Grillick
-
Posts
1585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Grillick
-
-
I can't say I've ever seen them as far as I recall.
If you don't think you've seen them, they're working as intended.
-
2
-
-
Green Enforcement Agency Declaration of Neutrality
The member nations of the Green Enforcement Agency (henceforth GEA) will, in sincerity and good faith, pursue hostile and impartial combat towards all other alliances, maintaining a stance of political hostility.
We hereby declare that the GEA is legally bound to its political hostility, and must extort and punish its own member nations
tofor any and all acts or proceedings which may in any manner breach this Declaration of Neutrality, and thereby violate the neutrality of the GEA itself.Any member nation of the GEA caught committing, aiding, or abetting peaceful actions against any sovereign nation, nations, alliance or alliances (or otherwise caught breaking the terms of this Declaration of Neutrality) renders itself liable for punishment; this punishment will be delivered without delay, restraint, or reserve by the officers of the GEA.
Article 1: Definitions:
Belligerent - Any nation or alliance that undertakes peaceful action against a member of the GEA.
Harmful action - An actual
,or attempted, orpeaceful communication, trade, or endeavor to inflict good upon another nation or its property.Definition of Rogues – Any nation, alliance, or alliances that isn't under the GEA
afflictionaffiliation.Ghosting – Deceptively and fraudulently flying a sovereign Alliance Affiliation.
Article 2: Prevention of Peace:
The citizens, territories, and properties of the GEA member nations are inviolable.
Article 3: Neutrality:
GEA member nations shall remain hostile in any conflict.
Article 4: GEA Defense:
(A.) The GEA reserves the right to defend itself against any Belligerent, and any such defensive action shall not be regarded as a hostile act.
(B.) The GEA reserves the right to defend against any attack upon the Green sphere and/or Neutrality. The GEA sees any attack upon the Green sphere and/or Neutrality as an attack upon itself. These aspects of the global community are our way of life, and we therefore reserve the right to see any peace on these spheres of interest as an attack on the GEA itself and respond as is deemed necessary.
(C.) The GEA reserves the right to aid in the
determentdeterrence of Roguery within the Green sphere.Article 5: Enforcement Pact:
Aside from the instances where Article 3 applies, GEA member nations are expected to enforce hostile action against other nations.
Article 6: Freedom of Trade:
GEA member nations are not called upon to forbid or restrict the import or export of any resource. All members have the right to determine their own trading patterns in accordance with internal rules and regulations.
Article 7: Violators:
(A.) Any nation, within or outside of the GEA, found in violation of this contract shall be subject to punishment in the form of restitution to the nation or nations harmed by said violation. The amount of the restitution shall be commensurate with the degree of harm caused.
(B.) If the offending nation cannot or will not reimburse the victim(s), then the burden of providing restitution shall fall to the alliance to which the offending nation belongs. If said alliance cannot or will not provide the appropriate restitution, the reparations will be collected by force from the belligerent.
Article 8: Enactment: Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken in regard to the matters referred to in the preceding articles must be impartially applied to all applicable nations.
ftfy
-
1
-
-
The "Green Enforcement Agency" thing that people bring up from time to time was nothing more than doctored screenshots in an attempt to discredit the GPA and get SK/Guardian/VE to fight them. Guess it worked haha.
To be fair, the "Green Enforcement Agency" thing was, actually, part of my campaign platform for ToFA back in November. Nobody believed I was serious, though, and I changed my mind about it less than a week into my tenure.
-
If the recruitment amount caps, this just creates a larger advantage for people who are logged in all day long.
If the recruitment amount doesn't cap, it eliminates the purpose of the recruitment cap (which is to create an incentive to have a standing army).
I think this is a bad suggestion.
-
3
-
-
Yes. Your manufacturing improvements cannot use resources that you will have on-hand tonight to run their operations today.
-
1
-
-
I'm going to put it out there that no one believes you. You've pissed off several people, powerful people, by your actions.
You know things are going badly when Kastor starts agreeing with you. I'm out.
-
1
-
-
How did nobody respond to this excellent idea for five whole days?
This is the best suggestion in the history of the suggestion forum.
-
The inactive players would have got their reparations had they came back. They wouldn't have had to negotiate with pfeiffer, in fact if Hereno could have just shown they were active and logged in recently pffeifer would have just sent the reps to them. Our intention was always to pay the reps to the nations affected and we assumed that the majority would log back in at some time or another and if they didn't why even send them reps.
If Hereno was unhappy with the way we distributed reparations he could've either taken a diplomatic route or attacked our leader. He choose poorly.
You've all said that before.
But you're missing the point. We don't believe you.
-
1
-
-
Eventually act as a what?
P.S. The third member of the GPA's first triumvirate was Naam. You can find the complete historical listing here: http://(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-gpa.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=51800
Also, I just realized that Grillick joined the Agency Council in the first place to replace myself after I left to help form Rose and such. So I guess it's all my fault after all. ._.
I told you so.
-
1
-
-
The fact you assumed this without even knowing us Grillick is very rude.
1) I am very rude - ask anybody.
2) I did not assume you had no intention of paying reparations. I concluded that you had no intention of paying reparations based on the evidence that was available.
3) I know you well enough to draw conclusions based on your past and present behavior to draw inferences about your motivations.
Let's break it down: Hereno, in response to concerns from his membership that your members have been unjustifiably raiding them, contacts your leader to seek redress. Your leader responds that the members who were raided were inactive, specifically noting that one of them had been inactive for 8 days, but says that if they message him, he'll have compensation paid directly to them.
This demonstrates a lack of willingness to pay reparations in two ways: First, alliance leaders who have any respect for alliance sovereignty should be conducting their negotiations through alliance leaders - expecting the individual nations to reach out to you is an indication that you don't respect the alliance with which you are dealing, which is an indication that you don't intend to treat them as a legitimate alliance (by paying reparations); second, demanding activity from a player the leader believes is inactive indicates that the leader is offering to take the action without an intention to do so - he believes the action will never need to be taken because he has imposed a condition precedent that he believes will never be met.
This conclusion lines up with the past behavior of your alliance. As a group, you have regularly demonstrated a complete lack of respect for political norms in Orbis. In addition, it lines up with your current defense of your alliance's behavior. You've said yourself that Pfeiffer is an !@#$. Is it so hard to believe that he may have been disingenuously offering reparations without the intention of following through?
-
4
-
-
(OOC) Does this mean I won't get pornographic spam emails from Jemmm on your forum server anymore? (/OOC)
It looked like you guys had been struggling, and I admire you for sticking it out as long as you did. Have fun as a pirate, Hereno!
-
Why does Mensa have to pay reps at all? They are significantly stronger than SI, and unless SI is willing to go to war over it, Mensa can easily tell any of the little alliances it raids to go pound sand.
Negotiations generally are conducted between equal parties, and in this case, like with many of the little alliances that are out there, they have no ground to stand on in terms of negotiations with an alliance the size of Mensa. If they don't like it, they either need to grow stronger, or make allies with stronger alliances that can actually force Mensa to negotiate. I say good on Mensa for even humoring Herano, it was more than they needed to do.
I disagree. Shame on MensaHQ for pretending to humor Hereno. While it's true they had no obligation to discuss reps at all, that's not the issue. Once they agreed to discuss reps, they had an obligation to do so in good faith. And making an offer they know (or should know) could not be accepted, especially an offer that requires individual members nations to conduct their own negotiations with a foreign leader, is not negotiating in good faith.
They would be on firmer ground if they had simply refused to pay reps at all.
-
2
-
-
That is pure speculation on Pfeiffer's intentions.
Also, it was not impossible for 2 of the 3 targets that were raided as they had just recently logged on. Only 1 of the 3 targets remains inactive to this day.
Speculation is not the same as conjecture.
I've drawn conclusions based on Pfeiffer's own statements (and those of his supporters). His proposal was unreasonable from the outset, even if the nations were active. The fact that he knew (and has stated that he knew) that at least one of them was inactive makes it even more wrongheaded.
-
2
-
-
It's also not Mensa's job to pay it back either, but it was under consideration.
MensaHQ may not have an obligation to pay reps for affronts on another alliance's sovereignty, but if the terms of the reps they offered were deliberately calculated to be impossible to accept (demanding a PM from a nation that you believe to be inactive), they can't then use their "willingness to pay reps" to justify their current position. The reps offered by Pfeiffer were not offered in good faith, because Pfeiffer believed that the terms could not possibly be complied with.
-
4
-
-
It is absolutely unreasonable for an alliance leader, when negotiating with another alliance leader, to insist on direct communication with the individual members of the other alliance.
That's what alliances are for. MensaHQ doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
-
6
-
-
-
Surprised to see GPA getting back up afyer the Mass Ræping of St Patrick's
If you're surprised, then you clearly don't understand us.
-
1
-
-
Your screenplay doesn't give anywhere near enough credit to Princess Bubblegum.
-
We had Vincent of Malyasia as MoFA. What's wrong with it?
What isn't?
-
1
-
-
Honestly if your trade offers stay open for that long that they get buried in the used ones, then I would just cancel that offer and sell them at a different price.
Edit: Not a bad idea though
How are you supposed to cancel them if you can't even find them?
-
Not if the buck were just pixels."It's just pixels"
If I got 1 buck for every that phrase is used to justify something, I'd be able to solve world hunger.
-
4
-
-
Sheepy has (and probably will, in your case) manually changed nations' native resources to accommodate the continent the nation wants to be in. Unfortunately, this will have to wait until Sheepy returns from vacation.
-
1
-
-
Grillick is almost never on it
I would've logged in a day or two into the war and found the link sitting in my queries, and been like "Damn, that would've been useful."
-
3
-
-
Worst holiday ever. My signature was forged.
A Justice Department Declaration
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
I have a spy scraper.
I just don't use it.