NAP) status that alliance may hold with Spectre. Any alliance considering acceptance of this player should be fully aware of our position and the consequences that will follow if hostile actions are taken against our members.

I really like this idea. Very importantly it takes into account all alliances / nations with the new resource, making it a level playing field that no one has figured out yet. The RNG event system makes it fun and the bonuses means varied / variable city builds that are more player focused. I know it’s not feasible to have these types of updates too frequently but having a new system like this once in a blue moon promotes engagement with the game as the older mechanics are pretty much solved and figured out.

Idea 2 is a great idea. I disagree with anyone claiming this is killing politics, if anything it is reviving it. Building a coalition, forming alliances and spheres, and plotting is all part of politics that play a big part in wars and this mechanic will incentivize that. You can also still farm it out and still receive better income than you would by going to war up to a certain point but you shouldn’t be as rewarded as you are right now for avoiding wars while others fight and actually play the game.

Spectre currently maintains normalized or favorable relations with the majority of the top alliances across Orbis. At this time, we do not perceive any immediate or imminent major threats to our alliance. Concerns: The Golden Horde’s persistent aggression towards Spectre and our allies has not escaped our notice. Their repeated attempts to undermine us, particularly during the Geneva Convention talks and efforts to drive a wedge between us and Rose are noted and monitored. Agreement with Pacific Pirates: After signing an agreement to end our conflict with Pacific Pirates, there have been new wars launched against our Protectorate, Shadow Valley, for “one round”. The continuation of this aggression on our protectorate threatens the agreement, and continuation of such aggression will likely result in a resumption of hostilities with Pacific Pirates. While not classified as a direct threat, the significant investment by Eclipse and The Syndicate in Military Research has placed them well ahead of Spectre and many other alliances in terms of military advancement. Singularity’s growing stockpile of nuclear weapons has drawn our attention. While we do not believe these weapons will be deployed against Spectre, the increasing quantity raises concerns regarding their potential use. The uncertainty surrounding when and against whom these weapons may be used remains a matter that requires continuous attention. Non-Aggression Pact Status: With just under two months remaining on our Non-Aggression Pact with Rose & Co, Spectre does not anticipate a renewed conflict or escalating hostilities with Rose & Co at this time.

Our protectorate with TAO/Cybertron was not signed until months after December. You’re also referencing a conflict in which we do not have knowledge of nor were we a protectorate of either alliance at the time. Our protective duties begin the day our treaty is signed and with a clean slate. The current conflict between MoO and TCO was well under way when Antarctica Alliance signed a protectorate treaty with TCO. It was Antarctica Alliance’s decision to sign them as they were in an active and open conflict with our protectorate thus we do not view any involvement by them or any other third party alliance in the conflict between MoO and TCO as legitimate. Any attempt to get involved by them or others will be viewed as an attack on our protectorate by us.

Not at all. We are the protector of Shadow Valley and any aggressive action taken against them or any of our protectorates by any alliance, regardless of our NAP status with that alliance, will be responded to by us as part of our protective duties. The conflict between MoO and TCO that I assume you are referencing here is different in that Antartica Alliance did not have a protectorate treaty with TCO when MoO attacked them and only signed that treaty after the war had already started and was already ongoing.

No, MoO is free to attack any alliance it so pleases. We’re not aware of any alliance MoO has recently attacked that currently shares a NAP with us but that’s beside the point, our NAPs are not limitations on MoO if they themselves are not a signatory of that NAP.

Effective Immediately, Spectre is implementing a shift in its foreign affairs policy. This new direction will emphasize a more forward-facing, transparent, and a public approach to a broad range of foreign affairs issues. Key Pillars of the New Policy: Forward-Facing Engagement Spectre will actively seek and initiate official dialogue. Strategic priorities and intentions will be clearly communicated in advance, allowing for constructive diplomatic discussions and collaboration. Transparency Foreign policy objectives, agreements, and actions will be disclosed, with regular briefings and public updates. Spectre will more actively utilize public forums to address a wide range of foreign affairs topics, including: Public declarations of positions on foreign affairs issues Statements regarding escalated matters with other alliances, regardless of their size Official decrees and updates related to diplomatic developments Public Diplomacy Public platforms such as RON and other news servers or community-based servers will be used proactively as official channels for foreign affairs communications. Public statements on the forums regarding ongoing diplomatic engagements and their outcomes will become more commonplace. The following is an example of what's to come in this foreign affairs policy shift: Earlier today, Spectre confirmed the detection of spy operations activity targeting our protectorate, Shadow Valley. The operation in question was traced directly to the nation of Lost Symbol, a recognized official of Rose. This act constitutes a direct violation of Shadow Valley’s sovereignty and, by extension, an affront to Spectre’s protective obligations. As of this release, Spectre has initiated a proportional counter operation targeting Lost Symbol. Active spy operations (assassinating spies) against Lost Symbol are being carried out. This response is measured, for every Shadow Valley spy compromised, an equivalent number will be taken out. To the Rose Alliance: Spectre remains open to dialogue. However, let it be understood that attacks, direct or by proxy, against any nation under Spectre’s protection will be met with an immediate and proportional response. Should Rose wish to avoid further escalation, we invite its Foreign Affairs Department to engage in direct talks. Until then, Spectre stands by its protectorate and acts without hesitation. TL;DR: Spectre will be taking a more public approach to foreign affairs matters including using the forums. We will try our best to find a happy medium where we aren't too excessively using the forums.

Happy birthday Legion